Doctrine

Hubris

208 Comments

From a quick look at the empirical evidence, there’s little doubt in my mind that clear-thinking and strong-willed people tend to not stay for long in fundamentalism. So how exactly do fundamentalists explain why so many of their best and brightest heading for greener pastures?

For the answer, we can look to “Dr.” Rick Flanders who this past August wrote an article entitled “He’s Leaving Fundamentalism” to explain in no uncertain terms that if a person is leaving fundyland it certainly isn’t the fault of fundamentalism. Blaming the person who is leaving is the rule of the day.

Here are a few key strategies we can learn from…

1. Treat the definition of “fundamentalism” as if it merely referred to a person who believes “the fundamentals” of the Christian faith.

“Although there is a human religious movement called the Fundamentalist, and also distinct movements legitimately labeled Fundamentalist, Fundamentalism itself is not a human movement, but rather a divine truth.”

“Whatever the people are doing who are “leaving Fundamentalism,” it is bad. “Leaving Fundamentalism” inevitably means backing off from policies and principles that have characterized those who stood most faithfully for the Bible in our lifetime.”

Oh, really? So what about all the huge glaring problems in the movement? Well once you’ve conflated being “a fundamentalist” with being the only ones who have “the truth” then you can…

2. Downplay the faults and paint them as small in comparison to the horrors of leaving “the truth.”

“In some cases the defector is parting from evidence of carnality in some of the Fundamentalists he has known. But Fundamentalism should not be rejected because Fundamentalists need revival. Tell us what you mean. Surely you do not mean that you are giving up truth because men who have taught it have been found to be less than spiritual all the time. Many Fundamentalists are sincere and holy people, although some have been found to be less than so. Fundamentalism should not be abandoned just because Fundamentalists need revival.”

Oh. Ok then. Just suck it up and keep on trucking for Jesus no matter how bad things get. If there are problems just shut up about them and remember that we’re the only people who really have the truth. In fact you can all just…

3. Stick Your Head In The Sand

“Fundamentalism is the dividing of light from darkness, and is nothing but a good thing. Is that what our disillusioned brethren are leaving?”

No, Rick, they’re leaving because your corrupt movement refuses to deal with its own problems of pride and arrogance. It refuses to seek justice victims of crimes and instead protects criminals. It divides the body of Christ over silly issues of personal preference. It calls good evil and evil good. That is why people are leaving, Rick. They’re leaving because they love Jesus and His church too much to stay around and watch it be exploited and perverted.

The hubris is astounding.

208 thoughts on “Hubris”

      1. I think that this time it would have been 5:21. I do believe that the times on this site are Eastern. 😀

  4. Speaking of hubris, I suggest everyone go to this guy’s website and read his section on “Ministerial Loyalty.” Incredible.

      4. BTW, I can’t help but notice in his (auto) bio, he lists the the Detroit News & a bunch of fundy rags as having published his writings. I assume that means he’s spent years making a fool of himself with letters to the editor there, and a few of them have been published. I haven’t been able to find any on detnews.com. Somehow a few published letters to the editor sound more like he’s a paid columnist in his bio somehow! 🙂

    2. I freaking hate loyalty.

      Not BEING loyal though, but having the concept pushed into my face every other Sunday. Especially unconditional, blind loyalty. Hate it. I think that’s going to be my “trigger” once I’m out of IFB for good.

      1. “Blind Loyalty” was, as far as Jack Hyles and Wendell Evans were concerned, the ONLY loyalty. We had that drummed into us, as employees. You could not be A-Loyal, only blindly loyal, or disloyal. Bull dinkies, I say.

        1. Too true. I was loyal. Until I wasn’t anymore. On another subject, when you went back after graduation, what was your job there?

        2. I went back four years after I graduated. Those intervening four years breathing unsullied air are what saved me from Hylesism. I returned to be on the English faculty. I was also a dorm supervisor, for one year, as I got married. I was on faculty for two years. Then we got OUT. Thankfully got out.

        3. My definition of loyalty must be very different from those in fundyland. This best way I can think to illustrate that is with a quote from a video game, “For knights in the service of a lord, an order is absolute. But a knight does not follow orders blindly. before obeying, a knight should always consider whether the order serves the lord who gives it.” Mind you I’ve never taken an oath of fealty, but I think I got only the briefest glimpse at fundyland.

  5. “Fundamentalism itself is not a human movement, but rather a divine truth”

    WRONG. Just Google “history of independent fundamental Baptists” and read, it was started by hu-mans.

    “Leaving Fundamentalism” inevitably means backing off from policies and principles that have characterized those who stood most faithfully for the Bible in our lifetime.”

    WRONG AGAIN! It MEANS acknowledging that those “policies and principles” are truly errant and man-made, and leaving to seek truth outside of man’s influence.

    1. I also find it revealing that he says “stood most faithfully for the Bible” and not “stood most faithfully for God.”

    2. In the most BROAD of senses, one’s salvation IS based on “fundamentalism”. Such fundamentals as the:
      1. Trinity
      2. Virgin birth
      3. Divinity of Jesus the Christ

      Take these fundamentals away, and what you are left with is NOT Christianity.

      But that is not what we are talking about, is it? 😛 😛 😛 😛

  6. I’m interested to keep reading the replies here. I got into it over at SharperIron on this exact article and was promptly “refuted” by a guy who admitted he hadn’t read the article in the first place. When I suggested he do so, so we could both be on the same page, he stopped arguing against my points. >:)

    1. HAHAHA… that’s funny. It’s the “I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, but you’re STILL wrong and here’s why.”

      Love it!

      1. Yup. We found this with my husband’s family. They vociferously renounced what we were doing, yet refused to read the books we suggested to them that gave the Biblical reasons for our choices and refused to look at the Bible itself when we offered to discuss it with them. They just KNEW we were wrong.

        1. They refused to read the Bible passages that you wanted to talk about with them.

          Don’s right. There is no functional difference between Independent Fundamental Baptism and the Taliban. A lot of the Taliban’s so-called students couldn’t even read. It didn’t matter; when they said “We wish to reform society to bring it into conformity with the glorious Koran,” what they meant was in essence what IFB leaders mean when they say they want to enshrine “Biblical principles” in the law of the land.

          It’s a proclamation of a set of beliefs that have little or nothing to do with what is actually written in the Bible, with some Bible verses pasted on for show. And keeping the flock ignorant and frightened–denying that anybody but the preacher and people who dress/talk/act like him knows anything–makes it very easy to point to any random Bible verse and proclaim, “See, I was right! See? See?” Double bonus points if you can discourage the flock from thinking at all, get them to accept cognitive dissonance as a normal state of mind, and make them think that a Bible translation so old it needs retranslation is the only Bible there is.

          I dug into some of the Vision Forum’s declaration of principles, looking up the verses they attached and reading the surrounding passages. I shouldn’t have been surprised to see verses lamenting the backslidden state of Israel after the Exodus cited to support VF’s vision of “multi-generational faithfulness” and so forth, but it was disturbing to see how often the people who wrote that stuff did things like that and expected people to swallow it.

      2. We just experienced this in my church. We chose to delete the name Baptist from our church title, and you would not believe the number of people, who were not a part of our church, jumping on our case because of it.

        People even wrote editorials in to the local paper about it.

    2. Yeah, mounty. I get the same thing in my work, with people who are certain that the Harry Potter books will turn their children into warlocks. When I ask if they have read them, of course, the answer is no. The obstreperous ignorance of fundamentalism is more widespread than I ever knew. 🙄

      1. “obstreperous” wow! bringing out the big words and it’s a new one for me! I like new words, especially ones like obstreperous.

      2. I like to ask them if The Chronicles of Narnia had witches and magic in them too and I get, “Well….(indistinct mumbling)” or a “Please die.” stare.

        1. I love this: the “Please die” stare. I have been on the receiving end of that one a few times…. You have a precise way with words, Natalie! 🙂

        2. My parents were consistent. They banned Narnia. (And despite all their effort, I now adore Narnia and let my kids read Harry Potter.)

        3. Wow, PW, they banned Narnia? Serious fundy credentials there. I HAVE heard fundies say that CSL should be avoided, as he was Anglican. 🙄

        4. My parents as well banned Narnia. The word witch was too evil to ever make it past my young fundy eyes per my mother. Even today she will not read the book The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe even though she is far removed from being a fundy. Some fundy tenants intern themselves in people forever.

          Also, it wasn’t just my parents. I knew of no fundies that ever allowed their kids to read the Narnia series.

        5. Strange you should mention those books. While in Fundamentalism I heard a Pastor preach against The Chronicles of Narnia because it had a witch in them. It was my first indication that something was wrong. Still I stayed for over 20 years.

        6. Wow. My parents were “gawdless heathern,” so it would have never occurred to them, but I read the entire series to my three, at bedtime. A colleague just told me about a HILARIOUS one-star review for TLTW&TW she just read on Amazon. The reviewer claims that the entire book is an advertisement for Turkish Delight, and that CSL was in cahoots with the candy company! Just when you think you have heard it all… 🙄

        8. My mom didn’t like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe because of the witch either. Pointing out that the witch was the villain didn’t help my case.

          I read the book anyway.

        9. Turkish Delight!! I remember wanting to try Turkish Delight every time I read the books, though I had no idea what Turkish Delight was.

        10. Senda, from recipes I have seen, it seems to be a jelly candy covered in sugar, similar to those green leaves or orange leaves of my childhood… Give me a Hershey bar every time. :mrgreen:

        11. YOU GUYS HAVE NEVER HAD TURKISH DELIGHT??? What’s wrong with you??!!!! It’s the most amazing taste in the world!

      3. I had a girl explain to me the difference between having Harry Potter and Narnia in her classroom was that she would explain the meaning behind Narnia to her students. I pointed out that this was unethical (and illegal too right?) if she taught public school and that she could perhaps try to redeem the Harry Potter books to the same purpose.

        My mother-in-law is afraid I have invited evil spirits into the house because I have a Harry Potter book. Forget that I’ve chosen a life in the ministry as opposed to a life as a warlock. for shame that the pastor should be well read!!

        1. She ought to let the symbolism speak for itself, unless the STUDENTS discover it and bring it up, because that empowers them when they discover the beauty of Aslan for themselves. Sometimes a teacher’s analysis and explanations can detract from the enjoyment of a story. (And I say this as an English teacher!)

          It certainly shouldn’t be illegal to discuss how Lewis’s Christianity influenced his writing. IMO, it should be perfectly OK to say, “This is how Christians believe.” It becomes wrong when a public school teacher says, “This is how you MUST believe.” The first is information; the second is indoctrination.

          As for Harry Potter, my 11 year old daughter was partway through the book and said, “This isn’t really about witches. It’s about good and evil and bravery and friendship.” (At the same time, I have chosen NOT to share our interest in Harry Potter with my parents!)

        2. Spoiler Alert

          While Aslan is an allegory for Christ and Harry is not; Harry’s willingness to die to save his friends so patently Christian you would have to be an extra-terrestrial not to see it.

          I swear literalists have no capacity to read.

        3. @GEAH, I’ve often said the fundamentalists/literalists should not be allowed to read any version of the Bible until they’ve demonstrated they can read & comprehend 8th grade level literature.

  7. The arrogance of the article is palpable. Three sentences in and we know where we stand if we have left or are leaving fundamentalism. Our reasons are not good enough, we “need a response from those who are wiser.” Really??? My blood boils when I read that if “Dr” Flanders and I disagree it’s because I’m stupid. How about the real truth which is that I have actually gone back to the “fundamentals”. He quotes John Gresham Machen, but I wonder when the last time was that he actually talked to, listened to, or read and agree with a Presbyterian.

    Also, he bases his article on the fact that he calls fundamentalism not a movement, but rather “divine truth”. Nice one. Elevate the movement to be equal with God. That way dissenters are not leaving the “movement”, but rather rejecting God. Nope, no arrogance there either.

    The reality of course is that you can leave fundamentalism without rejecting the original fundamentals and actually grow in the grace and knowledge of God (in fact I would so the odds of doing so are greatly improved outside of fundamentalism). Leaving fundamentalism isn’t about leaving “divine truth”, it’s about finding Truth and walking away from a label.

    3. “Leaving fundamentalism isn’t about leaving “divine truth”, it’s about finding Truth and walking away from a label.”

      Perfect, Eric. Absolutely spot on. 🙂

    5. Not only is his argument premised on the No True Scotsman fallacy; he claims that he is a True Scotsman.

  8. Reminds me of Mark Minnick’s sermon about what Evangelicals would have to do to reunite ecclesiastically with Fundamentalists. He gives this list of changes they would have to make and remains blithely oblivious to, one, the reality that Evangelicals distance themselves from Fundamentalists; and two, the theological and moral debacles that remain unchallenged and unrebuked in Fundamentalism are far higher hurdles to unity with Believers than anything his sermon points out about Evangelicals. http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=2352

  9. Why do I think of Ned Flanders when I see his name? 😆

    In the article he says:

    “The mainline denominations have not stood for the Bible or the Christian faith.”

    What do they do in those churches? Well he siad it so it must be true.

    Also:

    “Let everyone beware who considers abandoning Biblical separation. It is a scriptural principle…”

    Separation is a biblical principal that I believe was practiced by the Pharisees.

    1. I think Ned was probably more of a Christian than most people I’ve met in fundy church (as much of a Christian as a cartoon character can be). As rotten as Homer is to Ned, Ned was the only one to stick by the Simpsons in the movie, after all the trouble Homer brought on the community with that pig.

      1. You are right. At first it looked to me like Ned was simply a way to make fun of Christians (or at least a certain type of Christians) but after many years of the Simpsons being on the air, Ned has consistently shown Christian grace even when the pastor has been portrayed as not being a very good Christian. (I love how when he calls the pastor for support the pastor is always annoyed and tries to dodge the call.) Anyway, my 2 cents worth.

        1. I gotta stand up for Reverend Lovejoy on this one: as a Pastor I can tell you there are members we would love to be able to avoid. The ones of which I speak have no lives of their own but try to run everyone else’s. They are a never-ending source of aggravation and never say anything that makes a lick of sense. I have some in my church and yes, they make me want to take my dog over to defecate on their lawn at times (like Lovejoy did to Flanders).

        2. I suppose you are right. We are friends with our pastor and his wife and have seen firsthand how all the crazies of the church seem to want them to be on call for them 24/7. And you are also right in your description of said crazies. So I guess I will be a little more patient with Rev. Lovejoy. 😀

    2. “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.” (Titus 3:10)

      Uh oh, looks like I might have to separate from fundies. Oh snap! 😯

    3. “Separation is a biblical principal that I believe was practiced by the Pharisees.”

      Yes, because it certainly was NOT practiced by Jesus, who became notorious for hanging out with tax-collectors and sinners. Fundies: They have constructed their own oral law, to replace the one the Pharisees had, which Jesus so disparaged. 🙄

    4. A while ago I read an article on the internet by a Fundamentalcase from Scotland who argued that the Pharisees have had a raw deal and actually applauded them for being so concerned about “Spiritual Purity” and “Separation”. I’m trying to find it again, partly to find out if I actually read what I read in the article…..

      1. Defending the Pharisees? Yikes! While their original intention may have been good, their desire to please God turned into power plays and self-righteousness.

        And I chuckled at “fundamentalcase”.

      2. I think I’ve seen that too. I assumed it was a parody. Scary that it might not have been…..

    5. The thing that gets me is that Fundamentalism is HUGE on separation from other groups because of biblical differences. Yet they attack anyone who leaves Fundamentalism even when the reason for leaving Fundamentalism is that Fundy teaching doesn’t line up with the Bible.

      Which is it? do we separate from Fundamentalism like good separatists or do we reform Fundamentalism like those Calvinistic Puritans? Or do they really mean we should abandon the Bible and just live with Papal authority in Fundamentalism?

  10. I found his “just shut up about leaving” paragraph pretty interesting.

    “If a believer for conscience sake must leave an organization…let him simply do it, and not say things to cast reflection on Fundamentalism…“lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:39).”

    Maybe if he jumps back a verse, he can take his own advice.

    “And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

  11. My favorite line is “Many fundamentalists are sincere and holy people…”

    Sincere, ok, but only God is holy, we are all just trying to like Him.

      1. I thought Beth said, “Hubris is using your OWN honorary doctorate as your title” and I thought, “Can one give oneself an honorary doctorate?” which I am sure if one can, they do.

        3. Give yourself an honorary doctorate, and it will be just about as meaningful as an honorary doctorate from an non-accredited Bible college that most people have never heard of.

        4. Although, BG, FWIW, a DP impresses me a heckuva lot more than the bogus PhD’s at HAC, BJU, PCC, TTU, etc. (I tried to use lots of initials. I am on hold, on the phone, and this seemed way more interesting than doodling on my blotter.)

        7. HO useful, George? HO USEFUL??? I only knew one ho from my days at HAC. I believe her name has come up on here often enough, without my repeating it…

  13. This sums up why it’s often impossible to reasonably discuss spiriutal things with a fundamentalist.

    1) They’re unreasonable.
    2) They’re uncharitable. Love believes the best of others, but they immediately assume anyone who leaves fundamentalism is an evil God-denier instead of listening with compassion and giving people who leave the benefit of the doubt.

    (And lest you think I’m being uncharitable toward fundamentalists, I am coming to conclusions based on their own words, not assuming things or making unproven attacks.)

  14. Hmm, I read the entire article thinking the writer was being sarcastic or writing in some tongue in cheek manner. So that his actual meaning is that the above is how “misguided” Fundamentalists justify themselves and the reasons for people “leaving.” Ha! Guess I’ll take a look at his website.

    1. Poe’s Law: Parodies of religious fundamentalism are generally indistinguishable from real religious fundamentalism.

  15. Thank you Darrell!!! I’m on the verge of tears here. I made the mistake tonight of forgetting that I cannot talk openly and honestly with my best friend (who is still in the church I left). Now I love her and I know she loves her church and I don’t care – but wrong was done and it has never been dealt with and yes, I am angry about that.

    But she says, yes wrong was done, but it’s not like it’s that bad; and she says yes they made mistakes, but I make mistakes too; and she says that I’m on my righteous high horse…

    Why can’t I get an apology? Why is the evil man still a ministry leader? If they mean only good why was nothing dealt with?

    Thank you so much for reminding me I am not alone.

    1. Sorry you are struggling! 🙁 I find that those who are intent on remaining in a ministry led by a hypocrite find many excuses for doing so: the excellent children’s ministry generally tops the list, but there are more. Basically, they do not want to bother with the discomfort of “new,” “different,” and worst of all, “Reproach from my peers.” Kudos to you for obeying the truth! It may not feel like it now, but blessings await. You have honored the Lord with your departure.

      1. Yeah but I intend to keep this friendship. And the list of ‘things not to discuss’ is getting pretty long. As far as breaking away from the church it would be easier to break off all ties but I will not; I love this girl and her sister, they’ve adopted me into their family. And even if I didn’t care about them that much I couldn’t – as a single mother of five I need some support and I pretty much lost it all…

        It’s just hard being stuck in the middle.

        1. Ugh, been there, too. Raised three on my own, and five would be very tough! May God bless you today and send you His peace. I commend you for your love for your friend.

    1. Rick Flanders reminds me of a little kid who gets mad at a friend who doesn’t play the game by HIS rules. The kid throws a fit and starts telling everyone how bad is ex-friend is…..

      2. He’s just mad that all the smart young’ns are doing exactly what they were told and separating from apostasy, sin, and those who are divisive heretics.

  17. Wonder if I could just mosey on over to his site and post a link to this SFL post in his comments.

    Nah, probably wouldn’t accomplish anything.

  18. Well…

    I would submit that there is plenty of arrogance on BOTH sides. Yes, I know plenty of fundamentalist leaders who are arrogant, and think that THEIR way is “THE” way.

    But, I’ve been reading here for some time now, and there is no lack of arrogance in some of the posts here. It’s one thing to point out where fundamentalists are wrong; it’s another to be nasty and try to make them stumble.

    …and how about the arrogance in the statement “clear-thinking and strong-willed people tend to not stay for long in fundamentalism” — so, anyone who stays a long time cannot think clearly or is weak-willed?

    In general, I appreciate SFL and parts of it has been tremendously helpful, and the posters here are generally a great bunch. But I’ve seen some topics that are, IMHO, a stretch. I’ve seen posts that make me shake my head.

    1. What do the words “tend not to” mean to you, Guilt Ridden?

      Combine that phrase with the opening words “there’s little doubt in my mind” and I’m obviously expressing a general opinion not making an absolute statement. But for some reason you’re insisting on saying that I’m being absolute. Why?

      1. I took the “tend not to” as part of the “stay long”; I read it as “the more clear-thinking and strong-willed a person is, the sooner he will leave”, which means that the longer one stays, the less clear-thinking and the more weak-willed one is.

        And the phrase “there’s little doubt in my mind” means that “I’m certain that this is the way it is”

        Everything you express here is your opinion, and you’re welcome to it… but as one with good friends still in churches with things lambasted here, I took offense at having them characterized as not being able to think clearly or being weak-willed.

        1. Ha ha… This is a parody site meant to make fun of fundyland. I don’t really think that’s a big secret. Now, I’m not a rocket scientist or anything but if you’re prone to get offended on behalf of yourself or others then why bother reading here?

        2. @Natalie: As I said, by and large, this site has been a huge help and blessing to me. I do NOT think that all IFB churches are cults (but some, if not cultic, are certainly cult-like – such as the insane loyalty JH demanded of his followers). And I don’t think that all IFB churches are as bad as pointed out here.

        3. They are not, but many (notice the lack of an absolute modifier) refuse to separate from that which is described accurately here, and by doing so, they condone it.

          Or do they not believe that not speaking up or addressing sin is condoning it? What’s good for the goose and all that…

    2. I support Darrell’s use of that statement. Considering everything fundamentalism stands for (including all the standards that are nowhere enforced in Scripture), you really do have to be one or the other to stay in. My family is sticking by a completely corrupt IFB church, and considering my family is large, I can affirm that Darrell is spot on. Half of my family refuses to see anything wrong with the church; they are definitely incapable of clear thinking. The other half sees the corruption but refuses to leave; they are lacking a strong will. I can’t despise them for it, since decades of IFB brainwashing is incredibly difficult to overthrow, but it’s still a fact.

      1. Also, even the rare fundy church that is not corrupt still has beliefs and standards and behaviors that are completely contrary to Scripture.

      2. Thank you for making my point (I’m NOT saying you’re arrogant, but that you took his statement EXACTLY the same way I did — that people who stay in are weak-willed and not capable of thinking clearly).

        We’re a very small step away from “if people don’t think like I do, it’s because they are not as bright as I am”.

        1. Darrell left room for exceptions, and I’m sure there are some. But I personally can’t think of any reason you would stay in an IFB church of the sort we always talk about here that wouldn’t fit one of those terms. I fit both myself at one time or another. =P

    3. I dunno, Guilt Ridden; I have been out of fundamentalism for nearly twenty years, and I have to agree with Darrell’s statement. The “tend not to” does qualify it. From my time at HAC, the people who lived with a think-this-through philosophy are gone now. Of the few I would have classified that way who have remained, other issues have persuaded them it is in their best interests to turn a blind eye. I even had one TELL me that, that at his age, where else would he get the salary and “prestige”??? Possibly you have read comments here that annoyed you, but IMO, this should not be one of them. It was stated fairly, and does not sound as if it came from an attitude of arrogance.

      1. Thanks for the response… I don’t think that Darrell is arrogant himself… but the posting does imply that only weak-willed folk and those who cannot think clearly stay in such churches… as I said elsewhere, this is very close to the “If you don’t agree with me, you’re stupid” reasoning.

        Plus, I was more on edge this morning; I was out of town last week and still being guilt-ridden about missing church, I went to church on Wed night. The preacher railed on those that don’t go soul-winning: according to him, they have no right to ask God for anything; they are not right with God, and, even if gifted, are not permitted to use their gifts. Because this is my weak area, I felt pretty beat up and argumentative this morning.

        1. Oh, Guilt Ridden, why are you still putting yourself under the condemnation of man? Of COURSE you can ask your loving heavenly Father for things! We can go to Him boldly, not because of what soul-winning we have or haven’t done, but because of Jesus’ blood. Covered in His blood, you are redeemed, accepted, forgiven, and beloved.

          I totally understand your desire to meet with other believers, but I wish you could go somewhere where the glorious Gospel is being shared instead of a guilt trip about what you are or are not doing.

        2. But see, that doesn’t fit most of us here, because we all have different beliefs after coming out of IFBism. I go to an evangelical nondenominational church that’s fairly contemporary. Others of us are Presbyterians, or Catholics, or Orthodox, etc. Obviously we don’t have a “anybody who doesn’t agree with me is stupid” attitude, or we’d all be at each other’s throats on a daily basis and the site would’ve been shut down a long time ago. =P

          I may disagree with other Christians on various matters, but what’s different now that I’m no longer in the IFB is that I’m able to see our points of agreement and focus on those. IFBers, unfortunately, usually can’t do that (not to mention they criticize and condemn the unity I’m talking about!).

        3. What a very kind, frank response, GR. I am sorry you had a bad time, and I, too, have experienced being argumentative, etc. I agree with PW that coming boldly to the Throne of Grace is important. It is hard, when one is first sipping true liberty in Christ, to understand that the well never runs dry. You can keep running to the Throne over and over and over… Also, what will develop in you until it is second nature is that sense that some guy in a pulpit is browbeating you, and your spirit will reject it. It just takes time, and our God is patient, and faithful.

        4. @pastor’s wife: Well… I still think that it good to be in church, even when I’m traveling, and I normally have pretty good fortune by picking an IFB church to visit. It just happened that the church I attended last week was hitting hard on “soul-winning”, which brought much of the guilt back. I don’t plan to visit that church again when I’m in that city… but the message brought back all of the things I used to hear “You’re not right with God unless you go soul-winning”, “soul-winning is the ONLY way to be wise”, “why should God give you anything if you can’t be bothered to tell others about Him?”, “soul-winning is the ONLY reason you’re still here”, and a few others.

          @mrssarahn: Most people on here are united in their dislike of various “fundy” behavior, so we have that in common — other areas of disagreement are kept in the background. But if a someone still in disagrees, he is treated roughly.

        5. @Seen Enough – thanks… I am slowly learning; I fear it will be a long journey, as I was involved in HAC-type churches for many, many years. I don’t want to use my freedom in Christ as a license to do whatever I want to do. I still believe that God has ways He wants me to live.

        6. Guilt Ridden, I misunderstood. I thought you were out of town on Sunday and were back at your home church for Wednesday. I’m sorry that the church you visited was focusing on guilt-based manipulation. I do think it’s rather telling that an IFB church picked somewhat at random STILL was preaching outward performance. On vacation last year, I attended a friend’s IFB church and greatly enjoyed the message on an obscure pasage in the history books of the OT. That is, I enjoyed it until the end, when his sole application of the passage was “be in church. Don’t skip any services.” I was flabbergasted. All that insight, all that spiritual truth, and to him it was all distilled down to “be here.” I was disappointed. And I do think it tells us something when time after time, this is the sort of preaching that comes from IFB church after IFB church. (And, yes, I do believe there are good ones, but I think they’re not as common as some of us wish they were.)

        7. GR, I feared that very thing, when I was pulling out–that my liberty in Christ would be abused by me! Like you, I also know that the Lord has a standard of behavior for us: His Son, Jesus Christ. In fact, attempting to behave like Jesus forces me automatically to reject most fundy instruction! I refer you to the Bible account of the woman caught in the very act: no screaming, harshness, nothing directed at the sinner from the Savior but a truthful plainly-spoken reply that He had no accusation against her, either! Or how about His response to the woman at the well? No harshness, just a plain statement of fact about her life at that moment, ALONG WITH details about how it could be sooo different for her!
          Our indoctrination by the IFB has made us hesitant to rely on the Holy Spirit, and that is such an insult to Him that I get nauseated when I think how long I lived that way! I can firmly attest to you here and now, the Holy Spirit has done a much better job of awakening me to a mis-step than any fundy preacher or institution ever did. He is faithful; He will let you know when you are starting down a wrong road. You can trust the Spirit of Truth, and His method of loving instruction, and when needed, rebuke.

        8. You need to change your name to “False Guilt Ridden” – unless you can provide the properly interpreted scriptures to support why you would accept such feces as fact – the more you question this community, the more evidence you submit as to its veracity

        9. You know, Guilt Ridden, your name says it all. In order for me to have stayed in my IFB church for so long I have had to tolerate their intolerance and though I do not follow any of their man-made rules, there comes a point where I really do feel really stupid because in a way by me worshiping there I am somewhat condoning all the extra-biblical crap passing as “sanctification” etc. I haven’t even read the above article yet but as a thinking person I just can’t take it anymore. I do have many true friends there which is the part that is going to be difficult when the final leaving happens. Some are full blown fundies and some are like me but they outwardly follow the rules. It will be interesting to see how they all react when I completely stop going there, whether they will call me worldly or whatever I don’t know. But I will still love them as my brothers and sisters in Christ. Maybe it will be like when you leave a really shittly marriage that looks good on the outside and then all the others who are in shitty marriages are envious because you had the nerve to finally call it what it was. I certainly don’t have all the answers.

    4. “…and try to make them stumble.”

      GR – What you call stumble, some of us might call “help to see the light”.

    6. GuiltRidden, it hurts. I know. It’s hard to admit. But that’s ok – denial is a normal part of the process.

      I thought I was a pretty strong-willed person. And a clear thinker. I wasn’t like “those other wacko fundies”. A lot of other fundies around me would have agreed.

      And then I finally got out. Really got out. And I look back and realize how much I allowed my strong will to be steamrolled and my clear thinking to be muddled. It’s not pretty. I’m ashamed of a lot of things. But until I was able to admit I was weak, I was stuck. Only once I really honestly agreed that my going along with Fundamentalist dogma was weak-willed and fuzzy-headed did I find the strength to stand up and run the other direction.

      I don’t know you outside of SFL, and not much outside of this post, but if you think picking an IFB church out of the phone book is still an okay choice, then you still don’t realize how beaten down you are by this abusive horror called Fundamentalism.

      May God give you a strong will and a clear head.

    1. Me too. I believe it’s my favorite because I heard this when I left fundamentalism – you’re wrong because you’re leaving. I always viewed it as circular reasoning: you’re wrong because you’re leaving, and you’re leaving because you’re wrong.

      Their premise is that because they embody truth (what they think is truth), and because they embody truth, then anything contrary to it is wrong. Thus, anything outside of fundamentalism is wrong.

      Flawed flawed flawed flawed flawed.

  21. “Once in a while we will hear about a preacher who has announced that he is “leaving Fundamentalism.” This is never good news, and it provokes several questions. It also calls for a response from those who are wiser.”

    Oh my word! What a sanctimonious thing to say! The one who stays in fundamentalism is automatically “wiser” than the one who leaves. Never mind that those who leave may have very good reasons for doing so. No matter what, the one who stays is “wiser.”

    I read this article and skimmed the one about ministerial authority. I have seen in all my years in fundamentalism that the pastor becomes more and more powerful simply because all of his lackeys I mean assistants are kept under complete subservience. They can’t ever question the manofgod, and with many of them you can’t even get a word in edgewise. I could cite example after example but I have other things to do today. 🙂

    1. “I don’t agree with you = I am wise, and you are foolish.”

      Nice!
      🙄

  22. My hope is that seeing more & more articles like this means people are leaving IFB and it is becoming weaker. Writing about it indicates it is becoming a bigger and bigger issue. In my circle it was just not talked about as were any inconsistencies. You just noticed so and so wasn’t there any more and you just knew… Then you hear a good sermon on the “foolish” behavior or position the person or famly had that left. Then just connect the dots. (Why did I stay soooo long?) 🙁

  26. Once you’ve defined Fundamentalism as the only truth, and the only way to do good, then there really isn’t much more to say. But where’s the proof that it is the only truth, and the only way to do good?
    Where’s the proof that nobody outside of Fundamentalism is following Christ?

    By the way, “because I said so” does not count as proof.

    1. BG – I am not as smart as you because I don’t have any initials after my name 😆 . But even I can answer your questions:

      But where’s the proof that it is the only truth, and the only way to do good?
      Where’s the proof that nobody outside of Fundamentalism is following Christ?
      By the way, “because I said so” does not count as proof.

      Answer – My pastor said it was in the Bible, somewhere.

  27. Heh…we used to play sports against the Christian school he ran while he was a pastor in Michigan.

    Annnnd, that’s about all I have to add.

    1. I didn’t realize who he was until you mentioned this. Yeah, we played against them, too. I had heard that the church was “going in a different direction” and forced the pastor and youth pastor out. What that means, I have no idea. Maybe a good thing?

      1. lol @ “maybe a good thing”.

        I’m positive that the direction change would be a good thing. If the website is any indicator, however, that change appears to be minimal.

    2. I KNEW his name sounded familiar! My school also played theirs, and I had several friends from there… They were one of the most “conservative” church schools in the state.

      1. And by “conservative” I mean, obey our rules or die. The dress code for that school was beyond anything else I saw in Fundyville.

        1. Not only were the dress standards strict, but their sports uniforms were UGLY! Who besides McDonalds ever thought red and yellow was a good combination?

        2. YES! We always used to laugh at the “Ronald McDonald” soccer and basketball players, and had great pity for those poor cheerleaders in long, bulky skirts and hideous colors. It’s like they said “how can we make our cheerleaders appear as unattractive as possible?” and that’s what they came up with. Whatever their reasoning, it worked.

  28. One of the last things that led me out of fundamentalism was the attitude that there was absolutely no room for disagreement. I’m not talking about the basic fundamentals of the faith; I’m talking standards, dispensationalism, music, dress, Bible versions, and a million other things for which there is substantial room for disagreement among believers. My wife and I have “left fundamentalism” for just a few months now, and we have already found ourselves to be more dependent on God’s grace than ever before. I have not denied the fundamentals of the faith; I have learned to embrace them, and more importantly God and Christ in a way I never did while trudging through the motions of fundamentalism. There is real hope and grace out here, and it is wonderful.

    2. Let me give you a metaphor for the Fundamentalists insistance obn seperation. My younger brother and I do not see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues. I have freqiently been wrong about certain issues. But so had my brother. I think it would be ridiculous to say that because my brother has been wrong about some really important issues, as well a trivial ones, I will never talk to him again and I won’t even regard him as my brother. And I am assuming that I have never been wrong myself….

  29. Maybe this was addressed on SFL at that time, but I think it was in 2008 or 2009, Sweatt spoke at the Fundy Massive Get Together at the Wilds. He preached the sermon “The Young and Restless” about young people leave fundamentalism because of Piper and MacArthur. I’m at work and can’t really give a link or anything, but it’s on SermonAudio.com. There was a lot of mudslinging after that sermon.

    This post reminded me of that. Anyone else hear about it?

    1. I *think* I read this in 2009, but here’s a link that speaks a little about the issue. Oh, that Fundy Massive Get Together was the FBFI(?). All those Greats MOGs are all ASSOCIATED through it.

      http://weblog.wordcentered.org/archives/2009/05/22/the_fbfi_responds_to_criticism_of_their_keynote_speaker_dan_sweatt.php

      I’m not really sure of all the details or anything, but this post reminded me of that sermon and all the uproar. Sweatt was accused of not knowing what he was talking about.

    2. Somewhere in my digital archives is a copy of the sermon, as well as a couple of rebuttals. I thought of it when I first read Darrell’s original post. I may be able to find a link, but it was sent to me as a few files.

      1. What was your take on it? I posted it on my facebook, and a fundy friend talked with me about it. I respect him very much, and he wasn’t at all spiteful in his views on the man. But I know other people, MOGs, felt like they had to sweep it under the rug.

        1. I actually hadn’t seen the FBFI response until today. I have Dr. Bauder’s comments on the sermon, and had a completely different take than the author of the piece linked to here from the FBFI.

          I think Pastor Sweatt and many others of his ilk need to realize that Calvinism isn’t the threat they claim. Hyper-Calvinism (or super-hyper-Calvinism if that is a phrase) seems to be how they view all Calvinists. I think Bauder made some very good points that bear thought. I think Sweatt needs to listen to his sermon and realize the silliness of some of his comments. He seems to have the typical IFB problem with following men, and, as best as I can recall, bemoans the fact that there are no ‘great leaders’ for the younger “preacher boys” to follow.

          The Calvinism issue Sweatt is so afraid of reminds me of Thursday’s Bogeyman posting.

  30. I wrote him:

    “The main point should be if someone is leaving Jesus Christ behind or not. Not leaving the endless array of false churches that preach Dominionism and adhere to the wickedness of this world.

    The churches are falling away and that includes many fundamentalist ones. If someone leaves a bad church, then why blame them? I would be most worried about where their relationship with God is. Leaving a bad fundamentalist church or false leader behind could be a total act of loyalty to Jesus Christ. Mark brings up a good point. I have separated from Dominionists. Even that “Church Triumphant” conference I saw linked on your links not sure if that is your church, smacks of the whole “seeking the power of this world” thing that has infested too many of the churches.”

    http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2010/12/falsehoods-and-falling-away-in.html

  31. Independent Baptist Fundamentalism: the religion of worshipping a set of “fundamental” standards rather than the The Way, The Truth and the Life found in the person of Jesus Christ.

    Fundamentalism is found in every religion where the rules are exalted over the message and are given greater authority because they are established in the name of the god they claim to worship. Precisely because these fundamental standards are tangible and attainable they are given higher esteem over even the god by whose authority they are conceived.

    I see no real difference in the IFB movement and the Taliban. (other than the IFB has yet to take up the sword against it’s detractors) Both are man centered and both worship the rules over the god they claim to worship through the keeping of those rules. In short, I see the IFB as a cult and will continue to hold that opinion until someone can show me different.

    1. I’ve often pondered the similarities as well. Look at how they treat their women and children and all the self-centered priorities. Didn’t ole Jimmy Vineyard get investigated for running a “paramilitary training camp” at the Windsor in the Wilds Camp under the flag of Windsor Hills Baptist Church?

      It seems that things aren’t far away from militarizing some of the uberIFBs out there. 🙄

      1. Of course, on a scale of one to ten of fundy insanity, with ten as the worst, Vineyard is a thirty-seven.

        1. Lol no joke! It doesn’t seem that many folks around here know much about that quack or his school. I listen to my wife’s family tell tall tales of BJU and they haven’t a clue what Windsor Hills and OBC was like. 😈

          Makes BJU look like Lucifer State! :mrgreen:

        2. I was at HAC when Vineyard was still there, and I personally know several couples whose marriages were just about destroyed by him and his brand of “counseling,” later, on Oklahoma. He will talk about anyone to anyone else, and keeps no confidences. He is insane, I truly believe he is. One too many Green Beret karate chops to the cranium.

  32. I didnt’ read the article, just Darrel’s overview. Does he ever mention people leaving God or just Fundamentalism? That makes me crazy. God cannot be stuffed in any church box and must look this way and must be worshipped this way. Leaving Fundamentalism, does not equate leaving God.
    It blows their mind to think of the possibility of creativity that God may allow in worshipping him in spirit and in truth.

  33. What is fundamentalism? I suppose that’s the real question. Is it belief in the five fundamentals, or is it the larger, man-made movement we’re familiar with? From the bits i picked up from the article (i skimmed it)Flanders seems to indicate it is BOTH. So, to leave the movement is to leave the five fundamentals of the faith. Even George W. Dollar seems to indicate this in his flawed yet widely read History of Fundamentalism. He insists fundamentalism is much more now, that there is a sixth fundamental: Earnestly contending for the faith. All that to say you CAN leave the movement without leaving the fundamentals of the faith.

  34. There are gaps in his argument big enough to drive truck through. The thought occurs to me: this is a movement built on protest, built on them separating from another group on principle. They can’t imagine that others would stand up and separate from THEM!

  35. I think it is interesting that many of us will struggle to interact with this article. There is a reason for this. Fundamentalism is so distorted that even the basic presuppositions upon which argument are founded are different for them than for the rest of the world.

    The basic definition of an argument is a set of sentences, of which one makes an assertion and the rest offer reasons to accept that assertion. But what do we see in Ricky’s article? He makes assertions, but never gives reasons why they should be accepted. In fact, there is no thinking involved at all Fundamentalism itself is not a human movement, but rather a divine truth. Really? Are those the only two options? By what standard? How does one know, recognize, measure, or qualify divine truth?

    But of course, this isn’t an argument at all – it is sheep control. A verbal electric fence to keep all the fawning sheeple worshipping the MOG.

    1. Hey, I wanna be a doctor! What can I be doctor OF? Perambulation and proctology are taken… does it have to start with a P? Given my love for Narnia, should it be Doctor of Paranormal Yet Christian Activities???

      P.S. This is a fantastic reply, fundystan.
      “In fact, there is no thinking involved at all Fundamentalism itself is not a human movement, but rather a divine truth. Really? Are those the only two options? By what standard? How does one know, recognize, measure, or qualify divine truth?”

      This is so true, and so well-put.

  36. The original writings the Fundamentalist have taken their name from had nothing to do with a lot of rules and Pharisaical living to prove you are holy. “The Fundamentals” were a series of essays commissioned and written at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.
    They were commissioned by Biblical leaders worried about the influx of European Liberalism into Christianity. They were written by academic leaders in Christianity from many denominational backgrounds, and as far as I can tell, none of them were Baptist.

    If I am leaving the Fundamentals of Scripture that are reflective of God’s truth, then please, Mr. Flanders show me my error. If I am leaving an organization that has tried to replace God and Scripture with a different form of error we choose to call legalism, then maybe you should grab your preferred translation, read GOD’S Word, and join me.

  37. Did you guys catch this gem?

    “Defections only hurt the defectors, and those who pay attention to them. If a believer for conscience sake must leave an organization, withdraw approval from a ministry or a minister, stop cooperating with somebody, or take some stand, let him simply do it, and not say things to cast reflection on Fundamentalism, a legitimate spiritual movement, “lest haply ye be found even to fight against God” (Acts 5:39). One man’s “leaving Fundamentalism” will do no harm to Fundamentalism itself.”

    So let me get this straight. Acts 5:39 shows why a person separating from Fundamentalism is clearly in the wrong (because he fights against God), but absolutely does not apply to when a Fundie does the exact same thing. Oh and by the way so far in that section he is describing a Fundamentalist to a T. Announcing you are separating. I wonder if he isn’t reflecting more than anything else. Hey buddy if it feels so familiar how you describe the people “leaving Fundamentalism” that is because it is, you do it every day.

    1. And this:
      “About twenty years ago…teachers and writers began calling the conservative wing of any religion “fundamentalist.” The P.B.S. broadcast a series of programs on what they called “fundamentalism,” which according to these shows is basically a mental illness. They diagnosed Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism, and Islamic fundamentalism as a mindset of fear, suspicion, anti-intellectualism, hatred, and fanaticism. ”

      Well, but really it is all of those things and your article is actually proving the point. But anyway go on.

    2. Oh yeah. I’m hurting so bad from leaving fundy land that I am actually feeling alive and energetic for the first time in years.

  38. “Some who think they are “leaving Fundamentalism” are actually disassociating themselves from one grouping of Fundamentalists.”

    This is actually true, sad, but somewhat unavoidable. Of course what he means by it is not what I mean by it. He is obviously trying to conflate the fundamentals of faith or better known as orthodoxy with fundamentalism itself. Basically saying that in order to leave a movement rightfully called fundamentalism you would have to leave fundamentalism altogether. That, quite frankly, is absolutely absurd. But on the flip side I know many people who said or claim that they left Fundamentalism only to end up in yet another Fundy church. Oh it may be kinder and gentler, but it is still a fundamentalist church. The rhetoric may be toned down, but it is still there and that is the problem.

  39. My thought after reading this was “wow, holy crap.” I guess this guy has a lock on truth. Whatever floats his boat I guess.

  40. Of course, it is quite possible to find the fundamentals to be in error too, not just a flawed system or a overwrought preacher

  42. Interesting article to say the least. His article on “ministerial loyalty” (in my opinion) is also one of the biggest problems that plagues fundamentalism. Here’s the link

    http://drrickflanders.com/2011/09/ministerial-loyalty/

    Here’s a quote:
    “When a man has been invited by a pastor to join the paid staff of the church as his assistant, his primary loyalty (other than to the Lord) is to that pastor. He works for the preacher, and only indirectly for the church…”

    This is the crux of his argument. This article really gets my blood boiling. The article hardly even implies allegiance to Jesus and never mentions loyalty to wife and children. Are we supposed to make the correlation? Too much to be said here for sure.

    1. I scanned that article and couldn’t get much past that point. An assistant pastor’s loyalty lies to his sheep before it belongs to the senior pastor in my opinion. His call is to follow Jesus and lead others in doing that. Blind adherence to a senior pastor does not a good assistant pastor make.

      1. I don’t think he understands that true loyalty can only come from true friendship. I would say that many people who have left so-called fundamentalism have left for this very reason! Just another circle the wagon’s, everyone- is-out-to-get-us article.

    2. This idea is one that is still a fresh wound. In fact I have erased my comment and rewrote it 3 times, and have now given up. I can’t even bring myself to talk about my experience with this damnable heresy.

      Congregational rule has been trampled in the IFB, even in so called “fundy-lite” churches. It is not even about the man in particular but about how dangerous the whole idea is that the senior pastor hires and fires his own staff and that everyone bears his mantle.

      This man’s teachings are not unique to him, lets just say I have run into a similar buzz saw and the results were gory. I gave as good as I got, but the wounds are deep.

    3. Looked at the article after your notice of it… it’s pretty terrible… the ultra-fundamental church I was in many years ago was just the same.

      The MOG explained that the church authorized him to hire a staff member, but then the church had no say in who was hired or fired; he expected all staff to be completely and utterly loyal to him.

      I was never a staff member there, and glad of it! They had to work long hours, and were forced to exalt the MOG in every thing, even when they had reservations, because “they were an example to the people.”

      Praise to God, I’m out of that!

  44. Twitch! Spasm! *Clear! —-Jolt!*

    Ok, I’m back.

    Thanks for shining a light on this ridiculous article Darrell!

  45. Okay I read it. I could say so much but I won’t. The thing I will mention is that isn’t it cute (NOT) how he only says some fundamentalists need “revival” and we shouldn’t leave them because they need “revival”? Why don’t they call it what it really is arrogance, hypocricsy pedophelia, adulterers, liers, scripture twisters, power hungry cult leaders….etc? No, all the need is revival, again, I envoke the song by Pink “Please Don’t Leave Me” the words are just so appropriate….

  46. “Early Fundamentalists did not argue for modest dress, but what did their women wear?”

    The fashions of the time.

    “They did not denounce sensual music in church, but what kind of music did they use?”

    The sacred music of the time.

    “They did not make an issue over English translations, but what version of the Bible did most of them use almost all the time?”

    The one that everybody else used back then.

  47. BTW, I assume I’m not the only one that went & commented on his blog/site as well. Anyone else care to own up to the fact your comments are “awaiting moderation” and will never be posted/allowed?

  49. I read the article and began reading many of the replies, but became very discouraged by them. My concern is that I fail to see the difference between what you call a “fundy” and your own spirits. The sarcasm, critical spirit and arrogance of what you claim to be seems to be nearly the same.

    If you truly desired to be different from the funamentalists, would you not show them love and compassion and earnestly plead with them to come to know the truth?

    Why would we spend so much time criticizing something and beating it into the ground while at the same time claiming to be better. That seems a little “bully on the playground” to me.

    I am honestly not trying to stir anything up, but as one who has battled with all of these issues, I am more prone to consider someone who defends their own position as opposed to destroying someone else’s.

    Are they preaching another gospel? Are they heretics? Are they causing people to spend an eternity in the lake of fire?

    I am missing where it is okay to be so critical of someone else while claiming to be “all that” when we are all supposedly sinners saved by grace.

    If lost people were to see any of this, wouldn’t be an embarrassment on the name of Christ and His gospel?

    I’m not criticizing, just trying to understand the justification of what would seem to be sin when the Bible speaks of “being kind” and “forgiving” and “living in unity” and such.

    1. I will not even pretend to try to speak for anyone here but myself.
      I was raised in the “Fundamental Baptist” movement and I owe pretty much every false doctrine and every bad teaching I have tried to overcome in my life to that fact.
      Yes, my heart hurts for those still in it. I wish every day I could come up with a way to minister to those in that movement especially the young people.
      Having been in the movement for so long I do know that by the time young people are old enough to be responsible for their own decisions, the brainwashing and the cult-like mind control has really been complete and not until most of their lives and possibly the lives of their children have been ruined will they realize what they are in and have the strength to step away.
      Having said all that, many here (including myself) are survivors of a form of mental torture that nobody who wasn’t also a victim of it could ever possibly understand.
      Poking fun is actually one of the more HEALTHY ways to deal with it. Other ways might have much more lasting consequences.
      So step back and let us heal. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

      1. I understand that there was a deep and wounding hurt. In no way do I intentionally marginalize that.

        My point is simply that when I see passages such as Phil. 1:27, James 3:13, I Peter 1:15 and others, I don’t see an alignment from this website to Scripture.

        I also understand that I do not have to read it. However, my comment is not that I am personally conflicted, but rather questioning the integrity of those taking part due to the nature of the comments which merely suggest may perhaps be contrary to Scripture.

        When one reads passages such as Matthew 18 and Luke 17, there is a definite call to confront, but never in the fashion in which is taking place here. Also, the goal of confrontation found in Scripture has always been with the intention of restoration.

        If restoration was impossible, then the people of God may be encouraged to separate, but at the same time encouraged to forgive those who caused an offense.

        The Bible has a heavy consequence for those who create the offense, but that is left in the hands of God.

        Isn’t it true that the responsibility of a Christian is to give his burden and heartache to the Lord (I Peter 5:7) and allow the Holy Spirit to offer cleansing and healing rather than tear others down?

        2. To Darrell’s comment below (I don’t see how to reply to it), that is an interesting and valid point I had not studied. However, you are only referencing one of many things in my comment.

          Also, I am not defending anyone. I think that is a misconception on your part. I am simply stating that to attack in the spirit in which this site is attacking does not seem to be Biblical. I am simply asking question. Your response to that particular question is tremendous and I fully intend to give it some thought and study.

          I’m not attacking or defending. Just trying to ask the hard questions and get some answers.

          Thanks for the response!

        3. Um, actually, if as a Christian I believe I am doing battle with the forces of Hell, and in the case of these fundies, I most certainly DO, I am commanded to arm myself completely, to be ready for warfare, and to use the truth as my weapon against the powers of darkness. Now, if you want proof that fundies are indeed ambassadors of Hell, why then, once again, I exhort you to READ THE NEWS POSTS ON THIS SITE, to google the names you will find there, to do some research instead of more… whatever it is you think you are doing. But, after all, I suppose it IS easier and more typical just jeep spreading more fundy judgment, under a not-so-great veneer of goodness and light.

        4. BTW, Darrell, I note that Concerned does not answer your challenge about the use of the diversion tactic. This is a fundy troll. Throw water on it and it will melt away, screeching.

        5. When someone sins against us, we can confront them in love with the hope of restoration.

          When someone says they are proclaiming the only true Gospel yet are misrepresenting it in a major way, it is our duty to publically call them out on their false teaching, in the same way that Paul called out Peter in front of everyone else (Galatians 2:14) and later wrote about it in one of his letters!

          Jesus prayed that those who believe on Him would be one, and there are many, many believers who still completely believe every statement in the BJU creed yet from whom BJU separates over secondary issues. I believe this is wrong and it is RIGHT to point out what is wrong.

          As for the mocking tone, Paul wrote that he wished that those who were troubling the Gentile Christians over circumcision would be “cut off.” I think there is a place for sarcasm. Also laughter doeth good like a medicine. As we laugh at some of the silly distortions that were presented to us as Scriptural truth, we are healing.

        6. Seen Enough, I am afraid I may not have been clear enough. In my first sentence in my response, I stated that Darrell had made a valid point that I would like to look into further. I chose not to respond in specific due to the fact that I thought he brought up a valid and interesting argument.

          If there was something else I did not cover, let me know. I am neither trying to pick a fight nor shy away from one.

          I have not attempted to support fundamentalism nor attack it. In fact, I have not attacked you or this sight, but rather asked pointed questions. Several of the comments (made in a good spirit) are definitely being taken to heart and considered.

          If you think I am writing you all off and saying you are ridiculous for saying anything like this, than I am afraid you have misread all of my comments.

          I am only entering the thread to find answers to questions I have had for so long, just as many of you are doing the same thing.

    2. It has been pointed out, elsewhere o this blog, that this is NOT a site for fundy apologists. This is, rather, a site for the wounded and scarred to be able to take another look, and this time, to look with laughter. The hyper-fun dies are absurd; their oral law rivals that of the Pharisees, and our Savior had no good thing to say about the Pharisees, and in fact, he even called them a name, yes, “whited sepulchres.” Sometimes, when one sees how absurd his stance truly is, in the eyes of others, it enables one to step back and take a good hard necessary look at himself. If a fundy, or fundy-lover, sees this blog, I hope that is what he does, ut frankly, I do not much care, one way or another, if he is offended. Jesus said He would offend the religious pompous butts of His day, also. In fact, I would bet money that our Savior HIMSELF would not be welcome in the standard fundy church today, with His pernicious habits of hanging out with the smelly, the dirty, the crooked, the noxious, the frightening. He was so rebellious, in pointing out the shortcomings of the Pharisees, who were, after all, the establishment religious folk of the day.
      Then too, Concerned, why don’t you check into the news headlines on this site, and read about cover-up after cover-up of gross perversion and physical abuse? Why don’t about directing your concern and compassion toward those of us who have been victimized by fundies? Don’t waste your time on pity for them; they are professionals at closing ranks, hiding truth, lying, and braggadocio.
      Sims is correct; satirizing their evil habits is a healthy way to deal with what they have done to us. it is a necessary release. No one is forcing you to read this site. again, though, your “concern,” which actually comes across as more fundy judgment,is seriously misplaced.

    3. “Are they preaching another gospel? Are they heretics? Are they causing people to spend an eternity in the lake of fire?”

      Yes, Concerned, they are.

      They preach the gospel of man-centered self-sanctification. They live the heresy of Semi-pelagianism. Their hypocrisy and abusiveness has driven many people to atheism, because if *that* is what God is like, they want no part of Him.

      This is a very, very big deal.

Comments are closed.