Tag: IFB

R.W. Glenn on Reducing the Christian Faith to a Lifestyle

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Crucifying Morality: The Gospel of the Beatitudes by R.W. GlennR.W. Glenn packs his small book on the Beatitudes full of grace-filled, gospel-centered wisdom. I posted my brief review of Crucifying Morality: The Gospel of the Beatitudes (Shepherd Press, 2013) earlier this week. Today I want to provide an excerpt where Glenn confronts a problem that is prevalent among conservative evangelical Christians.

“Reducing the Christian faith to a lifestyle” — Independent Fundamentalist Baptists are perhaps most famous for this trait, but a number of other evangelical groups have this tendency as well. In our zeal for protecting children from the evils of this world, and in our desire to live holy lives we sometimes turn faith into a religion, and the gospel into a sub-culture replete with its own rules and customs. Nostalgia for the good old days when sinful lifestyles weren’t on full display in public, and a fondness for large families and wholesome fun — these can be good things, but they can also define us. The problem comes when our familiar way of life, holy as it may be, becomes what we live for and what is most important to us. It takes the place of the gospel and the role of Christian doctrine, and this lifestyle-orientation can keep our kids from true Christianity. But don’t hear just my word for it. Listen to R.W. Glenn as he bemoans this same tendency, which we all should be on guard against.

In a post-Christian culture like ours where many regard moderate religiosity as a good thing, the danger for the church is to reduce the Christian faith to a lifestyle — a subculture complete with its own music and literature and fashions and jargon. This is especially dangerous for those who grow up in the church. Christian parents sometimes worry about their kids being influenced by worldly evils in our oversexed, violent, materialistic culture. They worry that their kids will be negatively influenced by the literature they read, the movies and television shows they watch, the video games they play, and the music they listen to.

Although these things are certainly not benign and do have the capacity to negatively influence children, they are not half as dangerous as reducing Christianity to moralistic religion. These kinds of Christian parents focus on relatively small matters and ignore the possibility of a much more terrible reality. Because it seems so likely that our churched children and teens would remain loyal to the church all their days and live very moral lives, we tend not to worry about them, but their very religiosity makes them even more susceptible to get crushed by the hurricanes of their own sin and the schemes of Satan than a bare house in the path of a Category 5 hurricane….

…if churched children remain unaffected by and inoculated to the gospel — wholesale consumers of just enough gospel lingo and institutional Christianity to look the part — they will completely miss the heart of Christianity. They will miss out on purity of heart. (Kindle Loc. 1359-1372)

I’m interested to hear what you think. Is this tendency a problem? Can you see how it subtly leads us from a gospel-centered Christianity?

Learn more about R.W. Glenn’s new book by reading my review or perusing the product page at Amazon.com or Shepherd Press.

Fundamentalism: Separation-Centered rather than Gospel-Centered

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

President Matt Olson at Northland International University is stirring up his fair share of criticism as he enacts reforms and quietly changes the ethos of what was Northland Baptist Bible College. From afar, I applaud his efforts and his bravery. He is taking shots from all sides of the ring!

My blogging friend Will Dudding at The Reforming Baptist, recently explained the pickle that Olson is in a post intriguingly titled “Northland, CCM, Fundamentalism & the Separation Nazis.”

One particular comment from his post really resonated with me. I believe it is spot on and covers almost the entire gamut of fundamentalism. I have bolded the phrase in the except below.

The gospel as the central unifying factor and the matter of first importance is often scoffed at on their blogs. They regularly deride movements like T4G and TGC that are propelling the gospel forward more than Fundamentalism has been doing. Being Separation-centered is more important to them than being Gospel-centered. Fundamentalism as a movement has done nothing in my generation and is going nowhere except to the trash heap of history. Christianity will survive well enough without it. Matt Olsen would do well to eject, but it may cost him his school.

I believe this is the problem, fundamentalists as a whole eschew a gospel-centered unity in favor of a separation-centric modus operandi. I have shared similar thoughts on this idea before in my post “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.”

What’s your thought on this? Is it unfair to say fundamentalism is separation-centered?

An Open Letter to First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN – from Jack Hyles’ Daughter Linda

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Today, Jack Schaap was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison for his crime. I wrote about this issue when it happened, and recently the lurid details were unveiled by the prosecuting attorney. (More here and here.)

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]

What Makes a Church a Cult?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

I was reading through a detailed article in Chicago Magazine (starts on pt. 78) on Jack Schaap’s fall and the history and legacy of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN (HT: Sharper Iron Filings; more on Schaap here), and I came across an excellent description of what makes a church a cult. I added the numbers to the quote below to list out the four marks of a cult that were mentioned.

What makes a church a cult? I asked Rick Ross, whose nonprofit institute maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements. (He says he is not familiar with the details of First Baptist.) Ross points to a landmark 1981 Harvard study on cult formation, which suggests that all cults, destructive or not, share three elements: [1] an absolute authoritarian leader who defines the group; [2] a “thought program” that includes “control of the environment, control of information, and people subordinating themselves and their feelings to the demands of the leader”; and [3] a lack of accountability for the head of the group. Another common characteristic of cults, Ross says, is that [4] they use shame and some sort of exploitation–financial, spiritual, or sexual–to exercise control. Members of a Bible-based group for example are made to believe that “it’s a sin of pride for you to think for yourself,” he says. “It’s your ego or a demon or Satan’s influence that causes you to doubt the edicts of the leadership.” [bold emphasis added]

Most people I know who have come out of a strict fundamentalist background refere to their former church as cultic. The points above seem to validate this concern. The group I was connected with would qualify as cultic according to this definition.

I shared this quote at Sharper Iron, where they are discussing this article as a whole. I wanted to share it here too, for my audience. What do you think? Are we off base to point to a fundamentalist church and say it is cultic?

Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Powerless Preaching

~ Bob Hayton

This series of posts focuses on several pitfalls that especially plague Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches. These pitfalls are wide enough to catch people of a variety of stripes, but fundamentalist Christians tend to be especially prone to these errors. Having disentangled myself from some of these very errors, I aim to lovingly warn people of the dangers associated with this way of thinking.

In previous posts we looked at legalism and performance-based sanctification. Today we will look at powerless preaching.

This point may be the most ironic of all. If there is any group of churches which pride themselves on old-fashioned, hell-fire and brimstone preaching, it is independent fundamental Baptists. The patron saint of preaching, Billy Sunday, was unfortunately an ordained Presbyterian. But Baptists love him nonetheless. It is Billy Sunday’s dramatic style that so many fundamentalist preachers seek to emulate. Something about jumping up on top of the pulpit, swinging from the rafters and yelling at the top of one’s lungs appeals to a good many people, I guess.

But for all the bluster and all the bravado, the preaching in many fundamentalist pulpits is quite shallow and powerless. Now this kind of preaching can sure keep the church members in line. It can make people squirmish and even have them stocking up on antacid. But does it really facilitate a meaningful change in their life?

It should go without saying that pretty much anyone can get up there and scream at people. Jack Schaap was as big a preacher as they come. He thundered from the pulpit of the largest IFB church in the land, and boy did he sound good. But screaming about the liberals and the cowardly in the congregation does not amount to godliness, and neither does it facilitate growth.

Often this powerless preaching takes the form of a “toe-stomping” sermon—a hard-hitting, guilt-heaping sermon. One of my more colorfully titled posts, and a favorite from my early years of blogging was “Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching.” That post and the exchange in the comments section is worth reading as you think through the matter of powerless preaching. But in an effort to be crystal clear in my critique here, I want to excerpt most of another post on preaching, where I gave a case study which helps explain the problem in a more direct fashion.

Thesis

Here is my primary point: preaching that majors on heaping guilt on the hearers in an attempt to motivate them to do better is not “powerful.” It is possibly moralistic, and it is likely carnal. This preaching does more harm than good. Unfortunately it is quite common in fundamentalism, although it can be found in many other circles as well.

Case Study

Here is the passage for our case study: Mark 15:32-42. We will focus on Jesus’ admonition in vs. 38: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.” You know the story, Jesus’ disciples had fallen asleep when they should have been praying. Jesus admonishes them to watch and pray. And yet when he returns from another prayer session, he finds the disciples asleep again.

Now let me develop 2 approaches to this passage, which might easily be found in a Sunday morning message. In comparing and contrasting these approaches, I hope my point about moralistic sermons will come home.

A Moralistic Approach

This message would major on the commands “watch and pray”. It would highlight the results of either obeying or disobeying the commands. It would imply that most or all of the listeners have failed miserably in this respect. Based on “the flesh is weak”, the message would set up the listeners to expect to have to struggle in this area. The message would end by calling the listeners to do better and pray more. People might be encouraged to come forward and make decisions to rededicate themselves to fervent prayer, or to confess their failures to pray and vow to change.

This kind of message might be labelled “toe-stomping” or “hard hitting”, as the preacher might very well drive his point home forcefully through screaming, theatrical antics, or tear-jerking illustrations. The listeners would leave the message acutely aware of their guilt and mindful of the preacher’s challenge that they watch and pray much better than they have before.

A Christ-Centered Approach

This message would again stress the commands “watch and pray”. Yet it would also give the fuller context of the passage. The disciples did not watch and pray, whereas Jesus did. Jesus would be shown to be absolutely faithful, whereas even heroes of the Christian faith, the disciples, are seen to be very weak and unfaithful. The message would stress that it is important to watch and pray, as a failure to do so leads to temptation, even as illustrated by the desertion of Christ by these very disciples. Yet the message would stress Christ’s kindhearted response to this lack of faithfulness on the disciples’ part. Rather than harshly rebuking them the second time He found them sleeping, he acknowledged their weakness. He had said the “flesh is weak”.

The message would go on to stress that our very weakness, what makes it so difficult to watch and pray, is that for which Christ died. Jesus knows we are weak, and so Jesus prays for us, even when we don’t. The ultimate victory over temptation is won because Jesus overcame the world, not because we have the innate ability to. We can win, when we depend on Christ and the victory He purchased. The message would end with a call to depend on Christ more in the area of prayer. It would encourage people to trust Jesus and His faithfulness, even as it would call on the hearers to excercise more faith in watching and praying more faithfully.

The message might not be very “hard hitting”, but it would be encouraging and uplifting. The preacher may well get excited as he proclaims Christ’s faithfulness and work on our behalf, but he would be unlikely to scream at or belittle the hearers for their lack of faithfulness in prayer. The listeners would leave the message in a thankful and worshipful state of mind, as they ponder how wonderful is Christ’s faithfulness and work on their behalf, weak and sinful though they be. They would determine to love Christ more and desire to be more faithful in their prayer lives.

I hope this case study proves helpful. I hope that preachers will aim to proclaim the glories and faithfulness of Christ more consistently. We need to realize that in every step of our Christian life we need to trust Jesus more fully. He can help us obey, and it is because of Him that we can. Believers need to be reminded of these truths. They need to be pointed to Christ and encouraged to trust in Him more. They don’t need to have guilt heaped upon them without an offer of hope. There is no hope if I have to depend on my own determination to do better. There is plenty of hope, inexhaustible hope, if I am encouraged to lean on the work Jesus has done for me.