Tag: John MacArthur

“The New Calvinism Considered: A Personal and Pastoral Assessment” by Jeremy Walker

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

The New Calvinism Considered by Jeremy WalkerBook Details:
  • Author: Jeremy Walker
  • Category: Church & Ministry
  • Book Publisher: Evangelical Press (2013)
  • Format: softcover
  • Page Count: 128
  • ISBN#: 9780852349687
  • List Price: $11.18
  • Rating: Highly Recommended

Review:
The resurgence of Calvinism in the English speaking world in the last few decades has recently attracted a lot of attention. Christianity Today devoted an issue to the “Young, Restless, [and] Reformed” movement, and Time magazine dubbed the “new Calvinism” as one of the top ten ideas changing the world in 2009. And like any movement it has its detractors. Liberals inside and out of evangelicalism, are alarmed by its bold stand for complementarian (as in, non-egalitarian and anti-feminist) family values. Theological progressives deplore its “barbaric” insistence on penal, substitutionary (and by nature, blood-y) atonement. Mainstream evangelicals — charismatics, Baptists and non-denominationalists alike — are suspicious of the movement’s unabashed celebration of Calvinism. Groups who are more similar to the new Calvinism often decry the movement the loudest. The Reformed (with a capital “R”) are tempted to begrudge or belittle this movement: they were real Calvinists all along (and don’t see any need for a resurgence) and by nature, they are suspicious of anything not grounded in a several-hundred year-old Church confession or creed. Fundamentalists and those of their ilk, see a real threat in this movement: it can’t be easily pinned down and there is too much variety and not enough healthy separation from error.

New Calvinism is not exactly new anymore. And like any movement, it isn’t perfect. There are blind-spots, foibles and let-downs. Yet no one can deny the infusion of spiritual life that has accompanied this wide-ranging return to the Reformation. New and revitalized churches, a no-holds-barred approach to evangelism and mission, and a passionate advocacy of theology (and truth) are hallmarks of the movement. Even if you have quibbles with where some land on any number of doctrinal or practical issues, you should appreciate that by and large, the heart of this movement is one that yearns for God’s glory, that prizes a gospel of Grace, revels in the freedoms won by the cross of Christ, and both reveres Scripture and listens to the moving of the Spirit.

While the “new Calvinism” as it is often called, is mostly an American phenomenon, its influence is spreading to the United Kingdom and beyond. And it is from England that a new critique and thoughtful evaluation of new Calvinism has come. Jeremy Walker, a young pastor who contributes to the influential Reformation21 blog, has written a short examination of the movement: The New Calvinism Considered: A Personal and Pastoral Assessment (Evangelical Press, 2013).

This work is the first book-length critique of new Calvinism I have read, although throughout its pages Walker refers to countless internet discussions where critiques first surfaced. Having lived online through my blog, and interacting with some and reading others of the discussions first-hand, I can appreciate much that Walker is saying that some readers may miss. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

The book attempts first to characterize and classify the movement of new Calvinism. This in itself is a chore, I’m sure. And after he helps readers have a better sense of what he is talking about, he begins by pointing out several good qualities and positive effects of the movement. He then rounds out the book with cautions, concerns and his concluding counsel.

At the onset, Walker lays out his motives and the nature of his critique – a personal and pastoral assessment. He understands that he won’t be able to avoid generalizations, but does a good job underlining the fact that there is a broad spectrum in this movement and that not every critique will be valid for all. That being said, we must still evaluate how successful he is in his attempts to fairly characterize the movement. In describing new Calvinism, I felt that Walker’s Britishness hampered his ability to clearly assess and comprehend the movement. He acknowledges as much when he claims “I have something of an outside perspective on those [American] aspects of it” (pg. 11). This is evident as he points out the movement’s tendency to lift up individuals as standard-bearers to rally around – a very American trait which is as common among most of new Calvinism’s American critics as it is in new Calvinism itself. For every critic who singles out someone like John Piper as being a personality around which people “fawn” and hang on his every word, there is an equal part of adulation for someone like John MacArthur and his ability both as a teacher and as one who points out the flaws in parts of the new Calvinism movement. Another example where Walker misjudges the movement is in his criticism’s of the movement’s pragmatism and commercialism. It could be argued that a significant portion of the movement has made great strides in pulling themselves and their churches away from the pragmatism-driven American Church circus of the 80’s and 90’s. Bill Hybels and Rick Warren aren’t new Calvinists, and it is their influence among others, that has propelled a market-driven approach filled with business practices that John Piper has so eloquently decried in his book Brothers, We are Not Professionals. The Together for the Gospel conference can look big, staged and pragmatic from afar, but in comparison to some of the over-the-top, marketing-focused, gimmicky Church growth conferences that abound in America, it is really quite tame.

Of necessity, Walker points out concrete example after example to illustrate his concerns. And while they do help gain a sense of where he is coming from, they can also blunt his critique when the example doesn’t quite fit, or the context of an incident is missed in his use of it. Several times he singles out Mark Driscoll as an someone who embodies his particular critique. I don’t know many new Calvinists who are total Driscoll fan-boys. Many of us have concerns with some of his ministerial choices and don’t hold him as a true bell-ringer for this movement. Another problem with his examples is that at times it feels like he is rehashing blog-wars in a book to expand their influence. Often the blog-wars are dirty and statements and events are blown out of proportion to make a point, and this book suffers from the same problem at times. John Piper is taken to task for inviting Douglas Wilson and Rick Warren at different times to his Desiring God National Conference. Yet the nature of such conferences and the way they are handled at Desiring God, is a forum for discussion more than a blanket endorsement of the speakers. And while, Walker admits that the new Calvinism is not a denomination or a Church, he laments that no official action is taken for errors or misjudgments like this. The Gospel Coalition’s lack of [enough] action in the case of the Elephant Room incident where James McDonald and Mark Driscoll invited T.D. Jakes and treated him like a brother in Christ (not directly challenging him on his anti-trinitarianism and prosperity gospel teachings) is a case in point. The Coalition can’t really act, and respects the privacy of its inner workings. Not long after the incident both Driscoll and McDonald stepped down from official positions with TGC. And TGC’s leaders, Tim Keller and Don Carson drafted a statement about the matter explaining their actions taken. This isn’t enough for Walker, and it wasn’t enough for many bloggers either. But it is some action, and it is short of an official churchly action precisely because TGC is not a church.

As an appreciative member of the “Young, Restless, Reformed” movement (although the middle descriptor doesn’t exactly fit, I think), I cannot but speak in defense as I have above. But let me stress, there is much in this book that is worthy of your time. He does point out some important issues, and we do ignore thoughtful critique of our movement at our own peril. He points out the openness to the charismatic gifts and a looser, more open view of culture as areas of concern. Both areas are places where one can easily drift along in the movement unthinkingly following the ethos of others. Each item warrants thoughtful and personal study of the Scriptures and we ignore this to our peril. His other most poignant critique hits hard on the area of sanctification and holiness. In new Calvinism’s zeal for the gospel of grace, he fears we run hard to the opposite error: antinomianism. Having been freed from legalism, we tend to view laws of any kind as the problem, rather than our hard hearts. He makes the intriguing parallel that while many profess to be recovering Pharisees, almost no one admits to being the “recovering tax collector” (pg. 79). He is worthy of quoting on this point:

Again, let me point out that legalism is the pursuit of obedience with the intention of earning acceptance or merit and not the pursuit of obedience in accordance with God’s law as one redeemed by grace….

My fear is that this view will become very attractive to people who want the privileges and benefits and eased conscience of a Christian profession without the demand for holiness being pressed into their hearts resulting in the vigorous pursuit of godliness. Clearly this is not the intention of the new Calvinists by and large… But my concern is that this teaching may create an atmosphere in which liberty is made a cloak for license. (pg. 82-83)

Walker challenges his readers to just “be Calvinists” (pg. 107). He wants them to stay true to God’s Word no matter what movements swirl around them. His call is right even if some of his criticisms are ill-founded or off-base. We do need to be careful to pursue godliness. We should be wary of the deceitful pull of ecumenism and the dangers of an arrogant triumphalism that some are seeing as a byproduct of new Calvinism. We serve Christ not the latest fad. I do have confidence that much that has been gained through the rise of new Calvinism is not mere chaff to be blown around with the winds of change. I have seen lives transformed as they discover the gospel of Grace and the doctrines of Grace through the writings and ministry of many of the new Calvinist leaders. I trust that while I became a Calvinist through this new movement, that I will remain true to the Word of God and “be a Calvinist” no matter what happens as seasons come and go.

Walker’s admonition to his audience of people not quite sure what to do with new Calvinism can be equally applied to those of us who are tempted to bristle at any criticism of our movement:

We are not called, first and foremost, to spend all our time worrying about other shepherds, but more to give ourselves to following the Great Shepherd in our convictions and actions. We must look first to ourselves in this regard and ensure that our doctrine and our practice marry, that we manifest degrees of heat and of light that are coordinate with and complementary to one another. We neither know all we should, nor do all that we know, and it is in the equal march of faith and life, knowing and doing, telling and showing, that we gain the platform that will enable us to serve our friends who differ from us in other respects. (pg. 107-108)

This kind of thoughtful reflection and eloquence of speech characterize this work. Walker is bold and forthright but he aims to be fair and charitable. His message deserves to be read widely, and his conclusion heeded by all on every side of this. May we all be found faithful, and my the Lord’s work continue, come what may.

About the author

Jeremy Walker was born to godly parents and was converted to Christ during his teenage years. he serves as a pastor of Maidenbower Baptist Church, Crawley, and is married to Alissa, with whom he enjoys the blessing of three children. He has authored several books and blogs at Reformation21 and The Wanderer.

Where to Buy:
  • Amazon.com
  • Christianbook.com
  • Direct from Evangelical Press

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Evangelical Press. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Concluding Thoughts on The Strange Fire Conference

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

I don’t really want to say much more on the Strange Fire Conference. I have already said my piece. But I’m compelled to just add a bit more to my original post.

1) The Strange Fire Conference did include some nuance.

I’m happy to concede that there was some nuance and admission that not all charismatics are of the devil. This insider’s summary of the conference puts the best spin possible on it, and I am happy that there is some nuance evident.

2) But Strange Fire also overstated the problem.

The build up to the conference bills it as dealing with the charismatic movement as a whole, and numerous quotes from the conference itself seem to make that same case. It was claimed that 90% of the charismatic movement held to a health/wealth prosperity gospel. And in MacArthur’s last session he said the charismatic movement is made up mostly of unbelievers. Earlier he claimed the movement had contributed nothing good in terms of worship or theology – nothing that came from the movement itself.

This can be nothing but broad brushing. And while many have decried cessationists in similarly broad strokes on the rebound, it is clear that a mischaracterization of the movement was perpetuated through the conference. Proof enough of that is the fact that I have yet to see a charismatic who did not perceive the conference as a slap in the face and who did not see this conference as attacking the movement as a whole.

3) Generalizations are tricky things.

I understand how difficult it is to criticize a movement, as I often have had to backtrack and clarify my own critiques of fundamentalism. The shoe doesn’t fit everybody, and the movement is bigger than you think – once you learn more of it. The same goes for critiquing charismaticism. The charismatic movement is bigger than Benny Hinn. There are rank and file charismatic believers who eschew the prosperity gospel, who avoid the anti-trinitarianism of some sectors of the movement, and who are faithful to the gospel. I contend that this group of churches and believers are largely not Reformed – so they are not just a small wing represented by the C.J. Mahaneys, Wayne Grudems, and Sam Storms of the world. They are a big group who make up the majority of charismaticism, at least in America. Now it can sure seem that most charismatics are heretical. Equally so, it can seem that most cessationists are jerks. But neither of these perceptions are the truth.

4) Controversy is not necessarily bad.

It is right to stand up for truth. Controversy cannot be entirely wrong. But a consistent controversialist should be ignored, and rightly so. Can it be that MacArthur has more fundamentalist in him than we thought? Is controversy being peddled for its own sake? I don’t really think so. I give him the benefit of the doubt. The problems the conference addressed are real and clear. And he has consistently spoken out against them over the years. Just because he is bringing the ugly wing of charismaticism to light, shouldn’t make him the enemy.

5) Are “Bashing” conferences helpful?

Do we need more “bashing” conferences? Baptist blogger Dave Miller explores that question in a helpful post. (As an aside, his reaction to the conference was perhaps the most helpful I’ve read.) How helpful is a conference really going to be when it claims most of what it addresses are the antics of unbelievers? Would it have been better to include Reformed Charismatics, who could add weight to the critique of pentecostalism run wild? Would John Piper or Sam Storms add more to the expose of the Word of Faith problem? Solidarity across party lines for the sake of truth would sure seem more convincing and may lead to less wagon-circling and more soul-searching.

6) What’s a charismatic to do?

With this conference, was there any pathway given for the one who has seen miraculous gifts manifest in their church experience? Are they supposed to assume such an experience was necessarily strange fire and doubt their salvation? Should they have a crisis of faith? God can be God — that seems to have been stressed in the conference: but what do we call it when God acts in such a bold way? It seems an emphasis on discernment and a more measured approach could prove more helpful than a wholesale dismissal of anything remotely charismatic in flavor.

7) I long for unity and dream for a convergence.

This whole debacle leads me longing for more tangible unity in the body of Christ. Yes I realize it is lofty to type such words. I don’t want to claim too much for me and my position. I just think there are many who would agree with me, that unity is something we can desire. Even admitting one side is right and one is wrong, still I wish for more unity – isn’t that biblical?

I will go beyond just wishing for this, and recommend a book – it’s what I do best around here. I would recommend that my cessationist friends (and most of my friends are cessationist) pick up a copy of Sam Storms’ Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist. In that book he tries to show how both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The church needs the doctrinal clarity and Scriptural knowledge of the cessationist and the emotional realism and simple love of the charismatic. Each side can learn from the other and a biblical convergence is possible.

May God bring about such a day and encourage each party to appreciate the other in a sincere attempt to understand and appreciate what they bring to the body of Christ as a whole!

Why I’m Concerned over the Strange Fire Conference

~ Bob Hayton ~ 30 Comments

From afar, I have loosely followed the Strange Fire conference. This conference was hosted by John MacArthur and dealt with the charismatic movement. MacArthur is increasingly concerned about the impact of charismaticism worldwide.

Tim Challies has posted summaries of each of the main sessions from this conference. And I have scanned through several of them and followed the reaction to this event online.

Why would I be concerned about this conference? I am not charismatic so wouldn’t I be praising the work of MacArthur in exposing the errors of the prosperity gospel and charismatic excesses? I would if that was what this conference was about. But MacArthur and the other speakers go beyond combating charismatic excess to dismissing all charismatics as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Adrian Warnock, a reformed charismatic pastor and blogger who I have followed for years, was understandably concerned that MacArthur was saying that even reformed charismatics are not genuine believers. In MacArthur’s final address, he dealt with seven criticisms of the conference and does not back down. He claims most of the charismatic movement is outside the body of Christ. Quoting from Challies’ summary: “this is a movement made up largely of non-Christians that lacks accountability.”

Warnock’s reaction to this is understandable:

So, there you have it, I am a part of a movement which according to MacArthur is worse than liberalism, and… has nothing good to offer the church, oh and “most” of us are not even Christians.

To be very clear, I have no problem with other Christians holding to a different posisition on the gifts of the Holy Spirit than I do. I do also recognise… there are many different possible positions. MacArthur seems to have missed all these nuances and simply wants to reject all charismatic thinking as heretical.

My primary concern is the divisive spirit and tone that permeates this conference. If you read Warnock’s post you can understand my concern. Let me be clear, however. I do not endorse the prosperity gospel, nor the over-the-top actions of self-appointed Pentecostal TV preachers and evangelists. Most of them are frauds and do serious damage to the cause of Christ, in America and especially in third world countries where they prey on the hopes of the poor. But it is one thing to join with careful charismatic brothers and denounce error, and quite another to write off an entire branch of the body of Christ and exclude them from grace because they differ with your interpretation of Scripture.

This charismatic issue, and the question of whether the miraculous gifts continue today, is important. It does have an effect on how one will do church, and I can understand how it makes it hard for cessationists to yoke up with continuationists in ministry. But just like we shouldn’t assume that all non-Baptists are not saved, neither should we assume that everyone taking a different position on this issue is necessarily possessed by a demon.

Since I have waded out into this realm of controversy, let me offer two posts for your perusal that get at the heart of the controversy. Tom Pennington provided a biblical defense of cessationism at the Strange Fire conference – see Challie’s summary of that session. Andrew Wilson provided a biblical response and defense of continuationism (that the gifts continue). For my part, I think the case by Wilson is stronger than that given by Pennington.

I am all for protecting the church from spiritual abuse in the name of “the Spirit told me you should…”. Prophecy and words of knowledge have great potential for harm. But I cannot read 1 Cor. 14 and other places in the NT and not give the charismatics some benefit of the doubt. There is something being talked about and advocated there that differs from the church practice of many cessationists today. Furthermore, I look down the corridors of history and see numerous examples of revivals accompanied by unexplained spiritual experiences. I see missionaries talking of miraculous manifestations of God’s power in dark lands. And I see the history of the saints, with exaggerated tales, but tales, nonetheless of miracles being pivotal in the advance of the Church. And then I read Acts 2’s quotation of Joel 2 as being fulfilled in the church age and I cannot but be open to the Spirit moving in miraculous ways among the church today. For more on this, I would recommend John Piper’s sermon series on this topic.

So I remain open and cautious in my stance toward the miraculous gifts. I lift Scripture up as sufficient. I don’t need experiences to bolster my faith – but experiences have bolstered my faith. We need to be careful to try the spirits and test the prophets, yes. But we cannot and should not quench the Spirit. I can do no better than to conclude with the words of Paul in 1 Thess. 5:19-21.

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

Why I’m Not 100% for Fairhaven Baptist Church

~ Bob Hayton ~ 27 Comments

Most who follow my blog know that for me to come out and name an institution and criticize it openly is not typical for me. And with the interest my recent post on Fairhaven has generated (more than 170 comments to date), I feel the need to explain myself and my own perspective on Fairhaven Baptist Church and College.

Over a period of several years, I gradually became dissatisfied with fundamentalism, and in January of 2005 I finally left the movement. 10 months later, I founded Fundamentally Reformed, as a way to share my own thoughts and walk through all the changes in my thinking. It was an online journal, and I did a bit of venting at first. (You can still read my story, here.) Writing was good for me, and in the first several months it made me face some issues and gain clarity by thinking through them and standing up to scrutiny. After my first few months of blogging, I had learned to temper my tone and I realized that I still did appreciate the good in much of fundamentalism. I continue to be thankful for fundamentalism’s zeal for truth and seriousness about Scripture.

Today, I frequently get asked for advice from people in fundamentalist churches who are awakening to some of the problems in fundamentalism. I almost never tell them to just bail ship, tuck tail and run. I have come to the conclusion that it isn’t always practical or responsible to just abandon the IFB movement and not touch it with a ten foot pole. People still have families and friends there, and sometimes they don’t know what to do. I try to encourage incremental change, and a time of prayer and evaluation. It might be wise to leave your church, it might be wise to stay and work for change. I’m happy when people stay and when they leave, and when they find another church (IFB or otherwise) that allows them to focus more on God’s grace.

But over my years of blogging, I have not apologized for speaking out against what I see as real problems in fundamentalism. And along the way, I’ve encountered literally dozens and dozens of people who have shared their stories with me, and thanked me for this blog. (You can read some of these stories here.) I have also come across stories elsewhere in other forums, I’ve reconnected with old friends on Facebook and over the phone, and I’ve been heart-broken many times at what I hear. Some people are so harmed by hyper-fundamentalism (the worst variations of fundamentalism), that they walk away from the Faith altogether. And I hope my blog helps prevent some of that, and helps people find others with similar stories who haven’t left God or Christianity, but have found a vibrant Christianity outside fundamentalism’s rigid boundaries.

Enter Fairhaven.

[As this post will get a bit long, I’m putting a “read more” link here. Click for the full post.]

I’m going to elaborate on my story here, because I think it will help people evaluate my motives in blogging about the problems at Fairhaven.

I am thankful for so many things from my time at Fairhaven. I went for four years of college plus 14 months of Master’s school. I was accepted and respected by many of my peers, and was involved in a number of ministries while at Fairhaven. Pastor Jeff Voegtlin befriended me, and I was also a helper in the junior high youth ministry since my freshman year. I studied Greek and came to respect Dan Armacost, and I rubbed shoulders with some of the other staff members. All of these men seemed serious about Christ and dedicated to the Gospel. They were trying to raise the bar when it came to education standards at the college and academy, and seemed to be true men of God. They invested in me and positively impacted me, of that I’m sure. I also had the opportunity to represent the college on ensemble one year, and mens’ quintet for two years. I had a lot of fun, learned a great deal, matured and grew through my time there. I made mistakes and was ministered to. But the best thing of all was that I met my dear wife there!

However, during my last few years at Fairhaven, I began to wake up to some of the problems there. My sophomore year is when I really should have realized something was up. I got back to the dorm and rumor had it I wasn’t going to come back. That was news to me. There was a blow up with missionaries sent out by Fairhaven, and some squabbling. Since my parents were missionaries in the same field, and since they were friends with the one who was in the wrong (per Fairhaven), they assumed I would leave. I was asked to leave or challenged to leave by some who knew me. But I just figured it was a misunderstanding and determined to think the best about it. Then Dr. Behrens left (that may have happened first, but both happened my sophomore year). I was shocked at all the dirt that was dug up on Bill Behrens in front of the congregation Sunday night, and my roommate at the time was skeptical to the extreme about it all. I thought my roommate was just exaggerating things, and again I just decided to overlook this.

As time went on, I came to realize that many of the sermons in chapel and at the church were more about the delivery style and the vigor of the preacher, than they were about Biblical content and depth. At least it seemed to me, that the sermons were pressed onto the passages of Scripture, rather than flowing from them. And the same themes seemed to dominate: salvation, character, “grit your teeth and do it”, calls for re-dedication, toe-stomping messages, and parenting. I got the best I could from the sermons and tried to keep a good attitude, but sometimes friends I respected in the dorms would also point out the lack of Scriptural basis in this sermon or that, and express dismay over this.

There was also an excessive emphasis on manliness. I remember being lectured against using hair spray or wearing pink shirts. I thought that a bit extreme, but I was a conservative kind of guy, so I didn’t let it faze me. Then there was the humiliation of the men in the college who didn’t want to wrestle in the college wrestle-off. They were publicly called “fish” and sometimes staff members or preacher Voegtlin would even declare that if you didn’t wrestle, you’d never do anything for God, or you’d never amount to much in the ministry. A close friend of mine conscientiously abstained from wrestling just to protest this excessive and errant teaching. A few others joined him. I reasoned that since I was in the youth ministry, I needed to go along and wrestle so as to set a good example, but I respected my friend for raising valid objections. Added to this, were occasions where college guys would haul off and hit someone in a college sports match, and then be applauded and lifted up as a man’s man, when in fact a true man would hold his temper and not do the easy thing and just hit someone (on a team that was not even a Christian team, no less).

I also was a bit alarmed when the staff talked about their 18 month olds and 2 or 3 year olds fighting each other with boxing or wrestling, or having long spanking sessions with them. It seemed too much.

But my biggest lesson in the Fairhaven way came my senior year. Sermons in chapel started to reference “those Masters’ students” in a negative way. We were causing trouble, asking questions (unbelievable, right?), and worse some of us were quoting John MacArthur (who doesn’t believe in the blood, mind you — according to Fairhaven). Problem was, there were only 5 or 6 of us, and sometimes only 1 or 2 of us in the chapel sessions where these things were being said. Several of us had weekly prayer meetings with key staff members, Armacost, Damron, Jeff Voegtlin, Randy Love. None of these men raised the issue with any of us directly. But the matter came up in sermons. We heard that if you quoted John MacArthur, you’d get a zero on any paper you turned in. And yet the dorm supervisor knew that one of us (a friend of mine) had been teased about having MacArthur books all four years he was there. It was in the open and known, and now all of a sudden, as it gets closer to graduation, they are alarmed about it.

So we talked with each other about this, what else are we to do? Two guys thought their books and tapes from John MacArthur’s mailing list were not being delivered to them. We felt like we were being spoken ill of on all sides with no opportunity to speak up or explain ourselves. So one day, my friend Jerry and I were dragged into Roger Voegtlin’s office. They were looking for some of the other Masters’ students but none were around. Jeff Voegtlin was there too. And then preacher had Jerry’s girlfriend (she may have been his fiance at the time) brought in as well, to observe. We were given the “what for”. We were spreading gossip and talking with each other instead of going to staff. I tried to bring up some of our valid points of contention. I talked about the mail. I talked about how Charles Finney (who denies the substitutionary atonement) was required reading while MacArthur was censored. But pretty much we just were quiet. At one point, Roger pointed at Jerry’s girlfriend and said, if you don’t stand down on this, I’ll say one word to her father and this will be over (indicating Jerry’s relationship). Needless to say we acquiesced and apologized. I’m sure we really did do something wrong, but looking back what were we expected to do? I did ask Preacher what I should tell my friend who was reading MacArthur. At that point he got upset and said he didn’t want to even talk to my friend, because if he did, he’d get mad and kick him out of college (it was the spring semester of our senior year). When I told my friend that, he started weeping because this college president was supposed to be his pastor (we were encouraged to join their church), and yet his own pastor wouldn’t even talk to him! I came away from the experience learning how to strong arm any dissent and how best to silence opposition: hold their fiance or anything else you can get, over their head! I shook my head at this story for a long time, but figured it was just a political way of doing business, just a minor thing, no big deal. I determined to think the best of Fairhaven anyway.

Then later I encountered or became aware of the Fairhaven policy of parents shunning their way-ward children. I met some who had their parents abandon them. I heard of one 19 year old locked out of his house with no advance warning. Left on the street in the cold. I heard from one who was a member at a Reformed-type church, but who since they advocated careful, moderate drinking, were still treated with disdain by their parents. Their children had never met their grandparents, and the oldest was something like 7 years old. It’s not like these were pagan people living it up in the world, they were part of an active vibrant church, from what I knew. I also saw a negligence toward parents and family and an emphasis on spending time at Fairhaven or away by your own selves as a family. A relative of mine confided in me that he was so angry over his sibling’s treatment of their family that he had given up on Baptists of any kind. I can’t even share all that was said to me, I remember how much it shocked and devastated me to realize how these oddities of Fairhaven were wreaking havoc on people and families all across the country.

Over the last few years I’ve learned of stories of what was alleged to have gone on at Fairhaven. Recently in a Facebook group that I’m a member of (I didn’t start it), I heard tales of four or maybe five different individuals recounting spanking sessions they received at the hands of their parents where the numbers of swats ranged from 70 to 300 at one time. And these individuals are not related to each other. Five different families with that level of abuse, and yet looking back the culture of Fairhaven seems to encourage that. Preacher would berate fathers who didn’t spank hard enough, or diligently enough. People would be reminded from the pulpit about their wayward children, and he’d get everyone all fired up to go out and do something. And then with Fairhaven’s past troubles with the law (an investigation into the spanking there), the government was always portrayed in the worst possible light, so no one would think of calling authorities or anything. People turned a blind eye and just let parents do what was needed to get their kids to grow up right.

I’ve heard other stories. One is worth sharing here. After a wedding, the newly married couple were walking to the reception and crossed paths with Preacher Voegtlin (who had just married them). He said something to the effect, “What do you think your chances are of having your kids turn out right?” Stunned, they didn’t know how to answer him. His reply, “You’re a _____ and you’re a _______, I’d say your chances are zero.” What kind of comment is that? Don’t you think you shouldn’t have married them then, if you really thought that way? And why can you write off people like this?

Fairhaven claims to be the best church in America. At least Preacher Voegtlin would say that often in the pulpit. People acted that way. And there was always something wrong with any other college, and any well-known names that weren’t invited to Fairhaven.

Much of what I’ve shared is hearsay. I can’t prove much of it. It’s my impression of Fairhaven. There are more damaging claims and more serious claims, and based on my history with Fairhaven, I suspect they are true (many of them). But the ethos of the place is definitely one of rigidness and a bit of hysteria. I felt it was so hard to keep going when I was there. There was a burden and everything depended on you so much. Right things were taught and preached often, but the onus was on you to get right, you to go out and reach the lost, you to tithe and give, you to just “do it”. I felt we were beaten down and then our guilt would make us fall in line, repent and keep going. Very rarely were we encouraged to lay it all at Jesus’ feet, rarely was He presented as a Lord of Grace and healing, we felt that God was distant and demanding, and only interested in what we turned in on our soul-winning and ministry slips.

These are my opinions, and may be clouded by my own experience. I think there is a problem with legalism there. There is a performance-based sanctification model. A man-centered Christianity. Powerless Preaching, and a lack of grace. Not everyone is bankrupt, there is much good there. But the power and the life is hidden and tucked away. The energy to live the Christian life is clouded by the demands to live the Christian life. There is too little teaching and too much doing. Too little encouraging, and too much judging. Too little praying for people, and too much talking about people. I hope the picture I’m painting is very misguided and wrong, but I don’t have much basis to think it is.

More than twenty years ago, Roger Voegtlin stood up on a Sunday evening and preached a very famous sermon: “Why I’m Not 100% for Jack Hyles”. For two hours he listed and detailed numerous personal stories that were shared to him, he played clips of Hyles’ sermons, and he expressed his conviction that Hyles was guilty of immorality and that the evidence was too great to be ignored. The charges against Pastor Roger Voegtlin are not as severe as Jack Hyles. But a lot of them are similar in the sense that they are based upon a large amount of personal stories and recollections. Eventually the number of the stories overwhelm you and you have to believe either there are an awful lot of good liars, or something is rotten in Denmark.

I share this story because I’m no longer on the fence. I think Fairhaven has proven itself to be a hyper-fundamentalist institution. They have avoided criticism and tried to smear those who would bring it. They have flaunted recent allegations of abuse, by the fact that for a time they had a picture of the paddle they presented to CNN on their church website. They have not issued a public statement and show no remorse. Instead they insist nothing wrong ever happened, and that everyone who would speak out against them is a liar or hates the cause of Christ. Well, I think the cause of Christ is BIGGER than Fairhaven.

The story of Fairhaven is a lesson to us all. Well-meaning religion, old-fashioned tradition, man-centered pragmatism, performance-based Christianity doesn’t work. Fairhaven is not standing for the old-time religion. They are standing against the world for their peculiar brand of Christianity. The stories told of them sound awful similar to tales of Jack Hyles, and J. Frank Norris. They represent an approach to the Christian life which is damaging and harmful.

Please, don’t abandon Christianity because of the Fairhavens of this world. Study out legalism and grace. Learn how the Gospel is for believers. Find some good Christian books (like these and these). Research for yourself on the internet the claims of arrogant pastors. Don’t just follow blindly, mindlessly obey the rules given to you, and let someone else do your thinking for you. Be wary and don’t let someone turn you against your family. And don’t glory in the fall of another, but stay focused on Jesus Christ.

Some have said that I instigated this whole thing with Fairhaven. As if I was behind the CNN report. My wife and I laughed when we heard that. I’m a spectator seeing how all this will turn out, as I don’t have too much time to devote to “the cause”. I’m not for a cause that wants to shut down Fairhaven altogether or to expose all IFB churches as harbors of abuse. And that goal is not what is behind the efforts to get the story out about Fairhaven either, from what I’ve read and seen. People are standing up to specific abuse which has been harbored in Fairhaven, and they want an apology, an admission of wrongdoing, and they hope to save some other little ones from the fate they endured. Is that so wrong?

Should this be aired in public? Well it has been. I brought the story when I knew it would be aired. People have been saying these things in other venues, and on other forums. But here at my site some have given their names and stood out in public to stand against this abuse. I applaud them. I don’t want to silence a voice that might need to be shared. Is this the best way to handle things? I don’t know, but this is definitely grass roots and I’m pretty confident that these people couldn’t all get together walk down to Fairhaven tomorrow, share their story before the church, and see any change happen. This tactic has been effective in the past, and if you don’t have anything to hide why be afraid of something like this anyway? If all you hear are ad hominem attacks and Fairhaven pointing to the failures and flaws of those speaking up, then what really is going on here? Doesn’t it seem like they’re just backpedaling as fast as they can? Slinging mud and hoping to avoid serious damage? Why aren’t they just stating their side of the story boldly, courageously and candidly? I didn’t get that impression from the CNN interview.

This isn’t about the freedom to spank. This isn’t about spanking, as any honest hearing of the CNN reports (and there were three prior to the Fairhaven report) would show. This is about a specific cover up and history of abetting abuse, and the refusal for Fairhaven to face up and apologize or admit wrongdoing.

Barring any more significant developments, I don’t intend to post on Fairhaven again. Eventually these posts won’t be on the front page of my site and will be forgotten. I have purposely tried to moderate the comments here carefully. I have not spread the story far and wide on multiple different forums where I could have brought it up. I have tried not to say more than I think I should. But right now, even if I differ with some of the perspectives, language, and tactics of those sharing their stories, I feel it is right to stand up with them as victims of abuse. I don’t want to be in any way complicit when stories such as these are coming out and there’s an opportunity to prevent anything like them from happening again.

I pray that Fairhaven takes a good internal look, and tries to purge out any wrongdoing and clamp down on parental abuse in the church. I hope more accountability and oversight can be arranged in the church structure and that steps can be taken to own up to any failures, and set a course to change for the better. Other fundamentalist institutions faced with similar problems have done this (ABWE and BJU are recent examples). I hope and pray that Fairhaven will be wise enough to follow suit. An independent investigator could be hired to look into these very real and hurtful allegations, and other such steps can be done. I say this because some don’t know that this is how other Christian fundamentalist institutions handle such public up-cries and allegations. There is a right way to handle things. I hope Fairhaven follows that path.

How Should Fundamentalists View Conservative Evangelicals? Kevin Bauder Weighs In

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

In the eyes of many fundamentalists (and by that term I’m referring to the card-carrying, independent Fundamental Baptist variety), if you aren’t either a fundamentalist or an out-and-out liberal, then you must be a new evangelical.   “Neo” is a derogatory term, mind you, not the name of “the one” who will save mankind, ala The Matrix….

Fundamentalists for the most part like solid lines of demarcation between their group and the others.   Those others, whether they be conservative evangelicals in general, or Southern Baptists, or Calvinists, their main problem is that they aren’t “one of us”. And this means they can’t be trusted. Furthermore, their problems run deeper than what Bible version they carry.   They must be linked in some way, with Rome or liberalism or any other bad thing we can think of.

Problem is, they are independent thinkers, they don’t toe the fundamentalist party line when it comes to “worldly” amusements or cultural taboos. They actually respect Billy Graham to some level, and they don’t think any measure of Calvinism is satanic.

Perhaps the biggest problem, at least it appears so to us who are on the outside looking in, is that these “others” are influential. Leaders like John MacArthur and John Piper, use the Bible carefully and are “building a following” (at least that’s what Fundamentalists might think). Young unsuspecting Christians are led away into all kinds of error and wickedness when they follow these “others”.

I’m not far from the truth. And now that I’ve painted that not too rosy picture, let me encourage you to go read Kevin Bauder’s thoughts on conservative evangelicals. He is incensed at the party-spirit of fundamentalists which view these “others” as enemies or opponents. Rather, they are to be esteemed for their “defense of the gospel”. And this esteem and even a level of partnership is possible without an all out embracing of their every peculiar position on questions of worldliness and matters of secondary doctrine.

I do pray Bauder represents a changing of the guard and that the fundamentalists of today will share their deep-seated faith in and practice of the Bible with their evangelical brethren, come out from their holy huddles and not be afraid of being impacted by some of the clear thinking, Bible-prizing conservative evangelical leaders God had graced the church with today.

Let me offer a few excerpts and then encourage you to go read Bauder’s essay which says all of this in a more scholarly way.

Conservative evangelicals have oriented themselves by fixed points of doctrine. They have scoured apostasy from the world’s largest seminary. They have debunked Open Theism. They have articulated and defended a Complementarian position against evangelical feminism. They have rebutted the opponents of inerrancy. They have exposed and refuted the New Perspective on Paul. They have challenged the Emergent Church and laid bare its bankruptcy.

In other words, because many Fundamentalists appear to have lost their doctrinal sobriety, the initiative for defending the gospel has shifted from Fundamentalism to conservative evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals have majored on the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. Rather than centering themselves upon theological novelties and idiosyncrasies, they have given themselves to a defense of the Faith.

Nevertheless, some Fundamentalists have managed to convince themselves that conservative evangelicals are the enemy….

To be sure, significant differences continue to exist between Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. Those differences, however, are less serious than the ones that exist between the various camps within Fundamentalism. For example, many Fundamentalist churches and institutions have capitulated to the error of King James Onlyism. Many Fundamentalists are willing to tolerate and even idolize arrogant and egotistical leaders. Many Fundamentalists are willing to live with doctrinal shallowness and trivial worship in their pulpits and in their hymnals. Many Fundamentalists continue to believe that manipulative Revivalism will produce vibrant Christians. Who could deny that these matters are serious?

…

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today….