My kind of Hume-or.I Kant tell.
(I can't do anything with Kierkegaard. My talent ends here.)
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Fundamentalism, How to describe it
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
(I can't do anything with Kierkegaard. My talent ends here.)
But isn't Paul appealing? And Peale appalling!
The paper I'm listening to being presented now makes the point that all of the early church fathers taught that women always should have a head covering, and not wearing a head covering was immodest. Guess Irenaeus, Tertullian, and all those guys were legalists, eh?
I don't know if they were legalists or not, but not for head coverings.
It was not legalism in Scripture because of the representation of head coverings (as Paul explained). It would not have been modest for a woman not to cover her head (it would be elevating oneself, like wearing expensive clothes or jewlery).
I do not believe it legalistic, for example, if you corrected a man for wearing an expensive suit, or a woman for fancy hairstyles, expensive jewlery, etc., because that is ignoring modesty.
My concern is more with people who would put on airs, dress in a way they would not otherwise dress, "dress to impress", etc. But mostly my concern with that is if it isolates people who do not have the means to meet a specific standard.
And it goes both ways. If somebody "dressed down" specifically for church (we should always be modest) that would be questionable.
Last edited:
How would you describe the doctrine of personal separation? Avoid the World system? Avoid sinful environments?
I have been scolded for allowing my wife to dress our children so nicely for church. Ironically, we don’t spend money on clothes all the clothes being complained about were given to us. We also were not the best dressed in the church either. (Not that we were having contests) For someone to walk around the church and tell someone that their clothes are not expensive enough or are too expensive is not something that you can accurately judge unless we start wearing receipts. That would be ridiculous. It is equally wrong, in my opinion, assume that if someone is wearing something that you wouldn’t, that they are putting on airs. It might be what God has provided for them in the form of hand me downs. I’ve also been called worldly because I had a shiny tie. I didn’t know it was shiny until it was pointed out. I thought they were joking.
At some point, airs are subjective. If you are offended by someone’s airs, you should talk to them and learn about them before you get upset with them.
OLD SARGE
Active Member
All groups have their nutcases. Not all IFBs are the same. Some get away from the schools and change. Some get worse and some get better. My grandson is the Youth Pastor of a IFB Church in Arlington, TX. Two churches actually merged. The pastor and my grandson have beards and they mix the hymns with selected contemporary songs.
If having beards or not is part of the discussion (because I have never run into that as an issue in all my IFB life) that is a glaring point that there are strange fringes.
Jesus had a beard. If it had anything to do with facial hair, we would be requiring beards. But being clean shaven doesn’t make you fundamental either.
Personal separation is for the purpose of keeping me from sin. Therefore, for example, modesty (on men and women) keeps from lust. Not watching movies (c. f. John R. Rice and others writing against them back in the 1940s-1950s is to avoid being influenced by copious alcohol use, existentialism, and other dangers.
Personal separation is not to make me righteous (true legalism) or to impress others or to make God rejoice.
You don't have to use the non-theological charge of "legalism" to help people in these areas. There are Scriptures.
Here's the thing. The incorrect cultural, non-theological charge of "legalism" seems to be one way. The opposite of true theological legalism is antinomianism, the belief that Christians are free to do anything they want and none of it is sin. Have I ever accused any non-fundamentalist here on the BB of antinomianism? No I have not, nor has anyone here. There is no need to use such charges to have a helpful discussion. Scripture is sufficient.
I have a good friend from college (still a friend and we keep in contact) who used to rail against fundamentalist "legalism." And he never let me try to counter or explain. His boy turned into a drug addict, and once even punched his mother in the face. Maybe a little more "legalism"--i. e., strict standards in the home (with love)--would have helped that family.
I don't think that would be legalism.
What I call "legalism" (the "popular definition") is not following rules or establishing rules for children.
As Christians we judge the actions of one another, and we hold one another accountable.
The problem with the Pharisees enforcing the Law was not that they enforced the Law but that they created laws to keep from breaking the Law and enforced a standard ignoring the intent of the Law. They were superficial.
You said that wearing a suit and tie is "evangelism" while not doing so is an invention of "new evangelism".
Why a suit and tie?
Oh, yes, that's a compliment, comparing the fundamentalist to a Pharisee.
No, I never said this and don't agree with it. I don't know where you got that, but it was not from me. And I never talked about "new evangelism," but "New Evangelicalism"--a huge difference. You don't know 20th century evangelical history if you don't know that terminology.
Edited in: In fact, it is impossible to understand modern evangelicalism without knowing the 20th century history. "Evangelical" means any group that knows and preaches the biblical Gospel. "Fundamentalism" is a branch of that movement.
Last edited:
Again, you are the only one talking about "theological legalism". That is not what people charge IFB with. They use the "popular definition" (the definition you said I was using). I do understand why you view legalism as offensive. But the reason is you are defining the word different from what non-IFB are saying. Nobody, that I know of, is calling IFB churches theologically legalistic. People are using the "popular definition", the dictionary definition. And, for my part, I said this does not apply to IFB churches as a whole but only my experience with IFB churches.
Do you believe it is holding a standard with love to yell at a 7 year old girl that she is going to Hell for wearing shorts? I say that is legalism.
This is some of what I believe about how we are to dress:
1 Timothy 2:9-10 - likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.
1 Peter 3:3-4 - Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious
If Scripture commanded men to wear a suit and tie (or attire the world associates with success) then it would be different.
Do I care what people wear to worship God or to listen to the gosoel message? No.
We have some in suits. Thats great. Some are in jeans snd a shirt, some shorts. Thats great.
I am more concerned that they come.
Now I'm attending a different type of church (one in the community, meeting at a school to reach out to the lost and the unchurched Christians). So this is less an issue as most have no suit to wear.
No, that is not the complaint. Nobody is comparing fundamentalists to Pharisees, but the practice of making rules to make sure other rules are kept to the Pharisees making laws to make sure other laws are kept.Oh, yes, that's a compliment, comparing the fundamentalist to a Pharisee.
No, I never said this and don't agree with it. I don't know where you got that, but it was not from me. And I never talked about "new evangelism," but "New Evangelicalism"--a huge difference. You don't know 20th century evangelical history if you don't know that terminology.
Sorry....auto correct on my phone. "New Evangelicals".
But yes, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable for a man to go to church without wearing a suit and tie.
I explained that my view was formed by a limited experience that failed to represent the entire IFB denomination. And I gave you examples of what I was talking about.
1. My 1st example with an IFB churches (the one that colored my opinion):
A congregation leaving church sees a little girl playing in her yard. The girl is wearing shorts, so as they leave to get in their car they take turns yelling at her that she is going to Hell for wearing shorts.
How is that not legalism?
2. A second example that I have seen a few times:
An IFB pastor explained to a member (who was my friend) that peoole who use a Bible other than the KJV are going to Hell because they are unknowingly worshipping Satan.
Ok...this could go towards legalism, but probably not. Just giving you a glimpse of how my opinion formed.
Sorry, I'm in a session and can't answer this right now. Hopefully later. But I will just say that the "cultural" use of "legalism" is an illegitimate and pejorative usage. In other words, it is used in popular culture to accuse and confuse, not to dialogue.
OLD SARGE
Active Member
The pastor that ordained me would often counter challenges with the "don't go up against God's man" or "Touch not my anointed." He would also say, "People who believe that get divorced." Sadly, his wife had an affair and he ended up divorced. I have prayed they would reconcile, but it would be a miracle since like many IFBs that adultery is an automatic divorce ticket. Marriages have overcome such things. I often wonder how many people are living in adultery because wanted to restore the marriage and some pastors and all of the friends of the betrayed misused a text making divorce mandatory and it was OK to remarry.
OK.
When you get a chance I have another question.
What is the appropriate term for churches applying onto people standards of dress that they do not hold, apart from biblical standards stated in Scripture (head coverings, women not to wear expensive clothes or jewlery)?
Another aspect we have not discussed is age demographics with changes in culture.
At one time it was common for men to wear a suit and tie when in public. At one time it was common dress for professionals. But now is not that time. I work in the nuclear field. At one time a nuclear engineer and nuclear physicist would be expected to wear at least a coat and tie. Now the engineers wear jeans and a polo while the physicist wears kakis and a polo.
What I mean is one person's sence of dressing appropriately may be another's puffery. Wearing a suit may be one person's idea of appropriate dress while another may feel he is putting on airs. We need to worship in spirit and in truth. What may facilitate worship for one may hinder worship for another.
A suit and tie may not have the same association for every generation.
Last question (for now....I'm always full of questions):
You see two women at church.
One is wearing a nice dress, a gold necklace and pearl earrings.
The other is wearing blue jeans and a plain t-shirt.
Which is dressed modestly per the Biblical standard of modesty?
Which is dressed appropriately per the "Evangelical" standard you mentioned?
Doesn't blue jeans gal have jewelry on too? A nose ring? Ear gauges?
Lol....no.....just blue jeans and a Christian t-shirt (from a local church event at the lake).
Most of the college age guys I know like to wear Christian t-shirts and pray for "encounters" (chances to share the gospel). That is how several ended up knowing Christ, so I get their thinking.
That said, nose rings and guages are gross, but cheap. I doubt anybody thinks them extravagant.
I have been amazed at how God is working with a younger generation while at the same sad that so many "older generation" churches are dying. I try to concentrate on what God is doing. That is where I want to be (even if I don't know the songs).
It would be nice if they stopped trying to talk me into riding the electric skateboard, though. I'm not going to do it. Ain't enough padding in the world.
Last edited:
Nobody.