Linda Murphrey, daughter of Jack Hyles — the former pastor of First Baptist Hammond, at one time the self-proclaimed largest church in the world — has written an open letter to the church at this time, knowing Schaap’s sentencing was scheduled for today. Schaap is her brother-in-law, and Linda grew up on the inside of the ministry, and in the very home of, the most powerful man in fundamentalism in the 1970s and 80s. Her letter includes an apology and an admission of the secret double life that Hyles lived, and Schaap perpetuated.
For anyone who knows something of the history of First Baptist of Hammond, and Jack Hyles, this letter is quite amazing to read. It is written with such grace and humility, fervor and love, and above all, honesty. I encourage you to read it and pray for the future of First Baptist of Hammond. The current leadership there has a vested interest to deny the truth of Linda’s letter. This wing of fundamentalism cannot admit that Hyles was phony. So much of their very ethos is tied to his persona — at least it would seem. But I pray that many who have been shaken by these events can find grace and help in her first-hand testimony. May her final words come true:
Hopefully this is a new beginning for the thousands of walking wounded. Hopefully the end of an era has arrived. And hopefully the baton has finally been destroyed.
As you move forward, may you find complete healing from all that has hurt you. May you find peace from the turmoil caused by the abuse of religion. May you abandon man-worship and forsake the venomous spirit of fundamentalism.
And may you completely undo the God of Jack Hyles, embark on a personal journey to discover who God really is and experience a joyful life living in complete freedom and truth. [link to Linda’s letter]
Matt Olson, the president of Northland Baptist Bible College (now called Northland International University), has been writing a blog recently and saying some really important, and risky things. He’s taking a stand against institutional legalsim and is making his constituents a little uneasy.
Recently he started a multi-part series on “What Matters Most.” He is thinking through separation in light of how the fundamentals of the faith are what truly matter most. I have made a similar point in a post entitled: “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.” Olson also is open about the positive influence on his thinking from Al Mohler’s “Theological Triage” illustration, which is quite helpful in my view as well.
Here is how Olson distills the three levels of his view on separation:
The first/top tier is orthodoxy. What doctrines are necessary for a person to truly be “Christian?” Sometimes we have referred to these as “the fundamentals of the faith.” While five of these were distinguished in the early part of the last century, I do think there are more. These would be beliefs that are necessary to have a true gospel, an orthodox faith, and an authentic Christianity. I believe it is very clear that Paul draws a hard line here with orthodoxy when we read Galatians. If we don’t get this right, we don’t get anything right.
The second tier is one of functional distinctives. These teachings are necessary for a local church to function effectively—such as mode of baptism and church polity. We may have great fellowship with a Presbyterian and even have him preach for us in our church, but we probably won’t be members of the same church. We differ because we interpret certain texts differently. I see this as a “dotted line.” We can both be Christians who love the Lord and seek to please Him in all we do and we can enjoy times together in and out of the contexts of our local churches.
The third tier is personal convictions. These are matters of conscience or preference. These are important, but believers should be able to differ and still enjoy fellowship within the context of the same local church. Love and respect will “give people space.” It is a Romans 14 spirit within the body and does not prohibit a healthy functioning of the local assembly of believers. In fact, the differences can be a strengthening characteristic. [from part 1 of his series]
Olson seems to differ from the fundamentalist party line in his last post in this series, where he makes the following observations:
I believe that the same lines that I draw for an orthodox Christian faith are the same lines that I should draw for Christian fellowship. I believe that every true born again Christian is a brother or sister in Christ and that not only can I have fellowship with him or her, it is what Christ has intended, and it is what brings him great delight (Romans 1:1; Philippians 2:1-11). For me to draw dividing lines that He has not drawn grieves Him, hurts the body of Christ, and hinders the work of the Great Commission.
The mode of baptism, timing of the rapture, cessationist or non-cessationist positions, dispensational or covenant positions, church polity, style of music, philosophy of ministry—are NOT fundamentals of the faith. They never have been. When we get to heaven I think there are going to be a lot of people feeling ashamed about how they fought over these things and neglected what matters most.
Every local church or ministry will have its functional distinctives, and we need these. Every believer will have his own personal convictions, beliefs, and opinions. We need these as well. They are not unimportant and they may even affect the degree of practical cooperation in certain ministry contexts. But, these are not matters of separation and those who don’t agree with someone else’s opinions are not simply disobedient brothers.
A disobedient brother is someone who is in clear violation of biblical teaching and one who after repeated confrontation continues in his sin. The Bible gives plenty of instruction on how to work through these situations in love and toward restoration (Galatians 6:1-5). [from part 3]
I wholeheartedly affirm what he is saying above, and can agree with the gist of his conclusion:
What do we separate over?
The Christian should expose and separate from a false Gospel (Galatians 1:8,9).
The Christian should expose and separate from another Christian who continues to walk in disobedience (after following a biblical process for restoration, I Corinthians 5:9-13).
The Christian should separate from the world (This is another discussion that I would like to take up in the future because I find many people have a wrong view of ”the world” I John 2:15-17).
While I applaud Olson’s conclusions on this matter, I’m curious as to what degree this will impact his decisions at the helm of a large fundamentalist institution. I’m hoping he continues to make positive changes, such as his controversial tack on the use of demerits at the university and his changing stance on music (see his open letter for more on both). I wonder if it is too much to hope that he would steer a course for Type B fundamentalists to come into greater fellowship and interaction with the Type Cs who don’t hold to the name fundamentalist but are nevertheless similar in their beliefs. (I’m using Joel Tetreau’s ABCs here.) Apparently others are taking note about Olson’s practice, as the FBFI blog recently put his feet to the fire over an endorsement of a church that belongs to the Sovereign Grace Ministries group of churches. I’m curious to see how Olson answers the very specific questions that have been raised.
These questions are why I am not a part of the fundamentalist movement, because there is such a to-do made about institutions and structures. If you have a fundamentalist institution committed to the movement, then you can’t endorse churches connected to a non-fundamentalist movement. But following Scripture would move you to endorse such churches in the spirit of all Olson has stated above. This is the quandary in store for other fundamentalist leaders who see the deficiencies of an “us four, no more” mentality and really get the Gospel-centered focus of today’s conservative evangelicals. To truly follow their conscience and lead their institutions, they’ll have to invite Mark Dever to their conferences and will inevitably say and do things the fundamentalist base will see as a betrayal of their “cause.”
Here’s hoping that this next generation of fundamentalist leaders are the genesis of a sweeping change within fundamentalism as a whole, and that the wider Church is blessed because of their willingness to follow Christ at all costs.
Following my post from yesterday, I wanted to share the video clip of CNN reporting on Hephzibah House, an IFB reform house for girls.
If that isn’t enough, you can hear a detailed documentary of eight former HH students detailing what life was like for them at Hephzibah. The documentary is chilling and scary and reinforces how serious this problem is. And somehow the house has kept on running for nearly 40 years…
Why is it that some think brute force, spanking harder and more determinedly, can somehow produce spiritual results? Where do they come up with the idea that surrogate parenting will work, and is condoned by God? And why is it that using military school and extreme psychological tactics will be able to turn out women who fear the Lord and bask in His love?? These are human-centered, pragmatic tactics NEVER MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. And they abuse these poor girls. The results aren’t even worth talking about, as numerous former HH girls run away from Christianity with all their might.
There are a lot of man-centered, Arminian assumptions behind these reform schools and their methods, and I hope to explore this in more detail over the coming weeks. For now, be ashamed of this wing of fundamentalism, be alarmed, and think about what God would have you do.
A blogging friend of mine, Will Dudding, recently shared some thoughts on his journey of the last five years or so, since he started blogging. His blog name is The Reforming Baptist, and he is a co-blogger with me on Re:Fundamentals and KJVOnlyDebate.com. After taking a break from blogging the past few months, Will came back to share some of his thoughts on where he’s at in a recent post. I want to excerpt some of his comments and discuss them here, below.
Since I have put blogging on the shelf for the last seven months, I have been learning some things that I needed to be quiet and learn. So, I’ll share them with those of you who have waited to see if I’d ever come back.
Originally, this blog was born out of my increased exposure to theology and ministry philosophy that was more God-centered than what I was accustomed to. So, I wanted to express what I was learning and kind of think through some issues in a public way in order to interact with others out there about it. However, I was very much a frustrated young man who was still struggling in my cocoon. As most of you know, I grew up in the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) environment. After being exposed to life outside of that group, I felt as though I had been hoodwinked all my life and I used my blog to express my frustrations and address all the myths, errors, falsehoods, etc.. that I had bought into. Inadvertently, I learned that I had a porcupine effect on some people. Eventually, I began to sense that very same spirit of dissent in a few members in my congregation. It was then, that I realized that my spirit had probably negatively effected some people whom I was supposed to be leading. We ended up losing one family shortly after I stopped blogging. It was really painful to see them go, but I had to wonder after the fact how much of their dis-satisfied disposition was caused by mine? It took a rebuke from someone close to me that got me thinking about this, and so I knew it was time to quit blogging. I needed to shut up and listen to what God needed to teach me.
Another lesson I learned these past months is that the IFB or Fundamentalist movement, network, culture (whatever you want to call it) is not going to be revived or reformed. Those loyal to it cannot and will not recognize the inherent and fundamental defects of the movement. It will continue to decline from relevance and influence on its own. God doesn’t revive or reform such things. He does so to individuals. There is no use trying to correct the course of Fundamentalism by reasoning with the Scripture because for the most part, Sola Scriptura is not really valued by the movers and shakers in the movement. So, I have learned that it is best to just leave it alone and get my head out of the clouds – I am not going to make a dent in reforming fundamentalism. All I will ever be is a burr in their saddle, an irritation to be put up with should I continue identifying myself with them – not my idea of purposeful existence. I don’t need to be identified with the Fundamental Baptists, the Reformed Baptists, the Southern Baptists or any other group. We can exist in happy obedience to God’s Word and in fellowship with anyone else who is striving to do the same That is truly independence!
I encourage you to read the whole post, as he has some more to say. But I wondered what my readers thought of his judgement of the IFB movement. In my blog’s subtitle for the last several years, I’ve had the phrase “Reforming Fundamentalism (IFB) through Reformed Theology”. Will hasn’t been a full-fledged proponent of Reformed Theology, but he has been a reforming fundamentalist. I maintain a Reforming Fundamentalists Blog Network, which I need to update, but still includes a list of like-minded IFBs & former-IFBs intent on working toward positive change. That was the idea behind Re:Fundamentals, which also needs updating. One could also argue that the large fundamentalist forums and blog, Sharper Iron, has as one of its aims, the reformation of the IFB movement.
Will brings up the question though, is all this worth it? Will the IFB movement change? Does it want to change? He says it doesn’t. But I think that depends on where you are in the IFB spectrum. Still the recent brouhaha over Chuck Phelps and ABC’s 20/20 show, and the revelation of what many (myself included) consider to be a misuse of pastoral authority, teaches us something. That even in the “sane” wing of fundamentalism, a top-down leadership style, and certain views on authority and sanctification, continue to have drastic consequences. Pastor Bob Bixby, who like Greg Locke, has also walked away from the IFB movement and the Baptist label, recently shared some of his thoughts about continuing problems in the highest ranks of BJU-style fundamentalism. Will and I could give you some stories of other fundamentalist groups that would raise the hair on the back of your neck. I don’t know if I’ve recounted horror stories, but the personal stories and testimonies I’ve shared will give you an eyeful. Here are four accounts for you: a distraught mother, Becca’s story, Greg’s story, and another reader’s story. For a wild ride through the heart of the most extreme version of fundamentalism, you should pick up James Spurgeon’s book The Texas Baptist Crucible: Tales from the Temple.
Over my nearly six years of blogging, I’ve received on average one or two emails a week, it seems, from people appreciating my blog or sharing their own story of journeying through fundamentalism. Hundreds have shared their thoughts in the comments on my blog, but many more in private conversation to me. Many of these have found a new church, some are IFB churches which are much better than where they were before, but many walk away from the movement altogether.
Is the movement really changing? Are such stories decreasing in frequency? Maybe. I know this happened in other generations. Two of my uncles walked away from the IFB movement in the early 80s. Perhaps the internet is helping to escalate the problem. More and more have walked away or have awakened to the issues.
Does this mean we can write ICHABOD in bold across the moniker IFB? I don’t actually think so. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran, represent glimmers of hope. This conversation between them and Mark Minnick, reveals the heart of these new fundamentalist leaders. Sharper Iron is a place where many IFB pastors and thinkers are discussing issues and seeking positive growth. The Preserving the Truth Conference, even though I don’t agree with some of it’s central values, nevertheless represents a positive movement in fundamentalism. As does Calvary Baptist’s Advancing the Church conference. Standpoint Conference is a mix of those still holding the IFB name and those who are past it, but it is working for a positive expression of fundamentalism for the new century.
Historic fundamentalism is still needed. Independence can be a good thing, as long as healthy interdependence with other like-minded churches is sought out. And Baptist doctrine and practice has hundreds of years behind it, and has proven to be a faith that aims to be as Biblical as possible. So Independent Fundamental Baptists are not a bad thing. What needs to be improved upon, and ejected from the movement, is the man-centered, pragmatic trappings and the baggage from the last 80 years of the movement. One-upmanship, strong-arming, political maneuvering, grand-standing, arrogance and an abrupt dismissal of any church group besides your own — these are all too common in the IFB world. Along with these problems is a fear of education, a resulting ignorance of doctrine, and a love of piety over theology — these problems have conspired to spawn eccentric doctrines and shallow Christians completely cut off from the rest of Christianity (as Will describes). Finally, and most importantly, a legalism silently pervades the movement. Often good intentions mask this legalism: we want to please God and obey His Law, but this is not our means to being accepted by God (either for our salvation or our sanctification). A recovery of the Biblical concept of grace and of the Gospel as being the A-Z of the Christian life (not just the entrance exam) is desperately needed.
There remain many faithful IFB churches who stand on the Word of God and love people. May their tribe increase. To try to reform those who bristle at the mention of the problems I stated above, however, is pointless. I trust, however, that more and more IFB pastors and leaders are willing to admit the problems of their movement. May they be encouraged to reform and renew fundamentalism for the 21st Century and beyond.
First Baptist Church in Troy, MI hosted a new conference this past week. The Preserving the Truth Conference had over 350 in attendance and included the following main speakers: Kevin Bauder (president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, MN), 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 in Greenville, SC) and Chris Anderson (pastor of Tri-County Bible Church in Madison, OH, blogger at My Two Cents). The conference was a “symposium on Biblical separation”.
It seems to be somewhat of a success, with great discussion in the panel session, and hopes that fundamentalism can work through remaining questions on how to implement separation in faithful and careful ways. The concern is how they relate to conservative evangelicals on one hand, and more right-wing fundamentalists on the other. On the one hand, their stated goal is to “[preserve] the truth through careful separation, robust theology, and cultural conservatism”. Yet it seems apparent that the organizers of the conference are hoping to address issues which are problems in the mind of many young fundamentalists who are leaving fundamentalism for greener, conservative evangelical pastures.
Here are some accounts of the conference (which I did not attend).
Here is the link to the audio or written notes from conference workshops and plenary sessions, as well as some additional material contributed for the initiative.
I’m optimistic about this conference, even though I wonder about the defense of “conservatism” as part of the rescue of Fundamentalism. Also the inclusion of multiple peripheral issues as key points related to the preservation of truth and the Fundamentalist movement doesn’t seem to help in stemming the drift of the young people out of fundamentalism. Still questions are being raised and addressed, and some solutions are being offered. Even though I differ with some of their emphases, I’m happy to see things like this happening, and can hope it has a positive impact in the future. I suppose this is happening elsewhere, but I’m happy to report the reformation of fundamentalism continues.
I hope to listen to some of the audio and interact more on this topic in future posts. I’m discussing some of my initial impressions over at Sharper Iron, right now.
Let me know if you were present at the event, or what your take is on it. Was it a success? Or is it the first step toward lasting and positive change?
