Fundies get hung up on the stupidest things...

[PappaBear]

That is ironic to me...who for 30 years Pastored an IFB church which became an SBC church.
There was absolutely more pressure to conform in IFB than SBC..in my experience.

I have seen that, too.  But it is more from the fact that there are different "camps" within the Independent world.  Some of these, especially such as the BBF, apply lots of pressure to conform.  A similarity can be seen in HAC grads.  Hyles came out of the SBC by convenience, not conviction (at least, not "Independent" by conviction).  When you have several HACkers in an area, they tend to associate with one another.  This was taught in Church Ed while I was there.  You hire out of HAC, you marry out of HAC, etc.  Has all the earmarks of denominationalism and control.

However, there are still plenty who are Independent by conviction, believing in the autonomy of the local church.  These tend NOT to be out of the BBF, GARBC, SBC, ABC, or HAC camps where pressures to conform, or you're out, can be brought to bear.  More often, they are the smaller churches often ignored by the groups who are ganging together for mostly political purposes and bragging rights, anyway.

 

[maki12a]

Garbage Bapstists.  Heard that many years ago.  I did know a Pastor who told me the GARBC Pastors locally would not have any fellowship with him because he was not pastoring a GARBC church although he, himself, was a GARBC Pastor. 

 

[Patebald]

TB Said:

And I'M jumping to false conclusions?

Yes. That's exactly what you're doing and was exactly my point.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

TB Said:

And I'M jumping to false conclusions?

Yes. That's exactly what you're doing and was exactly my point.

I know I'm old and have a dated value system, but how am I jumping to conclusions?

Pate, please.
This thread was a response to the iPad in the pulpit thread.
The writer of the article was not a fundy by any definition.
No poster on the thread posted a blanket condemnation of such.
In fact, my first post was that I considered it nit picking.
You respond with "Fundies get hung up on the stupidest things".

And I'M jumping to false conclusions?

Please show me where i'm wrong...take the time to teach me some of your 'hip, relevant learning'.
Thank you.

 

[subllibrm]

Still wondering how a GARBC church isn't independent.

Many Bible Baptist Fellowship churches wonder the same thing about the BBF.  Yet these "associations and fellowships" move as a group, operate as a group, and expel churches for non-conformance with the p&p of the group.  Led by their "council of 18" and "National Representative," the GARBC has meetings, dispenses resolutions, and functions as a national organization with a well defined system, very similar to the Northern Baptist Convention from which they came out, and the current SBC model.

Independents still wonder how the SBC, the GARBC, and the BBF lay any reasonable claim to being "Independent" local churches when their constituents remain unable to act or operate independently of "convention, association, or fellowship" approval.

Since my 30+ years experience in a GARBC church mean nothing, I bow to your much deeper knowledge of my church.

 

[Izdaari]

It was a very long time ago, but I thought my GARBC church was pretty good, and I would have continued going there if my parents hadn't moved away (I was still a kid, and didn't have any choice in that).

 

[Patebald]

TB SAID:
Please show me where i'm wrong

Sure. No problem. This thread was in response to a conversation I had with an x-fundie a couple nights before I posted the thread on all the ridiculous things IFBers get caught up on and make a big deal of. Things that make absolutely NO difference whatsoever in the Kingdom. We were talking about this forum, well... Technically the old forum, and how every time we log on we are reminded of the BS fundies get tied up in.

As a real shocker and to my utmost amazement, when I got on the forum there was a thread about the danger of the iPad becoming a substitute for the actual, physical word of God. LOL! I can't even type it without laughing.

Hope this clears things up for you.

 

[Izdaari]

TB SAID:
Please show me where i'm wrong

Sure. No problem. This thread was in response to a conversation I had with an x-fundie a couple nights before I posted the thread on all the ridiculous things IFBers get caught up on and make a big deal of. Things that make absolutely NO difference whatsoever in the Kingdom. We were talking about this forum, well... Technically the old forum, and how every time we log on we are reminded of the BS fundies get tied up in.

As a real shocker and to my utmost amazement, when I got on the forum there was a thread about the danger of the iPad becoming a substitute for the actual, physical word of God. LOL! I can't even type it without laughing.

Hope this clears things up for you.

There is something to be said for the esthetic qualities of a good paper Bible. The feel and smell and texture of good leather, paper and ink. But that's an esthetic point, not a theological one, which makes it purely personal preference. Functionally, a tablet with a good Bible app is a superior Bible, in many translations at once, searchable, with study resources, and even easier to read for people with bad eyes.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Sure. No problem. This thread was in response to a conversation I had with an x-fundie a couple nights before I posted the thread on all the ridiculous things IFBers get caught up on and make a big deal of. Things that make absolutely NO difference whatsoever in the Kingdom. We were talking about this forum, well... Technically the old forum, and how every time we log on we are reminded of the BS fundies get tied up in.

So a "fundie" is anybody who contends for things that you deem to be dumb and trivial? 

 

[subllibrm]

Sure. No problem. This thread was in response to a conversation I had with an x-fundie a couple nights before I posted the thread on all the ridiculous things IFBers get caught up on and make a big deal of. Things that make absolutely NO difference whatsoever in the Kingdom. We were talking about this forum, well... Technically the old forum, and how every time we log on we are reminded of the BS fundies get tied up in.

So a "fundie" is anybody who contends for things that you deem to be dumb and trivial?

Not that there is anything wrong with it.  ;D

 

[North]

'Stupidest things' is relevant to the individual.

But for those who disagree with "fundies" what are the alternative movements, denominations etc. that are still true to the Bible and doctrine and have humble, selfless, balanced and mentally & spiritually fit leaders.

I have lately researched the emerging church movement, and found that they are guilty of a lot of the things that the "anti-fundy" websites complain about, mistreatment of their members and their authority and unscriptural rule sets.

Except for the far and few between unaffiliated bible believing church, I have trouble finding an evangelistic church that has both good doctrine and a healthy and balanced leadership.

(I do not classify myself as a fundamentalist Baptist by the way.)

 

[Patebald]

Lame said:

So a "fundie" is anybody who contends for things that you deem to be dumb and trivial?

Well... not necessarily what "I" deem as dumb and trivial, but certainly things that are deemed dumb and trivial by anyone with half of a brain.

 

[PappaBear]

So a "fundie" is anybody who contends for things that you deem to be dumb and trivial?

No, a "fundie" is someone who rides into power on his daddy's coat tails, attempts to reform or restore the fallen such as Dave Hyles when others are telling you he is a master deceiver, then shifts blame outward when it doesn't work out, preferrably to those who warned him beforehand that it wouldn't work out.  A "fundie" is a hypocrite who claims superior righteousness, so superior in fact that he can use abbreviated filthy communication in his normal conversation because ain't no dirt sticking to the lord high & mighty "fundie" judge.  Lift up the emergent's wool, and you find a ravening "fundie" underneath.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Baldie said:

Well... not necessarily what "I" deem as dumb and trivial, but certainly things that are deemed dumb and trivial by anyone with half of a brain.

And once again, you prove that in your desire to stay relevant, you are clueless.  The author of the OP about Bibles in the Pulpit is <PhD> Matthew Barrett a SBC College Professor at California Baptist University, and a quick perusal of his profile at http://www.credomag.com/category/matthew-barrett/ shows more mental acumen in his little pinky than you (or I) have in your entire life's accomplishments combined with anything you aspire to ever think.  The question is not about brains, because in that department, compared to Barrett, you lose.  Try again.

 

[Bruh]

So a "fundie" is anybody who contends for things that you deem to be dumb and trivial?

No, a "fundie" is someone who rides into power on his daddy's coat tails, attempts to reform or restore the fallen such as Dave Hyles when others are telling you he is a master deceiver, then shifts blame outward when it doesn't work out, preferrably to those who warned him beforehand that it wouldn't work out.  A "fundie" is a hypocrite who claims superior righteousness, so superior in fact that he can use abbreviated filthy communication in his normal conversation because ain't no dirt sticking to the lord high & mighty "fundie" judge.  Lift up the emergent's wool, and you find a ravening "fundie" underneath.

Once again, thank you PappaBear.  Most people on this forum do not understand the difference, because the "Hyles Movement" is all they have been exposed to, when it comes to the IFB. 

 

[Izdaari]

So a "fundie" is anybody who contends for things that you deem to be dumb and trivial?

No, a "fundie" is someone who rides into power on his daddy's coat tails, attempts to reform or restore the fallen such as Dave Hyles when others are telling you he is a master deceiver, then shifts blame outward when it doesn't work out, preferrably to those who warned him beforehand that it wouldn't work out.  A "fundie" is a hypocrite who claims superior righteousness, so superior in fact that he can use abbreviated filthy communication in his normal conversation because ain't no dirt sticking to the lord high & mighty "fundie" judge.  Lift up the emergent's wool, and you find a ravening "fundie" underneath.

I think that's an accurate description of the Hyles type "fundies".

OTOH, I have no problem with actual historic type fundamentalists. I'm not one of them, but I respect them.

But I am a certifiable emergent (a founding member of a TEC/ELCA/Benedictine emergent Anglo-Catholic church), and I don't think I or any of leaders in our parish match that description at all. Some of the national emergent leaders possibly might, but I've never met any.

 

[ALAYMAN]

So a "fundie" is anybody who contends for things that you deem to be dumb and trivial?

No, a "fundie" is someone who rides into power on his daddy's coat tails, attempts to reform or restore the fallen such as Dave Hyles when others are telling you he is a master deceiver, then shifts blame outward when it doesn't work out, preferrably to those who warned him beforehand that it wouldn't work out.  A "fundie" is a hypocrite who claims superior righteousness, so superior in fact that he can use abbreviated filthy communication in his normal conversation because ain't no dirt sticking to the lord high & mighty "fundie" judge.  Lift up the emergent's wool, and you find a ravening "fundie" underneath.

I think that's an accurate description of the Hyles type "fundies".

OTOH, I have no problem with actual historic type fundamentalists. I'm not one of them, but I respect them.

But I am a certifiable emergent (a founding member of a TEC/ELCA/Benedictine emergent Anglo-Catholic church), and I don't think I or any of leaders in our parish match that description at all. Some of the national emergent leaders possibly might, but I've never met any.

Well, as is the case with Pate's argument, many "fundys" are anti-intellectual (ie, "dumb" and "half a brain" as he put it), but the author of the OP is neither.  He is merely conservative, and reformed, which means his theology is shaped philosophically by the regulative principle.  I find much charm in certain nuances of the regulative principle, especially when so many theatrics pass for the seeker-sensitive marketing model of church.

 

[Izdaari]

So a "fundie" is anybody who contends for things that you deem to be dumb and trivial?

No, a "fundie" is someone who rides into power on his daddy's coat tails, attempts to reform or restore the fallen such as Dave Hyles when others are telling you he is a master deceiver, then shifts blame outward when it doesn't work out, preferrably to those who warned him beforehand that it wouldn't work out.  A "fundie" is a hypocrite who claims superior righteousness, so superior in fact that he can use abbreviated filthy communication in his normal conversation because ain't no dirt sticking to the lord high & mighty "fundie" judge.  Lift up the emergent's wool, and you find a ravening "fundie" underneath.

I think that's an accurate description of the Hyles type "fundies".

OTOH, I have no problem with actual historic type fundamentalists. I'm not one of them, but I respect them.

But I am a certifiable emergent (a founding member of a TEC/ELCA/Benedictine emergent Anglo-Catholic church), and I don't think I or any of leaders in our parish match that description at all. Some of the national emergent leaders possibly might, but I've never met any.

Well, as is the case with Pate's argument, many "fundys" are anti-intellectual (ie, "dumb" and "half a brain" as he put it), but the author of the OP is neither.  He is merely conservative, and reformed, which means his theology is shaped philosophically by the regulative principle.  I find much charm in certain nuances of the regulative principle, especially when so many theatrics pass for the seeker-sensitive marketing model of church.

Right, and I probably should go back to the OP and read the link. I was really just responding to PappaBear's comments on "fundies" with a side swipe at emergents.

And FWIW I have a bit of a Reformed streak myself: I seem to qualify as an Amyraldian. I don't believe the regulative principle stuff, but I do at least understand where it's coming from... but "high church" Anglican liturgy works better for me.

I am also not that big on "seeker-sensitive"; that's too much marketing-driven megachurch strategy that doesn't really understand the emergent critique of modernism, and why we need to consider how to appeal to a culture that's rapidly becoming post-modern.  A few stylistic changes to the way they "do church" is all well and good, but it kinda misses the point, and doesn't really get the job done... though it may help with marketing, if that's what they care about.

 

[Patebald]

Lame said:
The author of the OP about Bibles in the Pulpit is <PhD> Matthew Barrett a SBC College Professor at California Baptist University,

How impressive. And yet he's wasting it on stupid stuff like this. Maybe he's just bored.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Lame said:
The author of the OP about Bibles in the Pulpit is <PhD> Matthew Barrett a SBC College Professor at California Baptist University,

How impressive. And yet he's wasting it on stupid stuff like this. Maybe he's just bored.

Or maybe he takes theology seriously, not relegating it to the trash-heap of the least common denominator.