What’s “Fundamental” to “Fundamentalism”?

I certainly agree.

 

When we say to our college kids, "No smoking, no alcohol, no porno on your phones, or we'll have to give demerits," what we are really saying is, "We love you and want to protect you from addictions that will destroy your life: lung cancer, kidney disease, drunk driving, failed marriages and destroyed ministry because of porno."

I'm about to go teach Greek 102. I love those kids so much I would die for them: S with her mischievousness, D with his brilliance, E with his stutter, L with her constant joy, and all the rest. It is love that says to them, "Don't do those things. They will destroy you." I back our student handbook. And when they get out, they are free to drink and smoke and the rest if they choose, but they have been warned.

 

I disagree.
You can warn them of the dangers. With pornography you can clearly show them it is sin. With smoking and alcohol you can point out the dangers and advise moderation or no use, but when you start bring judgment upon them, you become a Pharisee who has added burdens that God has never added. You leave grace and teach law. This is clearly legalism.
Your task is limited to warning. God's job is to protect them and guide them. What you call love is actually control and manipulation by virtue of negative reinforcement. It's not love. It's not giving your life for them.
These are adults who need a gracious mentor, not a ruling overlord. (I am not saying you are either one. I don't know you.) Extend Grace.

 

Oh brother.

As you said your guy Schreiner went from there to...SBTS! A school with laws such as 'no use or possession of alcoholic beverages' [Student Handbook, "Discipline Policy"]. It's not "demerits", but "reprimands" there.

 

I really don't know the rules of Southern so I cannot speak to it. If the persons going there agree to the legalism, then they agree. They are adults. What it is not, is it is not grace, nor love. Most often it is leadership being concerned with their perceived reputation and with donors not funding should the school not be perceived as squeaky clean. The result is breaking rules in secret or looking for loopholes to justify actions. It is not, however, grace in action.

 

I know some of the fundamentalist churches went too far. We weren't supposed to eat at Pizza Hut (they sold beer) or shop at Krogers (they had a liquor license). Women wore dresses, even when helping with games at youth group. Then there was the hair, beards, mixed bathing and so on.

I was glad to not think about all that when we moved and went to a different church. But it seems like nowadays Christians have made a deliberate choice to keep up with and out do the world in every area. Shaved headed Calvinists with a craft beer, a cigar and a sleeve of tattoos are just as goofy looking as anything the fundamentalists did. I like the relaxed way people dress for church nowadays but really, a beautiful young lady in tight yoga pants really is distracting, and a pastor who gets up to proclaim God's word in faded jeans with his shirt tail out is showing disrespect. I have also noticed that all Christians now are great students of pop culture and know ALL the latest songs and have seen all the latest programs. And that includes the home school crowd too.

Fundamentalist went too far but there really is a world, flesh and devil to oppose and embracing everything the world says or does as some kind of virtue signal that says "look, I can be a Christian and still be cool isn't the answer either". There has to be some kind of middle ground.

 

is the current movement still greatly into separation, even from other brethren who would not agree with some of the very strict living regulations?

 

It seems that the Kjvo was birthed in and still supported to great extent by the Fundamentalists so called!

 

Much of this depends on how we define what it means to practice separation!

 

Think that he is referring to those who are Kjvo among Ifb, and those who look down upon those who disagree with their views on living standards

 

Have you ever actually worked with young people? It doesn't sound like it. If they don't know consequences, they likely won't change. Even at our small college, which is strictly for young people headed for ministry, they need much guidance.

Just had a young future missionary in my office for about ten minutes. I know him well. He would tell you he is thankful for the demerit system. The demerit system actually protects him--it doesn't pile judgement on. It's a wall against sin, a character builder, not a torture chamber. Personally, I thank God for the discipline I've had imposed in my life by parents and by college administrations.

It is clear that you do not understand what legalism actually is, since you equate a demerit system with legalism. You've invented your own definition of legalism that does not fit the normal theological definition.

 

No problems with those standards, but the big problem is when we take our preferences and conviction and elevate them to the standards of being what the Bible gives to all of the saved

 

Legalism is when we view our preferences and convictions as being the norm for all other Christians

 

Not according to the theological definition I gave above.

 

Obviously, folks, a demerit system must be administered with love, or it can be judgmental. I have known of such cases. However, our dean of men and dean of women here are two of the most compassionate people I have ever known in my life. If a young person becomes bitter about the demerits they receive here, it is totally on them. People who do not respond well to discipline are in spiritual danger. Demerits are a form of rebuke, and the Bible says, "Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee" (Proverbs 9:8).

Now I'm done talking about this. I get really tired of ad hoc definitions of legalism.

 

Decades of work with young people.
Mentoring discipline and best practice is essential. Providing boundaries is essential. Telling people that drinking, dancing, smoking, gambling, playing card games is a sin...is not providing boundaries. It's taking social mores and turning them into legal reasons why God condemns you. It is Pharisaical.
With my own children, I mentored them with the reasons to be discreet and to discern how non-sinful activities can be used by Satan to create a vice. Therefore, guard your hearts. Since they were underage I said that any government restriction on alcohol or tobacco use is to be upheld since Romans 13 gives us our requirements. I then trusted them. It was really interesting to see them choose to act with discernment rather than me having to crack a whip. None of them ever wanted to go to a school dance (public school) as they found the dancing disgusting. It took me by pleasant surprise.
It is amazing how grace can be mentored and thus law becomes of little concern. As young men and women in college, they have a responsibility to grow into their own walk with God and older Christians can be their mentors.
What I have observed with fundamentalism is a control element that functions on fear rather than love. Young people in fundamentalist churches have been so controlled and not mentored that when they get free from the yoke, they swing to the other extremes. Having attended a fundamentalist Bible institute and then a public university, I found the Christians at the public university were more authentic, more driven to prayer and more aware of obedience to God than the kids in the fundamentalist school. In that school, most kids were busy trying to look good to the leadership while looking for every loophole they could find. My time at public university was much more Godward than at the fundamentalist school.