Category: IFBx

Holding on to the Cultural Norms of a Bygone Era: A Look at Fundamentalism's "No-Pants-on-Women" Oddity

~ fundyreformed ~ 51 Comments

Hardly anyone today would consider the wearing of pants by women to be a breach of decency or a sign of rebellion against the God-given roles of manhood & womanhood. This is the 21st century, women have been liberated, and times have certainly changed, haven’t they?

The Fundamentalist Position

Yet for many sincere and well-meaning Christian fundamentalists (& by that term I mean those who both hold to the fundamental doctrines of the faith & practice some form of secondary separation with regard to those doctrines–specifically the fundamentalist Baptist movement represented by Bob Jones University and a host of even more conservative institutions) today’s situation is lamentable. Feminism’s triumph, in their minds, is what is most responsible for the abandoning of a generally common distinct dress styles for men and women. After all, the bathroom signs distinguish the sexes on the basis of pants for men, and today’s abandonment of the long accepted cultural norm of pants for men only can only lead to a sinful unisex culture which promotes all kind of sexual sins and spurns the God-ordained unique roles for men and women.

While rooted in the biblical teaching of male headship/leadership in the home and church, this position finds support in these verses as well:

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deu 22:5)

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 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.
(1Co 11:7, 14-15)

From these verses comes a doctrine of “designed distinction” between the sexes. And specifically on the warrant of Deut. 22:5, it is deemed a grievous sin to blur the line between the sexes by donning the apparel of the opposite sex.

Now the above careful argument is often not what one finds with the more conservative fundamentalists. Often Deut. 22:5 is quoted with the harsh conclusion that women who wear pants are “sluts”. The position is not carefully taught, but rather enforced, with ushers trained to escort women caught wearing pants out the door! Visitors who carelessly forget to check the dress code, are asked to wear a dress or not come back. If you think I’m exaggerating, I’m not. Such is the sad case in all too many fundamentalist churches. They don’t want to be tolerating abominations to God!

Modern Attempts to Dodge the Force of Deut. 22:5

To get around this exegesis of Deut. 22:5, many modern Christians claim it is ceremonial law (like Deut. 22:10-11 for instance) . Others will stress that transvestism or cross-dressing is primarily in view, or that some practice associated with idolatry is in view, hence the strong “abomination” label. Yet these interpretations on the surface feel like a transparent attempt at dodging the force of the text.

The Historic Position on Deut. 22:5

Older commentators don’t flinch at offering some alternative views while at the same time affirming what Calvin says below:

This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet are very true: “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, her sex deserting?” Wherefore, decency in the fashion of the clothes is an excellent preservative of modesty. [from John Calvin’s online commentary here.]

Keil & Delitzsch, the Hebrew experts, are even stronger:

As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “There shall not be man’s things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman’s clothes.” כְּלִי does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo_22:6; Lev_11:32; Lev_13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction – such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman – was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God. [emphasis added, quoted from E-Sword‘s (free for download) Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament]

Examining the Fundamentalist Position

So why do I allow and encourage my wife and daughters to wear pants? Am I consciously violating Deut. 22:5 and blurring the distinction of the sexes? I don’t believe so. Upon a closer examination of the fundamentalist position, I hope you will agree with me. At the onset here, I should note that more and more modern fundamentalists disagree with this position, and I’m sure there have been exceptions for many years. Also, there are some conservative Baptists who don’t like being dubbed fundamentalists, preferring to be called historic Baptists, and avoid the perceived problems with fundamentalism today. Fine, whatever. Still I object to their position on Deut. 22:5, and most people would call them fundamentalists.

What Scripture Actually Teaches

Now if we accept the “designed distinction” view of Deut. 22:5 (which I do), here is what Scripture actually affirms. 1) The sexes should be distinct. 2) Christians shouldn’t wear garments or ornaments associated with the opposite sex. We could infer from this that we are to maintain culturally appropriate gender distinctions in dress.

Now Deut. 22:5 doesn’t teach that we must have male-specific items and female-specific items, per se, it just assumes that a culture has them. It doesn’t specify what the items look like, nor to what degree they are actually distinct. It just says don’t use the female or male items.

The 1 Cor. 11 passage seems to say there is a certain propriety which makes it “natural” for the sexes to be distinguished in some visible way. It doesn’t specify how long or short, “long” and “short” hair is, necessarily, however. Yet it asserts that women should have long hair, and men shouldn’t. (Again, I agree with this point here.)

The Role of Culture

Now we have this Scriptural teaching and we are to apply it to our present situation. Culture can obviously be immoral, and cultures promoting little or no clothes are obviously errant and should be corrected from a Biblical perspective. Yet culture by definition changes over time.

In Bible days, men and women wore long flowing robes. There were inner and outer robes, and a girdle for both men and women. Only men were said to “gird up their loins”, meaning hike up their robes to do manly actions, like fighting in a battle. But there is no indication that their robes were materially different than women’s robes. Instead it was the fit, decoration, and style of the robes that distinguished them from women’s robes.

In our culture 100 years ago, pants were a distinctly male item, but today men and women both wear pants. Still there are differences in fit, decoration, and style that differentiate male pants from female pants. Although it is true that a unisex pants style is in vogue these days. While 100 years ago wearing pants was a trespass of cultural norms with regard to gender distinction, today that is not necessarily the case.

In viewing culture, we hopefully can agree that the Bible doesn’t set up the culture of the 1800s as the most Godly culture ever. There is no reason to view it as more godly than present culture, necessarily. Each generation had its sins, and surely today’s generation has some awful flagrant ones, but there is no Scriptural justification for inferring from this that all present cultural norms should be abandoned in favor of those from the 1800s.

Consistency

In examining this topic, it appears that the clear cut, simple distinction provided by pants versus a dress is desirable by the fundamentalists. And so they have honed in on this item of clothing particularly for applying Deut. 22:5. But there are a host of items which have changed in their gender-designating function over the years. Stockings and T-Shirts were originally male-only dress items. Today stockings are generally regarded as female-only and T-shirts are used for both sexes. Fundamentalists often have no problem with their teenage or college-age girls wearing the high school or college sports jackets of their boyfriends, but wouldn’t that violate the mandates in Deut. 22:5 too? And what about women’s suits (even with a dress skirt rather than pants)?

Some view questions of consistency with suspicion. “It is just an attempt to dodge Deut. 22:5”, they assume. Yet these questions must be addressed. Just because an item doesn’t appear on a bathroom sign, doesn’t mean it has no gender distinction. And then again, why is a bathroom sign so definitive for culture? Isn’t it just a convenient tool for communicating which bathroom is which? It is not authoritative in any sense (well, unless I’m looking for a bathroom…).

Conclusion

Based on the above examination, I conclude that how one applies Deut. 22:5 is up for grabs. The specific application is not mandated by the text. You may feel that the weight of centuries of gender distinct use of pants warrants no pants on women. That may be important to you, especially as you study history and see that feminism and a desire to break the cultural norms in regard to distinction of the sexes played a big role in the modern use of pants by women. Yet Scripture does not specify that I must conclude like you do in my view of the cultural norms of a bygone era. In today’s world, many a woman doesn’t think twice about putting on a pair of pants, because that is what our culture does. I would encourage such women to dress femininely and maintain modesty in light of Scriptural principles, rather than simply condemning them on the basis of cultural norms of a hundred years ago.

It is fine if you disagree with me, but I am applying Deut. 22:5 and not rejecting Scripture.   And so, fundamentalists and others who insist that only their application of Deut. 22:5 constitutes obedience are really being schismatic. They are needlessly disrupting the unity of the faith, in their defense of their particular application of Scripture to today’s culture. The oddity of the traditional fundamentalist view on women and pants sadly often becomes a disgrace to the name of Christ.

Before I go, if you want to see some debates over this issue, where both sides (mine and the standard fundamentalist position) being defended and advocated, check out the links below.

Anyone else have more links for good discussions on this?

If I Don't Like It, It's Wrong.

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

Seth McBee highlighted a prevalent problem in Christianity in a recent post at Contend Earnestly recently.

He starts by quoting William Wilberforce:

My grand objection to the religious system still held by many who declare themselves orthodox Churchmen…is, that it tends to render Christianity so much a system of prohibitions rather than of privilege and hopes, and thus the injunction to rejoice, so strongly enforced in the New Testament, is practically neglected, and Religion is made to wear a forbidding and gloomy air and not one of peace and hope and joy. [emphasis added]

Then he goes on to cite a contemporary example where a prospective pastor when asked about “dancing in the aisles and other forms of worship” responds:

I don’t agree with it, I don’t know if I have a biblical reason for all things, but I am pretty sure that if I see something that I don’t agree with I will just know it.

Seth pares that response down to “if I don’t like it, it is wrong”. He then goes on to show why such a response is so troubling. I encourage you to check Seth’s article out.

So, if you don’t like something, is it wrong? Should you think others are wrong if they do like it?

Jack Hyles Meets JackHammer

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

I’ve been absent from the blogworld for a few weeks, and I’m making my way back.

I came across some interesting, hard-hitting posts at JackHammer directed against the legacy of Jack Hyles and his current successor Jack Schaap. I thought I’d point the articles out, since they are much more level-headed and Scripturally motivated than Tom Neal’s unChristian criticisms I pointed out a while back.

Here is a listing of the articles so far.

And on a final note, now might be a good time to share this link. It includes a scanned copy of a very sad letter by former Sword of the Lord editor, Curtis Hutson. In it, Hutson admits Hyles’ guilt in the scandal surrounding Jack Hyles and his son’s infidelity. And worse yet, Hutson rationalizes why he will continue supporting Hyles. The letter exposes the worst of fundamentalist politics gone a muck.

Responding to Error: A Comparison Study between Fundamentalism and Hyperfundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 25 Comments

Recently, I was startled by a sharp contrast over how 2 different men responded to error. These two responses provide a comparison study which illustrates just why fundamentalism (IFB) and hyperfundamentalism (IFBx) should be distinguished.

Definitions

Before we move to the study, we should pause and provide some definitions for those who may be unfamiliar with the independent Baptist fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism describes the position of adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and also being willing to separate over these fundamentals. For independent Baptists, such separation usually extends to believers who cooperate with those who deny one or more of the fundamentals. And the movement dictates how such separation looks and around which personalities it centers.

Hyperfundamentalists, also known as IFBx, elevate cultural standards to the level of doctrine, and separate accordingly. Many leaders in this group exert an inordinate control over the lives of their followers, and demand an almost cultish loyalty. This group also maintains extreme positions, often holding to an almost-heretical KJV-only position.

Admittedly, the division between these two groups can be somewhat arbitrary. And we are obviously speaking in generalities. There are similarities between both groups, and that is part of the reason why I have left independent Baptist fundamentalism altogether. But the differences remain. And these differences can be very large and defining, as this comparison study will demonstrate.

The Comparison: Case #1

I have not followed the Joe Zichterman case fully, but his departure from fundamentalism provides the background for our first example. He had been a professor at Northland Baptist Bible College, a solidly IFB institution. Now he has left the movement altogether and has joined Willow Creek Community Church (pastored by Bill Hybels). Evidently, he has great respect for Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, and recommends Joel Osteen. I don’t know all the details, but apparently he is encouraging others to leave fundamentalism, and has emailed hundreds of people on fundamentalist email lists in defense of his departure. I may disagree with some of Joe’s theological leanings, but I do empathize with how big a deal it was for him to leave the fundamentalist movement. I also read his fictional work “A Tale of Two Amishmen: Inside the mind of a Spiritual Defector”, and I agree with many (not all) of the concerns with fundamentalism in general as highlighted there.

Now in response to Joe’s defection, I’m sure there has been much said in the fundamentalist blogosphere. To be honest, I haven’t read all that much of it. I did, however, read Brian McCrorie’s recent post “Is Joe Zichterman a False Teacher?” That post applied the results of his recent study on false teachers to Joe’s specific case. He concluded overwhelmingly that Joe Zichterman does not fit the bill of a false teacher, according to the following Biblically-derived definition.

False teachers are unregenerate people who have rejected the Gospel and are now intent on corrupting it for the sake of monetary gain. They use deception and lust to entice spiritually immature believers to their heresy. These teachers have no spiritual discernment, are addicted to sin, and are arrogant, especially toward authority. They deny Christ and the words of Christ.

While some in fundamentalism might be prone to apply that particular label to Joe, most of them do not doubt his salvation, nor his sincerity. They would agree he is in error, and many bloggers have taken the time to show why. Some fundamentalist leaders, however, even call for his message to be appropriately considered and pondered. So this is a fundamentalist response to theological error: a reasoned rejection coupled with warnings, and a sincere prayer that God would bless and help Joe Zichterman see the error of his ways.

Case #2

I was recently made aware of a new controversy within hyperfundamentalism. It surrounds Jack Schaap, the son-in-law of Jack Hyles, and current pastor of First Baptist of Hammond, IN. I knew that mainstream fundamentalists had been pointing out the wild and unbelievable stories, and strange doctrine of Schaap, but I was not aware that other hyperfundamentalists and Hyles devotees were also pointing out Schaap’s errors. For all I know, this controversy could have been brewing for some time, but many of the official letters that I found were written in the past month or so.

The ringleader (from what I can tell) of the opposition to Schaap from the conservative fundamentalist ranks is Tom Neal of The Baptist Contender. His website highlights a sermon preached by his son, Greg Neal entitled “Schaap’s Fables”. The website also boasts a collection of audio clips of Schaap espousing various heresies.

Now I am glad that Tom Neal and the other men behind that paper are holding Schaap accountable for his wacky and errant theology (more on that later). I find it odd, though, that this same paper endorses Jack Hyles 100%. David Cloud’s article “I Am of Jack” singles out The Baptist Contender and Tom Neal for an almost cultish devotion to all things Hyles. And if you want to speak of wacky theology, Jack Hyles was king in that category. This site lists just some of the many crazy and absurd things Hyles taught. (And this is beyond the questions about Hyles’ personal integrity.)

As for Schaap, the charges against him center primarily on his overemphasis (possibly a mis-emphasis) on a comparison between marital relations and the intimacy which should characterize a believer’s relationship to Christ. Christ is the husband and the church is the bride, remember. Schaap gets very pointed in his application of this “principle” and goes so far as to claim that the Lord’s Supper (in which we partake of or receive Christ’s body) is all about this “spiritual intimacy”. Details of this shocking teaching can be seen here.

That was the primary charge brought forth in that sermon, I mentioned above. The second primary point had to do with Scaap’s humanizing of God. Various quotes were given which did seem to bring God down somewhat to our level. Schaap’s motivation seemed to be to help us understand God more and get us to see things differently.

Now that is pretty much the sum total of the accusations Neal and company throw at Schaap. Other things are mentioned, but it seems to me that they are mostly stretches. For instance the list of sermon excerpts which supposedly confirm that Schaap teaches heresy fails miserably. I honestly don’t have a clue on some of the excerpts as to why they were included; perhaps the page is still being created and they are “on the hunt” for evidence, I’m not sure. Most of the clips have Schaap decrying racism. Is that heretical? On this page, they provide a 14 minute clip which shows Schaap belittling pedophiles and making a mockery of sin. If you listen to it, Schaap is not doing any such thing. He is calling for people to have an understanding of others and to try to reach them rather than just condemn certain people and write them off. Another point of evidence the site appeals to is Schaap’s calling a non-fundamentalist black megachurch pastor James Meeks his friend.

I emphasize the scant evidence of other charges to make this point. These men take what is certainly questionable and errant doctrine, and conclude that Schaap is denying the deity of Christ and preaching another gospel. Greg Neal said he did not believe Schaap was saved. The site links to some very mean-spirited letters written to Schaap and Ray Young by Tom Neal that were copied to a veritable “Who’s Who” list in hyperfundamentalism. There is also a letter to a pastor John Shook, where Tom Neal doubts his salvation and refuses to call him “brother” because he defends Jack Schaap.

Is such a fierce response warranted? Certainly Jack Schaap has some doctrinal problems, and he could benefit from more Bible study time, it seems. He should be more careful with his teaching, and ensure that his teachings on marital intimacy don’t become license for sin or occasion for a blasphemous view of the believer’s relationship to God. But is he consciously denying the deity of Christ? Is he really preaching another gospel? Is he a “false prophet” to use Greg Neal’s words?

Conclusion

I can’t believe I just defended Jack Schaap! But the sad truth is hyperfundamentalists are so extreme, that they often think the worst they can of everybody who doesn’t agree with them completely. To them, there is only so much error one can have before we start doubting their salvation.

It should be painfully obvious by now just how wide the gap is between hyperfundamentalists and their fundamentalist cousins. That is what struck me so much in thinking through both of these cases. Now I know that Tom Neal and company may perhaps represent the radical right extreme of hyperfundamentalism, and Brian McCrorie could be close to the left extreme of fundamentalism, but I think this comparison does illustrate an important point. Fundamentalists are prone to think through things more slowly and carefully and Biblically, whereas hyperfundamentalists quickly default to an extreme separation from anyone they deem to be in error.

One more thing, this again highlights the important question I raised a long time ago “Is It a Sin to Be Wrong?” And again I point you to Tim Challies’ answer (which was recently highlighted in the comments of one of my recent posts).AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Bible, the Sole Authority?

~ fundyreformed ~ 17 Comments

“The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.” I bet you have never heard that line before. Oh wait, if you are Baptist, you probably have.

Sadly, while many affirm this in principle, in practice they deny it. Tradition or culture often dictate a particular application of Bible principle. In the end, this application becomes Bible teaching and dogma. Alcohol, movies, pants on women, specific styles of music, specific translations of the Bible — the list of topics on which Scripture is “steered by tradition” could go on and on.

To compound this, doctrinal positions, where the Bible seems to allow for competing yet Biblically faithful interpretations, again morph into “its just plain Bible”. So if one doesn’t agree with a pre-trib rapture position, for example, he is rejecting the Bible; yet the facts of the matter stand differently. The one who denies a pre-trib rapture, only denies it on the basis of another Biblical position with various strong proof texts of its own. Of course only one end-times doctrine can be absolutely correct, but is it a sin to be wrong? And are we to be as dogmatic of our correctness on lesser points such as eschatology, as with major points like the Trinity and the Gospel?

All this comes from thinking about a fascinating look at church creeds by the always thought-provoking Carl Trueman. In an article called “A Good Creed Seldom Goes Unpunished” from the March 2007 issue of Reformation 21, Carl has the following insights into the “Bible only, we don’t need creeds” view.

On the issue of creeds, the evangelical world often seems absolutely divided into two broad camps: There are those who are so passionately committed to a particularly narrow view of scripture’s sufficiency that they not only deny the need for creeds and confessions but regard them as actually wrong, an illegitimate attempt to supplement scripture or to narrow the Christian faith in doctrinal or cultural ways beyond the limits set by scripture itself. Then there are those whose view of creeds and confessions is so high that any other theological statement, and sometimes even the Bible itself, seems to be of secondary importance. Neither group, I believe, really does the creeds justice.

I am very suspicious of both approaches. While I share the concern of the first group to safeguard the uniqueness of scripture and to avoid imposing my own cultural preferences and tastes on someone else under the guise of gospel truth, I have a sneaking suspicion that the cry of `No creed but the Bible!’ has often meant rather `I have my creed, but I’m not going to tell you what it is so that you can’t know what it is and thus cannot criticize it or me for holding it.’ Such is often the case with those evangelicals who reject creeds but have very definite views on the legitimacy of the consumption of alcohol and the nature of the end-times, for example. In practice, they effectively allow for no hypothetical distinction between what the Bible says and their own, or their church’s, interpretation of the same. Thus, they render themselves immune to any criticism. Further, as soon as they use words such as `Trinity’ or even consult a commentary, they reveal that what they say about their relationship to tradition and what they actually do in practice with tradition are in conflict. (HT: The Journeymen)

As I have stated above, I think Trueman hits the nail on the head with this issue. (Be sure to read the entire article.) We need to be careful to recognize our tendency to bring culture, and preconceptions to the Biblical text. Let us be silent where Scripture is silent, and cautious when the issues are truly complex. Let’s respect God’s Word and not presume to speak for It.