Dictatorial Preacher Rule - Where It All Began

[illinoisguy]

Joel Carpenter, in his book "Revive Us Again - The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism" (1997) describes the fundamentalism of the 1930s as characterized by combativeness, by "militancy," "machismo," "aggressiveness," and "pugnacity." He notes nicknames that were "more appropriate for boxers than for preachers," such as J. Frank Norris (Texas Tornado) and a number of "Fighting Bobs" (Ketcham, Shuler, etc).

He says, "Fundamentalism's penchant for militancy turned inward in another way as well. Especially among the separatists, for whom the sense of cultural alienation grew deepest, pastors became increasingly authoritarian and at times bullying in their relationships with their congregations. Pastors saw themselves as the Lord's anointed and viewed the world as filled with sinister forces, so the sheep in their fold needed herding. Brow-beating from the pulpit, a common practice in separatist circles, was one of the most obvious indications of this growing dictatorial spirit."

He states that John R. Rice "exemplifies the accusatory, intimidating thrust of such rhetoric. . . . By example, and by explicit teaching in his publications, Rice taught thousands of fundamentalist pastors how to boss others around." (pp. 66-67)

Carpenter implies that the principle of "preacher rule" arose during the 1930s and was rare, if present at all, prior to that time. Which raises the question, how in the world did true Christianity survive before that time, without strong-willed preachers to boss, bully and browbeat the layfolk?

 

[Ekklesian]

Pastors saw themselves as the Lord's anointed

The congregations saw them as such too. Therein lies the rub.

Joel Carpenter, in his book "Revive Us Again - The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism" (1997) describes the fundamentalism of the 1930s as characterized by combativeness, by "militancy," "machismo," "aggressiveness," and "pugnacity." He notes nicknames that were "more appropriate for boxers than for preachers," such as J. Frank Norris (Texas Tornado) and a number of "Fighting Bobs" (Ketcham, Shuler, etc).

Probably a reaction to Feminism. It was just the previous decade in which the 19th Amendment was ratified.

 

[illinoisguy]

The emphasis on "preacher rule," as a reaction to feminism and giving the vote to women (19th Amendment), is an interesting possibility. Even today, there are some "Patriarchy" preachers who say that women should not vote. If this principle was to be generally, voluntarily adopted by Christian women, it would reduce the strength of the "Christian Right" vote by more than 50%. I don't think that would be such a good idea.

Another possibility is that many pastors today believe it is their duty (part of their job description) to compel their parishioners to do the right thing (as defined by the pastor), which means the lay people must be under complete control of the pastor, by bossing and bullying if necessary.

Dallas Willard addressed this attitude in an essay in the recently published book "The Scandal of the Kingdom" - "There are people who want nothing to do with Christ and His church because they've had their soul torn apart by well-meaning Christians who pressured them to comply with what they think it means to become a Christian. . . .

"Now I have abandoned trying to get anyone to do anything. It's not my business. It is the Lord who adds daily to the church. . . .

"You don't have to make it happen. . . . Instead of trying to compel people into heaven, we do what the farmer did [in Mark 4:26-27], sow the seed and then abandon it. You lay the seed down whether it's what you say to your children or to the students in a class you teach. I have found that if people weren't so anxious about MAKING people think a certain way or do a certain thing, they would do a much better job of presenting the gospel of the kingdom of God. Their strained efforts to get people to do these things make it difficult for others to truly hear the Word of God." (pp. 66-68)

Authoritarian pastors would be very uncomfortable with this type of approach. They believe that the only way that church members will do the right thing is for the pastor to get them under complete submission and control, by force and bullying if necessary. This means that mature adult church members will find themselves treated like unruly children in such churches. If they have a problem with that, they will leave, or be thrown out.

 

[Bruh]

At my age if a pastor tried this I’d tell him to go kick rocks. And I’ve tried teaching this to my children.

 

[Walt]

The emphasis on "preacher rule," as a reaction to feminism and giving the vote to women (19th Amendment), is an interesting possibility. Even today, there are some "Patriarchy" preachers who say that women should not vote. If this principle was to be generally, voluntarily adopted by Christian women, it would reduce the strength of the "Christian Right" vote by more than 50%. I don't think that would be such a good idea.

Another possibility is that many pastors today believe it is their duty (part of their job description) to compel their parishioners to do the right thing (as defined by the pastor), which means the lay people must be under complete control of the pastor, by bossing and bullying if necessary.

Dallas Willard addressed this attitude in an essay in the recently published book "The Scandal of the Kingdom" - "There are people who want nothing to do with Christ and His church because they've had their soul torn apart by well-meaning Christians who pressured them to comply with what they think it means to become a Christian. . . .

"Now I have abandoned trying to get anyone to do anything. It's not my business. It is the Lord who adds daily to the church. . . .

"You don't have to make it happen. . . . Instead of trying to compel people into heaven, we do what the farmer did [in Mark 4:26-27], sow the seed and then abandon it. You lay the seed down whether it's what you say to your children or to the students in a class you teach. I have found that if people weren't so anxious about MAKING people think a certain way or do a certain thing, they would do a much better job of presenting the gospel of the kingdom of God. Their strained efforts to get people to do these things make it difficult for others to truly hear the Word of God." (pp. 66-68)

Authoritarian pastors would be very uncomfortable with this type of approach. They believe that the only way that church members will do the right thing is for the pastor to get them under complete submission and control, by force and bullying if necessary. This means that mature adult church members will find themselves treated like unruly children in such churches. If they have a problem with that, they will leave, or be thrown out.

Excellent.

By so behaving, authoritarian pastors show that they don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Is is by growing in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit transforms lives.

All these authoritarian people do is make people "conform" to their rules... because one is seeking to please the authority instead of God, there is little or no work of the Holy Spirit on lives, if they are even saved... this manipulation sadly extends to "soul-winning" in which people are taught to manipulate "the lost" into saying a prayer and counting them saved. Thus we see reports of 5,000 people "saved" and 10 baptized, and the average church attendance not changed by much.

Sadly, this state of affairs is still going on; a friend who is concerned about this showed me a report of a missionary that had thousands and thousands of people saved, but no change in his average attendance. He doesn't dare bring this up at his church for fear of being "anti-soulwinning" or "negative" (that is, looking for the bad). I hope he will decide to leave that church one day.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

Joel Carpenter, in his book "Revive Us Again - The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism" (1997) describes the fundamentalism of the 1930s as characterized by combativeness, by "militancy," "machismo," "aggressiveness," and "pugnacity." He notes nicknames that were "more appropriate for boxers than for preachers," such as J. Frank Norris (Texas Tornado) and a number of "Fighting Bobs" (Ketcham, Shuler, etc).

He says, "Fundamentalism's penchant for militancy turned inward in another way as well. Especially among the separatists, for whom the sense of cultural alienation grew deepest, pastors became increasingly authoritarian and at times bullying in their relationships with their congregations. Pastors saw themselves as the Lord's anointed and viewed the world as filled with sinister forces, so the sheep in their fold needed herding. Brow-beating from the pulpit, a common practice in separatist circles, was one of the most obvious indications of this growing dictatorial spirit."

He states that John R. Rice "exemplifies the accusatory, intimidating thrust of such rhetoric. . . . By example, and by explicit teaching in his publications, Rice taught thousands of fundamentalist pastors how to boss others around." (pp. 66-67)

Carpenter implies that the principle of "preacher rule" arose during the 1930s and was rare, if present at all, prior to that time. Which raises the question, how in the world did true Christianity survive before that time, without strong-willed preachers to boss, bully and browbeat the layfolk?

I entered the fray late, 1988 joined my first fundy church. I heard it all the time, pink lemonade-sippin, pussy-footin, lilly-livered liberals talk about the deeper life. We fundamentalists are real Christians. The pastors and evangelists and missionaries painted themselves as strong men who could smell liberals a mile away.

The truth is, I never attended a liberal church, even with the Sountern Baptist and Bible churches and commnity churches I attended. Not a one was liberal. They might have let their youth pastor grow his hair over his ears or wear a beard or the pastor's wife might wear a pair of pants.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I remember when I was first being molded into a young fundamentalist. Though I'm not given naturally to absolute conformity, I wanted to become the best Christian I could after years of carnal Christianity, so I ate up the austere standards and brash "rip your face off" mentality of the IFBx propaganda and preaching. I remember my young pastor (a binaca sucking Hyles protege) at the time telling me about Keith Gomez, and some of his antics, while qualifying his actions as "out there", but at the same time admiring his rigid militancy. After all, it only stands to reason that no self-respecting fundamental Baptist woman would wear gauchos, only coulottes are acceptable outerwear for the helpmeet. And bless gawd you better never let it be known in yer missions letters that yer hussy wears bifurcated pajamas to bed!

 

[Bob Jones VI]

I remember when I was first being molded into a young fundamentalist. Though I'm not given naturally to absolute conformity, I wanted to become the best Christian I could after years of carnal Christianity, so I ate up the austere standards and brash "rip your face off" mentality of the IFBx propaganda and preaching. I remember my young pastor (a binaca sucking Hyles protege) at the time telling me about Keith Gomez, and some of his antics, while qualifying his actions as "out there", but at the same time admiring his rigid militancy. After all, it only stands to reason that no self-respecting fundamental Baptist woman would wear gauchos, only coulottes are acceptable outerwear for the helpmeet. And bless gawd you better never let it be known in yer missions letters that yer hussy wears bifurcated pajamas to bed!

Bifurcated pajamas. In Spurgeon's tales from the Temple, he tells some story like that. One of the pastors called a guy in and said he heard his wife had ordered lingerie that had shorts. I was like, how in the world did a pastor hear that, and NUNYA!!!!!!!

 

[illinoisguy]

And bless gawd you better never let it be known in yer missions letters that yer hussy wears bifurcated pajamas to bed!

That's no joke - some Baptist churches do ask prospective missionaries to certify that their wives will not be allowed to wear pants on the field:

"As previously stated, we believe that any missionary supported by Lighthouse Baptist Church should be of the same qualifications and convictions of any staff member or leadership of our church. Our staff and leadership all seek to lead by example in their daily living. For instance, our leadership does not attend movies, listen to worldly music or Contemporary Christian music, and the ladies avoid wearing pants."

https://www.pastorwynn.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/missionary-questionnaire-deputation1.pdf

Anybody remember how some years ago, Texas Bob Gray in his magazine "The Baptist" identified and exposed IFB colleges that allow female students in their dorms to wear pajama pants? He generated some controversy and angry replies, such as these:

"In regard to the May/June 1998 issue of THE BAPTIST, your article comparing 50 Bible Colleges in the United States, Mexico and Canada, our college is listed as one who allows our female students to wear 'slacks and shorts' in the dormitory. This is not true. . . . It grieves me that with our friendship of many years, an untrue statement of this magnitude was printed." - Tom Malone, Midwestern Baptist College.

"I must inform you that what you have listed about Fairhaven Baptist College was about as accurate as your inflated attendance and baptism numbers. . . . If you really want to nail down what your crowd's Bible colleges believe, why don't you ask what they believe about promoting whoremongers in the pulpit or pornographers? Ask them how much they swear, curse, or tell dirty stories. You guys act so tough and spiritual, yet you can't even stand against adultery. Why don't you ask how many girls were soiled at Hyles Anderson?" - Roger Voegtlin, Fairhaven Baptist College.

"We have worked hard to establish our testimony and credibility, you in one article have besmirched that testimony! . . . We have held to a no pants policy since the early '70s. . . . Bob, I'm ashamed of you. You are not fit to be the editor of a paper. This article lacks honesty and facts." - Fred Schindler, Landmark Baptist College.

"I am writing to you to refute the erroneous information printed concerning our Institute as found in the Bible College Survey. . . . Our lady students have never been given permission to wear shorts or pants on or off campus." - R.T. Rigsby, Norris Bible Baptist Institute.

 

[ALAYMAN]

That's no joke - some Baptist churches do ask prospective missionaries to certify that their wives will not be allowed to wear pants on the field:...

Anybody remember how some years ago, Texas Bob Gray in his magazine "The Baptist" identified and exposed IFB colleges that allow female students in their dorms to wear pajama pants? He generated some controversy and angry replies, such as these:

Yes, that little jab was at legalistic sin-sniffers who shamelessly invaded the privacy of a married couple's bedroom.

It stemmed from a memory of a FFF discussion years ago about people like Bob Gray that asked questions to their missionaries on the field like "does your wife wear pajamas to bed"? That specific topic was so eye-opening that it was one of those bizarre over-reaches, among several other appalling peculiarities, that began to cause me to shift away from hardcore IFBx-land.

 

[abcaines]

Yes, that little jab was at legalistic sin-sniffers who shamelessly invaded the privacy of a married couple's bedroom.

It stemmed from a memory of a FFF discussion years ago about people like Bob Gray that asked questions to their missionaries on the field like "does your wife wear pajamas to bed"? That specific topic was so eye-opening that it was one of those bizarre over-reaches, among several other appalling peculiarities, that began to cause me to shift away from hardcore IFBx-land.

Any sane person being asked that by a pastor would run fast and far.

 

[illinoisguy]

Bob Gray wants the wimmin-folk to go back to dressing the way they did in the 1950s:

"Then I go into some of our churches and find myself wondering who is standing for the Bible principle of distinction in God’s house. The decline of American morality is reflected in our distinction. The decline of our churches is also reflected in our dress distinction. 50 years ago it was not so in public and for sure it was not so in our churches.

"The Mrs. Cleaver look was in almost every home in 1950’s. Not so in either the home or the house of God, in a lot of cases, in this new Millennium. If God wanted a distinction in the Old Testament how much more does He desire it in the New Testament."

Why is this such an important issue for Bob Gray? Well, in part, it is because he has a problem with lust if he sees women dressed in a more modern manner, and he admits it:

"If you are an honest person you will have to admit that females in public have taken the half off sale seriously. Hip hugging skinny jeans revealing mid riffs. I travel every week of the world around this great nation of ours. It is embarrassing for a man who is doing the best he can to keep his heart right with all of the female flesh on display."

 

[Ransom]

"It is embarrassing for a man who is doing the best he can to keep his heart right with all of the female flesh on display."

You mean it's embarrassing for the rest of us men that you count yourself amongst our number, yet you admit you are so weak-minded you can't keep your libido under control when you see a woman wearing jeans. You idiot man-child.

 

[biscuit1953]

Yes, that little jab was at legalistic sin-sniffers who shamelessly invaded the privacy of a married couple's bedroom.

It stemmed from a memory of a FFF discussion years ago about people like Bob Gray that asked questions to their missionaries on the field like "does your wife wear pajamas to bed"? That specific topic was so eye-opening that it was one of those bizarre over-reaches, among several other appalling peculiarities, that began to cause me to shift away from hardcore IFBx-land.

I knew a missionary to Puerto Rico (Gary Bell) who had to fill out a questionaire asking what his wife wore to bed and he wrote down "usually nothing."

 

[abcaines]

I knew a missionary to Puerto Rico (Gary Bell) who had to fill out a questionaire asking what his wife wore to bed and he wrote down "usually nothing."

Another great answer would be, "I don't know...depends."

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

What’s the point of asking what a person’s wife wears to bed? I don’t get it. Is there a verse in the Bible about this? Is this something similar to the churches that teach women should wear a hat or head covering in church?

 

[ALAYMAN]

What’s the point of asking what a person’s wife wears to bed? I don’t get it. Is there a verse in the Bible about this? Is this something similar to the churches that teach women should wear a hat or head covering in church?

It's a matter of holding missionaries accountable to their own myopic and legalistic "standards", and if they don't they will pull back monetary support. They want to make sure that while these people are giving the gospel that they're maintaining not just ecclesiastical, but "personal separation standards" as well. And the way they value the concept of standards, it has uber focusing priorities on things like dress standards (pants on women being the Apex). They consider pajamas another form of pants. So the next thing you know that missionary who's out there giving the gospel might just be sliding into deep compromise and holding Ouija board meetings while doing child sacrifices.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I knew a missionary to Puerto Rico (Gary Bell) who had to fill out a questionaire asking what his wife wore to bed and he wrote down "usually nothing."

As funny as that is, I'd be afraid that the sending church might just write back and say "Tell me more!"

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

It's a matter of holding missionaries accountable to their own myopic and legalistic "standards", and if they don't they will pull back monetary support. They want to make sure that while these people are giving the gospel that they're maintaining not just ecclesiastical, but "personal separation standards" as well. And the way they value the concept of standards, it has uber focusing priorities on things like dress standards (pants on women being the Apex). They consider pajamas another form of pants. So the next thing you know that missionary who's out there giving the gospel might just be sliding into deep compromise and holding Ouija board meetings while doing child sacrifices.

I’m still not getting it. I fully understand that many of these churches can be legalistic and intrusive, but the point of asking such a strange question about bedtime attire seems out of left field. Are the anti-pants churches inquiring whether the women wear pants in any setting (even bed) as a gotcha opportunity? Is this the point of the question?

 

[abcaines]

I’m still not getting it. I fully understand that many of these churches can be legalistic and intrusive, but the point of asking such a strange question about bedtime attire seems out of left field. Are the anti-pants churches inquiring whether the women wear pants in any setting (even bed) as a gotcha opportunity? Is this the point of the question?

Remember that by the time Christ came on the scene the Jewish scribes had so complicated the law that they had hundreds of regulations on the books. I'm sure it's the same with these extreme whack jobs. Another thing is control. Power drunk and dictating everything... they seek to control every aspect of a person's life.