Home » Posts tagged 'fundamentalism' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: fundamentalism

The Command to Worship the LORD in the Beauty of Holiness

Without doubt, scripture teaches that worship of God must be regulated by what God says.  The point of this post comes from Psalm 29:2

Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

I’ve seen this verse many times.  Many.  Yet, something occurred to me when I read it in my Bible reading this year that really struck me.  Since true worship of God is regulated by scripture, then worship should be regulated especially by this verse.  There are not many verses as stark as this one on worship of the LORD.  The teaching is also repeated three times.  It’s not a stand alone.

1 Chronicles 16:29, “Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.”
Psalm 96:9, “O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.”
I’ve written many times on the regulative principle of worship.  Scripture shows exclusively and through numerous examples that worship must be regulated by God’s Word.  Silence is not permission.  In this case, scripture says something.I’ve also written a lot about beauty.  It is among the topics or doctrines about which I’ve written the most (it is under “B” in my index).  I’ve also written about it recently in a three part series on the throne room of God (part onepart twopart three).  I’ve mainly written about beauty as one of the transcendentals, especially related to apostasy.  I don’t take any of that back, but in this case, I want to talk about how “beauty” relates to the regulation of worship according to this verse and the others like it.One point that caught my attention when reading Psalm 29 in my trip through psalms is the command.  It’s not just what scripture teaches on worship.  This is a commanded aspect of worship.  How many of those are there?  “Worship” as a verb is imperative.  It’s not that worship itself is imperative, which it is — “worship the LORD.”  Everyone knows that’s an imperative.  The imperative is that the LORD is worshiped in the beauty of holiness.  “The beauty of holiness” is a requirement in acceptable worship.I want to reiterate this point.  God does not accept worship that is not in the beauty of holiness.  He rejects it.  This is part of the regulative principle, but it’s more than that.  All worship must be in the beauty of holiness.  If not, it isn’t worship.  If what someone calls “worship” is not in the beauty of holiness, then it isn’t worship.Almost all evangelical and now even fundamentalist worship is not in the beauty of holiness.  Evangelicals and fundamentalists as a whole are not worshiping God.  I know that means that they are doing something else, worshiping themselves, and that sounds tough or seemingly impossible, but it is true.  They are disobeying this command and, therefore, offering God something that is against His nature.  It is more than this, which brings me to the second point that caught my attention.A second point is that beauty is assumed in the verse.  It is implied that the reader knows what beauty of holiness is.  It is obvious.  It cannot be obeyed if it cannot be understood.  A modern audience most of the time does not understand the beauty of holiness.  It is a completely foreign concept.  Yet, everyone is still required to worship God in the beauty of holiness.  This is an ignored requirement.  God commands it, and the apparent worshipers say, “Meh. Nope.  Gonna do what I want instead.”It’s not just what I’ve written so far. The so-called worshipers today don’t want to be critiqued for not worshiping God in the beauty of holiness.  They are angry if you do.  They want to treat it as not being able to be understood, a tertiary matter.  Even though beauty of holiness is non-optional, it is rejected by evangelicals and most fundamentalists.  One could say that the one thing required is the one thing the most offensive to evangelical and fundamentalist sensibility.  It must not be a part of their worship.  What is this all about?The main apostasy of the age in which we live is that the things of God are conformed to the world.  They must be accepted.  Evangelical and fundamentalists success, which amounts to getting bigger and having bigger budgets or at least translating into tangible results, even if they are fraudulent, requires elimination of beauty of holiness.  It has to at least be redefined and dumbed down until it isn’t even what it is.  This is all to be conformed to man, to his lust, which is what makes these churches popular.  Of course, it all leads to or just is false worship.  Their people don’t have the same God in their imaginations. That’s been ruined by their unwillingness to conform to what scripture says.There are many of these in scripture, but “beauty” is self-evident.  We already know it.  If we don’t know it, it’s not a knowledge problem, but a rebellion one.  The rebellion proceeds out of lust.  Beauty though is something that men can know like they can know what “corrupt communication” is and what “the attire of a harlot” is.  Ignorance is not a legitimate excuse.  It won’t be accepted by God.Since worship must be in the beauty of his holiness, then beauty is objective.  It can’t be subjective. That would be to command, worship the LORD in the whatever you want beauty of holiness to be.  People don’t want to be judged on beauty, because they want their own taste.You’re going to spend eternity somewhere, and that relates to what God knows about what you’re doing.  You should think seriously about whether He will be pleased.  Nothing that “you like” will be in God’s kingdom or in the eternal state, and that’s what you want to highlight in this life — what’s going to be in the next.  If you don’t care, then you should check whether you will be there or not, or whether the actual God of the Bible is your God.When readers see the title of this post, I suggest most just move on.  They don’t care.  They want something “practical.”  There is nothing more practical than God being worshiped.  If that is not your practice, you are not pleasing God, the whole purpose of your existence.  This is not a “controversial issue.”  People have already moved on.  They just smirk and say, “He’s one of those.”  Pause a moment.  If you don’t obey this command, you are not worshiping God.  That means you are not a “true worshiper of God” (John 4:23-24).Okay, so you may ask, “What is the beauty of holiness”?  “Holiness” is the perfections of God’s nature.  Beauty corresponds to or parallels with the manifestation or revelation of the character of God.  Much has been written on this through the centuries to the point where the church has agreed what this is.  Just because modernism and post-modernism has left it and even rejected it doesn’t mean that it isn’t still true.  Beauty is in accordance with the nature of God.  It cannot clash with who He is, and 90 to 100 percent of evangelical and fundamentalist worship does.Evangelical worship is ugly.  It is worldly.  It is carnal.  That’s what evangelicals like about their worship.  They disobey this command:  worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.  They are not worshiping the LORD.

Worship Is God’s Priority for Men: The Case of 2 Chronicles 25

The impression from an overview of scripture is that worship is God’s priority for men.  Jesus said to the woman at the well, God is seeking for true worshipers (John 4:23).  Jesus said this.  David was a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14).  What was David’s priority?  The worship of God.  1 Chronicles 25:14-16 provide another example:

14 Now it came to pass, after that Amaziah was come from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them. 15 Wherefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against Amaziah, and he sent unto him a prophet, which said unto him, Why hast thou sought after the gods of the people, which could not deliver their own people out of thine hand? 16 And it came to pass, as he talked with him, that the king said unto him, Art thou made of the king’s counsel? forbear; why shouldest thou be smitten? Then the prophet forbare, and said, I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this, and hast not hearkened unto my counsel

Amaziah, king of Judah, conquered the Edomites based on a prophecy from God.  God gave his mercenary army the victory over Edom, which had rebelled against his great-grandfather, Jehoram (verse 14).  He obeyed God in slaughtering the Edomites.  However, as you can read above, he brought Edom’s gods and bowed down to them and burned incense to them.  How did God react to that?

God’s anger was kindled against Amaziah, because of the false worship.  There’s more.  God was the one who delivered the Edomites, and these new gods could not deliver them.  So, God sent a prophet to confront Amaziah.

False worship doesn’t make any sense.  God gives every good thing and yet people worship another god and in numbers of different ways.  What is it?  It doesn’t explain the insanity of this, but we know it still occurs.  The true God is not worshiped in a true way.  He’s ignored.  He’s refused.  What causes men to choose a different god or worship the true God in a way He would never accept?  Why do they do it?

Maybe it doesn’t matter why.  Maybe all that matters is that they do it.  In the end, the judgment will come for what, but why still matters.  It doesn’t say, but I think we know.  We’re supposed to know.  God gives everyone every good thing, but God expects something from His worshipers.  False gods don’t have the same expectations as God.  It’s like doctor shopping.  You shop for the god of your choice and have him be your god, and then you get what you want.

Another avenue today is to keep the God of the Bible but conform Him so much to your own preferences and your own style, that He’s not even the same God.  He’s god, not God.  That’s all over “evangelicalism.”  People are important to evangelicalism, and evangelicalism’s god conforms to people.  That’s who he is.

The wrong worship and the wrong god merge into one another.  They become indistinguishable at some point.  Keeping the same “God” is just a masquerade.  And then people are so self-deceived, they just don’t know anymore.  God knows and He’s angry.

In many ways, people again in a self-deceived way are thinking they can fool God.  He won’t know.  Or He’ll understand and accept.  2 Peter describes apostasy and in the most rudimentary way, it is not wanting accountability or authority.  This does challenge the goodness of God and redefines goodness.  Goodness becomes the object of man’s lust, and man doesn’t want a God who doesn’t give him what he wants.  Reader, God knows.  You won’t get away with it.  His worship is His priority.

God is angry with false worship as described in the previous four paragraphs.  On the other hand, someone who prioritizes that worship, as flawed even as he may be personally, is a man after God’s own heart.  He prioritizes the true worship of God.  That doesn’t excuse His flaws, but it’s helpful to know God’s priority.

Amaziah’s worship story is an amazing one.  Do you agree?  But let’s move on.

God sends a prophet to warn about false worship.  True prophets warn against false worship, preach true worship.  Practical, successful living matters to God, but worship is the priority.  Today that would be to worship the right God the right way, which is in His church, regulated by scripture.  Church growth is not the priority, except for more true worshipers.  If there isn’t true worship at all, God doesn’t want church growth.  He wants church disappearance or elimination.

The message from God through the prophet is not to seek after other gods.  Don’t seek them in whatever way anyone may seek them.  On the other hand, seek the true God.  People don’t know Him, because they don’t seek Him.  He must be sought to be known.  This relates to a lot about believing the Lord.  He is available and can be known, but we must seek Him.  Sure, we can’t seek Him without His seeking us, but we must seek Him.  It’s crucial.

The first half of verse 16 accounts of the threat by Amaziah to the prophet.  That sounds serious, threatening someone who impedes your false worship.  I’ve stood at the door arguing about worship for hours.  A lot of people would say, let it go.  It’s not important, the gospel is important.  Except for the gospel is about worship (see John 4:23 again).

When doing spiritual warfare with someone about worship, it is emotional.  People don’t want their worship rejected.  If it is, something isn’t wrong with them, the false worshipers, it’s you the prophet.  It was so serious for Amaziah that he threatened the prophet in one of the most mafia like threats in scripture.   There were two components.  First, there was a veiled threat of his job as the king’s counsel, a job he would have lost anyway if, second, he was killed by Amaziah.

I want to emphasize that false worshipers want to defend their false worship.  I contend that it’s not about their god.  It’s about them.  They want what they want, and their god is allowing it.  God gave the victory.  He deserved to be worshiped, but whatever the gods of Edom offered Amaziah, he preferred it.

Not allowing the false worship is like taking food from an animal.  I’ve found this to be the reaction.  The false worshiper attacks the prophet to keep the worship.  I’ve experienced dozens of personal attacks in similar situations with people angry over the challenge of their worship.  Cain is an early example in scripture, challenging God and killing his brother over this same issue.

The prophet addressed both threats in an economy of words and in reverse order.  Getting straight to the point, God is going to destroy you, implying that you are not going to destroy me.  Second, you didn’t listen to my counsel anyway, so you really can’t threaten me with my job.  The prophet stood up to the false worshiper and his false worship.  He did not back off.  This is God’s will, to confront false worship.

Modern evangelicalism and fundamentalism attack those who confront false worship.  If you are reading this and you’re one of them, you’re probably defending your attacks with bad arguments.  They call it a tertiary issue.  You will be canceled by them for confronting false worship.  Love is love after all according to the leftish value list.  Love would accommodate false worship.  God will kill over it.  The prophet actually was saving Amaziah’s life.  That is actual love, not the toleration of the leftist values now foremost in evangelicalism and fundamentalism.  I face those values every week and almost every day.

2 Chronicles 25 is another case for worship as God’s priority for men.

The Myth of the Recovering Fundamentalist

I’ve been a fundamentalist.  I’m not one.  Do I consider myself to have “recovered”?  I left fundamentalism.  I separated from it.  I didn’t escape it.  I didn’t recover from it.  I stopped being a fundamentalist.  I didn’t go through a process of recovery.  I saw it was wrong to be one, so I stopped being one.  I did some separation from fundamentalist organizations and institutions, but that’s not all that I’ve separated from in my life.  Sanctification itself is a process of separation.  Be ye holy means be ye separate.

If someone really understands fundamentalism, what it is, he knows there are good things about fundamentalism itself, including ideological and institutional preservation or conservation.  The idea of fundamentalism, which some fundamentalists like to use to describe their continued support of fundamentalism, has good parts to it, worthy of respect.  Those parts should be and can be kept.  They are biblical.   In other words, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

On the other hand, the concept of recovering from fundamentalism smacks of going back to something of normalcy in the realm of psychology.  “Recovery” is a common terminology now for “getting better” from mental illness.  Very often today it is used for the process of discontinuing an addiction to drugs or alcohol.  These are considered diseases and recovery includes treatment for the addiction so as to prevent a relapse.  People who use recovery to speak of fundamentalism or anything religious are treating it parallel to types of apparent mental illness or psychological disorders.
Fundamentalism itself isn’t a disorder or a mental illness or an addiction.  The use of “recovery” isn’t true.  Someone does recover from some illness or physical injury.  He might even recover from the pain of a difficult time in his life.  There may be a death in a family, a runaway child, loss of a job, repossession of a house, a splintered marriage, or a lingering illness.  Using recovery as a description of departing from fundamentalism is a pejorative to deride what someone came from.  It isn’t helpful anymore than it would be to mock Mormons after someone left Mormonism.
John Ellis professes to have been a fundamentalist and then to have become a drug addict.  He testifies that later he was converted to Jesus Christ, and on July 8, he wrote a post advocating the Recovering Fundamentalist podcast.  Ellis starts with this paragraph:

For those who didn’t grow up in it, the world of fundamentalism is beyond weird; it’s utterly foreign. How do you make sense of rules that often include things like prohibitions on women wearing pants and the condemnation of music with syncopation and watching movies in the movie theater? For those of us who grew up in fundamentalism, those rules, and their many, many companion rules, are well-known. However, most people lack a touch point for our fundyland experiences. This has resulted in ex-fundies using the internet, specifically social media, to connect and share our mutual experiences. These online relationships take many forms, from the nostalgic all the way to embittered wholesale denunciations. For many ex-fundies, though, our reminiscences take the form of an honest appraisal of the good and bad found within fundamentalism. Count me among that latter group.

Recovering Fundamentalist features three evangelical pastor friends, who, having left what they call IFB (independent fundamental Baptists) or fundamentalism, talk about their experience.   I would contend that they left a mutation of fundamentalism, a virulent, pragmatic form of revivalism or Charismaticism, a strain that especially affected the American South, even as sampled in their video, that is neither independent, fundamental, or even Baptist.  This contrasts almost 180 degrees from the beginning of fundamentalism, tied to The Fundamentals.  The perverse variety of revivalism that arose in the American South bares much resemblance to the new religion of the recovering fundamentalists.  They kept the philosophical underpinnings, while dropping the symbolism.  The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.
Fundamentalism itself isn’t the boogie-man of the recovering fundamentalists.  Southern revivalism had deep theological problems.  At the root of them was a form of mysticism, continuationism, and ongoing divine revelation.  God spoke directly to the leaders as manifested in numerical growth spurred by counterfeit manifestations of the Holy Spirit.  Also aiding the growth was pragmatic methodology the results of which were used as evidence of God’s work.  The standards set themselves up against cultural decay and the anti-intellectualism against the Northern, liberal elites provided a natural enemy, like Mormonism does with its persecution syndrome.  None of what I’m describing, again, is independent, fundamental, or Baptist.
The three “recovering fundamentalists” do not get an audience based on dense exposition of scripture, but based on the shared bitterness and malice of the misfits of Southern revivalism.  The Holy Spirit doesn’t manifest Himself this way either.  Their niche group isn’t holy or spiritual.  “Recovery” isn’t moving to something biblical, but shared experiences, another generation complaining about their teeth set on edge because their parents ate sour grapes (Ez 18, Jer 31).  Their authority is eerily similar to Southern revivalism:  audience size and anecdotes, like what would come in the illustrations of the revivalist preacher.  It’s like a Goth girl laughing at everyone else because they’re all just following the crowd.
The movement from which the three former “fundamentalists” recovered isn’t independent, because the Southern revivalists were tightly banded together around Charismatic figures and large organizations, based upon cleverness and oratorial abilities.  Part of their mystique was holding up the Bible and then preaching things that weren’t in it.  They were spouting their own opinions and gave people the impression that their thoughts were received from a direct pipeline to God.  There was vice-grip like control about the emphases of Southern revivalism, everyone taking from the same script or talking points, and if anyone left that script, he would or could be excluded from the group, and miss out as a headliner for a main conference roster or prominent mention in the newspaper or magazine.
As I have already written, the movement wasn’t fundamental either.  Fundamentalism was preserving the old and Southern revivalism is untethered from historical Christianity.  It is akin to all the various heresies that have risen since the first century, actually emulating some of the ones that have come on the scene.  At the root, it isn’t even Christianity.  It doesn’t represent the Jesus of the Bible, but for some of the same reasons that a perverse evangelicalism emerging from Southern revivalism doesn’t represent Him either.
The movement isn’t Baptist, because Baptists believe in biblical repentance and have the Bible as their authority — for doctrine, for practice, and for worship.  Practice includes methodology.  Baptists regulate their practice by scripture, not by  non-scripture.
The Southern revivalists had standards, ones actually closer to the Bible than the recovering fundamentalists.  They are not examining their standards based upon the Bible and the practice of biblical Christianity through history, but based upon a reflex rejection of the old standards.  They deem their new standards superior because they are different than Southern revivalism.  Mussolini may have got the trains to run on time, and throwing out fascism doesn’t mean slower trains.
Recovering fundamentalists emphasize standards as much as who they criticize.  They are left-wing legalists, who require wokeness, more egalitarian marriages, and worldliness.  The pragmatism is a left-wing pragmatism still using fleshly means to gather the crowd.  It is a new symbolism that is equally untethered from scripture.
Post-reformation church leaders said, semper reformada, always reforming.  I’m not attempting to validate reformers, just to say that mid-twentieth century fundamentalists saw a need of semper reformada, perhaps semper fundamentalista  The fundamentals of early twentieth century could not meet the downward trajectory of biblical sanctification.  True fundamentalists and non-fundamentalist true churches reacted with repulsion to cultural degradation that they saw entering the church.  Their militancy on cultural issues mirrored the early fundamentalist movement.  This should not be confused with Southern revivalism even though the latter took the same tact, much like Jehovah’s Witnesses go door-to-door.  The liberalism that started with doctrine moved to unravel holy living, and true Christians rose up against corrupted goodness and distorted beauty.
Hollywood isn’t a friend of biblical Christianity.  The movie theater that Ellis talks about is a danger.  It is a pollution of idolatry that the church in Acts 15 prohibited. The explosion of homosexuality and transgenderism didn’t start in a vacuum.  The symbols of God-designed roles were abandoned to conform to the world system.  Professing Christians who join them do wrong but also ignore the ramifications.  Ellis chooses to engage important issues with sound bytes in favor with lasciviousness.  Satan and the world system do not attack only the transcendentals of truth and goodness, but also beauty, and the avenue of an attack on absolute beauty does more to distort a right imagination of God than a distorted doctrinal statement. 
Southern revivalists popularized a false gospel accompanied by unbiblical methods.  That isn’t the interest of the recovering fundamentalists, because both the former and the latter depend on pragmatism.  New “converts” of Southern revivalism might never indicate conversion.  Neither will the evangelicalism of the recovering fundamentalists.  This is an identical perversion of the grace of God.  Southern revivalists mark sanctification by keeping the rules, but left winged legalists, like the Pharisees, reduce the law to the rules they can keep. 
Ellis and his recovering fundamentalists do damage to the belief, practice, and preservation of the truth, goodness, and beauty.  They don’t even recover from their earlier error.  They just change the label.  Do not be fooled by them.  Do not join them.  Their god is their belly, their glory is their shame, and they mind earthly things.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives