Now, About Those Differences, Part Six
Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.
Standards of Conduct
When evangelicals think about fundamentalists (which is not often), they typically consider them to be rather legalistic. When fundamentalists think about other evangelicals (which is nearly constantly), they usually consider them to be quite worldly. The purpose of the present investigation is not to endorse either indictment but to identify what each party has in mind when it levels its accusation against the other.
What do fundamentalists perceive about evangelicals that seems worldly to them? What do evangelicals see in fundamentalists that seems legalistic? The answer to these questions primarily revolves around two areas: (1) standards of conduct, and (2) methods of ministry. Each of these areas is significant enough to warrant at least one essay of its own.
By “standards of conduct,” I do not mean to suggest that one party possesses standards while the other does not. Both parties agree that the Bible says something about how people should live. Both parties recognize that biblical commands and principles, rightly applied, require or prohibit particular activities. Both parties will, at some point, use some external standards of conduct as mechanisms by which to gauge spiritual wellbeing.
Making such evaluations is not necessarily legalism. Legalists believe that their external conduct actually secures some measure of standing with God. That is a different matter than recognizing that external conduct often reflects one’s relationship with God.
Suppose we hear about a professing believer who has been sticking up gas stations and liquor stores in order to support a meth habit. Most evangelicals would be as quick as fundamentalists to recognize that something is awry in this person’s spiritual life. The external conduct yields evidence of an internal deficiency of some sort.
In fact, evangelicals may be quicker and more decisive than some fundamentalists in making moral judgments based upon external conduct. In one instance of which I have personal knowledge, an evangelical leader had been caught in adultery. He went to another evangelical leader to confess his sin and ask forgiveness. The response he received was, “You have betrayed our Lord and our cause. Don’t come to me for absolution.”
Whether or not this was the correct response, it was certainly a strong one. I suspect that most fundamentalist leaders would have been milder. Of particular importance is the fact that it was a response to external conduct.
So what is it about standards of conduct that sets fundamentalists apart from other evangelicals? That question has three answers: revivalistic taboos, rejection of contemporary counterculture, and the use of second-premise arguments. In these matters, fundamentalists do differ from other evangelicals, including conservative evangelicals, to varying degrees.
By revivalistic taboos, I mean standards against activities such as theater, dancing, card-playing, drinking alcohol, and smoking, among others. These taboos are labeled “revivalistic” because they were preached and promoted by the revivalists of the 19th and 20th centuries. Other Christians often disagreed with them. For example, J. Gresham Machen was a fan of Charlie Chaplin and went to see his movies. The Princeton theologian Charles Hodge wrote vigorously against the demand for total abstinence from alcohol. Some early American Baptist preachers actually received part of their compensation in whisky!
Throughout the 20th century, most fundamentalists tended to see these activities as intrinsically worldly, and many still do (I am not at this point expressing my own opinion about the taboos). Therefore, such fundamentalists necessarily see a person who indulges in these activities as worldly. They reason about revivalistic taboos in much the same way that they reason about larceny and adultery.
In general, evangelicals abandoned the revivalistic taboos more quickly than fundamentalists did. This created a situation in which many evangelicals were playing cards, smoking pipes, drinking beer, going to the theater, and waltzing or twisting while most fundamentalists still viewed these activities as worldly. The fundamentalist conclusion, of course, was simply that evangelicals were worldly. The evangelical reaction to that conclusion was that fundamentalists were judgmental, focused on externals, and probably legalistic.
This judgment was aggravated by the fact that some fundamentalists went well beyond the traditional taboos in their denunciation of worldly activities. These fundamentalists made up prohibitions that can most charitably be described as “idiosyncratic.” Not infrequently, fundamentalists became so closely identified with these external demands that it seemed as if they thought of “the standards” as the most important aspect of Christianity.
The situation was further complicated by the massive cultural shift that began during the 1960s. Often called the “counterculture,” this shift changed the way that people viewed politics, economics, entertainment, race relations, authority, sexuality, religion, and substance abuse. At each stage of its development (from hippies to punks to Goths to hip-hop), the purveyors of the counterculture have invented or adopted their own emblems of identification and modes of expression.
To paraphrase H. Richard Niebuhr’s typology, fundamentalists have tended to position themselves as “Christ against counterculture,” while evangelicals (at least from the early 1970s onward) have tended to practice “Christ of counterculture” (to be fair, they would probably have seen themselves as “Christ redeeming counterculture,” but the distinction was not often evident in practice). Evangelicals have been more focused on relevance and on supposedly redeeming the (counter) culture, while fundamentalists have seen various countercultural expressions as a rejection of authority, including divine authority, and an exaltation of sensuality through illicit sexuality or inebriation.
In other words, evangelicals have tended to embrace the latest manifestations of popular culture. Fundamentalists, however, have seen the counterculture as particularly worldly, and they have tended to resist the expressions of the counterculture even after those expressions have become mainstream. To evangelicals, fundamentalists have seemed unnecessarily restrictive, overly occupied with externals, and probably legalistic. To fundamentalists, evangelicals have appeared unwarrantably concessive and, therefore, worldly.
Over time, what was the counterculture has become the mainstream popular culture. The only thing that sells better than a bad-boy image is sex, and the counterculture offered plenty of both. Each succeeding wave of the counterculture is first brandished as obnoxiously cutting-edge but then gradually accepted across American civilization. What begins as extreme becomes mainstream.
Of course, once a phenomenon becomes mainstream, it is much harder to reject. In fact, it may completely lose its countercultural significance. Flared pants and wire-framed glasses were tokens of rebellion in the 1960s, and I can remember hearing sermons preached against the wickedness of “bell-bottoms.” During the 1970s they became mainstream and lost their significance, which meant that they were now safe for most fundamentalists to wear. By the 1980s they were out of style and no longer an issue, even for fundamentalists.
This left fundamentalists in the unenviable position of adopting some of the very trends that they had earlier denounced. This was confusing both to evangelicals and to younger fundamentalists. Their confusion was not helped by the fact that fundamentalists were selective in what they chose to adopt. Flared pants and granny glasses were accepted in the 1970s. Moustaches were not accepted until the 1980s, and beards were outlawed on most fundamentalist campuses until the 1990s. The rock music of the counterculture (even the Beatles and the Rolling Stones) has still not gained wide acceptance within fundamentalism. These choices must appear arbitrary to the critics of fundamentalism.
As we have seen, fundamentalists and other evangelicals first disagreed about the revivalistic taboos. This disagreement was exacerbated by their rather different reactions to the counterculture that emerged in the 1960s. The third difference, however, is the most serious. It is a difference over the use of second-premise arguments. That difference merits an essay of its own.
Epiphany
Reginald Heber (1783-1826)
Brightest and best of the sons of the morning,
Dawn on our darkness and lend us Thine aid;
Star of the East, the horizon adorning,
Guide where our infant Redeemer is laid.
Cold on His cradle the dewdrops are shining;
Low lies His head with the beasts of the stall;
Angels adore Him in slumber reclining,
Maker and Monarch and Savior of all!
Say, shall we yield Him, in costly devotion,
Odors of Edom and offerings divine?
Gems of the mountain and pearls of the ocean,
Myrrh from the forest, or gold from the mine?
Vainly we offer each ample oblation,
Vainly with gifts would His favor secure;
Richer by far is the heart’s adoration,
Dearer to God are the prayers of the poor.
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 46 views
[Kevin Bauder] During the 1970s they became mainstream and lost their significance, which meant that they were now safe for most fundamentalists to wear. By the 1980s they were out of style and no longer an issue, even for fundamentalists.I think these matters have been a sore spot within and without fundamentalism. Where there might have been a good reason to maintain a distance from some of these fads at some point in time, the reasons were either poorly articulated or not well thought through. The problem with the bellbottoms and wire-rim glasses (did people seriously preach against wire-rim glasses?) would have been a spirit of rebellion that may have accompanied them. It is the spirit of rebellion that is the problem, not so much the thing itself. However, two errors were made here: preaching against the thing itself as evil (then later adopting the thing itself and looking like a hypocrite), or maintaining the ‘standard’ long after the thing itself became ‘normalized’ and not an issue of rebellion.
This left fundamentalists in the unenviable position of adopting some of the very trends that they had earlier denounced. This was confusing both to evangelicals and to younger fundamentalists. Their confusion was not helped by the fact that fundamentalists were selective in what they chose to adopt. Flared pants and granny glasses were accepted in the 1970s. Moustaches were not accepted until the 1980s, and beards were outlawed on most fundamentalist campuses until the 1990s. The rock music of the counterculture (even the Beatles and the Rolling Stones) has still not gained wide acceptance within fundamentalism. These choices must appear arbitrary to the critics of fundamentalism.
I do have a few nits to pick in this article. One is the supposed mildness with which fundamentalists might react to an adulterous pastor. I don’t believe that is true, not in the main at any rate. And the other is the term “revivalist taboos”. I think “revivalist” has become kind of a swear word among the cool kids and code for “Finneyism”. It is an unfortunate choice of words that makes any support of these particular standards a kind of heretical point of view from the get-go. It is my impression that conservative Christians have been against the theatre since the days of Tertullian at least. So to call all these things ‘revivalist’ seems to be a bit of ‘poisoning the well’ before any forthright discussion can happen.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] Though it may surprise many, I agree in the main with this particular edition of the series. The main point, I think, is contained in this paragraph and a half:I see exactly where Dr. Bauder is going with this, I think, and I have to applaud this sub-set thus far.
…
I think these matters have been a sore spot within and without fundamentalism. Where there might have been a good reason to maintain a distance from some of these fads at some point in time, the reasons were either poorly articulated or not well thought through. The problem with the bellbottoms and wire-rim glasses (did people seriously preach against wire-rim glasses?) would have been a spirit of rebellion that may have accompanied them. It is the spirit of rebellion that is the problem, not so much the thing itself. However, two errors were made here: preaching against the thing itself as evil (then later adopting the thing itself and looking like a hypocrite), or maintaining the ‘standard’ long after the thing itself became ‘normalized’ and not an issue of rebellion.
I do have a few nits to pick in this article. One is the supposed mildness with which fundamentalists might react to an adulterous pastor. I don’t believe that is true, not in the main at any rate. And the other is the term “revivalist taboos”. I think “revivalist” has become kind of a swear word among the cool kids and code for “Finneyism”. It is an unfortunate choice of words that makes any support of these particular standards a kind of heretical point of view from the get-go. It is my impression that conservative Christians have been against the theatre since the days of Tertullian at least. So to call all these things ‘revivalist’ seems to be a bit of ‘poisoning the well’ before any forthright discussion can happen.
The “revivalistic” term is well-applied. Before the Calvinist resurgence, if you used the term “Fundamentalist” and “Revival” together, the thought in people’s mind would not be Finney, but folks like Billy Sunday. Many of the extra-Biblical Standards, not to mention the “Christian Manhood” emphasis of Fundamentalism, come from Sunday and folks like him during the period of 1880 - 1930. Sunday and his ilk epitomize the kind of standards Dr. Bauder is addressing.
The counter-culture section is a great observation. I see that period as an opportunity missed by Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals. We had a segment of our population that was rejecting materialism and the evils of our culture and seeking a new way — which they were confident had something to do with love. And instead of saying “You’ve got it partly right. Come in and let us show you the rest”, we said “Get a haircut.” Sure, there was rebellion in that group. And the communal living sex obsession thing was a big problem. But I think much of the problem was also the politics involved at the time. Some of the more extreme IFBx folk are still fighting the hippy movement, though it’s mighty hard to find a hippy as such.
Dr. Bauder’s assertion that adultery might be more tolerated among some Fundamentalists than some evangelicals might be with reference to some specific cases such as Jack Hyles. In that case, Dr. Hyles insistence on “Fundamentalist standards” caused many to retain him in their own view as a Fundamentalist despite his own alleged affair (for which their is extensive circumstancial evidence), the affairs of his son Dave (absolutely certain), and his toleration and rehabilitation of certain favored pastors also caught in adultery (by his own admission). The fact that many would now say “Oh, he was never really one of us” does not change the fact that few were saying it then.
That is a different matter than recognizing that external conduct often reflects one’s relationship with God.I think we need to define the nature of legalism a bit better. External conduct does more than reflect our relationship with God. Disobedience disrupts fellowship and damages character. So paying attention to externals is warranted by more than “symptom analysis” to reveal problems.
Don, about “revivalistic taboos.” I don’t think the term “revivalistic” can be dismissed as a pejorative buzzword as long as there are large segments of fundamentalists who proudly embrace the term. It’s historically accurate, as the essay briefly explains.
My own reluctance on that point takes a slightly different form. Though the revivalists championed these concerns, they didn’t do so in a vacuum. That is, their convictions about these things came from somewhere. I’d suggest that large numbers of believers had arrived at the “revivalistic” positions on these issues more or less independently. The revivalists rode the tide as well as adding substantially to it. So I tend to think the pre-revivalist quiet rejection of many of these practices was simply the result of discernment.
Prohibition for example… if it had actually worked, would anybody be looking down on the idea today? I wonder. The fact that the effort proved to be impossible to enforce is a separate question from whether society would have been better off sans booze if we’d been able to actually bring that about. So it was wrongheaded because a. it was impossible to do, and b. Finneyesque palagianism was behind much of it (many thinking that giving up booze was pretty much the same thing as securing a home in heaven). But hey, if there were not three bars in Boyceville, there’s a good chance my next door neighbor would be alive today, and we’d still have a chance to reach out to him.
Anyway, I don’t want to turn this into another alcohol debate thread. Just illustrating a point: the revivalistic taboos were not necessarily invented by the revivalists and were not necessarily merely “taboos” before the revivalists popularized them. (They were taboos after, in the sense that not much thinking went into them anymore)
But as a major fork in the road for fundamentalists attitudes vs. evangelical mainstream attitudes, I think KB’s analysis here rings true.
[MDurning]…materialism and the evils of our culture and seeking a new way — which they were confident had something to do with love. And instead of saying “You’ve got it partly right. Come in and let us show you the rest”, we said “Get a haircut.”Solid point. I think we did miss an opportunity. But it illustrates just how blind we are to cultural trends when we are in the middle of them. We see it clearly in hindsight.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
On Jan. 16, 1920 — the day before Prohibition became the law of the land — America’s triumphant “drys” were supremely optimistic about the future: “The reign of tears is over,” evangelist [red] Billy Sunday told a revival meeting in Norfolk, Va. “[red] Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.”Comments:
- Re: “Hell will be forever for rent”. Well that never happened!
- Pertains to “revivalist taboos” (or some better term)
- Relevant to one’s view of changing either society as a whole or an individual. Is the best strategy to prohibit it? Warn against it? Et cetera
[Mike Durning] Some of the more extreme IFBx folk are still fighting the hippy movement, though it’s mighty hard to find a hippy as such.You just don’t live in the right part of the world.
Of course, the hippies today are balding or grey and have an emerging middle. But the tie-die and the hemp are still prevalent. Come visit Saltspring Island or Eugene, OR and you will find plenty. Go to any farmers market in the Northwest.
[Mike Durning] Dr. Bauder’s assertion that adultery might be more tolerated among some Fundamentalists than some evangelicals might be with reference to some specific cases such as Jack Hyles.Bauder didn’t say he was talking about Hyles, but I suspect he might have been. First of all, it is true that some segments blindly supported Hyles in spite of appearances. However, Hyles was strenuously opposed by many of his erstwhile friends including my pastor at the time. And let me point out that Hyles never sat in another pastor’s office and confessed guilt. He stonewalled, which looked suspicious, but isn’t proof. So while the Hyles incident does come to mind, it isn’t the same thing as someone coming in and confessing, as Bauder’s suggested scenario implies.
[Aaron Blumer] Don, about “revivalistic taboos.” I don’t think the term “revivalistic” can be dismissed as a pejorative buzzword as long as there are large segments of fundamentalists who proudly embrace the term. It’s historically accurate, as the essay briefly explains.In Bauder’s usage, it is heavily connected to Finneyism, so I am suspicious when he says it. I agree with you that conservative believers arrived at these opinions more or less independently. Billy Sunday, et al, may well have been leading mouthpieces against these things, but he and others were not saying anything conservative Bible believers didn’t already believe.
A side note on Prohibition, you should read a book by Hugh Johnson (no relation), a secular wine-enthusiast on the history of alcohol. In his book he has a chart that shows that Prohibition in fact did work. The per capita consumption of alcohol dropped precipitously and it took well over a generation for it to rise to pre-Prohibition levels after Prohibition was dropped. The main reason Prohibition was dropped was the government realized the mob was making money off of booze and the government wasn’t getting a penny. And the publicity about the “failed” alcohol war against the mob allowed the public to buy it.
[Aaron Blumer] Anyway, I don’t want to turn this into another alcohol debate thread. Just illustrating a point: the revivalistic taboos were not necessarily invented by the revivalists and were not necessarily merely “taboos” before the revivalists popularized them. (They were taboos after, in the sense that not much thinking went into them anymore)I agree with this point. I think that to the extent that Christians turn discernment into taboos, the Biblical rationale for discerning standards is lost. Some of these things seemed so obviously wrong that one generation wouldn’t even answer questions from rising generations about them. This is a human problem, not a discernment problem.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Current IFB thought revolves around their view of seperation. The Sword defines “ecclesiatical separation” as:
”WE BELIEVE that Christian believers and local, New Testament churches should be guided and governed by the Bible, and consequently, we believe it is imperative that we identify false doctrine and those who perpetrate it, and subsequently, stand separate and apart from them.
We welcome all who come to our doors, but we give no place on our platform to honor or to hear the opinions and the views of those who do not hold to ‘sound doctrine.’
With this in view we oppose the widespread popular practice of ecumenism (getting theologically diverse groups together for the sake of fellowship, for the cause of evangelism, and for the exercise of their ministries together)”
The primary source of IFB separation is the King James Version, or as they prefer to call it, the King James Bible:
“The Holy Scriptures
WE BELIEVE the Bible, the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament, preserved for us in the Masoretic text (Old Testament) Textus Receptus (New Testament) and in the King James Bible, is verbally and plenarily inspired of God. It is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and altogether authentic, accurate and authoritative Word of God, therefore the supreme and final authority in all things (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Peter 1:21; Rev. 22:18-19)”
Pensacola Theological Seminary is a fountainhead of IFB pastors. Their Doctor of Ministry program offers a course on the use of the KJ in IFB churches:
”DM 707 The Bible Translation Controversy and the Principle of Separation (3) This course applies principles of separation to the textual translation issue from the standpoint of a pastor. Especially applicable to local churches, this course will enable pastors to help their lay people understand the textual issue. Students critique Westcott and Hort’s unorthodox beliefs, along with doctrinal deviations in the NIV and NASB”
Separation is the “hill” Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors have chosen to fight and maybe even die on. It is that important.
When evangelicals think about fundamentalists (which is not often)…I’m not sure how Fundamentalists are viewed by Evangelicals. I would think most of them don’t know what it is. Some are familiar with the Scofield Bible and associate it with that.
I’m glad Dr. Bauder centered his discussion around what he calls, ‘standards of conduct’. This is a good dividing line, I think, as someone who has spent time in both types of churches. In a Fundy church, a pastor holds up standards for conduct. These are moral and social guidelines that everyone who ‘wants to please Christ’ or ‘grow in Christ’ will follow. I always believed that if I could look like a man, act like a man, not cuss, not drink or smoke, not listen to rock-n-roll (who listens to that, anyhow?), make all 3 services, witness to someone every week, and read by KJV every day, I had a good week. I met the standard - God was happy with me and I was growing as a Christian. In an Evangelical church, the word standard is foreign. I would think my Pastor’s goal is to teach what he might call ‘conviction.’ In other words, each person should so walk with the Spirit, and should so understand his Bible, that he has the discernment to know what is right, and to feel convicted for doing what is wrong.
So how are Evangelicals doing? The movement is too diverse to say. In my present Evangelical church, folks are, on the whole, much more mature, Bible-centered, and conservative than those in the Fundamentalist churches I’ve been a member of. This is certainly not true in the main, however. It is probably true enough that one simply cannot paint with the broad brush that Bauder tries to do here.
I must say that Fundy ‘standards’ may be over the top, in some cases, but there is a large margin for safety in that. It is very insightful that Bauder mentions the cultural revolution taking place in the 1960s as an impetus to Fundamentalism. Wouldn’t you all say that it is true that Fundamentalism has more to do with preserving traditionalism than battling for doctrinal truth?
Also, would anyone agree with me that fighting for social reform, moralism, traditionalism, was historically the battle ground of the liberal? Wasn’t prohibition a liberal cause, initially?
[Jim Peet] Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR20100…The next day, Billy Sunday trumpeted that they would have to close all the jails and prisons. That didn’t happen either.On Jan. 16, 1920 — the day before Prohibition became the law of the land — America’s triumphant “drys” were supremely optimistic about the future: “The reign of tears is over,” evangelist [red] Billy Sunday told a revival meeting in Norfolk, Va. “[red] Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.”Comments:
- Re: “Hell will be forever for rent”. Well that never happened!
- Pertains to “revivalist taboos” (or some better term)
- Relevant to one’s view of changing either society as a whole or an individual. Is the best strategy to prohibit it? Warn against it? Et cetera
[AndrewSuttles] In a Fundy church, a pastor holds up standards for conduct. These are moral and social guidelines that everyone who ‘wants to please Christ’ or ‘grow in Christ’ will follow. I always believed that if I could look like a man, act like a man, not cuss, not drink or smoke, not listen to rock-n-roll (who listens to that, anyhow?), make all 3 services, witness to someone every week, and read by KJV every day, I had a good week. I met the standard - God was happy with me and I was growing as a Christian. In an Evangelical church, the word standard is foreign. I would think my Pastor’s goal is to teach what he might call ‘conviction.’ In other words, each person should so walk with the Spirit, and should so understand his Bible, that he has the discernment to know what is right, and to feel convicted for doing what is wrong.
- I don’t think every fundamental church is like your description - at least in my own experience with fundamentalism.
- But in what you describe, the Pastor functions as a Parent-Paraclete. Follow his rules and “God [will be] happy with [you] “
[jimfrank] Current IFB thought …It’s pretty hard to generalize accurately about what independent fundamental Baptists believe.
The primary source of IFB separation is…
Separation is the “hill” Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors have chosen …
For whatever anecdotal evidence is worth, I’ve been a member of 8 or 9 IFB churches. None of them were like that, though we did all believe in separation from apostasy and certainly had no part of ecumenical evangelism or other ecumenical efforts.
But beyond the 8 or 9 I’ve been a member of, I’ve had contact with quite a few more which also do not fit that description.
So some are like that, some aren’t.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Kevin T. Bauder] This judgment was aggravated by the fact that some fundamentalists went well beyond the traditional taboos in their denunciation of worldly activities. These fundamentalists made up prohibitions that can most charitably be described as “idiosyncratic.” Not infrequently, fundamentalists became so closely identified with these external demands that it seemed as if they thought of “the standards” as the most important aspect of Christianity…This left fundamentalists in the unenviable position of adopting some of the very trends that they had earlier denounced. This was confusing both to evangelicals and to younger fundamentalists. Their confusion was not helped by the fact that fundamentalists were selective in what they chose to adopt.In my humble opinion, the really big problem in the way fundamentalists handled the counter-culture was not so much that they acted, but that they reacted, and over-reacted at that. In reacting to the hippy culture of the 1960s, they tried to take people back to a time which, based on my limited knowledge, never really existed — other than as an imaginary ideal.
I come from a very conservative family heritage in a conservative part of the country, and in my limited knowledge of history, there never was a time when (modest) pants on women in the appropriate setting were an issue — until fundamentalists made it one. Same with moustaches, beards and a host of other non-issues. There never was a time when men walked around in long-sleeve white shirts and ties, buttoned up tight, with suit coats on, in 90-degree heat. Those are ridiculous standards to attempt to uphold.
Fundamentalism hamstrung itself by veering from teaching the Bible into trying to evaluate such “taboos,” and I am not convinced that it has yet totally recovered. Rather than confessing and forsaking such inanity, fundamentalists instead tried to “baptize” these “taboos” under the labels of “standards” and “convictions” — the differences between which were never either clear or Biblical.
In the process, MANY young people grew disenchanted with the whole process and voted with their feet. Sad to say, much of my generation is lost to the cause of real fundamental Christianity.
Recognizing that the next generation is too shrewd and (especially) technologically savvy to tolerate the status quo, many fundamentalists are now changing their methods of operation without honestly confronting these errors of the past. Is this a case where a little (more) confession might be good for the soul?? :O
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[AndrewSuttles] On the other hand, comments in this series treat Evangelicalism as though it were one large monolithic movement and it is certainly not. I think we, as Fundamentalists, should use our efforts to defend the purity of the gospel, preach against worldliness, and defend the fundamentals of the faith. I think we can do that without having the arrogance and ‘Baptist Enquirer’ mentality that tends to pervade our movement.Hi Andrew
Surely you would say that there are sufficient characteristics in each group (I hesitate using the word movement because as we are now told, there are no movements any more)… but there are characteristics in each group that broadly and generally speaking do categorize quite disparate individuals as one or the other, right?
In other words, we can say there are characteristics about Christianity Today crowd and the T4G men that identify them all as evangelicals. And on the other hand, there are characteristics about Hyles type churches and say, Inter City Baptist in Detroit that would generally categorize them as fundamentalists. Now obviously there are big differences between the ‘extremes’ I mention. But when we are having a discussion about the broad generalities, we have to use generalizations. Otherwise we will get bogged down in a morass of exceptions, anomalies, and other odd ducks.
As for your prescription for fundamentalists, I might quibble and say that we are interested in trying to preserve the purity of the church not just of the gospel. But be that as it may, I think we can do the things you say without being arrogant, but we can’t do them without dealing with specific names and current events. When current names, trends, events are likely to impact our people negatively in some way, we have to be aware and deal with it appropriately.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Paul J. Scharf] I come from a very conservative family heritage in a conservative part of the country, and in my limited knowledge of history, there never was a time when (modest) pants on women in the appropriate setting were an issue — until fundamentalists made it one.Paul, this just isn’t so. In general women never did wear pants in Western culture until they started going to work in factories during WW2. It was a major issue among secular society as well as Christian society. This from Wikipedia:
[Wikipedia] Although trousers for women in many countries did not become fashionable until the later 20th century, women began wearing men’s trousers (suitably altered) for outdoor work a hundred years earlier.See more on this [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers#Women.27s_trousers] here[/URL].
Starting around the mid 19th Century, Wigan pit brow girls scandalized Victorian society by wearing trousers for their work at the local coal mines. They wore skirts over their trousers and rolled them up to their waist to keep them out of the way. Although pit brow lasses worked above-ground at the pit-head, their task of sorting and shovelling coal involved hard manual labour, so wearing the usual long skirts of the time would have greatly hindered their movements.
I agree that in our zeal for what was at least perceived as wickedness, some may have over-reacted, but women’s trousers (to use the Wikipedia term) are a relatively recent development.
[Paul J. Scharf] Same with moustaches, beards and a host of other non-issues. There never was a time when men walked around in long-sleeve white shirts and ties, buttoned up tight, with suit coats on, in 90-degree heat. Those are ridiculous standards to attempt to uphold.Aren’t you over-reacting a bit yourself here? I have seen some pictures of 1890s or 1910s farmers in all the heat and humidity of the South working in their fields with long sleeve shirts buttoned right up and long pants. (I’m sure they didn’t wear suits in the fields.) But my point is that “never” is a pretty broad brush. These standards weren’t just made up out of thin air.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion