Narrowminded Christians

 I recently read about a First Baptist Church in the state of Indiana who had invited two men from a creation ministry to come into their church and give a presentation on the fallacies of evolution. The article, or post, didn’t say if the presentation concerning evolution was good or bad but it could be because the pastor of this church made it a point to apologize to his church and those visitors who were in attendance for the appearance of the two men. What this article did, regardless if it was intended or not, was display the narrowminded Christians in this church.

First the pastor apologized for one of the men because he had long hair. How long was his hair? The post didn’t say but evidently it was longer than acceptable by the people of this church. (He has since cut his hair so as not to offend anyone else where he might be invited to speak) The apology also included a statement which said that one of the men used an NIV (New International Version) Bible translation. Oh my, what’s this faith coming to? Of course, it is apparent that this Baptist church probably uses only the KJV (King James Version) and I’m sure they are of the KJV only crowd. (All scripture was quoted from the KJV) Now, I don’t use the NIV but I did years ago. Actually, the NIV is a very popular version among many pastors in this country. And, as far as the KJV is concerned, it’s not even the most accurate version in use. Christians who insist it is the only Bible that is trustworthy need to get a parallel Bible which has the original language in the center with the literal English beneath each verse. I have one which displays the original Greek in the center and the NIV on the left and the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) on the right. Beneath each Greek verse is the literal English translation. It is my opinion that the NRSV is the closest to the original languages. The NRSV is not my commonly used Bible, but I do refer to it frequently. That is a good practice for Christians who spend time studying the Bible. Use different versions, reliable versions, and the original languages to help get a good understanding of what the passages are saying.

This church openly criticized these two men for their choice of Bible version and for the long hair. Of course, the scripture they called out against the long hair was 1 Corinthians 11:14.

   Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him…

This is from the NRSV and is almost word for word how it is stated in the Greek. There is no command here from God or even Paul, the writer, to not wear long hair. It was thought to give the image that a man was effeminate or womanish and that was a dishonor to the man. But there is no direct command from God to not wear long hair. The Law says men should not dress like women and women should not dress like men, but it says nothing about the length of hair. Even so, the Nazarites wore long hair because they were not allowed to cut it. Does God have double standards? No, He doesn’t. This is what I refer to as Red Neck Christianity. And, in the case of this seminar or conference on evolution, these people couldn’t see the forest for the trees. In other words, the long hair and the NIV use totally distracted them from the facts being presented.

The narrowmindedness of the choice of Bible and thinking the KJV is the only reliable version shows their lack of knowledge concerning the reliability of other versions on the market which are fundamentally sound in their translation.

This comes from listening to and accepting the lie that the KJV is the only version. They have been taught this since they were saved, if they are saved. They were harsh in their criticism of these two men.

Another pastor in attendance also chimed in with harsh criticism and accused the two of directly disobeying the word of God. This was pertaining to the long hair and the misquoting of 1 Cor 11:14. Being critical of another person for doing or being something which they believe is right, but you disagree with is portraying yourself as a bigot. It’s no different than a person of one race blasting another person because of that person’s race. It's referred to as being a bigot. Now, I don’t use that word lightly and very seldom every use it but, in this case, this church has displayed themselves as bigots. But what’s worse is basing their reasons for this criticism on misquoting the Bible and accusing a proper and correct version of God’s word as being basically blasphemous. They are narrowminded, bigoted Christians. They are Red Necked Baptists who have been misled to believe there is only one correct version of the Bible. They believe in a misunderstood interpretation of a verse in the Bible and have used it to extremely criticize another Christian. This sure sounds like Alabama in the 1950s and it’s sad that there are still people like this claiming to be God’s people.

Nowhere else in God’s word does it say men will not have long hair. There is no command from God saying men cannot have long hair. It is widely believed by scholars that this was a cultural way of thinking just as this church in Indiana has made this a cultural doctrine. In a lot of cases, and especially today with the man bun being a popular item among some men, a man does not look right with long and fluffed hair or a man bun. (I personally don't have a problem with a man having long hair) It reminds me of a quote from Adam Clarke concerning this issue.

Perhaps there is not a sight more ridiculous in the eye of common sense than a high-dressed, curled, cued, and powdered head, with which the operator must have taken considerable pains, and the silly patient lost much time and comfort in submitting to what all but senseless custom must call an indignity and degradation. Hear nature, common sense, and reason, and they will inform you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him.

Now, remember that Adam Clarke probably wrote this in the late 1700s to the early 1800s. He was an English Methodist pastor so his perspective on long hair on men might be, and probably was, much different than ours today. But I did find this quote humorous.

 It’s sad to know there are still people like this calling themselves Christians but acting like the racist bullies of the South in the 1950s and 60s. Christians, the Bible teaches us to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. It doesn’t teach us to think differently of other Christians who attend different meetings which are centered on Jesus. If the message is centered on the gospel and Jesus and is of sound Bible teaching, what is it any of our business if a person is using an NIV or a KJV? Both are sound and acceptable translations of God’s word. Don’t be a narrowminded Christian.

One last thing, I have nothing against the Baptist Church unless they are teaching a wrong and false doctrine. This specific church does border on false teaching by stating the KJV is the only version. Well, this was inferred by their criticism of the use of the NIV. Their misuse of scripture pertaining the length of men’s hair also is on shaky ground. If you personally don’t like long hair on a man, keep it to yourself and don’t criticize the person openly. There’s probably something about you that people don’t like. And finally, these two men were also criticized of where they attended church. Actually, they were criticized for the denominational church they attended. I would only ask, “Was the material they presented sound and truthful? Did they present any information that was incorrect or misleading? If the answer to these questions are first, yes and then no, then why be concerned with where they attend church? There are plenty of narrowminded bigots outside of the Church so we don’t need any on the inside.

-Bill Petite