Tag: IFB

Jack Schaap’s Fall & the Future of the IFB Movement: Act 2

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Just seven weeks ago the news broke about Jack Schaap’s fall. The pastor of the largest independent fundamental Baptist Church in the world had been fired under suspicions of sex abuse of a minor. Well today it was announced that he reached a plea agreement with the authorities and has admitted that he “he took a minor over state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity” (source Northwest Indiana Times). The Chicago Tribune adds that “Schaap admits that he had sex with the girl, the girl was under his care or supervision, and he used a computer to persuade the girl to have sex with him illegally.”

Following on the heels of that news, Ed Stetzer, an author and leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, posted another article on the future of the independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement (see his first article, expressing outrage over IFB leaders refusing to call this “sexual abuse”). In his piece he applauds Dr. Paul Chappell (pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church, home of West Coast Baptist College), for his response to the original news of Schaap’s fall. Far too many IFB leaders, in Stetzer’s opinion, were excusing Schaap and refusing to stand up for the reported victim of his sexual abuse.

Stetzer’s piece is worth reading, as is Chappell’s article. I hope that this high profile event does help the IFB movement to rethink its future. Instead of circling the wagons, I hope they rethink their philosophy and ask the hard questions. Something Chappell seems ready to do. And there are signs that other leaders in the IFB movement are also changing in positive ways.

Regardless, IFB leaders need to come to grips with the fact that their movement, whether fairly or not, has become identified with sexual abuse by predatory pastors in a very public way – and this is how the general public may think of the IFB movement going forward. The time for change is now. Now is the time to correct course, admit mistakes, stand up for victims, and take clear steps toward addressing even the hint of improprieties in this regard.

I encourage you to read Stetzer’s piece and join the movement for real reform in the IFB.

Don’t misunderstand me. Please know that there are very many good IFB churches, there are countless scores of faithful believers and sincere pastors. Ditching the movement, and maligning everyone in it is wrong. But so is acting like the problems of other IFB churches don’t say something is wrong with the wider IFB movement. It doesn’t matter where you think you are in the IFB movement, you must realize and admit this error and take pains to expunge it. Falling back on your “independency” will only allow the problem to grow and may blind you to some deep problems that aid and abet the spread of insular thinking and a mindset which facilitates abuse of all kinds.

Matt Olson and “What Matters Most” with Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

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?

  1. The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
  2. 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).
  3. 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).

[from part 3]

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.

Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Performance-Based Sanctification

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

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.

We looked at legalism, in the first post in this series. Today we will focus on performance-based sanctification.

Performance-based sanctification is a particular form of legalism. I have quoted C.J. Mahaney on this topic before, but perhaps the following excerpt from blogger Terry Rayburn will best convey what I mean by “performance-based sanctification.”

If you think you’re performing pretty well at a particular time, then you think you are deserving God’s love and favor, and pride sets in. Even while you know that pride comes before a fall, right? And even while you know that God resists the proud, right?

But what if you think you’re performing poorly at a particular time? What if you have been deceived by the world, the flesh and the devil, and you find yourself doing what you don’t want to do, or not doing what you want to do, like Paul describes in Romans 7?

Well, then you feel like God doesn’t love you or favor you as much, if at all, and you despair, and you shy away from Him, which makes it even worse, because you need to be in close fellowship with Him to walk in the Spirit.

And so there’s this downward spiral. And God forbid that you just pull up your bootstraps, and “will” yourself to perform better so you can swing back to the proud side.

–excerpted from “The Harm of Performance-Based Christianity” by Terry Rayburn

Can you see the yo-yo swing there? Work hard, feel good; blow it and feel terrible. Where is the confidence in God’s grace in this model? The secret to living victoriously for Christ is gritting your teeth, doing more, and not doing the things you shouldn’t do. Try, try, try. Harder, harder, harder! Don’t quit. Keep going. We say that salvation is by grace, but growing in Christ is about the will power, the commitment and the determination.

This can lead to despair or a terrible form of pride. And it leads to class of spiritual elites. Those in the church who have the right know-how and ability to toe the line, those who have their externals together, they can feel like they are a superior bunch to the others who don’t spend hours each week on visitation, who don’t attend every service and say or do the right things in front of the right people. This can creep on silently, and people can do this without even realizing it. You are always thinking of this certain group of people who don’t seem to put up and do their fair share. And for their part, they seem to hang their heads appropriately and have resigned themselves to being sub-par and so serve menially or try to stick around for some benefit from the spiritually gifted leader class. And of course both classes can tend to view outsiders with suspicion. They aren’t us. They aren’t performing to the degree or on the particular points that we are. They must not be “sold out” to God, like we are.

Preachers can feed this mentality, heaping guilt on those who know they haven’t measured up. Calling for more sacrifice and greater devotion. Recommit your life to Christ, dedicate yourself again and everything will be fine. And they can promote an aura that says they are above this struggle to live for Christ. They have arrived and we, the peons, haven’t.

All of this focuses on self, and shifts the focus away from Christ. Instead of coming to him for grace, and “preaching the Gospel” to ourselves every day, we are encouraged to keep examining ourselves and just try harder. Instead of admitting that all Christians need the grace of Christ day by day, we assume that if we can just do more, we’ll arrive in this perfect place. We need to remind ourselves instead, that we are accepted by God because of Christ’s death for us and his perfect life lived on our behalf. Jesus died to save worthless sinners. We were not worthy of Christ’s death on our behalf before we were saved, and we are not worthy of His love and acceptance after we have trusted Him either. This point, that nothing we do can make us more valuable to God, is underscored in Jadon Lavik’s song “What If.”

I am reminded of an important quote from Tim Keller:

…the gospel is not just for non-Christians, but also for Christians. This means the gospel is not just the A-B-C’s but the A to Z of the Christian life. It is not accurate to think “the gospel” is what saves non-Christians, and then, what matures Christians is trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. It is more accurate to say that we are saved by believing the gospel, and then we are transformed in every part of our mind, heart, and life by believing the gospel more and more deeply as our life goes on.

If we think of the gospel as only pardon or forgiveness of sins, we will trust in God for our past salvation, but will trust in our own present strivings and attainments for our present relationship with God… the entire Christian life is a life lived (in a continual present progressive) by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:20) …we must continually remind ourselves of our status as legally righteous, adopted children of God. [Source]

Don’t try harder in your Christian life. Focus on Jesus more. Bask in His love, and try to realize how truly amazing and dumbfounding is His grace. He shouldn’t love you, but He does! And nothing can change that. Holiness flows from true, sincere love for Christ. When we realize we are accepted in Christ, we will want to please him. This point is subtle but oh, so life-changing.

There are so many Scripture texts which teach this truth, that we need to have a Gospel-based sanctification model. One concept that helps is realizing that “salvation” in the New Testament, often refers to the final, ultimate salvation we experience in heaven (our glorification). We are saved – in this future sense, as much by grace as we are saved in the justification (present tense). It is all of grace. I’ll leave you with one Scripture text on living the Christian life in the same way we receive the Gospel, but I encourage you to check out my “The Gospel’s Work in Believers” series which expounds Scripture more on this point.

Colossians 2:6-7 KJV

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

We received Christ by faith, and that is how we must walk in him. We are built up in him, and the text goes on to say later that we are complete in him. We are accepted in Him. And that is how we live the Christian life – by faith in what Jesus has done. We walk by faith in what God says is true of us, and not by sight as to how we feel in our struggle to live lives worthy of Him. I hope this post can help some understand the peril of performance-based thinking.

Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Legalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 28 Comments

Jack Schaap is not the first high profile pastor or church leader to fall into sin. I remember blogging about the fall of Ted Haggard, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, back in 2006. Roman Catholics have their fair share of priest-turned-pedophiles, and no church group has the luxury of having leaders with perfect hearts that aren’t susceptible to sin.

Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB), however, are particularly liable to fall into this sin, it would seem. And I would say there are several pitfalls that especially plague IFBs. Many don’t see these pitfalls and end up getting used and abused by the system. And so I find the need to speak out and warn people, lovingly of what I consider to be errors in their way of thinking.

These pitfalls can be wide enough to catch people of a variety of stripes, but apply most directly to “old-fashioned” fundamental Baptists. There is a large group of IFB churches that are more or less similar in their susceptibility to the issues I want to discuss. I hope this conversation can focus on the Bible and on what it teaches about these pitfalls. And I do pray that some are helped by this.

The first pitfall I want do discuss is, legalism.

John Piper has defined legalism, as follows:

(1) Treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor…

(2) The erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church; This is where unbiblical exclusivism arises. [Source]

I think this is an excellent definition, but of course not everyone will be happy with it. Some are offended or confused by the use of the term “legalism” by people who critique fundamentalism. I want to elaborate on this further, using something I wrote a while ago. I can’t say everyone has a legalistic mentality in a given church–I speak for myself. But certain environments facilitate this mindset.

So why do I use the term “legalism?” Look at Piper’s definition a little more closely: “Treating biblical standards of conduct as regulations to be kept by our own power in order to earn God’s favor.” Piper has many personal rules of conduct that he keeps out of a desire to please God (he doesn’t own a TV, he doesn’t go to movies very often, he doesn’t drink, etc.). He does so, however, from love for God not a sense of rigorous duty. What’s important I think is “by our own power.” For years I was in a church that taught us to “just do it”. If we were really serious about God we would keep these rules and regulations, most of which went way beyond what was spelled out in Scripture. It was hard to toe the line, and we were encouraged to have character and resolve. Yes we were told to depend on the spirit, but the emphasis was on personal effort.

In keeping those rules we felt that we were truly obeying God. And when we saw others who didn’t keep those same rules, part of us, deep inside, thought we were better than them. We felt we were in a sense earning status with God. Our group was more serious about God than other groups. Why? Because we did this, and that. The emphasis was on us. And we didn’t truly have a perspective of God’s grace and a genuine love for all the brothers and sisters we have in Christ.

This is what Piper is arguing against. And while I often bristled against the term “legalism” too. After I came out of the system and thought more objectively, I realized that “legalism” really did fit. The focus was externals. Not that those aren’t important, but the very nature of the environment we were in promoted the idea of making sure we look good to others by keeping the community’s rules. Since we judged each other on externals so much, and since externals were harped on in the pulpit so often, it became natural to think this way. We were all, to one degree or another, earning favor and status with God. Yes the Gospel was preached but it was presented as a thing to accept mentally and assent to once, and after that you pay God back, in a sense, by keeping His rules. It was not really presented as something you can live by.

What is missing is that in our own strength we are sure to fall. The rules are hard. And when that was acknowledged we were encouraged to vow to do better, to clench our teeth and determine not to give up, to go forward and recommit ourselves to God during the public invitation. To seek accountability and force ourselves to do it. Often manipulative, human-oriented schemes were used to try to belittle those who didn’t persevere. It was a method to try to encourage them to keep on keeping on. In all of this a focus on Christ was lost. The Gospel is all about the fact we can’t keep God’s rules. We need help. And we have a glorious Savior. From the love He’s given me, and in light of the glorious grace of God giving me what I do not deserve, I can have a Spirit-wrought desire to please Him. With that motivation, the rules of what I do or don’t do, are not burdensome. They don’t even really matter. What matters is my love for Jesus and desire to please Him. If I fall, I know I have an advocate, and I am saddened since I displease Him. And I’m again amazed that He picks me up and helps me keep going.

I hope you can see how this “legalism” can be harmful. It can take our focus off of Christ and onto ourselves. And the 2nd kind of legalism points us to our neighbors. We assess whether they are qualified for me to even consider them part of our church. This is doubly harmful because the standards we’re measuring them by are not even entirely Biblical. They are more often a particular application of a Biblical principle.

I hope this helps explain where we are coming from. Terms like this are inflammatory I know. There’s not much we can do about that. But if you see where our objection is to this kind of thing, maybe it helps you understand why we label it “legalism ” and why we are against it.

I’d encourage you to check out C.J. Mahaney’s book The Cross-Centered Life, it has an excellent chapter on legalism. For more on the Biblical basis for this, see my series on the Gospel’s work in believers.

Jack Schaap’s Fall and the Future of the IFB Movement

~ Bob Hayton ~ 135 Comments

Another Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) leader is dismissed amid a national scandal. First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana, which boasts the world’s largest Sunday School and membership of 15,000, issued the following press release yesterday:

At this time, we deeply regret the need to announce that First Baptist Church has dismissed our pastor, Dr. Jack Schaap, due to a sin that has caused him to forfeit his right to be our pastor. First Baptist Church is in full cooperation with our local authorities in their investigation of this matter. Our church grieves over the need to take this action and the impact it will have on our people.

We ask that everyone pray for the families involved and pray that the situation will be handled in a Christ honoring manner. We look forward to the days ahead as we continue to service the needs of our surrounding community and the Chicago area.

For any media-related questions, please contact First Baptist Church spokesman, Eddie Wilson at (219) 945-6475.

What has come out in various media reports so far is that Schaap had an affair with sexually abused a sixteen year old girl. The deacons of the church found out, and reported the matter to the authorities. While the church thinks nothing criminal has happened, the police are investigating a crime. The age of consent in Illinois is 18 and some of the dalliances allegedly happened in Illinois and Michigan. Additional details have been shared on Facebook and StuffFundiesLike.com, alleging that a picture of Schaap in a compromising situation with this girl was found on his cell phone which a deacon had found lying around somewhere. And this sonds correct since the church moved so swiftly in this case. In any case, the police have also brought in the FBI and the story is attracting a large media presence. More details will eventually emerge, I’m sure.

Some are saying “I told you so.” See the comments here on Sharper Iron. I do think we should pray for First Baptist and for Schaap’s wife, Cindy, especially. Schaap was known for his edgy statements about sex and intimacy and how this describes the union we have with Christ (see here and here). Maybe we should have expected that this day would come.

But the lessons to be learned from Schaap’s fall are wider than his own issues. Schaap was “king on the mountain” in his arena in fundamentalism. Even though he didn’t share the singular adulation that his father-in-law, Jack Hyles, did from a large segment of independent fundamental Baptists, he nevertheless controlled his church and ministry with a similar sense of bravado and hubris. And this is one of the biggest problems I have with many IFBs. Authoritarianism. Pastors living as “the Untouchables” among the peons of their church. The Holy “Man of Gawd” mentality, that we cannot “touch the Lord’s Annointed.” All of this sets up these men for big falls. At least when Schaap fell, he didn’t hand out “100% for Jack” buttons like his father-in-law did.

We have seen high profile scandals emerge lately from all across the IFB movement (and some have been keeping count). I suppose it is fair to point out that the Roman Catholics and even the Southern Baptists (as fundamentalist leader Bob Gray points out) have had their share of molestation cases. But as it is with the Catholics, in the IFB movement, there is a level of authoritarianism built into the very structure of the movement. And openness and accountability do not pervade the structures of the movement.

Over the years, I’ve covered several of the scandals here: ABC News 20/20 report on Chuck Phelps and CNN’s report on Fairhaven and Hephzibah House, are the newest and most high profile cases. But when an evangelist that I knew during my time in a IFB college (Rodney Stewart) fell, I had some specific thoughts about why pastor’s fall. Those thoughts are worth reading again. We all do need to take care lest we ourselves fall.

But to conclude this post, if the IFB movement is to have any future worth mentioning, they are going to have to move toward an elder-rule, accountability-focused leadership style. May Jack Schaap’s fall encourage more IFB churches to change. And I hope that for the first time in nearly 50 years, First Baptist of Hammond doesn’t host a national pastor’s school. Instead may they seek God’s Word for counsel and meditate on how they can protect their church from this kind of scandal and all the harm it does to everyone in the congregation.

CLARIFICATION: I mean “mutual-leadership by a plurality of elders rather than only a “elder-rule” leadership. I believe elders can operate effectively in a congregational style church (such as was the norm with historic Baptists in America), and that there can even be a “first among equals”. My main point is that too many IFB churches have an “untouchable” pastor who is “the Lord’s Anointed”, and he stands above the fray and above any kind of meaningful accountability.