I am informed that our old friend Chuck Phelps put this on his Facebook page today (caps and all). Apparently Chuck is worried that the IFB movement as a whole is beginning to crumble around him and so…he proposes more of the same.
IT’S NOT ABOUT “CULTURAL FUNDAMENTALISM” IT’S ABOUT PERSONAL SEPARATION
It has become vogue to declare one’s loyalty to “historic fundamentalism” while distancing oneself from “cultural fundamentalism.” “Historic Fundamentalism” is defined by those who affirm this paradigm as belief in the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. “Cultural Fundamentalism,” according to those who disenfranchise from it, is fixated on music, dress, ministry associations and methods. While such an argument may be appealing, it is simply not valid. Failure to biblically explain one’s position on matters pertaining to Christian liberty by attacking a newly created straw man called, “Cultural Fundamentalism,” will cause increasing polarization among those who profess to know the Lord and love His word. Peace among the brethren will not come as a result of pummeling the straw man called “cultural fundamentalism.” Why not? Because it’s not about “cultural fundamentalism,” it’s about personal separation!
(then follows a lot of stuff about Spurgeon and the Niagara Baptists and he ends with this)
Beware of those who belittle personal separation by attacking “cultural fundamentalism.” To belittle separatism is to belittle Scripture and to ignore what it means to live a life of consecration. It’s not about “cultural fundamentalism”, it never has been. It’s about living a consecrated life of personal separation to please a holy God.
One can only suppose that leading a life of “personal separation” doesn’t include separating oneself from the defense of rapists nor a separation from blaming victims. It is amazing that Chuck feels the need to double down on his personal standards while still refusing to consider the weightier matters of justice and kindness. People aren’t going to care about your standards, Chuck, if your church can’t even stand up and protect children from their attackers.
138 thoughts on “Chuck Phelps on “Cultural Fundamentalism””
I wish he’d separate himself to a cave somewhere.
Because God hates rock music, pants on women, gay people, and anyone who supports any of the above, and anyone who supports anyone who supports any of the above, and…
but he’s totally cool with slavery.
And child rape.
and ethnic cleansing
And man worship
and balloon animals….
Sorry, I couldn’t think of anything but wanted to be included
Balloon animals… 😆
Where are Baloon Animals mentioned in the Bible? I think it is somewhere in Hezikiah….
And it’s not PERSONAL standards when you demand that everyone in your church or your circles abide by them or you’ll separate from them.
Do that, as they do, and you’ve created CULTURAL fundamentalism.
I’ve grown up in this. I’ve heard the messages. I know how many sermons were really about the fundamentals of the faith and how many were on these so-called “personal” standards. I praise God if more people are longing for a return to the Gospel instead of the man-made rules that Chuck Phelps is defending here.
PW – I pust this into my Fundy-to-English Translator (Hyles Edition), and it says that “what it means to live a life of consecration” really means “accept and conform to everything I say”. This guy is the very embodiment of the spirit of antichrist in that he puts his standards on par with (actually, in place of) the Scriptures.
Chuck Phelps makes me sick. I’m just so thankful that the Lord sees his heart. He will be held accountable for his evil deeds one day.
Not soon enough, though.
After all the lies he was spreading about Tina Anderson, I just can’t figure out why anyone listens to this liar.
He was hiding in his counseling notes information that Willis admitted to being the aggressor, all the while casting aspersions on the character of his victim. He had the gaul to publicly say the rape was consenual -when he knew it was not.
NO decent man does that.
All IMHO, of course…
I believe the Pilgrims were Fundamentalists! Their culture in 1620 wouldn’t be accepted by today’s fundamentalist culture.
Of course not. The Pilgrims actually drank beer. And read the Geneva Bible. Not necessarily at the same time, of course! 😉
…but possibly at the same time. 😉
Interesting he would mention straw-men when Chuck loves to pummel straw-men all the time. Funny he should quote Spurgeon when one of his favorite straw-men is Calvinism. He loves to create a hyper-calvinist straw-man and then knock the stuffins out of it! Simply clueless.
Yeah, I’ve noticed a recent tendency among fundamentalists to attempt to legitimize themselves by borrowing the nomenclature of classical logic and rhetoric in their “arguments.” The problem, of course, is that just because someone uses some fancy and/or impressive term like “straw man” doesn’t automatically convert that person’s “argument” into a well-reasoned, logical, elegant syllogism. This is the worst sort of intellectual bullying, because a lot of sheeple in the pews will think, “Oh wow, my preacher is so brilliant and uses such impeccable logic. There is just no disagreeing with HIM!!!”
(The other common example of this is using/abusing/twisting “the Greek” to prove a thelogical point. Both extreme liberal and extreme fundamentalist preachers are notorious for doing this.)
Just another example of someone bloviating against “the world” while using “the world’s” own accepted lingo and methodologies to attempt to argue his point.
From having been a logic tutor in university I have noticed that students start out not understanding the subject.
Then when they get some familiarity with the subject, they start to see logical fallacies everywhere. I mean everywhere.
At this stage they also like to use the names of the fallacies-a lot.
Been there, done that 😉 (As in, I was the annoying student who saw fallacies everywhere.) Of course, that is partly because there ARE logical fallacies everywhere. What bugs me is when people use a term of art like “straw man” when they have absolutely no idea what it means.
For the record, the overarching fundy logical fallacy is the slippery slope argument.
When I was in college taking logic and rhetoric (we had a classical liberal arts curriculum), I remember my fundy mother actually said to me: “Well that’s fine if you want to take those classes, I guess, as long as you don’t try to persuade ME of anything.”
Of course, that is partly because there ARE logical fallacies everywhere.
Ain’t that the truth.
If you look carefully, the irony is that his anti-strawman arguement is actually a straw man argument! That was my favorite part of the whole thing.
I wish he were brave enough to have a public page…but of course not. He and his wife recently spoke at a fundy church down the street from my house, and I got a report from one of the members that his wife was never observed smiling one time during an entire weekend event. The joy of the Lord, man…must be grand.
Would you smile if you were married to him?
The specifics of the story were that for some reason there was a skit going on which was described as so funny the entire room was roaring in laughter (good old IFB skits, you can’t go wrong there) but Linda Phelps was stone faced. They couldn’t get her to smile all weekend… Maybe only Chuckles can do that.
Tony You said “He and his wife recently spoke at a fundy church down the street from my house, and I got a report from one of the members that his wife was never observed smiling one time during an entire weekend event. The joy of the Lord, man…must be grand.”
WHAT!! He permitted a WOMAN to speak in CHURCH?? In the PULPIT 😯 😯 😯 He should read 1 Corinthians 14:34. Does he believe the Bible or does he not??
I actually found myself at a UberFundy Church once where the preacher actually said “Jesus Wept. There is no record in the Bible that Jesus ever laughed.” I have gone through the New Testament, and nowhere does it record that He ever went to the toilet. So it is evident to any real Christian that he never did.
It’s not just people who aren’t going to care about his “standards”. God doesn’t care about his “standards” when he fails to protect the “little ones” in his church.
^^ “Yes! and Amen!” ^^
Absolutely…His man-made standards are a joke.
Correction: God doesn’t care about his standards. Period.
Using your personal standards of piety to separate from others is found in what Bible? We are commanded to separate ourselves from those who are practicing blatant sin and are unrepentant. What Chuck and the Fundies do is separate over personal preferences rather than actual sin.
When actual rape is covered up and justice is denied that is sin compounded with more sin. Chuck would do well to spend some time camped out in Romans 2. “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”
Separate over sin against God, not sin against Chuck’s (or any other IFB pulpiteer’s) personal preferences.
Great insight Don.
great post, Laird Donald!
I’m sure most of your readers know Chuck’s post is a direct response to Matt Olson’s recent article, but just in case they haven’t seen it, here’s the link: http://www.ni.edu/news-events/pursuing-transparency-with-change
Matt and Chuck were peers at BJU–they graduated around the same time I did. It’s interesting to see the different directions they have taken.
And Olson was involved in covering up the same teen’s rape.
Yeah, that’s right. That makes this attack even more bizarre.
Watch these two snakes eat each other…
You! I cannot believe you. How dare you insult my friends like that. If my friends wanted to be insulted, they would come here and post. But you have to chase them and bash them from afar. Snakes are my closest friends and if you ever equate them with Chuck Phelps again, I will find you!!!!
Thank you Bob. I too am a lover of snakes, especially the agkistrodon family.
I’ve known many honorable snakes. I’m not sure what these two creatures are.
Does he realize that fundamentalism, as a movement, is roughly only 100 years old? Does he realize that the Church has been around for about 2000 years? Does he realize that Christianity was just fine before fundamentalism, and therefore, will be just fine after it?
Reading some church history would do this guy a lotta good. Then he would drop lots of the silly standards that he works so hard to defend that have nothing to do with Christianity.
Yeah, all I heard was “beware of those apostates up at Northland”.
I’ve tried to leave Chuck alone lately, but seriously, that is effed up. Chew on Northland’s unessentials and beg for understanding and support when you utterly fail a rape victim.
Oh, and two other things.
1. IT’S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL SEPARATION, IT’S ABOUT A GOOD OL’ BOY NETWORK.
2. When I left fundamentalism and wandered about looking for a new church, I discovered that nearly every non-mormon, non-universalist church in town held the same cardinal doctrines. You know, like the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, etc. The majority of modern american christianity is, essentially, fundamentalist.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Chuck. Or maybe ship it to Colorado. Whatever works for you.
Fine, and one more thing now that I read Northland’s announcement about it.
“Our consciences before God will not allow us to draw artificial lines of separation where God Himself has not drawn them.”
Sounds pretty clear and without straw to me there, Chuck. Keep talking though. It’s funny.
Chuck, did you know that every time you mouth moves, strange sounds come out?
Ah yes, the “separation” thing again. These IFB types are so proud of their separation! (Even though pride is one of the things God hates). But Jude 19 still says, “These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the spirit.” Modern fundamentalism is a psuedo Christianity built on IFB pulpit Baps ego and self promotion. I just don’t seen Jesus or His apostles railing about all the junk the fundies do.
Thanks Ken. It is clear that Chuckie’s religion is not Christianity, but I don’t think he cares. He wants his religion.
Who would take this liar seriously?
As Darrell implies, he may be running short of people who take him seriously.
Fundamentalism has been increasingly obsessed with peripheral issues and cultural preferences. And, as many have pointed out, as the issues get more pulpit time, the fundamentals are increasingly neglected. (It’s just no fun to talk about things that “those” Christians agree with us on.) This is what so many in the movement are reacting against – they are trying to get back to the fundamentals.
Phelps seems to be saying here that a person can’t go back to the fundamentals without agreeing with fundamentalism on all the issues.
While Phelps is trying to sound all pastorally, it just seems like he’s saying:
“How dare you say you believe the fundamentals of the faith (or even the Bible for that matter) and not agree with us on all our cultural choices! Our choices transcend mere “culture” and are wired into the very fabric of Biblical doctrine!”
I think a lot of fundamentalist leaders are becoming panicked that more and more of their people are discovering that all of orthodox evangelicalism believes the core Biblical truths fundamentalists have been pretending they have a monopoly on for all these years.
He seems to be saying that his cultural rules are inseparable from the fundamentals of Christianity.
In a way, that’s what all fundamentalists argue.
But it’s a silly argument when it comes to things such as styles of dress and music.
I’d say what I think of him but my mama used to wash my mouth with soap when I talked like that. 👿
when these men lose their grip of control they lash out. sadly there is no support for phelp’s position and there is no way to reason with the un-reasonable. i am a northland grad that was ashamed of my school, but now i am extremely proud. i am proud because the leadership humbled themselves and looked into the non-sense that is funda(mental)ism. they marked them and now are moving away from the weird brothers and i couldn’t be happier! sadly, they are feeling the backlash of who they shared fellowship with, but if the school folds or flourishes, olson and the board are making the right choices. the dickheads like phelps and the guy who runs indefenseofthegosple.blogspot.com can separate and live in there own theologically weird world.
sorry here is the “real” link to the clown that i was speaking of. total joke! http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/
You’re proud of a school whose president forced an underaged rape victim to write a letter apologising to her rapist’s wife?
your pseudo outrage is annoying. that has nothing to do with what i wrote above. (please explain where is said anything about the Tina Anderson issue and my being proud of that) again, northland is moving in a great direction and that is why i am proud. you are just as much a ass-clown as phelps. good-day Tiarali.
go Wow yourself…
*i said/not is said
Jim, you may have gone juuuuust a little overboard in your reponse here.
yes msk i did. i am not ashamed in the least.
Before I would be proud of such an institution, I would require them to clean up instances of prior cover ups of a teenager’s rape. Northland has not done so. Olson should be fired, and the school should apologise for supporting him for so long.
That the school hasn’t means that the current direction that the school is going in is cosmetic and nothing less.
That you would be proud of such an institution, and publicly defend it, speaks volumes about you.
thanks for the kind words! your opinion of me means nothing, btw. you show yourself to be a half-wit and i think that may be generous. you are pulling your opinion out of your ass; the same place your brain is located.
since you are an insider and know these changes are only cosmetic-please explain. give details of this premise.
btw, telling others what they should or shouldn’t do or feel is out of the fundy play book; it would seem you haven’t left the camp yet.
sorry to those that have read this interaction with tiarali. the confrontation that was made gave me flashbacks to my fundie-experiance. i over reacted and could have been less caustic in my reaction. i am sorry to the group. to you tiarali i am not sorry. your assumptions of my motives is deplorable, thus i owe you nothing.
Jim, you sir are an ass, a royal ass.
Jim, clearly Northland educated you very well. I am sure they are just as proud of you as you are of them. Unlike you, many of us attended institutions of higher learning where we actually learned how to write (including how to spell) and how to present a logical argument devoid of emotionalism and personal attacks. Instead of answering the very legitimate issue raised by tiarali, you effectively side-stepped the issue with faux-logic, ad hominem attacks, and anger. That is the behavior of a fundamentalist, NOT the behavior of a rational well-educated adult. Again, I am sure Northland is very proud of you. Don’t have to worry about them revoking YOUR diploma for straying from “the truth.”
Yep, Northland is moving in a good direction. You, sir, are not. Mulligan?
btw, Tiarali, you are not a hilf-wit, and we enjoy your comments around here.
knew the logic, spelling and grammar attack would come (deacon’s son); that happens when you have nothing to say. you make persona/emotional attacks against me with your self righteous drivel? the very thing you chid me for? one could never support a move away from fundamentalism-after all that would no longer give you a boogie man.
anger? hmm… it sure as hell seems like every former fundy web page is filled with anger and bitching, so i feel at home. “deacon’s son” you are a pompous asshole… did i spell asshole right? btw, where is the error in my logic? explain? please, help this lowly uneducated fundy product with your high level of understanding in logic. i guess at your school of higher learning you did not learn to read. i never said i supported olson on the tina anderson issue, so open your eyes dipshit.
wifeofbill you are a major bitch, major bitch!
I am going to respectfully make a motion that Darrell moderate Mr. Jim off this site. Do I have a second? All in favor, please indicate by a show of hands and I see no opposition so the motion has carried.
(I believe I correctly followed Fundy’s Rules of Order on this one.)
thanks deacon’s son! it would be an honor to be kicked off! you can’t take a little push back. haha
Jim, calling a woman a “bitch” and using other offensive and gratuitous language is not “pushback.” It is just plain rude and uncouth. Most of us manage to have extremely passionate, and sometimes personal, disagreements on this site without resorting to such low class behavior. I wonder, was this style of communicating Christ’s love and God’s truth in vogue when you were a student at Northland?
I would also note that you STILL have not answered or addressed tiarali’s initial question that was so offensive to you.
you still have not addressed my question. where is my logic flawed?
i originally posted about northland and its direction-that is all. then it was implied that my support of a school was somehow connected to hiding rape. really? support of a new direction is a rubber stamp for rape? hmm. it would seem that isn’t logical. i responded to that and if that is too harsh, then so be it. i called a woman a bitch because i was called a “royal ass”. so spare me the civil conversation b.s.
so answer me d.s. why have you not explained where my logic is flawed? you can comment on my intellect or lack there of and i am harsh for responding to you? i would guess you never had anyone call you on your b.s. and are some how dumb founded that someone would treat you in the manner you treat them. again, explain oh wise one where my logic is flawed. yes i have been a first class jerk/dick but i would recommend you pick up a mirror and look long into it as well.
I’ll give it a try. ReneeD did a very good job, and I will probably hit some of the same points. This will take a while, so make yourself comfortable.
1. I saw no problems with what you said in your original comment. I agree that the leadership appears to have humbled itself to at least some degree, and that they are taking some positive steps in allowing more freedom of belief and behavior (I am not knowledgeable enough to say too much about what they allow or don’t allow, but it is quite clear that they have appeared to abandon the ridiculous positions held by others). I thought you gave a sideways acknowledgement that Northland has reason to be ashamed of some positions taken in the past by Oleson. I could have done without the language at the end. I hear enough of that at work every day. I am marinaded in it, you could say. I even slip and use it myself from time to time…but NEVER in written communications. Fair enough so far?
2. I understand the point Tiarali was making, though I thought it could have been phrased differently, rather than aiming her remarks at you. I would have asked, “Do you know if Oleson ever expressed remorse over some of his unbelievably bad treatment of Tina? Do you know if Northland understands how evil that was? It’s nice that they are willing to allow a praise band now, but it is more important that they speak publically and clearly on their legal and moral responsibilities toward rape victims. I want to know that they are not just paying lip service to “reform.” Still, Tiarali’s questions were quite gentle.
3. This is where you allowed your emotions to ruin your message. “Pseudo” outrage? Who are you to say whether her “outrage” (a dramatic overstatement of the case) is fake or genuine? You said you had been ashamed of your school in the past, but you were happy to see their new direction. I think most of us are only aware of one reason for Northland grads to feel ashamed of their school: Matt Oleson’s treatment of Tina Anderson. That was MY first thought, anyway. And unless Oleson has repented of his behavior, and Northland has sworn that they do not agree with his behavior toward her, we know very little else of Northland, and could be forgiven for assuming that your former shame was related to the Tina Anderson situation. I bet that’s why Tiarali asked how you can be proud of the place if the Tina Anderson situation remains unaddressed. I think she could have been less accusatory toward you, but I also think it was still a misunderstanding at that point, and could have been de-fused and resolved VERY easily. But then you lobbed some hand grenades that were absurd on every level. Her little statement made her as bad as Phelps? Seriously, dude? Are you aware of what Phelps has done, and how many innocent children have been deeply harmed by Phelps’ actions and inaction? This was slander. This statement alone completely destroyed your credibility, and it is the basis of all statements regarding your ability with Logic.
4. Your acknowledgement that you went pretty far overboard, coupled with your lack of shame over your shameful behavior, adds to the evidence that your thinking is illogical, and maybe a little erratic.
5. Ah, yes, Tiarali then succinctly stated the reasons why she doesn’t understand why you would be proud of Northland. Unless she misstates the facts, she has a very strong point. I think she could have left off that last sentence without weakening her argument at all, but it’s not so easy to leave little jibes unsaid when someone just called you the equivalent of Chuck Phelps.
6. “Your opinion of me means nothing.” “Halfwit.” Juvenile comments about the location of opinions and brains. Asking for details for a premise when the details for the premise were clearly stated in the preceding comment. Sigh. This sort of thing does not give the reader confidence in your abilities with Logic. All Tiarali did was question why you could be proud of a school that hasn’t addressed Matt Oleson and Tina Anderson. You never answered that, and so she is simply disagreeing with you.
Nobody even hinted that you support Oleson on the Tina Anderson issue. One person simply questioned whether it is the right time to be proud of Northland yet, when they have such a major issue sitting in their living room, rotting away, stinking up the joint, while they implement window dressing like Praise Bands.
You might do well to listen to the criticisms that are coming your way. We are not afraid to have disagreements, but I can’t remember the last time someone was as crass and vulgar as you have been on this thread. You were offered a Mulligan. Why couldn’t you take it, and back away from the vileness? We all screw up every once in a while. No need to persist in it.
You claimed that you wanted to understand the flaws in your logic. I have given an honest attempt, with no malice. I hope my intent comes through clearly to you.
@ Jim: The fact that Olson is taking the school in a new direction does not mean a thing. He still helped cover up what happened to Tina Anderson and made he write an apology note to the wife of her rapist. Olson has never come out and admitted this, apologized to Tina Anderson, or expressed repentance at all. I doubt God values either Chuck Phelp’s standards or Matt Olson’s changing of some of those standards in light of their involvement in covering up what happened to Tina Anderson.
@phil, what you said is true and i am not happy about olson not addressing tina anderson. i do not know if he ever tried to reach out to her; and if he hasn’t that is tragic. however, the fact that northland is turning to a better path is a good thing, right? forgiveness is never dependent on the one asking but the person offering it. fundamentalism hurt me greatly, yet when i see something positive i am thankful.
@msk, thank-you for listing those things you did. i am grateful for your point of view here. to be sure, i should have been less vulgar. i used those words, as you stated as “a hand grenade” to shake things up. i do not hate you or anyone else on this page. i felt there was nothing in my original post that was offensive. i showed no grace or christian love in my later posts and that was wrong. i am sorry for that. i can’t say i acted out of re-action because that would lay blame on others. i acted in a way to get a rise out of people. this was wrong-i was attempting to make a point but i realize now that i have no authority to make points or teach others with my hyperbole. again i was wrong and i am sorry-it was attempt at satire, but i hurt people’s feelings. this is not right. so now that i have tarred and feathered myself, i will stop posting. msk, thanks again for your reasoned response to my un-reasonable behavior.
I have had nothing to do with this thread, but I wanted to thank Jim for apologizing. Thank you, Jim. Apologizing can be a hard thing to do, and I appreciate that you were willing to do so.
One last thing. You said, “I have no authority to make points or teach others with my hyperbole…”
Please don’t think that you shouldn’t contribute. You most certainly have as much authority to make points or teach others as anyone else on this site.
That is to say, “not much.” But we don’t let that stop us.
Most of the IFB schools have made significant changes in the last 5 years or so, but I hesitate to believe it’s due to honest self-reflection. I think it’s just a matter of survival for them. They’re finding it hard to compete against the likes of Liberty, Union, Cedarville, etc.
@ Deacon’s Son.
Cone of slience, guys.
I should never have gotten in a flame war with this guy in the first place. Chalk it up to my need to tell off a fundy from time to time. 😉
Haha I 3rd!
Michelle, I must respectfully refer you to the Fundy Rules of Order that forbid a woman from voting in a business meeting 😆
THREE victims from Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH have been revealed by the press–three while TBC was under his “separated leadership.” Chuck failed at least three. Begs the question: how many more did he fail? But he can be proud of his “standards”–of his personal separation. Tina Anderson has shown more character, compassion, love, grace and mercy since her story became public than Chuck has shown in all his years of “ministry.” She could have dragged him through a messy public lawsuit.
I respect her brand of Christianity over his any day.
Did anyone else notice all the Bible citations in Phelps’ little diatribe?
yes! such a silly argument. he has no concept of context within a text. sad this guy is teaching the bible in a church.
Like a Calormene quoting the Poets.
Chuck may be reacting to the release of Jocelyn Zichterman’s new book, I FIRED GOD, in which she methodically details the many aberrations and extremist fads in the IFB.
Whoop de doo. Jocelyn is about as unreliable as he is.
And that’s the sad truth.
“It’s about living a consecrated life of personal separation to please a holy God.”
No Chuck, it’s about a bloody Savior on the cross who was separated (from his Father) on our behalf.
It’s his righteousness, not yours, that pleases God.
So true; but in the business of life, easy to forget.
Doesn’t he understand it’s not by works (he’ll preach it, but he doesn’t live it or believe it)? That saying, “to please a holy God,” is totally against Isaiah 64:6? Am I missing something here?
I’m noticing the top of the “Recent Comments” on the home page reads “Polished Shaft” on “Chuck Phelps…..”
For the visual you just forced into my unwilling mind, I do not thank you.
I think that Mr. Phelps is ignoring the fact that PS, personal separation, is a subset of CF, Cultural Fundamentalism.
PS is personal, CF is social.
PS is something internal that you apply to your own life, CF is something outward that you apply to your social network e.g. family, friends, church.
PS judges yourself, CF judges others.
must have hit pretty close to the mark to get him all riled up like that
Phelps uses the word “straw man” twice. What is it with fundies and the word “straw man”? Could it be the straw man in “The Wizard of Oz” was no brain. But Phelps could also be the tin-man because he has no heart. Only a heartless man would help cover-up a rape and blame the victim. Only a heartless man would be more concerned with protecting an institution instead of protecting a child.
Phelps’ god is the Wizard of BJU, all noise and threats, but behind the curtain is a weak, pathetic in-breed, little man.
See my comment above about the fundy embrace of “logic.”
I can preach for many an hour
With eyebrows all a-glower
As holiness I feign
And a prooftext I’ll be snatchin’
As a sermon I am hatchin’
From my brilliant fundy brain!
I’d let church members fiddle
With any little kid-dle
Inflicting lasting pain
At their sin I will be winkin’
They’ll buy me another Lincoln
Oh my brilliant fundy brain!
Oh, I can tell you why
That girl was a whore
Excuses that you never thunk before
I’ll counsel you and come up with some more!
For the victim I’ll do nuffin’
Cause my gut is full of stuffin’
And my heart is inhumane!
I’ll keep acting scary
While our Lord doth tarry
Serve Him with my fundy brain!!!
They climbin in yo Bible, snatchin yo prooftexts up.
So, does this mean ol’ Chuckles won’t be funneling kids from his church to Northland?
I’ve always thought it would be great fun after hearing someone like Phelps passionately explain something as ridiculous as this to me, to totally miss the point and say, “Yeah, I completely agree! So wait, you’re supporting the ordination of homosexuals as ministers, right?”
Just watch his head explode.
That WOULD be worth seeing…..
The stuff about Spurgeon and the Niagra Conference is the meat of his argument.
He tries to tie Spurgeon in as a Fundamentalist, which is questionable. But his statements on Niagra seem to be fairly well-founded. The Pietist and Keswick influences on Fundamentalism is undeniable. In fact, I’m inclined to agree with Phelps that the distinction between “historic” Fundamentalism and “cultural” fundamentalism is as clear as Olsen and others would make it. They seem to be joined at the hip. The presence of guys like Machen in Fundamentalist history doesn’t do away with the fact that it also included J. Frank Norris and others.
There is a book titled What Happened to the GARBC at Niagra Falls? by a couple of guys in desperate need of convincing people their way is the right way. (My take after reading the book) I was given a copy by a “well-meaning” pastor friend who thought I needed to be warned about GARBC churches and their liberalism when I was on deputation trying to become a missionary. Most of the GARBC churches I was in were very good groups of believers who were not what we consider fundies. Many of them were actually in their local communities doing something other than screaming “turn or burn!!! Turn and we will consider helping if you have a real need and come to our church”.
It’s been about 7 years since I read the book, (I can’t find it at the moment) and my memory may be off, but as I read it I got the impression the Niagra group has been castigated for not being extreme right wing separatist enough. My bible reference books are closest to my desk, so that book may be across the room in the fiction area. Likely between Limbaugh and The Trail of Blood.
It is off topic but that picture of Phelps looks like he was just asked to divide 1,897 by 13 in his head.
Looks like a trial photo, so yeah, he probably is pulling stuff out of his posterior.
Or somebody who just got cornered.
“Think Fast, Rabbit…”
— Bugs Bunny
Just because “cultural fundamentalism” is in the Bible does not mean that it is biblical. The Bible does have a term for the “cultural fundamentalist.” That term is “Pharisee.” Please do a Strong’s key-word study of what the Bible says about “Pharisees” and report back to me. At that time, I might consider engaging you in conversation.
Damn. There goes my “its Biblical” argument for having a few concubines. I’ve been trying to convince my better half for a while now…
the question remains. where is the error in my logic? please wise one tell me! you make lofty claims and i would like for my own personal growth to know where my error in logic is.
where did i support the abuse of a rape victim? please show me. i guess i will just get run of because i dared to make a few waves.
It isn’t so much an error of logic as perhaps a lapse in ethics. The issue is in proclaiming to be proud of a school, to have felt okay at relinquishing personal shame of the school, merely because of some superficial, external changes that should never have had to be made in the first place (eg there was no reason for the original, “separatist” rules), when the school’s head is a whitewashed tomb at best. Superficial changes are no reason to be proud when the core symptom of deep problems, the cover-up of both sin and illegal acts, remain, not even challenged. That is very upsetting for a number of people here, not just on the issue of principle, but because they have been the victims of pastoral cover-up of abuse.
I couldn’t care less about your logic. You are a foul little punk who probably got given too many wedgies in eighth grade, and you lack the decency to understand that you are WAY out of line, and you lack the sense to shut your pie hole.
Your mother must be very proud of you.
I second the motion to ban you. Pushback is one thing. Foul abuse over innocuous comments, as you dished out to Tiareli and ever since, is something else.
@ msk-i feel your love brother. my mother is very proud, thanks. foul? haha, come one man-those spooky bad words. hmm… yeah i guess it is easier to ban and cast out-so you can sit in your holy huddle-like your fundy brothers you claim to hate so much. you sir need to face your own self righteousness. i didn’t get picked on in high school or college, but i did feel the heavy weight of self righteous pricks.
I understand feeling the need to push back. I also understand the desire to hit back really hard and give people a taste of their own medicine so that they think twice before doing it to you again.
But what does cussing people really accomplish? Especially when those people are female? It’s not like you’re dealing with street thugs here.
“i called a woman a bitch because i was called a “royal ass”.”
These two things are not the same.
A few quick points:
1 – I would like to thank Chuck Phelps. Because of him, the world knows all they need to know about the cult of Christian fundamentalism. If it’s dying, he can blame himself, since he’s a part of the death.
2 – Christian fundamentalism has always been about culture. Sometimes Jesus shows up.
3 – “For God so love the world, he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in personal separation may have everlasting life.”
Let them continue to ‘separate’ themselves into oblivion!
It’s happening, seeing it in older, smaller IFB churches. The small congregation circles the wagons, membership dwindles, can’t support the church, so all is dissolved and the ‘faithfull few’ go join another dying, small IFB church.
It’s just a matter of time!
I was unaware one could disenfranchise oneself from something.
Will there be a slow reduction if IFB churches, until the last of the diehards die off into oblivion? Maybe not, but the influence of the movement surely will.
Sorry if I replied to the wrong thing. I was making fun of Phelp’s grammar, not criticizing your comment. I couldn’t agree more with your statement as I watch my fundy classmates leave the movement, one by one.
and, there’s the “Phelp’s.” I knew criticizing grammar would come back to bite me. 🙂
Reading Phelps’s statement on the Blogspot page referenced above, I noticed two things right away: he uses such coded speech about whatever’s got his knickers twisted, that if you don’t share his worldview, you’ll be puzzled; and he ignores the leadership of Christ and the guidance of the Spirit in his little pep talk. As PW incisively notes, “personal separation” means each person’s decisions on holiness, but it’s pretty clear that this guy sees it as following a set of rules for everyone.
Says the man that defended a rapist in his own church. I think he doesn’t want to admit that his views may be legalistic, lest the congregants start disagreeing with his super important, god given rules and loses control.
Says the man that defended a rapist in his own church.
Yeah. That kind of shoots your credibility in both feet.
It’s ridiculous how to gain acceptance among his hearers/readers he just says the opposing side is “popular” thus he need no more argument or proof that we are wrong since everybody knows popular equals wicked. Haha….I’ve never heard of cultural fundamentalism, and I take the stand on the issue that I do because I began to search scripture for real Christianity and found that what it is today is a far cry from it. They are about music style, bible translation, petty dress code distinctions, etc… Not about Jesus.
It’s ridiculous how to gain acceptance among his hearers/readers he just says the opposing side is “popular” thus he need no more argument or proof that we are wrong since everybody knows popular equals wicked.
Wow. Just like High School (“Ooooooo! POP-U-LAR!!!”) except flipped one-eighty like Communism begetting Objectivism.
The New Testament, particularly the gospels, has a WHOLE lot to say about the “Separated Ones” (pharisaios). It isn’t good.
Love how morons making these arguments never cite Jesus’ personal separation in the Bible. Pretty sure Jesus’ life was the antithesis of what Phelps is promoting. Since the religious leaders of the day described Jesus as a “drunk” who hung out with Publicans and sinners, I highly doubt Jesus practiced Phelps version of “Personal Separation.” The reason he sees HIS religion crumbling around him is because it’s HIS religion and not the Christ- centered message of the Bible. My personal opinion is God has tired of a century of this nonsense being pushed on the American masses by men like Phelps and Jones, and He has pulled the plug to the point that we’re all now watching the Phelps/Jones religion circling the drain.
Saw a great quote on Facebook recently
“Be like Jesus. Hang around with Sinners enough to ruin your reputation with Rwligious People”
Gonna try it
A man who covered up the rape of a child, and then publicly shamed that child for having the audacity to be raped, has about as much business talking about “personal holiness” as a serial killer does talking about the sanctity of life.
Chuck Phelps. For the life of me, I cannot even fathom why someone wouuld still attend a church where he was a leader.
Same goes for Jim Vineyard, Jack Trieber, and even Greg Mutsch. Why people still follow these men is beyond me.
They do it for the same reason the Germans followed a certain horrible little man from 1933 to 1945…
I am informed that our old friend Chuck Phelps put this on his Facebook page today (caps and all). Apparently Chuck is worried that the IFB movement as a whole is beginning to crumble around him and so…he proposes more of the same.
Doubling down with “More of the same, but HARDER and LOUDER!” Just like the USSR when it was crumbling under Brezhnev. Their solution? “Increase Political/Ideological Consciousness” more and more and more.
I read a joke about Breznhev.
Lenin, Stalin and Breznhev were on a train together, travelling across the USSR.The train stopped. One of the engineers came to apologise. “Indocrinate the Train-driver!” yells Lenin. After a while the engineer come back and said “It is done, Comrade” But the train doesn’t move. “Shoot the train-driver!” yells Stalin. They hear a shot. But the train doesn’t move. Breznhev thinks, then yells, “Paint the windows black and tell the people we’re moving!”
I think Fundamentalists like phelps are doing pretty much the same thing.