Monday, 11 April 2011
-
Growing Up in Christian Fundamentalism
By Matthew at Jesus Needs New PR
The above is a clip from last night’s 20/20. You can watch the whole episode here. The episode is an expose of sorts about the denomination Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB). I say “expose,” but it’s difficult to expose a group of churches that do not claim to be connected.
But they are connected. By belief. By strategies. By friendships. By doctrine. By theologies. By rules and standards. By “college degrees” from Bible schools where IFB ways are taught. One IFB church might not have any say or influence over another, but they are most definitely connected.
What makes this church subculture (and a very large church subculture in fact), is that each church has the ability to govern itself. A preacher boy and deacon board borrow the ideals set forth from one of a handful of Bible colleges and then takes those ideals to various spots around the country and do their ministry.
20/20 focused on a few of key issues within IFB–sex, secrecy, child discipline, and sexism. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It’s difficult to put your finger on the problems with IFB churches because every church has its own unique problems while sharing a long list of common problems with every other IFB church. An IFB church is only as healthy as the preacher boy standing in the pulpit and the men on the deacon board who rule and govern over everything imaginable.
I had a mild panic attack watching 20/20. About 12 minutes before it ended, I had to turn it off.
I’m working on my taxes today or I’d write more… But Jesus says I need to pay my taxes, so I shall do that first.
Peace to you, friends.
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: JesusNeedsNewPR
- Name: Matthew Paul Turner
- About Me: Matthew Paul Turner is the author of ten books and a contributor to several others. He is also the former editor of CCM, a popular Christian music magazine, and a past contributor to crosswalk.com.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 98 Views: 0 73183 Comments: 0 1245 View all posts by JesusNeedsNewPR
Comments (37)
I was raised in an IFB church. I watched that 20/20 episode. I'm still kind of... I don't know. So many thoughts on this....
the girl featured in the video is probably an exception, not the rule. Still, what these churches teach people is that males are all powerful and to "forgive and forget" no matter what which can lead to abuse of power.
This breaks my heart.
I will watch the video, I haven't yet and that needs to be understood to understand my comment.
I want to state this UP FRONT... this is secular media with a secular agenda and has NOTHING.... N-O-T-H-I-N-G... but an attack motive and it's own personal agendas (covered in detail shortly). If you can discredit something "Christian" you can lay question to ALL things Christian.
Think for a moment --- Where in the media do we find reports on those who've surrendered their Lives to Christ going out into the world to save the lost --- at their own expense? NOWHERE.
Where in the media do we find reports on Christians standing up for sensible morality? NOWHERE (because morality doesn't matter "if it feels good, do it.")
Where in the media do we find anything whatsoever to do with Christ and / or his message? Sure, they think he was a great teacher, made a couple of good points about religious hypocrasy and all.. but that stuff about him being God and dieing for the sins of the world... right, call my secretary... we'll pen you in just before our expose on the Catholic Church priests as pedophiles next time around.
The fact of the matter is this, and again I say this without having seen the video (yet.. I will), They have an agenda --- or actually several --- and the one thing they really AREN'T about is telling (fully) the truth whether it be about Christ, Christianity, or Biblical standards.
Let's label their agenda's.... As they are on national TV and cater to the public, it's obvious that one agenda is to pull topics that will pull in and appease the masses. You have to tickle the ears -- in order to have the ratings -- in order to have the sponsors -- in order to make money -- in order to pay the bills --- in order to keep the top rated interview team employeed by your network and not out seeking employment with the competitors.
Every agenda is right there. Pandering to the public, money, sponsorships, ratings and finally keeping the high rated interviewers paid well, happy, and under their umbrella.
Thus truth really isn't what any of this is about, it's merely one more attempt to turn public opinion on a subject they're already sour on. They (the public) already tire of hearing the Bible is God's Truth --- the standard of what real morality is --- so let's find some folks who misapply it, show them as an example as the whole of Christianity, and thus call to question whether Christianity really does have any answers to offer. After all, all Christians are hypocrites, aren't they? Morality... it's all what we make it, so long as we don't hurt anyone else.
That all said... with a good dose of sarcasm and vitroil... I will go watch the video now --- but I seriously doubt it's gonna change my opinion of what I just said. I've seen the truth of what I have said far to many times for it to change now.
It is important to watch people's doctrine. You can't tell the wheat from the tares because they look alike.
The 20/20 interview isn't going to tell me a lot about the Church's background.
My high school teacher allegedly had a romance with a student who became pregnant and the same people who say you can't read or pray in school are the ones who get in trouble. It wouldn't be hard to google 50 or 100 teachers who got in trouble with students today.
@JulieMillerFan@xanga - The media doesn't give a balanced view, yes.
But I was raised in that setting -all of it, from the dress code to unquestioning obedience to 6-7 days a week there to everyone else going to hell -and it was portrayed pretty acurately. And I know of sex crimes covered up and never dealt with... at least 2.
Just because TV likes some stories more than others doesn't mean the ones they cover aren't real issues.
I can't watch this video because I am at school and don't have any sound. But, I personally have not had a very good impression of the IFB churches. The people I have seen from these tend to be extremely legalistic and condemning. One man I knew would constantly make claims that he was praying for God to send people to hell. The ones I know seem to have strayed from the message of Christ and have turned to condemning people for reading "satanic" versions of the bible (aka any translation that is not the King James) and informing people that if they don't believe in eternal security they are going to hell (kind of a contradiction).
Anyway, I guess the most you really can do for these people is pray for them. Talking to them hasn't done much good for me.
When you find the perfect church you should invite the press in. Having been educated in both sound & liberal theology I can say the latter leaves sometng to be desired as well.
@caroliiineee@xanga - All Baptist churches are independent.
Fundamental basically means that you believe the Bible and it was basically a movement to ward off evolution and the damage that scientific criticism did to belief and churches. Over a period of time they have started making rules instead of allowing Christians listen to the Holy Spirit to have God teach them what is right and wrong from His word.
I'm on both sides of the issue. While I don't condemn those who use other versions, I have challenged the people who believe in the 1611 King James Only. On the other hand, there haven't been any modern day revivals linked to the NIV, NASB, the Message, ESV or other versions. The Protestant Reformation grew out of the King James Bible and nothing has surpassed that. Mostly all of the creeds we have today came out of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
There are problems with the other versions in that Churches are abandoning the NIV due in part to the TNIV being introduced and the Gender Neutral Debate. Whole churches that relied on the NIV were switching to the English Standard Version because the publisher was going to stop producing the old NIV and was producing the gender neutral bible. Why would whole churches leave if there wasn't a danger? They are seperating because they understand the danger and they understand where we are headed.
Muhammad couldn't get people to follow him so he made his own Bible. The Watchtower (Jehovah Witnesses) made their own Bible. When those who believe that women should be pastors and people won't follow then they resort to making their own Bible version to support views that haven't been held for 2,000 years. So if your foundation was the NIV bible and it moves, what does that say about the stability in what those who hold to the NIV? Truth doesn't change and those who need the changes are desperate because it means that there wasn't any validity to their claims so they needed to be backed up with an adulterated version.
There are problems with the NASB because it is based on the Westcott and Hort text and they were post tribulationists which means that you are almost forced into their wrong view if you read their version.
The Message Bible has words, omissions and interpretations which have no justification in being in there.
@Chuckt - I think that the King James is the most accurate version, too. I don't prefer reading it, though, because I don't grasp the message as well. I'm not saying that the man I knew was wrong for making that claim, but it seemed to be one of his main focuses. Instead of preaching about Christ, he would preach on how anyone who read anything except the King James was a heretic. Something is wrong when you stop preaching about Jesus Christ and start condemning everyone for everything in an attitude of hatred.
I completely agree that it is wrong to change the text, though, and that does make me question reading the NIV.
Regarding revivals, I completely believe that those are 100% a work of the Holy Spirit, and not at all about the translation of bible.
Also, I've never read the NASB translation, but maybe I should check it out because I do believe in a post-tribulation rapture.
I believe in the basic concept of fundamentalism, that there are a core set of beliefs that are fundamental to the Christian faith. What I find disturbing, is that many, if not most, people that carry the "fundamentalist" moniker have added a ton of other things that make them believers and everyone else not. Mark Driscoll has made a good distinction on this by discussing close hand, open hand topics. Essentials and non essentials. I like those distinctions because it reintroduces a level of sanity that has been lost in the conversation.
@Chuckt - You said, The Protestant Reformation grew out of the
King James Bible and nothing has surpassed that."
The protestant reformation did not grow out of the the 1611 translation of the King James Bible, rather it was an expression of the movement begun by Martin Luther in 1517.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
@Happily_Married_Guy@xanga - I would probably lean to the fact that Mark Driscoll leans heavily on non-essentials. This is why he is not considered in the center (from Wikipedia):
Emerging church
His description of his association with, and eventual distancing from the Emerging church movement:[6]
In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.
Gender roles
Driscoll holds to a complementarian view of gender roles.[7] He sometimes asks his wife to come up on stage to help him answer questions texted in from the audience,[8] and believes that this does not clash with his understanding that preaching/teaching by women is prohibited by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12.[9]
@Chuckt - While he may do that, he never makes those conditions of church membership or beliefs that if missing, would make him doubt other's salvation... that's my main point. It does make sense that if I had no agreement as a church leader with a group that was supposed to be somehow defining or representing me, and they have many different beliefs on non essentials, I would distance myself from it as well because it makes no sense to be thought of as someone that believes a whole bunch of things that they don't.... I hope that makes sense lol
@Happily_Married_Guy@xanga - What is your standard of a pastor or teacher? Do they just have to be saved and it doesn't matter about the rest?
@caroliiineee@xanga - Feel free to look around on my site about post tribulationism. I debate a pastor (aka George Ransom) on my site on dispensationalism, the timing of the rapture, etc.
http://discipleship.yuku.com/forums/87/Archives
@Chuckt - No I am not talking about standards of a teacher I sit under. I have a long list of things I want to see practiced and preached. That's far different than doubting that others are saved when they don't agree with that long list.
@Happily_Married_Guy@xanga -
I'm not doubting whether he is saved or not saved. I don't know him.
It is like letting a former Mormon or Jehovah's Witness be your pastor. They come with a certain baggage and Moses spent 40 years in the desert and 40 years with the Children of Israel and he still couldn't enter the Promised Land in the flesh.
The problems are he believed in open theism, denying substitutionary atonement, having a low view of scripture, denying Hell, etc. His background is Roman Catholic so he is not someone I would want to learn from.
There is more to teaching than showing you a bunch of facts. Teaching involves presenting the information in a format that you want to learn and you also want someone who was trained by someone who was trained by someone who was trained because the average Church visitor wouldn't know whether the pastor was teaching his own ideas or whether he was teaching the Bible. The problem was he was trained and he was believing these things. And teaching about the Bible ends where we don't know anymore about a subject and we start using human reasoning to explain a spiritual subject. Bringing in your own ideas isn't hard to believe because there was a teacher at a Christian college who brought books on Mormonism and donated them to the Christian University's library and because there is such a thing as academic freedom, it limits what the Dean and other people can do about it. There were students studying Mormonism at a Christian University and because the teacher was in a position of authority, they didn't think anything about it. Some students didn't know they were studying Mormonism.
@Rev222@xanga -
"The protestant reformation did not grow out of the the 1611 translation of the King James Bible, rather it was an expression of the movement begun by Martin Luther in 1517."
You're missing a few facts. I've debated atheists over the years, they corrected me, and after looking it up I see their point of view. You are gerrymandering.
@Chuckt - The only agenda I have here is presenting historical facts and I did so. The king James Version of the Bible was translated AFTER Martin Luther translated the Bible into German first. True Wycliffe did translate the Bible into English, from the Vulgate, but he was declared a heretic and his remains were exhumed and burned and his Bibles were banned. Most historians suggest that the development of the printing press actually permitted Martin Luther to be successful in beginning the reformation when others had failed. None of this changes the fact that the reformation did not grow out of the 1611 translation of the Bible.
BTW you also said, "Mostly all of the creeds we have today came out of the Westminster Confession of Faith."
That isn't a fact either.
@Rev222@xanga - Though we have the Geneva Bible, Tynedale New Testament and so forth, what we have is the King James translation which was pretty much the dominant translation for almost 400 years and the modern translations cannot touch the revivals that this Bible had.
You're still missing a fact.
@Chuckt - I am not going to write a history book on xanga.
@Chuckt - "The problems are he believed in open theism, denying substitutionary atonement, having a low view of scripture, denying Hell, etc. His background is Roman Catholic so he is not someone I would want to learn from."
I think you are confusing and confounding Mark Driscoll with Rob Bell. Mark Driscoll has always believed in hell. Always. He is a Calvinist that believes in substitutionary atonement. I don't know where you are getting your facts from. Mark was raised "Roman Catholic" in that he was part of a Catholic family -- he never went to church and he admits he was not saved during that time. Rob Bell's Mars Hill Bible church in MI is not the same as Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Not connected in any way. Nothing to do with each other. Zip, zilch, nyet, nanka, noway jose.
I think you should actually listen to some of his sermons before saying things that you obviously don't know anything about.
"I believe in the basic concept of fundamentalism, that there are a core set of beliefs that are fundamental to the Christian faith. What I find disturbing, is that many, if not most, people that carry the "fundamentalist" moniker have added a ton of other things that make them believers and everyone else not. Mark Driscoll has made a good distinction on this by discussing close hand, open hand topics. Essentials and non essentials. I like those distinctions because it reintroduces a level of sanity that has been lost in the conversation."
Here I find it interesting that what we can see is the kinds of things that dominate the thoughts of today's ultra-"Fundamentalists" who really are would-be fundamentalists... because, being a fundamentalists is holding TO THE CORE TEACHINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. It is NOT making a huge deal about this and that other topic, beating the heck out of non essentials and demanding that others do the same, otherwise questioning their salvation or at least giving snorts of disapproval. No, today's ultra would-be ultra"Fundamentalists" tend to be people that pick and pick and pick on details, have lists that they judge others by, are obsessed with works that others must live up to, rely on pressure and badgering people to do those works, instead of allowing the word of God and the Holy Spirit to change people's lives.
The sad thing is, that others see this and are given a negative impression of good sound theology. The WCF for example is awesome. It's not the enemy, it's an excellent summary of great theology. It doesn't make people wild-eyed frothing works obsessive people that try to control people and their thoughts through pressure, intimidation, and groupthink tactics... that's a people thing, the result of being a sinner and not relying on the Holy Spirit. Satan attacks different people in different ways, and this is one way that he attacks people that have a very high view of scripture (as I do as well)
Zeal is good, but misplaced zeal can be dangerous.
@Rev222@xanga - "I am not going to write a history book on xanga."
Quoting Wikipedia may be one thing but anyone can contribute to it even if they aren't credentialed. I spent almost my whole time reading and answering questions for my college history. Wikipedia is sometimes helpful but won't get me an "A" in school.