Tag: IFBx

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.

A Third Option for Separation: Tetreau on Type A, B & C Fundamentalism Again

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Back in 2006, Pastor Joel Tetreau posted a three part series at SharperIron.org called “Three Lines in the Sand”. In it, he explained the landscape of fundamentalism in terms of Type A, Type B and Type C fundamentalists. You can still read that original series of posts at Sharper Iron: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Type A is the traditional, hard-line fundamentalist who won’t budge on music or other cultural issues and doesn’t see any need to fellowship with those who disagree with him. Type B were those like Tetreau who didn’t mind moving beyond the boundaries of the fundamentalist movement for fellowship and cooperation, but nevertheless self-identified as fundamentalists — holding to the fundamentals and a practice of separation. Type C fundamentalists were the conservative evangelicals who shared ideals with fundamentalists but not the name and had no organic connection with the movement.

This week, Tetreau has revisited this topic and gives some more observations about where we are now, five years removed from his original series. His post is well worth the read and has already attracted a lot of interaction in the comments at Sharper Iron.

I wanted to excerpt his description of the fundamentalist types as well as his view of a “third option” for separation. Then I have a few comments on his taxonomy.

Joel’s Taxonomy

Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.

Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!

Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.

Joel’s “Third Option”

Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!

Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.

[headings and the bolded emphasis in the last paragraph, are mine.]

I don’t want to excerpt more than this because you’re really going to want to read his whole piece. One area of difference I have with Joel (besides being a Type C fundamentalist — Joel is a Type B), is that he limits fellowship to just the Type C’s rather than those who are perhaps a Type D.  I’m referring to those who are further removed from the mindset of militancy, but who nevertheless respect the fundamentals and are confessionally based. I notice John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and the like, are not listed as Type C fundamentalists – yet I would argue each in his own way does much to stand for the fundamentals of the faith against the inroads of modernism and liberalism (and a whole host of other -isms). They may not have that “edge” or sharpness about them in their critique of other movements in Christianity. They may not be as shrill as fundamentalists typically would like. They may not have pronounced as many anathemas over the Elephant Room 2 as some would like, perhaps, but they nevertheless are leaders who represent a mindset that Type B and C fundamentalists should respect and cooperate with.

Still, Joel’s explanation of Type A, B, and C has really helped me in my thinking through the tangled reality of fundamentalism and evangelicalism over the years. And I’m happy he is continuing to expound on his simple matrix for processing how we can “cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our ‘camp’ or ‘group’.” That is the spirit I see exemplified in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, and embodied in his call for unity in John 17. May such a spirit of cooperation and unity continue to spread among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals everywhere.

The Mexico Trip

~ Bob Hayton

It is stories like this, corroborated by several people who were there, which make my faith in Fairhaven Baptist Church’s account of things waver. CNN took down the video clip of last night’s broadcast segment on Fairhaven. I’m not entirely sure why. But on the video, Roger Voegtlin said he was not aware of Butch McCoy’s story as shared below. I’ve been told that he was made aware of the story by a professor at the college. This professor confronted Roger Voegtlin about this, and that was part of the rationale he had for leaving Fairhaven.

Why am I about to share the details of this story to everyone on my blog? Especially when I can’t corroborate it? Because it would appear that many have tried to silence this story. The CNN video clip which has been taken down, talked about this in part, and I want to share the story here for others to see. This should help explain why people would want to “out” Fairhaven via CNN, and I would have to hope that everyone would agree that the actions described below are harsh, abusive and just plain wrong. Even if in some particulars the events were slightly less severe as described below, it still is alarming.

One more reason I have for sharing this, is that I intend to talk about a philosophy of discipline and this is a negative extreme that can flesh out the ramifications of our philosophy. Sadly actions like these, and there were other stories recounted on similar teen trips sponsored by Fairhaven that are similarly rife with humiliation and physical abuse, have poisoned the hearts of many of the children such tactics were intended to win. And Fairhaven has the distinction of scores and scores of children who’ve been raised there only to “go bad” and leave the church running headlong into the world. That alone should say these tactics don’t work, and should alarm people about the philosophy of discipline and family advocated at Fairhaven.

Finally, I should share another reason. I went there, and I have family who have been influenced by the place. I’ve known about such tales for some time and haven’t spoken out as strongly as I should. I believe this is my duty, to speak strongly against what I believe to be is at least a horrible neglect when it comes to reigning in the actions of members who abuse their children, and what may well be a culture of using harsh physical corrective discipline in ways that go way beyond the bounds of common decency and Christian love.

You’ll have to click this link, to read the story. I’ve already gone so long as it is. The link goes to a page on my site with a copy of the story that’s been spreading around Fairhaven and is signed by several people who were there and witnessed all this. Comments will be closed on this post, as well. No need to glory and revel in the sad tale shared here. Just take it as a lesson of what can happen by well intentioned people who are not thinking through what they’re doing to young people well enough.

Fairhaven Baptist and Spanking… on CNN

~ Bob Hayton ~ 278 Comments

Here’s most of the segment that was aired tonight on CNN. I’ll just share it here, and hope to discuss this more later. I think it’s clear CNN is being more than fair in their coverage, but the question is whether the truth is coming out or not.

UPDATE: The video was taken down by CNN, but here is a link to the transcript.

UPDATE 2: I found the video again, under a new name and with a different link. So I’ve embedded it again.