What Baptists Mean When They Use the Phrase Old-Fashioned

old fashioned baptist church

Statement from website for Green Pond Baptist Church, Carl Hall, pastor

Many Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) churches advertise themselves as an “old- fashioned” church. Many IFB preachers call themselves an old-fashioned preacher. What do they mean when they say they are an old-fashioned church or an old-fashioned preacher?

An old-fashioned church is one that yearns for the past, usually the 1950s. In their mind, if society and Christianity would return to the 1950s all would be well. In the 1950s, Negroes knew their place, women were barefoot and pregnant, birth control was hard to come by, abortion was illegal, homosexuals and atheists were in the closet, and Joseph McCarthy terrorized Americans with attempts to root out communism. In the 1950s, we fought a war against communism, teachers still prayed and read the Bible in school, creationism was considered good science, and Christianity controlled the public space.

Then came the rebellious1960s and 1970s,  and everything changed. Fifty years later, blacks no longer know their place, whites are becoming a minority, couples no longer get married,  women have access to birth control, homosexuals and atheists are out of the closet, a Kenyan-born Muslim socialist communist black man is president, abortion is legal, school prayer and Bible reading is banned, creationism is considered religious dogma, same-sex marriage is legal, and Christianity is no longer given a preferential seat at the head of the cultural table.

From the fundamentalist Christian’s perspective, I readily understand why they yearn for the old-fashioned days of the 1950s. The 1950s were a time when their brand of Christianity was the norm. Now they are fighting to be heard. Uncounted church members have left, seeking out the friendlier confines of generic Evangelicalism. Instead of hard preaching against sin, Christians clamor for pastors who will “feed” them and minister to their felt needs. Most of all, they want to be entertained. Nones and atheists are increasing in number, and more and more people consider themselves spiritual and not religious. Pluralism and secularism are on the rise and cultural Christianity is the norm and not the exception.

So what’s an old-fashioned Baptist church like? Their services are quite traditional, traditional meaning how it was in the 1950s. The focus is on “hard” preaching, often from the King James Version of the Bible. The goal is to convert sinners and strengthen church members so they can withstand the wiles of the devil. Everything the old-fashioned Baptist church does is a throwback to yesteryear — an era when preachers preached hard, hymns were sung, altar calls were given, couples stayed married, women saved themselves for marriage and the kitchen, and the Christian church was the hub around which the community revolved.

Millions of Americans attend some sort of an old-fashioned church, even if the Baptist name is not over the front door. They love the respite their church gives them from the evil, sinful, atheistic Obama-inspired world they live in. They love the certainty they hear in their pastor’s sermons. They are glad to be a part of a group that thinks just like they do. For those who desire to live in the 1950s, an old-fashioned church fits the bill. It heals their angst and gives them peace. It does not matter if their beliefs are true or whether their practice accurately reflects the 1950s. People finding value, hope, peace, and direction does not require truth. All it requires is faith and them believing their “old-fashioned” version of Christianity is true. This is this power of myth.

print

Subscribe to the Daily Post Digest!

Sign up now and receive an email every day containing the new posts for that day.

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Powered by Optin Forms

59 Comments

  1. John Arthur

    Hi Bruce,

    Why aren’t Baptist parishioners taught that the revelation of God came within different socio-economic and political structures as well as different cultures within the ancient world and that, even if the believe that the bible is the Word of God, there is no direct transfer of biblical statements into the modern world without taking into account the differences between the ancient world and today’s world?

    After all, most Baptists do not believe that slavery is applicable to today. Yet the hermeneutic employed by many members makes it difficult for them to avoid the belief that slavery is applicable to today.

    They refuse to accept egalitarianism in marriage and same-sex marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage, They seem to employ an inconsistent hermeneutic. They reject slavery as applicable to today, yet reject egalitarian marriage and same-sex marriage as contrary to the Word of God by adopting a hermeneutic that would suggest that slavery is okay.

    Shalom,

    John Arthur

    Reply
  2. Angiep

    The fact that things are no longer the way people perceived them to be in the 50’s is evidence that things really weren’t so great in the “good old days.” The societal sea change that has occurred since then was the way we fixed things that were wrong. Society was simply poised to move forward into the 60’s and beyond. It wasn’t about people wanting to live a “sinful” lifestyle; it was about progress. Churches that hold onto their “old-fashioned” ways will find themselves swallowed up by all the change that they can’t stop. I sometimes refer to myself as “old school” because I like the music I grew up with (70’s rock) and I like to see people wear professional attire in the workplace, not shorts and flip flops. But social progress is the only thing that is going to save the human race (and the planet), so I say, stop fighting it and get on board by contributing in a useful way.

    Reply
  3. Karen

    My mom was Catholic and raised me Catholic; I went to Catholic schools from 1st through 12th grades. I hit first grade just a couple of years after the Second Vatican Council happened, and the church was in the midst of a number of reforms designed to make the experience of religion more meaningful and helpful to the common people in the pews. My mother spent my childhood talking about the Good Old Days of the church, before the reforms. And yet, when I pressed her, it sounded awful.

    Women were expected to wear, well not quite hijab, but something close to it in church. Lots of rules and regulations governed the simplest interactions between priests and parishioners. Musical expression was greatly restricted. Catholic schools (or at least Catholic religion classes — she went to public schools) were extremely strict and did not value student creativity or inquiry. Food and even water were not allowed between midnight Saturday night and the Communion service on Sunday morning. One was required to eat no meat during Lent, instead of just on Fridays during lent. Women were not allowed to function in any capacity within the church except as teachers of children and cleaners. Hey, they could polish the chalice and launder the altar cloth! Whoopee!

    And yet, to my mom, those were the Good Old Days. Altar girls? Heresy! Church without a voluminous scarf over her head? Like being naked! All those changes to the liturgy to put them in modern English? Horrible! And guitars accompanying church music, sometimes even being played by nuns! Since when were nuns allowed to learn guitar?

    But she did like having breakfast before Sunday service. Even better, attending Saturday night service instead.

    All of which is a long-winded way of saying, people can long for the Good Old Days even when they distinctly remember them as not so good.

    Reply
  4. PAUL GOTTLIEB

    For the IFB community, “Old Fashion” translates to brutal, constant physical discipline for children, starting at about six month of age. It also involves treating wives, daughters, and females in general as a defective and inferior species. Abuse, both physical and sexual, is a constant threat. The Duggar family serve as a good example of “old fashion” religious life as the IFB define it. In fact, it’s hard to imagine a faith community less truly “baptist” than the IFB congregations. While Soul Liberty is the defining characteristic of a true baptist community. Violently coerced conformity is the rule among the IFBt

    Reply
  5. Mark Thorpe

    Bizarre opinion piece that seems to contradict itself. It’s not “myth” that the 1950s were a safer, more godly time. It’s also not impossible to continue to live the old-fashioned moral way in today’s world. We should celebrate and praise these type of believers, not mock them. This writer needs to do some soul-searching about what is true, right, and pure.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      You do know I’m an atheist, right?

      Reply
    2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      There is no mockery in the post. I am simply sharing what Evangelicals mean when they use the term old fashioned.

      Reply
    3. Becky Wiren

      Yes, the 50s were great for white males. If they finished high school they could get a good factory job. However, most other groups fared far worse. Apparently, you seem to think if white males did better, that is enough. Shame on you.

      Reply
  6. Brian

    Mark Thorpe, I work with a guy who hates his present boss, is in constant conflict with her. This was exactly how things were with his previous boss but now that she is gone, she has become the ideal boss he wishes would reappear in his life. The fifties, by the way, were a time of widespread abuse in the Baptist churches. I was there and a part of it. Don’t tell me how wonderful was because you are ignorant of what was, clearly ignorant.

    Reply
  7. Ron Stewart

    All wrong. Old fashioned means we depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us and convict lost people.

    Reply
    1. John Arthur

      You mean that we need to depend on an invisible person whom no-one has ever seen or can see? What evidence is there for such a being’s existence? I suggest no more than there is for fairies.

      Reply
  8. Austin Shipman

    Hello,
    I agreed with everything this page had to say, up until I came to the phrase “1950’s when negroes knew their place.” This is not a Christian teaching. Red yellow black and white that are all previous in his site. When I use the term old fashioned I do not mean the 1950’s I refer to the no idea church established in the book of acts. Throughout the old testament. 1950’s when put into perspective of when God created the earth around 7000 years ago isn’t that old fashioned. You saying when. Negroes knew their place is the exact garbage that is ruining the Baptist name. You’re just as bad as the “Evangelical fun center churches, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. You cannot give one biblical reason to back this. And you saying that shows your love of the world and love of tradition is far greater than your love of the truth in God’s perfect word.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      *sigh* you do know that I am an ex-Evangelical and currently a member of First Church of Atheism, right?

      Sociologically, people who use the phrase “old-fashioned” generally yearn for a return to the post-war 1950s. This is easily discernible by looking at what they consider “old-fashioned.” You say you mean “like the church in Acts”, but I challenge that assertion. Does your church meet in the outer part of a Jewish temple and consider yourselves a subset of Judaism?

      Reply
      1. Austin Shipman

        Makes much more sense as to why this entire post is just bursting with ignorance. You were and evangelical.. And people wonder why you’re am atheist now. But to answer your question.. You’re referring to the church in the old testament. The old testament is just an example to us. If you hadnt learned this in your years of attending the fun centers disguissed as a church. The biblical church I am referring too is taught throughout the new testament. Just means a church (congregation) with a male pastor who preaches the word. Instant in season out of season. Who does not conform to the world. And preaches hard on sin. I have not once been to a church who was based of lifestyles from the 50’s. When you make the premise usomh the word “Generally” this is saying that Most old fashioned Baptist churches are this way. And that is not true. In fact I haven’t found one which is why i was so quick to comment against the ignorance. Thankfully you weren’t actually a pastor.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

          Look, I would love it if people like you would at least take the time to know whose blog they are reading and what their background is. Had you done so you would have learned I pastored Evangelical churches for 25 years — including several IFB churches — attended an IFB college in the 70s, and was a Christian for 50 years. Simply put, I know what I’m talking about. I’ve attended or preached at over 125 churches. This broad experience has given me a good education about what sects/churches generally practice and believe.

          You list Verity Baptist Church as your website, a church affiliated with cultist Steven Anderson. This group has cooked up its own idea about what the word old fashioned means in a religious context. I can tell you that most historians would tell you that many Evangelicals pine for the days right after WWII. The days when Evangelicalism, McCarthyism, and Patriarchal thinking ruled the land. If America would only get back to THOSE days all would be well. LBGTQ people, atheists, and the like would be forced back into the closets from whence they came, and Christian nationalism, along with American exceptionalism would be the norm.

          If you have not read the commenting rules, please do so.

          Thank you.

          Bruce

          Reply
        2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

          If the OT is our example, I assume you approve of polygamy, slavery, executing homosexuals, stoning false prophets,etc.

          If the OT is not binding, then I assume you approve of sex with animals, since such behavior is not condemned in the NT. Shall we wade in, Austin, to the wonderful, contradictory text of the King James Bible?

          Reply
    2. Geoff

      Austin Shipman

      you say

      “.. God created the earth around 7000 years ago…”

      Then you go on to refer to talking ‘garbage’! What an extraordinarily paradoxical comment. No educated person believes the earth is anything else than several billion years old, and even the briefest assessment of the evidence shows that this can’t be true. I’ve just been to caves in Spain looking at drawings on the walls that are over thirty thousand years old, and the earth was around a long time before human beings. Oh, you don’t believe the drawings were that old? All I can say is that my evidence trumps your evidence.

      Reply
      1. Austin Shipman

        Your evidence huh? Can you ecen conprehend a billion years? You blindly belive scientists and claim this as evidence. Those pictures on the wall do not show the esrth to be billions of years old. Without millions and billions of years, evolutionary history completely falls apart. Here are just a few of many credible evidences from various branches of science that tell of a world much younger than evolutionists claim.

        Evidence 1 Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds
        Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.

        Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1–2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.

        Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!
        Evidence 2 Astronomy: Recession of the Moon
        The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

        If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!
        Evidence 3 Geology: Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field
        Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

        Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

        However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.
        Evidence 4 Biology: Dinosaur Soft Tissue
        In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

        According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.
        Evidence 5 Anthropology: Human Population Growth
        It’s amazing what basic mathematics can show us about the age of the earth. We can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years (a very conservative figure) to get an estimate of what the world’s population should be after any given period of time.
        A biblical age of the earth (about 6,000 years) is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation. In contrast, even a conservative evolutionary age of 50,000 years comes out to a staggering, impossibly high figure of 10 to the 99th power—greater than the number of atoms in the universe!
        Clearly, the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years is absurd!
        Evidence 6 Geology: Tightly Folded Rock Strata
        When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.
        There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.
        This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who believe these layers were formed rapidly in the global, catastrophic Flood described in Genesis.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

          Geoff,

          You should know that this is not Austin sharing his vast wealth of “scientific ‘ knowledge, but a cut and paste job from Answers in Genesis’ website.

          Austin,

          Cutting and pasting text from other sites is frowned upon. Engage in discussion, not telling us what Ken Ham thinks.

          Bruce

          Reply
          1. Austin Shipman

            It was obvious to tell that was copied. I intended it that way. It wouldn’t allow me to copy a link. Now with that said These are all very factual studies as well as scientist which back the claim of a billion year old earth as outright unsure. And you never did reply to my comment Bruce.

          2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            No links either.

            I don’t argue science with creationists. First, I’m not a scientist, and neither are you. Second,it is a colossal waste of time. Third, for Fundamentalists what science says is immaterial. If it was,they wouldn’t be creationists. The Bible, not science is the final authority. Now,if you want to discuss the Bible, the book of Genesis, Evangelical theology, I’m all ears.

            There are quite a few people trained in the sciences who read this blog. They might, if they can stomach one more conversation with a Fundamentalist, respond to you.

          3. Geoff

            Thanks Bruce, I try to avoid reading these uneducated, fundamentalist types but sometimes I can’t help myself. Incidentally I see Austin refers to ‘a scientist’ who doubts the earth is a billion years old. I’ll lay odds he’s (or she, I’m aware of at least one AIG female scientist and she’s a dummy) not a well regarded scientist. As I have said, consensus amongst scientists is important.

          4. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            In the end, it is never about the science. The final authority is the Bible. What the Bible says in Genesis 1-3 is exactly how the universe and all that is in it came into existence. Everything science tells us suggests that Genesis 1-3 is not how things really are. This is why places like Answers in Genesis are so dangerous and harmful. They perpetuate ignorance, the equivalent of dipping a turd in chocolate and then saying, yummy, this is great candy.

            I’m surprised Austin is so liberal, saying the earth is 7,000 years old. Damnit, that’s a lie. It is EXACTLY 6,022 years old.😀😀

        2. Geoff

          Austin Shipman

          What ignorance. I’m familiar with few of the issues you refer to in a level of detail to be able to argue with you, but it takes minimal googling to find that you are talking bullshit. Incidentally it’s completely untrue to refer to people following science ‘blindly’. We don’t, at least not in the main. It’s part of proper education (that is, not typical homeschooling nor a fundamental religious school education). One learns why things are as they are, how to reason, how theories are formed, how peer review works, and that consensus in scientific thinking is one of very few areas in life where the fact of consensus is important.

          Reply
    3. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Here’s a great example of the use of phrase old-fashioned to mean the 1950s — John Rosemond’s parenting column:

      In my latest book, “Grandma Was Right After All!,” I take the top 25 parenting sayings of my youth and explain what they really meant. I do so because they’ve been distorted and demonized by the mental health community as psychologically harmful, which is balderdash given that child mental health is 10 times worse today than it was in the 1950s, when their usage was commonplace.

      The demonization prize goes to “Because I said so,” which when stated calmly and straightforwardly is nothing more harmful than an affirmation of the legitimacy of parental authority. The long form would be something along the lines of “I provide for your provision and protection; furthermore, I am not your peer. I am your superior in every sense of the term. Therefore, I am not required to, nor will I, justify my decisions and instructions to you. You will obey because that is what I determine will happen, and for no other reason.”

      First runner-up goes to “Children should be seen but not heard,” which psychologists claimed reflected a generally negative attitude toward children (mind you, when the number of children per couple was significantly higher than it has been since). Wrong again! As the aphorism makes perfectly clear, the child in question could remain in the room and listen to adult conversation (be seen), but was expected not to interrupt (be heard) — a truly civilized understanding.

      Second runner-up goes to “You made this bed, so you’re going to lie in it.” In other words, the child was going to accept complete responsibility for whatever delinquency he had perpetrated. Today, by way of contrast, it is common for the child to make the bed and his parents to lie in it. Or, expressed according to yet another old-fashioned parenting aphorism, today’s parents stew in their children’s “juices.” This flip-flop has occurred as parents have rallied to the idea that they should be “involved,” which is a euphemism for being in enabling, codependent relationships with their kids.

      “You’re just a little fish in a big pond” was one of my mother’s favorites. I was, in other words, not the big deal I thought I was or should be. Being told you were a small fish went hand-in-hand with being informed that the world did not revolve around you and you were acting too big for your britches. With the advent of self-esteem babble in the late 1960s, children gradually became Big Fish wearing undersize britches, a condition that benefits no one (but it takes someone my age to clearly understand that high self-esteem is a cultural corrosive).

      The all-time favorite of my mother and stepfather was “We knew that if we gave you enough rope, you’d hang yourself.” I have realized in retrospect that my upbringing was very libertarian. I enjoyed a good amount of freedom (a long rope) as long as I accepted as much if not more personal responsibility. The relative balance in that equation prepares a child for proper citizenship; thus, Grandma also said, “Good citizenship begins at home.”

      We 1950s kids did not like hearing these things, but then children do not know what they need (they only know what they want). I have yet, however, to meet someone my age who is not thankful for them today. Their restoration, along with the parenting point of view that they reflected, is badly needed by all concerned.

      (Visit family psychologist John Rosemond’s website at http://www.johnrosemond.com; readers may send him email at questions@rosemond.com; due to the volume of mail, not every question will be answered.

      https://www.rosemond.com/October-2017.html

      Reply
      1. Becky Wiren

        I don’t totally disagree with Dr Rosemond, although I don’t agree with him all the time either. He doesn’t really account for children with mental/emotional/psychological ills. Children on the autism spectrum wouldn’t respond as well to his way of having parents raise their kids. He talks like he thinks good ol’ fashioned discipline will do the trick all of the time. Maybe it would, but it needs modification at times.

        Reply
  9. Austin Shipman

    You guys are just constantly packing claims on me that I have never even said. Typical..
    First I said “about” 7000 years old. Not exactly 1000. Second the whole reason I even came onto this page in the first place was due to the lies in the initial article. “Most” Indepemt fundamental baptist old fashoned churches do not want lifestyles similar to the 50’s. That is far from the truth. And very world if I might add as well. Second. You have not done any of the research yourself instead you believe a scientists theory over doing the work yourself and forming your own conclusion. By definition this is a blind belief. Many scienest agree the earth is not even close to over one billion years old let alone 7 billion. It’s absurd. And the church you were trying to refer too Bruce is an old testament definition. That chur cj style was done away with much like live sacrifices. And the new testament takes its place. Sounds to me like you have some reading to do my friend.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Unfortunately, you errantly assume that your interpretation of the Bible is correct. From this presupposition you then judge all other interpretations wrong. You need to expose yourself to the broad wealth of theological beliefs found in Christianity. Why, you can prove almost anything with the Bible.

      I spent thousands of hours reading and studying the Bible, along with reading countless theological texts. I’m comfortable with my understanding of Christian theology and church history.

      You didn’t answer my questions.

      As far as my use of the word old fashioned, I stand by what I wrote. I suspect I have attended many more IFB churches than you have, along with IFB conferences and preacher’s meetings. I continue to regularly read numerous IFB sites and blogs. Believe what you will, Austin.

      Reply
    2. Geoff

      “Many scienest agree the earth is not even close to over one billion years old let alone 7 billion. It’s absurd.”

      No serious scientist says any such thing. One or two outliers, with questionable degrees, unable to obtain jobs in mainstream science does not qualify as a meaningful consensus.

      And whoever said the earth is 7billion years old? It is around 4.6 billion years old. Note that a .1 of a billion years is 100m. Think about it. 100m is a seemingly tiny variation that scientists keep refining, yet represents a period pre-dating the dinosaurs (by way of comparing the periods of time being referred to). The universe is about 13.7 billion years old, an incomprehensible length of time, yet nearly three times the age of the earth. if you actually want to understand, which I very much doubt, then read Lawrence Krauss, ‘A universe from nothing’.

      Reply
  10. Austin Shipman

    Have read it. The evidence and support he has in that book are complete asinine statements and if you notice In all his writings he makes statements as if the theories he is trying to back are already proven. Complete idiocy. And now Bruce. You can’t possibly expect me to believe you’ve been to more FUN church’s then me. And if even so. What does you staying any of that have to do with what I had said to you previously? And if you are sticking by what you wrote then you are accepting the fact that you are white wrong I presume? No Right minded bible believing person would accept your claim that black people should be put lower than whites and women shouldn’t sear shoes. Complete idiocy. One more thing bruce.. please read your comment again. Notice how everything you are saying are just unpacked statements from you. First you downplay my knowledge of the bible. Then you proceed to ridicule my view on the bibles truths without having any claims to back anything you said. For the sake of anyone ignorant of the previous posts. Please back what you say. And don’t just post vain statements.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Austin,

      I backed up my claim by saying my years of experience, my decades of study, and my focus on Evangelicalism makes me an expert on the subject. You can either accept that, or not. I don’t care one way or the other. I know what I know.

      As far as who has been to more Fundamentalist churches, I think I can safely say, unless you are an aged traveling evangelist, the answer is me. Again, if you had bothered to read any of my other writing you might have learned this. Again, facts are facts.

      It is evident you don’t understand literary conventions such as sarcasm and hyperbole. Again, that’s your problem, not mine.

      I encourage you to do some reading of my writing. I think you’ll find when you do that I know a good bit about the IFB church movement, Evangelicalism, and the various camps/sects found within Evangelical Christianity.

      As far as insulting you over what you may or may not know about the Bible….all I stated was my own background and experience. If that means I know more about the Bible than you that’s not my fault or my problem.

      You came to this site to bitch, moan, and complain about my use of the word old-fashioned. Mission accomplished. If you have nothing further to say that is germane to the subject of this post it is time for you to move on.

      I wish you well.

      Bruce

      Reply
    2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      I just checked the server logs for your IP address. This is the only post you have read on this site. Here’s one that might educate you:

      https://brucegerencser.net/2015/01/but-our-church-is-different/

      Or any of the posts having the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist tag:

      https://brucegerencser.net/tag/independent-fundamentalist-baptist/

      Or the posts on this page:

      https://brucegerencser.net/why/

      And finally, my about page might be helpful:

      https://brucegerencser.net/about/

      Reply
  11. Austin Shipman

    “I backed up my claim by saying my years of experience, my decades of study, and my focus on Evangelicalism makes me an expert on the subject. You can either accept that, or not. I don’t care one way or the other. I know what I know.”
    This is exactly what I am talking about Bruce. You can’t back a claim by saying “because I said So” this is nonsense.
    And as far as I’m concerned you are lying about any sort of Experience you have on the bible based on the simple fact of your definition of Old fashioned being based on 1950 values. That’s just a bold faced lie. Also your about page is something you write yourself with again.. no evidence whatsoever. You’re lying to people. Where’s your proof Bruce? Because from what you’re saying about IFB cgurches isn’t true so therefore I must conclude you are just a facade claiming to be a past pastor over the internet. What church did you pastor? Where At? What conferences did you attend? What year? You’re about me page says absolutely nothing except empty claims on yourself. For all you know.. I’m Batman and have won three grammys. I know because I know and I don’t care what you think.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      This is where I say to people such as you, *sigh*, go fornicate with yourself, and goodbye.

      I encourage you to start a blog and devote yourself to investigating and outing the fake former IFB/Evangelical pastor Bruce Gerencser. Please send me a link to your blog. I want to read all the facts you unearth about me.

      I will approve no further comments by you.

      Bruce

      Reply
  12. Austin Shipman

    You’re a liar Bruce. And a doltish one at that. Any level headed person could tell this. It’s sad really you’ve devoted so much time on a blog based on lies. I’ve met many people like you Bruce. And you wanna know something funny? They were actually intelligent on the subject. They actually had their facts straight. You b ruce most certainly need to do much more studying.
    Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Again, by all means start up a blog and use it to expose all my lies. I dare you to do so. Or as Jack Hyles was found of saying, “I double dog dare you.” In fact, I will re-post every lie of mine you expose. Of course, I’m quite certain that your investigation into my lying will prove fruitless. I’m comfortable with saying that my writing accurately reflects my journey and experiences as a Christian and a pastor. You haven’t given any evidence for anyone to think otherwise. Instead, your panties are in a twist because you don’t like my definition of old-fashioned. My post on the subject is self-explanatory, yet because the cult you are a part of uses the word differently, this means my use of the word is wrong.

      I’ll leave you with the dictionary definition of old-fashioned: “in or according to styles or types no longer current or common; not modern.“

      Reply
      1. Austin Shipman

        Fair. I will most certainly do so. And the definition is correct. However your definition as 1950’s is incorrect. Try 150AD. That’d be more accurate. Cgurchs should only use thr biblical New Testament church as example. The church Jesus Christ himself established. Not the 1950’s. If this is the type of church you went to as a kid then I’m sorry.. but I don’t know what in world your parents were doing. And it would explain why you turned your back on the gospel.

        Reply
  13. Becky Wiren

    Wow Bruce. It’s tiresome for ME to read this idiot’s bloviating. Based on one of your posts, he is doubling down. The funny thing is not one fundamentalist ever comes here and believes in showing love to his fellow man. Instead, they all go off on you. I find myself wondering how any of them ever lead people to Christ, since they are such miserable pricks.

    If I hadn’t known it before, I would be sure after reading your blog that most fundamentalists are nasty, mean people.

    Reply
    1. Austin Shipman

      Becky I am far from a nasty, mean person. This was not based on one post. I’ve read the links he has provided and all of them has made my view even stronger. And I can’t speak for the other bible believing people who come here. But the bible is where I get my beliefs and the bible only. And within the bible we are commanded to reproof, rebuke and export with all considering of doctrine. And that’s what I will do. And no where in the bible does it say to love everyone. It says to love your neighbor and your brother. Is everyone your neighbor, or a brother? No of course not. This idea of loving everyone is a false teaching. But yes I do have compassion for the unsaved. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be posting replies here. I simply wouldn’t care.

      Reply
    2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Becky,

      Certainty breeds arrogance, and arrogance leads to self-righteous, abusive behavior (i.e. calling me a liar, saying my life story is a lie, fabricated, etc.)

      Austin follows men such as Roger Jimenez and Steven Anderson. His errant view of what the word old-fashioned means stems from this group believing they can trace their lineage and theological purity all the way back to early Christian church.Such thinking is historically and theologically absurd, but I remember a day when I believed very much the same. Nothing feeds the ego more than believing your religion/beliefs/church go all the way back to Jesus/Paul. Mountains of historical and textual data (and contradictions) must be ignored to come to such conclusions, but Christianity is similar to a paint-by-number board where every painter gets to choose what colors correspond with the numbers. If Christianity is anything, it is an amalgamation of pick-and-choose, buffet style beliefs. Every man decides what is right in his own mind.

      Bruce

      Reply
      1. Becky Wiren

        Oh, I know. When I was an Adventist we believed we were the true church etc. You can only believe that if you believe in a literally perfect Bible. And any real study about that quickly turns up facts that negate this view. And of course, there is all that cherry-picking!

        I just sometimes have to try to pierce this idea that being mean, judgmental, and unkind to others is an effective way to witness. (Not that I want anyone to go to these fundamentalist churches.) And Austin isn’t mean to me in his response, but he makes sure he defines the people he loves as his brother or neighbor, and you aren’t that. No, you are in the outer circle and only reproof, accusations and other lies will do.

        Reply
        1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

          Describing brother and neighbor in that manner allows Fundamentalists to shit all over your doorstep, while maintaining love and truth is their motivation. The most vile, abusive people I’ve ever met are Fundamentalist Christians (as are some atheists). What’s changed for me is that their attacks no longer have the effect they once did. Beat someone long enough and they will get used to the beatings. 😀

          Just remember this Becky when you drive by my house in the coming weeks: I am not who I say I am. 😀

          Reply
        2. Austin Shipman

          Comment deleted.

          Reply
      2. Austin Shipman

        Comment deleted

        Reply
  14. sgl

    Austin Shipman links to http://veritybaptist.com/

    a bit of research turns up:
    ———-
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-verity-baptist-church-asked-to-leave-orlando-comments-20160622-snap-story.html

    Property owner asks Verity Baptist Church to leave after pastor praises Orlando massacre

    The property owner of a business park in Sacramento has asked a church to relocate after its pastor posted a video on YouTube praising the Orlando, Fla., mass shooting at a gay nightclub that left 49 victims dead.

    [….]

    Last week, a YouTube video was published online showing Pastor Roger Jimenez praising the massacre of 49 people at a gay nightclub in Florida and calling the victims pedophiles and predators. The post was eventually removed by YouTube for violating the website’s policy on hate speech.

    “I think Orlando, Fla., is a little safer tonight,” he told his congregation the Sunday after the June 12 attack. “The tragedy is more of them didn’t die…. I’m kind of upset he didn’t finish the job!”

    Jimenez also said if it were up to him, gays and lesbians would be lined up against a wall so a firing squad could “blow their brains out.”
    ———-

    says a lot about the sort of people that was attend that sort of church, and about who they do *not* consider brothers and neighbors.

    Reply
    1. Austin Shipman

      Let me just make something really clear here. God Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone. Who are we to condemn that? The bible calls homosexuals rapists and dogs, they are predators according to the bible. Pastor Jimenez may not have worded if how you wanted him too. But the principle is still the same. Homosexuals serve us absolutely no purpose except the spread of STDs according to….(link deleted)

      Reply
      1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

        First, what the Bible says is immaterial. Second, the “Biblical” argument you make here for murdering your fellow citizens is a perfect example of why the Bible should not be used as a moral standard. What’s next? Stoning false teachers, rebellious sons, and those who have premarital or extramarital sex? I thought you were a New Testament Christian? Why, then, do you use the Old Testament to justify your bigotry? Third, LGBTQ people are human, just like you, me, and everyone else. Who they have sex with, when, where, and how does not affect me in any way. Each to their own, with equal rights and equal protection under the law for all.

        Please be aware that I will not allow you to continue to disparage LGBTQ people. You’ve been warned.

        Reply
        1. Austin Shipman

          Comment deleted.

          Reply
    2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      Thank you, my friend, for taking the time to look these things up. I knew Jimenez and Steven Anderson were connected. I had forgotten about the Pulse Club incident. According to Austin, these churches are “Old-fashioned”, just like first century Christian churches. 😀 I can’t imagine Jesus and his followers acting in the same manner as Anderson and Jimenez. I find no such behavior recorded in the Bible — Austin’s infallible, inerrant standard of conduct.

      Reply
      1. Austin Shipman

        You find “no such conduct in the bible” because you haven’t read it. That’s the only reason why you would say that. Read the book of Romans. And like I mentioned before God Destroyed Sodom and gomarah with fire. The term used in the bible for homosexuals is sodomite. For this purpose. Once again proving your ignorance of scripture. How could you of possibly been a pastor b ruce?

        Reply
        1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

          Again, what the Bible says is immaterial. Who gives a shit about what a Bronze Age religious text says about anything? The Bible says all sorts of things, endorsing behaviors we now consider immoral or harmful. God himself, in the OT (and the book of Revelation), engages in behavior decent, thoughtful people consider abhorrent and immoral. The God of the OT is a megalomaniac — a petty, jealous, vindictive deity unworthy of our worship. We should be very grateful that most Christians are better people than their God.

          On this blog, we use the the LGBTQ acronym, not disparaging, hateful words such as homosexual or sodomite.

          You got me, Austin. I might as well confess it now — I never was a pastor. Everything I have written about my life in the ministry is a lie.

          Time for you to go away, Austin. I’ve had enough of your bullshit.

          Thanks for providing more examples of why I am glad to be free from Christianity, especially Evangelical Christianity.

          Reply
          1. Austin Shipman

            Look Bruce. I wasn’t bashing on you at all, only your ideas. However homosexual is not a disparaging. Sodomite is. And if i may say one positive thing fron this, your entire blog setup is very well put together. Must’ve took a lot of work. You have actually inspired me to create my own blog. Unzippedminds.org actually started on it today. And let me tell you. Not easy. So kudos to you.
            Your viewpoints in my informed opinion are still very, very much corrupted. God is not a megalomaniac not is he petty or vindictive. He let’s us make our own choices. If this wasn’t the case you would not have had the opportunity to create this well designed blog. The only truth you spoke in the paragraph is that he is jealous. He most certainly is. But regarding the bible being “immaterial” isn’t true either. That’s what this page is about. Therefore making it very much relevant. But again Bruce nothing against you as a person. Just your beliefs and opinions.

          2. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

            Nice try, Austin. Not bashing me? You said “And as far as I’m concerned you are lying about any sort of Experience you have on the bible based on the simple fact of your definition of Old fashioned being based on 1950 values. That’s just a bold faced lie. Also your about page is something you write yourself with again.. no evidence whatsoever. You’re lying to people. Where’s your proof Bruce? Because from what you’re saying about IFB cgurches isn’t true so therefore I must conclude you are just a facade claiming to be a past pastor over the internet. What church did you pastor? Where At? What conferences did you attend? What year? You’re about me page says absolutely nothing except empty claims on yourself. “

            You are permanently banned from this site.

          3. Austin Shipman

            Comment deleted

  15. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

    Austin has been permanently banned. I will not allow any further disparaging comments directed towards LGBTQ people. I’ve encouraged Austin to get his own blog so he can rage against the atheist Bruce Gerencser. 😀

    Reply
    1. Geoff

      Bruce, this Austin Shipman guy seems typical of the people you write about. I’m not sure I’ve ever known anyone who quite fits the exact mould, though I’ve known many who are as irrational, but in other ways.

      I am perplexed by his, and others say the same, constant refrain that you are a ‘liar’. I don’t get that? You relate your experiences, cover lots of detail of your early life, explain your perspective on IFB churches, and generally say what you think. Now that may be a little daunting to some, not used to direct talk, and some may even be offended, but that’s no reason to call you a liar. I can’t personally know this of course, but I would be more inclined to accuse you of being ‘too’ truthful at times, though I think that is natural to the way you write.

      Austin Shipman, on the other hand, is deluded. I’m afraid there’s no other word, though I daresay that at a personal level he’d probably convey as being a decent enough individual (though not if I were a transgender, gay, with a recent abortion to my name, who favoured gun control). I think he is probably lying when he claims to have read Lawremce Krauss; firstly, his response wasn’t consistent with how someone who has read the book would react, and secondly someone who is so divorced from evidence wouldn’t have cause to want to read it.

      Reply
  16. Luke Johnson

    Comment deleted.

    Reply
  17. James White

    I actually would have to agree with the posts from this Austin Shipman guy.
    I have been too plenty of IFB churches and very many of them actually had black people in the attendees. This does not quite like up with your blog post Bruce.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Gerencser (Post author)

      I am in no way suggesting all IFB churches are racist. I’ve never said such a thing, nor would I. In my post I was making a GENERAL connection between 1950s culture and churches today that say they are old-fashioned. Does racism exist in the IFB/Evangelical churches? Absolutely. Please read https://brucegerencser.net/2017/09/president-trump-and-race-fighting-generational-racism/ Go back sixty plus years to the 1950s and you’ll find that racism was not uncommon in Evangelical churches. Is it less so today? Probably. I do know that IFB/Evangelical churches do a better job at hiding their racist tendencies, using mission programs as a way to segregate people according to race or “allowing” blacks to attend their churches with completely embracing them as equals — using Bob Jones University-style prohibitions against mixed-race dating and marriage.

      Reply

Leave a Comment

You have to agree to the comment policy.