Category: Fundamentalism

General critiques (and discussions) of fundamentalism (IFB or IFBx)

To Drink, Or Not to Drink

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

I was swept away (again), into a fundamentalist feud over alcoholic drink. My ears perked up when I came across a humorous post on teetotaling. I figured that the issue was a current hot button topic at Sharper Iron, and so I went digging.

Turns out, Shelton Smith (The Sword of The Lord) and Robert Sumner (The Biblical Evangelist) rival editors of influential fundamentalist periodicals, have both recently decried a new book from BJU press on the alcohol question. I haven’t read Randy Jaeggli’s book The Christian and Drinking: A Biblical Perspective (he’s a prof at BJU), but from what I am reading at Sharper Iron, he defends an abstentionist position in a biblically defensible way. He is careful with the text and so believes Jesus actually drank alcoholic wine, albeit perhaps with less punch then is available today.

His honest treatment of Scripture is too much for the hard line fndamentalists to swallow. They view his book as only doing lip service to a temperance policy. The alarm must be sounded.

So I’ve had my nose in a few threads over at Sharper Iron, discussing this hot issue. I’m not so much discussing the book, as the merits of a moderationist position. You can find my position outlined in this forum post. And I detail the different discussion thread links, in a forum post over at our own Transformed by Grace forum site.

I’ve had quite a few interesting posts concerning wine on my blog in years past.   Click on the wine cateogory for the full list, but here are a few of my favorites:

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Unity across Eschatological Positions

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

We’ve been discussing whether eschatological positions should hinder our unity in a local church, or beyond. Mark Dever recently challenged pastors to not let this hinder unity, even calling doctrinal statements that detail a specific millennial position, sinful.

In light of all this, I was struck when I read the following words from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in a book I finished this weekend. Speaking on the phrase “let all things be done with charity” (1 Cor. 16:14), he addresses the question at hand directly.

In standing fast in the faith, if we are not animated by the spirit of love, we may not always differentiate as we should between faith in its essence and certain peculiar interpretations and expositions of our own. Here is a theme which might very easily occupy our minds on many occasions. There is nothing so tragic, I sometimes think, in certain circles as the way in which men fail to differentiate between that which is of the essence of the faith and certain other matters about which there can be no certainty. You cannot, I am told, be a member of the World Fundamentalist Association unless you believe in the “pre-millennial” return of our Lord and if you happen to be a “post-millenarian” you cannot be a Christian! If you are an “a-millenarian” you are just unspeakable. There you have an illustration of the importance of differentiating between the essence of the faith and the interpretation of a particular matter about which there has always been a difference of opinion. There is the same difference of opinion as to when the rapture of the saints is to take place. Men separate from each other about matters of that nature, where there is no certainty, and where there can be no certainty, though the return of the Lord is certain. Who can decide who is right, whether those who hold the pre-millennial, or those who hold the post-millennial view? I could mention great names on both sides, equally expert theologians. Surely these are matters where there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. Let us bear in mind the adage: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” “Stand fast in the faith.” Yes, but in a spirit of love.

[from The Christian in an Age of Terror: Selected Sermons of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1941-1950 (previously unpublished sermons, edited by Michael Eaton) — Kregel, pg. 264 ]

I think we see Lloyd-Jones agreeing with Dever here. As for me, I think we should leave the question open for membership, but we can define what our church will teach. But as we teach we should be careful with how we deal with opposing views.

I think this does shape how we approach Scripture (or how we approach Scripture shapes this issue). So it is emphatically important. But we should be careful to elevate our preferences and doctrinal conclusions on a matter that is not crystal clear, over and above the points of doctrine which are universally held and powerfully clear. When you elevate every position to the place of major doctrine, you minimize what Scripture presents as truly central.

The Bible on Hair Care

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

No, I haven’t yet found a Biblical defense for using Pert’s Plus. I’m talking about what the Bible says about hair length.

This may be a surprise to you, but listen to what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:14-15.

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

What do we do with this teaching? In my fundamentalist upbringing, we had hair rules, and for us guys: hair check. If our hair was getting anywhere near our shirt collar or ear lobes, we would be in trouble. Demerits and/or detention would come in a hurry!

It’s easy to discount such standards as tomfoolery. Along with the head covering that 1 Cor. 11 refers to, we can easily contextualize this command as appropriate for Corinthians only. But are we doing justice to Paul’s appeal to “nature” here?

This is the question that a bunch of reforming fundamentalists and I have been addressing in one of our forum topics over at our new group site: Transformed by Grace. The discussion has avoided hard and fast extra Biblical rules, and has been quite profitable. Let me share one small quote, out of several I gave in the discussion. This is from Tom Schreiner in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Crossway):

Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. Of course, what constitutes long hair is often debated–what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary widely from culture to culture.

I agree. On this point, I concluded with the following:

I do think women’s hair should be generally long, and men’s generally short. There is some room for varying styles and cultural fashions, but I do think today many of the short, short hairstyles worn by women are both non-attractive, and not glorifying to God.

What do you think? Does the Bible deal with our hair care? What about hairstyles today, is everything neutral or a-moral? Should a Christian look to the Bible before they run to a hairdresser? Please join the discussion in the comments here, or visit the Transformed by Grace forum on the question.

One last point: the Biblical view of a distinction between the genders being reinforced by our dress is also taught in Deut. 22:5. I dealt with that passage (often misused to condemn all women who wear pants) in an earlier post.

Announcing: Transformed by Grace

~ fundyreformed ~ 1 Comment

Some reforming fundamentalist friends of mine and I have got together and founded a new online social media site called Transformed by Grace. We are a community of former legalists and reforming fundamentalists, continually allowing God’s grace to bring us closer to Christ.

Using a free social media site provided by Ning.com, we have built a site that allows members, forums, groups, personal blog posts & pages, and lots of interaction. Think of it like a bigger Facebook group or a mini version of something like Sharper Iron. It actually has more capabilities than either Facebook or a typical forums site, and offers a lot of flexibility in how one can use it.

Our goal is to bring together other like minded reforming fundamentalists, particularly those who are familiar with the more conservative wing of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism. We hope to encourage one another, talk through remaining questions and problems, and forge relationships. And we hope to offer some help to those who are beginning their journey within fundamentalism. We want to help them learn and grow in a non-threatening environment. We don’t pressure anyone necessarily to follow a particular path out of fundamentalism, some of our founding members are happy within the IFB tent. We hope to challenge each other and grow in grace.

So, please go over and check out our site: http://reformedfundamentalism.ning.com.

Feel free to join the group or just lurk for a while. Bookmark us and come back in a few months, as I’m sure there will be more activity by then. If you have a blog that’s somewhat devoted to these issues, feel free to let us know and we’ll add it to the blogroll and possibly send some visitors your way. Above all, let us know if there’s something we can help you with. That’s what we are hoping to accomplish.

Announcing: A New & Improved King James Only Blog

~ fundyreformed ~ 19 Comments

Over the years I’ve toiled alone in trying to create a good KJV Only resource site. There are others out there, and I mainly wanted to publicize them. I also have an interest in the debate and have posted from time to time on the topic here. I’ve had my fair share of blog wars and debates over this too. Other obligations and interests have left that site only partially complete, however.

I’ve finally enlisted a couple likeminded blogging buddies, Phil and Damien, who are going to help me maintain an active KJV Only Blog where we’ll try to compile a bunch of blog posts relating to this debate. Discussions will be saved in the comments and it may prove to be a helpful resource for many.

Our first substantive post went up today, so I encourage you to check out King James Only?, and click on the subscribe links. We’ll be doing some re-posting over there of material the 3 of us have posted at our own blogs, and we will create new content as well. We want it to be a clearing house of good resources on the debate from an informed, rational perspective. One that doesn’t paint all King James Onlyists as total wack0s since all of us posters are former KJV Onlyists ourselves. We feel the debate is important, and that providing patient helpful answers is a good thing for those seeking their way in the debate at large.

Let me know what you think, and if anyone would like to join our effort, contact me.