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).