Tag: IFBx

Hephzibah House Horrors

~ Bob Hayton ~ 29 Comments

Following my post from yesterday, I wanted to share the video clip of CNN reporting on Hephzibah House, an IFB reform house for girls.

If that isn’t enough, you can hear a detailed documentary of eight former HH students detailing what life was like for them at Hephzibah. The documentary is chilling and scary and reinforces how serious this problem is. And somehow the house has kept on running for nearly 40 years…

Why is it that some think brute force, spanking harder and more determinedly, can somehow produce spiritual results? Where do they come up with the idea that surrogate parenting will work, and is condoned by God? And why is it that using military school and extreme psychological tactics will be able to turn out women who fear the Lord and bask in His love?? These are human-centered, pragmatic tactics NEVER MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. And they abuse these poor girls. The results aren’t even worth talking about, as numerous former HH girls run away from Christianity with all their might.

There are a lot of man-centered, Arminian assumptions behind these reform schools and their methods, and I hope to explore this in more detail over the coming weeks. For now, be ashamed of this wing of fundamentalism, be alarmed, and think about what God would have you do.

More IFB Abuse in the News

~ Bob Hayton ~ 13 Comments

This April, some of you know that ABC News’ 20/20 program did an hour long special on the Independent Fundamental Baptist church movement and repeated allegations of sexual abuse — focusing in on a case that happened in Concord, New Hampshire at a church pastored at the time by Chuck Phelps. You can read the posts I did as a follow up to that report, here.

Well, I just learned that CNN’s 360 program with Anderson Cooper has been running a series entitled “Ungodly Discipline”. In their first hour long show on Thursday 9/1, they boomeranged off the sad case of a couple who beat their seven year old daughter to death following the principles from Michael and Debi Pearl’s book To Train Up a Child (a book I was encouraged to purchase at my fundamentalist college). This couple literally spanked the child for seven hours with small breaks for bathroom and prayer. Then the show interviewed the Pearls about their book and their take on spanking. The president of the Bible College I attended was then quoted in a sermon of his on spanking, and Jocelyn Zichterman (who was instrumental in the ABC News program) was interviewed. Next, there was a segment on the alleged abuse cases at Hephzibah House, a home for troubled girls in Indiana. Finally, a closing segment interviewed Bruce Feiler (author of several books explaining evangelical culture) and Jeffrey Toobin (the legal consultant for the show) on how much leeway parents have in spanking their children, legally today.

I wanted to share the videos here and begin discussing the tragedy of such physical abuse perpetrated in the name of the Lord among hyper-fundamentalist Christians. I want to look further at the topic of spanking, and what we are supposed to do about these kinds of cases. I think the time for hiding behind a desire not to spread misinformation and stretched-truths is behind me. Enough has been said and shared that the stories are quite believable. And at the very least those who are alleged to be promoting this kind of physical abuse need to stand up and face the music. They should defend what they are doing by the Bible and distance themselves from this pattern of abuse. And if they don’t, we’ll have the confirmation we need of the many stories we’ve heard. People need to be warned, and enough is enough.

So watch the four segments below (we’ll treat the Hephzibah House segment on its own post). I have learned that another episode is planned that focuses in directly on my alma mater, Fairhaven Baptist College. That show is to air Thursday, 9/22. I’ll be following it closely, but from some of the stories I have read over the last few months, I’m not surprised. In fact, I hope the truth comes out, and that the many who are being misled and harmed by the leadership (whether intentionally or not), will be awakened to evil that has been allowed to flourish.

UPDATE: since this was hard to load for some people, I have just included links to the individual video segments that you can watch on CNN.

part 1

part 2

part 3

Concluding interview.

After watching these videos you may want to check out Mike Durning’s helpful summary and description of the show along with his take on it, posted at Sharper Iron.

Kevin Bauder’s Eight Characteristics of Hyper-Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 72 Comments

A new book forthcoming from Zondervan includes a chapter from Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis. I won’t talk about the book other than to mention its title, and that it is worth getting! The book is Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Collin Hansen and Andrew Naselli.

I’m still only about half-way through a galley copy of this book, but my eyes lit up when I came across Bauder’s characteristics of hyper-fundamentalism. I think he has captured lightning in a bottle with this list of descriptors, since for a very long time I’ve struggled to pinpoint the cross-over line from reasonable fundamentalism to fundamentalism run wild.

I just have to share Bauder’s eight characteristics of hyper-fundamentalism with you, but I strongly encourage you to get the book and read his entire essay. This quotation is from a pre-published version of the book so it may diverge in part from the final published product.

————————

First, hyper-fundamentalists often understand fundamentalism in terms of loyalty to an organization, movement, or even leader. They equate the defense of the faith with the prosperity of their organization or its leader. Someone who criticizes or contradicts it is subjected to censure or separation.

Second, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes adopt a militant stance regarding some extrabiblical or even antibiblical teaching. [He sites KJV-onlyism as an example.] …When individuals become militant over such nonbiblical teachings, they cross the line into hyper-fundamentalism.

Third, hyper-fundamentlists understand separation in terms of guilt by association. To associate with someone who holds any error constitutes an endorsement of that error….

Fourth, hyper-fundamentalists are marked by an inability to receive criticism. For them, questioning implies weakness or compromise. Any criticism — especially if it is offered publicly — constitutes an attack….

A fifth characteristic of hyper-fundamentalism is anti-intellectualism. Some hyper-fundamentalists view education as detrimental to spiritual well-being…. Colleges, when they exist, are strictly for the purpose of practical training.

Sixth, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes turn nonessentials into tests of fundamentalism. For example, some hyper-fundamentalists assume that only Baptists should be recognized as fundamentalists…. One’s fundamentalist standing may be judged by such criteria as hair length, musical preferences, and whether one allows women to wear trousers.

Seventh, hyper-fundamentalists occasionally treat militant political involvement as a criterion for fundamentalist standing. During the 1960s and 1970s, anticommunism was a definitive factor for some fundamentalists. Its place has now been taken by antiabortion and antihomosexual activism. Most fundamentalists do agree about these issues, but hyper-fundamentalists make militant activism a necessary obligation of the Christian faith.

Eight and last, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes hold a double standard for personal ethics. They see themselves engaged in an ecclesiastical war, and they reason that some things are permissible in a warfare that would not be permissible in ordinary life. They may employ name-calling, half-truths, and innuendo as legitimate weapons. They may excuse broken promises and political backstabbing.

Hyper-fundamentalism takes many forms, including some that I have not listed. Nevertheless, these are the forms that are most frequently encountered. When a version of fundamentalism bears one or more of these marks, it should be viewed as hyper-fundamentalist…

Hyper-fundamentalism is not fundamentalism. It is as a parasite on the fundamentalist movement. For many years it was simply a nuisance, largely ignored by mainstream fundamentalists. Ignoring the problem, however, permitted it to grow. While statistics are not available, hyper-fundamentalists now constitute a significant percentage of self-identified fundamentalists, perhaps even a majority. They have become the noisiest and often the most visible representatives of fundamentalism. They may be the only version of fundamentalism that many people ever see.

–Excerpted from Kevin Bauder’s chapter on Fundamentalism, in Four Views of the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 2011).

————————

Let me know what you think. Doesn’t Bauder nail it with this description? I think so.

How Do You Define Fundamentalism?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

So how do you define Fundamentalism?

Which of the following definitions seems correct to you? Which one raises your eyebrows?

1) Fundamentalism is a movement of likeminded people and churches who “still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal” against theological liberalism. (quote from Curtis Lee Laws in 1920)

2) Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific, fundamental, theological doctrines typically in reaction against Modernist theology.

3) The word fundamental means, one who holds to the original faith and practice of a movement…. A fundamental Baptist church is a church whose faith and practice goes back to 31 A.D. to Jesus. You can be a fundamental Methodist and go back to Wesley. You can be a fundamental Presbyterian and go back to Calvin or Zwingli. You can be a fundamental Lutheran and go back to Luther. You can be a fundamental Catholic and go back to Constantine, but you cannot be a real Bible fundamentalist unless you go back to Jesus. (quote from Jack Hyles taken from his book The Church)

4) Fundamentalism is “a combination of psuedo-religious legalism with endless man-made rules given Ten Commandment-status, religious hypocrisy, extreme sectarianism, religious pride, and pervasive intellectual, ecclesiastic, ethical corruption and dishonesty all ruled over by a few men who embodied the worst qualities of the original Pharisees and whose teachings and actions cannot be questioned.” (quote from this anti-fundamentalist blog)

The fundamentalism I identify with is #1 or #2 above. I abhor the #4 type. In my experience, however, the #4 type is most pervasive and most common. The #3 mentality is also common among fundamental Baptists. They have an exclusive hold on the truth, or so they think. Check out this website for another example of this thinking. I am suspicious of this #3 mentality, but many good people are caught up in that kind of thinking.

Alright, what about you? What is your take on these four definitions of fundamentalism? Do you have a better definition? Join the discussion below.

J. Frank Norris on Loyalty & Pastoral Leadership

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Here is an excerpt from The Shooting Salvationist by David R. Stokes, a detailed account of J. Frank Norris’ murder trial. My review of the book is forthcoming. This excerpt reveals how the fundamentalist leader thought in terms of how to run his “business”, i.e. his church. How many fundamentalist pastors and leaders have followed his lead in this regard, I wonder? And all of them to the disregard of 1 Pet. 5:2-3. How sad.

________________________________________

Norris fascinated students at Southwestern Baptist Seminary across town from his church. Though they were discouraged from associating with the preacher because of his antagonism toward the denomination, some found a way to see the controversial clergyman in action. And when one of them had the courage to try to visit Norris at his office, risking the wrath of seminary officials, J. Frank was gleefully accommodating.

Roy Kemp was one such gutsy guy. When he decided to pay a call on Norris, the ever-present secretary-gatekeeper, Miss Jane Hartwell, ushered him immediately into the preacher’s office on the second floor of the church’s Sunday school building.

“Roy, I take it you have come up to find out how I run my business,” Norris said, looking fiercely at Kemp.

“Yes, sir.”

The preacher then pointed to a portrait on his wall — one of a locomotive — and told his visitor that he was like that powerful lead car on a train forcing all in its way off the tracks. He pointed to another picture on another wall — Napoleon Bonaparte — and said:

Roy, do you know that man’s philosophy? One: he believed — and said so — that no man ever served another man except for personal gain. Two: Or, out of fear. He would never have a man around him for long who had his first allegiance to any other man or woman. Full and unconditional allegiance had to be to him and him personally. That’s the way I run my business!