Musings of a Former Fundamentalist (IFB) Renewed by Reformed Theology
With title pictures like these, you can be sure Seth McBee‘s series on becoming a legalist will entertain you. I hope he also educates and informs, even if he uses a bit of hyperbole and sarcasm to make his point.
Here are the links to his series so far:
This video is unbelievable. I’ve seen this guy post on the Fundamental Forums, and he is basically as extreme as one can get on the KJV. [HT: Ryan DeBarr]
In this clip, he’s using the phrase “him that pisseth against a wall” to emphasize manliness, and to claim the KJV is a superior version, since it literally translates the Hebrew euphemism. [He is right, only the ASV translates it similarly, but the HCSB does give the literal rendering in the footnotes (I used up 1 Sam. 25:22 for my comparison.)]
This is what you get when you cross KJV onlyism, extreme sectianism, and a nutty view of history. Crazy.
**Warning, the language is quite crude on this clip.
[vodpod id=Groupvideo.854173&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26] from rjhayton.vodpod.com posted with vodpod
In extreme fundamentalism, every doctrine is a hill to die on. Music (worship), dress, Bible versions (KJVO), personal separation (i.e. no movie attendance, alcohol, tobacco, gambling), believer’s baptism, pre-tribulational rapture — all of these are lined up right next to the Trinity, justification by grace through faith alone, inspiration, inerrancy, the virgin birth, etc. In short, every doctrine is essential, no doctrines are merely secondary. If God says it, I believe it, and that settles it!
Such a die hard commitment to truth is commendable. We certainly shouldn’t pick and choose between what parts of the Bible we should believe and those we shouldn’t! And in today’s relativistic age, when so many prize ecumenism and unity far above truth, this attitude is noble.
But let me ask an important question: “Doesn’t elevating every doctrinal position to the status of essential make the Gospel just another doctrine?”
The Gospel is just another position we stake out: one more hill to die on. When our time is spent defending the King James Bible or high dress standards, and when we start putting “KJB 1611” and “old-fashioned” on our church signs, we are acting as if these positions matter to us as much as, if not more so than the Gospel.
What we choose to separate over, defines us — whether we admit it or not. And for many well-intentioned fundamentalists, what distinguishes them are not matters “of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3).
The Gospel should be big enough to unite over. It is a towering peak, far more important than one’s eschatological or ecclesiastic positions, and certainly bigger than one’s view of Bible translations and dress standards.
Since the Gospel is so important, we should be thrilled to find someone who believes as we do on the Gospel. If the Gospel matters so much, then it should matter much to us if someone agrees with us on the Gospel, other differences notwithstanding. I explained this point in these words in an earlier post:
Rather than prizing the actual unity we have as fellow believer-partakers in our Divine Lord Jesus Christ’s glorious provision for our sins as an altogether adequate basis for a mutual fellowship and unity which welcomes each other in spite of our differing positions on comparatively minor points, the minor points [upon which we disagree] define us as we esteem them of greater importance than our commonality in the Gospel. Our own applications of separation, views on baptism, and beliefs about the finer points of eschatology and ecclesiology and other doctrines become stumblingblocks to the real unity of the faith the One True Gospel calls us to, and the world is robbed of a clear witness to the Oneness of Christ and the Father, and of Christ and His Church, and ultimately God is denied a unified voice that glorifies His name (Eph. 4:3,13, Jn. 17:20-21, Rom. 15:5-7).
I’m not claiming we shouldn’t stand for secondary doctrines. They are important. But they are not what the kingdom of God is all about (Rom. 14:17-20). In all our defense of truth, let us make sure we are not belittling the place of the Gospel in our system of thought. Make sure the Gospel towers above your horizon as your defining reality and the focus of your faith and of your life.
I suppose my blog is controversial enough to attract extra attention. Unlike some blogs, the comments around here aren’t limited to props from my group of online friends. You don’t have to look far to find debates and places where my own friends disagree with me, too. And then there are those occasional zingers.
Recently, I received all 4 kinds of comments I typically receive, and so I thought I’d highlight them in this post.
First, there are on-target comments which agree with my post. The first 3 comments under my recent “Big If” post stand as examples. 2 of the 3 are from blogging friends, the third is from a new commenter.
Second, there are opposing-view comments. These usually are on-target to the post/question at hand. And I welcome them. They can challenge me to defend my views. And the best ones have a humility of spirit which begs me to respond. I try to respond to most of them. I haven’t yet responded to today’s example under my recent “Oxygenating your Spiritual Life” post. Steve, I’ll respond soon.
Third, there are the drive-bys. Zingers. Gotchas. I’m not sure what to call them. Many of them seem to prove my point about fundamentalists. They are an example of harsh, mean spirited, judmentalism. And for some odd reason, these comments almost always display misspellings and blatant grammatical errors. What is it with hyper-fundamentalists and an inability to type?
Anyway, I recently got 3 comments registered under 3 different emails (so I am assuming they represent 3 different people), which perfectly embody this kind of comment. Since this exchange is so interesting, let me share their comments (with no editing) here:
DLM — You were never a true fundamentalis. 1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. If you truly embrass to Word of God and Jesus as your Saviour you would want nothing else. Unless you desire to consume it upon your own lust.
Pastor sm — Amen Brother it about time somebody with a spine logged in on the sorry excuse for a christian site.
Reggie — They wont leave the post up very long. They do not desire the truth theywould rather have their lascivious life style. Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
What am I to do with comments like that? How are they even helpful? It almost seems like they are slapping each other on the back and congratulating themselves on how they put me in my place! If you’re interested you can read my response here. I don’t know if I’ll get a follow up response from them or not.
After dealing with comments like that, it’s so nice to read the final kind of comments. These are the general testimonial “Thank-you” comments. They sometime come via email only, but they usually encourage me to keep blogging on fundamentalism. Sometimes they come from those who have left the movement, other times from those within who are reforming.
Today I received a wonderful comment under my About page. It’s comments like these that keep me going. Thankfully, I’ve received scores of responses like this in one form or another over the years. (I need to go back and count, one of these days.)
I forgot to mention the spam comments. With WordPress, it’s rare that one squeaks through. What’s it up to now? Something like 45,000 spam comments on my blog alone! Crazy. You can see the number on my sidebar, down toward the bottom.
Oh, and one more thing. I regret to tell you that sometimes I am not so prompt at responding to comments. I try, but sometimes the opposing position comments require a bit of work to respond. And sometimes I can’t tell if the comment is worth responding to or not. As a general rule I try to respond. Please keep in mind my commenting policy, however. And give another comment if I haven’t responded yet. That will remind me and let me know you do wish to hear a response!
That’s it, I’ve spoken my piece. And whatever comments come, I’ll have to deal with them. Oh the joys of blogging! But hey, its usually lots of fun!
In the comments of my recent post on the women-wearing-pants controversy, I was challenged to basically prove my position is a legitimate positive interpretation rather than a mere reaction. To boil down the issue, fundamentalists often use Deut. 22:5 to teach that it is wrong for women today to wear pants. My position is that the text teaches that there is to be a designed gender distinction in the way we dress, but that today there are female-designed pants perfectly suitable for women to wear in most situations. (I do think women should wear dresses from time to time, as they are so expressly and beautifully feminine.)
In responding to that charge, I came across the following excellent treatment of the issue from Elmer L. Towns (former Dean of the School of Religion at Liberty University) in the King James Bible Commentary (edited by Edward Hindson, Woodrow Kroll & Jerry Falwell; Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 1983).
Verse 5 has caused divisions and confusion among sincere Christian brethren. Some have used this verse to maintain that women should not wear slacks. The word “pertaineth unto” (Heb keli) in the original language is used elsewhere not only of clothes, but also of decorations or utensils used by the opposite sex. The intent of this law was to maintain the distinction between the sexes. Today, it would apply to any unisex clothing that would cloud the distinction between men and women. The New Testament recognizes such a distinction (1 Cor. 11:3) and maintains that long hair on women was a sign of that distinction (1 Cor. 11:6-14). During the days of Moses, garments (Heb simlah) worn by men and women were similar (robes), so this command was designed to keep a woman from appearing as a man for purposes of licentiousness (to deceive the man). The major difference between male and female robes was their decoration or ornamentation, and not their cut. The principle taught by this passage is that the proper distinction between men and women in all cultures should be maintained. The passage does not teach against slacks per se (or hats, shoes, gloves, etc.–all worn by both sexes), but against men or women wearing any item specifically ornamented for the opposite sex (e.g., a man wearing female slacks, lipstick, etc.). The wearing of slacks by ladies today is not an attempt to deceive men, although some may be immodest and improper in certain situations. The final crieteria are that women look like females, that they are modest (1 Tim 2:9-10), and that their outward appearance reflects their inner character (1 Pet 3:3). ¹
¹ Pg. 168. Words in quotation marks are bolded in the original.
I also want to mention another good article on this issue that I came across: “Is It a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants?” by Craig Hostetler.