"The bizarre window into the mind and ministry of Jack Schaap - That he sees a reference to sex in the meaning of that word is disturbing."

Don,

We are talking about theories on why some fundies would give Schaap a pass or even cooperate with him in meetings. My theory is just a theory but it is mine nonetheless. I stated my theory and you didn’t like it—fair enough. State your own theory and I am sure that some might find it to be mere propaganda as well.

Are you a cultural fundy? The way you reacted has me thinking that you just might be. I love my CF brothers and sisters and come from decades in that world. FWIW, this is a very lighthearted topic for me because of my upbringing in the bizzare world of IFBx—you really shouldn’t take what I say about these nuts very seriously. Looking forward to reading some of your theories on this crazy phenomenon…

Matthew Richards

Jim,

Being that I spent a couple decades under the Hyles administration, I think I understand what you are asking. I would say that it is a combination of both there. The image is built daily at the day schools and also at every church service that the managawd is King. I believe that Hyles and now Schaap were/are masters at creating the image they desire. Their subjects in turn offer their undying loyalty and adoration. I believe this question is much like the old chicken and egg controversy—my belief is that it starts with Hyles/Schaap/Hitler and is kept alive by the uneducated masses…

Matthew Richards

A man creates loyalty by continually warning his followers about the evils of the enemy and convincing them that they are superior to all those who are not in their group while feeding them nothing but words and emotion.

Don,

I guess if you think Matthew is wrong on this, I would like proof. It seems he is right. Schaap is now sufficiently proven to be a heretic. Yet, we are seeing our type of fundamentalists opening communication with this stream. I find this much more disturbing than the Dever thing, but you should find it just as disturbing IMHO. We should not be embracing the likes of Schaap, nor should we embrace those who do.

You can learn more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques] here . Your statement is a general statement, including a lot of people who may or may not fit your description.

You said this:

[Matthew Richards] In all seriousness, those Fundies who are cultural fundamentalists will dismiss a lot as long as the outward appearance fits their idea of what a “good Christian” looks like.

According to you, this is the ‘serious’ part of your statement, not the ‘lighthearted’ section. You are making a blanket claim ‘seriously’ you say, and your are stating that it as a characteristic of a large group of people. As I understand it, this is what the wikipedia article would call a ‘glittering generalization’ and possibly might fall into other categories as well.

It really isn’t helpful to argue this way. It just makes people mad.

[Don Johnson] You can learn more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques] here . Your statement is a general statement, including a lot of people who may or may not fit your description.

You said this:

[Matthew Richards] In all seriousness, those Fundies who are cultural fundamentalists will dismiss a lot as long as the outward appearance fits their idea of what a “good Christian” looks like.

According to you, this is the ‘serious’ part of your statement, not the ‘lighthearted’ section. You are making a blanket claim ‘seriously’ you say, and your are stating that it as a characteristic of a large group of people. As I understand it, this is what the wikipedia article would call a ‘glittering generalization’ and possibly might fall into other categories as well.

It really isn’t helpful to argue this way. It just makes people mad.

This doesn’t make me mad at all. You disagree with me and I am all good with that. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. You never answered my question about whether you were a cultural fundy or not. I don’t read you much here on SI so forgive me if you have already stated what flavor of fundy you actually are in the past.

I am glad that you are setting me straight here but curious as to what your theory is on why the likes of Hamilton and Binney cooperate with a quack like Jack Jr.? Maybe you have already spoken to this once upon a time but I would love to hear your take on it.

Matthew Richards

[Matthew Richards] I am glad that you are setting me straight here but curious as to what your theory is on why the likes of Hamilton and Binney cooperate with a quack like Jack Jr.? Maybe you have already spoken to this once upon a time but I would love to hear your take on it.

Well, I can’t really speak for either of them. I can only make guesses. Bro Binney is a HAC grad, so that might have something to do with it. Maybe he has personal relationships that make him willing to overlook the other stuff. He was Ron’s pastor for a while also, so perhaps those ties bring them together. Who knows? Why don’t you ask them?

[Don Johnson]

[Matthew Richards] I am glad that you are setting me straight here but curious as to what your theory is on why the likes of Hamilton and Binney cooperate with a quack like Jack Jr.? Maybe you have already spoken to this once upon a time but I would love to hear your take on it.

Well, I can’t really speak for either of them. I can only make guesses. Bro Binney is a HAC grad, so that might have something to do with it. Maybe he has personal relationships that make him willing to overlook the other stuff. He was Ron’s pastor for a while also, so perhaps those ties bring them together. Who knows? Why don’t you ask them?

It is my understanding that they have been asked but no answers have been given.

I have asked without receiving any response whatsoever.

[Matthew Richards]

[Don Johnson] It really isn’t helpful to argue this way. It just makes people mad.

This doesn’t make me mad at all.

I wasn’t referring to our back and forth, but to your method of argumentation. Throwing around generalizations doesn’t prove anything and serves to frustrate your opponents in the argument.

Just for clarity…

You asked if I was a cultural fundamentalist. I don’t really know what you mean by that term, but I suspect from what you say I would fit in your definition. I am quite happy to be known as a fundamentalist, I think the term applies not only to doctrine but practice. That means we must make a clear distinction not only from liberal theology but also from worldly practices. If that makes me a cultural fundamentalist, so be it.

I have asked but received no response. I guess another way to put it would be that someone from the Future Farmers of America would be better received and trusted among most fundamentalists than say a professing Christian in a motorcycle gang. We tend to gravitate to people that “seem” like us especially in outward appearance. I have a grandmother who is a cultural fundy that gives the pentecostals in her town much more lattitude since they dress up for church and their women wear skirts instead of pants, than the members of a Bible Church that have a contemporary style of worship service. As I said before, I love cultural fundamentalists and can have sweet fellowship with them as long as we don’t talk about all the cultural issues. I wish them well just don’t have any desire to go back to that world again.

Matthew Richards