Things to show an older generation of fundamentalists besides our liberty.
- Thread starter pastorryanhayden
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,132
- Reaction score
- 1,145
- Points
- 113
pastorryanhayden said:
What I said was 'exactly'....I totally agree with his statement that free birds have a double standard...just as the Xers they disdain.
I will confess, the last sentence in the quote wasn't really on my radar when I replied. Truthfully, I have CU on ignore and don't have an opinion of his opinion.
I totally agree with 1611's sentiment on the sometimes hypocrisy of free birds....didn't mean to add insult to CU's injury.
I will edit my post to reflect my intended meaning.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,132
- Reaction score
- 1,145
- Points
- 113
16KJV11 said:Yes, I just ran roughshod over him.pastorryanhayden said:
Good grief!
My apologies... :
You were right about some freebirds...they share the hypocrisy of the political left. I think CU thought you were calling him the names the liberals call us when we dare disagree with them......
RS2ca
I've had three.
The one you reference. (I still don't think I was setting myself up as a pope in my church BTW and think you have to infer that into the article.)
The two others I went looking for:
I reviewed Darrell's book and I "rebuked" the readers of SFL.
In all three cases, I gained faithful readers and allies.
I've had three.
The one you reference. (I still don't think I was setting myself up as a pope in my church BTW and think you have to infer that into the article.)
The two others I went looking for:
I reviewed Darrell's book and I "rebuked" the readers of SFL.
In all three cases, I gained faithful readers and allies.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
pastorryanhayden said:
You did explicitly state that a person should ask permission of the pastor before jumping into a "grey area". Now how you meant that to be taken can be debated...
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]The two others I went looking for:
I reviewed Darrell's book and I "rebuked" the readers of SFL.
In all three cases, I gained faithful readers and allies.[/quote]
Hard to blame the SFL crowd for persecution when you poke them with a stick...
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
rsc2a said:
Hard to blame the SFL crowd for persecution when you poke them with a stick...[/quote]
Actually, I went back and checked. The book review was virtually ignored by the SFL crowd. (At least there does not appear to be any comments from the SFL folks. I don't know how many read it.)
rsc2a said:
I didn't poke them with a stick. I poked at their ideas and their behavior. Their is a difference.
They did not respond in kind. They responded in typical SFL fashion, by attacking my person, mocking and berating me.
The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
The book review was promoted by another Independent Baptist (without my consent) and they mostly jumped on his case. Some people even created a fake account with his name and started saying vile things. Nevertheless, that day was the first time I ever broke 500 readers.
I don't attack individuals on my blog or anywhere else. When people state ideas that I think are contrary to scripture, I'll deal with their ideas. I'll sometimes deal with certain behaviors, but I don't believe it is Christ-like to go around calling people names and mocking them.
BTW, the people who I most want to call names and attack personally, are all leaders in the IFBx crowd. I think they've done far more to hurt the cause of Christ in the long run than SFL could ever hope to do.
I don't attack individuals on my blog or anywhere else. When people state ideas that I think are contrary to scripture, I'll deal with their ideas. I'll sometimes deal with certain behaviors, but I don't believe it is Christ-like to go around calling people names and mocking them.
BTW, the people who I most want to call names and attack personally, are all leaders in the IFBx crowd. I think they've done far more to hurt the cause of Christ in the long run than SFL could ever hope to do.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
pastorryanhayden said:
Maybe I missed it but I just scanned back through your open rebuke and, from my (admittedly brief) perusal, they commended you personally for your actions which they attacked the ideas of behavior of IFB-dom.
[quote author=pastorryanhayden]The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
[/quote]
And in this area you are generally to be commended.
16KJV11 said:
Politically speaking, I have no political affiliation with any party. I couldn't care less about the workings of our corrupt political system in America.
Jesus did say that His kingdom wasn't of this world
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,132
- Reaction score
- 1,145
- Points
- 113
Recovering IFB said:
The response 1611 made and I commented 'exactly' to was not harsh or personally condemning to CU or anyone else....it merely pointed out the hypocrisy that exists on both sides of this divide.
You write well. It shows a heart for Christ. Thanks for sharing this
To my knowledge, Christian liberty is a secular concept anyhow
To my knowledge, Christian liberty is a secular concept anyhow
Bob H said:pastorryanhayden said:
I wouldn't worry to much about "us older" generation fundy's. New evangelicalism is alive and well in America so be happy
Huh? I'm not following you. Are you considering me a new evangelical?
T
Torrent v.3
Guest
You didn't say anything that has not been said over and over by young fundamentalists. When I was a young fundy, we were told over and over, "You need to appreciate the old battle scarred veterans who fought those battles so you could have your great education, etc." It had nothing to do with their character, their love for Christ, but their fighting the battles.
What you said was nice. But along with "showing them love and fruit of the spirit" you still need to pass on to the next generation the theological teachings that will make for a God centered, Christ loving, evangelistically passionate people. And that does not come from repeating the weak, legalistic theology of the older fundies. I think it is a service to younger people and faithfulness to God to question the older fundies. ANd I think that only the shallow Christians mock the older generation with tattoos and alcohol and Rock music.
I think some young people choose those things, not to mock anyone, or thumb their noses in anyone's face, but just because they like tattoos or alcohol or that style of music. The whole argument you are presenting is based on the false assumption that the younger people are choosing something that is inherently bad. And tattoos or alcohol or Rock musicare not inherently evil, so I am gently saying that your premise is false.
I hope you will take my words, not as a slap in your face, but as something to think about.
What you said was nice. But along with "showing them love and fruit of the spirit" you still need to pass on to the next generation the theological teachings that will make for a God centered, Christ loving, evangelistically passionate people. And that does not come from repeating the weak, legalistic theology of the older fundies. I think it is a service to younger people and faithfulness to God to question the older fundies. ANd I think that only the shallow Christians mock the older generation with tattoos and alcohol and Rock music.
I think some young people choose those things, not to mock anyone, or thumb their noses in anyone's face, but just because they like tattoos or alcohol or that style of music. The whole argument you are presenting is based on the false assumption that the younger people are choosing something that is inherently bad. And tattoos or alcohol or Rock musicare not inherently evil, so I am gently saying that your premise is false.
I hope you will take my words, not as a slap in your face, but as something to think about.
pastorryanhayden said:Bob H said:pastorryanhayden said:
I wouldn't worry to much about "us older" generation fundy's. New evangelicalism is alive and well in America so be happy
Huh? I'm not following you. Are you considering me a new evangelical?
I haven't made any considerations ..........yet
so you tell me. The "so be happy" part in my post shouldn't of been added. It was a weak moment {or I was ordained before the foundations of the earth was laid to say it } There's a lot of folk here that claim to have left fundamentalism so they have to have gone somewhere. I suppose that maybe I should of posted this remark on the other thread. My bad I guess. But we older fundys will be alright.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 847
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
16KJV11 said:
What happens here is that all who might claim to be a "free-bird" are lumped into one bunch just as some lump all IFB's into one bunch. I try to always make a point to distinguish IFB's from IFBx'ers. There IS a difference. While I likely wouldn't go to Pastor Hayden's church based primarily on style, not doctrine, I bet he's a great guy with a good church with people who likely wouldn't dislike me just because I go to a contemporary SBC church or have 5 or 6 drinks a year. Similarly, I'm fine if they never take a drink or only sing hymns. I love hymns too.
Your premise is rather insulting.
I did not leave my former IFBx church so I could get a tattoo, drink alcohol or dress differently. It was not about doing a bunch of stuff, it was because I realized I was taught bad doctrine and the leadership was generally abusive.
Priesthood of the believer was just given lip service. I was not supposed to read Scripture, pray and make decisions...no, the mannogawd was going to tell me where the fences in my life would be placed. No different opinions were tolerated. I remember a sermon where we were told we should never verbalize to ANYONE regarding a disagreement about something the pastor taught .
Abuse of the concept of "God's will". Funny, but it always seemed to be God's will for graduating seniors to attend the church's Bible college...just ask any staff member.
Financially abusing the congregation with constant pleas for lots and lots and lots of money. A stinking 20+ phase building program. Being told not to commit to an exact figure until after the banquet guest speaker gave his highly emotional sermon...and some people gave up their retirement money, vacation money, 2nd vehicles, and even wedding rings. Meanwhile the pastor made a huge salary, took amazing vacations, and owned vacation properties.
IMHO this pastor speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He is totally pragmatic and does what he needs to do to gain his objectives. Like telling us to dress more modestly during one conference because outside guests were coming. Or telling half-truths about the sabbatical money he received (from a very liberal organization - shhhhh). Saying he forbade his pervy brother from the pulpit after his divorce, yet allowed him previously to preach when he had to have known his brother had left a prior church for pervy behavior. Appearances, appearances, appearances.
Respecter of persons. The stories I could tell...
Abuse of pastoral authority. He wants it his way, and he wants it now. While being an active member was pretty exhausting (three to thrive! Soulwinning! Practices! Lesson Prep! Can you help with...), this pastor totally owned those poor overworked staff members. Everything, and I mean everything had to be top notch so that he could impress pastors like you so you will send people to his college. Which leads me to...
Cha-ching!!! The church is run like a business. When you allegedly advise new staff that they are expected to bring in 10 new tithing families in order to justify their salary, your thinking is off. The pastor justifies his high salary by saying a CEO of a company with this much staff would be earning....
Scare tactics. I recall when this pastor preached how you can not trust former members...and how our kids would go to the devil if we left. How there were no other God honoring churches in the entire area, so if we left we could no longer be fundamentalists....as if he owned the rights to the term fundamentalist.
So what can I show older generations of fundies?
The truth.
There are several other good churches in our area and beyond, even though they do not agree with the IFBx pastor in several areas. God loves them too and they are His children. There are also good schools to send our kids to (shock! God can use and guide our kids outside the compound!). Our kids have NOT gone to the devil, even though they are no longer under the IFBx "umbrella of protection". I can wear pants, have a tattoo (relax I don't have a tattoo), go to the movie house, etc. and still believe in the fundamentals of the faith.
My faith is to be in God, not in a church or a pastor or in a system of works and prohibitions. That is mostly what older fundies need to understand.
I did not leave my former IFBx church so I could get a tattoo, drink alcohol or dress differently. It was not about doing a bunch of stuff, it was because I realized I was taught bad doctrine and the leadership was generally abusive.
Priesthood of the believer was just given lip service. I was not supposed to read Scripture, pray and make decisions...no, the mannogawd was going to tell me where the fences in my life would be placed. No different opinions were tolerated. I remember a sermon where we were told we should never verbalize to ANYONE regarding a disagreement about something the pastor taught .
Abuse of the concept of "God's will". Funny, but it always seemed to be God's will for graduating seniors to attend the church's Bible college...just ask any staff member.
Financially abusing the congregation with constant pleas for lots and lots and lots of money. A stinking 20+ phase building program. Being told not to commit to an exact figure until after the banquet guest speaker gave his highly emotional sermon...and some people gave up their retirement money, vacation money, 2nd vehicles, and even wedding rings. Meanwhile the pastor made a huge salary, took amazing vacations, and owned vacation properties.
IMHO this pastor speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He is totally pragmatic and does what he needs to do to gain his objectives. Like telling us to dress more modestly during one conference because outside guests were coming. Or telling half-truths about the sabbatical money he received (from a very liberal organization - shhhhh). Saying he forbade his pervy brother from the pulpit after his divorce, yet allowed him previously to preach when he had to have known his brother had left a prior church for pervy behavior. Appearances, appearances, appearances.
Respecter of persons. The stories I could tell...
Abuse of pastoral authority. He wants it his way, and he wants it now. While being an active member was pretty exhausting (three to thrive! Soulwinning! Practices! Lesson Prep! Can you help with...), this pastor totally owned those poor overworked staff members. Everything, and I mean everything had to be top notch so that he could impress pastors like you so you will send people to his college. Which leads me to...
Cha-ching!!! The church is run like a business. When you allegedly advise new staff that they are expected to bring in 10 new tithing families in order to justify their salary, your thinking is off. The pastor justifies his high salary by saying a CEO of a company with this much staff would be earning....
Scare tactics. I recall when this pastor preached how you can not trust former members...and how our kids would go to the devil if we left. How there were no other God honoring churches in the entire area, so if we left we could no longer be fundamentalists....as if he owned the rights to the term fundamentalist.
So what can I show older generations of fundies?
The truth.
There are several other good churches in our area and beyond, even though they do not agree with the IFBx pastor in several areas. God loves them too and they are His children. There are also good schools to send our kids to (shock! God can use and guide our kids outside the compound!). Our kids have NOT gone to the devil, even though they are no longer under the IFBx "umbrella of protection". I can wear pants, have a tattoo (relax I don't have a tattoo), go to the movie house, etc. and still believe in the fundamentals of the faith.
My faith is to be in God, not in a church or a pastor or in a system of works and prohibitions. That is mostly what older fundies need to understand.
Amazed,
What I would show that pastor is the door. If that wasn't possible I would leave in a hurry. The point of my article was not that you should keep silent about pastoral abuse or false doctrine. If I had your experience, I may have taken offense to the article as well.
Truthfully, the idea for that article wasn't original. I heard Carl Trueman (not a fundy or even a baptist) say that from an outsiders perspective (he's British) it seems like American evangelicals justify a lot by reacting to the bogeyman of fundamentalism. I agree.
So I wasn't trying to say that people leave an IFBx church because they want tattoos. I was saying people (who didn't have abusive pastors) have a rebellious spirit towards previous generations and have used the concept of liberty to delude themselves into thinking that that show of rebellion is somehow spiritual.
BTW, I am very vocal in my opposition to certain IFBx leaders. I try to "mark and avoid" heretics, no matter what is on their church sign and who they spoke for last year. Given that about half of my blog posts are critical of old school revivalistic fundamentalism, I assumed my readers would take that for granted.
What I would show that pastor is the door. If that wasn't possible I would leave in a hurry. The point of my article was not that you should keep silent about pastoral abuse or false doctrine. If I had your experience, I may have taken offense to the article as well.
Truthfully, the idea for that article wasn't original. I heard Carl Trueman (not a fundy or even a baptist) say that from an outsiders perspective (he's British) it seems like American evangelicals justify a lot by reacting to the bogeyman of fundamentalism. I agree.
So I wasn't trying to say that people leave an IFBx church because they want tattoos. I was saying people (who didn't have abusive pastors) have a rebellious spirit towards previous generations and have used the concept of liberty to delude themselves into thinking that that show of rebellion is somehow spiritual.
BTW, I am very vocal in my opposition to certain IFBx leaders. I try to "mark and avoid" heretics, no matter what is on their church sign and who they spoke for last year. Given that about half of my blog posts are critical of old school revivalistic fundamentalism, I assumed my readers would take that for granted.