Tag: Fundamentalism

Apparent Danger: The Pastor of America’s First MegaChurch and the Texas Murder Trial of the Decade in the 1920s

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

I recently received a copy of Apparent Danger: The Pastor of America’s First MegaChurch and the Texas Murder Trial of the Decade in the 1920s a new book on J. Frank Norris by David Stokes. Being familiar with the history and big figures of American fundamentalism, I knew something of J. Frank Norris’ infamous legacy.

Norris is the embodiment of a brash, fightin’ fundamentalist, and he packed a gun to prove it. I never realized that he actually was on trial for murder soon after the nation was riveted on the Scopes Trial!

Stokes has done his research and brings J. Frank Norris and his era to life. I’ve started reading through this book, but was just made aware of some fantastic news. The book has been grabbed up by a major publisher and will be re-released under a different title next year.

This is good news for those interested in the tale. The books are still available for another 2 weeks, and they are at a fantastic discount.

I encourage you to pick up a copy at this incredible steal of a deal. The book is a high quality, hardback. Take a look around the book’s website: apparentdanger.com for more on the story and the book. Congratulations to David Stokes, this book looks to be a page turner, and a wider distribution will shed light on a fascinating corner of American and church history.

David Stokes writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and is also a busy pastor, and you can learn more about him here or on his blog.

Disclaimer: I received this book free from the publisher for review. I am under no obligation to provide a favorable assessment of the book.

Defining KJV-Onlyism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

This post is from is from my newly redesigned, group KJV Only Debate blog.

KJV Onlyism is hard to define. And like any grass roots movement, there are many competing manifestations of it. As a former, self-dubbed “KJV-onlyist” I will try to carefully put forth a definition. I know I’m going to say something wrong here and won’t please everyone, but I hope the end result is helpful for those new to the debate.

Simple Definition

The KJV-only position holds that the only Bible an English speaking Christian should use is the King James Bible. While some KJV-only proponents bristle at the label viewing it as a derogatory term, most don’t hesitate to affirm it. In KJV-only circles, you cannot disavow the label. Rather, you qualify it.

Now, for study, some KJV-onlyists may allow the use of other translations. But for memorization, church preaching and teaching, and general reading, the KJV should be the only version of the Bible one uses.

Why the King James Bible?

Different KJV-onlyists will offer different answers to this question. These are some of the common arguments used by most KJV-onlyists.

The Better Text Argument — The KJV is the only widely used Bible exclusively based on the Textus Receptus Greek & Masoretic Hebrew Texts.

The Better Doctrine Argument — The differences between the KJV and other Bible versions are examined and the KJV’s readings preserve a superior doctrine and more of Jesus Christ’s divine titles.

The Conspiratorial Argument — The manuscripts that support the newer Greek text were only found recently and were found in areas like Egypt where false doctrine was prevalent.

The Historical Argument — The Reformers and Puritans used the KJV and it launched worldwide missions and the Great Awakenings.

The Better Manuscripts Argument — The manuscripts that support the text behind the KJV agree with one another closely, don’t show signs of textual corruption and represent the vast numerical superiority – 90% of the manuscripts.

The Better Translation Argument — The KJV translators were masters of English and knew Greek and Hebrew and multiple other languages far better than translators today, plus they used a literal translation technique instead of the dynamic or loose method in vogue today.

Groupings of KJV-Onlyists

I mentioned before that there are numerous manifestations of KJV-onlyism. Sometimes the different groups are treated like one entity. I want to be careful to distinguish terms and not broad-brush the entire movement by the crazy antics of Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger, for example.

Generic KJV Only Position — Most KJV Onlyists find themselves here. They haven’t thought out a more specific position, or just believe the KJV is the only Bible that should be used and leave it at that.

English is Inspired View — This view takes issue with anyone correcting the KJV English. Since the Bible seems to show translations of the OT as being treated like they were inspired, the English is treated like it is inspired. Some versions are more strict than others, but all bow to the KJV as the final authority before they would trust a lexicon or dictionary.

Double-Inspiration View — This view goes further and says the English corrects the Greek. In some sense the KJV was inspired directly by God. People with this view (and some of those in the previous view) would hold that translations of the Bible into other languages must be guided by the English of the KJV.

Pure Seed View — This idea comes from 1 Pet. 1:23-25 and basically claims that the use of the KJV is essential for people to be saved. No one can be saved from an impure seed (the NIV, for instance). Any of the first three positions above could hold to this view as well, but no one in the next three camps would.

TR Only View — This view holds the Greek and Hebrew as superior to the Greek, but also holds that they were word-perfectly preserved. The text behind the KJV usually is the text held to be the word-perfect copy of the original text. The word of God is “intact” in English, and while they would correct the sense of the KJV through scholarship and original language study, they still would not see this as any kind of overt error in the KJV. Few if any, TR-onlyists use the NKJV however.

Ecclesiastical Text — This view places greater stress on church confessions and the historic use of the Textus Receptus by the church of the Reformation period and afterward. Some in this view would hold to errors in either the TR or the KJV, and some would use the NKJV or 21st Century KJV.

Majority Text — This view should be distinguished from the previous views. Proponents of the Greek Majority Text may or may not use the KJV or NKJV. They hold to a textual theory of the superiority of the Byzantine view, but they acknowledge the merits of careful, believing scholarship and textual criticism. As the Majority Text as such didn’t exist prior to 1980, they don’t see adherence to that text as a binding matter of faith for all Christians.

King James Preferred — This view is held by some who see some weaknesses with the King James Only position, but still believe the TR is the best text we have or else use the King James primarily for traditional or other reasons.

Charles Finney, Ergun Caner & Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

Most of you have probably heard of the Ergun Caner scandal. Caner, a dynamic speaker, was dean of Liberty University until recently. He came under fire for making self-contradictory statements about his past. He was raised Muslim and it seems that after 9/11/2001 his memories about his past changed in a dramatic fashion. I haven’t been following the scandal all that closely, but there must be truth to it as Liberty deposed him from his position as dean (although they keep him on as a professor, still).

Anyway, Tom Chantry of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Milwaukee, put out a series of articles in which he set the Caner story in a wider context of evangelicalism’s ills. The posts which most caught my attention centered on Charles Finney and his legacy left to evangelicalism. Chantry views Caner as being a step-child of Finney’s in a sense. Caner’s appeal and widespread acceptance could only have happened in a post-Finney evangelical world.

The reason I’m including fundamentalism in this post, is I believe Chantry’s comments about how Finney shaped evangelicalism apply equally to fundamentalism. In this post I’m going to summarize Chantry’s 3 posts and quote extensively from the last post. I would encourage you to read the entire series however and study out the issue of Charles Finney even further, if you haven’t already.

Encountering Finney

In the first post, Chantry describes his horror of reading through much of Finney’s systematic theology book in school. He was absolutely stunned that someone who believed in a works-oriented salvation scheme to appease an angry god could be accepted as a Christian minister worth emulating. That will sound incredulous if you haven’t heard of Finney’s aberrant theology before. Apparently his theology has been edited down through the years but even still, it is readily apparent that he denied substitutionary atonement. Along the way, according to Chantry, he redefined such fundamental terms as “faith” and “justification”. For more on Finney’s bad theology, read this piece by Phil Johnson.

Charles Finney’s Step-children

In the next piece, we learn how Finney became so influential among evangelicals (who could never be the true children of Finney as they would never accept his godless theology of self-reformation). I appreciate Chantry’s care to distinguish true evangelicals from Finney and his belief that many who revere Finney have been mislead and themselves are genuinely Christian. We learn how it was the methodology of Finney which was most revered, even though those who used it should have looked into the theology behind that methodology. I have previously written of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism through his invention of the altar call. Chantry confirms my research that the altar call seemed to originate from Finney.

…And Finney Begat Caner…

Chantry’s third installment (and I believe one more is coming this week), centers on the connection between Finney and Caner. Caner again would only be a step-child not a true child of Finney. Chantry points out how evangelicalism as a whole has been primed to recieve characters like Caner. I will now quote from the third article at some length.

Without Finney, there could have been no Caner. The reason is that Finney’s influence has created an atmosphere within the Evangelical church in which Caner’s style of preaching, and indeed his multiple deceptions, might flourish.

I have argued that the Caner scandal belongs to all evangelicals. His behavior is a reflection on the state of the evangelical church at large, and we must all take ownership of what has happened. What exactly is the state of post-Finney Evangelicalism, and how has it allowed for the likes of Ergun Caner?

After introducing things, Chantry goes on to discuss several characteristics of Evangelicalism that are Finney’s legacy and also apply to Caner’s appeal.

Evangelical Manipulation

Finney’s manipulation consisted of the “artful, unfair, and insidious” control of the emotional state of his hearers in order to bring about a “decision” which was anything but. We make decisions when we decide to take a certain course of action, generally after thoughtful consideration. Finney’s “decision” had nothing to do with thought. His hearers were whipped into a terror over the thought of hell. This sudden emotional state was a work of Finney’s art, and he knew how to mold it into a decision to follow God. He utilized every form of pressure to bring about the desired end.

Over the years evangelists have learned that other emotions can be equally well utilized to bring about a decision. Various moral crusaders have capitalized upon a manufactured sense of outrage, while missions promoters have made an equally good use of pity. Often these tactics are aimed at producing a donation, but there is no reason why they cannot be turned to the purposes of Finneyite evangelist as well.

Any emotion will do, provided that the speaker can stoke that emotion into flames and that he has the skill to turn it in whichever direction he chooses.

He goes on to show how Caner’s sensational comments about his Muslim heritage were an attempt to manipulate crowds for a positive end. Evangelists do similar things all the time in evangelicalism, and especially in Fundamentalism. Tear-jerking stories, sensational yarns, missionary stories that raise the hair on the back of your neck… I’ve seen and heard them all.

Evangelical Entertainment

As Finneyism first spread, a dramatic shift in worship services began. Finney looked to bring about decisions by whatever means were available. As a result, services began to become more dramatic. The mentality of doing whatever it took to draw in crowds began to take hold around the country. Music was used in a new way in churches – to entertain rather than to worship.

We know the circus atmosphere which this mentality has bred in the modern church. No spectacle is too outrageous if it can have the outcome of making sinners more open to “making a decision for Jesus.” This is perhaps Finney’s enduring legacy in the church. Thanks to his methods, the exemplary pastor is no longer so much a shepherd or a teacher as he is an entertainer.

Again, we can see how Finney paved the way for an Ergun Caner to rise to prominence within the church. Many have observed that he is essentially a stand-up comic. His sermons are long on humorous anecdotes and short on doctrinal truth. One listens to his sermons and can easily imagine a “preacher” who has to go home and “come up with some new material” before he goes out on tour again. In Caner’s case that has meant a steady diet of racial stereotypes and soft ethnic slurs. He can refer to his wedding as “The Godfather meets the Beverly Hillbillies” and everyone has someone to laugh at.

It ought to be hard to figure out what this sort of talk has to do with gospel preaching, but in modern Evangelicalism we can all too easily imagine. Preachers are not thought effective unless they keep their congregation laughing. Those who listen to Caner’s more outrageous pulpit moments may wonder why the churches have put up with him. The answer is that he is truly funny. Most people couldn’t say the things he says and get a laugh, but he is a gifted comedian. In the post-Finney evangelical culture, gifted comedians always have a place in the pulpit.

Again, pulpit antics and over-the-top humor are things I’ve repeatedly observed in many sectors of fundamentalism too. It makes sense that this emphasis on style (anyone remember Billy Sunday?) flows out of a Finneyesque evangelicalism.

Evangelical Growth

If the entertainment-driven services of the modern church are not Finney’s great legacy, then it certainly must be the numbers-mania which now dominates our evaluation of evangelists. Finney thrived on the number of decisions made at his meetings. He counted his converts and published the numbers. There were no other criteria on which Finney could have become popular – let alone a sensation – within the Christian world. Ever since, Christians have been rating evangelists based upon the numbers they produce.

This part ties in to Caner in that his dramatic work at increasing student enrollment has in part justified keeping him at Liberty. Anyone familiar with fundamentalism, especially the Jack Hyles wing of the movement, knows numbers are everything.

Evangelical Relativism

But there is more. Finney, the prophet of moralism, fostered an insidious relativism in the church.

Finney’s theology was man-centered in more ways than one. While it is true that his theology began with God as the moral governor of the universe, his concern with morality was entirely what it said about the future condition of man. He did not concern himself overmuch with the glory of God…. It is not surprising that within his moral system any action may be justified so long as it results in a sinner deciding to follow God. Finney’s approach to evangelism crystallized this relativism; the end of conversion justified the means of manipulative and often blasphemous evangelism….

Today’s evangelists are unlikely to be given a pass if they seek to accomplish the expansion of the kingdom through adultery. There is, however, one sin which is always forgiven. Evangelists may always lie. Any lie is justifiable when it is told for the sake of winning the lost to Christ.

I grew up in a Reformed enclave isolated from the shenanigans of modern evangelists, so I can never forget the first altar call I ever saw from a Finneyite practitioner. Right after he told everyone to bow his head and close his eyes (I didn’t) he told a lie: “I’m not going to ask you to come up front.” It wasn’t just a lie; it was a dumb lie. Even I could tell that the only reason he said it was because he was about to start asking folks to come up front.

Having told one lie, the evangelist got on a roll. He said he just wanted people to raise their hands so that he could pray for them. I sat in the back of that crowded church and watched a sea of heads bowed while the preacher began to call out, “You over there on the right, I’m praying for you! And you, sister, down here in front, I’m praying for you!” Except no one – and I do mean no one – was raising his hand. The man just couldn’t stop lying! Of course as soon as everyone was convinced that they wouldn’t be the first to raise a hand, hands started flying up all over the room. Then he made those poor, deluded people come up front.

The man lied, didn’t he? Broke a commandment? Did what even our smallest children know to be a major sin? It seemed so to me, and it ought to seem so to every Christian. Yet it does not. Within the evangelical culture what he did was perfectly understandable. He got people to the front of the church, and numbers are what matters.

I’m sure many of you, like me, can identify with Chantry and his observations about this altar call experience. Evangelists stretch the truth to get decisions, and ultimately numbers.

This post went a little long, but I wanted to highlight these various aspects of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism. Ultimately he impacted fundamentalism too. I believe fundamentalists of today are waking up to the errors of Finney. I hope future generations will see a more careful evangelicalism too.

Exploring the Divide: What Makes Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals Different?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

A while back, Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, penned an important article critiquing how fundamentalists typically view conservative evangelicals. Readers of my blog will readily agree that fundamentalists tend to view conservative evangelicals as combatants or even opponents. Fundamentalists justify their existence, it seems, on showing just how different conservative evangelicals like John MacArthur, Al Mohler or John Piper are from the fundamentalist ideal.

I praised Dr. Bauder’s effort at offering a fundamentalist self-critique on that negative perception. But now, Dr. Bauder flips the coin and approaches the issue from a different vantage point. Now he is spelling out exactly what the “substantial differences” which he had said “continue to distinguish conservative evangelicals from fundamentalists” really are.

Again, Bauder’s efforts at making things very clear, are to be commended. In the first three parts of a series entitled: “Now, About Those Differences”, he has laid the groundwork for what promises to be a fruitful survey of the major sticking points that separate conservative evangelicals form the fundamentalist movement. In part 1, he introduces the series and parts two and three discuss the Gospel as a boundary marker for Christian fellowship, and a multi-layered approach to fellowship/unity and separation which most conservative evangelicals would readily agree with. The rubber will meet the road in his next installment and I’ll be sure to update you.

For now, I would encourage you to read the first three parts of the series as I feel this has promise to provide an extended case study which will help people on both sides of the aisle really appreciate what the issues are that divide us. I hope this will lead to clarity and a rapprochement of both parties as much as is humanly possible.

Download My Interview on Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton

I’ve been getting great feedback on my recent interview with Understanding Our Times Radio, and Kevin Thompson. Kevin graduated from Pensacola Christian College in 2002 and so he is also intimately familiar with some of the more extreme elements of fundamentalism.

The interview covered a wide range of topics relating to fundamentalism, including the following: What is fundamentalism? What is good about fundamentalism? What about separation? Wrong views of the Gospel and salvation. Why Reformed Theology is attracting many young fundamentalists. Why people are leaving fundamentalism, and more.

I believe I covered a lot of ground in that 30 minute interview and it would serve as an excellent introduction to my blog and the problem of extreme fundamentalism. I’m thankful for the opportunity to speak about this subject that is close to my heart.

Right-click on the down arrow to the right and select “save target as” or “save link as”, to download the mp3 file. Or listen online at Kevin’s radio site. Also, consider tuning in to Understanding Our Radio on a weekly basis for more interesting content.