RINO, FINO Parallel

During last year’s presidential campaign conservative political commentator Laura Ingraham often told her radio audience she had a problem with Sen. John McCain because he “feels more comfortable attacking conservatives than liberals”. In the election lead-up while sponsoring free-speech limiting legislation with liberal Sen. Russ Feingold and joining “his good friend” Sen. Ted Kennedy in an attempt to grant illegal aliens amnesty, Sen. McCain also found time to launch attacks on Christians, pro-family groups and even fiscal conservatives. All this while hoping the people he attacked would back him in his presidential bid to beat the very people who had been his closest allies.

Crazy? Not if you’re a young, disgruntled fundamentalist today! Just as McCain held his beliefs almost grudgingly, falsely believing Democrats were more compassionate, more genuine and “just nicer folks”, many up-and-coming fundamentalists of our day are afflicted with a similar misconception. While the people with which they agree most are seen as grumpy and bordering on legalistic, forward-thinking, “mostly correct” evangelical commentators are regarded as compassionate and balanced. Is this really the truth?

In both cases I would shout a resounding no! The misconceptions are often more a result of belief in caricatures and folklore than objective evidence. Single experience after single experience is recounted to support the theory, but many are questionable and some are flat-out false.

Years ago a friend described a horrible act of arrogance and legalism that had allegedly taken place at an otherwise Godly church. After hearing it, I pressed the issue a bit. I wanted to know who the source of the story had been and where I could find the victim. Upon further examination neither a source, victim or eye-witness could be located. In fact, everyone I asked reluctantly admitted they were passing the information along on the basis of third and fourth-hand accounts.

What’s worse? Not one of the people believing this story (presumably made up out of whole cloth) felt the slightest twinge of guilt for doing so. In theory they were telling me it didn’t matter because “it sounded like somthing that probably could have happened at ‘that kind’ of church”.

Let’s not be confused. I am resolutely in favor of declaring sin to be sin. If legalism is characteristic of a person or people we observe, we ought to confront and rebuke them if necessary. You will never catch me making excuses for anyone that commits sin in the name of “standing up for Jesus”. At the same time, I would not classify a particular style of ministry as “potentially sinful” simply because I “know their type”.

I have said it this way in previous articles:

Many critics of “how things used to be done” grew up in the fundamentalist movement, and have personal stories of dismay with individuals in their past. These emotional ties too often cloud the real issues and set people on a crusade to right perceived wrongs. This is a principle reason otherwise strong men of God look outside fundamentalism for input on ministry methodology.

I went on to say that I am not a product of the fundamentalist movement and therefore have a bit of a unique perspective:

Preachers I grew up admiring were generally old-fashioned, hellfire and brimstone types that sang hymns, knocked doors, and read from the King James Bible. All were Southern Baptist, though they didn’t particularly associate themselves with the convention at large, but rather held to Biblical conviction and called out compromisers no matter what label they wore. Did they get some things wrong? Definitely. Is it my job to correct their mistakes? Definitely not.

Anyone reading this article who is frustrated by a history of bad experiences with sinful Christian leaders should be cautioned. Those men may have been the disciple of some “big name preacher” that was building a following for themselves rather than the kingdom of God.They may have also given every excuse in the book for the bad behavior of their heroes, even to the point of compromising their own integrity.

Are the great leaders of movements any different today? They have gained far-reaching acclaim despite their doctrinal problems, personal conviction issues, troubling temperaments and methodological missteps. Still, a new generation of young men irritated by their upbringing in the fundamentalist movement are sitting spellbound at their feet. Claiming every step of the way they will not adopt their belief systems, while turning their affections toward style and personality.

John McCain lost the election because he claimed to believe one thing while his actions declared an affection for something else. The masses of people seeking leadership can have no respect for the mushy middle and (if given the chance) will always choose a firm position to the right or left. I believe men and women in our pews today want the same thing. Not declarative statements on what we “affirm as fact”, but belief – belief that reveals itself in a love for Biblical accuracy, sound doctrine and rightous conviction. The very moment some of those men step forward we will begin winning our spiritual battles, instead of settling for respectable losses.

2 Comments

• 

  By Chris, May 19, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

  By the way, a RINO is a “Republican in Name Only” while a FINO is a “Fundamentalist in Name Only”. (Thanks Don.)

  Chris

Other Links to this Post

1. Missionary Broadcasting.com » I Hate That — May 23, 2009 @ 1:53 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment