Today's Fundamentalism or Yesteryears

[irishman]

what did that preacher say about tithing? It was generally never even questioned at one time in fundamental circles, today we have a "modernized message" when it comes to tithing. It may be because of John MacArthur's ideas on "grace giving". he is wrong on the KJB, on the Blood etc, so why should we think he is right on the tithe?

Just wondering why so many versions exist today!

[Covenanter]

How old was your fundamentalist, John? I was baptised in 1957 in my first year at university.

Were there any fundamentalist churches then? Liberalism was everywhere. In England There were Strict Baptists & Brethren as denominations that were not affected by modernism. Some of my school friends went to a Brethren hall, but they did not make any impression on me. I moved from a dead Anglican church to a lively one where I joined the Bible class & subsequently the young people's 'Epilogue' group. They even took us by the coach-load to hear Billy Graham - my only visit to Wembley Stadium.

All girls were decently dressed; you rarely heard bad language; lipstick was the main make-up & not used by Christians. At my boys' school (King Edward VI, founded in 1553) the opinion on sex was, "I expect my wife to be a virgin - so I will be a virgin when I marry." There was coarse talking, but it was only talk. Unmarried mothers were war widows. If a girl did become pregnant, the father married her.

When I was converted, I joined an FIEC church - the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches was called together in 1922 from isolated believers who believed the fundamentals of the faith & were leaving the main denominations because of modernism. We have a 9-point doctrinal basis which every affiliated church must sign annually or be removed. That basis was carefully drawn up to insist on the Gospel fundamentals, while allowing differences in Biblically held doctrines.

There have never been more than a few hundred affiliated churches.

After WWII there was a 'revival' of interest in the Reformers, & particularly the Puritans & their writings. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones & James Packer were leaders then, though neither were FIEC. They were looking back to the time when Christians lived & died by the Bible; when to be a non-conformist meant exclusion, fines, prison. Isaac Watts' father was in prison as an Independent minister in Southampton when his son was born. His mother took baby to the prison so Dad could hear his baby cry. John Bunyan wrote 'Pilgrim's Progress' in prison.

The Baptist 1689 confession is significant - it was the year of the 'Toleration Act' that ended non-conformist persecution. Before that, for over 100 years, the use of the Prayer Book was enforced by law, (except during the Commonwealth.)

Was there a massive difference in general standards between Christian & non 50 years ago? I think not. Now the whole of society has become corrupt, & taken the professing church with it.

There were, of course notable exceptions - the missionary movement has been marked by self-sacrificing service.

[John81]

That old fundamentalist pastor was 88, Lord willing he'll be 89 this year.

In the early 20th century fundamentalists stood out from the masses and many did so into the mid 20th century. After WWII things really started changing and accelerated in the 60s and 70s. There aren't actually all that many Fundamentalists, percentage wise, in America anymore, and even among them there are those who don't seem to be much different than the non-Christians around them. They dress similar, wear similar make-up, have similar hair styles, partake in similar entertainment, etc.

Tithing has long been an issue in Christianity, even among Fundamentalists. There have always been those who simply say Christians must tithe because the Jews did and there have been those who actually take the Word literally know the tithe in no way applies to Christians. This wasn't an issue among the early Christians because they realized they were to give their all to Christ, including with regards to the material possessions.

Most American Christians can't say they truly sacrifice in their giving, especially if they only give 10%, when they typically have money in the bank, money in some sort of retirement plan or account, own more and buy more than they need, etc. Early Christians, and many in other nations today, fully put their trust in Christ, were content to have what they needed that day and willing to share everything else with those who had less. We don't see this in America but we do see wealthy church members living large while some of the brothers/sisters in Christ who are also members of that church struggle to get by. That shouldn't be so.

[JerryNumbers]

I was listening to an old Fundamentalist preacher talking about how much has changed within Fundamentalism during his lifetime. This kind of got me to wondering how many of us hold to the Fundamentalism of then or have accepted the changes and hold to the changed Fundamentalism.

He spoke of how early Fundamentalists would accept either no make-up or the absolute minimal amount which was virtually unnoticible. "Painted ladies" was considered to be for prostitutes and a sign of worldliness.

He spoke of how the Fundamentalist women back then all had long hair and knew why and what that meant.

He spoke of how Fundamentalist women wore ankle to floor length dresses all year for the sake of modesty and decency. They didn't have plunging necklines or open backs and were not form fitting either.

He spoke of how "family planning" meant planning to have how ever many children God blessed you with and how birth control was preached against as a sin and form of murder akin to abortion.

He spoke of how men stepped up and took the leadership roles willingly and seriously and how women never tried to "fill a gap" that was meant for a man to fill.

He spoke of how course language was not heard nor would it be accepted.

He spoke of how Fundamentalist Christians wouldn't play cards, attend the theater or other forms of worldly entertainment, and would not involve themselves in any form of gambling.

He spoke of how families would faithfully gather for services and special events that would sometimes last for hours or most of the day.

He spoke of how prayer meetings and such were well attended.

He spoke that booze was a clear "no".

He spoke of how the entire family would attend church gatherings, sit together, and how well behaved the children were.

I'm sure he said some other things to say, and maybe I'll recall some more later, but listening to him really got me to wondering about things. If Fundamentalists from back then were to suddenly appear in one of our churches today would they be pleased to see us following in their footsteps or would they be appalled and grieved to see how much we have moved away from the early roots of Fundamentalism?

Throughout the time we have been here many of those things have been spoken of yet not many have supported them.

[John81]

Throughout the time we have been here many of those things have been spoken of yet not many have supported them.

True, and I think the fact there are so few responses in this thread is telling.