Tag: abuse

J. Frank Norris on Loyalty & Pastoral Leadership

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Here is an excerpt from The Shooting Salvationist by David R. Stokes, a detailed account of J. Frank Norris’ murder trial. My review of the book is forthcoming. This excerpt reveals how the fundamentalist leader thought in terms of how to run his “business”, i.e. his church. How many fundamentalist pastors and leaders have followed his lead in this regard, I wonder? And all of them to the disregard of 1 Pet. 5:2-3. How sad.

________________________________________

Norris fascinated students at Southwestern Baptist Seminary across town from his church. Though they were discouraged from associating with the preacher because of his antagonism toward the denomination, some found a way to see the controversial clergyman in action. And when one of them had the courage to try to visit Norris at his office, risking the wrath of seminary officials, J. Frank was gleefully accommodating.

Roy Kemp was one such gutsy guy. When he decided to pay a call on Norris, the ever-present secretary-gatekeeper, Miss Jane Hartwell, ushered him immediately into the preacher’s office on the second floor of the church’s Sunday school building.

“Roy, I take it you have come up to find out how I run my business,” Norris said, looking fiercely at Kemp.

“Yes, sir.”

The preacher then pointed to a portrait on his wall — one of a locomotive — and told his visitor that he was like that powerful lead car on a train forcing all in its way off the tracks. He pointed to another picture on another wall — Napoleon Bonaparte — and said:

Roy, do you know that man’s philosophy? One: he believed — and said so — that no man ever served another man except for personal gain. Two: Or, out of fear. He would never have a man around him for long who had his first allegiance to any other man or woman. Full and unconditional allegiance had to be to him and him personally. That’s the way I run my business!

Quotes to Note 30: Pastors as True Shepherds or Mere “Mutton Farmers”

~ Bob Hayton

Recently, I’ve been reading some forums that have been lamenting poor leadership in certain IFBx circles. Some have shared painful testimonies about years of harsh treatment by parents and teachers who ostensibly cared about the children’s welfare, but ultimately just rejected them (literally throwing them out, and disowning them completely) when it became clear that they weren’t keeping in step with the brand of fundamentalism these pastors and church leaders advocated.

Then I stumbled across this quote in studying for my Men’s Bible Study lesson on Mark 6:31-44 where Jesus looks on the crowds with compassion and considers that: “they were like sheep without a shepherd.” I almost started weeping when I read these words about what a true shepherd should be. Praise Jesus he is not like some of the “shepherds” I’ve known…

Most contemporary listeners are unfamiliar with the job description of a shepherd. Lena Woltering has pointed out that a shepherd “is needed only when there are no fences. He is someone who stays with his sheep at all cost, guiding, protecting, and walking with them through the fields. He’s not just a person who raises sheep.” They lead sheep to food and water and are ever mindful of the sheep’s condition (Gen. 33:13). They gather lambs that cannot keep up in their arms (Isa. 40:11). They seek out lost sheep, and when they find them, they carry them back to the fold on their sholders (Luke 15:5). They guard against predators and thieves. It is a dirty and hard job. Woltering castigates those bishops who regard themselves as “tenders of the flock” and brands them as little more than “mutton farmers.” “They build fence after fence after fence, keeping the flock within sight so they don’t have to dirty their feet plodding along the open fields.” They turn the difficult role of shepherd into a position of rank and superiority and sequester themselves from the sheep. Ezekiel’s castigation of the self-indulgent and irresponsible shepherds in his day (Ezek. 34) is no less applicable today to those who want to dominate and crush others rather than feed them. — David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary, pg. 258-259 [quotes from Woltering were cited in Salt of the Earth 15 (July/August, 1995), 34]

2 More Essential Reads on the 20/20 IFB Scandal

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

First off, Dr. Kevin Bauder recently responded to “The Scandal” which was covered by ABC News’ 20/20 show last Friday. I’ve given my own responses here:

I’m pleased to see Dr. Bauder’s words of caution directed to fundamentalists. Here is an excerpt from his article. He doesn’t dwell on any specific cases but shows what the general reaction to this and many other similar reports by the news media should be on this particular problem.

Our anger (and we should be angry!) should not be directed against the victims who have appealed to other authorities, but against those spiritual authorities who abdicated their responsibility to defend the powerless….

Our first response must be to refocus upon personal integrity. Many accusations are true, but in the present atmosphere the possibility of false accusations ought to strike fear into every minister. All it takes is one, unsupported claim to end a ministry. Consequently, we have a duty to live our lives such that no credible charge can be leveled against us. We must go out of our way to ensure that we avoid even the appearance of impropriety. How? By common sense precautions. We will install windows so that people can see into our offices. We will never be alone with any female other than our wives and daughters. We will never be alone with a child, even of the same sex, other than our own children. We will never touch a minor in any way except in full view of other adults””and we will guard those touches carefully against misunderstanding.

Just as importantly, our second response must be prevention. We cannot change what has already happened, but we can do our best to ensure that it will not happen again. Every church needs a child protection policy. The policy should define when and where adults are allowed to have contact with minors at church activities. It should prohibit adults from being alone with minors in an unsupervised environment. It should require everyone involved in ministry to minors to receive specific training aimed at avoiding abusive relationships. Very importantly, it should require a background check for every church member who works with minors. It should specify procedures for pursuing complaints and suspicions. It should be widely distributed so that every parent knows its provisions. For a good example of such a policy in a secular organization, churches might look at the Cadet Protection Policy of the Civil Air Patrol.

Our third response should involve prosecution. When pastors and church leaders become aware of abusive situations, they should report these situations to police and child protective agencies. In fact, they should do more than to report. They should demand that the authorities take action. Concerns over confidentiality are badly out of place here, as are concerns over 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. Paul was not writing to the Corinthians about situations in which crimes were being committed or the powerless being victimized. In most states, pastors have a legal obligation to report any situation that they even suspect of being abusive. Justice and protection for victims requires action against abusers. Christian leaders have a duty to protect the powerless. Too often have they adopted the role of shielding the abuser.

The fourth response is more systemic, but just as necessary. Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.

Pastoral authority extends no further than the right to proclaim and implement the teachings of Scripture. Pastors must recognize the God-ordained authority of the congregation, and congregations must hold pastors accountable. Churches must seek pastors who focus upon the exposition of Scripture, who are gentle in their dealings with people, who are open and transparent, and who welcome criticism and accountability. Most of all, churches must reject numerical and financial growth as a measure of success and realize that the very first qualification of any minister is that he must give evidence of knowing and loving God.

Baptist fundamentalism has endured dark episodes in the past, but none has been blacker or more ugly that the present hour. We have no one else to blame. We have been too lax for too long. If the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, then we should welcome the purifying effect that the exposure of sin will have upon us, and we should respond rightly.

I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Secondly, you should read this testimony from Laurie Moody a former member of the church that was highlighted on the 20/20 episode, and one who knows the victim (Tina Anderson) and her family firsthand. Her testimony rings true to me, and also fills in some additional details which seem to answer some of the lingering questions.

On another note, Pastor Chuck Phelps continues to defend himself here, with no clear apology to Tina for the way things were handled. I add his link for those who may not have seen that side of the story yet.

I think this will be my last post on this issue, I just wanted to tie up the loose ends for those getting this news from my site. I do hope that something changes with Phelps’ response that merits a later post, but I’m not expecting anything, unfortunately.

20/20 IFB take 3

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

I’ve been at The Gospel Coalition Conference and so haven’t been reading up on lots of the debate over the 20/20 IFB scandal anymore. I actually started typing up a response to someone’s question about this on my blog and ended up writing so much that it should be it’s own post. So here’s my latest thoughts on the 20/20 IFB scandal.

Q: Bob, as a former IFBer, where are you both logically and emotionally on this 20/20 debacle?

A: I don’t condone a wholesale rejection of IFB churches. I said so in this and the next post I made on this topic. I do think that some have been so harmed by bad IFB churches or people, that they have a hard time when it comes to assessing the movement as a whole. They read their experience into it all. The problem is that so many have had such similar experiences from so many different IFB churches and groups within the larger IFB movement, that there is a level of credence to some of these broad brush statements made by some.

ABWE recently did an about face and admitted they covered up a sex scandal of their own but have since made huge changes. That was refreshing to see their willingness to own up to their downfall and allowing of a culture of abuse, and their desire to repent and take radical steps to bring lasting change. That is a healthy institutional change that can serve as a pattern for fundamentalism.

Do IFB churches have enough checks and balances built in? I think most don’t. Work can be done and organizations can work to change.

Technically, IFB churches are independent and distinct. But try disagreeing with one IFB church in a public way…. See if many IFB churches will be willing to have anything to do with you. There is a certain groupthink mindset common to them at one level or another.

So for some, Zichterman’s IFB Cult survivors group is a help. It might keep them from abandoning the faith and help them in sorting out what they went through. But lashing out and blaming all IFB churches as a whole isn’t productive or healthy and that happens at that group. But responding with an attitude that says we have no problems, and that is someone else’s problem not ours, doesn’t help either. There may be no direct blame, but IFB churches all populate the same culture and mindset. And that needs to change. The environment that lets pastors say wild things about child raising. Things such as were said at the church I went to school at, which are not all that dissimilar to the clips played of Jack Schaap in the report…. That stuff shouldn’t be left to stand. The people in the pew go a step further in their desire to follow the “preacher” and that’s where abuse can happen. It has happened. Often. Lots of places. And pretending that it doesn’t happen doens’t help.

Not every IFB church promotes this. But many will not separate from those churches and ministries that promote this authoritarian, “man of Gawd”, spiritual abuse mentality. Often it’s politics, plain and simple. There is a church politics about who not to offend and what not to do. And basically mums the word about abuse scandals. Preacher is always innocent until proven guilty (and then it’s a stacked jury full of liberals, most likely). We don’t help the abused victims well, we hush hush and cover up sin of all kinds. We don’t practice Biblical church discipline. The problems of the IFB movement go on and on.

There are exceptions to this. But generally speaking, from all over the IFB movement, the IFB churches in general find it much easier to separate with churches and people on their left, than those among them or to the right of them, who promote an unhealthy sectarianism, authoritarianism, and other abuses. I’m not the only one noticing this. Dr. Dave Doran recently said much the same thing of his (what I would say good side of fundamentalism). They won’t separate from the cooks and wackos on the right. Pastor Bob Bixby has noticed this too.

I currently don’t go to an IFB church. I think too much independence is a bad thing. I still am a fundamentalist in principle, but the application of separation has room for a diversity of practice in my view.

Emotionally, I’m sickened by the abuse. I watched the show thinking how believable the story was. Everything I’ve encountered in my history with the IFB — scandals in two or three of the churches I’ve been in, incidents swept under the rug or not handled correctly — leans me toward accepting Tina’s tale as is. I know there’s another side to the story. It might be true. But as a big shot in fundamentalism, this pastor has every reason to sidestep the difficult questions and dodge the bullet. I don’t see apologies or sadness over what happened from that side of the story. I see defense. I am angered by this, too. I think of many people I know who have jettisoned from Christianity altogether due to their sinful response to the spiritual or physical abuse they received at the hands of fundamentalism. Yes they are wrong to react the way they do, but they have also been wronged.

I am encouraged by positive reactions by some to this issue. Some fundamentalist leaders are sickened by it and are not excusing things. They aren’t fighting for loopholes. They aren’t condemning the pastor since the investigation is pending, but aren’t rushing to his defense. They also aren’t sidestepping the problem and acting like it doesn’t exist in fundamentalism. That is a healthy sign and it’s proof that there are good IFB churches out there.

Hope this answers your question and explains where I’m coming from. This is all I’m going to say on this topic for a while until more facts come to light on this. I’m going to try to enjoy my conference, now!

Independence, Influence and IFB Churches: Followup on the 20/20 Report

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

Here’s a few more thoughts about the 20/20 report on Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches. These may be random, but I thought I’d push this out for clarity.

First off, I want to explain for people who don’t know, what an Independent Fundamental Baptist church is. It’s independent in that, it doesn’t have a denominational hierarchy. Such churches are often part of a fellowship of likeminded churches, or they associate with other churches connected with a Bible camp or a college. But no one can tell them what to do directly, hence they are independent. They are fundamental, but not in the sense of being firebombers or radicals. Fundamental or Fundamentalist refers to the fundamentals of the faith and the struggle between conservatives and modernists back in the 1920s (I have some info on that here).

Secondly, while in theory IFB churches are independent, in practice they are interdependent. This story could really be just about one church in New Hampshire, and some of these abuse stories are about one crazy church or one incident by a bad person. For instance, Fred Phelps (no relation to Chuck Phelps), the infamous pastor who protests the funerals of soldiers and who hates gays, he is an IFB pastor. But his church truly is an island and has virtually no influence among the vast majority of IFB churches. His could truly be said to be a cult. But the churches and pastors in the report are not isolated like Phelps’ small church (composed mostly of his own family members) is. Two of the pastors named in the report, Chuck Phelps and Matt Olson, both were at one time presidents of large influential Bible Colleges that train pastors. Phelps was president at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, and Olson currently is the president of Northland Baptist Bible College. The 20/20 report didn’t mention that fact, but it certainly dispels the notion that whatever happened is just a local, minor incident. The fact that both Olson and Phelps dealt with issues poorly (at least per the 20/20 take on things), does reflect a wider problem among IFB churches in general. Additionally, the air time given to Jack Schaap’s rantings is not insignficant. He is the president of another Bible college with a large influence over thousands of IFB churches. The preacher boys at Hyles-Anderson College are going to emulate Jack Schaap and pick up on his denigration of women. So that isn’t just a minor issue among IFB churches either.

I still stand by my thoughts that IFB churches in general are not all bad. There are many good IFB churches and the movement as a whole is changing and growing. But there are bad apples, and a tendency to produce or insulate bad apples. Let’s not ignore that.

For additional reading, Pastor Brian Fuller of Trinity Baptist in New Hampshire explains why he allowed 20/20 cameras into the church. I do think he did a great job (as good as could be expected), given the circumstances and I’m thankful he let the cameras in. But StuffFundiesLike.com brings up some important points too. Normally that website doesn’t major on thoughtful commentary, preferring to illustrate absurdities among fundamentalists. The commentary on the 20/20 report, though, was actually quite insightful. I think there are valid points raised there worth thinking through.

Christianity is not served by churches refusing to budge and admit they have problems. But Christianity is also not about being perfect and having no problems. This IFB scandal is not a reason to bail on Christianity. It might be a reason to bring up questions with your church and pastor, or to think through whether you are in a good church. But the potential for abuse is widespread and goes beyond IFB churches only.

For those looking to help their churches or looking for help in handling abuse situations, I recommend listening to this interview on Reformed Cast on the problem of abuse in the Church. You can also learn more at GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment).