stoneshms.jpg - 54764 Bytes
Our Priority,
Our Philosophy,
Our Position,
Our Programs,
Our Physical LocationOutside Links-
Baptist Bastion,
Books and Bibles Online,
HomeSchool Sailor,
Fundamentally Basic,
Religions & Cults,
More Christian ResourcesSupported Missions,
Other Missions,
World Church DirectoryRecent Additions to Our Site
Home PageSermons in Type,
Sermons on Tape,
Doctrinal WritingsOur Pastor,
Our PeopleAsk the Pastor,
Pastors Pen Online,
Daily Devotions
  clear.gif - 808 Bytes
helm2a.gif - 1580 Bytes
in Type
on Tape
Doctrinal Writings
clear.gif - 808 BytesBy Author
clear.gif - 808 BytesBy Subject

clear.gif - 808 Bytes
Quick Links
clear.gif - 808 Bytes
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Priorities
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Constitution
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Pastor
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Programs
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Location
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Missionaries
clear.gif - 808 Bytes
clear.gif - 808 BytesGoogle Search
clear.gif - 808 BytesAsk the Pastor
clear.gif - 808 BytesDoctrinal Writings


Thank you for visiting. Please send spiritual comments to Pastor's Pen


Please e-mail all other comments to WindJammer

A Little Ocean Ambiance
clear.gif - 808 Bytes clear.gif - 808 Bytes
Doctrinal Writings
clear.gif - 808 Bytes

clear.gif - 808 Bytes


clear.gif - 808 Bytes By
Dr. Richard Flanders
Juniata Baptist Church
Vassar, Michigan

The use of the term "fundamentalist" as a name for conservative Christians is controversial, especially among the people it is used to designate. Of course calling fanatical Muslims "Islamic fundamentalists" has certainly damaged the term, but actually the controversy arose before that was done. Historically, "fundamentalist" is a strictly Christian classification, arising out of the battles over the Bible in the major denominations in the early twentieth century. The fundamentalists were the Christians who held firmly to the old doctrines and definitions of Protestant orthodoxy in opposition to the challenges of the new "liberal" theology. At first both preachers and laymen welcomed the label because it emphasized their stand for the "fundamentals" of the historic Christian faith. But with the modifications and drifts that occurred among the conservatives as the century unfolded, a growing number of them grew uneasy with the term.

Especially after the Second World War, leaders who wanted to be called "new evangelicals" began criticizing both the temperament and the tactics of their spiritual forefathers. They wanted to engage the liberals in dialogue rather than fight them. They believed in infiltrating denominational institutions rather than separating from those the liberals had captured. They wanted to adopt a manner more cultured and pleasing than their fundamentalist predecessors had. So they were more comfortable with terms like "evangelical" or "conservative" than the old name "fundamentalist."

For years, when asked if he were a fundamentalist, a "new evangelical" Christian would say that he was indeed a fundamentalist in his beliefs, but that he had a problem with "the baggage" that the term had acquired. Yes, he believed in an infallible Bible, a virgin-born Savior, an atoning cross, and an empty tomb. Of course he still preached justification by faith in Christ alone, but he did not agree with the "extreme" ideas many "fundamentalists" were now preaching. For example, new evangelicals had no problem with including liberals in the organization of "ecumenical" evangelistic crusades. Those who did object to this policy retained the "fundamentalist" label, but those who approved of ecumenical evangelism no longer appreciated it. "New evangelicals" also questioned the strict standards of life long associated with conservative Christians, and called these prohibitions and expectations "baggage," too. We may ask, however, if belief in sound theology does not imply adherence to certain kinds of behavior. In other words, should faith affect practice?

The first years of the twenty-first century have brought an interesting new trend among Christians still claiming to be fundamentalists. It is another movement to shed policies of the past. Fellowships of Baptists that left the conventions over liberalism and inclusivism are now joining with convention Baptists in various endeavors, and some are even joining the convention! Many fundamentalists have now dropped their traditional bans on movie-going, immodest dress, and rock music. They are saying that fundamentalists should unite on doctrine and not divide over "methods." It is a familiar tune to old-timers. The question is, can they be true to fundamentalist doctrine but abandon historic fundamentalist practice? Is there such a thing as behavior that goes along with orthodoxy?

Paul's Epistle to Titus certainly says that there is. Chapter 2 begins with an admonition to the young preacher to "speak . . . things which become sound doctrine." The Greek word translated "become" in Titus 2:1 means to be proper or fitting. There are "things" which go along with (are fitting for or proper to) "sound doctrine." These "things" are practices and behaviors listed not only in Chapter 2 but throughout the whole book. Titus 2:10 says that our actions should "adorn the doctrine of God." Titus 1:1 opens the epistle with the assertion that truth is "after godliness." In other words, sound doctrine goes along with godly living (and vice versa). The actions that naturally accompany faithfulness to God's truth are grouped into three categories in the book of Titus.

I. Obedience to God.
Titus 1 says that one of their own prophets had said of the Cretians that they are "always liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies" (v. 12). We know what "liars" are, and we probably understand the implication of calling them "evil beasts." We must conclude that, whatever the term really means, "slow bellies" must also refer to bad behavior. The preacher then is told to "rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith" (v. 13). Bad behavior does not fit with sound doctrine. Verse 16 declares, "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." Loyalty to God and His truth implies obedience to His Word. To say that we believe the Bible while persistently disobeying the Bible is certainly a false claim. The true fundamentalists would be expected to bow to every clear directive of the Scripture.

Does a person believe the Bible when he disobeys its clear commands about separation from evil, modest apparel, gender roles, and holiness? Those who call these things "baggage" must think that they know better than God about how believers should live. They call certain issues "non-issues" because fundamentalists in the past did not address the same questions. But they are ignoring the most basic principle of operation for Bible-believers of every generation: do what the Word of God says to do! People who deliberately disobey the Bible are not really fundamentalists.

II. Holiness of life.
"Aged women" who believe the truth are admonished in Titus 2:3 to "be in behavior as becometh holiness." All of the second chapter connects holiness both in action and demeanor with loyalty to sound doctrine. Aged Christian men (v. 2), young women (v. 4), and young men (v. 6) are told to be "sober" in mind. The Greek word used in verse 2 means clear-minded, and the one translated "sober" in verses 4 and 6 means safe-minded. Sober-mindedness is part of holiness. So is the "gravity" (being respectable) of verse 7. These words describe a seriousness and reverence that characterize both holiness and sound doctrine. Styles of "worship" that are not characterized by the sobriety and gravity of holiness do not belong in doctrinally sound churches. So-called "contemporary" church music has no place in a fundamentalist service. It is frivolous, rebellious, and sensual, as rock music always is. Whether music was an issue at the time or not, fundamentalist churches did not use rock music in their services fifty years ago. Those who call high music standards "baggage" for fundamentalists try to ignore the fact that they are the ones advocating change. Although music was not at the heart of the old battles for the faith, music appropriate to sound doctrine was always the choice of sound churches. The new development is professed fundamentalists bringing in the "praise bands" and swaying to the rock 'n' roll. The fact is that the new music does not "become sound doctrine."

We are told to "teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed" (Titus 2:4-5). Certainly such a chaste and faithful manner of life will call for modesty in both clothing and manner. As a matter of fact, Paul wrote Timothy at about the same time as he wrote Titus and said of women's fashions,

". . . that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array . . ." (1 Timothy 2:9)
Immodesty in dress and rebellion at home do not "become sound doctrine" in Christian women. Dress standards are not just extra baggage required by legalistic radicals. They go along with real fundamentalism.

III. Rejecting heretics.
Titus 3 teaches that people who hold to sound doctrine need to act accordingly and also they must reject those who hold to false doctrines. Read carefully verses 8 though 11.

"This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
The "new evangelicals" first complained about the unnecessary "baggage" attached to the term "fundamentalist" when faithful brethren began insisting that fundamentalists separate from the liberals in the churches. They said that separation from heresy was extra baggage. Christians can believe the truth, they were saying, without exposing and opposing lies. Of course, this is not a reasonable proposition and it also contradicts Scripture. Loyalty to sound doctrine will require the rejection of false doctrine. Titus 3:10 says, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject . . ."

The hardest part about obeying this command is found in the first two words. We are told to reject "a man." The rejection of false ideas by the fundamentalist is clearly logical and it seems easy because it can all be done on paper. To believe in the verbal (word-for-word) inspiration of the Bible, for example, is to reject the liberal claim of errors in the Bible. That's logical and it's easy, but to reject the liberal is harder than rejecting liberal ideas. Yet in the church of God, doctrines are always attached to people, and if false doctrines are to be cast out, certain people must be cast out. However, this thing can seem to be mean or "unbrotherly." But loyalty to the Gospel will require seminaries to fire professors, boards to reject missionary candidates, associations to expel preachers, and evangelists to turn down sponsors. It's hard, but the separation of truth from error is required of friends of the Gospel.

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:9)
Such a stand cost the Apostle Paul dearly, and it will exact a price from us, too, but it is the only stand people who hold sound doctrine can legitimately take.

You see, it's not just "baggage." If you believe the fundamentals of the Gospel, and you believe that they are fundamental to the gospel, you will divide the Light from the darkness and operate as your stated belief reasonably requires. The policies and practices of Bible-believing people must be dictated by the logical and Scriptural implications of their doctrinal convictions. This is why true fundamentalists have practiced both ecclesiastical and personal separation, have abstained from "fleshly lusts which war against the soul," and have conducted meetings without the use of rock music. Attempts to divorce sound doctrine from holy practice will fail. Either unholy practice will eventually corrupt the doctrine taught, or sound doctrine will keep the practices and methods holy.

Monthly Article
by Dr. Rick Flanders
currently Pastor of
Juniata Baptist Church
Juniata Baptist Church
5656 Washburn Road
Vassar, MI 48768
(517) 823-7848

Dr. Rick Flanders Biographical Data

Converted in 1963 through a radio ministry.
Earned B.A. and M.A. degrees from Bob Jones University.
Honorary D.D. from Pensacola Christian College.
Pastor at Juniata Baptist Church since 1973.
On BCPM Board, (Baptist Church Planting Ministry)
and also MACS. (Michigan Association of Christian School)

Articles published in the;
Sword of the Lord
Baptist Preacher,
Christian View of the News,
Pulpit Helps,
Maranatha Watchman
Church Bus News,
and other national periodicals.

His Majesty's Service
In His Service,
Teaching the Word
To Glorify Our Lord
Return to
Doctrinal Writings

Please email your spiritual comments to Pastor's Pen
Please email all other comments to WindJammer