There’s a sense—bordering on panic—that young people are leaving fundamental churches. It might be when they graduate from high school or when they finish up at a Christian college, but a lot of teens and twenties aren’t coming back to the fundamental church in which they grew up, or finding another church like it. Right?
I don’t think so. I don’t think young people are leaving churches because they’re fundamental. We have a fundamental church in our area, Grace Church of Mentor, and it seems like they never lose their kids. It’s almost shocking. I’ve seen college graduates practically break their necks to get back there, and many of them are serving as leaders now. So why do they stay, or come back, or whatever? Because it’s a healthy church. It’s Word-filled. It’s Gospel-centered. It’s evangelistic. It’s expositional. It’s nurturing. It’s a place where sheep are shepherded. It’s “real.” It’s not about issues. It’s a church that cares more about what’s happening in a lady’s soul than whether or not she wears pants to services. It’s a church where lives are being changed. It’s a church where sheep, young and old, are growing and joyful. And so they’re not looking for greener pastures.
My two cents? Kids are leaving their churches because the churches are unhealthy, not because they’re too conservative. Sheep who are shepherded well don’t tend to wander. Most don’t, anyway. So rather than blaming young people, or Christian colleges, or music, or John Piper, or Calvinism, labor to have a healthy church. And rather than preaching on why people shouldn’t leave, give them reasons to stay. Take care of sheep. Endeavor to be a good shepherd. See worship as a call to adoration, not a call to arms. Exalt the Chief Shepherd. Minister grace.
It’ll do a lot more to keep lambs from leaving than building higher fences.
Filed under: Biblical Leadership, Fundamentalism, Leadership, Ministry Musings, The Local Church Tagged: | Fundamentalism, Grace Church of Mentor, Healthy Church, Shepherding
I concur. :)
Just referenced this on my blog, FYI.
Wow! Excellent ’2 cents’.
Hear! Hear! (or is it here! here! Language….not a strong suite).
I nominate this for best blog post of the year! Spot on Pastor Chris.
Excellent! I couldn’t agree with you more. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Amen.
Agree. Wow. That just needed to be said. Well put.
I do agree 1000% that we need separatistic churches rooted in God’s Word through solid expositional preaching based on exegetical digging mindful of context and solid systematic theology that correlates doctrine. Also the emphasis of progressive sanctification should be driven by the motivation to glorify God because of WHO He is – seeing and savoring Him as Creator, Savior, and Lord–>producing the desires to fear God BECAUSE you love God–>resulting in obedience that is most satisfied because God is glorified!
I believe that there is a growing segment of fundamental churches seeking to do so in the DBTS/BJU/Northland/Maranatha… circles. In spite of this young dropout fundamentalists want to bash sepratistic churches and paint them all into the corner of the bad type of fundamentalism (which I would agree is probably the larger group). I wish instead of bashing (which out of the other side of their mouth they say they deplore the old time fundys of always doing) they would seek to be a help to the solid sepratistic churches.
Sadly there are more than a few of these drop out fundy’s that leave even the solid type of fundamentalist churches that are anything but standard driven (but still insist on biblically defensible standards of conversation/conduct…). Why? Many of them actually do hold to the philosophy of Mark Driscoll and openly adore him/fawn over him (even in the seminary that I graduated from = DBTS). The reason they leave fundamentalism is that they really do reject the idea of personal separatism from biblically defined worldliness (e.g. what Eph 5 clearly states in black and white about conversation and conduct) to embrace infiltration (oh that was the old NE catchphrase – I mean contextualization).
If they understood and embraced biblical principles/philosophy they would not swing from one extreme pendulum to the other. Many of them have been correctly taught (at MACP 2008 for instance) and still refuse the biblical philosophy.
I think that it is more just a flimsy excuse to ditch separatism by blaming everything on the standard driven, arminian, second blessing….types of churches.
I grew up in church marketing type NE churches in elementary, grew up in standard driven arminian church in J-high and high school, and then learned good theology at Bob Jones, Mount Calvary, and Detroit Baptist. Instead of being reactionary to the EXPERIENCES I grew up with and complaining about it all I learned to recalibrate my life according to the Biblical principles/philosophy that I was taught at these wonderful Fundamentalist institutions/church! I would encourage others to have a good attitude in spite of the failings of where they grew up, be thankful for the impact those ministries did have and seek to contribute positively in the solid orb of separatist churches that DO exist and are growing.
Insightful and concise!
Chris, someone in our office told me I needed to read your post today, so I ran home on my lunch hour! So glad I did. Gotta be one of the best articles I’ve seen in a long time. Bold, to the point, and very accurate. What incredible insight you have on this generation.
Great points from Chris and Kevin!
Most of the bad memories that some people I know have expressed about the church and Christian school that I grew up with have far more to do with the heart of the rememberer than with the institution.
Perhaps some are leaving not because the churches are unhealthy but perhaps because people hold true to the teaching regarding old and new wine skins. Perhaps they realize one church is no greater than the other. Why the emphasis on keeping the flock from leaving? If it’s a matter of hoping they don’t turn from God then I understand. But if it’s a matter of trying to keep people in the seats and preventing them from joining another church then the motive is all wrong. Just because your parents bring you up in a church doesn’t mean you have to remain there. It has nothing to do with church health. Now you’re talking about people remaining faithful to an institution, not God. That’s idolatry. Something that is wrong according to what the Bible has to say. Do we worship God or the system? Not trying to start a big argument. Please don’t think I’m trying to cause trouble here. Just interested in knowing, perhaps, a little more about the context of your 2cents.
This is an interesting concept, and one that’s new to me. You seem to be saying that, in addition to the positive attributes (Bible, Gospel, evangelism, nurture), because Grace Church of Mentor does not legislate what godliness ought to look like, the kids come back.
I don’t want to be the only guy in the conversation saying “it sounds too good to be true.” You suggest a model, by which in turn you recommend a method to ensure the perseverance of the saints,or at least the continuation of what look like saints (from our perspective, and I am optimistic), through the Bermuda Triangle of young adulthood.
Is this what you think?
Chris–
Thank you so much for the honest approach to the problem of keeping our kids excited about our ministries. If our conservatism is going to be lasting from generation to generation, we have to see ourselves desiring healthy churches that have a truthful and godly message that will help our young people to see that it is worthwhile being a part of. I pray for that with my own sons.
I believe you are on the right track. A healthy church produces healthy Christians that live Christ filled lives. When a church is not healthy, the adults/parents are not healthy Christians they don’t live Christ filled lives. When you have apathetic adults/parents, they produce apathetic children. The children go up in the home seeing no relevance to the Christian live and therefore leave the faith. Christianity is a lifestyle not a religion. Live for Christ daily, not just on Sunday!
I completely agree with you, both about Grace Church of Mentor and the issue as a whole. As a missionary, I’m constantly visiting churches, and the health of a church can often be seen in the short time that I’m with those churches.
Chris,
Overall excellent article. Shared it with the pastoral staff. Quick observation 1. Young people are leaving unhealthy churches (the moniker of fundamental doesn’t seem to even factor in). 2. Both fundamental and evangelical churches can be unhealthy. 3. Both fundamental and evangelical churches can be healthy.
Therefore, when someone from HP winds up at Capitol Hill or Grace Community, I rejoice that they are in a healthy church (presupposing we agree on what “health” is). I do not bemoan that they left fundamentalism. Does this not behoove me, therefore, to find my closest fellowship with other healthy churches rather than being fixated concerning the nomenclatures of fundamentalism and evangelicalism? I guess I’m suggesting that when we assume a we/they discussion we are already betraying our allegiance to movements rather than health.
Amen! It is a grand thing to get a truly caring under-shepherd & healthy church.
I appreciated this article alot.
Growing up in very conservative Baptist fundamentalism, I became bothered by alot of what I saw as unhealthy. So we actually helped to start a “gospel-centered”, “reformed,” “missional,” “culturally engaged,” church that would be considered by many as not a fundamentalist church.
However, over the past five years, it became overwhelmingly apparent that there were some very deep-rooted problems in the church.
God showed us that what we are really looking for is a healthy church, not a church that makes us feel comfortable.
So for the health of our family, we have decided to plug into a church that is more stylistically conservative than our preferences, but that is undeniably healthy.
As somebody that has led contemporary worship for over a decade now, you’d think that I’d be itching to get into a more contemporary styled ministry again. But quite honestly, for the first time in a long time, I don’t really care about that anymore. I just want my family and I to be fed.
Great thoughts Chris!
Yes, some leave because there is no spiritual life there. We can only love them and hold up Christ before them.
But I agree that many, many are leaving because they can’t stand the beatings any more.
Thank you, Chris. There has been some good follow up. Chris Barney had some excellent points. There is one thought I would like to submit. Churches do not tend to be islands. They associate with other churches and institutions. Can a child be raised to live in the good of the gospel in a church only to have that child drink from legalism at a fundamentalist college or parachurch organization? I’ve heard many times that associations can spoil the fruit of our ministry. It was said in reference to associations with evangelicals, yet most would recognize that fundamental associations fit into this category as well.
I do applaud your article and am thankful for it. I would say, though, as one who was shepherding young adults, that it can be a scary thing to listen to the chapel messages that our young adults hear at some fundamental colleges. You find yourself with a burden to provide biblical teaching to offset the damage with them.
The whole concept of absolute morality is unhealthy. The dogma is unhealthy. People leave churches because they learn to think for themselves and not just accept everything they are told. Read the bible for yourself. Does it make sense?
One of my senior young ladies pointed this article to me from her facebook page. I think the article highlights much of our ministry at TBC. We don’t have a whole lot of our young people leave our church…most stay, but some leave…often they come back…I enjoyed the article. Let’s exalt Christ so we can love Him and love others with all that that entails.
Wow, excellent post Pastor Chris! I’m not exactly sure why two of the comments on here are confused as to what you were saying. It was perfectly clear what you were trying to say, but what those two gentlemen are saying is what actually confuses people.
Thank you Pastor Chris Barney for your extended explanation also! I completely agree. It’s not about whether they are leaving for a “Fundamental” church or “Evangelical” church. Being a younger man studying for the ministry, that is not important to us anymore. Like you and Pastor Chris Anderson have said, it’s more about which churches are “healthy” and stand on the fundamentals of the faith that we base our decision on.
It’s not important that they leave to attend a fundamental church anymore? Interesting. My definition of healthy would include fundamental.
Forget I asked, I think I understand from the other comments.
@ Matt – If you are referring to my comment, then I believe that you have misinterpretted what I said. As was stated by others also, if they are leaving an unhealthy fundamentalist church for a healthy evangelical church then we shouldn’t be upset. We should be rejoicing that they saw the errors with an unhealthy church and went to a healthy church that stands on the fundamentals of the faith.
If you had not taken my comment out of context, my definition of healthy also included fundamental. But fundamental does not necessarily mean a “card carrying” independent fundamental baptist. There are non-denominational and evangelical churches that are fundamental.
As was stated by Pastor Chris Barney in an earlier comment: “…Both Fundamental and Evangelical churches can be unhealthy, and both Fundamental and Evangelical churches can be healthy.” I was in no way saying that it’s not important for someone to leave for a fundamental church, I was only saying that it’s not necessarily important whether it’s a Fundamental Baptist church or an Evangelical church, Bible church, etc. What I was emphasizing was the importance of them finding a healthy fundamental church.
I really don’t want to wade anymore deeply into this for two reasons: 1. It is very late, and I have been studying. Therefore, my faculties may prevent me from speaking as accurately as I desire. 2. Every time I get near this subject I receive “fan mail.” Worse than that, members of my church receive “fan mail” about me before I’m sent the “fan mail.” Nonetheless, here it goes:
I also would include fundamental among my definition for healthy so long as we really mean fundamental and not simply fundamentalism as a movement. Let’s be clear, there is health in fundamentalism, but fundamentalism certainly doesn’t equal health. So, I guess the question at hand is, “Can health exist outside of fundamentalism as a movement?” I happen to think that it can and does. Here’s where the “fan mail” starts: Fundamentalism has certain emphases, traditions, and personalities; emphases, by the way, that are not actual fundamentals (though departing from them puts you under great suspicion of not being a fundamentalist even though you still hold the fundamentals, but I digress). Evangelicalism also has certain emphases, traditions, and personalities. I can certainly understand why one might feel uncomfortable (even deeply objectionable) moving from one group to another. But here’s what happens all too often – our people often mistake health for the movement. I’ve seen way too many members seek health by changing emphases, traditions, and personalities only to find that they come up empty. Health ultimately is not found in jumping from one movement to another or even jumping back again. Churches committed to the fundamentals (core biblical teaching), seeking a church life that emphasizes what the NT emphasizes, and seeing the fruit of the Spirit (true spiritual transformation, not simply outward behavioral disciplines that even unsaved people can learn) manifest in the membership can be said to be healthy. So, yes, fundamental would be included in my definition of health. Belonging to a particular movement (Fundamentalism or Evangelicalism) would not be, even though I am more comfortable with one group’s emphases, traditions, and personalities.
I appreciate the feedback and discussion. This is a topic I’m very burdened about. A few reflections and clarifications…
* Pastorally, I do understand Barney’s statement. More than once we’ve had a family move and, in their new area, face choosing between a self-identifying fundamentalist church (complete with KJVO, pants preaching, etc.) and a non-self-identifying fundamentalist church (say, a Master’s grad). My counsel? Take your family where it will be shepherded well. That means sound theology, biblical preaching, solid worship, rejection of ecumenical evangelism, etc. It may not mean that the church is pastored by a graduate of one of “our” schools, though, or that the church calls itself an “independent fundamental ___ church.”
* Ben, I understand. I think we need to teach discernment. That means that they have a “sieve” in place when they read or hear evangelicals—and when they hear fundamentalists. Even us. :)
* I definitely don’t want to confuse the term “healthy” with “large.” I would love to see young people go back to their smaller home churches and help their pastors rather than leaving for a church with a full menu of programs (more singles, a fuller music ministry, etc.). If the pastor is committed to a biblical understanding of ministry, STAY, even if the church is struggling.
* I’m not saying that the goal of the church is merely to “keep its own.” But if sheep keep leaving for greener pastures, church leadership had better do some self-evaluation.
* I do mean to remove the excuse from fundamental leaders who take courage in the fact that kids (or adults) are perpetually leaving their churches because they’re carnal compromisers. Actually, the problem may very well be with the church, especially if it’s a consistent thing. Maybe they’re not leaving because you’re a fundamentalist, but because you’re autocratic, or tradition-bound, or theologically errant. Wandering (or fleeing) sheep is not proof of a church’s faithfulness, contrary to our rationalizing.
Enough for now. :)
Ben,
I don’t think I was taking your comment out of context at all. I was just stating what it seemed a couple people were saying. I wasn’t trying to single you out at all. I don’t think a church can be in the “healthy” category without fitting in to Chris’s good description. (sound theology, biblical preaching, solid worship, rejection of ecumenical evangelism, etc) “Healthy” includes fundamental, but fundamental doesn’t have to mean “healthy.” No fundamental church is perfect and many of them are not healthy, but fundamental should at least be a part of a healthy church. Terms are always so much fun and that is probably why there is confusion. I wouldn’t consider most evangelical churches as “healthy.” (there we go with labels again) Separation, sound worship, doctrine, rejection of ecumenical evangelism would all be concerns in many (if not most) evangelical churches. So my strong suggestion would be to encourage young people to attend healthy fundamental churches. If they are in an “unhealthy” fundamental church – find a “healthy” fundamental church.
I hope I didn’t confuse anyone more. Let me know how I can clarify.
BTW, Chris, I agree 100% with your article. (even though your title was misleading) :)
Misleading is such a hard term, Matt. I prefer provocative. ;)
@ Ben
“Wow, excellent post Pastor Chris! I’m not exactly sure why two of the comments on here are confused as to what you were saying.”
Since I have no idea if mine is one of those comments you are referring to I will simply clarify that I do basically agree with both Chris Anderson and Chris Barney even on their further follow-ups.
I am just adding that I think there is more to it than what was said. I think the excuse based on bad experiences and bullying is too shallow to be the whole story for most of these people that drop out. I think there is a basic foundational difference in the principles of their philosophy of ministry and their own personal posture toward culture.
I am suggesting that there seems to be a basic rejection of the historic fundamentalist philosophy for historic New Evangelicalism’s philosophy. From my understanding historic fundamentalism and historic New Evangelicalism always AGREED on the fundamentals of the faith. What they disagreed on was philosophy of ministry/posture toward culture.
For some reason today those in our network/background coming out of some form of fundamentalism seem to be calling upon people to unite around the fundamentals of doctrine (Gospel-centered), but rule out the one important historic difference = the implications of the Gospel regarding philosophy of ministry/posture toward culture. For some reason the key historic difference doesn’t matter anymore. So defining a healthy church is affected by that b/c philosophy and posture are seen as non-essentials that shouldn’t divide us – when it was the single thing that did differentiate the original Fund. and NE.
I do think that some of the Conservative Evangelicals have cleaned up some of their philosophy and posture toward culture to a point. However, it seems to me that they still hold to the same old basic stances when it really comes down to it: infiltration now contextualization; embrace of Billy G. now perhaps not an embrace but at least equivocation on whether or not to allow for men even to the drastic edge like Driscoll and Warren.
I recognize the abuses of fundamentalism as a movement, but want to hold to the important historic difference between the original fundamentalists and New Evangelicals as far as the principle goes. Both movements are terribly fragmented so I would never defend the movement. In practice I agree with my esteemed seminary president that we need to ditch the map/labels because the movements are so fragmented they don’t really exist. However, I believe that in principle there is still the same old difference between two groups of people (whatever label they might hold to). So one of the essential qualities that I would evaluate a healthy church by would be its philosophy of ministry/posture toward culture.
Certainly, pastorally I agree with Chris Anderson that I would rather send someone to a doctrinally sound church with a sub-par philosophy of ministry before I would send them to a doctrinally weak church (that most likely has a skewed sepratistic-standard driven-philosophy of ministry too).
All I am saying is that I don’t like it when the rallying cry is always saying that as long as they have their fundamental doctrines down then that is all that matters. Then Fund. and NE never should have separated in the 1940′s b/c they always agreed on that. Is not philosophy of ministry and posture toward culture still an essential difference in principle that needs to be a part of our rallying cry for unity around the Gospel?
As I understand it you would agree right?
Matt,
Sorry to bring another “Ben” into this conversation, but there are lots of churches that have nothing to do with the the fundamentalist movement that fit the description Chris offered and you cite. So are you insisting that people align with a church that’s tagged with the fundamentalist label? If so, you clearly haven’t made your case for that conclusion.
First, I would agree with almost all of what Kevin Collins posted recently. I wish I could have said it that clearly.
Second, in answer to the other “Ben,” :) I think we are still geting tripped up with terminology. What do you mean by “have nothing to do with the fundamentalist movement?” What does it mean to be “tagged with the fundamentalist label?” I grew up in a church that sent most of the young people from the youth group to schools like Northland, BJ and Maranatha, but the Pastor was not a member of the FBF. The church had (and still has) conservative music and dress standards. The Pastor would speak out against the likes of Promise Keepers (back in the day) and the Sovereign Grace Movement. I now attend a church that would fit into all those same categories but is a Bible church. I have attended this church for some time, but I can count on one hand how many times I have heard the term fundamentalist. So, do the churches I’ve been associated with have the fundametalist “tag?” I don’t know what that means really, but I do know these churches would fit in to the description of fundamental that Chris and Kevin gave above. How is that post for complete rambling? :)
Provocative title definitely! Misleading sounds like you deceived everybody . . . sorry about that! Why does the word provocative bother me too. Can we say “catchy” or “attention grabbing?” :)
Or…maybe it has nothing to do with health.
We live in a time when consumerism is out of control. We’re greedy consumers. We shop, buy, consume, repeat.
Same goes for church sometimes.
Church no longer satisfies? Find another church. Move somewhere new and want to find a new church? We call it church shopping.
Maybe people leave a church because they no longer get along with other members of the congregation. Maybe it’s because the music isn’t their style. Maybe the sermon focuses on sharing too many stories and not enough bible interpretation. Maybe the sermon is too much reading straight from the bible and not enough relevant metaphorical present day examples. Maybe maybe maybe.
I’ll be honest, I’ve read through all the comments and I don’t understand half of what you’re talking about. Lots of theological jargon that seems more focused on ‘how to do church’. I could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.
My question is this: Didn’t Jesus come to put an end to religion?
I think it depends on the church. The denomination that I left as a young person isn’t even keeping pace with US population growth. I tried connecting with other denominations once or twice later in life, but eventually realized that my life without religion was much better. Churches do fill a need for community, but they do so in a way that’s easily replaced with other communities and relationships.
[...] 8, 2010 by David Chris Anderson has a great, short observation about young people who stay in church. He references a fundamental church that retains the kids who grow up in it, and then [...]
Fantastic post, Chris. I guess the natural follow-up question would be, “What constitutes an unhealthy church?” I know…you could blog a SERIES regarding that issue. The first thing that comes to my mind when thinking of an unhealthy church is imbalance. I believe in one of the comments above, someone referred to “legislating what godliness looks like.” What a poignant way of putting it!
Unfortunately, many IFB churches are known simply for being “against women wearing pants,” when modesty is the real issue, or “the KJV being the only true preservation of God’s Word,” when faithful translation from reliable texts is the real issue. You get the point. Fundamantalism, generally, is marked by these types of imbalances, in my opinion, and THAT is why there is often an exodus, especially by young people.
“Major on the major.”
Read “Already Gone” by Ken Ham http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Already-Gone-Book,6131,224.aspx
[...] thoughts were inspired by this post, which I saw because it got “liked” by over 100 people on Google Reader and therefore [...]
[...] destroys God’s temple…” Posted on June 25, 2010 by Chris A while back I lamented the state of unhealthy churches, including those within self-identified fundamentalism. That post touched a nerve, apparently saying what many others are thinking. I grieve that some [...]
[...] Young People Aren’t Leaving Fundamental Churches « My Two CentsPosted on May 4, 2010 by Chris … There’s a sense—bordering on panic—that young people are leaving fundamental churches. It might be when they graduate from high school or when they finish up at a Christian college, but a lot of teens and twenties aren’t coming back … Zach Probst, on May 4, 2010 at 10:43 am said: [...]
Wow… very interesting blogs here!
As a young girl (in the 60′s & 70′s) being raised in a Bible-believing Baptist Church in Western New York – where there were VERY few Bible-believing Baptist teaching and preaching churches that not only were doctrinely sound, but also had basicly good church music standards and basicly good dress standards – I have been privileged to be able to be an eyewitness and hopefully, “rationally” critique or discern alot in the past 50 years of my “church” experience. I am assuming that most of you are much younger. I can not tell you how much I appreciate not only Chris’s thoughts and perspective, but also Ken Collins posts. Thanks to everyone who posted. I value your insights – each and everyone of you. God bless you and help you in your ministries and life for Christ. May I share my perspective from my experiences? (Because they shaped my beliefs – along with the Word of God and the profound impact that the preaching and teaching have had on my life and my walk with my Lord and Saviour in these so-called ‘fundamentalist” circles. I have also attended some NE churches, but, sadly found most to not really be as “healthy” even “doctrinely” sound in some issues as you would hope, if the emphasis was to be pure doctrine.)
I see nowhere in these blogs anyone addressing the issue of a rebellious heart, attitude, and the great depravity of the human heart.(Jer 17:9) It is only by divine intervention and divine grace that any of us are anything of use for the Lord. (John 6:29, 63, 65) I see alot of this “pants” issue & music issue. I have LIVED on both sides of this fence. I will state here, the most impact for God & righteousness I have ever had spiritually for the Lord, has been from those old “denim-skirt wearing women” and some of those preachers! Like it or not, there was a day in this country when almost all women dressed modestly and you didn’t have to be “saved” to do so. Yes, I will say it – women wore dresses of a decent length for the most part. If you look at the old rock bands of the 50′s and 60′s and even into the early 70′s – they wore suits and ties! People knew how to dress in public and in church – it wasn’t a matter of being “fundamental” or “New Evangelical” or being “doctrinely sound” or “healthy”. (I know “healthy” was used here in this blog’s context of a truly spiritual church -bear with me, please) However, dress was plain, old-fashioned common sense! The same was said for music – even my unsaved friends and neighbors KNEW what to expect from us “Christians”. Have we totally lost sight of basic good, solid music and dress that fits with sound doctrine? Do we really need to criticize and condemn those who strive to hold to a higher standard. Oh, I can hear the “legalistic” screams now from those who want to just focus on doctrine and the outward appearance “shouldn’t matter”. :) This doesn’t take a rocket scientist. What it does take is a servant’s heart and attidtude and a dying of self. For me, it was a JOY to be able to serve the Lord in a setting where I did not have to worry about “compromising” common-sense standards of dress, morality, and music. I have never “had to” attend a church where the doctrine was incorrect or heretical or erroneous. Thank God!
I could have chosen to run from my Biblical upbringing (GARB) and the strong conservative views of my parents, but I “chose” not to do so. It is a choice, and my Godly, loving parents encouraged me in following after not only Biblical, but wise choices. I KNEW THAT MY PARENTS LOVED ME AND THAT THIS WAS FOR MY BEST… why do we settle for what is “good” – God wants us to have the “best” – why do we lower our benchmark for righteous living in both preaching, teaching, AND standards? … Because it is a constant battle with the world, the flesh and the devil ((I John 2:15 -17), (III John 2-4) Was everything always great or even good (“healthy”) in the “fundamentalist” camp? – No – you are dealing with flawed, fallen creatures! Probably the best thing for me was that I was privileged to attend (after public high school – which was mediocre at best & IMO is even more pathetic in it’s academia and philosophy now) some institutions of higher learning that not only strived to have excellence in Biblical doctrine, but also excellence in life … discerning, circumspect, and “appropriate”. You all can call it “healthy”, but I will call it “appropriate”. Why, because this side of heaven, NONE of us are truly “healthy” in all perspectives of our life, and neither are our churches.
I knew what was appropriate by my parents example, and from the Word of God. But I also knew that in my heart I could easily be rebellious and want to go the way of the world and it’s culture and it’s standards. My Dad (a moral, hard-woking, common-sense man) who was saved out of a typical Methodist background (head knowledge of Jesus, but no heart change) when in his spiritual deadness, told my mom that he was not going back to that Methodist church because it was “dead” – decided to visit a Bible-believing Baptist church that preached the gospel and gave the invitation). He told me several things growing up about dress, dancing, smoking, drinking, music, etc. He said, “if I want to hear honkey-tonk music – I can go to the bars. If I want to see a woman dressed “inappropriately”, I can go to the red-light district. If I wanted some other man pawing my wife or lookin’ at her lustfully – I could take her out dancing.”
Gentlemen – I have been to both Fundamental and Neo or New Evangelical or Evangelical churches and I have seem the world’s garbage – it is there and you know it. So, let me challenge you all – fight the good fight of faith (both doctrinely and lifestyle and let God be the final judge & rewarder.)
We need to focus on how we can be salt and light in the world and even in the church and go out and win souls. Satan would love nothing better than to stymie, kill, and destroy all works for Jesus over this pathetic argument. Get some common sense and some Holy-Spirit filled preaching and teaching and let the world have their garbage! Keep the Christian Home and Churches both vibrant doctrinely and appropriate in standards for our Holy God and Saviour and for our future generations and let God be your judge, not the world or some Christian – any Christian for that matter, who wants you to let down your standards on any of these fronts under the guise of being more “healthy”
.
I wish someone would have told this to my church. It’ chock full of double-dealing and deception. I couldn’t take it any more, I had to leave.