Category: IFBx

What Makes a Church a Cult?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

I was reading through a detailed article in Chicago Magazine (starts on pt. 78) on Jack Schaap’s fall and the history and legacy of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN (HT: Sharper Iron Filings; more on Schaap here), and I came across an excellent description of what makes a church a cult. I added the numbers to the quote below to list out the four marks of a cult that were mentioned.

What makes a church a cult? I asked Rick Ross, whose nonprofit institute maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements. (He says he is not familiar with the details of First Baptist.) Ross points to a landmark 1981 Harvard study on cult formation, which suggests that all cults, destructive or not, share three elements: [1] an absolute authoritarian leader who defines the group; [2] a “thought program” that includes “control of the environment, control of information, and people subordinating themselves and their feelings to the demands of the leader”; and [3] a lack of accountability for the head of the group. Another common characteristic of cults, Ross says, is that [4] they use shame and some sort of exploitation–financial, spiritual, or sexual–to exercise control. Members of a Bible-based group for example are made to believe that “it’s a sin of pride for you to think for yourself,” he says. “It’s your ego or a demon or Satan’s influence that causes you to doubt the edicts of the leadership.” [bold emphasis added]

Most people I know who have come out of a strict fundamentalist background refere to their former church as cultic. The points above seem to validate this concern. The group I was connected with would qualify as cultic according to this definition.

I shared this quote at Sharper Iron, where they are discussing this article as a whole. I wanted to share it here too, for my audience. What do you think? Are we off base to point to a fundamentalist church and say it is cultic?

“Accidental Pharisees: Avoiding Pride, Exclusivity, and the Other Dangers of Overzealous Faith” by Larry Osborne

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Book Details:
  • Author: Larry Osborne
  • Category: Christian Living
  • Publisher: Zondervan (2012)
  • Format: softcover
  • Page Count: 208
  • ISBN#: 9780310494447
  • List Price: $14.99
  • Rating: Recommended

Review:
Books on the Pharisees make many people nervous or defensive. No one wants to be labeled a Pharisee, and we’re all sure that whatever they were, they weren’t us. Larry Osborne approaches this from a more gracious angle, he describes people as “accidental Pharisees” in his new book Accidental Pharisees: Avoiding Pride, Exclusivity, and the Other Dangers of Overzealous Faith. If you’re already suspicious of that title, let me encourage you to give it some thought. With everything in the Gospels about the Pharisees, perhaps God really does want us to take some time and study their unique problems and learn how not to be like them.

Osborne’s writing style is light yet direct, he communicates with analogies from modern day life and personal anecdotes and has a mastery of humor. Yet his message is serious and at times, he spares no punches. His book attacks pride, exclusivity and the tribalism which characterizes so much of contemporary Christianity, whether we realize it or not. He shows the dark side of movement-based Christian movements such as “Spirit-led, missional, incarnational, gospel-Centered, or some other current Christian buzzword.” As Osborne puts it, “You’ll find it hard not to look down on those who don’t even know there’s a buzzword to conform to” (pg. 48).

Perhaps the best way to explain how close to home Osborne’s analysis is will be to string together some quotes which capture the essence of both his style and his message. Fundamentalist Christianity such as I hail from, will be eager to write off Osborne’s critique as extreme, unloving, or errant. I wish that conscientious fundamentalists would put down their defense, however, and give Osborne an ear. It never hurts to subject oneself to scrutiny. They might just find that his critique is restorative, and his objections spur them on toward a closer conformity to Scripture and a more holistic approach to spirituality that recognizes the need to encourage the weak and guards against the all-too-natural pull toward pride and exclusivity.

What follows then, are several hard-hitting quotes from Osborne:

Gold-Package Fences

The gold-package fences were designed to keep sin out…. Apparently, God’s fences werent’ good enough. So we added some extra ones to help him out. For instance, God had a fence that said, “Don’t get drunk,” so we added one that said don’t drink. He had another fence that said, “Don’t fornicate,” so we added one that said don’t dance. he also had one that said, “Don’t love money,” so we added one that limited the size of the house you could live in and the price of the car you could drive…. It didn’t take me long to sign up for the gold package. I wanted to be the best Christian possible. The extra rules and fences provided a track to run on and a great way to show God and everyone else that I was serious about following Jesus. I gave it my best shot. But I noticed that all the rules and fences didn’t do much to make me more like Jesus. I still struggled with all the same sins as [I] did [with] the stripped-down model. Well, actually, I had one more to deal with: pride. (pg. 96)

Legalism vs. Mercy

The absolute worst thing about legalism is what it does to mercy. It casts it aside, then walks away. It leaves people who need mercy most to fend for themselves and castigates those who offer mercy as spiritual compromisers who water down the gospel…. Legalists offer mercy. But the mercy they offer has limits. They have plenty of mercy for those overseas, mercy for those who face tough odds, mercy for those who don’t yet know Jesus. But there’s very little mercy for struggling brothers and sisters in Christ. There’s not much sympathy for people who are weak and faltering. For those folks, there’s nothing but a harsh rebuke and stinging exhortations to catch up with the rest of us, often with a disclaimer that they’re probably not even real Christians anyway. (pg. 103, 107)

Theological Uniformity

Ironically, the more fervently we pursue theological uniformity, the more the Bible takes a back seat, even among people who pride themselves on having the Bible in the navigator’s seat. that’s because the lens of uniformity insists that everyone interpret difficult or controversial Scripture passages exactly the same way. there’s no room for differing opinions, blind spots, or simply being wrong. Those who don’t toe the company line are cast aside. The result is that every time a tough biblical question comes up, we have to consult the tribal manual for the “correct” answer. Instead of our answers and theology flowing out of the Bible, we end up with answers and theological systems superimposed upon the Bible and read back into it. Eventually the Bible becomes nothing more than a proof text for what our tribe already believes…. But let’s be honest. most of our most heated disputes are not about matters that, when we get them wrong, will send us to hell. Granted, many are about important things–very important things–but it’s a stretch to call them eternal. And that’s why it’s also a stretch to think that God approves when we let our pursuit of theological uniformity escalate to the point that it tears apart his family or closes up the Bible. (pg. 146, 149)

I could go on and on quoting Osborne’s insights. He speaks of idolizing the past, spiritual gift projection, drive-by guiltings and more. He also speaks of the importance of bearing one another’s burdens and fighting for real unity in the church. Frankly, at times, Osborne hits too close to home, for comfort!

After hearing Osborne and his passion, let me insist that there is more to the book than harsh criticism of the harsh legalism that abounds in today’s Christianity. Osborne lovingly helps those who see these tendencies in themselves, and he frankly admits that many of these traits were first discovered in his own heart. Ultimately this book offers hope and inoculates believers from a Christianity that is more about scoring points for the home team, then about pointing people to Jesus Christ. I hope you’ll pick up this book and add it to your “must-read” pile for 2013. Or after reading it yourself, you may consider giving it to a friend who might appreciate this encouragement too.

Author Info:
Larry Osborne is a teaching pastor at North Coast Church in northern San Diego County. North Coast is widely recognized as one of the most influential and innovative churches in America. Osborne speaks extensively on the subjects of leadership and spiritual formation. His books include Sticky Teams, Sticky Church, 10 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe, and Spirituality for the Rest of Us. He and his wife, Nancy, live in Oceanside, California.

Where to Buy:
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • direct from Zondervan.

Disclaimer:
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Powerless Preaching

~ Bob Hayton

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.

In previous posts we looked at legalism and performance-based sanctification. Today we will look at powerless preaching.

This point may be the most ironic of all. If there is any group of churches which pride themselves on old-fashioned, hell-fire and brimstone preaching, it is independent fundamental Baptists. The patron saint of preaching, Billy Sunday, was unfortunately an ordained Presbyterian. But Baptists love him nonetheless. It is Billy Sunday’s dramatic style that so many fundamentalist preachers seek to emulate. Something about jumping up on top of the pulpit, swinging from the rafters and yelling at the top of one’s lungs appeals to a good many people, I guess.

But for all the bluster and all the bravado, the preaching in many fundamentalist pulpits is quite shallow and powerless. Now this kind of preaching can sure keep the church members in line. It can make people squirmish and even have them stocking up on antacid. But does it really facilitate a meaningful change in their life?

It should go without saying that pretty much anyone can get up there and scream at people. Jack Schaap was as big a preacher as they come. He thundered from the pulpit of the largest IFB church in the land, and boy did he sound good. But screaming about the liberals and the cowardly in the congregation does not amount to godliness, and neither does it facilitate growth.

Often this powerless preaching takes the form of a “toe-stomping” sermon—a hard-hitting, guilt-heaping sermon. One of my more colorfully titled posts, and a favorite from my early years of blogging was “Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching.” That post and the exchange in the comments section is worth reading as you think through the matter of powerless preaching. But in an effort to be crystal clear in my critique here, I want to excerpt most of another post on preaching, where I gave a case study which helps explain the problem in a more direct fashion.

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.

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.

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.