Category: Fundamentalism

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

Jack Schaap’s Fall & the Future of the IFB Movement: Act 2

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Just seven weeks ago the news broke about Jack Schaap’s fall. The pastor of the largest independent fundamental Baptist Church in the world had been fired under suspicions of sex abuse of a minor. Well today it was announced that he reached a plea agreement with the authorities and has admitted that he “he took a minor over state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity” (source Northwest Indiana Times). The Chicago Tribune adds that “Schaap admits that he had sex with the girl, the girl was under his care or supervision, and he used a computer to persuade the girl to have sex with him illegally.”

Following on the heels of that news, Ed Stetzer, an author and leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, posted another article on the future of the independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement (see his first article, expressing outrage over IFB leaders refusing to call this “sexual abuse”). In his piece he applauds Dr. Paul Chappell (pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church, home of West Coast Baptist College), for his response to the original news of Schaap’s fall. Far too many IFB leaders, in Stetzer’s opinion, were excusing Schaap and refusing to stand up for the reported victim of his sexual abuse.

Stetzer’s piece is worth reading, as is Chappell’s article. I hope that this high profile event does help the IFB movement to rethink its future. Instead of circling the wagons, I hope they rethink their philosophy and ask the hard questions. Something Chappell seems ready to do. And there are signs that other leaders in the IFB movement are also changing in positive ways.

Regardless, IFB leaders need to come to grips with the fact that their movement, whether fairly or not, has become identified with sexual abuse by predatory pastors in a very public way – and this is how the general public may think of the IFB movement going forward. The time for change is now. Now is the time to correct course, admit mistakes, stand up for victims, and take clear steps toward addressing even the hint of improprieties in this regard.

I encourage you to read Stetzer’s piece and join the movement for real reform in the IFB.

Don’t misunderstand me. Please know that there are very many good IFB churches, there are countless scores of faithful believers and sincere pastors. Ditching the movement, and maligning everyone in it is wrong. But so is acting like the problems of other IFB churches don’t say something is wrong with the wider IFB movement. It doesn’t matter where you think you are in the IFB movement, you must realize and admit this error and take pains to expunge it. Falling back on your “independency” will only allow the problem to grow and may blind you to some deep problems that aid and abet the spread of insular thinking and a mindset which facilitates abuse of all kinds.

Matt Olson and “What Matters Most” with Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.

Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.

Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:

The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.

The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.

The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]

Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:

I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.

The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.

Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.

A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]

I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:

What do we separate over?

  1. The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
  2. The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
  3. The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).

[from part 3]

While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.

These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”

Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.

Sorrowful, Angry, but not Hateful: A Survivor’s Reaction to the News from FBC Hammond

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I wanted to share another post about the Jack Schaap situation. The author of this post, Lori Shaffer, contacted me and thanked me for the posts I’ve written surrounding this sad event. She wanted to share her post with me, and I must say I was very impressed.

This is written from a former First Baptist Church of Hammond member, who lived through her fair share of scandals and problems during her time there. Her perspective on the recent news is both refreshing and challenging on many fronts.

She expresses sorrow over Shaap’s sin, empathizing with what he must be going through, and she expresses grief for what the victim has suffered. But then she also expresses anger over the church’s systematic covering up of past abuse and failure to apologize to the women harmed by Dave Hyles’s sinful behavior. She calls for an openness and a public apology by the church and a change in direction regarding their teaching of the place of women. But she goes on to call us to “be angry and sin not.” She expresses dismay over how many people have been vengeful and hateful in their speech over Schaap’s fall.

Her post is worth reading in full, but let me share her conclusion:

My point? Let’s not embody the arrogance we despise. Let’s not rejoice in Schaap’s fall. Let’s not fill our hearts and mouths with venomous, vengeful speech. Let’s speak the truth. Let’s express righteous anger (which doesn’t have to be passive or timid!). Let’s turn up the light and the heat so that all remaining corruption is brought into the open. But let’s stop short of setting ourselves up as “better than.” Let’s not add to the shame of Christ by calling for castration or his rape in prison. Let’s remember who we are and whom we represent. Let’s offer love and rebuke and encouragement and truth where it’s needed. Let’s pray for those who have been despitefully used. Let’s pray for courage and wisdom for the men in leadership, who appear – for the first time in FBC history – determined to bring justice and restore the honor of Christ and His church. Let’s pray for all whose faith and lives have been crushed by Schaap’s sin. Let’s pray for righteous judgment to be meted out. Let’s pray for healing for that young lady-child. Let’s actually attempt to reflect the character of the One whose name we claim. Be angry…and sin not.

Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Performance-Based Sanctification

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

This series of posts focuses on several pitfalls that especially plague Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches. These pitfalls are wide enough to catch people of a variety of stripes, but fundamentalist Christians tend to be especially prone to these errors. Having disentangled myself from some of these very errors, I aim to lovingly warn people of the dangers associated with this way of thinking.

We looked at legalism, in the first post in this series. Today we will focus on performance-based sanctification.

Performance-based sanctification is a particular form of legalism. I have quoted C.J. Mahaney on this topic before, but perhaps the following excerpt from blogger Terry Rayburn will best convey what I mean by “performance-based sanctification.”

If you think you’re performing pretty well at a particular time, then you think you are deserving God’s love and favor, and pride sets in. Even while you know that pride comes before a fall, right? And even while you know that God resists the proud, right?

But what if you think you’re performing poorly at a particular time? What if you have been deceived by the world, the flesh and the devil, and you find yourself doing what you don’t want to do, or not doing what you want to do, like Paul describes in Romans 7?

Well, then you feel like God doesn’t love you or favor you as much, if at all, and you despair, and you shy away from Him, which makes it even worse, because you need to be in close fellowship with Him to walk in the Spirit.

And so there’s this downward spiral. And God forbid that you just pull up your bootstraps, and “will” yourself to perform better so you can swing back to the proud side.

–excerpted from “The Harm of Performance-Based Christianity” by Terry Rayburn

Can you see the yo-yo swing there? Work hard, feel good; blow it and feel terrible. Where is the confidence in God’s grace in this model? The secret to living victoriously for Christ is gritting your teeth, doing more, and not doing the things you shouldn’t do. Try, try, try. Harder, harder, harder! Don’t quit. Keep going. We say that salvation is by grace, but growing in Christ is about the will power, the commitment and the determination.

This can lead to despair or a terrible form of pride. And it leads to class of spiritual elites. Those in the church who have the right know-how and ability to toe the line, those who have their externals together, they can feel like they are a superior bunch to the others who don’t spend hours each week on visitation, who don’t attend every service and say or do the right things in front of the right people. This can creep on silently, and people can do this without even realizing it. You are always thinking of this certain group of people who don’t seem to put up and do their fair share. And for their part, they seem to hang their heads appropriately and have resigned themselves to being sub-par and so serve menially or try to stick around for some benefit from the spiritually gifted leader class. And of course both classes can tend to view outsiders with suspicion. They aren’t us. They aren’t performing to the degree or on the particular points that we are. They must not be “sold out” to God, like we are.

Preachers can feed this mentality, heaping guilt on those who know they haven’t measured up. Calling for more sacrifice and greater devotion. Recommit your life to Christ, dedicate yourself again and everything will be fine. And they can promote an aura that says they are above this struggle to live for Christ. They have arrived and we, the peons, haven’t.

All of this focuses on self, and shifts the focus away from Christ. Instead of coming to him for grace, and “preaching the Gospel” to ourselves every day, we are encouraged to keep examining ourselves and just try harder. Instead of admitting that all Christians need the grace of Christ day by day, we assume that if we can just do more, we’ll arrive in this perfect place. We need to remind ourselves instead, that we are accepted by God because of Christ’s death for us and his perfect life lived on our behalf. Jesus died to save worthless sinners. We were not worthy of Christ’s death on our behalf before we were saved, and we are not worthy of His love and acceptance after we have trusted Him either. This point, that nothing we do can make us more valuable to God, is underscored in Jadon Lavik’s song “What If.”

I am reminded of an important quote from Tim Keller:

…the gospel is not just for non-Christians, but also for Christians. This means the gospel is not just the A-B-C’s but the A to Z of the Christian life. It is not accurate to think “the gospel” is what saves non-Christians, and then, what matures Christians is trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. It is more accurate to say that we are saved by believing the gospel, and then we are transformed in every part of our mind, heart, and life by believing the gospel more and more deeply as our life goes on.

If we think of the gospel as only pardon or forgiveness of sins, we will trust in God for our past salvation, but will trust in our own present strivings and attainments for our present relationship with God… the entire Christian life is a life lived (in a continual present progressive) by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:20) …we must continually remind ourselves of our status as legally righteous, adopted children of God. [Source]

Don’t try harder in your Christian life. Focus on Jesus more. Bask in His love, and try to realize how truly amazing and dumbfounding is His grace. He shouldn’t love you, but He does! And nothing can change that. Holiness flows from true, sincere love for Christ. When we realize we are accepted in Christ, we will want to please him. This point is subtle but oh, so life-changing.

There are so many Scripture texts which teach this truth, that we need to have a Gospel-based sanctification model. One concept that helps is realizing that “salvation” in the New Testament, often refers to the final, ultimate salvation we experience in heaven (our glorification). We are saved – in this future sense, as much by grace as we are saved in the justification (present tense). It is all of grace. I’ll leave you with one Scripture text on living the Christian life in the same way we receive the Gospel, but I encourage you to check out my “The Gospel’s Work in Believers” series which expounds Scripture more on this point.

Colossians 2:6-7 KJV

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

We received Christ by faith, and that is how we must walk in him. We are built up in him, and the text goes on to say later that we are complete in him. We are accepted in Him. And that is how we live the Christian life – by faith in what Jesus has done. We walk by faith in what God says is true of us, and not by sight as to how we feel in our struggle to live lives worthy of Him. I hope this post can help some understand the peril of performance-based thinking.

Just Another Sin, or Abuse of the Worst Kind?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

I just read a great post by evangelical leader, Ed Stetzer, on the Jack Schaap incident. He makes a plea that we stop using the word “adultery” and instead use “abuse.” No matter which state the alleged liaison occurred in, or what the “age of consent” is, a 54 year old senior pastor is abusing a girl of 16 years when this kind of thing happens. I encourage you to read Stetzer’s post: “Call it What It Is: It’s Not Adultery. It’s Abuse.” I agree too, that we need to focus on praying for the victim in this matter.

I’m encouraged by the fact that First Baptist Church of Hammond is not defending Schaap, and has turned him over to the authorities (even if they are assuming no charges will be leveled against him). But some are defending him, or refusing to believe he is guilty. I don’t want to rush to condemn a man, as he is innocent until proven guilty. But the church is saying he has confessed to this dalliance with a 16 year old girl.

I am troubled by the fact that the church at Hammond is not bringing in a 3rd party to investigate the matter. They are using a biased party in David Gibbs. I wish they would follow the lead of ABWE in hiring a third party, like GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment), which has no horse in this race, so to speak. This brings to mind my post on the lessons to be learned from Joe Paterno’s case and how Penn State handled it. Fundamental Baptists (and everyone else) need to be completely above board in handling these kinds of situations.

Even more troubling is that some are saying that this is just another sin. We should be careful not to throw a stone, we too are sinners at heart. All of that is true, but we are talking about abuse, not adultery. This is a man in a position of power, abusing his position and taking advantage of an impressionable young girl. Shouldn’t there be more outrage and less sympathy? Sure, Schaap is human and has struggles with sin, and so do we all. Schaap however chose to abuse his authority and confessed to committing this most heinous of sins. For some who pride themselves in speaking so harshly against the sins of the world, homosexuality being chief among them, it is troubling that the moral outrage expressed toward those “out there” becomes so quiet when speaking about sin done by one of our own.

In this somewhat rambling post, I wanted to share a comment that literally floored me. This was given under my post sharing the news of Schaap’s dismissal and lamenting the fact that so often there is not enough mutual accountability (it would seem) in big name IFB churches. The comment below is disturbing and troubling, to say the least. And it is the epitome of defending Schaap, or so it would seem. Before I continue, let me share the comment in full.

What amazes me the most about most of these posts is how little of God’s Word is known by the posters. A New testament church is not run by deacons – deacons (Acts 6) under the direction of the pastor. You people sound like Moses’ older bother and younger sister. God leads the leader and if the leader fouls up, it is God that takes care of that and He doesn’t need half-witted self-professed theologians to take His place in taking care of His man – not deacons, elders, you people need to understand the New Testament Church; you Mr. Burton obviously do not. Abraham (and Sarah) fouled up – it was no small thing. The whole middle East problem came from that, but God took care of Abraham and on more than one occasion, It was true with Moses, David, and all the rest of the sinners in the Bible. God took care of it. I am not justifying what Schaap has done whatever it is. However, I find no biblical precedent for a mis-trained deacon board to take it upon themselves to touch God’s anointed. A spiritual (Gal 6) man may have counseled him to resign and take time to heal in the process of restoration. You people want to stone him to death! Call me, I’ll send all of you without sin a bag of rocks to throw at him! Bunch of stinkin’ hypocrites!

[Written by R.S. Brewer.]

This seems to be a version of a concept that Jack Hyles was known to teach from time to time: the idea that we can earn enough “brownie points” with God that we are so valuable to Him, that He needs us. God needs His man, so He’ll excuse this sin and that because He sees the man really has a heart for God, in spite of the sin. This is very dangerous thinking. The New Testament does not condone this mentality. Read the book of Hebrews. We can’t play with fire, and there are very clear qualifications given for leaders in the New Testament. Furthermore, it is a misunderstanding of church government. The church has responsibility collectively to hold their leaders in check. Such a top-down approach is unBiblical when applied to a church. The Church is not a state, and not the equal of the Israelite theocracy of the Old Testament.

In conclusion, we must ask ourselves: “Is Jack Schaap’s sin just a run-of-the-mill moral failure? Or is it abuse of the worst kind?” We can’t dance around the bush here, we must call it what it is. If new facts come out which exonerate Schaap, then we will stand corrected, but if we take FBC Hammond’s word (and we have no reason not to), than we have to conclude that Schaap is guilty of the most heinous of sins for any pastor to commit, and whether or not he is convicted in a court of law, and whether his actions were technically legal or not, his abuse disqualifies him from holding the office of a pastor, ever again. If this action doesn’t mar the “good report” of those without that a pastor must have, I don’t know what does.

Schaap can still repent, restore his marriage, and live for Jesus. He can have meaningful ministry service in a church, but he should not be a pastor ever again. Let’s be clear on that.