By Kevin T. Bauder on
Evangelicalism
Now About Those Differences
In The Nick of Time
Fundamentalism

NickOfTimeRead 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.

Discussion

Sun, 07/11/10
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:
[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.

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 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.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Sun, 07/11/10
[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 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.
I see exactly where Dr. Bauder is going with this, I think, and I have to applaud this sub-set thus far.

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.

Sun, 07/11/10
The essay is a helpful analysis. Appreciate it.
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.

Sun, 07/11/10
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR20100…
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

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Sun, 07/11/10
[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

Sun, 07/11/10
If a reader checks the various “Fundamentalist” publications and websites such as The Sword of the Lord and Way of Life.org, he or she will find that these are Indpendent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) publications. Though they represent two factions within the Independent Baptist orbit, they are enough alike to merit comparison.

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.

Sun, 07/11/10
Since we are in an agreeing mood, I think we can all agree on the following -
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?

Sun, 07/11/10
[Jim Peet] Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR20100…
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
The next day, Billy Sunday trumpeted that they would have to close all the jails and prisons. That didn’t happen either.

Sun, 07/11/10
[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] “
More on the parenting illustration. To my three year old the stove was always bad! Don’t ever touch the stove. But when they are older you want them to use the stove!

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Sun, 07/11/10
[jimfrank] Current IFB thought …

The primary source of IFB separation is…

Separation is the “hill” Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors have chosen …
It’s pretty hard to generalize accurately about what independent fundamental Baptists believe.

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.

Sun, 07/11/10
[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

Sun, 07/11/10
Some of you are missing a point on the 60’s counterculture hippies and some of that, I would say, is because you only know about it as history apart from your own experience (in other words you are too young to have seen it first hand or remember it). While I am not old enough to have been a hippie, I am old enough to remember. Every one of you have glossed over what it was all about. It was not about “seeking love” as one suggested. It was a rejection, almost across the board, of everything the American culture saw as right. They were disestablishmentarianists. Whatever was the established, accepted norm they countered it, they were against it. Police officers became “pigs,” or “fuzz” or other derogatory names. The institution of marriage was attacked with their “free love.” I witnessed this not as a believer but an unbeliever and continue to see the damaging effects that that counterculture did and continues to do to the American culture. Even as a young unbeliever I recognized the wrongness that was and is inherent with that counterculture. I thank God that even though I had been brought up in an unbelieving home through that time, my parents sought to instill in a proper respect for those in authority, and what we have come to call traditional American values.

Sun, 07/11/10
Sometimes I post things that stereo-type the Fundy churches I’ve been associated with and folks respond, ‘my church isn’t like that.’ I’d like to say first of all, that I have wonderful memories of the Fundy churches I’ve been a part of and I’ll be a part of again the next time I’m relocated to an area where a Fundy church is the best one around preaching the Word of God. Secondly, I’m thankful that not all churches have the same shallow, sometimes even circus-like, revivalist mentality as ones I’ve been familiar with. I’m sure many (perhaps most?) are better than that. It’s never fair to make such generalizations as I have. 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.

Sun, 07/11/10
[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

Sun, 07/11/10
[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.

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.
See more on this [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers#Women.27s_trousers] here[/URL].

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

Sun, 07/11/10
Don,

Maybe you should not have quoted a source that PROVES MY POINT :p

OK - pants on women were an issue before the mid-1800s. Then, jump ahead 100 years and fundamentalists made it an issue again. My mom went to high school in the late 40s/early 50s, and girls wore jeans for sports, recess, etc. She also grew up wearing jeans on the farm. (BTW, she was brought up in a very staunch evangelical church back then.)

Yes, people dressed up more in general back then (i.e., the high school kids on Leave It To Beaver), but I would be willing to wage the debate that women wore dresses because they were dressy — not because wearing pants had an immoral component to it.

Sorry, but this is one of the DUMBEST issues anybody ever thought of picking up; I don’t think you are going to convince me otherwise. The first time I heard a fundamentalist talking about no pants on women, I thought it was some kind of a weird joke.

My point is simply how tragic it is that fundamentalists allowed themselves to be derailed from teaching Biblical truth into this kind of nonsense.

I don’t think I am over-reaching. To this hour there are people in “our circles” who are driven to keep these kinds of “standards” — even if it means causing someone who is truly weak in the faith to actually stumble — standing Rom. 14:1 on its head. :cry:

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Sun, 07/11/10
Please explain how the Wikipedia article proves your point. I don’t see how it does. The whole idea of women wearing pants was a departure from the norm. Initially it was shocking to people who weren’t fundamentalists. That seems to demolish your point, not make it.

Or perhaps I am missing your point. You seem to be saying that no one else in the world ever thought of this as an issue, implying that fundamentalists basically made it up. Your words again: “there never was a time when (modest) pants on women in the appropriate setting were an issue — until fundamentalists made it one”… I just can’t see how you can say this is an accurate statement.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Sun, 07/11/10
[Don Johnson] I just can’t see how you can say this is an accurate statement.
That is my point — I am saying that is an accurate statement. At least in modern history (since WWII), this was an issue artificially created by fundamentalists — causing much strife and division — which cannot be tied to any Biblical moorings — unless you also want the men to go back to Biblical days and gird up their loins. 8-)

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Sun, 07/11/10
Well, I guess we are at an impasse then. I think your view is totally incorrect.

Not sure what else can be said. Even if you attempt to narrow history down to just ‘modern history’, i.e., since WW2, you are actually still wrong. I am a bit younger than your mom, but the introduction of pants was controversial among more than fundamentalists… I didn’t grow up among fundamentalists. I went to public school. Believe me, it was controversial.

But I guess we can move on, this is a very small point in the overall question. I’ll leave it to the rest of the commenters to see what we have been up to late at night. West Coast blogging allows us to carry on and really surprise them in the morning.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Sun, 07/11/10
[Paul J. Scharf]
[Don Johnson] I just can’t see how you can say this is an accurate statement.
That is my point — I am saying that is an accurate statement. At least in modern history (since WWII), this was an issue artificially created by fundamentalists — causing much strife and division — which cannot be tied to any Biblical moorings — unless you also want the men to go back to Biblical days and gird up their loins. 8-)
I’m not “skirts only” but not sure, Paul, that your point is accurate. It depends on what you mean by “modern”. My girls, who are trivia buffs, told me that with the Dick Van Dyke show, Laura could only be seen in one scene/setting in each show in pants, because it was too radical. But that may not be considered modern—we’re talking black and white tv!

But it has been since WW2.

Sun, 07/11/10
Kevin, I think you need better nomenclature here. Preachers and religious historians identify certain behaviors that have been preached against as “Revivalist” because that is about as far back as their history takes them. Take one “taboo” mentioned: dancing. John Calvin was an ardent opponent of it. Most of the Puritians in England were of the same persuasion. On the continent of Europe, the Roman Catholic group, the Jansenists (Calvinists) were opposed to dancing. In North America, Increase Mather wrote a long treatise against dancing in the late 1600s. His son, Cotton Mather was just as outspoken against it. In the early 18th century of Philadelphia dancing was frowned upon. This is primarily because the quakers were against it. George Whitefield preached repeatedly against dancing. In the late 18th Century, Francis Asbury was one of its firmest opponents in North America. These all preceded anything resembling a fundamentalist movement. And opposition to dancing preceded the revivalists Whitefield and Asbury. When Evangelicals opposed dancing, which most of them did before 1960, they were merely continuing a centuries-old conviction that was strong within the Calvinist and/or free-church heritage.

Jeff Brown

Sun, 07/11/10
[Don Johnson]…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.
Understood Brother Johnson.

Thanks

Sun, 07/11/10
[Becky Petersen]
[Paul J. Scharf]
[Don Johnson] I just can’t see how you can say this is an accurate statement.
That is my point — I am saying that is an accurate statement. At least in modern history (since WWII), this was an issue artificially created by fundamentalists — causing much strife and division — which cannot be tied to any Biblical moorings — unless you also want the men to go back to Biblical days and gird up their loins. 8-)
I’m not “skirts only” but not sure, Paul, that your point is accurate. It depends on what you mean by “modern”. My girls, who are trivia buffs, told me that with the Dick Van Dyke show, Laura could only be seen in one scene/setting in each show in pants, because it was too radical. But that may not be considered modern—we’re talking black and white tv!

But it has been since WW2.
My daughter was listening to an Enola Holmes mystery on audiobook while we were cleaning the kitchen, and Enola (the little sister of Sherlock Holmes) comments on the shocking appearance of a female character in pants. There was something in the storyline about women who dressed like men, and Enola hopes that she does not have to lower herself to that point in order to solve the mystery. Nancy Springer is not a Christian author either.

Fundies may have been guilty of bringing up an ‘old’ subject, but they certainly didn’t invent it. I think the furor over pants did detract from the legitimate issue of modesty though. Modesty is as much about one’s heart attitude as about the length of the skirt or the fit of the blouse. What I saw growing up Fundy was alot of behavior modification instead of discipling and mentoring. If you got the look right, no one paid much attention to what you did. The problem is with the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction- supposedly now if your heart is right, your appearance doesn’t matter. It’s another cliff on the other side of the bluff, but a cliff is a cliff, and don’t people ever get tired of climbing up and jumping off?

I was thinking when reading this article about the prohibitions against movie theatres and the advent of the VCR. Back in the day, it was ‘worldly’ to go to theatres or have HBO piped into your house, but around the time Betamax bit the dust, more and more conservative Christians had VCRs and were hanging out at Blockbuster. Nowadays it seems everyone has a DVD player, and with a [URL=http://www.clearplay.com/ ClearPlay[/URL] you can watch ANYTHING because it filters out all the ooky stuff. So- what was the premise for labeling movies as ‘worldly’? The lifestyles and worldviews of the people who create them? The actual content? Paying $7 for a bowl of popcorn? The big flip-flop on that score is an illustration of how Fundies who don’t really know why they oppose something end up looking hypocritical.

Scenescape Media

Sun, 07/11/10
In the late 1980s (or was it even the early 1990s), my dad wouldn’t let my brother and I get wire-rimmed glasses, because he wasn’t sure they were accepted by the leadership of the school we attended (and at which my Mom was a teacher).

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Sun, 07/11/10
[Brian Ernsberger] Some of you are missing a point on the 60’s counterculture hippies and some of that, I would say, is because you only know about it as history apart from your own experience (in other words you are too young to have seen it first hand or remember it). While I am not old enough to have been a hippie, I am old enough to remember. Every one of you have glossed over what it was all about. It was not about “seeking love” as one suggested. It was a rejection, almost across the board, of everything the American culture saw as right. They were disestablishmentarianists. Whatever was the established, accepted norm they countered it, they were against it. Police officers became “pigs,” or “fuzz” or other derogatory names. The institution of marriage was attacked with their “free love.” I witnessed this not as a believer but an unbeliever and continue to see the damaging effects that that counterculture did and continues to do to the American culture. Even as a young unbeliever I recognized the wrongness that was and is inherent with that counterculture. I thank God that even though I had been brought up in an unbelieving home through that time, my parents sought to instill in a proper respect for those in authority, and what we have come to call traditional American values.
I appreciate this for filling out the counter-culture part of things.

It’s interesting that Bauder’s view of culture in America today is that it is basically a continuation of the counter-culture. If he’s right, that has pretty big implications.

Anyway, to Brian’s point: I think the observation that the hippies were looking for love is not at odds w/the fact that it was about [URL=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disestablishmentarianism] disestablishmentarianism[/URL]

Both are true. Part of the philosophy was that love is what life is all about and “the establishment” is the enemy of love. So the rebellion against all norms was widely viewed as a pursuit of the ideals of love and peace (let’s not forget about the peace part!)

But I think Bauder’s point there is that the counterculture was about rejecting Christian roots as well. It was a fork in the road for our culture after which everything moves further and further from efforts to “be Christian” in our culture. Though what came before it was only “Christian” in varying degrees, Christian ideas (and ideals) were the biggest single influence, I’d suggest. Modernism unraveled much of that in the 40s and 50s, but with the counterculture, fleeing from Christian roots became official. Traditional Christian ways were part of “the establishment.”

I think fundamentalism was right to be antidisestablishmentarian (I’ve been waiting for years for an excuse to use that word! :D ). But yeah, there was much ill-conceived reaction and overreaction, etc. And wasted opportunity, too… probably because we had an exaggerated view of the Christianness of our culture at that point in time. “Christianity” and “American traditions” have never been synonymous… but before the 60’s they were at least mostly friends.

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.

Sun, 07/11/10
[Becky Petersen]
[Paul J. Scharf]
[Don Johnson] I just can’t see how you can say this is an accurate statement.
That is my point — I am saying that is an accurate statement. At least in modern history (since WWII), this was an issue artificially created by fundamentalists — causing much strife and division — which cannot be tied to any Biblical moorings — unless you also want the men to go back to Biblical days and gird up their loins. 8-)
I’m not “skirts only” but not sure, Paul, that your point is accurate. It depends on what you mean by “modern”. My girls, who are trivia buffs, told me that with the Dick Van Dyke show, Laura could only be seen in one scene/setting in each show in pants, because it was too radical. But that may not be considered modern—we’re talking black and white tv!

But it has been since WW2.
Thanks Becky!

There is no doubt that the culture has changed on dress issues over the last 40 to 70 years. My point is that the issue of pants on women was never a Biblical issue (Deut. 22:5 notwithstanding), and further, it could be argued that it was never truly even the cultural issue which some fundamentalists made it out to be. It was, at best, a cul-de-sac that fundamentalists drove into when they turned off their GPS (Global Providential System — read Bible).

The first time I heard someone make the argument about no pants on women from Deut. 22:5, my jaw dropped. Did they really want to go back under the Old Testament Law (Acts 15:10)?? I grew up in a traditional, conservative home, and my mom and grandma (who were not feminists in any sense of the word) almost always wore pants through my whole lifetime. My mom wore pantsuits to church because she played the organ, and she always wondered why it would be more modest for women to have their legs uncovered with a dress.

I was told 20+ years ago that “no pants on women” was a conviction or a testimony issue, but now it has conveniently disappeared from most people’s consciences with no explanation. Why?? Now many of these same people are promoting Sarah Palin and her “Momma Grizzlies” (pro-life feminists-?) as the next great hope for America. What is wrong with this picture?? :tired:

Again, my main point is how tragic it is that fundamentalists allowed themselves to be derailed from teaching Biblical truth into this kind of of malaise. So many in my generation (late 30s, early 40s) who have left the movement have been burnt over by these oddities of fundamentalism. If they are now in church on Sunday morning, it is likely in an emergent or seeker-sensitive setting because they are sick of carrying all the baggage. Many of those still looking at/for something deeper have gone off the other side of the road into Reformed Theology.

The way of Christ is “easy” and “light” compared to the rigors of Old Testament lawkeeping, which is not our means of sanctification (Matt. 11:28, 29; cf. Rom. 6:14).

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Sun, 07/11/10
Aaron, you are missing the point somewhat. The rhetoric of the hippies was “love” and “peace” but not in any traditional, normal way of defining those terms. Their love was lust and their peace was that which an eastern mysticism was expected to produce, especially if coupled with what drugs would induce. Those today who look back at the hippies and somehow think that we should be lauding them are looking at them through rose-colored glasses. An honest look at the hippies blasphemous portrayal of our Lord Jesus Christ in “Jesus Christ Superstar” should dispel any notion of any kind of sympathy for the counterculture that was the hippies.

I would agree with Bauder on his assessment that much of what has been counterculture is now mainstream. I would say that the time it takes to go from counterculture to mainstream is getting shorter and shorter. What was taking a decade or two to become acceptable is now taking just a couple of years.

Sun, 07/11/10
Well, we’re not talking about sympathy really. Just looking for what’s useful. There’s no question that the hippie ideology mixed all sorts of stuff together to form a very, well, intoxicating brew (or vapor, perhaps)… ideologically as well as chemically. Though the sort of love and peace they were looking for were befouled and twisted, it’s not like there was nothing of the real thing in it. These are universal human longings. But let’s remember, too, that the majority did not join the hippie movement. Rather, they pulled stuff they liked—such the ideals of love and peace, some music, some clothing, some lingo” but kept on working their establishment jobs, attending their establishment schools, and much of their establishment morality, etc.

Like most movements, you have a philosophical few behind it that embrace the “real ideology,” and then millions who hold to some kind of diluted form of it.

It’s a moot point now anyway. But I agree with the analysis that responding to the counterculture with “Get a haircut and a job!” rather than “Let me tell you what love and peace are really all about” was not the right response for the most part (not that I think most would have listened to the latter either, but some would have).

There were some who did take that tack and they didn’t see what looks now like enduring success. But it’s not ultimately about success.

I agree that counterculture is mostly mainstream. It’s only “counter” now in a historical sense. It’s the counterculture road, but further down it to the point that the fork in the road is really no longer visible.

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.

Sun, 07/11/10
Brian,

I don’t think that is completely the point made. I will let Aaron speak for himself, but I have a thought. There was much in the hippy culture that was wrong and sinful, no doubt. But the thing I think is being missed is that we fundamentalists tend to dismiss bassed on silly things (wire rimmed glasses for instance). I always thought the unwritten ban by us on facial hair was silly and maybe even sinful if we tied it to being spiritual. When I grew my mustache about 4 years ago, a fundamentalist full-time christian servant felt they were wrong because they made men look like scoundrals. I said they made men look like men. If I weren’t a firefighter, I would have a beard too, but breathing is not overrated. :) I think what we should try to do with counterculture people is cease on where they “think” they are doing something good and turn it to a gospel opportunity. I don’t think overall we do a good job with that in our movement.

Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church

Sun, 07/11/10
Just have to mention that I remember some folks arguing passionately in my presence (long before I had a beard) that Jesus never had a beard. They had some complicated way of getting around the reference to plucking in Isaiah 50:6.

But nobody thought Jesus having a beard was a problem in, say, 1860.

[img=200x250] http://www.q-aconsulting.com/snodgrass/IMG/GeorgeB%20Snodgrass.jpg

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.

Sun, 07/11/10
[Aaron Blumer] But I agree with the analysis that responding to the counterculture with “Get a haircut and a job!” rather than “Let me tell you what love and peace are really all about” was not the right response for the most part (not that I think most would have listened to the latter either, but some would have).
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Calvary Chapel movement initially grew out of an evangelistic effort built on the latter. Also, I believe John MacArthur has commended CC for this, and also had a lot of growth in his own ministry as a result of such efforts way back then.

Just a thought.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Sun, 07/11/10
I’ve heard this as well from some involved in CC. FWIW… [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary_Chapel] Wikipedia[/URL]

But I’m not sure if the doctrinal quirkiness of CC argues that connecting with the “Christian hippies” was a good thing or that it was a bad thing.

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.

Sun, 07/11/10
My connections to Calvary Chapel have been somewhere between slim and none.

I once heard an interesting and memorable comment — that CC is like the result of a trainwreck between charismatics and the GARBC ;)

I have also heard them unexpectedly commended by some interesting people.

I do enjoy listening to the radio program [URL=http://www.csnradio.com/tema/ To Every Man an Answer [/URL] — especially when the guest is [URL=http://www.wordinlife.com/ Justin Alfred[/URL].

I am not recommending that program as a standard of theology to follow — but I do enjoy it and find it to be quite interesting sometimes.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Sun, 07/11/10
The crux of the matter seems to be how much application is appropriate. For instance, 1Pet. 2:11 commands us to “abstain from fleshly lusts”. So… what are fleshly lusts? If a pastor decides to expound on the temptations modern society presents, then to some he is stepping over the line and should leave the specifics up to the movement of the Holy Spirit. But how do you admonish without making application? How do you make an application without addressing the issues of modern culture? And why isn’t it OK for preaching to change over the years as the culture itself changes?

IOW, if wire-rimmed glasses had a wicked association in the past, why wouldn’t it be OK to admonish folks not to include themselves in that association? And now that the association is long past, why is it hypocritical to acknowledge that wire-rimmed glasses don’t say anything about a person in today’s culture? The same thing was happening in the 80’s with Madonnawear- if you wanted to be associated with Madonna (which I think we can agree that her influence and message was less than edifying) you wore certain items of clothing in a certain way. Could a pastor not address that topic without being considered a legalist?

What I personally would object to is when the preacher goes from admonishing the flock to ‘enforcing’, and I think that is where some of Fundamentalism went too far.

Scenescape Media

Sun, 07/11/10
[Susan R] The crux of the matter seems to be how much application is appropriate. For instance, 1Pet. 2:11 commands us to “abstain from fleshly lusts”. So… what are fleshly lusts? If a pastor decides to expound on the temptations modern society presents, then to some he is stepping over the line and should leave the specifics up to the movement of the Holy Spirit. But how do you admonish without making application? How do you make an application without addressing the issues of modern culture?
I warn my congregation. I do not legislate for them. It’s safer for me and tends to build greater maturity in them over time.

Sun, 07/11/10
[Mike Durning] I warn my congregation. I do not legislate for them. It’s safer for me and tends to build greater maturity in them over time.
That’s why I said “What I personally would object to is when the preacher goes from admonishing the flock to ‘enforcing’, and I think that is where some of Fundamentalism went too far.” My dh calls it ‘micro-managing’ when it goes from admonishing to legislating. But I think, in general, that evangelicals go too far in the other direction- they don’t warn/admonish enough because they associate admonishing and application with legislating or legalism.

I have a question though- if there was a behavior or activity that you felt was particularly troublesome (based on what you believe to be Biblical principles but is not explicitly forbidden), what do you do when people in leadership that participate in it? Do you ever ‘legislate’ to any extent when it comes to youth workers, Sunday School teachers, ushers, etc.?

Scenescape Media

Sun, 07/11/10
Above we had a discussion about “revivalist taboos”. May I posit a slight modification to the term? “Revivalist taboos for want of a better term or designation.”

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Sun, 07/11/10
I think we have shown in this thread that the origin of these taboos isn’t really revivalist. The issues presented by these taboos have become problematic in fundamentalism as culture moves on and changes while some fundamentalists have tended to hang on to standards that aren’t really based on anything in the thing itself - women wearing pants once was a sign of rebellion or risque, but is no longer and I think we can argue that pants are not immodest (others differ of course). So the insistence on this ‘standard’ has become a taboo in fundamentalism, rather than Biblically driven discernment and proper opposition to rebellion and immodesty.

Hence, I think it is appropriate to call these things ‘fundamentalist taboos’. Who else holds to them?

Of course, then we can proceed to the debate about what are taboos and what are not. Seems like that will keep us going on SI for many a long thread…

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Sun, 07/11/10
[Susan R]
[Mike Durning] I have a question though- if there was a behavior or activity that you felt was particularly troublesome (based on what you believe to be Biblical principles but is not explicitly forbidden), what do you do when people in leadership that participate in it? Do you ever ‘legislate’ to any extent when it comes to youth workers, Sunday School teachers, ushers, etc.?
No, I don’t, but warning can be made personally, and with some emphasis. At times, when behaviors demonstrate heart issues that are of a Spiritual nature definitely defined in Scripture, action is taken on this root issue.

Sun, 07/11/10
Back in the late 70’s I went to Seminary school at Grand Rapids Baptist.

We bought a house with a 16’ x 32’ pool in the back yard. (By the way …. advice …. don’t do this! It is a ton of work and is expensive (gas bills for heating the pool, chemicals, etc).

Our neighbors were very fine evangelical people of the reformed persuasion.

They were shocked shocked shocked that I would use my swimming pool “on the Sabbath” (that would be Sunday).

Along the way they invited us by their home for a nice family dinner. After dinner the Father of the house opened this Word of God for a Scripture reading. And the wife served an after dinner liquor of some kind (not sure what it was. Served in very small glasses. But we did not partake.)

Their taboo was … you don’t swim on the Sabbath. My taboo (and I think there is Scriptural support for this) was … I would not let alcohol touch my Baptist lips!

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Sun, 07/11/10
Thanks, Jim. That little scene shows just how thoroughly cross pollinated all these ways of thinking really are.

(But you heated the pool?!)

Another thought on “revivalist taboos.” I think it’s OK to term things by what popularized them as much as where they originated. There are lots of features of a thing we can choose to label it. (And let me just make a preemptive observation for all the label-haters out there: labels are useful. Just try saying “a smooth-textured sausage of minced beef or pork usually smoked; often served on a bread roll” every time you want a hotdog.)

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.

Sun, 07/11/10
Having taught in a christian school in the late 60’s and early 70’s, I can reflect back and see the damage that legalism has caused. Rock music was satanic (per Frank Garlock/BJ); slacks or jeans on girls were in “violation” of biblical teachings (even on field trips); going to the movies was forbidden (until the advent of the VCR, when it was suddenly accepted to watch movies at home; Pizza Hut was off limits because they served beer; Sun/morning, Sun/eve, Wed/eve attendance was “required”; and finally, King James ruled in the pulpit & classroom. Seems like yesterday’s “fundy” is today’s evangelical.

gpinto

Sun, 07/11/10
[Aaron Blumer] There are lots of features of a thing we can choose to label it. (And let me just make a preemptive observation for all the label-haters out there: labels are useful. Just try saying “a smooth-textured sausage of minced beef or pork usually smoked; often served on a bread roll” every time you want a hotdog.)
I agree that labels are useful, especially since I’m so OCD about organizing and categorizing and alphabetizing… but when it comes to people, labels only get you into the ballpark. As long as people recognize them for what they are- shorthand for generally describe a large group of people- then a label keeps us from having to write a novel every time we want to discuss something. But it’s important to note that when you say “hot dog”, I know exactly what you mean. That isn’t so with many of the terms we use so often, like ‘legalism’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘standards’. I think standards are a good thing, and I have tons of ‘em. But I know what I mean when I use and apply the term. For others, it’s practically a cuss word.

It’s when folks try to draw specific conclusions from, narrow the parameters of, or transform a general category into an expletive that it becomes an impediment to productive discussion. The way some people spit out the word ‘Fundamentalism’ makes you think it’s something they are scraping off the bottom of their shoe. Fundamentalism IMO is an ideal, and a great one at that, but it’s faulty human beings that somehow always manage to take what is beneficial and turn it into a debacle.

Scenescape Media

Sun, 07/11/10
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
.

While it could be argued that the “style” of music that these groups used (introduced/popularized) may be mainstream today (and thus not sinful), the message of these groups specific songs/words, lifestyle, and belief system are still diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity and very much referred to in our CURRENT secular culture. I find it curious that Christians a generation ago could see this clearly, while today’s “Christian” artists use these ungodly men and their music as inspiration for their own.

Something doesn’t seem right, and, I would maintain, is an entirely different from card playing or movies. Using the Beatles as inspiration for music/song writing would be the same as using Marilyn Monroe as inspiration for acting/modeling. This is different than using using/seeing movies in general and using syncopated or even rhythm-based (“rock”) music in general.

While acknowledging that rock rhythms are part of the woof and warp of our culture and thus ubiquitous to our lives, it does not necessarily follow that it is appropriate for everyday recreational consumption or incorporation into our worship. I think fundamentalists are right in maintaining a distance from groups like the Rolling Stones.

Sun, 07/11/10
I see after another reading of KB, that he may be speaking of the style of the Beatles/Rolling Stones, not necessarily them as artists or people.

I do think we need to be careful; in the minds of our parents, that kind of music is STILL associated with the rebellion that they lived through and very offensive in a worship setting. Churches with a full spectrum of believers (children to seniors) help to maintain a balance in accepting the wrong changes or uncertain changes too soon.

Sun, 07/11/10
[Susan R]

I agree that labels are useful, especially since I’m so OCD about organizing and categorizing and alphabetizing… but when it comes to people, labels only get you into the ballpark. As long as people recognize them for what they are- shorthand for generally describe a large group of people- then a label keeps us from having to write a novel every time we want to discuss something. But it’s important to note that when you say “hot dog”, I know exactly what you mean. That isn’t so with many of the terms we use so often, like ‘legalism’ and ‘conservative’ and ‘standards’.
Susan, I’d argue that even with the term “hot dog,” the label only gets you into the ball park. Foot-long, thick, the kind with the fake red food coloring, with chili or mustard, chicken, beef, turkey, etc., etc. If someone says hot-dog, I know enough to know generally what they are referring to. If we are discussing my preparing to eat them, that’s a different matter entirely, and I would want many more details.

Fundamentalism has the same issue. If I were in the position of having to look for another church, a label of “fundamental, Bible-believing, independent,” would help me to keep some on the working list and cross others off, but they would not serve as more than a general indicator, at best. The same with denominational names.

I know that generally, if someone described himself as a fundamental independent baptist, I think I’d have a reasonable idea where he is coming from regarding his faith. The same with a prebyterian, evangelical, charismatic, pentecostal, etc. That does mean those labels are in a very general sense, useful. However, they are not enough by themselves for close examination, and if one of them should get to the point where it’s really less than useful outside a certain group of people (and I’m one of those who thinks that “fundamentalist” is such a term), its use should be restricted to those venues where it makes the most sense (e.g. among a group that consists mostly of Christians). I only use the term to refer to myself if I’m in a place where it would be understood correctly. And even though I’m currently a member of a baptist church, I *never* use the name baptist to refer to myself in any way, only to my church.

Dave Barnhart

Sun, 07/11/10
[REShanks]

I do think we need to be careful; in the minds of our parents, that kind of music is STILL associated with the rebellion that they lived through and very offensive in a worship setting. Churches with a full spectrum of believers (children to seniors) help to maintain a balance in accepting the wrong changes or uncertain changes too soon.
Randy, I’d absolutely agree with you here. I think it takes substantially more than a generation to pass before music loses its association enough to become usable from that point of view, and some may still not be appropriate for a worship setting. (I don’t know any music from the Rolling Stones, but I have a hard time imagining using any of their music for worship purposes!)

Dave Barnhart

Sun, 07/11/10
aka Lennon glasses. I found out years ago the style John Lennon popularized here in the States was/is the style issued by the British National Health Service.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Sun, 07/11/10
While it is clear that we must maintain a clear testimony, I think sometimes these issues have more to do with a fear of man (what people in our fellowships might think) than a fear of God. This was true for years in my case. But maybe it is just me. :)

Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church