Dictatorial Preacher Rule - Where It All Began

[abcaines]

it’s a slippery slope. You start wearing pajama pants in the house and that leads to being comfortable enough to wearing them to go and check the mail and once your conscious is ok with that then that leads to buying work pants only to do yard work but now you need to run to the store very quickly to at some point just casually wearing them all the time.

 

[Jo]

Its a weird twisted thing following from the trend that started in th 60's. Women started wearing pants, and Fundamentalists took Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." and their application is that because traditionally, culturally in America, men wear pants and women wear dresses, a woman weaing pants was abomination. And even though it became culturally acceptable for women to wear pants, it was ensconced in Fundamentalism as an unchanging standard. I even heard Jack Hyles say that Jesus wore pants. All the Jews wore pants. They did not wear robes.

The longer it went on, the more they tried to define it, until the definition, in Bob Gray's case, became, anything that had legs in it, even pajama pants or shorts, was sinful.

"I even heard Jack Hyles say that Jesus wore pants. All the Jews wore pants. They did not wear robes."

That's some crazy preaching.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

"I even heard Jack Hyles say that Jesus wore pants. All the Jews wore pants. They did not wear robes."

That's some crazy preaching.

Isn't it though. The first time I heard him, 1986 Thanksgiving, we had a friend at school there, I immediately thought, "Pharisees." But for some reason I pushed that to the back of my brain. I'm not sure why. Maybe I was impressed with church size and his eloquence? It took me a few years to see through the smoke and mirrors.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

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

It was the reaction to the "Feminization" of Christianity which occurred after the industrial revolution where men went out of the house to work in factories and left the wimmen folk to raise the kids, keep house, and so forth. Religion was regarded as "wimmen stuff" as well and men were expected to be rough-cut, macho, savage, etc., and women were supposed to "sivilize" and domesticate them.

During the second great awakening, there was a shift in Church attendance where the men folk were too tired, too busy, or just didn't want to be bothered by all that effeminate "religious stuff" and so forth.

The church saw how men thought that Church was effeminate "wimmen stuff" and concocted "Muscular Christianity" with a bunch of old-time leather-lunged "manly preechers" like Billy Sunday and others. This so-called "manly Christianity" was likely the impetus for what we are likely discussing in this thread. You also have the anti-intellectual, anti-history, anti-creedal crowd which bred a whole bunch of "Redneck Preechers" who were contemptuous and suspicious of anyone who was overly "edgycated" and so forth.

I would regard J. Frank Norris as the prototypical, dictatorial, "mannagawd" IFBx preecher that so many IFBx preechers patterned themselves after.

So, yeah, I think we are on to something here.

 

[illinoisguy]

Yes - muscular Christianity.

Hallelujah! Billy Sunday comes to town - The Bowery Boys: New York City History

ANATOMY OF A PHOTOGRAPH An occasional feature where we take a closer look at an old photo of New York City, to give the image some historical context and piece together the situations that led up to it. I ran the photograph above on Friday in reference to the early days of Pennsylvania Station...

www.boweryboyshistory.com

"By 1917, Sunday was 65 years old and the most popular religious voice in America. He traveled with his wife Helen — and a staff of over 35 people — to many major cities in the United States in high profile spiritual ‘campaigns’. In an era without microphones and sound systems, Sunday electrified audiences with hyperactive body movements, violent eruptions of fire and brimstone, and elaborate presentations featuring ecstatic choirs and even chair smashing. Chair smashing? Of course New Yorkers were excited. . . . The Sunday tabernacle was specially built 'to fit his voice,' according to the New York Times, and also included a private bath for the preacher, 'as the physical exertion of his speaking compel him to make an entire change of clothing after each service.' From April 8 until June 19, 1917, Sunday engaged thousands with his messages and wild, half crazed performances."

 

[ALAYMAN]

@DrHuk&Duck it’s a slippery slope. You start wearing pajama pants in the house and that leads to being comfortable enough to wearing them to go and check the mail and once your conscious is ok with that then that leads to buying work pants only to do yard work but now you need to run to the store very quickly to at some point just casually wearing them all the time.

Pajama pants, the gateway garment to pantaloon madness!

 

[aleshanee]

 

[biscuit1953]

I would like to bring another perspective to this. My grandmother was born in 1883 and up to her 90’s before she passed away wore dresses practically down to her ankles. I don’t believe anyone on this forum would argue that at one time some things we take for granted today were strictly taboo in past generations. I started first grade in 1959 and the public elementary school I attended never allowed girls to wear pants. They even had a policy that in the winter time girls were allowed to wear pants underneath a dress depending on the temperature. In the 1960’s (maybe 1967?) I believe Phyllis Newman wore a pants suit as a panelist on “What’s My Line” and was reprimanded by one of the producers.

It isn’t easy for many (not just Christians) to adapt to changes that take place in the culture. Having said that, it seems some fundamentalists are stuck 50 years behind the times. I attended a Baptist church in Beaufort, SC in the 1970’s when in the Marine Corps as a young Christian where no one celebrated Christmas, Easter, birthdays, wore wedding rings, or makeup for women, and a whole list of things that would be considered legalistic. The preacher even preached against women wearing boots. One time during prayer requests a member requested prayer for a female relative that was in a car wreck and had to point out that she was wearing boots when the wreck happened. As a matter of fact I invited a fellow marine to a church service and he was the only man in the church wearing shoes. He leaned over to me and whispered, “I have boots on in the spirit.”

Where can grace be given for those who are sincere in not choosing to change as fast as we think they should?

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

I would like to bring another perspective to this. My grandmother was born in 1883 and up to her 90’s before she passed away wore dresses practically down to her ankles. I don’t believe anyone on this forum would argue that at one time some things we take for granted today were strictly taboo in past generations. I started first grade in 1959 and the public elementary school I attended never allowed girls to wear pants. They even had a policy that in the winter time girls were allowed to wear pants underneath a dress depending on the temperature. In the 1960’s (maybe 1967?) I believe Phyllis Newman wore a pants suit as a panelist on “What’s My Line” and was reprimanded by one of the producers.

It isn’t easy for many (not just Christians) to adapt to changes that take place in the culture. Having said that, it seems some fundamentalists are stuck 50 years behind the times. I attended a Baptist church in Beaufort, SC in the 1970’s when in the Marine Corps as a young Christian where no one celebrated Christmas, Easter, birthdays, wore wedding rings, or makeup for women, and a whole list of things that would be considered legalistic. The preacher even preached against women wearing boots. One time during prayer requests a member requested prayer for a female relative that was in a car wreck and had to point out that she was wearing boots when the wreck happened. As a matter of fact I invited a fellow marine to a church service and he was the only man in the church wearing shoes. He leaned over to me and whispered, “I have boots on in the spirit.”

Where can grace be given for those who are sincere in not choosing to change as fast as we think they should?

I enjoyed reading your post. Thanks. I grew up near Beaufort. It’s definitely a different culture in the Lowcountry.

Along the lines of what you said, I posted this question a few days ago in relation to IFB colleges and churches: “What is the proper definition of “extremism”? I didn’t get a response, my guess is no one can define it because it’s a vague and capricious word that changes from person to person in each passing decade.

 

[biscuit1953]

I enjoyed reading your post. Thanks. I grew up near Beaufort. It’s definitely a different culture in the Lowcountry.

Along the lines of what you said, I posted this question a few days ago in relation to IFB colleges and churches: “What is the proper definition of “extremism”? I didn’t get a response, my guess is no one can define it because it’s a vague and capricious word that changes from person to person in each passing decade.

If you consider the Methodist background of Bob Jones University and the fact that Bob Jones Sr. was the age he was, it makes sense that many of the rules back then carried over from the culture he grew up in.

 

[Walt]

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?

I remember this (vaguely). It came about in the days of social media. A missionary had posted a picture of his family hiking, or doing something, and the women were not dressed per the church's teaching. As an over-reaction (and due to screeching from prominent IFBx leaders), churches were "encouraged" (scream at) to ensure that the missionaries were upholding the standards of the supporting church.

There was a similar reaction not long after Jack Hyles' death when the issue of whether or not the KJV was "inspired" came up... all the churches were "encouraged" (castigated) to verify that their missionaries held the "correct" view of the KJV.

 

[Walt]

It all started when preachers found the verse, touch not God's anointed. Just saying

True; it makes me ill that they know almost nothing about what this verse is really saying....

David said he would not touch God's anointed (Saul), but he clearly meant physical harm, as shortly after he said that, he criticized Saul for trying to kill him.

Twisting this to say that leaders cannot be criticized is just wrong (not to mention cult-like).

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

I remember this (vaguely). It came about in the days of social media. A missionary had posted a picture of his family hiking, or doing something, and the women were not dressed per the church's teaching. As an over-reaction (and due to screeching from prominent IFBx leaders), churches were "encouraged" (scream at) to ensure that the missionaries were upholding the standards of the supporting church.

But to jump from wearing pants hiking to questioning what a guy’s wife wears in bed seems like a stretch….

 

[Walt]

But to jump from wearing pants hiking to questioning what a guy’s wife wears in bed seems like a stretch….

I agree, but the idea was (I think)... if they are violating standards while on vacation, are they violating our standards elsewhere... if it's wrong for women to wear britches, it should be wrong all of the time... and thus, the wacko (or, if you prefer, out of bounds) questions.

 

[Walt]

I agree, very reasonable advice. But the more I think about my question to Ransom, and one which I think adequately applies to both my question and this thread itself, I think we should first define “extremism” in Christianity. (I think it’s too simple to just say follow the Bible because it does require interpretation and extrapolation.)

Heh... one definiton of "extreme" is "anyone or any group that that holds higher standards than I do".

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Heh... one definiton of "extreme" is "anyone or any group that that holds higher standards than I do".

Hey, I appreciate the effort. Honestly, I don’t think John Piper could answer my question, much less people like me hanging out on the FFF.

 

[Bruh]

Hey, I appreciate the effort. Honestly, I don’t think John Piper could answer my question, much less people like me hanging out on the FFF.

I think extreme would be, requiring Gods people to do something for service, be it offering, Sunday school, visiting, preaching or just generally in everyday life…….but requiring Gods people to do something that God never requires.

As if, God forgot to put it in the Bible. If God doesn’t require it of his people why would it get put on or preached behind the pulpit?

Unless they believe the Bible is not complete? And God didn’t realize that 2025 would roll around.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

I think extreme would be, requiring Gods people to do something for service, be it offering, Sunday school, visiting, preaching or just generally in everyday life…….but requiring Gods people to do something that God never requires.

Just to clarify, you’re saying the definition of “extreme” is a pastor requiring (not merely suggesting) members to do an act not mentioned in the Scriptures.