Category: Fundamentalism

General critiques (and discussions) of fundamentalism (IFB or IFBx)

Presbyterians on Fundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 7 Comments

Some of you may have missed this. Rick Phillips and Carl Trueman commented on BJU-style fundamentalism on Reformation 21’s blog [Phillips’ initial post, clarification#1, clarification #2, Trueman’s post, Phillips’ response — all these are quite brief, BTW]. Sean Lucas, of Covenant Theological Seminary, followed up with some reflections of his own [post 1, post 2], as one who graduated from both BJU and Westminster.

I don’t have much time right now to comment much on the discussions, but there is plenty of food for thought there. Rick praises fundamentalism deservedly, while Trueman and Lucas make sure we beware of errors which are especially prone in fundamentalism.

And on the heels of this discussion, Bob Bixby discusses what he sees as the “emerging middle” — a coming together of conservative evangelicals and “young” fundamentalists. His article is also worthy of attention.

I agree with much that is said by the Presbyterians from both angles, and I’m hoping that Bixby is right. With that said, what do you, my readers, think of these discussions? A penny for your thoughts!AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Responding to Error: A Comparison Study between Fundamentalism and Hyperfundamentalism

~ fundyreformed ~ 25 Comments

Recently, I was startled by a sharp contrast over how 2 different men responded to error. These two responses provide a comparison study which illustrates just why fundamentalism (IFB) and hyperfundamentalism (IFBx) should be distinguished.

Definitions

Before we move to the study, we should pause and provide some definitions for those who may be unfamiliar with the independent Baptist fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism describes the position of adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and also being willing to separate over these fundamentals. For independent Baptists, such separation usually extends to believers who cooperate with those who deny one or more of the fundamentals. And the movement dictates how such separation looks and around which personalities it centers.

Hyperfundamentalists, also known as IFBx, elevate cultural standards to the level of doctrine, and separate accordingly. Many leaders in this group exert an inordinate control over the lives of their followers, and demand an almost cultish loyalty. This group also maintains extreme positions, often holding to an almost-heretical KJV-only position.

Admittedly, the division between these two groups can be somewhat arbitrary. And we are obviously speaking in generalities. There are similarities between both groups, and that is part of the reason why I have left independent Baptist fundamentalism altogether. But the differences remain. And these differences can be very large and defining, as this comparison study will demonstrate.

The Comparison: Case #1

I have not followed the Joe Zichterman case fully, but his departure from fundamentalism provides the background for our first example. He had been a professor at Northland Baptist Bible College, a solidly IFB institution. Now he has left the movement altogether and has joined Willow Creek Community Church (pastored by Bill Hybels). Evidently, he has great respect for Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, and recommends Joel Osteen. I don’t know all the details, but apparently he is encouraging others to leave fundamentalism, and has emailed hundreds of people on fundamentalist email lists in defense of his departure. I may disagree with some of Joe’s theological leanings, but I do empathize with how big a deal it was for him to leave the fundamentalist movement. I also read his fictional work “A Tale of Two Amishmen: Inside the mind of a Spiritual Defector”, and I agree with many (not all) of the concerns with fundamentalism in general as highlighted there.

Now in response to Joe’s defection, I’m sure there has been much said in the fundamentalist blogosphere. To be honest, I haven’t read all that much of it. I did, however, read Brian McCrorie’s recent post “Is Joe Zichterman a False Teacher?” That post applied the results of his recent study on false teachers to Joe’s specific case. He concluded overwhelmingly that Joe Zichterman does not fit the bill of a false teacher, according to the following Biblically-derived definition.

False teachers are unregenerate people who have rejected the Gospel and are now intent on corrupting it for the sake of monetary gain. They use deception and lust to entice spiritually immature believers to their heresy. These teachers have no spiritual discernment, are addicted to sin, and are arrogant, especially toward authority. They deny Christ and the words of Christ.

While some in fundamentalism might be prone to apply that particular label to Joe, most of them do not doubt his salvation, nor his sincerity. They would agree he is in error, and many bloggers have taken the time to show why. Some fundamentalist leaders, however, even call for his message to be appropriately considered and pondered. So this is a fundamentalist response to theological error: a reasoned rejection coupled with warnings, and a sincere prayer that God would bless and help Joe Zichterman see the error of his ways.

Case #2

I was recently made aware of a new controversy within hyperfundamentalism. It surrounds Jack Schaap, the son-in-law of Jack Hyles, and current pastor of First Baptist of Hammond, IN. I knew that mainstream fundamentalists had been pointing out the wild and unbelievable stories, and strange doctrine of Schaap, but I was not aware that other hyperfundamentalists and Hyles devotees were also pointing out Schaap’s errors. For all I know, this controversy could have been brewing for some time, but many of the official letters that I found were written in the past month or so.

The ringleader (from what I can tell) of the opposition to Schaap from the conservative fundamentalist ranks is Tom Neal of The Baptist Contender. His website highlights a sermon preached by his son, Greg Neal entitled “Schaap’s Fables”. The website also boasts a collection of audio clips of Schaap espousing various heresies.

Now I am glad that Tom Neal and the other men behind that paper are holding Schaap accountable for his wacky and errant theology (more on that later). I find it odd, though, that this same paper endorses Jack Hyles 100%. David Cloud’s article “I Am of Jack” singles out The Baptist Contender and Tom Neal for an almost cultish devotion to all things Hyles. And if you want to speak of wacky theology, Jack Hyles was king in that category. This site lists just some of the many crazy and absurd things Hyles taught. (And this is beyond the questions about Hyles’ personal integrity.)

As for Schaap, the charges against him center primarily on his overemphasis (possibly a mis-emphasis) on a comparison between marital relations and the intimacy which should characterize a believer’s relationship to Christ. Christ is the husband and the church is the bride, remember. Schaap gets very pointed in his application of this “principle” and goes so far as to claim that the Lord’s Supper (in which we partake of or receive Christ’s body) is all about this “spiritual intimacy”. Details of this shocking teaching can be seen here.

That was the primary charge brought forth in that sermon, I mentioned above. The second primary point had to do with Scaap’s humanizing of God. Various quotes were given which did seem to bring God down somewhat to our level. Schaap’s motivation seemed to be to help us understand God more and get us to see things differently.

Now that is pretty much the sum total of the accusations Neal and company throw at Schaap. Other things are mentioned, but it seems to me that they are mostly stretches. For instance the list of sermon excerpts which supposedly confirm that Schaap teaches heresy fails miserably. I honestly don’t have a clue on some of the excerpts as to why they were included; perhaps the page is still being created and they are “on the hunt” for evidence, I’m not sure. Most of the clips have Schaap decrying racism. Is that heretical? On this page, they provide a 14 minute clip which shows Schaap belittling pedophiles and making a mockery of sin. If you listen to it, Schaap is not doing any such thing. He is calling for people to have an understanding of others and to try to reach them rather than just condemn certain people and write them off. Another point of evidence the site appeals to is Schaap’s calling a non-fundamentalist black megachurch pastor James Meeks his friend.

I emphasize the scant evidence of other charges to make this point. These men take what is certainly questionable and errant doctrine, and conclude that Schaap is denying the deity of Christ and preaching another gospel. Greg Neal said he did not believe Schaap was saved. The site links to some very mean-spirited letters written to Schaap and Ray Young by Tom Neal that were copied to a veritable “Who’s Who” list in hyperfundamentalism. There is also a letter to a pastor John Shook, where Tom Neal doubts his salvation and refuses to call him “brother” because he defends Jack Schaap.

Is such a fierce response warranted? Certainly Jack Schaap has some doctrinal problems, and he could benefit from more Bible study time, it seems. He should be more careful with his teaching, and ensure that his teachings on marital intimacy don’t become license for sin or occasion for a blasphemous view of the believer’s relationship to God. But is he consciously denying the deity of Christ? Is he really preaching another gospel? Is he a “false prophet” to use Greg Neal’s words?

Conclusion

I can’t believe I just defended Jack Schaap! But the sad truth is hyperfundamentalists are so extreme, that they often think the worst they can of everybody who doesn’t agree with them completely. To them, there is only so much error one can have before we start doubting their salvation.

It should be painfully obvious by now just how wide the gap is between hyperfundamentalists and their fundamentalist cousins. That is what struck me so much in thinking through both of these cases. Now I know that Tom Neal and company may perhaps represent the radical right extreme of hyperfundamentalism, and Brian McCrorie could be close to the left extreme of fundamentalism, but I think this comparison does illustrate an important point. Fundamentalists are prone to think through things more slowly and carefully and Biblically, whereas hyperfundamentalists quickly default to an extreme separation from anyone they deem to be in error.

One more thing, this again highlights the important question I raised a long time ago “Is It a Sin to Be Wrong?” And again I point you to Tim Challies’ answer (which was recently highlighted in the comments of one of my recent posts).AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Bible, the Sole Authority?

~ fundyreformed ~ 17 Comments

“The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.” I bet you have never heard that line before. Oh wait, if you are Baptist, you probably have.

Sadly, while many affirm this in principle, in practice they deny it. Tradition or culture often dictate a particular application of Bible principle. In the end, this application becomes Bible teaching and dogma. Alcohol, movies, pants on women, specific styles of music, specific translations of the Bible — the list of topics on which Scripture is “steered by tradition” could go on and on.

To compound this, doctrinal positions, where the Bible seems to allow for competing yet Biblically faithful interpretations, again morph into “its just plain Bible”. So if one doesn’t agree with a pre-trib rapture position, for example, he is rejecting the Bible; yet the facts of the matter stand differently. The one who denies a pre-trib rapture, only denies it on the basis of another Biblical position with various strong proof texts of its own. Of course only one end-times doctrine can be absolutely correct, but is it a sin to be wrong? And are we to be as dogmatic of our correctness on lesser points such as eschatology, as with major points like the Trinity and the Gospel?

All this comes from thinking about a fascinating look at church creeds by the always thought-provoking Carl Trueman. In an article called “A Good Creed Seldom Goes Unpunished” from the March 2007 issue of Reformation 21, Carl has the following insights into the “Bible only, we don’t need creeds” view.

On the issue of creeds, the evangelical world often seems absolutely divided into two broad camps: There are those who are so passionately committed to a particularly narrow view of scripture’s sufficiency that they not only deny the need for creeds and confessions but regard them as actually wrong, an illegitimate attempt to supplement scripture or to narrow the Christian faith in doctrinal or cultural ways beyond the limits set by scripture itself. Then there are those whose view of creeds and confessions is so high that any other theological statement, and sometimes even the Bible itself, seems to be of secondary importance. Neither group, I believe, really does the creeds justice.

I am very suspicious of both approaches. While I share the concern of the first group to safeguard the uniqueness of scripture and to avoid imposing my own cultural preferences and tastes on someone else under the guise of gospel truth, I have a sneaking suspicion that the cry of `No creed but the Bible!’ has often meant rather `I have my creed, but I’m not going to tell you what it is so that you can’t know what it is and thus cannot criticize it or me for holding it.’ Such is often the case with those evangelicals who reject creeds but have very definite views on the legitimacy of the consumption of alcohol and the nature of the end-times, for example. In practice, they effectively allow for no hypothetical distinction between what the Bible says and their own, or their church’s, interpretation of the same. Thus, they render themselves immune to any criticism. Further, as soon as they use words such as `Trinity’ or even consult a commentary, they reveal that what they say about their relationship to tradition and what they actually do in practice with tradition are in conflict. (HT: The Journeymen)

As I have stated above, I think Trueman hits the nail on the head with this issue. (Be sure to read the entire article.) We need to be careful to recognize our tendency to bring culture, and preconceptions to the Biblical text. Let us be silent where Scripture is silent, and cautious when the issues are truly complex. Let’s respect God’s Word and not presume to speak for It.

Powerful Preaching? — A Case Study

~ fundyreformed ~ 23 Comments

One of my favorite posts on this blog, was one I did in March 2006 on fundamentalist preaching: Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching. The title might overstate my case a little, but the problem is all too real.

Recently, someone posted a smart comment on that post, lamenting that I hadn’t listened to the fundamentalist sermons I heard in college. That is not the first negative comment I’ve received from that post.

It is quite polarizing, in part, I believe, due to the subject matter. Anytime someone attempts to criticize preaching or preachers, he is sure to reap righteous indignation. To an extent, this is admirable.

I may not have come across as humble enough in my first critique on this subject. I do hold strongly to my opinion on this subject, as I believe much damage is being done in the name of “powerful preaching”. In this post, I hope to provide a case study to show what exactly I mean by “moralism”, and what exactly I find problematic with fundamentalist preaching. I would encourage you to read that first post, though, as background for this one.

Thesis

Here is my primary point: preaching that majors on heaping guilt on the hearers in an attempt to motivate them to do better is not “powerful”. It is possibly moralistic, and it is likely carnal. This preaching does more harm than good. Unfortunately it is quite common in fundamentalism, although it can be found in many other circles as well.

Case Study

Here is the passage for our case study: Mark 15:32-42. We will focus on Jesus’ admonition in vs. 38: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.” You know the story, Jesus’ disciples had fallen asleep when they should have been praying. Jesus admonishes them to watch and pray. And yet when he returns from another prayer session, he finds the disciples asleep again.

Now let me develop 2 approaches to this passage, which might easily be found in a Sunday morning message. In comparing and contrasting these approaches, I hope my point about moralistic sermons will come home.

A Moralistic Approach

This message would major on the commands “watch and pray”. It would highlight the results of either obeying or disobeying the commands. It would imply that most or all of the listeners have failed miserably in this respect. Based on “the flesh is weak”, the message would set up the listeners to expect to have to struggle in this area. The message would end by calling the listeners to do better and pray more. People might be encouraged to come forward and make decisions to rededicate themselves to fervent prayer, or to confess their failures to pray and vow to change.

This kind of message might be labelled “toe-stomping” or “hard hitting”, as the preacher might very well drive his point home forcefully through screaming, theatrical antics, or tear-jerking illustrations. The listeners would leave the message acutely aware of their guilt and mindful of the preacher’s challenge that they watch and pray much better than they have before.

A Christ-Centered Approach

This message would again stress the commands “watch and pray”. Yet it would also give the fuller context of the passage. The disciples did not watch and pray, whereas Jesus did. Jesus would be shown to be absolutely faithful, whereas even heroes of the Christian faith, the disciples, are seen to be very weak and unfaithful. The message would stress that it is important to watch and pray, as a failure to do so leads to temptation, even as illustrated by the desertion of Christ by these very disciples. Yet the message would stress Christ’s kindhearted response to this lack of faithfulness on the disciples’ part. Rather than harshly rebuking them the second time He found them sleeping, he acknowledged their weakness. He had said the “flesh is weak”.

The message would go on to stress that our very weakness, what makes it so difficult to watch and pray, is that for which Christ died. Jesus knows we are weak, and so Jesus prays for us, even when we don’t. The ultimate victory over temptation is won because Jesus overcame the world, not because we have the innate ability to. We can win, when we depend on Christ and the victory He purchased. The message would end with a call to depend on Christ more in the area of prayer. It would encourage people to trust Jesus and His faithfulness, even as it would call on the hearers to excercise more faith in watching and praying more faithfully.

The message might not be very “hard hitting”, but it would be encouraging and uplifting. The preacher may well get excited as he proclaims Christ’s faithfulness and work on our behalf, but he would be unlikely to scream at or belittle the hearers for their lack of faithfulness in prayer. The listeners would leave the message in a thankful and worshipful state of mind, as they ponder how wonderful is Christ’s faithfulness and work on their behalf, weak and sinful though they be. They would determine to love Christ more and desire to be more faithful in their prayer lives.

I hope this case study proves helpful. I hope that preachers will aim to proclaim the glories and faithfulness of Christ more consistently. We need to realize that in every step of our Christian life we need to trust Jesus more fully. He can help us obey, and it is because of Him that we can. Believers need to be reminded of these truths. They need to be pointed to Christ and encouraged to trust in Him more. They don’t need to have guilt heaped upon them without an offer of hope. There is no hope if I have to depend on my own determination to do better. There is plenty of hope, inexhaustible hope, if I am encouraged to lean on the work Jesus has done for me.

Related Posts

Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching

Moralism and Christ-less Sermons

Powerful Thoughts on Preaching

Why Go to Church?

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

I’m back. We returned from a grueling 3000 mile road trip last week. It was fun, but left me worn out. I need a vacation from my vacation!

I realize I haven’t been keeping up with the blog all that much in the past few weeks. I hope to pick the plow back up this week. Unfortunately, when I returned I found out that my sidebars had vanished. Just the WordPress default sidebars are showing, all my customizations just disappeared. Hopefully I’ll be able to restore them soon.

On our trip (we drove to Pensacola, FL to see my sister-in-law graduate, and then to North Canton, OH to visit my brother’s family and my mom), we couldn’t help but notice this unusual sign on Interstate 65 a few miles north of Montgomery, AL.

This sign raises a question: why do we go to church? I, for one, don’t think the answer given on the sign is theologically correct. Before I explain my thoughts, perhaps some of my readers (assuming I still have any…) would like to weigh in on what is wrong with this sign. Or maybe you agree with its basic premise. Please, join the conversation. I’ll be posting my thoughts on this later today or else tomorrow.

Update: Here are my thoughts concerning the sign above:

My beef against the sign is that it seems to imply that one earns brownie points for going to church. If you don’t get those points, you become vulnerable to the Devil. Now it is highly probable that if one is not going to church they also are vulnerable to the devil’s attack, but such is not a direct cause and effect relationship.

Salvation from the devil comes by grace. It is only because of Jesus and His work on the cross that we have a hope of standing against the devil. Going to church and living obediently does not earn us anything. It can provide for greater assurance, and it witnesses to the genuineness of our salvation. If obedience is lacking we should have cause to doubt the legitimacy of our salvation. But in all of this we are to trust in Christ more.

Trusting and believing in Jesus is how we overcome the devil. It is true that he is seeking to devour us and is very real. The way to fight him, however, is not to grit our teeth and determine to go to church more often. Instead it is to find our hope and faith in Jesus and fly to Him for refuge.

Going to church should be something us believers LOVE to do. We should want to meet God and find more grace in the assembly of believers. We go to church because God wants us to (Heb. 10:25), and we want to obey and please Him.

Our hope should not be that we are religious people who go to church. It should not be that we have DONE anything, not good works, baptism, church membership, or even doing the “sinner’s prayer”. Our hope should be that Jesus DID it all for us, and he has caused us to love and trust Jesus alone for our only hope of salvation.

I am sure the people responsible for the sign have every good intention. I have nothing against them. I just think such a sign obscures the gospel message. If you are unsure of what the Biblical gospel is, or if you have been trusting in your own efforts to ward off Satan, please take time to follow the links near the top of my right sidebar, under the title “Good News”.

Thanks to all for the excellent interaction in the comments concerning the question “Why Go to Church?”