Tag: Jack Schaap

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.

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).

Jack Hyles Meets JackHammer

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

I’ve been absent from the blogworld for a few weeks, and I’m making my way back.

I came across some interesting, hard-hitting posts at JackHammer directed against the legacy of Jack Hyles and his current successor Jack Schaap. I thought I’d point the articles out, since they are much more level-headed and Scripturally motivated than Tom Neal’s unChristian criticisms I pointed out a while back.

Here is a listing of the articles so far.

And on a final note, now might be a good time to share this link. It includes a scanned copy of a very sad letter by former Sword of the Lord editor, Curtis Hutson. In it, Hutson admits Hyles’ guilt in the scandal surrounding Jack Hyles and his son’s infidelity. And worse yet, Hutson rationalizes why he will continue supporting Hyles. The letter exposes the worst of fundamentalist politics gone a muck.