Featured Church Standards?

I didn't see this until just now, so my apologies for the delay in answering.

No, I am not being dishonest, especially since I do not hide the fact that I believe what I believe. I have discussed it with assistant pastors and they know my stance, and they know that I comply with their stricter standard when necessary.

In fact, when I taught in the Bible college, I did not let my wife wear pants when students were around my house. We understand that those in authority (as I was when I taught) needed to have a unified front.

I taught music theory 1 and 2. When asked a straight question about my personal music standards by students in class, I answered that my personal standards were lower than the college's, but I deferred to the college standards while teaching. I was honest with them.

Now, I am not disagreeing that some churches would oust you for not holding to their standard at all times. But those churches generally are so legalistic I would not fit in there anyway.

Also, my usage of the word compromise has been somewhat ambiguous. In this case, I don't mean to compromise a standard by lowering it. A more accurate word would be defer.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

What does GARBC stand for. I Know what FBFI is but not GARBC.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Only difference I've ever seen is that Westboro is just a little more vocal about it. They're less than an hour from me, ya know.

 

Did you forget the "ist" on the end of Fundamental? Or is there not an "ist" ??

Because, as I have noted at least three times, if those you're talking about don't call themselves Fundamental-IST then we're not talking about the same people.

And that's Fundamental-IST with a Capital "F"

 

As a Southern Baptist who has "no dog in the fight," I agree with you completely.

Westboro "Baptist Church" (it's neither really Baptist or a church, IMO) is in an entirely different category. I prefer to call myself evangelical, and I wouldn't join a very large selection of IFB churches because of contradicting beliefs.

But even I must defend my brothers and sisters in the vast majority of Fundamental/Fundamentalist Baptist churches. I might strongly disagree on several issues, but they are earnestly seeking to follow God.

Based on their actions, although some Christians could possibly be in the church but deceived, Westboro itself is an instrument of evil.

 

IMO Both upper and lower case Fundamentalism should refer to the fundamentals of the faith.

Apply "wacky, legalistic, fringe fanatic" appropriately wherever needed.

HankD

 

You're right that they should. However, it's simply not the case.

But it's been noted by more than a few that those churches who use a Capital F are legalistic and teach preference as commandments of God. Maybe they didn't word it thar way, but it is the case.

Every single "F" church I've encountered has a works-oriented faux righteousness that revolves almost exclusively around outward appearances.

And that's not just in Baptist circles

 

you have the standards backward.

Scripture says nothing about pants. To institute a standard and try to mandate it would relegate these people as weaker brethren. Therefore, the pants standard would be the lower standard of legalism, contrasted against the higher standard of liberty

 

In this discussion, "higher and lower" are synonymous with "stricter and looser". When one says "higher standard" they do not mean the most biblical. They mean the one that is most restrictive.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

There are other verses that could apply to women wearing pants, such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, "effeminate" men "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (applied to masculine women). Anyway, no follower of Christ disputes the inappropriateness of cross-dressing. The only issue is whether or not women wearing pants constitutes cross-dressing.

The answer is: Strictly speaking, women can wear pants without cross-dressing. Pants are now standard women's clothing that can be part of feminine attire. The longer answer is: Pants become women's wear through ungodly efforts by cultural engineers to destroy the distinctions between men and women. And, pants don't make a feminine statement the way skirts do. Therefor, while it is acceptable for women two wear pants, it is better for a woman to to wear skirts, especially for more formal occasions (including church).

Put on high? There are a lot of movies Christians shouldn't see. And, most movies we say are okay to see we shouldn't because they teach unchristianity. Imagine a movie abusing the n-word, no one would tolerate it. But nearly every PG13 and R movie abuses Jesus name, and not only do we say nothing, we give our money to those abusers, while going to the movie absorbing its hostility to Christ.

 

Do they give whizzo buttons to people who ask [snipped] questions? If so, there might be a box full of whizzo buttons with your name on it

 

I call the rules - invisible commandments written on the walls of the church (we have no such in the local church I attend).

HankD

 

What's in a name? The only difference I see between "ist" and "no ist" is that one is a noun and the other an adjective.

And standards are subjective and often cultural (though some transcend culture.) An old comment says, 'Anyone stricter than me is a legalist; anyone less strict is a liberal." IMO, clothing choices made with a "Look at me!" intent by regular attendees are inappropriate at worship services, and the same goes for visitors who have asked or been invited to present their ministry at the front platform. Other visitors, it's much different. Almost anything that passes (secular) legal muster is okay. Expecting unbelievers to act like Christians is hopelessly wrong.