Linda Murphrey, daughter of Jack Hyles — the former pastor of First Baptist Hammond, at one time the self-proclaimed largest church in the world — has written an open letter to the church at this time, knowing Schaap’s sentencing was scheduled for today. Schaap is her brother-in-law, and Linda grew up on the inside of the ministry, and in the very home of, the most powerful man in fundamentalism in the 1970s and 80s. Her letter includes an apology and an admission of the secret double life that Hyles lived, and Schaap perpetuated.
For anyone who knows something of the history of First Baptist of Hammond, and Jack Hyles, this letter is quite amazing to read. It is written with such grace and humility, fervor and love, and above all, honesty. I encourage you to read it and pray for the future of First Baptist of Hammond. The current leadership there has a vested interest to deny the truth of Linda’s letter. This wing of fundamentalism cannot admit that Hyles was phony. So much of their very ethos is tied to his persona — at least it would seem. But I pray that many who have been shaken by these events can find grace and help in her first-hand testimony. May her final words come true:
Hopefully this is a new beginning for the thousands of walking wounded. Hopefully the end of an era has arrived. And hopefully the baton has finally been destroyed.
As you move forward, may you find complete healing from all that has hurt you. May you find peace from the turmoil caused by the abuse of religion. May you abandon man-worship and forsake the venomous spirit of fundamentalism.
And may you completely undo the God of Jack Hyles, embark on a personal journey to discover who God really is and experience a joyful life living in complete freedom and truth. [link to Linda’s letter]
In my recent review of John Dickerson’s new book The Great Evangelical Recession, I was not able to spend as much time as I would have liked on Dickerson’s thoughts regarding the “fragmentation of evangelicalism.” This dis-unity of evangelicalism is indeed a problem, but there are a host of competing views as to what is the exact nature of this problem!
In his book, I found Dickerson’s emphasis on this point to be superb. He boldly calls the church to draw a clear line as to who is in and who is out of the evangelical movement, particularly with regard to the abandonment of penal substitution and inerrancy (p. 157). With regard to these positions, Dickerson says, “I believe it’s time we graciously call such revisions what they are: non-evangelical” (p. 157). Yet at the same time, he labors to point out how we need to be less divisive on the non-essential matters such as politics and some of our doctrinal differences. He lauds Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga and Carl F.H. Henry as men who “parsed a difficult trail between theological liberalism on the left and belligerent reactionism on the right” (p. 219). “True evangelicalism,” he says, “is uncompromising on the essentials and unconditionally gracious on the non-essentials” (p. 161).
In a recent interview of the author by Trevin Wax, Dickerson elaborates again on his vision for evangelical unity. The exchange below is reflective very much of my own views, at this point. I guess I could consider myself a “true evangelical” (if we want another label to be thrown around)! I remain conservative in theology but see the need to be welcoming and gracious (to a point) in how I hold to my various theological and cultural positions. I am interested in my readers’ thoughts on this topic and their assessment of Dickerson’s view as well. So read the excerpt below and let me know what you think.
Trevin Wax:What role does the fragmentation of evangelicalism into distinct tribes and camps play in the “recession” you believe is on the horizon? What can Christians do to combat this tendency toward fragmentation?
John Dickerson: In the book I get to spend two chapters – Dividing and Uniting – on these questions. This is one of my favorite topics, because Jesus spoke so often of the unity of His true believers (see John 17:20-23 in particular).
The power of diverse churches working together was, in my estimate, the greatest strength of American evangelicalism during the 20th Century. And yes, the “fragmentation” of the “movement” plays a huge role in the present decline of American evangelicalism.
Humanly speaking, it will take a miracle to combat fragmentation in the 21st Century. Presently, I see evangelicals falling into the same three positions they took during the early 20th Century, in the Fundamentalists vs. Liberalism debates.
I see more evangelicals separating and defining themselves by who they oppose. This is really a new manifestation of Fundamentalism. Simultaneously, other so-called “evangelicals” are getting soft on Scripture and atonement. They are essentially reincarnations of the old theological liberals who sabotaged the mainline denominations. History demonstrates that those extreme oppositional and capitulating views both fail Christ and the Church over time.
Back in the 1940′s and 50′s, Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga and Carl F.H. Henry, cut an intentional path between Fundamentalism and Liberalism. They avoided the militant negativity on one hand, and they avoided the spongy pluralism on the other. These men cast vision for an evangelical movement truly defined by both grace and truth. My heart, my real passion is for a new generation to step in where Graham, Ockenga and Henry once did, to rally evangelical believers around Christ again.
I pray regularly that God will lift up a new generation of Spirit-led 21st Century Evangelical leaders who will clean that old path between the two extremes—the path that is uncompromising on doctrine and Scripture, but also gracious, loving and ultimately focused outward, toward the world we are called to reach.
This was my driving passion in writing this book, to perhaps be a small voice in a bigger conversation toward evangelical unity in the 21st Century. It is a passionate prayer of mine that God raises up leaders like this for our generation – to lead souls and organizations down this road of uncompromising Grace and Truth. Biblical unity is more important than ever—but it’s also more challenging than ever.
Trevin Wax:What can Christians do to combat this tendency toward fragmentation?
John Dickerson: The book really digs into this, but here are a few passing thoughts.
We have to stop tearing each other down, period.
We have to actually believe Jesus’ words in John 17:23, when He prayed “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:23). According to Jesus, unity is a guaranteed apologetic for His followers. Because Jesus took this seriously, we’d better start taking it seriously.
We do have to graciously clarify non-evangelical departures from the atonement and the infallibility of Scripture, and part company when non-evangelical doctrines are held.
We have to start local—by praying with and caring for other pastors and leaders in our proximity.
We have to start praying for the Kingdom, beyond our own congregation and brand. At Cornerstone in Prescott, we often pray—by name—for other evangelical congregations in our city. We do this during our Sunday worship, as we pray that God’s Kingdom would truly come and His will would be done in our community.
We must unite around Christ Himself as the Head of the Church—and around His simple Gospel message of salvation by faith alone in His work on the cross alone.
We must maintain Scriptural authority as an essential in the unifying creeds. As the nursery song says, we only know how much Jesus loves me, because “the Bible tells me so.”
Book Details:
• Author: John S. Dickerson
• Category: Church Life
• Publisher: Baker Books (2013)
• Format: softcover
• Page Count: 256
• ISBN#: 9780801014833
• List Price: $14.99
• Rating: Must Read
Review: The sands are shifting. The times are changing. And like an ant on the edge of a sand trap, the American Church can sense something is happening. Ask any observer of Evangelicalism — inside the Church or out — and you will hear some explanation for the problem. Some point to our own failings, and others point at the encroaching tide of secularism. It’s our smug self-satisfaction, or it’s the bold advance of the homosexual agenda. But something is wrong, and change is afoot.
Although many recognize that times are changing, few see anything as dramatic as a recession on the Church’s horizon. But this is exactly what author John S. Dickerson expects. His book The Great Evangelical Recession paints a stark picture of what the American Church will face in the next 20 years. Dickerson draws on his experience as a first-rate journalist as he uncovers six trends which together spell the end of church as we know it. And by the end of the first half of his book, the reader will be convinced that, whether we like it or not, change is coming. But Dickerson is more than just a journalist: he is also the senior pastor of a growing church in Arizona. He offers the Church six corresponding solutions to the big trends that are targeting us as Christians in the 21st Century. And while his solutions are not easy, they have the potential to transform the Church in ways that will enable it to stay true to its mission no matter how devastating the cultural changes may be.
The Looming Recession
Dickerson compares the state of Evangelical Christianity in America today to the days before the recent financial recession that shook our country. Evangelicals in America have long been assumed to be a powerful juggernaut – a force to be reckoned with. Various polls put our numbers at between 25 and 40% of the population. But this sense of health and vitality is misplaced. Dickerson points to several pollsters who from a variety of perspectives and with independent measures all place the size of Evangelicalism at between 7 to 8.9% of the population — about 22 million strong. What makes this picture all the bleaker is that the Church is losing a high percentage of its young people and failing to keep pace with the growth of the general population.
Not only are we smaller than we thought, but we are increasingly aware of how the values we hold dearly are held in utter contempt by more and more people in the general population. The pro-homosexual movement in America has turned the tide in American thought in an unbelievably short time frame. And the trend is toward a normalcy of same-sex marriage and the increasing inability to even entertain debate on the question. By virtue of this one issue alone, the Church will become even more hated and marginalized in the years to come.
Faced with threat from without and a decline in numbers, the Church cannot afford to be so divided, but that is another trend which is building today. The polarized populace, split down the middle when it comes to politics, reflects the Evangelical church today, too. Politics, theology, and cultural traditions are a few of the many causes which separate the church in its most vulnerable time. And we are also becoming more and more hindered by a lack of funds. The older, faithful generation of givers is passing off the scene. And while larger institutions are able to continue, the Evangelical church will soon be realizing the same trouble that plagued mainline denominations years ago. The bankruptcy of the Crystal Cathedral, points to a bleak future, as this trend-setting church went belly-up, so too will many Evangelical institutions which are so beholden to the Almighty Dollar.
This bleak picture is often ignored or explained away by evangelical church leaders, who are sometimes too insulated from their location within Christian America, Dickerson contends, to truly be objective when it comes to evaluating the state of the Church. Dickerson hopes through his book, to encourage Christian leaders to own up to these problems facing us and to be willing to reevaluate how and why we do what we do. His solutions are not novel, nor are they edgy, but they may prove to be radical.
A Blueprint for the Future
In the final half of the book, Dickerson unveils his blueprint for our future. And it is here where the author gets emotional and starts preaching! He calls us to “release the way American church was done in the 20th century” in order to “rebuild and restore a culture of discipleship” (p. 186). And he chides, “We have gotten so much better at church than Jesus of Nazareth” (p. 187). He wonders “Will we spend the next decade working harder and harder at fundraising — or working harder and harder at disciple making?” (p. 174). His solution boils down to discipleship, one-on-one evangelism in the context of real life, and an emphasis on leaders training people to disciple others. He wants to bring back churches from the business-mindset toward a biblical one. Part-time, vocational ministers are both more biblical and more sustainable in light of the future financial difficulties sure to come.
His emphasis on streamlining church to be more discipleship focused also comes with a call to being noticeably good to the increasingly foreign culture that surrounds us:
We must stop acting so surprised that a pagan society, with its many tribes, would be hostile toward us. It’s time we stopped firing arrows at the hostages we’re called to rescue. It’s time we start going into the darkness with undeniable goodness. It’s time we sacrifice ourselves as Christ did…
The hostilities we encounter today — and in the coming decades — may seem severe to us. They are often soft next to the hostilities encountered by Christ, by Stephen, by Paul… Will we respond with self-sacrificing genuine love and concern, as Christ and His apostles did? Or will we respond in self-defense, fear, and reaction, as human nature does? (p. 149)
He also calls the church to a more tangible unity: “we no longer have the luxury of dividing ourselves internally” (p. 162). He calls us to draw firm lines at the edges of our movement and not stand for denials of Scriptural authority, but he also calls us to charitably allow for differences in the non-essentials, theological, political and practical.
In his conclusion, Dickerson draws parallels with the Reformers who looked at how church was done in their era and were not afraid to correct it with the Bible. “The Reformers before us abandoned comfort and convenience to boldly lead Christ’s church. If we wish to lead His church now, we must abandon many comforts from the 20th-century church paradigm” (p. 220-221).
Evaluation
This is a well-written and eminently readable book. I found the premise both captivating and alarming. Dickerson marshals the evidence well and includes numerous vignettes that flesh out the abstract concepts under discussion. He displays a command of the literature analyzing evangelicalism, and is a true insider to the movement. His unique mix of journalist and pastor, positions him well to write this book. And his thoughts on a cure are spot on. I was struck by how simple and biblical they were, yet how practical and relevant. And these are no mere social theories. One can see that for the last several years, the author has been seeking to implement these very principles in his own church of five hundred.
As more and more people flock to mega-churches of every variety, we are losing our ability to see the bigger picture. My church and yours may be growing, but small church after small church is folding. How many new converts to Christianity do you know? How many new disciples are in your congregation? Are you too busy with the latest Christian fad to notice the sputtering state of American Christianity?
Many will miss Dickerson’s message, and some will ignore it. I encourage you to pick up his book and think through it. You may disagree with some of his solutions, but you can’t fault him for trying. This book is a valiant attempt to warn the Church of its coming dark days, and it isn’t all doom and gloom. Dickerson presents a hope-filled view of the future that is tethered to the Biblical commission to make disciples. May we heed his message before it is too late!
Let me also offer a plug for an interview of the author by Trevin Wax — it will help give you a better sense of where the author is coming from, than my sympathetic review can.
Author Info: John S. Dickerson is senior pastor of Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Prescott, Arizona. An award-winning journalist, his work has earned dozens of honors, including one of the nation’s highest, the Livingston Award for Young Journalists, given by Tom Brokaw and Charles Gibson. The Arizona Newspaper Association named Dickerson “Journalist of the Year” when he was just 24. John routinely publishes op-ed columns in some of the nation’s largest newspapers and is a sought after speaker. He lives with his wife and children in Arizona.
Al Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.
Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.
Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:
After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.
Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”
The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.
The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.
In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.
This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?
Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”
Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.
Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.
Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.
Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.
So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.
Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).
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?
The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
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).
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).
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.
