Tag: IFBx

Independence, Influence and IFB Churches: Followup on the 20/20 Report

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

Here’s a few more thoughts about the 20/20 report on Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches. These may be random, but I thought I’d push this out for clarity.

First off, I want to explain for people who don’t know, what an Independent Fundamental Baptist church is. It’s independent in that, it doesn’t have a denominational hierarchy. Such churches are often part of a fellowship of likeminded churches, or they associate with other churches connected with a Bible camp or a college. But no one can tell them what to do directly, hence they are independent. They are fundamental, but not in the sense of being firebombers or radicals. Fundamental or Fundamentalist refers to the fundamentals of the faith and the struggle between conservatives and modernists back in the 1920s (I have some info on that here).

Secondly, while in theory IFB churches are independent, in practice they are interdependent. This story could really be just about one church in New Hampshire, and some of these abuse stories are about one crazy church or one incident by a bad person. For instance, Fred Phelps (no relation to Chuck Phelps), the infamous pastor who protests the funerals of soldiers and who hates gays, he is an IFB pastor. But his church truly is an island and has virtually no influence among the vast majority of IFB churches. His could truly be said to be a cult. But the churches and pastors in the report are not isolated like Phelps’ small church (composed mostly of his own family members) is. Two of the pastors named in the report, Chuck Phelps and Matt Olson, both were at one time presidents of large influential Bible Colleges that train pastors. Phelps was president at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, and Olson currently is the president of Northland Baptist Bible College. The 20/20 report didn’t mention that fact, but it certainly dispels the notion that whatever happened is just a local, minor incident. The fact that both Olson and Phelps dealt with issues poorly (at least per the 20/20 take on things), does reflect a wider problem among IFB churches in general. Additionally, the air time given to Jack Schaap’s rantings is not insignficant. He is the president of another Bible college with a large influence over thousands of IFB churches. The preacher boys at Hyles-Anderson College are going to emulate Jack Schaap and pick up on his denigration of women. So that isn’t just a minor issue among IFB churches either.

I still stand by my thoughts that IFB churches in general are not all bad. There are many good IFB churches and the movement as a whole is changing and growing. But there are bad apples, and a tendency to produce or insulate bad apples. Let’s not ignore that.

For additional reading, Pastor Brian Fuller of Trinity Baptist in New Hampshire explains why he allowed 20/20 cameras into the church. I do think he did a great job (as good as could be expected), given the circumstances and I’m thankful he let the cameras in. But StuffFundiesLike.com brings up some important points too. Normally that website doesn’t major on thoughtful commentary, preferring to illustrate absurdities among fundamentalists. The commentary on the 20/20 report, though, was actually quite insightful. I think there are valid points raised there worth thinking through.

Christianity is not served by churches refusing to budge and admit they have problems. But Christianity is also not about being perfect and having no problems. This IFB scandal is not a reason to bail on Christianity. It might be a reason to bring up questions with your church and pastor, or to think through whether you are in a good church. But the potential for abuse is widespread and goes beyond IFB churches only.

For those looking to help their churches or looking for help in handling abuse situations, I recommend listening to this interview on Reformed Cast on the problem of abuse in the Church. You can also learn more at GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment).

ABC News’ 20/20 Show Lampoons Independent Fundamental Baptists

~ Bob Hayton ~ 63 Comments

Last night, ABC News’ 20/20 show was devoted to a sexual abuse scandal in an Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Church. You can watch the full episode here, or the print version can be found here.

I learned of the airing of this show from a news item posted over at Sharper Iron, where there has been quite the discussion of this. I’ve shared some thoughts there and thought I should bring this to the attention of my blog audience. I also read Bob Bixby’s helpful thoughts prior to the airing of the show. I think he was spot on, all around.

Now as for the show, several questions I had from the back and forth that I was reading beforehand were answered. The specific details, as terrible as they are, seem much clearer. I know what the accusations are, but do I think they’re true?

Well, I should let you see Pastor Chuck Phelp’s side of things here. This site including disclosures and a statement by the victim’s mother was put up right as 20/20 aired. It wasn’t available previously.

To back up a bit, Tina Anderson was a girl attending an IFB church and private school in New Hampshire. She was molested by her father when she was young, which is a documented fact. Then a 38 year old man in her church raped her twice, while she was only 15. After confiding in her pastor, she was counseled that she should have “called out” like the victim in the Pentateuch was supposed to. If she was living in OT times she would have been stoned, the pastor told her. She did say no, and resisted but in some way the pastor thought she had sinned. She was encouraged to write a letter confessing her sin and her pregnancy to her church; and as someone under the spiritual control of her pastor and in a system where her whole life was wrapped up in the church going to the school and church for every function, she complied. Then at a business meeting, a matter of discipline was brought to the church. First, the perpetrator stood and confessed to adultery. Then on a separate matter, at least that’s how three witnesses who appeared on camera said it was described, the pastor then read the letter written by Tina, the victim, as she stood in front of the church sobbing. There wasn’t any admission that the adulterer’s companion was actually this minor.

Later she’s whisked away to Colorado to another IFB church and home where she brings her pregnancy to term and puts the baby up for adoption. When she returns to the church, she is not allowed back in to the school as she’d be a bad influence. She thought she was in some way responsible for the crime done to her and still went along with everything in her desire to be right with God. After all, IFB churches were all she really knew. Meanwhile, the man who did the crime continued on as a member in good standing at the church.

The pastor has evidence that he called the cops, but they never pursued the matter. And the pastor, Chuck Phelps, now has moved to another church. It was 13 years ago or so, when these events happened, with Tina only recently having the courage to press charges. Pastor Phelps now admits he made mistakes in handling the matter, but he claims this was a consensual dating relationship that turned sexual. Yes, he believes that even though the other party was 38 and Tina was only 15 (with a history of abuse done to her)! I hardly understand how he could seriously think this way.

Anyway, you’ll have to watch the 20/20 episode and read Pastor Phelps’ statements yourself. I can’t claim to know that Tina is not lying, but her story does have a ring of truth to me. Having been in some strict IFB churches, and seeing a high level of control over every aspect of your life, I can imagine many of the points shared to be true (and also how the church would spin it positively). Pastor Bob Bixby feels the same way and discusses the groupthink mentality quite well in his initial reflections on the 20/20 episode.

The report additionally provides audio excerpts of IFB pastors offering chilling advice on spanking and discipline. Jack Schaap of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN and Hyles-Anderson College is the only pastor who really gets face time. Three separate times they show him saying demeaning things about women and what have you, but they do not name him. They don’t name anyone but they do imply that the IFB movement is akin to a separate Church, like the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church, etc. But I can’t really blame them for not knowing all the ins and outs of how IFB churches associate and don’t associate with each other.

The current pastor at the church in New Hampshire did a great job in dealing with the 20/20 interview. He put us at ease that the environment that allowed this to happen to Tina has changed for the better, and shows a considerate and compassionate side of the IFB movement.

Jocelyn Zichterman and her IFB Cult Survivor Facebook group also get a lot of air time. While for some, Jocelyn’s ministry can be helpful, I think she often groups all IFB churches together as culpable for the crimes of a few. I have long opposed IFB abuse, but I take pains not to broadbrush the entire movement. I don’t advise that leaving an IFB church is the single answer for everyone struggling with the shortcomings of fundamentalism.

The word “cult” has various connotations, it applies to controlling groups that exert pressure to conform to their rules and practices, but it’s also used specifically of groups that teach unorthodox doctrine. While some IFB churches (and even groups of churches) might deserve the definition “cult” in the first (and even second) sense, there isn’t enough of a structure and similarity between the thousands of widely different IFB churches for all of them to be operating in unison.

While all IFB churches aren’t abusing and covering up abuse, they do nevertheless share a propensity for it. The preacher as “man of God” teaching, the emphasis on authority and control, the lack of openness by church leaders, often no accountability for senior pastors, no denominational checks and balances, a persecution mindset and remnant mentality, a tendency toward externals and legalism, emphasis on corporeal punishment — all this can combine to make IFB churches in general susceptible to such abuse. IFB churches need to admit this and work to safeguard their churches from the horrific evils of physical and sexual abuse. I know many of them do, but more can be done to take a stand against this widespread problem. Sadly, the case in New Hampshire is but the tip of the iceberg.

Let me be clear. Many good IFB churches exist where abuse of any kind is unthinkable. Many don’t have any of the problems I listed above (although they share a history and culture where these tendencies do exist). Several are among the best churches one can find and I recommend them. But it’s high time the wackos and crazies that call themselves fundamentalists get ejected from the IFB movement. Separation from excess and abuse on the right is as important as separation from compromise and error on the left.

Alright then, let’s go ahead and discuss this issue in the comment section here. More can and probably should be said about this. We can only speculate about the outcome of this particular case, until the judge has his say, however. But often it is events like this that raise questions and start people thinking again, which is always a good thing.

Another Reader’s Story of Extreme Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Rather frequently I receive emails from readers who have stumbled across “my story.” Most of them thank me for taking the time to share as they have gone through similar circumstances and are helped by my own experience. Sometimes these emails include a detailed story from the reader, of their own journey with respect to fundamentalism. I shared one such story a while back, and now I have another reader’s story to share.

This particular story comes from an ugly side of fundamentalism. In my estimation, this kind of fundamentalism was quite widespread and common twenty or thirty years ago. It is less common now, I would think this kind of fundamentalism is at a decided minority when it comes to the movement as a whole. My prayer would be that people en masse would wake up to this problem and we would soon only encounter it in the history books. Sadly that is not true yet.

Feel free to comment on the story below, or contact me to share your own story.

Message:

I found your blog as I was doing some internet research on the heretical teachings of Charles Finney. Our pastor mentioned him in his sermon at church yesterday so I was finding things to copy and give to him. It is still beyond me how Finney is hailed as a hero in most Baptist circles, but that is another story for another day. While I visited your site, I was intrigued by your “story” and read it with all diligence. Everything you said rang true with me. I, too, was raised in an IFBx church in the Detroit area, with so much emphasis placed on the outward appearance that it has taken me years to come out from under that. The more “holy” you looked, the more “holy” you obviously were, true self righteousness at its finest. The men were not allowed to have facial hair of any kind as it was considered worldly. The deacon’s wives were not allowed to be seen in public wearing pants. We were preached sermons against playing cards of any kind, including Old Maid (I am showing my age here! HA HA). I remember one time during a period of economic decline of the church (which was VERY typical of the control freak stance of most pastors then who believed their authority gave them license to control everything, including the bookkeeping), our pastor even ordered the members to give their entire paychecks the following week. My dad was a deacon but thankfully did not allow himself to be led by such tyranny. Keep in mind this was during the late 60’s and early 70’s where most middle class people lived in modest frame homes, typically 2 or, at the most, 3 bedrooms and 1 bath. The fact that our pastor lived in a three-story home overlooking the lake and was provided a new luxury car by the church seemed a bit hypocritical to me. There was a mindset that prevailed in the church of extreme everything. It led to an over-the-top arrogancy on the part of its adherents, sometimes to the point of trying to “one up” the next guy by coming up with some new Pharisee-minded rule. True legalism leads to rebellion as people realize they will never be able to keep up, so many simply “jump ship” and pay the consequences of extremism in the opposite direction. I was no exception. I heard Calvinistic preachers like Spurgeon quoted by my pastor but obviously it was the Finney-style Pelagianism that prevailed in the church. I find it comical that many IFBs quote people like Spurgeon but don’t even realize the differences in their doctrinal stand. I am 53 years old and am so thankful that God truly delivered me from all that past. I shudder sometimes when I think of the sermons I regularly heard as a kid and which have stayed with me for all these years. The older I get and the more firmly grounded I get in God’s Word, I look back at these sermons not only with true regret as I see the impact they had on the people, but now it also seems almost comical that people would actually fall for stuff like that. Most of the young people I went to school and church with have simply walked away. Most of the older folks have continued with the legalistic mindset, with few of them being delivered from that. After all, it makes them feel better about themselves. When you mentioned Hyles-Anderson College, my interest piqued even more. My childhood was spent attending the church where ——— ———– of Hyles-Anderson College fame attended. I knew his family well as he, his wife, his three daughters and his sister and her family were church members there. I attended our church’s Christian school and made many trips to Hammond, Indiana for sports competitions against Hyles’ Christian school, of which I don’t even know still exists. I’m also very familiar with ——- ——– and his alma mater, Bob Jones University. Spent many hours there as well for musical competitions. By the time I was in high school, I began to question some of the things I was taught but was still too young and immature, both spiritually and emotionally, to fully understand the concept of my quandary. I wanted to thank you for expressing your thoughts and experiences with IFB theology. It has taken me many years and living through many experiences (many of them quite negative) to fully understand how grateful I am for God’s delivering me from that legalistic life. As I dug more into God’s Word, I realized that I was taught a very man-centered form of gospel. The list of rules and regulations seemed to team well with my already existent perfectionist personality but, as those who find “living by the law” unattainable, it only brought me to the point of defeat, guilt, remorse and a period of totally walking away from the church. I thank God for His ever-present nudging in my life and for Him bringing me full circle to where I am today. I have home schooled and raised my three kids, all are college graduates, faithful in church and thankfully see the heretical teachings of these extreme IFBPs (IFB preachers) that I grew up hearing. Even the never-ending “let’s-just-sing-one-more-verse” invitations still ring in my mind. Surely by playing on people’s emotions, they were determined to “get them saved one way or another”, only to be disgruntled when the “converts” would fall prey to “backsliding.” Instead of determining whether or not true conversion even took place, they always assumed the backsliders were just in need of revival. After all, they must be saved as they “walked the aisle and prayed the prayer.” Keep up the good work. I’m not a blogger (don’t have time) but consider me a faithful reader to what you so boldly have the guts to proclaim. God bless you for your efforts.

Then in a follow up email, she gave permission for me to share her story anonymously and provided some more reflections:

I was saved there at 9 years of age in 1967, although I have had to “come to grips” with all that since then. After all, “praying the prayer” doesn’t accomplish anything. “By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matt. chapter 7)…. We left ———— after one of those famous IFB church splits, and went to —————- when I was in the fifth grade. It was at ————- all those impressionable years that I truly received my IFB indoctrination. I went to [their] Christian school from its formation until my junior year in high school when I begged my parents to let me go to ———– High School. I have always been one of those “independent thinkers” which kept me in trouble a lot at ————-. I began to question things at an early age and stayed in the principal’s office a lot for “attitude problems” as they would say. Governing the school on the demerit system, I certainly got my share of paddlings in the principal’s office! HA HA You would receive a minimum of 3 demerits for each infraction. When you accumulated 10 demerits, you made the infamous walk to the principal’s office and would get your paddling. It was quite humiliating at the time, especially as the very large and thick paddle was used on both the boys and the girls alike. You had to bend over the principal’s desk and simply “take it.” When you returned to your classroom in tears from the pain, you would see the smirks and giggles from those who knew where you’d been. With my dad being a deacon, he was on the board of directors at the school so I guess my “rebellious attitude” had to be tamed somehow! These period of years caused quite a rebellion in my heart as I began to see the legalism prevail. Grace was certainly not a doctrine taught on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, I remember hearing more sermons on the outward appearances rather than having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. While having that relationship was mentioned, it was as if your daily Bible readings and prayer were things to be “checked off” so as to ensure holiness. To this day, I still struggle with the idea of a frowning stern God ready to punish me as opposed to cultivating that personal relationship with Christ. After all, I was taught that if you dot your i’s and cross your t’s, dress a certain way, abstain from all those “worldly” things, then by default, you MUST be holy! A lot of the people I grew up around would be able to put the original Pharisees to shame! As a disclaimer, I certainly do not blame my rebellion on anybody but myself, knowing that I was, and still am, fully accountable to God for my actions. I would never embrace the current culture’s practice of “being a victim” and milking that for all its worth, just to explain away my own sin. I simply want to express the fact that those early years of legalistic indoctrination took its toll. To this day, I am able to see legalism in people much sooner than my husband who was raised in a very traditional Southern Baptist environment. In his early adulthood when he began studying God’s Word seriously for himself, he began to see the thread of Sovereign Grace unfold and began to also question some of the Arminian thoughts and ideas of childhood. About ten years ago we purchased from www.crosstv.com their Sovereign of God series. By far, more people have borrowed that Bible study from us than anything else we’ve purchased through the years! That study had such a profound effect on us that we purchased more studies from them, many of which were done by other teachers. The Sovereignty of God series was explained in such a way that we were finally able to fully articulate to others how our viewpoints of God’s sovereignty had changed us. While all Christian claim to believe in the sovereignty of God, they still try to explain away their man-centered approach to the plan of salvation and other doctrines. They will say that God is sovereign, but they believe it still depends on man’s choice to accept it. We believe it to all be a paradox but simply cannot explain away the last several verses of Romans chapter 8 and tons of other scriptures throughout the Word that dealt with the sovereignty of God. We’ve definitely taken some heat for our Calvinistic stand by our Arminian relatives, at one point even being accused by a relative of not being saved at all. However, this 70-year-old accusing relative had to admit that if we were indeed correct then he himself had been taught wrong and he simply couldn’t come to grips with that!

…

I did not mean to ramble on so long. I just took the opportunity to express some of my thoughts regarding our common IFBx upbringing. To this day, I literally RUN from any IFB-minded people and/or preachers. I won’t even read any books and/or sermons from IFBPs or authors, fully knowing the lingo they will use. Sorry, but I walked away from that many years ago. I got so tired of topical preaching and taking scriptures out of context in order to fit their own agenda. Instead of expository preaching, where the entire counsel of God is being taught, they are famous for coming up with an idea and finding some verse that will fit. My goodness, even in true fashion of the Pharisees, the IBFPs I grew up with could actually supersede the real scriptures with their own man-made doctrines. While many sermons were indeed truthful, I am sad to report that many of them were based on their own ideas and you were expected to follow along. As I’m sure you remember, ALL IFBPs are indeed the boss of their church and they had no qualms in admitting it. Oh, the times I would hear people being told to simply leave the church if they didn’t like what they were hearing. The deacon board was simply in place in name only. After being elected to the deacon board, those men figured out very quickly that they were required to be “yes men” and any man questioning anything was considered a troublemaker. Our pastor would actually sit on the podium and take roll like a school teacher. If you watched him carefully during the song service, you would see him take out his trusty little “black book” and write down the names of the deacons who weren’t there. My dad confirmed it was taking place as he would receive inquiries as to why he wasn’t there every time the doors were open. My dad didn’t graduate from college until I was in high school so many weeknights of his were spent acquiring his bachelor’s degree in business administration from a small college in ————-. When he was unable to be at church on Wednesday nights or visitation on Tuesday nights, he was certainly read the riot act as he was reminded of his obligations. Most of the time he was required to report to the pastor that he was having classes on any given church night (except for Sunday, of course) and ultimately resigned from the deacon board as a result of what I’ve always called “cult style” religion. That may be an awful word to use, but I’ve always likened the IFBPs of my childhood to cult leaders. They demanded total control over your life, your finances, your children, your homes, how you dressed, etc. and if you refused to comply you were considered substandard Christians. I even remember MANY instances of adults being “called down” from the pulpit if they were “caught” whispering to each other, passing a note of some kind and the infraction of all infractions……..chewing gum. Of course, they were always encouraged to “get right with God.” I remember the pastor’s kids being no exception as he would single them out for any infraction, even to the point of making them stand up at the end of the sermon in order to call them down in front of everybody. Of course, there was always an altar call to follow if they needed to “set things straight” and many times would publicly apologize. Certainly not being against public apologies, I feel those apologies come from the heart of those who desire to give them and not being coerced by an all-controlling IFBP whose desire is humiliate you into conforming. No wonder so many young people of my day decided to bail out and jump ship!

Thank you for having the courage to speak out against IFBx indoctrinations. While these churches don’t seem to be as extreme as they were in my childhood, they are still very legalistic and believe in a man-centered salvation. I cringe at the thought of ever having to step foot in another one. I hope you won’t think I’ve spilled my guts too much. It’s just nice to hear somebody with a similar background extolling the virtues of seeing God’s Word for the Truth that it is. There’s not a day that passes that I am not thankful for the Lord helping me find my way through the legalism of my upbringing. What true transformation, freedom and liberty occurs when you are finally able to shed that old Pharisee cloak and learn how to have a TRUE relationship with your Savior! Why He chose me at all is a wonder beyond my imagination. I feel sorry for those still in the IFB quagmire and I pray they, too, will be released from their bondage.

Thanks for reading my ramblings,
A Reader

True Fundamentalists and the Pretenders

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Dr. Dave Doran comments on the two errors to avoid when it comes to separatism. The neglect of a biblical separatism on the one hand, and an excessive “free-for-all” approach, “where any perceived disobedience [becomes] the basis for excluding someone from true fundamentalism”.

I have seen both errors. And both are errors. The fundamentalist extreme though, can get downright dirty. Each fundamentalist group claims to be “true fundamentalists”, and they dig up all the dirt they can on the “pretenders”, those they allege are merely pretending to be true fundamentalists.

Doran Continues:

…It is necessary to separate from professing believers who persistently disobey God’s command to mark and turn away from false teachers/teaching. It is not necessary, though, to separate from those who are committed to this truth, but apply it differently. The application of biblical truth is always situational. One brother is prepared to act now, while another is waiting a little longer. One brother weighs actions differently than another, resulting in a different conclusion. The GARBC men came out in1932, while the CBA men stayed in until 1947. Some separatists worked within the National Association of Evangelicals until the early 50s, while other separatists opposed it from its start in the early 40s. The idea that men of separatist principles and convictions all agreed with each other straight down the line on matters of application is a myth””a myth that usually is wielded by the true fundamentalist crowd in order to marginalize those they want to paint as pretenders. I think I have even been guilty of doing it from time to time over the years.

Frankly, I have no illusions of restoring fundamentalist unity. That ship sailed a long time ago. What I am burdened about is restoring a proper biblical emphasis on the matter of separation from false doctrine and those who teach it. That is such a serious issue that it impacts our relationship even with professing brothers who persistently refuse to obey God on this matter. John R. Rice and those who followed his lead were wrong on this. They abandoned a biblical truth that must not be abandoned. That same truth, though, has also suffered at the hands of those who abused it and produced one schism after another, often for purely partisan reasons. It is crucial, I think, for us to avoid both of these errors so that we guard ourselves from the non-separatist and hyper-separatist ditches on the left and right sides of the road.

[emphasis added]

I’d encourage you to read Doran’s entire blog post, “The Fragmenting of Fundamentalism”. And if you haven’t had a chance yet, read the interesting exchange between Doran, Minnick and Bauder that I shared earlier.

I couldn’t agree more with Doran on his point. This is where I think much of fundamentalism fails badly. It’s not that separatism isn’t important. It’s that separatism takes many shapes and requires discernment. Just because some haven’t joined the fundamentalist camp yet (and many are largely unaware it exists), doesn’t mean they aren’t attempting to apply the biblical teaching on prizing the Gospel so much that one is ready to fight for it’s truths and separate from apostasy.

Often, I’ve found, so-called “true fundamentalists” stand ready to insert an evil motivation of their imagination behind every choice made by the pretenders or the conservative evangelicals (that the “true fundamentalists” disapprove of). Just because these other men didn’t ask you first, doesn’t mean thy didn’t think through the issue carefully.

Doran, Minnick & Bauder Discuss Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 33 Comments

The following is an enlightening discussion among some of the leaders of today’s fundamentalism. The participants in this discussion are: Dave Doran, pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI; Mark Minnick, pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church and long-time professor at Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC; Chris Anderson, pastor of Tri-County Bible Church in Madison, OH; and Kevin Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, MN. The panel included some other members too, but only these and the moderator (who I assume was host pastor Mike Harding) were participants in the following exchange.

The panel discussion is from the Preserving the Truth Conference, and available as a free MP3 download there. This question and the ensuing discussion can be found at 8:33 – 26:38 on the MP3. I did the transcription below myself, so any errors or inconsistencies in punctuation are my fault. Anything within brackets was added for explanation. I thought having this transcribed would be of interest to many, as otherwise it is buried in an audio download that not everyone would take time to listen to.

This is a bit lengthy, but regular readers of my blog should find it interesting. For those wondering what fundamentalists think of evangelicals, this would be good reading too. I’ll reserve my comments until after the exchange.

———————————

Moderator: Much has been written about the differences between fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism. What do you consider to be the most significant differences and why? I’m going to address that to Dr. Doran.

[laughter]

Dave Doran (D): Well, let me begin by saying… that I… implied in what I said in my session is, that I think those are defective categories. Uh… So, I don’t think they are helpful for the discussion. They operate with a sense of us and them. When if I could just… My thought on it is… We’re not sure who “us” is, we’re not sure who “them” is. We’re not sure what makes us, “us”; and what makes them, “them”. So to… to have the conversation seems inevitably to run into significant ditches, and… and that’s the tension. Now if… if I could… uh… if I could go back to what was just being said. If we wanted to take a distinctive that I think must control our relationships and say what is a church’s and, for lack of a better term, minister’s belief and practice with regard to the defense of the faith. Do they believe that we cannot extend Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied the faith? And that in fact to do that is a disobedience of such a high order that we must withdraw fellowship or withhold it from them? If that becomes the… the… the ah, umbrella within which we can have fellowship, then I think you’re going to have a people who have a lot of different distinctives and you’re going to have people who are closer, more closely aligned with each other at various spots inside there. But it won’t be ah… we can’t have any connection to all of these, or else the rip cord side of it would be… I personally believe, that there are people who are accepted by fundamentalists with whom we should not, ah… we should not accept. And if people are part of associations or fellowships that accept them, do I have to now pull out of my fellowship with those people? And we’ve not done it to that direction. We’ve only done it to the other side. And my point would be to say, uh… that’s why I think it ceases to function well for us to have those 2 categories at this point. Because the “us” category, the “fundamentalist” category is such a mixed breed right now, personally. And, and… every time, like even, and I thought Matt did a great job in the creation thing but, when he was trying to ask the question… conservative evangelicals and young earth creation… he starts naming names. And they believe it, they don’t believe it; they believe it, they don’t believe it. So… so, is there actually a conservative evangelical position on it? Because we don’t even know who those are, like Tremper Longman. I wouldn’t necessarily even put [him] in a conservative evangelical [position], but some people might… But so that’s the tension. Who is “them”? And… so, I just think… I am personally of the view, that… um, that… that as long as we’re thinking of those categories and we’re trying to think of what distinguishes us from them… uh… we’re running into a wall, because we’re coming up with things that we wouldn’t separate from fundamentalists who think those things. That’s my thoughts.

Moderator: And it’s open up for discussion.

Mark Minnick (M): Yea… I… here’s… and I really understand what Dave is saying. Part of my way of trying to get at an answer is to ask what… what, do those people say about themselves in distinction from us. And when I’ve had opportunity of interchange with them, that’s what I try to get at. Because… because the distance here, is… is two way. It isn’t just that we have distanced ourselves, but they are self-identified as well. So when they look at us, what do they say is not true of them, that is true of us and important to us? What are those things?

D: I’ve not heard any. Because… because the people… the people they say that about, I say you’re right.

M: Oh, you mean… when… when they say, that’s not me.

D: Well, when they say… If I say to them, “What about fundamentalism…”

M: …and you say it’s not you either…

D: Right.

M: Yea. Right. [signifying agreement]

D: “…What do you do you reject about fundamentalism?” When I hear them describe it, I go, “I don’t believe that”.

Chris Anderson (?): Well, you add… you add to that… The conservative evangelicals are more likely to speak in ways to disassociate themselves from broad evangelicalism. You know… they’re they’re actually looking at evangelicalism saying, “We’re not that; we’re opposed to that; let’s you know…” Our church when we go through an orientation class… we kind of teach “Here’s where we stand historically”. We’ll go through “Fundamentalism and modernism have had their controversy, and we’re on the fundamentalism side of that”. “Fundamentalism and new evangelicalism had their controversy and so the pie gets cut again and we’re on the fundamentalism side of that”. And when we started that with a church plant, I would just stop there, “so… we’re on the… you know, that’s… that’s us”. And now I actually… you know go further… and say, “Now within this group of fundamentalists that separated, at least you know historically, they’re following those who separated from new evangelicalism… now there are so many other issues within this piece of the pie that we don’t agree with…” “And there’s actually some of the evangelical piece of the pie that is more like us than they are like the evangelicals, and that I agree with them more than I agree with…” It’s just become very complicated… And… uh, I agree… I agree that the “us” and “them” and… and those kind of categories… It’s probably simpler to say let’s take just one issue like music, and how do we relate to… you know… how do we differ on that issue. Well, within evangelicalism you’re going to have Sovereign Grace [Music] and you’re going to have Paula S. Jones. It… everything is just complicated and it needs attention on one issue, one person at a time, I think.

D: If if I could just… add one thing. My point would be to say, I don’t think we obliterate the categories so that we can cooperate with each other. Mine is to say, those categories are not functioning well. So let’s go to what was the category that preceded these categories, and that is about the defense of the gospel, the purity of the church. Where… where does a person come down on those issues? And this is where I would affirm, what I’ve always said, Do they agree with and demonstrate through application that agreement… So if somebody tells me “Yea, I’m a separatist”, and if they’ve never actually done it, then I’m not sure that… you know… So if they agree and apply with what seems… what seems to be a good… good conscience effort to apply it, then… then I know there’s at least something something there, to use a Bauderism, that we have in common, about which we can fellowship. But if we don’t, at that point… There’s share, share, there’s something we share…

[laughter]

Kevin Bauder (B): Um, Dave, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, Dave.

D: Sure you do.

B: No, I’m…

[laughter]

B: No, I get it.

D: Come on, just cut right to the chase.

B: I don’t disagree with the point. But, here we are, we’re us and none of them are here.

[laughter]

Moderator (?): There’s a few of them out there.

D: Yea I was saying… I think based on what I said… Some of them are thinking they are.

B: And when it comes to T4G and the Gospel Coalition there they are. And I don’t know, Mark, have you… have you been invited to preach at T4G, Gospel Coalition?

M: No.

B: Dave, have you?

D: No.

[laughter]

D: But… but I don’t think that’s because of my fundamentalism. They, ah…

Moderator (?): It’s your goatee.

B: We’d like the list!

D: No, I’m just… I mean… who’s?.. They’re not going to ask me to speak it, they’re going to look at the list, and go “Dave Doran, who is that?” You know…

M: No but… but listen… that’s part of my viewpoint on this. I really share this with Kevin. Almost… almost all of the overtures in the last 10 years have been made from our side. In other words, we… we have been the ones…

D: I think you… you were invited to preach at Capitol Hill Baptist Church [Mark Dever’s church], weren’t you?

M: Yes.

D: So was I. So there’s at least one overture that…

M: Yea, but that was after we made the overture to him. In other words..

D: Not, not in my case.

M: And I would only use that…

D: He sought me out. We were in the same place, and he sought me out because he was trying to figure out fundamentalists.

B: Now, I’d be interested to know in both your cases, did you do it, and why or why not.

M: Yea… well, yea… but… but, the background on this…

[laughter]

D: You know that light… that buzzer that goes out when you’re backing into something? You just heard it. “Me-me-me-me-me.”

[laughter]

M: No… I mean, the broader background to this is… I know that for 10 or 15 years here… that men within our movement have made an effort to try to get some of these men together occasionally in private settings, and say “Let’s talk, we don’t really understand”, or “We don’t think you understand us, and we know we don’t… maybe understand your heart”. Um… And I think… I think we have been the initiators in general for that kind of thing. And in those talks there are differences that come out on the principial level. Um… and so… when those things are there, even though we in some cases have found we’re pretty close, when it comes to the consistency of application, it breaks down. And puts me, I know, in a position, where I would end up giving a very uncertain sound to the people that God has entrusted some responsibility of example to. Um… if I then join together with their glaring inconsistency of practice of the principle they agreed with, in private, with me. Because publicly, they’re not enunciating that principle, and they’re not known for articulating it publicly and they’re not known for consistently practicing it. Where, I am. I’m not saying this approving of myself. I’m just saying as part of the movement I am… I’m in. I’m known for being willing publicly to go to the mat on that principle, articulate it, and try to consistently practice it. So that’s… just what I run into.

D: And I would say in large measure I agree with you. The places where I would potentially disagree would be: I’m not certain that we have actually gone to the mat on our principles to the degree that we claim we have. Because we have tolerated aberrant doctrine and immoral behavior in the larger movement, in a way that, in times parallels what they have tolerated for greater good causes.

M: But have we? When you say we have…

D: Jack Hyles preached…

M: but he

D: …in the pulpit in Greenville [SC, near BJU]…

M: Ok.

D: …well after he had preached the eternal humanity of Jesus Christ. Well after people had suspicions about his moral behavior. So I would say yes. We have. Now I don’t think we’re all culpable for that.

M: Right.

D: But my point is to say… but we hold them all culpable for the glitches on the other side.

M: But are our glitches aberrations to what we try to consistently practice. Or, are they frankly what we are known for? At… at… actually…

D: But known to who? To ourselves?

M: No. I would say known to the world.

D: But see, and this would go back to the question of the invitations…

M: You guys on the right need to jump in here!

[laughter]

D: But I mean, but… and… and I’m not… I’m just simply…

B: You can forget about it, Bubba! This is really interesting.

[laughter]

D: You see, I’m… And honestly, I’m just saying if… If you… If we had, for instance… Let’s… let’s, look at this way. There has been for 12 to 14 years a consistent orbit of people who have criticized me on the translation issue.

M: I haven’t.

D: No, I know that.

M: I’m with you.

D: And I was glad you came along because then they jumped on you! So… but, but… so here’s the deal. Um… Let’s say one of those guys decides that they want to come over and say. “Hey, I really want to understand what you believe here”. And then he goes back to his friends and said, “Do you realize we’re the only ones that go talk to Doran and Minnick? Doran and Minnick never invite us over to talk to them.”

M: Who, who’s the…

D: These King James people.

M: Oh, okay.

D: We don’t invite them over. “Hey come on over and learn what we’re thinking here”.

M: I’ve never had one of them do that.

D: Right, but what I’m saying though… The reason would be… is, because we assume they are so hostile to us that they’re not going to… that we’re not going to seek them out. And… and, here are these guys that for twenty or thirty years we’ve been ripping the shreds out of them… And we wonder why they don’t invite us to ask what we think about them! I mean that’s the problem. So… so… so, the reality of it is…

M: I don’t know. I’ve had the shreds ripped out of me!

D: Right.

M: …from people that don’t even know me. So…

D: Right, ok.

M: …on the other side I’m talking about.

D: Yes, I agree. I agree but… what I’m saying though… is that I think logistically, that there’s conversations happening and us going and saying “I think you’re not representing what we believe properly”… is not that they have no interest in it. I don’t think that can be used against them, because we have had… uh… I mean I’ve had… you’ve had conversations, I’ve had conversations with these guys. And… and, all they know about… and I”ll say us… is the the stuff where they’re having their salvation questioned. They’re being accused of… of, apostasy, of aiding apostasy… of all that stuff. And we’re not talking about Billy Graham, and I mean… I’ve never had a conversation with Billy Graham. I’m assuming you haven’t. Maybe you have, I don’t know.

M: [laughs] No.

D: We’re not talking about those guys. We’re talking about the guys that generationally are our age… our age…

[laughter]

D: …and… and all they’ve done is… they’ve grown up… They’ve grown up hearing certain things, and have misconceptions. It doesn’t mean… My answer, to go back to Kevin’s . My answer was to Mark [Dever], “No”. “No I won’t come and preach, and the reason I won’t come and preach is because I don’t agree with stances that you’ve taken. And your church might be an anomaly in the fellowship that it’s in. But it’s not the the rest and… and I… I’m not comfortable with that.” Now obviously…

M: You took a harder line than I did.

D: Yes, I think I did actually. I mean, and… and that’s I… ah, and I’ll say it the bad way: everyone knows you’re a better Christian than I am.

[laughter]

M: So you are to the right of me!

D: I am. Honestly, I think that’s sort of the weirdness of this thing… it’s that, uh… I actually have, very conservative positions. But those are not, ah… I… What I believe, and what everyone must believe are not exactly the same. And… and, therefore… therefore, I feel like I have to give some latitude for others that disagree with me on some points… ah… that I wouldn’t necessarily feel comfortable with, ah… for a variety of reasons that… that we would wrestle through principially and leadership-wise and everything connected to that.

———————————

This marks the end of the answer to that particular question, and the discussion goes on to other questions. I highly recommend you download the audio from the panel discussion.

I thought this section of the discussion was eye-opening and refreshing at the same time. It is a sneak peek at what’s going on as the leaders of today’s fundamentalism think through how to interact and relate with those who don’t claim the label fundamentalism. I think Doran’s explanations were helpful, but I can also see where Minnick is coming from. The best line of it all, I thought, was about how the fundamentalists hold non-fundamentalists culpable for all the bad decisions in their movement, but don’t want to be taken to task for the black sheep among them.

Take a listen to the entire discussion for a fuller sense of what went on, and drop a line to let me know what you think! You can also see a clarification from Doran on what he was getting at in this discussion.