Attitutudinal Issues

[Rhetorician]

Hey gang,

I have a haunting question that has knawed at me for several years. I was reared in an SBC church who had a Bob Jones pastor. Go figure! He baptized me, married me and my wife, and ordained me to the Gospel ministry.

We had a bus ministry in the early 70s and went to the bus conferences & clinics @ the Hyles, Beebees, Falwells, and such. I always picked up the most nasty, most negative, and most legalistic attitudes from those guys that could ever be heard. They did not seem to simply "preach the Gospel," they were always starting a fight, in the middle of one, or just coming out of one. Whatever it was, they were "agin it!!!"

I guess my question is: how did they get the name of "Fightin' Fundamentalists" and the attitude(s) that went along with it? Some of those guys were always right about everything (or thought they were). Jack Hyles has been beat up enough, but that "mini-pope" idea I guess is to what I make reference. If one of them were ever incorrect, they would never would have humbled themselves and admitted it.

But, my home pastor was not of that ilk. I never could understand why? He was one the kindest and most gentle men I have ever known.

How about some of you who are "in the know" help this old "fundy" come "SBCer" to understand this "fightin' fundy" mindset?

Without a clue on this one?!

sdg!

rd

 

[Johnv]

First, I am impressed with you ruse of the word "Attitutudinal". I've got to write that one down

I think one of the problem with preaching of the last century is that somewhere along the line, it because acceptible among Christians to infuse nastiness, negativity, and legalism so long as the topic was the Bible. I suspect that the reason for this was because it is difficult to refute a squeeky wheel. The more noise you make, the more right you must be.

In fact, there are a fair number of people right here on this board that don't think a preacher is worth his salt unless he screams, points, shouts, and waves his hands in the air. They think that a person who doesn't act in this manner is soft, wishywashy, lukewarm, or on the fence. And then, if you DO confront them in the manner in which they act, you're accused of ungodliness.

This attitude is incredibly difficult to combat.

 

[bapmom]

Ive seen it, too, Rhetorician.

Really, I think it can often be almost a "persona" the preacher adopts when dealing in public with doctrinal issues. But when you get one-on-one with them they are a much gentler, kinder person. That may not always be true, lol, but Ive found that oftentimes it is.

Ive also found that the younger people are more prone to this, but those who are older, more experienced, and thus wiser tend to be tempered and more balanced.

Let me add too that I think the original "fightin'" attitude originated alot with all the attacks that truly have been levied against fundamentals. Those things which I would call fundamental doctrines are bandied about in some places almost as if thet really are not important. Those things which are near and dear to us, and for us in some way define our belief system, are very often attacked by those who also call themselves Baptist....though not independent, perhaps.

I see us IFBs called all sorts of names, and its ok because those are just independents....they're wackos anyway, right? So we come from an already defensive stance, and its very, very hard to take those "boxing gloves" off, so to speak.

Im honestly not feeling defensive myself as I write this, its just a matter of fact that this is how we are treated. NOW, at this point for some individuals this treatment might now be justified because of how they have comported themselves. But look at how they were initially treated, too. I bet for the most part you can trace it back to them being accused of some wild idea, or called some pretty nasty things.

[ October 28, 2005, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: bapmom ]

 

[John of Japan]

Hi, Rhetorician.

Yes there have been many "Fighghting Fundamentalists" with bad attitudes. But I personally feel that we've gotten a bad rap here. Paul talked about "Diotrophes, who loveth to have the preeminence among you," and I think that Diotrophes exists in ever Christian group. The worst tongue-lashing I ever got on door-to-door visitation was from a liberal preacher. My crime? I asked him quietly if he was believing in Jesus as his Savior!

More later. I've just been called for breakfast.

 

[Me4Him]

There's a "country song" that says, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything".

"Taking a stand" gave birth to this country, God fearing Christians walking out the door, leaving their homes, families, and possibly losing their life/future, for what they believed.

In the last half century, I witness the decline of people willing to "take a stand", preferring to be "blow about" by every "wind of doctrine", simple because "THEY" didn't have the "INTEGRITY" of the folks who gave birth to this nations.

I've seen how the majority of people "want things", but are not willing to "inconvenient themselves" for those things, they prefer someone else to hand it to them on a "silver Platter".


Today, It's isn't "Politically Correct" to challenge the "Government, Courts, Heathens", for the "SOULS" of a nation, the "fighting spirit" that formed this nation has been transformed into "APATHY".

Sin will give rise to "angry/indignation" in any "Righteous person", even "GOD".

There's a "time for war" and a "time for peace", but apathy dictates it's the "time for peace", "regardless of the cost".

"Give me liberty or give me death", is considered the words of the "mentally retarded" today.

 

[Rhetorician]

Me4Him,

Was there an answer there to my question above or only some pontifical response to a denominational or movemental nerve that was hit?

My question was: Whatzup with the nasty attitude of the "fightin' fundamentalists?"

Can you please give a rationale for their (your I suppose?) attitude rather than some tirade? A reasoned and quiet response is what I long to hear. Are you proving to be the best bad example of what I am setting forth and asking?

You also seem to be implying (or equating) nationalism or patriotism in some sort of strange way with fundamentalsism? Are the two intrinsically linked at the hip? Did Christ die for the USA? Will the Christian Church continue to be after America has gone the way of all of the other "nations that forgot God?"

soli deo gloria! (sdg!)

rd

 

[gb93433]

I have seen the same attitude among the liberals too. If one digs back a little the police had to be called in a SBC convention in Virginia becasue a fight broke out between the liberals and fundamentalists.

I personally think those men who are proud, arrogant and boisterous have never had a good humbling. When they do they and we will know it. I believe when a person truly knows God they know the difference. Until that time they just play the religious game.

 

[John of Japan]

Hi again, Rhetorician.

I've been thinking about this all day and I believe I have something. The answer lies in how you perceive God. There are two attributes of God at work here, His holiness and his love. I have heard from some that His holiness is His primary attribute and from others that His love is it.

I think that some Fundamentalists go too far in defending what they perceive is His holiness, meaning that they end up fighting about non-essentials. However, the majority of average Fundamentalist pastors (and I have preached in hundreds of churches as a missionary on deputation or furlough) get the love part right too.

On the other hand, liberals believe in nothing but a God of love. They completely leave out the holiness part.

For their part, many evangelicals put the love first and end up tolerating evil (especially in their denominations).

What is needed for all of us is a balance of emphasis on God's love and holiness. We must stand up against evil (properly determined from the Word of God and not just opinion), while loving the sinner.

God bless.

 

[All about Grace]

There's a "country song" that says, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything".

The problem is that fundies are known more for what they stand against than what they are for.

 

[bapmom]

There's alot of things we are supposed to stand against in this day and age.

All about Grace, I think that "fact" you stated is more because of how we are presented to other people BY other people. And I say this based on much experience. I was not raised IFB, I was raised GARB and New Evangelical, with a little bit of non-denom thrown in there too. I only went to an IFB church when in the last few years of High School, and it was a reluctant IFB church at that. So Ive seen the perception of us from the other side, too. I was raised with it. And yet Ive literally only met 3, maybe 4 men who personified the stereotypical "fightin' fundie." All but one were young college kids whose zeal had outgrown their common sense. I only know one of those guys now, and he is a loving, firm pastor in Minnesota who takes a strong stand but does so in a surprisingly gentle manner......surprising if you take into account his more confrontational personality.

Let me give an example.....I was NOT raised with much personal experience with the Southern Baptist Convention. I was under the impression that the SBC believed in water baptism being a part of salvation. This is what I was told by MANY....not IFBers, btw. Is this because the SBC has given a wrong impression? I come here and see that many if not all SBCers do NOT believe this way, at least the ones here that Ive seen. So is this a fault within the SBC? Or a fault with those who took what might have been true of one or two churches and turned it into a "fact" about the entire organization?

 

[Rhetorician]

Hey all,

I do not want to speak ill of the dead. That has been done enough, especially here on the BB. But, from where I was in the Nashville, TN area in the 70s, Jack Hyles was thought to "walk on water!"

The young and impressionable "fightin' fundies" preachers went to all of his conferences, revivals, "Pastor's Schools," ad nauseum, ad infinitum. They followed him like little puppy dogs. I am more than sure that his attitude rubbed off on many a young minister of that generation. As James Dobson has been quick to point out in the past, "More is caught than is taught."

During those days Dr. Falwell did not seem to have that level of vitriol like "Dr." Hyles. Are my observations anywhere close to anyone else's?

We were also around old Dr. John R. Rice during those times. He did not represent himself the way Hyles did either. Seemed to be a gentle old man who loved and walked with God and genuinely loved the souls of men. I was also blessed to attend the Bill Rice Ranch outside of Murfreesboro. That was a real blessing. He was also a kind and gentle man by all outward indicators. There just seemed to be some real difference in Hyles from the other "fundy" leadership. It was almost as if Jack thought himself to be the "leader of the leaders" of the Fundamentalists by self appointed means? I cannot figure it out.

Please, someone help me with this connundrum?!

I do not mean for this to turn into a "blast Jack Hyles" post. In many ways and on many levesl I did have some respect for the brother. His sermons still give me goosebumps and make me want to go off, pray, cry, and repent when I hear them on the web.

sdg!

rd

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:
Hey all,

During those days Dr. Falwell did not seem to have that level of vitriol like "Dr." Hyles. Are my observations anywhere close to anyone else's?

We were also around old Dr. John R. Rice during those times. He did not represent himself the way Hyles did either. Seemed to be a gentle old man who loved and walked with God and genuinely loved the souls of men. I was also blessed to attend the Bill Rice Ranch outside of Murfreesboro. That was a real blessing. He was also a kind and gentle man by all outward indicators. There just seemed to be some real difference in Hyles from the other "fundy" leadership. It was almost as if Jack thought himself to be the "leader of the leaders" of the Fundamentalists by self appointed means? I cannot figure it out.

Please, someone help me with this connundrum?!

I do not mean for this to turn into a "blast Jack Hyles" post. In many ways and on many levesl I did have some respect for the brother. His sermons still give me goosebumps and make me want to go off, pray, cry, and repent when I hear them on the web.

sdg!

rd

I knew John R. Rice well, and he was as you say. He truly walked with God. If you were with him and heard him muttering, it was because he was praying. When he preached on Hell, he preached with tears, and thought any preacher who could preach on Hell without tears was backslidden!

I also knew Brother Hyles fairly well, though I was not of his generation. In the pulpit he was a fireball, and perhaps too harsh sometimes. In his personal relationships, though, he was a very gracious man. When my wife and I had an appointment once with him, he took off his coat, sat on the desk, asked questions about our ministry and was very kind.

I met Jerry Falwell once and he was a very gracious man. Getting to know these men convinced me that a truly great man of God was always gracious.

 

[bapmom]

My experiences were much the same as John of Japan's. I met Dr. Hyles once or twice, and he was always very kind and gracious. I got a whole set of tapes once of a series of sermons he did on womanhood, and he was nothing but kind and loving in those sermons, as well. They were very good on many different levels, btw.

My preacher knew Dr. Hyles very well, and considered him a good friend and something of a mentor. My preacher's preacher, btw, knew Dr. John R Rice somewhat, as well....thought very highly of him, too.

IMO, Dr Hyles gets far too much of a bad rap also. I believe much of it comes from people who only listen to (or retain) parts of a sermon, or do not take into account the entirety of a man's teaching when hearing him preach.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:
Me4Him,

Was there an answer there to my question above or only some pontifical response to a denominational or movemental nerve that was hit?

My question was: Whatzup with the nasty attitude of the "fightin' fundamentalists?"

Can you please give a rationale for their (your I suppose?) attitude rather than some tirade? A reasoned and quiet response is what I long to hear. Are you proving to be the best bad example of what I am setting forth and asking?

You also seem to be implying (or equating) nationalism or patriotism in some sort of strange way with fundamentalsism? Are the two intrinsically linked at the hip? Did Christ die for the USA? Will the Christian Church continue to be after America has gone the way of all of the other "nations that forgot God?"

soli deo gloria! (sdg!)

rd

Guess I went way over your head, uh??

Do you know why the courts OK homo marriage, adoption of children, Abortion, removing the "ten Commandment", no prayer in schools, "LAWS" prohibiting the free excercise of "religion"??

Because there's few "Fighting Fundamentalist" left, that's why.

Our Constitution/Freedoms was based on "Christian principles" that every citizen was expected to obey, it can't/won't work for any other type(S) of society.


Most "Christians" prefer to vote for a "Son of Satan" to be president rather than a "Son of God", and how many became "Partakers" with "Clinton" in the death of those Partial birth abortions when "Clinton" "Vetoed" the ban on PBA??

2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

2Jo 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Fundamentalist are people who don't "Compromise" with the devil, or any organization he controls, at any level, especially a "government" they are suppose to be "controlling".

but today, it's "LOVE YOUR ENEMY", "HIS DISCIPLES HAVE "RIGHTS",

Kinda got things "FOULED" up a little bit, don't ya think???

Living in "Sodom" "VEXED" Lot's soul, and it will do the same to "Christians" in a nation they've allowed to become just as "FILTHY".

2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

What our "forefathers" fought/died to build, few have the intergrity to fight and keep.

America ask the soliders to "fight/die" for freedom in Iraq, but don't have the integrity/will to do the same for themselves, their country, and future of their children, I have just one word for them, "HYPOCRITE".

Are you beginning to understand the definition of "fighting Fundamentlist"???

 

[Ps104_33]

Read Matthew chapter 23 for a real fundamentalist tirade.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Rhet,
I suppose some think it's stylish and manly to show they are angry at something or someone when they teach or preach.Some people are just not happy unless they are mad at someone or something.Unfortunately many of these folks are thought of as fundamentalists(mostly because that's what they say).A person is a fundamentalist because of what he/she believes,that is the fundamentals of the faith,not because of extra Biblical teaching and preaching,and not because of a political stand.

As to the Jach Hyles thing ,I think some folks may just be trying to out Hyles Hyles because of thier perception of him instead of the reality.People say all kinds of things about Hyles. I have no first hand knowledge of him,so other then reading a couple of his books and hearing some tapes,I just use my brain as a filter and leave the rest to God.

 

[jarhed]

Boy, there are sure a lot of people who can't stand "fundamentalists!" Well, the PHARRISEES hated Jesus, and they were auditorily berated by him...is there a connection? And "loud" preaching? The first Baptist looked like a nut and yelled like a fool (God has used the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...the foolishness of real preaching). Everyone thought he was a lunatic. The paralells should be fairly clear at this point. OK, definition time. "Preach": To DECLARE with a LOUD VOICE. "Peculiar" Christians have never been popular with the world OR most Christians. Would we expect a difference today? The fact of the matter is that people prefer "understanding" and "love" which allows them a "unifying spirit". Which is really all just a bunch of gobbledygoop for, "Hey, leave me alone...I am comfortable in my compromise, and resting in my pet sins. I have no wish to be conformed to the image of a holy God." Things have always been this way. "Yea, hath God said?"

At the risk of being permanently offensive to man, I seek only to please and glorify my Saviour, and therefore must CONTEND (fight) for the FAITH. Oh, and who identifies which doctrines of the scriptures (teachings of God) are "non-essential?" I seem to remember someone saying something about not one JOT or one TITTLE of the law PASSING AWAY (as non-essential?) until ALL be fulfilled (its a good book if you read it).

 

[ccrobinson]

Originally posted by jarhed:
The first Baptist looked like a nut and yelled like a fool (God has used the foolish things of the world to confound the wise...the foolishness of real preaching). Everyone thought he was a lunatic. The paralells should be fairly clear at this point. OK, definition time. "Preach": To DECLARE with a LOUD VOICE. "Peculiar" Christians have never been popular with the world OR most Christians.

So, you define "real" preaching as what happens when the preacher is loud and "yelling like a fool"? In today's world of sound systems and microphones, I don't see why a preacher has to yell like a fool and be loud in order to do "real" preaching.

A preacher getting excited and raising his voice is just fine with me, but I wouldn't want a steady diet of it. I know a preacher who yelled and hollered the entire message. At one point, he climbed up on the pulpit while preaching and the only thing I could think of was, "Do his people have to sit through this sort of stuff every week?" He was loud and yelled like a fool. When he climbed up on the pulpit, I thought he was a lunatic. I don't believe that "real" preaching took place that night.

 

[Bro Tony]

I guess my question is: how did they get the name of "Fightin' Fundamentalists" and the attitude(s) that went along with it?

Rhet,

You may have an answer to your question by reading the responses on this thread. It always saddens me that brothers judge brothers because some do not demonstrate outwardly the supposed zeal that is needed to get a point across. I believe that the greatest changes are not made with our loud voices (although there are times to speak up), but most great changes are made in our quiet prayer closet alone with our Lord.

"Not by power, nor by might, but by My Spirit says the Lord"

Bro Tony

 

[jarhed]

You folks may be taking some things too far here. No one said you had to yell like a fool all the time. Not at all, but REAL preaching is a loud declaration...not effective at all without voice INFLECTION. Real preaching is STRIDENT and by definition is CONTENTIOUS with the old nature. Preaching is trying to convince someone by the Power of God to do what they are not doing, to decide the opposite of what they have always decided, and to believe in someone they have heretofore had no faith in. Now, teaching is also commanded. A preacher must also be APT to teach...this is a different ability and art altogether and it is also SORELY lacking. We teach but we do not teach BIBLE like it should be taught. The world seems to have sold us a bill of goods. Teaching is DEVELOPING CONCEPTS THROUGH SCRIPTURAL REASON. Preaching is DECLARING BIBLE TRUTH. There is a difference. I will also stipulate to your point that, and I am a fire breather for sure, ignorant, mindless, endless, pointless screaming is not preaching...it is just what it is.

Finally, the BIBLE says that GOD has chosen to confound the wise with the FOOLISHNESS of preaching...I didn't say that. So make sure you know who you are deadpanning my friend.