Fundamentalists create liberals?

[Luke2427]

There are two ideas of what a fundamentalist is on this thread.

There is the definition given by baptistboard which means about everybody who posts in the baptist debate section is a fundamentalist, including me.

Then there is this weird idea that it has to do with how you do missions and how you stand against "worldliness" (a term which they keep so ambiguous that it is absolutely MEANINGLESS).

But this grandson of one of the KINGS and FOUNDERS of the latter kind of fundamentalism gives a testimony here that is compelling.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2011/10/03/emerging-from-fundamentalism-andrew-himes/

Is it possible that fundamentalism is the biggest impetus for liberalism in the world?

For example, I think teetotalism and prohibition made America the drunkest nation in the world.

I think the weird kind of fundamentalism I mention above turns more people away from Christ than it does TO Christ.

I have met HUNDREDS of people who do not go to church because they had a bad experience with some backwater fundamentalist yelling and screaming against going to the movies or some other stupidity.

Has anyone else heard of such testimonies?

Could it be that the world really would be better off if the weird kind of fundamentalism (not the one that just stands for the fundamentals) never existed?

 

[Don]

Is it possible that youthful rebellion might have play in the explanation?

 

[Luke2427]

Is it possible that youthful rebellion might have play in the explanation?

Well, here is a man who seems to me to admit that at first it was youthful rebellion. But now, he thinks back fondly of his grandfather and wants many of his grandfathers attributes (compassion, concern for souls, etc...). And in this spirit he still claims that during those rebellious years it was his grandfather's narrow mindedness that drove him to that rebellion.

And I think it would be telling if many BB members can testify that they rebelled or knew many people who rebelled because they found the kind of narrowmindedness scorned in this article to be utterly unpalatable.

Thinking people do not want to be told what to believe. They want to be convinced.

Fundamentalists, imo, turn thinking people away because they do NOT want to debate. They just want to say it and they expect you to believe because it came from their divine mouths and then they scream about you in an illustration about compromisers and apostates in a sermon they preach if you don't acquiesce.

 

[Don]

Is that limited to fundamentalists?

 

[John of Japan]

Is it possible that youthful rebellion might have play in the explanation?

You bet it was youthful rebellion. I was there of course. And it had little to do with Granddad, who we only saw him a couple of times a year or so at that point in our lives, since he lived in Murfreesboro, TN, and we lived in Racine, WI. And it had little to do with Dad, either, who was a gentle preacher of the Gospel for 60 years. It had everything to do with youthful rebellion. And I'm not going to say anything more than that, since at this point the details of that rebellion are family matters. Wait for Andrew's autobiography to come out and I think anyone who reads it will say it was youthful rebellion.

Andrew's main problem with Christianity was not with Fundamentalism in particular, but with evangelical Christians in general, in that he felt they did not treat blacks right, as can be read in his book The Sword of the Lord. (This title was not taken from the newspaper name in particular, but from a 19th century--I think it was--sermon.) It all stemmed from an incident at our school in Millington, TN, when it was integrated and supposedly Christian students (not fundamentalists in particular) were vicious to too little black kids (described in his article). There was also an incident in our deep south church which had nothing to do with Fundamentalism and everything to do with Southern prejudice. (For the record, Dad was from PA and Mom from TX, both educated at Wheaton College.) As for our family, we were not allowed to use the "N-word," and I remember Mom and Granddad doing deeds of kindness to black folk. We moved to WI shortly after the above incidents.

Andrew's objections expressed in the essay to the movie, hair and other shibboleths of Fundamentalism were news to me. He's never discussed them with me, and I don't think he mentions these in his book (in particular on p. 250 when he discusses his rebellion), and I don't remember them from what I've read of his autobiography manuscript. My feeling is that they were minor compared to his opposition to the war in Vietnam and to racist Christianity.

 

[DHK]

Is it possible that fundamentalism is the biggest impetus for liberalism in the world?

I liken the logic of this question to:

"Is it possible that 'Baptists' is the biggest impetus for the J.W. movement in the world?"

After all there are more former Baptists among the J.W.'s than any other denomination.

 

[Luke2427]

Is that limited to fundamentalists?

I think narrow-mindedness is synonymous with the type of fundamentalism I am talking about.

 

[Luke2427]

I liken the logic of this question to:

"Is it possible that 'Baptists' is the biggest impetus for the J.W. movement in the world?"

After all there are more former Baptists among the J.W.'s than any other denomination.

And that, too, is probably worth pondering.

 

[Luke2427]

You bet it was youthful rebellion. I was there of course. And it had little to do with Granddad, who we only saw him a couple of times a year or so at that point in our lives, since he lived in Murfreesboro, TN, and we lived in Racine, WI. And it had little to do with Dad, either, who was a gentle preacher of the Gospel for 60 years. It had everything to do with youthful rebellion. And I'm not going to say anything more than that, since at this point the details of that rebellion are family matters. Wait for Andrew's autobiography to come out and I think anyone who reads it will say it was youthful rebellion.

Andrew's main problem with Christianity was not with Fundamentalism in particular, but with evangelical Christians in general, in that he felt they did not treat blacks right, as can be read in his book The Sword of the Lord. (This title was not taken from the newspaper name in particular, but from a 19th century--I think it was--sermon.) It all stemmed from an incident at our school in Millington, TN, when it was integrated and supposedly Christian students (not fundamentalists in particular) were vicious to too little black kids (described in his article). There was also an incident in our deep south church which had nothing to do with Fundamentalism and everything to do with Southern prejudice. (For the record, Dad was from PA and Mom from TX, both educated at Wheaton College.) As for our family, we were not allowed to use the "N-word," and I remember Mom and Granddad doing deeds of kindness to black folk. We moved to WI shortly after the above incidents.

Andrew's objections expressed in the essay to the movie, hair and other shibboleths of Fundamentalism were news to me. He's never discussed them with me, and I don't think he mentions these in his book (in particular on p. 250 when he discusses his rebellion), and I don't remember them from what I've read of his autobiography manuscript. My feeling is that they were minor compared to his opposition to the war in Vietnam and to racist Christianity.

We are not talking about any book. We are talking about the article. In the article he DOES in NO UNCERTAIN terms identify a deep-seated problem he has with your grandfather's narrow-mindedness.

And, as far as that goes, he is RIGHT to be turned off by the way many evangelicals treated blacks.

This goes to the heart of my point.

Whether it is preaching against the movies or preaching against segregation- we have GOT to condemn ignorant, unbiblical preaching that is turning people away from the church instead of to it.

Our commission is not to spread narrow-mindedness and isolate the church. Our commission is to make disciples.

For every good preacher (and missionary like yourself I assume) who does that, it seems to MANY of us that there are a hundred in this type of fundamentalism that do far more harm than good.

 

[abcgrad94]

I think narrow-mindedness is synonymous with the type of fundamentalism I am talking about.

Sin (in any denomination) will turn people away from the truth. I used to think the IFBX's (fundamentalists) had a monopoly on this, with all the legalism and rules. Nope. The Church of Christ crowd and holiness crowd are just as bad. I've even seen pride oozing from some Amish folks who looked down on me for wearing lipstick.

So, it's not "fundies" who turn people away. It's any religion full of pride and false "love for God"--Muslims, Amish, Mormon, etc.

 

[Don]

I think narrow-mindedness is synonymous with the type of fundamentalism I am talking about.

Is it limited to fundamentalists? Or can "liberals" be "narrow-minded"?

 

[Don]

Sin (in any denomination) will turn people away from the truth. I used to think the IFBX's (fundamentalists) had a monopoly on this, with all the legalism and rules. Nope. The Church of Christ crowd and holiness crowd are just as bad. I've even seen pride oozing from some Amish folks who looked down on me for wearing lipstick.

So, it's not "fundies" who turn people away. It's any religion full of pride and false "love for God"--Muslims, Amish, Mormon, etc.

AMEN. Any pastor, missionary, preacher, etc. that allows their bias to influence their preaching is wrong. That also includes posting messages we believe are meant for good.

And with that, I have nothing more to say.

 

[kyredneck]

Sin (in any denomination) will turn people away from the truth. I used to think the IFBX's (fundamentalists) had a monopoly on this, with all the legalism and rules. Nope. The Church of Christ crowd and holiness crowd are just as bad. I've even seen pride oozing from some Amish folks who looked down on me for wearing lipstick.

So, it's not "fundies" who turn people away. It's any religion full of pride and false "love for God"--Muslims, Amish, Mormon, etc.

Good post; and I relate fully with the OP.

Nothing really new here though, bigoted religionists have been driving folks away for millennia. Paul had this to say of the Jews:

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written. Ro 2:24

And, I don't think the Gentiles have done any better with the tenets of the 2nd covenant than the Jews did with the first.

Check out Ezek 34 also.

 

[Luke2427]

Is it limited to fundamentalists? Or can "liberals" be "narrow-minded"?

Liberals can be as narrowminded as the type of fundamentalists we are talking about.

But these fundamentalists CHAMPION narrow-mindedness.

Both ought to be condemned not because they are narrow-minded in and of itself. Narrow-mindedness is not a bad thing necessarily. But because they are not biblical.

That's the problem. And at least liberals do not CLAIM to be saying what the Bible says.

Fundamentalists preach against moderate consumption of alcohol, dancing, movies, pants on women, cooperative missions, etc... and CLAIM that GOD HIMSELF said what they are preaching.

They thus misrepresent God and the Bible and that ought to make every Christian angry.

I cannot tell you how many people I have tried to reach to no avail because they have been burned by these self-righteous morons.

I do not like them. I don't think any of us should.

 

[Rippon]

Fundamentalists preach against moderate consumption of alcohol, dancing, movies, pants on women, cooperative missions, etc... and CLAIM that GOD HIMSELF said what they are preaching.

You are, as the saying goes : painting with too broad of a brush Luke. Fundamentalists are not monolithic.

I cannot tell you how many people I have tried to reach to no avail because they have been burned by these self-righteous morons.

Now you are being hateful. Are you sure you are in the right when your animosity is so charged up?

I do not like them. I don't think any of us should.

You don't like them you say. Do you love them?

 

[agedman]

Liberals can be as narrowminded as the type of fundamentalists we are talking about.

But these fundamentalists CHAMPION narrow-mindedness.

Both ought to be condemned not because they are narrow-minded in and of itself. Narrow-mindedness is not a bad thing necessarily. But because they are not biblical.

That's the problem. And at least liberals do not CLAIM to be saying what the Bible says.

Fundamentalists preach against moderate consumption of alcohol, dancing, movies, pants on women, cooperative missions, etc... and CLAIM that GOD HIMSELF said what they are preaching.

They thus misrepresent God and the Bible and that ought to make every Christian angry.

I cannot tell you how many people I have tried to reach to no avail because they have been burned by these self-righteous morons.

I do not like them. I don't think any of us should.

Luke,

I kindly suggest you are running to the extreme.

NNE goes into ungodly rebellion (such as the OP suggests) caused by someone else.

Ungodly rebellion takes place (as the article states) because one rejects truth and embraces a lie. Look at the reading list given in the article that the author accepted as truthful - was any of it the truth?

The heart of rebellion is rejection. It is not caused by someone else, and no one else is to blame. The author was not forced into rebellion against God, nor was the author blaming anyone else for his rebellion.

The animosity you spill in this thread needs moderation.

Certainly, there are plenty of examples of folks who have "gone off the deep end."

John R. Rice was not one of them. He separated from one whom I consider did - Frank Norris. He separated from those who ran to modernism and extreme the other way - Billy Graham.

The neat thing about the IFB folks is that you can disagree and separate. Unlike the SBC folks who might disagree but never actually separate but play politics - sometimes very dirty.

By the article's own account, the author has shown his regard for his grandfather NOW in contrast to the years of rebellion.

There is a Godly rebellion. A time to stand against someone who is preaching and teaching error.

In the previous thread, I gave two titles and authors who account and document the error of doctrine and life of a "famous" IFB preacher now dead.

THAT is the way to handle those who are in error.

Gather the documentation. Publish the error with the documentation. Expose the error so that any may see and be warned.

If you contend that John R. Rice was wrong - then show the error.

Railing, as you have in this thread, is just as extremist as those you desire to criticize. It is foam and froth with little substance.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke,

I kindly suggest you are running to the extreme.

NNE goes into ungodly rebellion (such as the OP suggests) caused by someone else.

Ungodly rebellion takes place (as the article states) because one rejects truth and embraces a lie.

And WHY do people reject truth and embrace a lie? Many reject truth because they are repulsed by the ones who claim to bear it.

The animosity you spill in this thread needs moderation.

It is moderated. The self-righteousness of these types and the incomparable damage they do to the Great Commission calls for the sharpest of condemnation. I softened it because I know how soft so many on BB are. They think Jesus was soft. They think softness is godliness. So for their sake I softened it more than I think it ought to be.

John R. Rice was not one of them. He separated from one whom I consider did - Frank Norris. He separated from those who ran to modernism and extreme the other way - Billy Graham.

What really was so bad about Graham during Rice's days?

The neat thing about the IFB folks is that you can disagree and separate. Unlike the SBC folks who might disagree but never actually separate but play politics - sometimes very dirty.

Yes, separate and separate and separate and separate and divide and divide and divide...

By the article's own account, the author has shown his regard for his grandfather NOW in contrast to the years of rebellion.

And still repudiates his narrow-mindedness.

There is a Godly rebellion. A time to stand against someone who is preaching and teaching error.

Precisely what I am calling for.

 

[Luke2427]

You are, as the saying goes : painting with too broad of a brush Luke. Fundamentalists are not monolithic.

You must not be following the thread closely. The first words of the OP do the dead level OPPOSITE of paint fundamentalists with a broad brush.

Now you are being hateful. Are you sure you are in the right when your animosity is so charged up?

The Bible says we should hate evil. HATE. H... A... T... E... HATE. Animosity toward evil is godliness. A lack of animosity toward evil is pure evil.

You don't like them you say. Do you love them?

I would wash their feet, feed them if they were hungry, cloth them if they were naked, shelter them if they were homeless. I would bind up their wounds if they were hurt, comfort their loved ones if they died and mourn with them.

But I will not hesitate to condemn their ideology as wickedness from the deepest cesspools of hell that hell has ever belched out upon this earth.

 

[Don]

You don't like them you say. Do you love them?

I would wash their feet, feed them if they were hungry, cloth them if they were naked, shelter them if they were homeless. I would bind up their wounds if they were hurt, comfort their loved ones if they died and mourn with them.

You don't have to love them to do all that....

 

[Luke2427]

You don't have to love them to do all that....

Do you define love as an emotion then- not actions? Is it just a feeling? Is that what you reduce love to? How do YOU define love?