Healthy thinking, mind control, or what?

[Oldtimer]

Your kidding me. The Civil War was long before you were born.

No, he's not kidding.

The Civil War was about much more than owning slaves. Many seem to have forgotten that people on both sides of the Mason-Dixon owned slaves. Many seem to have forgotten that many landholders in the south did not own slaves.

Ever wonder why that conflict is called the "Civil War"?

While the fighting and bloodshed has ceased and slaves won their freedom, in one sense, this war is still going on. Yes, it's almost over. It'll be finished when the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights is null and void.

 

[Oldtimer]

I know someone in a Church. This person thinks that whatever the pastor says is what the Bible says and that he can never disagree with the pastor.

If he disagrees with the pastor he feels really guilty.. I have kindly tried to show this friend Acts 17 and teach him about the Bereans but it has done no good because the pastor has not taught that.

To me its more about being spirit led and driven by the Bible than by what the pastor says as plenty of pastors say that the KJV is God's only translation, wearing pants is a sin, having a beard is a sin, going to the movies is a sin and so forth.

However I think only prayer and the Holy Spirit can help this friend. Think of the Midonites and other Fundamentalist groups that bear people down with burdens and the yoke of slavery.

This is not Biblical nor right and Jesus had strong words to say about legalists. Sad how very sad it is...

I spaced out your posting a bit to kinda separate your thoughts.

There is much that isn't known about your friend and his relationship with his church.

1. If your friend is saved, isn't it better that he attend a church and be comfortable (for lack of a better term) than to attend and be in strife with his church? Assuming that he does not have a mental problem in that he can't understand and think through things himself. And see point 2.

2. There are some pastors who should NOT be in the pulpit. It doesn't matter what sect/catagory we place his congregation. Where does a preacher's responsbility lie with regards to what another pastor is preaching? Does your responsbility lie with talking to your friend's pastor since you are trying to change a member of his congregation? Since I'm a layman I've never had to deal with this issue. Again, assuming your friend is already a member of the body of Christ. Are you stirring up a confict with your friend, that DOES NOT have to happen?

Where do pastors draw the line with regards to what pastors in other churches preach? (I'm not talking about "churches" that are part of what most consider to be cults.) Is it the responsbility of a preacher in any "flavor" of Baptist church, to fight the battle of doctrine using members of another "flavor" as ammunition? This is said on the premise that the other pastor is a God-called preacher. Do you know that your friend's pastor is NOT God-called?

3. As a layman witness, one of the things I'm concerned about is whether I do harm with my witness to others. Using any of the subjects that you mentioned, whether pants, beards or KJB, can I do harm rather than bringing glory to God if I focus on those issues with another person regardless of their relationship with Him? IMO, it is just as wrong to be "legalistic" in opposing legalists.

I don't know how to say this without others reading more into my words than what I intend. Please let me try and I hope you and others understand my intent.

Using pants as an example. Within a particular assembly of believers, yes this can be an issue. Each BAPTIST church establishes the principles surrounding their assembly to worship our Lord. Church A says no to pants. Church B is OK with pants. Both are led by a God-called pastor who preaches the gospel of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is it my responsbility to our Lord to create strife, doubt and confusion among members of either church if I am a member of the opposing OPINION? The answer should be a resounding NO. There are far greater issues and challenges facing each church than whether a woman's garment is divided by a seam.

Legalism is a two edged sword and it's cutting both ways. A very effective weapon, in the hands of satan, to create strife, doubt and confusion among members of the body of Christ. Whether those members belong to A or B.

In closing, IMO it isn't wrong to discuss the differences between A and B. To discuss why there is a difference. As long as we don't give satan the opportunity to wield his sword. There is a line in the sand that shouldn't be crossed by A or B.

I hope these words correctly convey what I'm trying to say. raying:

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm wondering if there are other churches out there like the one I have served for 50 years.

Let me go back 80 years. The church minutes record two interesting events. In the early 1930s, it disfellowshipped a member for gambling. His sin? He had invested in the stock market.

When I went to my church as Minister of Music in 1963, one of the couples I met and immediately liked was a deacon and his wife. He was a wonderful old man, and his wife was a delight to be around.

We have the minutes of our church business meetings going back to 1901. Looking through the minutes from the 1930s, I found that this same deacon had been disfellowshipped for dancing. When the accusation was leveled at a business meeting, he admitted, yes, he had danced. With his wife. And he wasn't sorry. Whereupon the church voted to withdraw fellowship. The wife confessed, yes, she had danced with her husband, but she was sorry. Whereupon the church voted to forgive her.

Would that happen in any Baptist church you know of these days. Maybe, but rarely, I'm pretty sure.

When I was a college student at Union University, in Jackson, Tennessee (back in the 1950s, dancing was not allowed on campus, and students were not allowed to go to one, even off-campus. Then, about ten years ago, I learned that this Baptist school was holding its first sanctioned on-campus dance.

The point is, standards change. I have seen attitudes shift in my church over the decades. Dancing is just not on the radar. I never did dance, but mainly became I'm a klutz and it holds no appeal for me.

I've seen views soften on the use of alcohol. I don't know anybody in my church who uses alcohol, but I know a couple of folks who no longer see it as a sin.

We went through that phase railing against long hair and short dresses. But as dress styles and hair styles changed, they,, too, ceased to be sermon topics.

These days, I don't see a lot of legalism in my church. How about yours? How about any churches you're familiar with?

With these shifting standards, the question is still out there. Are there any standards of behavior, dress or lifestyle that churches should expect their members to follow?

 

[Salty]

Actually I see a lack of standards.
The other day I was talking to another man in the church. He said he is getting tried of seeing what color thong a certain woman has one when she bends over - and likewise - if I am in the pulpit, even when she is sitting - as she bends just slightly - you can easily tell what color brassiere she has on.

Long hair might be one issue - short skirts is a modest issue.

Are our mature women following Titus chapter 2 and mentoring the younger women?

Likewise, are our men being instructed to lead younger men to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

Some of the ole time standards may have their place, but what are the priorities?

 

[salzer mtn]

I believe the closer the walk with Christ the more a person will not try to offend others. Why give the world more darts to through at the church by the liberties we have. In my area because my church believes in eternal salvation other denominiation say we believe you can be saved and live like the devil. So why would i be out in the public with a beer in my hand or wearing long stingy hair or if i was a women wearing short dresses or God forbid shorts of all things. I don't think we should do anything to bring a reproach on the name of Christ or the Baptist church. So judge me as a odd ball but i had rather be a odd ball as a fire ball.

 

[evangelist6589]

No, he's not kidding.

The Civil War was about much more than owning slaves. Many seem to have forgotten that people on both sides of the Mason-Dixon owned slaves. Many seem to have forgotten that many landholders in the south did not own slaves.

Ever wonder why that conflict is called the "Civil War"?

While the fighting and bloodshed has ceased and slaves won their freedom, in one sense, this war is still going on. Yes, it's almost over. It'll be finished when the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights is null and void.

What book(s) have you been reading?

 

[evangelist6589]

I believe the closer the walk with Christ the more a person will not try to offend others. Why give the world more darts to through at the church by the liberties we have. In my area because my church believes in eternal salvation other denominiation say we believe you can be saved and live like the devil. So why would i be out in the public with a beer in my hand or wearing long stingy hair or if i was a women wearing short dresses or God forbid shorts of all things. I don't think we should do anything to bring a reproach on the name of Christ or the Baptist church. So judge me as a odd ball but i had rather be a odd ball as a fire ball.

You are preaching legalism not liberty. There is no sin for a woman to wear shorts and to think so is preaching a man based system. Your comments condemn all Way of the Master evangelists and many others as I regularly go out with shorts when I witness in the summer.

However walking around with a beer in one hand is another matter entirely as the Bible speaks clearly about leading other astray and alcoholism is an issue. However drinking a beverage in ones own home away from others is perfectly okay.

 

[salzer mtn]

What book(s) have you been reading?

The civil war was about states rights as much or more than anything else. If it hadn't of been for President Andrew Johnson the carpet baggers would have came down here from the northern states and of ran southern people of their land and took control of their land. Right now in Stone Mtn. outside of Georgia the political correct bunch are trying to have statues of Jefferson Davis, Gen. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson destroyed because according to them they represent a black mark in history.

 

[salzer mtn]

You are preaching legalism not liberty. There is no sin for a woman to wear shorts and to think so is preaching a man based system. Your comments condemn all Way of the Master evangelists and many others as I regularly go out with shorts when I witness in the summer.

However walking around with a beer in one hand is another matter entirely as the Bible speaks clearly about leading other astray and alcoholism is an issue. However drinking a beverage in ones own home away from others is perfectly okay.

It is a sin for a woman to entice a man to lust after her. What other reason would a woman have in her heart when she walks down the street wearing shorts if not to draw attention to herself. You call it legalism, i call it worldlism.

 

[Oldtimer]

What book(s) have you been reading?

History books. A lot of them for the last 60 years or thereabouts.

 

[Oldtimer]

The civil war was about states rights as much or more than anything else. If it hadn't of been for President Andrew Johnson the carpet baggers would have came down here from the northern states and of ran southern people of their land and took control of their land. Right now in Stone Mtn. outside of Georgia the political correct bunch are trying to have statues of Jefferson Davis, Gen. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson destroyed because according to them they represent a black mark in history.

Probably some of the members of the same crowd who want God sandblasted off public buildings in Washington. Those who are busy trying to re-write history to further their agenda.

If we destroy every black mark from history, God won't have to bring about an end to this place. We'll do it ourselves. Fortunately, at least for the time being we still have the Bible. One that recorded for future generations an accurate account of history -- both the good and bad. One that we can learn from it we pick it up and read it, while we still can.

Amos 8: KJB
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

Satan is using every black mark in history to accomplish his goals. That includes re-writing of history to the extent that God will allow him to do so. The record of the Civil War is a good example of that. Sad that so few understand, today, the role that States Rights played in that conflict. :tear:

 

[Oldtimer]

It is a sin for a woman to entice a man to lust after her. What other reason would a woman have in her heart when she walks down the street wearing shorts if not to draw attention to herself. You call it legalism, i call it worldlism.

AMEN!

Thank you for a word to use in those times when "legalism" is hurled at folks who believe in the moral values taught from the whole of Bible.

Maybe it's just me and I'm growing too old for these modern times. It just seems that there's a growing cry of "legalism" that is being used as an excuse to cover personal pleasures derived from the "world".

When Jesus died on the cross His death didn't close the whole of the OT. Yet, often, that is the implication suggested when the term "legalism" is used as justification to be "of the world".

 

[evangelist6589]

It is a sin for a woman to entice a man to lust after her. What other reason would a woman have in her heart when she walks down the street wearing shorts if not to draw attention to herself. You call it legalism, i call it worldlism.

Yes it is I agree with that. However shorts is in no way enticing. Women that wear loose clothing and clothes that reveal is enticing, however shorts are not one of them. Or perhaps maybe there are different styles of shorts that I am not familiar with that do entice and in that I agree. But to broad brush all shorts is unwise.

Also I am not sure where you live but in hot climates shorts do help. Maybe you live in Alaska, or North Dakota and rarely experience a hot sun. But from where I have lived a hot sun is common in the summer and shorts are best to keep the heat off.

 

[evangelist6589]

AMEN!

Thank you for a word to use in those times when "legalism" is hurled at folks who believe in the moral values taught from the whole of Bible.

Maybe it's just me and I'm growing too old for these modern times. It just seems that there's a growing cry of "legalism" that is being used as an excuse to cover personal pleasures derived from the "world".

When Jesus died on the cross His death didn't close the whole of the OT. Yet, often, that is the implication suggested when the term "legalism" is used as justification to be "of the world".

Depends on the context. I do not think it is a sin to go to the movie theater, yet many churches used to think so. Do you still find it a sin to go to the movies? However if I were to go to the movies more than read my Bible it would be a sin.

I also do not find it a sin to be on FaceBook. Did you know that during my tenure at Bob Jones University (2007-2009) BJU and plenty of faculty and staff found it wrong to have a FaceBook account. Do you have a FB account?

What about beards. My first semester at BJU they did not allow faculty and staff to have beards or mustaches, yet in 2008 they changed. Why? Because they saw their rule was traditionalism and legalistic.

What about smart phones? During my tenure at BJU they did not allow smart phones but in recent days they have changed.

What of square dancing? Is square dancing a sin if no alcohol and sex is involved? Did you know that David danced and plenty of illustrations in the Bible show dancing.

What of playing cards? Years ago churches found that a sin.

What of the big screen in chapel? Before I went to BJU I heard there was a debate over whether or not to have a large TV screen in chapel was okay. Some traditionalists argued it would be the appearance of evil (2 Thes 5:22). yet today BJU has a TV screen in chapel.

What of Power Point? There are churches that think its worldly to use Power Point. Do you think this?

And so on…

My point. There is legalism and there is worldliness. But there are secondary issues and we must not get them confused.

 

[salzer mtn]

Depends on the context. I do not think it is a sin to go to the movie theater, yet many churches used to think so. Do you still find it a sin to go to the movies? However if I were to go to the movies more than read my Bible it would be a sin.

I also do not find it a sin to be on FaceBook. Did you know that during my tenure at Bob Jones University (2007-2009) BJU and plenty of faculty and staff found it wrong to have a FaceBook account. Do you have a FB account?

What about beards. My first semester at BJU they did not allow faculty and staff to have beards or mustaches, yet in 2008 they changed. Why? Because they saw their rule was traditionalism and legalistic.

What about smart phones? During my tenure at BJU they did not allow smart phones but in recent days they have changed.

What of square dancing? Is square dancing a sin if no alcohol and sex is involved? Did you know that David danced and plenty of illustrations in the Bible show dancing.

What of playing cards? Years ago churches found that a sin.

What of the big screen in chapel? Before I went to BJU I heard there was a debate over whether or not to have a large TV screen in chapel was okay. Some traditionalists argued it would be the appearance of evil (2 Thes 5:22). yet today BJU has a TV screen in chapel.

What of Power Point? There are churches that think its worldly to use Power Point. Do you think this?

And so on…

My point. There is legalism and there is worldliness. But there are secondary issues and we must not get them confused.

Maybe back in Spurgeons day they viewed christians going to the theater and the musick hall as a longing in the heart to return to Eygpt. Why did Lot's wife look back toward Sodom ? I think it was because although her body had came out of Sodom, in her heart she never left. Can a person go to the theater today and see anything but sex and violence ? Some people use the excuse of kicking back drinking a cold one and watching tv as relaxing. There is an old saying idolness is the devils workshop. For me, relaxing is to read a Spurgeon sermon or the bible. Why would a christian want to dance in public? Is a christian aloud to take time off from the christian warfare and his testimony to join the world in their hip shaking, jirating, sujestive rituals. There is a old saying, when a christian does a good turn for someone, no one see's it, but when he does a bad turn the whole world see's it.

 

[Oldtimer]

Yes it is I agree with that. However shorts is in no way enticing. Women that wear loose clothing and clothes that reveal is enticing, however shorts are not one of them. Or perhaps maybe there are different styles of shorts that I am not familiar with that do entice and in that I agree. But to broad brush all shorts is unwise.

Also I am not sure where you live but in hot climates shorts do help. Maybe you live in Alaska, or North Dakota and rarely experience a hot sun. But from where I have lived a hot sun is common in the summer and shorts are best to keep the heat off.

Yes, there are different styles of shorts for both men and women. I won't post examples of the extremes that some wear in the name of wearing "shorts". Google "Daisy Duke shorts" to see if you can turn up some examples, if you want to see them. Then, there are knee length shorts that are in essence a pair of pants that has been cut off. Full cut, they aren't much different than wearing a skirt.

IMO, generally when "shorts" are referenced in this type discussion it is in reference to Daisy Dukes, equivalents to bike racing tights, etc. unless the person is opposed to any lower body garment, worn by women, that is divided by a center seam.

Now on to summer temps. NC has temperatures, sometimes for days, registering over 100F. Usually with high humidity. Shorts, either gender, are not best to "keep the heat off". Try working in fields from sun up to sun down with temps in the upper 90's and high humidity. Unless you're a glutton for punishment, most of the body is covered with an appropriate material to provide shade from direct rays of the sun. Shorts may be fine in arid regions where evaporation effectively cools the body. Not here if you can't find shade for hours at a time. Ever notice what is traditionally worn by the desert dwellers of the middle east? Correct fabrics in free flowing clothing wicks sweat away from the body.

 

[Oldtimer]

Depends on the context. I do not think it is a sin to go to the movie theater, yet many churches used to think so. Do you still find it a sin to go to the movies? However if I were to go to the movies more than read my Bible it would be a sin.

Yes, context is important. Especially in these times. Back when I was a kid, 1950's, most of the movies shown in the theater on small town main street were equivalent to "Father Knows Best" from tv. There was a clear difference between good and evil. Equivalent to the phrase -- the bad guys always wore black hats.

IMO, it is not a sin to go to a movie theater. IF the movie being shown is one that Jesus would sit beside me and watch. How much of the output from the movie industry meets that criterior these days? How much is on a par with "family" movies from the 1950's? A time when the lady and gent rode off into the sunset as The End came into view. Now cameras follow them to places where cameras shouldn't go.

I quit going to movie theaters years ago. For the most part have quit watching movies regardless of where they are viewed. The only exception are a couple that I've watched at church. It is a sin to watch what God has told us not to cast our eyes upon.

I also do not find it a sin to be on FaceBook. Did you know that during my tenure at Bob Jones University (2007-2009) BJU and plenty of faculty and staff found it wrong to have a FaceBook account. Do you have a FB account?

No, I do not have a pass to enter satan's gated community. Wonder how many who endorse FP have checked into where the revenues, generated from their participation, have gone. Yes, everytime you enter your FB account you are generating advertising income for the owners. Do you know how many dollars have gone to those who oppose traditional marriage? Have you ever checked on how many lawsuits have been filed against FB? Spend a little time with Google, taking a look at the founders. Look at their personal histories. Look at their political positions, especially with the 2008 election. Look at their world view with regards to the middle east conflicts.

Then, think about what you are endorsing every time you click on that link. I don't care how many claim there's no harm in FP whether individual or church. How can people support what they otherwise condem?

What about beards. My first semester at BJU they did not allow faculty and staff to have beards or mustaches, yet in 2008 they changed. Why? Because they saw their rule was traditionalism and legalistic.

I take no position on beards. It is the right of any organization to set rules of dress and decorum, as they see fit. As a side note -- my pastor grows a beard every winter and shaves it off in the spring. His does not look like those on Duck Dynasty, either.

What about smart phones? During my tenure at BJU they did not allow smart phones but in recent days they have changed.

What does that have to do with this topic? Again, it is the right of .......
Communications devices are just like movie theaters. The device doesn't sin.

-- rest of the list omitted. --
My point. There is legalism and there is worldliness. But there are secondary issues and we must not get them confused.

Agree that we must not get them confused. The term "legalism" in and of itself is a case in point. Often how the term is mis-applied? IMO, the term "legalism" is far too often used in the same manner as "racism" is being used today. Sad so many can't distinguish between Gods law for mankind and the LAW(s) that was rescinded when Jesus, Himself, became the final sacrifice.

 

[saturneptune]

Old Timer,
Very good and insightful post. The term "the good old days" do not always apply to Baptist churches of some decades ago. For example, and I told this in another section several weeks ago, I was researching our church history for homecoming day. I found that in the 30s, our congregation disfellowshipped a man and a woman who were married for dancing with each other. That has been in my craw ever since. A couple of weeks ago, I had the Wednesday night Bible study and showed how wrong that was. There is no Biblical case against dancing. In fact, the ones who should have been disfellowshiped were the ones that brought the charges in the first place. My point is, it is high time we got rid of church traditions and practices that have no Biblical foundation, because someone in the 20s believed that. We have sound minds, and are just as able to read the Bible as back then. Common sense goes a long way.

If we want to step up church discipline, it is time to root out the gossips. It is time to root out those who never darken the doors, help with ministry, and only take, never give.

It serves no purpose for a bunch of self appointed local church Pharisees to replace the Holy Spirit living in us. That is why He is there. He will tell us if a movie, song, or TV show is suitable or not. We sure do not need a two foot nosed busy body directing our lives.

 

[Yeshua1]

Old Timer,
Very good and insightful post. The term "the good old days" do not always apply to Baptist churches of some decades ago. For example, and I told this in another section several weeks ago, I was researching our church history for homecoming day. I found that in the 30s, our congregation disfellowshipped a man and a woman who were married for dancing with each other. That has been in my craw ever since. A couple of weeks ago, I had the Wednesday night Bible study and showed how wrong that was. There is no Biblical case against dancing. In fact, the ones who should have been disfellowshiped were the ones that brought the charges in the first place. My point is, it is high time we got rid of church traditions and practices that have no Biblical foundation, because someone in the 20s believed that. We have sound minds, and are just as able to read the Bible as back then. Common sense goes a long way.

If we want to step up church discipline, it is time to root out the gossips. It is time to root out those who never darken the doors, help with ministry, and only take, never give.

It serves no purpose for a bunch of self appointed local church Pharisees to replace the Holy Spirit living in us. That is why He is there. He will tell us if a movie, song, or TV show is suitable or not. We sure do not need a two foot nosed busy body directing our lives.

2 quick thoughts here!

think we would be surprised as to how much freedom we all ahve in Chrsit, liberty, but don't use that to be a "get out of jail card!"

And uit takes 2 to tango, as though chrsitian women need to dress modestly, but God still holds me accountible for that 'second look!"

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Yes, there are different styles of shorts for both men and women. I won't post examples of the extremes that some wear in the name of wearing "shorts". Google "Daisy Duke shorts" to see if you can turn up some examples, if you want to see them. Then, there are knee length shorts that are in essence a pair of pants that has been cut off. Full cut, they aren't much different than wearing a skirt.

IMO, generally when "shorts" are referenced in this type discussion it is in reference to Daisy Dukes, equivalents to bike racing tights, etc. unless the person is opposed to any lower body garment, worn by women, that is divided by a center seam.

Now on to summer temps. NC has temperatures, sometimes for days, registering over 100F. Usually with high humidity. Shorts, either gender, are not best to "keep the heat off". Try working in fields from sun up to sun down with temps in the upper 90's and high humidity. Unless you're a glutton for punishment, most of the body is covered with an appropriate material to provide shade from direct rays of the sun. Shorts may be fine in arid regions where evaporation effectively cools the body. Not here if you can't find shade for hours at a time. Ever notice what is traditionally worn by the desert dwellers of the middle east? Correct fabrics in free flowing clothing wicks sweat away from the body.

I had a pastor who believed & taught this nonsense when I was a teenager. The only word for this is "ignorance". You first alluded to high humidity climates & then drew a comparison to "desert dwellers" to make your point. Ummm, you may not know this, but the desert is not a high humidity climate. They wear extra clothing to keep the moisture next to the skin; the opposite of what is needed in high humidity climates. One would not want to wear shorts in desert climates. You are either confused or just repeating what you have heard.

I own a construction-based company, & have worked in a high humidity climate for several decades. I would love to have you work along side me for a single day in your full body covering clothes. Your opinion might sound good in a sermon, but it is completely wrong. Please stop spreading this misinformation. I hope you don't teach this opinion to others in the church.