Fundamentalist

I know you are right that some are kept away from church by high standards of dress and conduct. However, others are drawn to our churches by the same thing. Many people are tired of the "same old same old," the churches that look just like the world. That is why the IFB movement has grown until today there are about 10,000 churches of us around the USA, and hundreds, maybe thousands more around the world.

Are you aware that the famous Willow Creek Church recently admitted that their seeker-sensitive approach up till now has produced shallow Christians? They realize they need to concentrate more on the individual's walk with God.

If I felt you had a Biblical position here I'd listen, but you've only given personal opinion about this issue, as far as I can tell. However, the Apostle Paul embraced labels when they suited his purpose. At one point he even proclaimed himself a Pharisee with the desire of defending the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ (Acts 23:6)!

 

I know it was a miracle that that happened.

 

Fundamentalists

John of Japan
I know you are right that some are kept away from church by high standards of dress and conduct. However, others are drawn to our churches by the same thing. Many people are tired of the "same old same old," the churches that look just like the world. That is why the IFB movement has grown until today there are about 10,000 churches of us around the USA, and hundreds, maybe thousands more around the world.

And this is a good thing? You question if my position is not biblically based?

John of Japan
Are you aware that the famous Willow Creek Church recently admitted that their seeker-sensitive approach up till now has produced shallow Christians? They realize they need to concentrate more on the individual's walk with God.

And that would be suits, ties, and other fundamentalist approved modes of conduct I assume. I am in no way defending Willow Creeks marketing devices, but to base your success on being better than them is shallow.

Paul was wise enough to not let his name be used as a label. His doctrine was sound but he didn't want the focus away from Christ.

I Cor 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided?

What exactly does the world dress like anyway? I have a lot of friends who used to be Amish but were born again and made to leave. One actually got kicked out of his own house. They had this same mentality in the Amish. The world dresses like... The world listens to... The world worships ...

This is all very carnal reasoning.

Is the IFB growing as fast as the Muslims?

Jesus said by their fruit you will know them. He was not referring to quantity.

 

// Many people are tired of the "same old same old,"
the churches that look just like the world.
That is why the IFB movement has grown until
today there are about 10,000 churches of us around
the USA, and hundreds, maybe thousands more
around the world. //

In 1988 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)
had 37,500 associated churches with almost
15 Million Members. I think they have the right balance
of robust doctrine and a yearning for winning souls.

SBC: Fundamental Baptists obeying (among others)
this commanement of Jesus: Mat 10:16 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):

// Behold, I send you as sheepe in the middes
of the wolues: be yee therefore wise as serpents,
and innocent as doues. //

In my critique of Fundamentalists that have
abandoned Fundamentalism I note some have
taken up a "anti-success' stance -- those who have
gone off the deep end of Fundamentalism and
abbandoned the fundamentals consider anybody
who has succeded AN ARM OF THE DEVIL. They
tend to hate the Late Jerry Fallwell, Billy Graham,
and SBC. Sorry, we (the SBC) are the strong arm of God
winning people among the wolves & conserving
Fundamentalism.

 

What is the source for that statement?

Given their focus on discipleship groups as a requirement for all members and - active participation as a requirement - to what do they attribute to the result of "Shallow Christians"??

 

You have suddenly become belligerant and I don't know why. I thought we were having a good, reasoned discussion.

(1) If you are belligerant because I am a fundamentalist and you just don't like us, I don't apologize.

(2) If you are belligerant because I think you ought to back up your position from the Bible, I do not apologize.

(3) If I have somehow offended you without knowing it, please tell me and I'll apologize.

You don't think that it is a good thing for people to go to fundamental churches? Personally, I'm glad if a person goes to any Bible-believing church! In fact, there are many people who should not go to fundamental churches and I have no problem with that. Christ said He had other sheep in other folds and I am content with that.

You misunderstand me. You are reading more into this than I meant. In fact, you forget that I have been saying there are many kinds, many groups of fundamentalists.

Personally I hate ties, and no one in my church wears ties but me. (I tell them it is my pastor's uniform, and that goes over well in Japan.) In fact, because of the Japanese culture (very sensitive people) I never mention how to dress in my messages. And in America, more and more young fundamentalists are more relaxed in these matters.

I mentioned Willow Creek just in passing, and was actually praising them. I didn't really mean anything deep by it. I thought you would interact nicely with it and we could discuss that aspect of Christianity--walking with God. I thought I was having a friendly conversation with you, but I guess not.

There is no one named "Fundamentalist." It describes a position, not a person. Therefore I fail to see the connection with your verses here. I am not a "Rice-ist" or "Hyles-ist" or "Machen-ist" fundamentalist, just a fundamentalist. I repeat that Paul was willing to use the term Pharisee (not a person's name) to represent what he believed.

To me, "worldly dress" is immodest dress. I don't care if someone wears whatever the current fashion is. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. If a man or woman comes to my church dressed immodestly, though, we'll deal with it in private. If that is carnal reasoning so be it. I believe it is Biblical to dress modestly. Whatever you believe bothers me not at all, but why should what I believe be carnal? Why the insult all of a sudden? Am I not free to have the standards I want without being called "carnal?"

The Bible says, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom. 12:2). I'll continue to try to obey this in my way. You do what you want.

Well, that's a nasty comparison. Are your true feelings coming out about fundamentalists? It appears that to you we are immature, carnal, and similar to the Muslims. That's sad. I haven't attacked you. All I've asked is that you show from the Scriptures your position that labels are wrong.

You are right, He wasn't. If fact, He wasn't even referring to Christians or His disciples. He was referring to false teachers (Matt. 7:16-20). So is that what fundamentalists are to you, false teachers? I'm willing to consider you a brother in Christ. I hope the reverse is true.

Back in the early '80's I was in Japanese language school with a couple of lady missionaries. They said their group was based strictly on the Bible, so they didn't have a name. It is sometimes called the "Nameless Movement," "two by two," the "Nameless Church," etc. It has many wrong teachings and many call it a cult.

Now, don't get hot. I'm not accusing you of belonging to that group or of being a cultist. What I do want to say here is that your teaching to avoid all labels does not make one a good Christian. It is what is inside that counts, whether a believer is walking with God or not, not what they call themselves. I've known many godly, wonderful fundamentalists--and many godly, wonderful non-fundamentalists. I hope we can love each other without attacking.

 

Here is a link for that from Christianity Today with quotes by Hybels.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/10/willow_creek_re.html

A sample from Hybels:

 

John of Japan

I don't think I was being belligerent. Maybe a little more pointed in my comments, perhaps :wavey: . Don't take it personally. Was Paul being belligerent when he called the Judaizers "Dogs"?

BELLIG'ERENT, a. [L. belliger, warlike; belligero, to wage war; from bellum, war, and gero, to wage; part. gerens, gerentis, waging. Gr. war.]

Waging war; carrying on war;

I don't dislike you or fundamentalists and I won't be disarmed in my position by a claim that I am not being nice.

My position is fully backed up by scripture. Just because I don't quote chapter and verse doesn't mean it isn't.

You have not offended me. If you did, it would be my problem not yours. You can be offensive (which you arent') but you can't make me stumble.

Your desire to get people to walk with God is my desire, but I think focusing on things like dress, music, etc. does just the opposite. When everybody starts dressing alike or we exclude people because of traditions of men, we are being carnal. I know you don't think you are excluding people, and maybe in Japan you aren't, but I KNOW that people are not in fellowship with each other because of carnal things llike worship styles, clothes, music, modes of education,...

God is not pleased with these divisions in any way.

What is a pastor's uniform? I thought it would be to be clothed with humility. Have you ever considered that a suit and tie could actually be very immodest? If I were among a group of Harley motorcycle riders, a suit and tie would be noticed more that jeans and a t-shirt. God tells women to not let their clothes be what gets noticed, but rather the beauty of their inner spirit.

Amish women are very immodest in this sense. They are known for their clothes and few people get beyond it. I understand your concern for making your position and your work to be serious, but I hope you understand what I am saying.

How do you "deal with" someones immodest dress when they come into your meetings? Do you ever deal with the inability of your members to not accept people who come in wearing a halter top and a leather mini-skirt? (I am smiling as I think about a woman dressed like that actually going into a fundamentalist Japanese church) How do you think Jesus dealt with it? I don't think he took them aside and said "we don't dress that way here". I am not saying that is what you would say with words, but it is the message people get.

James wrote to not show favoritism based on wealth. I think we do the same with wearing the right christian uniform.

I was not comparing you to Muslims. Surely you knew that. The point was that we don't judge our success by numbers. That was not an attack on you in any way.

Like it or not, "Fundamentalist" describes more than a position, it describes people. You can be one if you want, I am just trying to sensitize you to something. I would encourage you to consider what I am saying and temper your "fundamentalist" behaviors, not your positions. Sometimes we need someone to come along side us and tell us we need a napkin :thumbs: .

You are right about the "no name" thing. I know people who have elevated "unchurching" above formal church. They have become what they detest and made up a new standard.

Don't let my blunt comments scare you, I am actually a really nice guy.

 

Actually? Yes.

Hey, I never said you were not nice--just belligerant all of a sudden. Please don't put words into my mouth.

How can we tell if you don't give us Scripture?

You know so little about me. I'm just not going to answer this because the whole thing is so far from my thinking. It's not even worth it. You don't know what I believe about such matters of personal separation or ecclesiastical separation, you don't know what I believe about when personal separation or ecclesiastical separation has gone too far in fundamentalism or when it has not gone far enough in evangelicalism. You don't know what I believe the Biblical reasons for personal separation are. (It is not to make you holy.) When you have so many preconceptions about what I believe, how can you listen to what I really believe? And here you are lecturing me while not knowing what to lecture me about!

I'll just say this. You didn't even answer what I said about modesty in dress, but I guarantee you have standards of modesty too, and you don't call them carnal. You call them sensible. You may deny it, but you do have such standards. It may be that you don't believe a bikini is appropriate in church. Or that may be okay with you, maybe you draw the line at underwear, or even nudity. Somewhere you have a standard of modesty in dress, so that you would disapprove of some kinds of immodesty. (You're welcome to deny this if you want.) And you don't consider that standard to be carnal. So it's pretty ridiculous to say a fundamentalist's standard of modesty is carnal but yours is not.

Oh, give me a break. Can't you tell humor when you read it? I don't really consider my uniform to really be a coat and tie!!

I would deal with it as a pastor counseling. Thus I would deal with it on a personal basis, based on Scripture, depending on the level of maturity of the person, whether they were saved or not, etc. Japanese people would handle it well and would understand perfectly. It's Americans who have problems with this.

There you go again. It has nothing to do with a "Christian uniform." I don't believe in such a thing, but you've decided to lecture me about it. I believe in modesty not only among Christians but in society as a whole. And by the way, this is another place where Japanese are ahead of Americans. Japanese women still look decent and feminine in public.

And again you misunderstood what I was saying. I certainly don't judge success only on numbers or I would be constantly depressed over here in Japan, a "Gospel-resistant"country. I'm a dispensationalist, so I believe that my work is for the glory of God, not for numbers per se. But every single number represents a precious soul saved for all eternity, and that is nothing light. It is wonderful. Fundamentalists emphasize personal evangelism and always have, so the growth in numbers of the IFB movement says to me that we are seeing folks saved. And that is worth all the harsh names that people hurl at us.

No doubt. I only ask you to cast away your preconceptions about fundamentalists and actually listen to what I say, and ask what I believe.

 

In a Google (search) of "Willow Creek Church" shallow

I found this page:

http://willowcreekchurch.org/templates/System/details.asp?id=23247&PID=382796

which says:

// Without an emphasis on reformation, “revival”
may become a shallow pietism or mysticism.
Only reformation and revival together
can accomplish the Great Commission of our Lord .//

Using "Willow Creek Church" "shallow Chrisitanity"
I only found two places against Willow Creek
and also those words on page 5 of this topic
(BTW, Google is a better place to search Baptist Board
than the BB search engine. One does have to wait
a day or two for things to be stored at Google)

 

Sorry, I done went & slain another topic

 

It was already in the hospital, Brother Ed! :laugh: :laugh:

 

I have heard that it is true that Graham's counselors send converts back to the Catholics. But I hate to tell you, Rivera is a fraud. I don't mean to be unkind to Jack Chick--I translated one of his tracts into Japanese. But Chick has a track record of backing frauds. The first one was Johnny Todd, long ago discredited. Then there was Rivera and others.

 

John Todd . Wow , that brings back memories . He was certainly into sensationaism -- did he finally end up in prison ?

 

Yep, I believe so. Still there, as far as I know. I still have a couple of tapes by the guy, believe it or not. He is really bizarre! He would say the most outlandish things, things I personally could allege to be lies. Hard to believe anyone swallowed his schtick, but they did.

 

In the link given on this thread for Jack Chick's views on Billy Graham we see two things...

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_08.asp

#1. We see a set of facts about Graham that all appear to ring true. His ministry was focused more on reaching the lost with the Gospel rather than dividing lines between Christian denominations.

#2. We see Chick's opinions of that and we see his view that this middle-road approach of Graham's was leveraged to some extent by some RC sources.

One may not agree with Chick's conclusions or even his view of Graham as a preacher -- but the facts stick.

in Christ,

Bob

 

//Are you aware that a former Jesuit priest, that became a protestant minister, named Alberto Rivera, said that all protestant churches, and even some pulpits, are infiltrated with catholics that pretend to be protestant? They are trying to pull all churches under the control of the vatican; the ecumenical movement.//

I am aware that Jack Chick thinks so.
I find no supportive evidence save in my
Bookmark file (Actually I now need two
files to hold all the addys) named 'conspiracy'.

I do find evidence that dissing Billy Graham
can be found in about 28% of the Independent
Fundamental Baptist churches. It is part of a
multi-pronged error amounge a few IFB
churches. I call the position 'anti-success'.
Billy Graham has caused some three Million
Souls to be saved directly and through his
Soul Winning Schools man Millions more.
Billy Graham is a COMPLETE SUCCESS,
by contranst some inbread IFBs only have
a few dozen members and are ABJECT
FAILUREs.

Billy Graham is a success working for Jesus
not a Bully Pulpit of the devil.
Billy Graham has the devil on the Run
in his generation. Here on the Buckle
state of the Bible Belt (Oklahoma, not
Tenn as some folk in Memphis think),
Bill Graham is winning more souls through
his continuing TV series than all
but the most active mega-churches.