Recently, I was startled by a sharp contrast over how 2 different men responded to error. These two responses provide a comparison study which illustrates just why fundamentalism (IFB) and hyperfundamentalism (IFBx) should be distinguished.
Definitions
Before we move to the study, we should pause and provide some definitions for those who may be unfamiliar with the independent Baptist fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism describes the position of adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and also being willing to separate over these fundamentals. For independent Baptists, such separation usually extends to believers who cooperate with those who deny one or more of the fundamentals. And the movement dictates how such separation looks and around which personalities it centers.
Hyperfundamentalists, also known as IFBx, elevate cultural standards to the level of doctrine, and separate accordingly. Many leaders in this group exert an inordinate control over the lives of their followers, and demand an almost cultish loyalty. This group also maintains extreme positions, often holding to an almost-heretical KJV-only position.
Admittedly, the division between these two groups can be somewhat arbitrary. And we are obviously speaking in generalities. There are similarities between both groups, and that is part of the reason why I have left independent Baptist fundamentalism altogether. But the differences remain. And these differences can be very large and defining, as this comparison study will demonstrate.
The Comparison: Case #1
I have not followed the Joe Zichterman case fully, but his departure from fundamentalism provides the background for our first example. He had been a professor at Northland Baptist Bible College, a solidly IFB institution. Now he has left the movement altogether and has joined Willow Creek Community Church (pastored by Bill Hybels). Evidently, he has great respect for Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, and recommends Joel Osteen. I don’t know all the details, but apparently he is encouraging others to leave fundamentalism, and has emailed hundreds of people on fundamentalist email lists in defense of his departure. I may disagree with some of Joe’s theological leanings, but I do empathize with how big a deal it was for him to leave the fundamentalist movement. I also read his fictional work “A Tale of Two Amishmen: Inside the mind of a Spiritual Defector”, and I agree with many (not all) of the concerns with fundamentalism in general as highlighted there.
Now in response to Joe’s defection, I’m sure there has been much said in the fundamentalist blogosphere. To be honest, I haven’t read all that much of it. I did, however, read Brian McCrorie’s recent post “Is Joe Zichterman a False Teacher?” That post applied the results of his recent study on false teachers to Joe’s specific case. He concluded overwhelmingly that Joe Zichterman does not fit the bill of a false teacher, according to the following Biblically-derived definition.
False teachers are unregenerate people who have rejected the Gospel and are now intent on corrupting it for the sake of monetary gain. They use deception and lust to entice spiritually immature believers to their heresy. These teachers have no spiritual discernment, are addicted to sin, and are arrogant, especially toward authority. They deny Christ and the words of Christ.
While some in fundamentalism might be prone to apply that particular label to Joe, most of them do not doubt his salvation, nor his sincerity. They would agree he is in error, and many bloggers have taken the time to show why. Some fundamentalist leaders, however, even call for his message to be appropriately considered and pondered. So this is a fundamentalist response to theological error: a reasoned rejection coupled with warnings, and a sincere prayer that God would bless and help Joe Zichterman see the error of his ways.
Case #2
I was recently made aware of a new controversy within hyperfundamentalism. It surrounds Jack Schaap, the son-in-law of Jack Hyles, and current pastor of First Baptist of Hammond, IN. I knew that mainstream fundamentalists had been pointing out the wild and unbelievable stories, and strange doctrine of Schaap, but I was not aware that other hyperfundamentalists and Hyles devotees were also pointing out Schaap’s errors. For all I know, this controversy could have been brewing for some time, but many of the official letters that I found were written in the past month or so.
The ringleader (from what I can tell) of the opposition to Schaap from the conservative fundamentalist ranks is Tom Neal of The Baptist Contender. His website highlights a sermon preached by his son, Greg Neal entitled “Schaap’s Fables”. The website also boasts a collection of audio clips of Schaap espousing various heresies.
Now I am glad that Tom Neal and the other men behind that paper are holding Schaap accountable for his wacky and errant theology (more on that later). I find it odd, though, that this same paper endorses Jack Hyles 100%. David Cloud’s article “I Am of Jack” singles out The Baptist Contender and Tom Neal for an almost cultish devotion to all things Hyles. And if you want to speak of wacky theology, Jack Hyles was king in that category. This site lists just some of the many crazy and absurd things Hyles taught. (And this is beyond the questions about Hyles’ personal integrity.)
As for Schaap, the charges against him center primarily on his overemphasis (possibly a mis-emphasis) on a comparison between marital relations and the intimacy which should characterize a believer’s relationship to Christ. Christ is the husband and the church is the bride, remember. Schaap gets very pointed in his application of this “principle” and goes so far as to claim that the Lord’s Supper (in which we partake of or receive Christ’s body) is all about this “spiritual intimacy”. Details of this shocking teaching can be seen here.
That was the primary charge brought forth in that sermon, I mentioned above. The second primary point had to do with Scaap’s humanizing of God. Various quotes were given which did seem to bring God down somewhat to our level. Schaap’s motivation seemed to be to help us understand God more and get us to see things differently.
Now that is pretty much the sum total of the accusations Neal and company throw at Schaap. Other things are mentioned, but it seems to me that they are mostly stretches. For instance the list of sermon excerpts which supposedly confirm that Schaap teaches heresy fails miserably. I honestly don’t have a clue on some of the excerpts as to why they were included; perhaps the page is still being created and they are “on the hunt” for evidence, I’m not sure. Most of the clips have Schaap decrying racism. Is that heretical? On this page, they provide a 14 minute clip which shows Schaap belittling pedophiles and making a mockery of sin. If you listen to it, Schaap is not doing any such thing. He is calling for people to have an understanding of others and to try to reach them rather than just condemn certain people and write them off. Another point of evidence the site appeals to is Schaap’s calling a non-fundamentalist black megachurch pastor James Meeks his friend.
I emphasize the scant evidence of other charges to make this point. These men take what is certainly questionable and errant doctrine, and conclude that Schaap is denying the deity of Christ and preaching another gospel. Greg Neal said he did not believe Schaap was saved. The site links to some very mean-spirited letters written to Schaap and Ray Young by Tom Neal that were copied to a veritable “Who’s Who” list in hyperfundamentalism. There is also a letter to a pastor John Shook, where Tom Neal doubts his salvation and refuses to call him “brother” because he defends Jack Schaap.
Is such a fierce response warranted? Certainly Jack Schaap has some doctrinal problems, and he could benefit from more Bible study time, it seems. He should be more careful with his teaching, and ensure that his teachings on marital intimacy don’t become license for sin or occasion for a blasphemous view of the believer’s relationship to God. But is he consciously denying the deity of Christ? Is he really preaching another gospel? Is he a “false prophet” to use Greg Neal’s words?
Conclusion
I can’t believe I just defended Jack Schaap! But the sad truth is hyperfundamentalists are so extreme, that they often think the worst they can of everybody who doesn’t agree with them completely. To them, there is only so much error one can have before we start doubting their salvation.
It should be painfully obvious by now just how wide the gap is between hyperfundamentalists and their fundamentalist cousins. That is what struck me so much in thinking through both of these cases. Now I know that Tom Neal and company may perhaps represent the radical right extreme of hyperfundamentalism, and Brian McCrorie could be close to the left extreme of fundamentalism, but I think this comparison does illustrate an important point. Fundamentalists are prone to think through things more slowly and carefully and Biblically, whereas hyperfundamentalists quickly default to an extreme separation from anyone they deem to be in error.
One more thing, this again highlights the important question I raised a long time ago “Is It a Sin to Be Wrong?” And again I point you to Tim Challies’ answer (which was recently highlighted in the comments of one of my recent posts).
Excelente! brother..I am going to forward this article to my sister who thinks all fundamentalists are of the Hyles brand. This was a very well-thought through evaluation.
I find it interesting that about 1/4 of the audio clips of Schaap’s supposed “heresy” deal with Schaap’s forceful rebuke of racism within American fundamentalism. I didn’t listen to all the clips (I listen to only 4), so please correct me if I missed something. But what I heard was Schaap clearly welcoming blacks as brothers in Christ, condemning racial jokes and forbidding them in his church, and awakening people to the reality of the presence of blacks within the people of God in the Old Testament. How did this end up on a “heresy list”, unless the authors of that fundamentalist website are racists, which I suspect they are. At least on this issue, I say “atta boy Jack, keep speaking the truth” (comment not necessarily applied to other teachings of Rev. Schaap). :o)
– Josh
Josh,
It’s more like 1/2 of the clips deal with a rebuke of racism. A full 7 out of 16 clips concern this. The other clips are no worse than what fills Jack Hyle’s sermons. He would always say others thought of him as their Hero, or talk about how he was going to heaven. I’m not sure how Schaap saying the same thing equals heresy (that’s 2 more clips worth). Instead of loving people who like to find fault, I suppose we are to hate them (another clip). Yes, the clips are very problematic indeed.
Thanks for stopping by (I added you to the reciprocal links too, just so you know).
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Will,
Glad the article makes some sense anyway! Hope it convinces your sister.
Blessings from the Cross,
Bob
Bob,
Thanks for adding me. I am also a “recovering IFBx’er”. :o)
I enjoy the blog.
Not technical enough to know how to post the link to a story about a Luis Palau crusade and a Roman Catholic archbiship. But it was on aomin.org Maybe
What kind of separation is being practiced by the Omaha Bible Church? Is this direct separation because they are not companying with the archbishop or secondary because they won’t company with Palau? Appears kinda fundamentalistic (If that’s a word)
Just wondering. Thanks for any replies.
SamKnisely
Bob,
I agree that the Neals went way overboard with their critique of Schaap’s “heresies.” The sounded very arrogant and childish, and the glaring double-standard is too much to ignore: Hyles gets away with the same type false-teaching, but Schaap gets roasted.
That being said, I do believe somebody needs to hold Schaap accountable for the outlandish statements he made. He said that when we grieve the Holy Spirit He becomes bewildered and confused. Schaap wasn’t just making a comparison; he was teaching it matter-of-factly.
Some of his other statements that compared the Lord’s Supper and marital intimacy were way out of line. He grossly misinterpreted several verses in order to make the imagery sexual. This is just bizarre stuff.
Bob, you said:
“The second primary point had to do with Scaap’s humanizing of God. Various quotes were given which did seem to bring God down somewhat to our level. Schaap’s motivation seemed to be to help us understand God more and get us to see things differently.”
I think you’re letting him off too easily. His statements were at best highly irresponsible at worst heretical.
I agree that the Neals are showing the “hyper” side of fundamentalism. But they do make SOME valid points.
A good treatment. I haven’t done much homework, but it seems some of Schaap’s critics fear he’ll abandon KJV-Onlyism (returning to Hyle’s original position, if I understand correctly). What do you know about this?
It certainly is irresponsible of Schaap to stretch the marriage analogy to equate communion with sex. The only other time I’ve heard this connection made was by a mesopagan (monotheistic) goddess-worshiper who believes in faeries and claims to practice ritualistic extra-marital sex with the opposite-sex members of his coven (called a “nest” by his group, closely monitored by the group including his own spouse! This they consider a ritual akin to our communion.
I know, I know! The collective response to this will be, “Huh?” It would probably be best to leave it at that. . .
🙂
But I said that to say that Schaap definintely crosses the line of blasphemy, as so many individualistic interpreters are prone to do at times. Hyperfundies are expert (wrong word, perhaps?) in the art of trying to force every detail of an analogy to match the spiritual reality it is intended to analogize. But it requires more restraint than they seem to be able to muster to allow an analogy to represent only one point.
PS–The pagan story is true, though!
Sam,
It’s easy to get muddled in discussions like these as to whether separation is primary, secondary, tertiary, or (I don’t even know the word for fourth level).
I tend to think not attending the crusade would be a mix of primary and secondary separation. Not having fellowship with Luis would be secondary, and separating from those who join with Luis would be tertiary.
Personally, I would probably not support the crusade, if I knew a Catholic was involved. But then, I tend to think the gospel presentations might be a little shallow too. However, I’m glad Luis is spreading the gospel and reaching people through his crusades.
Hope that helps, somewhat.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Joe and John,
I agree. Schaap is way out of line. I might be standing up for him too much. However, Neal and company are bending over backwards to claim he is an avowed heretic.
I wouldn’t encourage anyone to sit under Schaap’s teaching, with so many questionable (at best) and nigh-unto-blasphemous teachings. But I think Neal and company are way out of line for treating Schaap as if he were not even saved, and responding to his error in such a cold-hearted, uncharitable way.
And yea, Schaap’s stuff is reminiscent of wild and crazy sexual new-age stuff. Of course, if you believe the primary charges against Jack Hyles…perhaps this kind of strange sexuality shouldn’t be too surprising coming from Hammond.
Blessings from Jesus, brothers. Be glad the Lord has openned our eyes to these errors, but be careful lest we put ourselves up in pride as not able to also fall from sound doctrine.
Bob
While we’re standing up for error-ridden pastors from Hammond, Indiana, did you ever hear the recorded interviews of David Hyle’s first wife? You can hear it at . . .
https://www.jeriwho.net/audio/audio.htm
She gives her late ex-father-in-law to be the benefit of the doubt, believing the best that Jack’s relationship may have been no more than an emotional attachment. But questionable enough to blow his son’s mind, apparently . . .
I don’t know, but I thought it was rather Christian of her to come to that conclusion.
I also don’t mind your getting technical with the Neal’s about just how Schaap’s wrong. He may not be a genuine heretic, even if his error is so outrageous and blasphemous. May the Lord open Jack Schaap’s eyes that he might understand the Scriptures.
Sorry, not “ex-father-in-law to be,” just ex-father-in-law.
I must have been on a roll or something.
🙂
[…] 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. […]
You would probably consider me an ifbxer or hyper-fundamentalist, which does not bother me one bit. I would like to add that Steve Anderson also does a great job exposing Schaap’s heresy on youtube and hardpreaching.com. He links to some of the Neals’ stuff, but has some great clips of his own. I would be interested to hear your opinion of Pastor Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ.
Raani,
Here is the opinion of someone who knew Pastor Anderson personally. I must confess I am troubled by him and his intentional abrasiveness. He is also very wrong on some important issues, in my opinion.
Sorry for the late response.
Bob Hayton
A helpful resource, you may already know about:
https://www.jeriwho.net/
Does anyone know how to get videos pulled off of YouTube? I have contacted YouTube about the content of anti Dr. Schaap videos and they tell me that the content is not inappropriate. I think they are.
This is one such video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLrSCOkNTnw
This guy posts all kinds of things that should not be allowed. If anyone knows who he is, please post his name as he is too much of a coward to.
Bro. Mike,
With YouTube, I’m not so sure something like that can be pulled. I looked at the other videos of that user and the video link you provided was quite tame in comparison.
I have strong reservations about Schaap, and would warn against an unqualified acceptance of his teachings and ministry. I would not post such videos however. It appears the poster is not saved. And free speech is allowed. There are some elements of truth to what he says.
You can post responses to his videos via YouTube and leave comments. He gives a name on his profile page, but I’m not sure it’s his own. There is a link to send him a message at the bottom right of his profile page (click on his user name to get there).
Hope that helps,
Bob
Thanks Bob. I know it was a long shot to get these videos pulled, but there were some teens in our church who found them and had their parents watch them. I have successfully stayed away from the Dr. Schaap drama and don’t want it to harm our church. I attended HAC under Dr. Hyles, and have my own concerns regarding Dr. Schaap as I did with Dr. Hyles. I guess I was just wanting to stay out of the line of fire. Which I did, until these videos started showing up with my youth group.
Answering questions to angry parents who wanted to know why we took their kids to youth conference last year with knowledge of Dr. Schaap’s teachings was not fun. But I do want to note that I did not hear anything like that at the conference.
Thanks again for the response.
What happened to the Baptist Contender site? I believe I downloaded the MP3s and listened to about all I could stand… just wanted to keep the source for future reference… for the next time someone tells me how wonderful Schaap is especially!
No idea, JB. I don’t get over there much.
Brother Mike, I have no idea what you’re referring to since the videos have been pulled BYTHE USER, but you might want to acqaint yourself with a little thing called the 1st Amendment. It’s a beautiful thing. People actually can say what they want and not have to be policed by their neighbors. (although, I’m not so sure about this in the future with the Fairness Doctrine)
Reading this article is like reading a comparison of why the house of prostitution down the street is better than this one because it’s older, trains its workers better, and is up to building code specifications. Fundamentalism and Hyper Fundamentalism are really just Fundamentalism. The “Hyper” distinction is something that a few Fundamentalists apply to others within Fundamentalism to make themselves feel better about how corrupt and imbecilic many of the practices within Fundamentalism are. Nobody here is going to appreciate my conclusion, since Hyper fundies and fundies, alike, are so certain in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that they are “right with God.” But the truth is, you’re all Fundamentalists, and you are just kidding yourselves when you push the responsibility for how bad your religion is when you create new sub genres of it and remark upon their problems.
Jeri,
Just noticed your comment here (older posts don’t auto inform me of comments for some reason).
You should know I wrote this post from the perspective of an outsider to both IFB and IFBx fundamentalism. I think it is important to distinguish varieties of fundamentalism, to help us be gracious in our assessments of others.
I consider myself a historic fundamentalist at heart, but identify more with conservative evangelicalism. I aim to incite reform and renewal within fundamentalism, and that doesn’t always mean people need to leave the movement altogether.
Some need a firm rebuke, that is true. And I’ve spoken some harsh words plenty often around here. But we all need to submit to Scripture and not just assume our traditions and beliefs are okay. I think you’d agree with that.
If our aim is to help those mired in extreme fundamentalist circles, a gracious careful response may be more productive than a hand grenade.
In Christ,
Bob Hayton
One more thing: if you are interested, I recently did a few radio interviews which help explain my perspective on fundamentalism. You’ll find the download links here and here. The second link is easier to listen to, doesn’t have interruptions and the interviewer is also a former fundamentalist too. Thanks again for dropping by.