Tag: Chuck Phelps

Chuck Phelps Resigns from the BJU Board

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

Since I pointed to Chuck Phelps’ presence on the BJU board as evidence that fundamentalism doesn’t treat mishandling of sexual abuse cases with the same level of outrage and alarm that the culture in general today, I thought I should inform you all that Phelps has stepped down from his position on the board. It seems that one of the factors in his decision was an online petition that was circulating concerning Phelps and his presence on any board of higher institution. I was unaware of that petition until Friday.

I had noticed Bob Jones University’s defense of Chuck Phelps [which has now been taken down from their website, apparently], and was saddened to see they showed little sympathy or concern for the abused but rather seemed to jump to defend one of their “good old boys”. Bob Bixby gives a fuller account of both the petition and the board’s role in this “defense” of Phelps.

I am not happy to see this whole matter unfold how it has. I wish the whole event wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Phelps could have handled the abuse case better, and since it happened years ago, he could have admitted he made some serious mistakes and apologize – and thereby teach many onlookers how to handle such situations with grace and also to bolster the cause for a clearer and more direct response to these situations by fundamentalist pastors. Sadly this did not happen.

I think that it is high time that fundamentalism wakes up to how devastating to one’s reputation mishandling of abuse cases really should be, and how horrific a crime these sorts of allegations (of sexual abuse) really are. Fundamentalists are all to ready to excuse leaders because they don’t have all the facts or because they’ve done their legal duty. But there is a further moral duty which fundamentalists often do not undertake. Tim Henderson, of Campus Crusade for Christ, talks of “the deficiency of love” in response to the Penn State scandals. And there seems to be a similar problem in some degree, with the response that Fundamentalist leaders and institutions often have to cases of alleged abuse. Let this whole affair be a wake up call to our God-given duty to defend the weak and help the hurting, rather than defend those in places of prominence and power.

What Can Fundamentalists Learn from Joe Paterno?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 48 Comments

By now, I’m sure most of my readers have heard that Joe Paterno was recently fired after more than 40 years of coaching one of the top College Football programs in the country. Paterno won more games in his coaching career than anyone else in Division-1 Football. Even now his Penn State’s Nittany Lions are poised to win the Big Ten Championship. By all accounts he should be respected and revered. But he was summarily dismissed, and turned out — and this at the end of his golden career.

Paterno is an illustration of a changing reality in the world today. A reality that Fundamentalists and other conservative Church groups must pay attention to, and learn from. Paterno lost the battle of public opinion, because today’s public has an entirely different opinion of child abuse, and potential child abuse, than yesterday’s generation.

In the old days, when the “Good Ol’ Boy” club reinged supreme. An allegation, was just that — an allegation. An alleged incident that may or may not be true. And someone in a position of leadership, would usually be given the benefit of the doubt. In Paterno’s case, his son made the following argument on his behalf:

“Unfortunately,” Scott Paterno said, “once that happened, there was really nothing more Joe felt he could do because he did not witness the event. You can’t call the police and say, ‘Somebody tells me they saw somebody else do something.’ That’s hearsay. Police don’t take reports in that manner. Frankly, from the way he understood the process, he passed the information on to the appropriate university official and they said they were taking care of it. That’s really all he could do. [source]

Thinking this through, I was inclined to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt. He did what he thought was right, and someone else goofed up and didn’t report like they should have. But the more I think about the situation, the more convinced I am that he really does share a blame. It’s convenient to pass a problem off on someone else, especially when the allegation concerns someone you know and trust.

While occasionally, innocent people do get falsely accused, overall, today’s culture which prizes the innocent victims is really to be praised. Isn’t that what the Bible advocates? Standing up for those who have no voice of their own? Ministering to the helpless and the fatherless? The following Scripture verses comes to mind:

Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3 ESV)

Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart. (Zechariah 7:9-10)

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)

The Church is also to maintain a good reputation with the world, and particularly its leaders, the elders are given this charge: “Moreover [they] must have a good report of them which are without.” (1 Tim. 3:7a KJV) So, this changing opinion of the public in regard to allegations of child abuse is something that fundamentalists need to pay attention to.

Penn State University, when faced with the potential that some of their employees allowed child abuse to happen and didn’t report or ensure that a report was made to the police, quickly acted to remove all doubt about their stance against child abuse and to fire their high ranking, “good ol’ boys” who had come under a cloud of suspicion. But in Fundamentalism, this is not the road that churches and institutions usually take.

In Chuck Phelps’ case, he filed a report, but allowed the victim to flee the state while the police sought her in vain. He had done his duty by reporting, but didn’t go out of his way to help, because after all this was an allegation, one might say. The perpetrator of the abuse maintained his membership in good standing at the church, while the victim was viewed as a troubled teen who needed special care and who wasn’t worthy of being in the church-run school. Phelps wasn’t censured, that I know of, by any church or institution. He did lose a speaking engagement, and stepped down from the presidency of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (but we don’t know if that was related to this allegation), but he is still on the board of Bob Jones University.

In Fairhaven’s case, when CNN investigated allegations of abuse, there was no apology and no sympathy for the victims. They were said to be kids who caused a lot of trouble, or outright liars. Instead of apologizing and investigating the incidents, Fairhaven staff gave the CNN reporter a souvenir paddle in a mockery of the gravity of these allegations.

Thankfully, not all fundamentalist institutions react this way. The American Council of Christian Churches, a fundamentalist group parallel to the National Association of Evangelicals, publicly condemned Fairhaven’s actions – specifically referencing the giving of a souvenir paddle as an over-the-top and unChristian reaction to these serious charges. A fundamentalist mission board, ABWE, when faced with numerous people going forward about specific cases of abuse, launched an independent investigation, publicly apologized and took radical steps toward changing the culture of their organization in this regard.

Joe Paterno presents an example for fundamentalists that I hope they won’t ignore. The watching public won’t let us give the benefit of the doubt to the “good ol’ boys” anymore. We need to be as concerned as God is, over the victims of abuse. A man I respect, when learning of certain systematic abuse at a Fundamentalist institution that he had given years of his life to, reacted by confronting the leader of the church and institution, and then leaving. From what I’ve heard of this incident, he was told something to the effect of “Well, what do you want us to do about that? There’s nothing we can do.” He replied, “I’d dedicate my ministry to helping every last child who was harmed by the abuse that happened.”

Good advice for all of us. Don’t hide behind the fact that these are only “allegations”. Don’t refuse to investigate the matter, or have it investigated by a third party, for fear of what the high-up, protected and revered leaders would think– or what could happen to them. Stand up for the oppressed and the abused, and take a stand. A watching world wonders if we really are as much like Jesus Christ as we say we are.

Can the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Movement Reform?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 39 Comments


A blogging friend of mine, Will Dudding, recently shared some thoughts on his journey of the last five years or so, since he started blogging. His blog name is The Reforming Baptist, and he is a co-blogger with me on Re:Fundamentals and KJVOnlyDebate.com. After taking a break from blogging the past few months, Will came back to share some of his thoughts on where he’s at in a recent post. I want to excerpt some of his comments and discuss them here, below.

Since I have put blogging on the shelf for the last seven months, I have been learning some things that I needed to be quiet and learn. So, I’ll share them with those of you who have waited to see if I’d ever come back.

Originally, this blog was born out of my increased exposure to theology and ministry philosophy that was more God-centered than what I was accustomed to. So, I wanted to express what I was learning and kind of think through some issues in a public way in order to interact with others out there about it. However, I was very much a frustrated young man who was still struggling in my cocoon. As most of you know, I grew up in the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) environment. After being exposed to life outside of that group, I felt as though I had been hoodwinked all my life and I used my blog to express my frustrations and address all the myths, errors, falsehoods, etc.. that I had bought into. Inadvertently, I learned that I had a porcupine effect on some people. Eventually, I began to sense that very same spirit of dissent in a few members in my congregation. It was then, that I realized that my spirit had probably negatively effected some people whom I was supposed to be leading. We ended up losing one family shortly after I stopped blogging. It was really painful to see them go, but I had to wonder after the fact how much of their dis-satisfied disposition was caused by mine? It took a rebuke from someone close to me that got me thinking about this, and so I knew it was time to quit blogging. I needed to shut up and listen to what God needed to teach me.

Another lesson I learned these past months is that the IFB or Fundamentalist movement, network, culture (whatever you want to call it) is not going to be revived or reformed. Those loyal to it cannot and will not recognize the inherent and fundamental defects of the movement. It will continue to decline from relevance and influence on its own. God doesn’t revive or reform such things. He does so to individuals. There is no use trying to correct the course of Fundamentalism by reasoning with the Scripture because for the most part, Sola Scriptura is not really valued by the movers and shakers in the movement. So, I have learned that it is best to just leave it alone and get my head out of the clouds – I am not going to make a dent in reforming fundamentalism. All I will ever be is a burr in their saddle, an irritation to be put up with should I continue identifying myself with them – not my idea of purposeful existence. I don’t need to be identified with the Fundamental Baptists, the Reformed Baptists, the Southern Baptists or any other group. We can exist in happy obedience to God’s Word and in fellowship with anyone else who is striving to do the same That is truly independence!

I encourage you to read the whole post, as he has some more to say. But I wondered what my readers thought of his judgement of the IFB movement. In my blog’s subtitle for the last several years, I’ve had the phrase “Reforming Fundamentalism (IFB) through Reformed Theology”. Will hasn’t been a full-fledged proponent of Reformed Theology, but he has been a reforming fundamentalist. I maintain a Reforming Fundamentalists Blog Network, which I need to update, but still includes a list of like-minded IFBs & former-IFBs intent on working toward positive change. That was the idea behind Re:Fundamentals, which also needs updating. One could also argue that the large fundamentalist forums and blog, Sharper Iron, has as one of its aims, the reformation of the IFB movement.

Will brings up the question though, is all this worth it? Will the IFB movement change? Does it want to change? He says it doesn’t. But I think that depends on where you are in the IFB spectrum. Still the recent brouhaha over Chuck Phelps and ABC’s 20/20 show, and the revelation of what many (myself included) consider to be a misuse of pastoral authority, teaches us something. That even in the “sane” wing of fundamentalism, a top-down leadership style, and certain views on authority and sanctification, continue to have drastic consequences. Pastor Bob Bixby, who like Greg Locke, has also walked away from the IFB movement and the Baptist label, recently shared some of his thoughts about continuing problems in the highest ranks of BJU-style fundamentalism. Will and I could give you some stories of other fundamentalist groups that would raise the hair on the back of your neck. I don’t know if I’ve recounted horror stories, but the personal stories and testimonies I’ve shared will give you an eyeful. Here are four accounts for you: a distraught mother, Becca’s story, Greg’s story, and another reader’s story. For a wild ride through the heart of the most extreme version of fundamentalism, you should pick up James Spurgeon’s book The Texas Baptist Crucible: Tales from the Temple.

Over my nearly six years of blogging, I’ve received on average one or two emails a week, it seems, from people appreciating my blog or sharing their own story of journeying through fundamentalism. Hundreds have shared their thoughts in the comments on my blog, but many more in private conversation to me. Many of these have found a new church, some are IFB churches which are much better than where they were before, but many walk away from the movement altogether.

Is the movement really changing? Are such stories decreasing in frequency? Maybe. I know this happened in other generations. Two of my uncles walked away from the IFB movement in the early 80s. Perhaps the internet is helping to escalate the problem. More and more have walked away or have awakened to the issues.

Does this mean we can write ICHABOD in bold across the moniker IFB? I don’t actually think so. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran, represent glimmers of hope. This conversation between them and Mark Minnick, reveals the heart of these new fundamentalist leaders. Sharper Iron is a place where many IFB pastors and thinkers are discussing issues and seeking positive growth. The Preserving the Truth Conference, even though I don’t agree with some of it’s central values, nevertheless represents a positive movement in fundamentalism. As does Calvary Baptist’s Advancing the Church conference. Standpoint Conference is a mix of those still holding the IFB name and those who are past it, but it is working for a positive expression of fundamentalism for the new century.

Historic fundamentalism is still needed. Independence can be a good thing, as long as healthy interdependence with other like-minded churches is sought out. And Baptist doctrine and practice has hundreds of years behind it, and has proven to be a faith that aims to be as Biblical as possible. So Independent Fundamental Baptists are not a bad thing. What needs to be improved upon, and ejected from the movement, is the man-centered, pragmatic trappings and the baggage from the last 80 years of the movement. One-upmanship, strong-arming, political maneuvering, grand-standing, arrogance and an abrupt dismissal of any church group besides your own — these are all too common in the IFB world. Along with these problems is a fear of education, a resulting ignorance of doctrine, and a love of piety over theology — these problems have conspired to spawn eccentric doctrines and shallow Christians completely cut off from the rest of Christianity (as Will describes). Finally, and most importantly, a legalism silently pervades the movement. Often good intentions mask this legalism: we want to please God and obey His Law, but this is not our means to being accepted by God (either for our salvation or our sanctification). A recovery of the Biblical concept of grace and of the Gospel as being the A-Z of the Christian life (not just the entrance exam) is desperately needed.

There remain many faithful IFB churches who stand on the Word of God and love people. May their tribe increase. To try to reform those who bristle at the mention of the problems I stated above, however, is pointless. I trust, however, that more and more IFB pastors and leaders are willing to admit the problems of their movement. May they be encouraged to reform and renew fundamentalism for the 21st Century and beyond.

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!