What is "Hyper-Fundamentalism"?

Colorado cop,

I was trying to demonstrate that God expects us to be different from the world. Some of the modern 'Christian' music sounds pretty much the same as 'worldly' music. Do you think that Jesus would go to one those kinds of concerts and listen to music that sounds like heavy metal? If we take theology out of worship then we don't have worship. Theology as defined by Webster is, "The systematic study of God and His Divinity."

 

That is not what a hyper fundamentalist is. A hyper fundamentlist is one who has added to God's word, things such as the KJVO doctrine, something which God has never said.

Why can there be only one?? They are translations and there is more than one way to translate the same phrase or sentence accurately. To claim that there can be only one is a false claim based on a misunderstanding of the issues.

It is important that we increase understanding rather than continuing down these lines of false teaching and false claims. While you might be adamant in your position about the KJV, remember that it is God's revelation taht actually matters. Your personal preferences carry no weight.

[ April 21, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Not entirely true. The Bible does warn about the nature of our communication, somethign that music style certainly fits into. We need not be so simplistic to think that the lack of an explicity biblical statement means that there is no biblical teaching.

God has told us that he does not like this. He condemns his lying priests and those who approached him wrongly. He condemns those who conflated the holy and the profane. Once again, we must not insert our personal ideas and ideals as the authority over Scripture.

 

I have asked last night that the version discussion be taken into the version forum. I have had to edit posts today and if I have to do more I will have to close the thread. Please
comply with this request.
Murph

 

It was not off the subject. You cannot have a meaningful conversation about what "hyper-fundamentalism" or rather pseudo-fundamentalism is without addressing the versions issue.

It is a major fault line within the movement. Perhaps, it is like the writers of "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man" said- the greatest threat to fundamentalism ever.

You don't have to go into the details. I agree that is for the versions forum. But you can't pretend it isn't an issue either- especially as to whether KJVOnlyism is historically "fundamental" or not.

 

. . .as brother Lacy obeys the moderator and ignores the bait.

Lacy the Mullet

 

We like Mullet down here in Florida.
Murph

 

"A Biblical Church" </font>[/QUOTE]Not nesissaraly. I would tend to be called a hyper fundementalist. I use the KJV - mostly becasue of textual concerns with the modern greek texts. I belive that conservitive dress is scriptural. I would prefer women to wear dresses. I am dogmatic about music - no CCM. Rated R movies? How about no movies... No TV either, no cable, no videos. Now we do watch christian teaching tapes, like debates, or creation science stuff. I know this is radical.

However there is another side to this issue. This is the key. While I see the above as the ideal, I realise that I live in a world that is far from this. I am a Baptist. But I used to be in a conservitive charismatic church - for like 9 years. I have seen the results of the contemporary movement. It is shallow. But I also see baptists, of many flavors, but mostly those that belive like me, be proud and arogant about thier "stands". So much so that they fail in their attempts to evangelize the lost. I also see people that most of you rwould call Hyper Fund. that impose standards, rather that letting people mature into them through the work of the Lord. This is leagalistic, and wrong.

"You need a haircut", yes, he does, but your not the Holy Spirit. I have seen people preach on "issues" like this. It is the focus on the issues rather than the spiritual growth of the individual that is the problem.

The other side of the issue are those that don't have the high standards. Thier people, in my opinion, are missing the example that they need to really grow. It is convicting to read the sermons of the preachers of the 1800's - they preached against reading secular novels! Why? Becasue they thought people shoud rather read the word of God.

How can I justify setting the example of going to PG13 movies, when the themes of the movies are opisite the Bible? This is just my prefrence. I see the daneger greater than the benifit.

Now will I kick a person out of church who goes to movies? No... I will love them and realize where they are, and also see where God wants them to be, and gently guide them that way.

In summary, high standards are not the problem: the problem is that these standards are legislated. The standards need to be adopted by each individual by the moving of the Holy Spirit. The leadership of the church exists to be the example. That is why I have the radical standards I hold - I don't want to be a stumbling block to anyone.

 

Not entirely true. The Bible does warn about the nature of our communication, somethign that music style certainly fits into. We need not be so simplistic to think that the lack of an explicity biblical statement means that there is no biblical teaching.

God has told us that he does not like this. He condemns his lying priests and those who approached him wrongly. He condemns those who conflated the holy and the profane. Once again, we must not insert our personal ideas and ideals as the authority over Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]The only group of people that I have met that belived that music was amoral are christians! The world realizes that music can be morally uplifiting, or morally wrong. For example people in the secular music industry understand this: one of the founders of the jazz movement said that jazz was the music of relitivism. Its sluring notes, and lack of a defined musical scale are charecteristics of such. Before you reply in horror - keep in mind a radical baptist did not say this, a famous jazz composer did. I used to listen to heavey metal when in HS. Not the tame stuff, but the stuff that was openly satanic. This was the heart of that type of music. It was recognized that the "popular" heavy metal was tring to copy these artists. One of the groups was Metalica - they are now mainstream. The world knows more about music than do the saints of God!

By the way I chalenge you to find scriptural support for the idea that music should be pleasing to man. Music is for the praise of God and is offered to God. It's not about what you or lost billy-bob likes, it is about what is acceptable to God. To say we need to use CCM to atract people is a unbiblical concept. It has also been shown to be false in practice. I know of churches with 2000 in attendance that use conservitive music.

Now, most conservitive music is as dead as lead hammer. Music can be upbeat, and uplifting - and it should be. But we don't have to go to pop rock to get that!

 

Hi Dr. Bob Griffin,

Early in my Christians life (in the mid-1970's) I realized that a major problem area between Fundamentalist and Evangelicals was in the area of doubtful things. That is the same problem that Paul dealt with in Romans 14:1-15:7 & 1 Corinthian chapter 8. I concluded concerning doubtful things that the majority of Christians in the Fundamental camp are equivalent to the group of weak conscience Christians that God through Paul was admonishing in Romans chapter 14 and 15, because they were blasphemously judging strong conscience Christians. I also concluded that the majority of Christians in the Evangelical camp are equivalent to the group of strong conscience Christians that God through Paul was admonishing in Romans chapter 14 and 15, because they despised weak conscience Christians and refused to bear the burden of weak conscience Christians.

Instead of using the terms "hyper-Fundamentalists" and "hyper-Evangelicals", I like to use phrases like "hyper weak conscience Christians" and "hyper freedom abusing strong conscience Christians". I believe those phrases attack the real root of the problem (doubtful things). In my mind and speech, I often refer to two types of Fundamentalists "hyper weak conscience Christians" and "hybrid weak conscience Christians". The "hyper weak conscience Christians" have weak consciences about extremely doubtful things and a lot of petty doubtful things. The "hybrid weak conscience Christians usually have a weak conscience about some or most of the extremely doubtful things but not about the petty doubtful things. Examples of extremely doubtful things that "hyper weak conscience Christians" have a weak conscience about are: alcoholic beverages, tobacco, certain musical rhythms (rock, country and western, jazz, rap, and new age) and etc---. Examples of petty doubtful things that "hyper weak conscience Christian" have a weak conscience about are: movie theater, pants on women, guitars, saxophones, electronic keyboard musical instruments, video rental stores, holding a microphone while singing or preaching, ear rings larger than a quarter, non-KJV English translations of the Bible, regular deck of playing cards, and etc---. The "hyper weak conscience Christians" are a small percentage of the Fundamental camp. The majority of the Fundamental movement is made up of "hybrid weak conscience Christians". A very perplexing thing about a significant percentage of the "hybrid weak conscience Christians is that out of one corner of their mouth they will blasphemously judge Christians that don't have a weak conscience about the extremely doubtful items that they have a weak conscience about and out of the other corner of their mouth will with much despite judge Christians as being legalists that have weak consciences about the petty doubtful items that they don't have a weak conscience about. They at one moment respond like blasphemously judging "hyper weak conscience Christians" and the next moment respond like a despiteful judging "hyper freedom abusing strong conscience Christians". That's also part of the reason why I refer to them as "hybrid weak conscience Christians".

I have a question about the history of the Fundamental movement. Was there ever a time in the early history of the Fundamental movement where it was made up of primarily strong conscience Christians that were bearing the burden of weak conscience Christians? If there was, when and how did the Fundamental movement become overrun with weak conscience Christians?

A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden

[email protected]
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html