Archive for the ‘Fundamentalism’ Category

I’m…er…uh…Kinda Sorta Sorry

May 26, 2009

Some things will bring just about anyone out of retirement.

You know, over the course of time I’ve been pretty hard on the Baptist Identity Boyz.  I’ve accused them of being girlish.  I’ve implied they are fundamentalists.  I’ve called them theologically wishy-washy and have indicated that their status as vertibrates is in question.  But it is time that I make some sort of apology for all of this.  Emphasis on the “some sort of.”

You see, I’ve simply been passing along high-level insider information that I’ve received from BI headquarters.  I’m not the culprit here.  An unnamed source who is on the official BI payroll announced all of these things and more at a recent public meeting.  In fact, this source indicated that certain BI proponents wear women’s underpants and subscribe to Oprah on iTunes.  It is further reported that a substantial amount of their income is spent on hair care products (certain of the hairless variety being the exception).

However, it appears that I may have been duped.  Used as a shill.

Thus, I want to be up front and honest concerning my motives so that others may avoid the unfortunate pitfalls to which I’ve succumbed.

I’ve written what I’ve written because:

1. My super high-confidential-already-in-a-witness-protection-program source is totally true and trustworthy.  I mean, generally speaking this guy’s the Bible.  He’s an atomic clock.  Steady as a sunrise.  Who knew he was going to go all Jayson Blair on me?

2. Because these things have been so easy to believe.  Come on.  You tell me one look at Rosie O’Worley won’t convince you that she wears women’s underpants.  Or that Yippee Goldstein isn’t an Oprah fan.  Or that Peter Lamekin’s mullet isn’t held firmly in place with the aid of a little Miss Clairol.

3. Because this is important stuff right here.  If these guys are running around in bustiers then someone owes Madonna a serious apology.  If Oprah is becoming a multi-bazillionaire through Baptist Identity contributions then someone owes Lottie Moon a serious apology.  And if these guys are invertibrates then someone owes invertibrates a serious apology.

However, it now appears that all of that information is potentially wrong.  It appears that I may have given the ninth commandment a hairline fracture.  So let me say that I’m kinda sorta sorry.

I want to apologize to Victoria’s Secret for besmirching their good reputation of clothing only swimsuit supermodels and emaciated manequines with their fine line of undergarments.

I want to apologize to The View for the implication that their brand of fundamentalism might require capitalization.

And I want to apologize to the Miss Clairol line.  Who knew mulletts look like that all on their own?

May we all learn a valuable lesson in these trying days.


A Shout Out To Our Friends

February 24, 2009

Long overdue.

Neo-Fundamentalists Vote To Exclude Themselves

July 8, 2008

After two crushing blows at this year’s Southern Baptist Convention neo-Fundamentalists in the Baptist Identity wing of the denomination have voted to exclude themselves from fellowship.

Baptist Identity blogs were unanimous in their support for Georgia pastor Frank Cox.  Cox, however, was defeated in a stunning first ballot vote.  Most prognosticators had predicted a runoff between Cox and Johnny Hunt yet, Hunt took the Presidency with ease in a vote that wasn’t even close.

Nevertheless, Baptist Identity hopes were not entirely crushed as they awaited the adoption of resolutions.  Pastor Tom Ascol had presented a resolution on Integrity in Church Membership the previous two years only to see the resolution killed in committee.  One of those who previously argued against Ascol’s resolution, Dr. Malcolm Inthemiddle, submitted his own version this year, co-authored with Pastor Damned Barebones.  Attempts prior to the convention to craft a resolution that both parties could support failed.  The version of the resolution that the committee brought to the floor of the convention contained the wording supported by the Baptist Identity group.  However, efforts from the floor to include the objectionable wording contained in the Ascol version passed, leaving the neo-Fundamentalists with a second significant defeat.

Having suffered further marginalization the neo-Fundamentalists, having a desperate desire to return home with a victory – any victory – held a closed-door meeting at a local hotel in which insiders tell us member Liz Hasselhoff moved that their group be disfellowshipped from the Southern Baptist Convention and that members disfellowship from one another.  A second came from Rosie O’Worley and discussion ensued.

Speaking to her own motion, Liz noted that they were obviously out of step with the mainstream of Southern Baptists and that their divisiveness warranted a censure.  Babwa Wawa then read the third chapter of Titus with special emphasis on verse ten, arguing that, to be Biblically faithful they must vote to have nothing to do with one another.  There were, apparently, none who spoke against the motion and it was adopted by acclamation.

It is unclear what will become of this Baptist Identity movement, though the history of Fundamentalism would seem to indicate a further sense of isolationism, more narrowly defined rules of cooperation and a “remnant theology” to be on the horizon.  BI blogs have already begun attacking friend and foe alike, recently targeting Dr. Daniel Akin’s call for a Great Commission Resurgence, the Southeastern Seminary Building Bridges Conference and a local Indianapolis confectionery.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Burning Bridges

June 26, 2008

Burning BridgesSpeaking of burning, I imagine the reason Yippee Goldstein has been a prominent figure the last week or so at The View is because Karin Bear and Rosie O’Worley are busy medicating their backsides, recently having had the board of education skillfully and repeatedly applied to them by Professor Greg Welty. Oh, well. By the way, Yippee tells us that she once considered investing in a junk yard. You can find it here.

We here at SBC TooDazed are not interested in building any bridges. We intend to burn as many as we can. Surely you can tell that from our masthead motto. But perhaps we should be more specific. We are not just out to burn bridges with our non-Southern Baptist brethren and sistren. We will burn them with as many of our Southern Baptist family as is necessary for absolute and unadulterated doctrinal purity in all things.

Take, for instance, our sister Rosie O’Worley. Recently she told us of the many doctrinal positions with which she would gladly disagree and yet cooperate. Like the doctrine of frequenting restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages. You can find that in 2 Worley 3:16. Or the doctrine of hymns and choruses which can be found in the Canticles of Rosie. Another “tertiary doctrine” is the doctrine of suits and ties. I think I read about that one in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Oh, yes, I see that discussion begins on page 490. No, my beloved, these “doctrines” are very minor and ones with which we should not divide.

However, if you mention camels, charismatics, cooperation, Coronas or caveats without assigning their advocates to a place far past Minos and Cerberus, beyond the City of Dis, across the Phlegethon and straight into Cocytus itself, then there will be nothing but broken bridges that exist betwixt me and thee even if you don’t baptize babies, don’t believe a person can lose their salvation, believe in the authority of Scripture and a host of other doctrines with which you would agree.

So, in tribute we take you back in time to The Trammps for our theme song:

Evidence of a (Not Too) Creeping Fundamentalism

May 24, 2008

The girls over at SBC Today seem to be quite concerned with what they are inappropriately calling “ecumenism.” They must have gotten their training in theological definitions from the same place they got their Inspector Gadget PI kits. In the words of that famous theologian Damned Barebones, “words have meaning.” Try as you might to redefine the meaning, when you are using words who’s definition has meant something particular for, oh, 70 plus years you’re only going to confuse people. Of course, when words are used more for the purpose of engaging people’s emotions than their brains you don’t mind that sort of thing.

Scanning the Wikipedia article on the World Council of Churches, perhaps the most liberal expression of the ecumenical movement, I fail to find the “very definition of an ecumenical movement” as a quest for the lowest common doctrinal denominator. Not even the WCC’s site makes such a claim. Perhaps the claim is true of the WCC and the NCC. I’m not particularly disposed to argue otherwise. But one would think that if it is a part of the very definition of a movement you would find that definition somewhere outside of a Southern Baptist group blog. But to no avail. Well, as they say, start with a faulty premise, end with a faulty conclusion. Or something like that.

Since we’re all into redefining words and whole movements why not just jump on the old bandwagon, shall we? On second thought, let’s just go with an accepted definition.

Before one reads too far into what I will be arguing for, let it be known at the outset and remembered through the conclusion that I am saying that we have people within our beloved convention advocating a Fundamentalist Resurgence. My claim is that the SBC is becoming both the classic expression of Fundamentalism and that there are portions of the SBC that are being affected by Fundamentalism. By its very definition, a Fundamentalist movement is an attempt to find unanimity in the smallest of theological details before agreeing to do missions and evangelism. However, one need not look far to see that when we focus on the minutiae of doctrine, our brains and our hearts grow hard and cold. Allow me to offer a few thoughts that evidence the invasion of a Fundamentalist attitude into some Southern Baptist circles.

First, preaching is reduced to one acceptable method. Never mind that Jesus almost never preached exegetically. Never mind that Ezekiel doesn’t spend too much time expounding the finer points of Numbers or Judges. There’s only one proper way to sermonize and if you preach any other sort of sermon you are a cultural compromiser, a liberal, uneducated in proper sermon technique or the typical preacher at the typical Southern Baptist Evangelism Conference.

Second, you will add definition upon definition as to the meaning of baptism. It will not be good enough that you have been immersed as a believer and that your immersion had no saving value. You and the church in which you were baptized will be subjected to a doctrinal battery fit for an Episcopal ordination examination. You will have to pass the John R. Rice test or it’s back in the water with you.

Third, the Fundamentalist believes that there is no church but the local church. At the same time they seem to believe that each church is accountable to the larger whole in a way that isn’t too far from the pronouncements of Rome. But if you want to really be safe just profess your accountability to them and all will be well.

Fourth, the Fundamentalist believes that there is no “wiggle room” when it comes to the complementarian position of gender roles. They will even push their women out front to tell you so (Not that I read that article. I didn’t want a woman having authority over me, so pardon me if I assume the answers she gave were in line with the men). No, men, if you can’t keep your woman orderly and in line it is not unacceptable to put a muzzle on her – at least in church. We all know she still leads you around by the nose everywhere else.

Fifth, the Fundamentalist insists that there is an undefined set of doctrines that are necessary to being a proper “Baptist.” For you math people, it is not an empty set. It seems to get added to constantly. You simply don’t know/won’t know what belongs there until some expert in Baptist history tells you. Shoot, he may not even be an expert. He may simply like strawberry pie. Today it is some charismatic practice. Or your view on alcohol. Tomorrow it will be your Hawaiian-styled shirt or your quote from The Message. Oh, wait, that’s actually today as well. Ok. Tomorrow it will be worship styles and Calvinism (while Karin Bear wants you to think that such pronouncements are straw men and red herrings it should be noted that these two didn’t come from some out-of-touch nut job from the left coast but from the Chairman of the Southern Baptist Executive Committee who pastors in the heart of the deep south).

Jerry Fallwell was well-known as a Fundamentalist. Even after joining the SBC, he never renounced his Fundamentalism. To be a good Southern Baptist he didn’t have to. Jerry Fallwell didn’t become more like the SBC. The SBC has become more like Jerry Fallwell, because the SBC has become more Fundamentalist.