Tag: defense

What Can Fundamentalists Learn from Joe Paterno?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 48 Comments

By now, I’m sure most of my readers have heard that Joe Paterno was recently fired after more than 40 years of coaching one of the top College Football programs in the country. Paterno won more games in his coaching career than anyone else in Division-1 Football. Even now his Penn State’s Nittany Lions are poised to win the Big Ten Championship. By all accounts he should be respected and revered. But he was summarily dismissed, and turned out — and this at the end of his golden career.

Paterno is an illustration of a changing reality in the world today. A reality that Fundamentalists and other conservative Church groups must pay attention to, and learn from. Paterno lost the battle of public opinion, because today’s public has an entirely different opinion of child abuse, and potential child abuse, than yesterday’s generation.

In the old days, when the “Good Ol’ Boy” club reinged supreme. An allegation, was just that — an allegation. An alleged incident that may or may not be true. And someone in a position of leadership, would usually be given the benefit of the doubt. In Paterno’s case, his son made the following argument on his behalf:

“Unfortunately,” Scott Paterno said, “once that happened, there was really nothing more Joe felt he could do because he did not witness the event. You can’t call the police and say, ‘Somebody tells me they saw somebody else do something.’ That’s hearsay. Police don’t take reports in that manner. Frankly, from the way he understood the process, he passed the information on to the appropriate university official and they said they were taking care of it. That’s really all he could do. [source]

Thinking this through, I was inclined to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt. He did what he thought was right, and someone else goofed up and didn’t report like they should have. But the more I think about the situation, the more convinced I am that he really does share a blame. It’s convenient to pass a problem off on someone else, especially when the allegation concerns someone you know and trust.

While occasionally, innocent people do get falsely accused, overall, today’s culture which prizes the innocent victims is really to be praised. Isn’t that what the Bible advocates? Standing up for those who have no voice of their own? Ministering to the helpless and the fatherless? The following Scripture verses comes to mind:

Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. (Jeremiah 22:3 ESV)

Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart. (Zechariah 7:9-10)

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27 ESV)

The Church is also to maintain a good reputation with the world, and particularly its leaders, the elders are given this charge: “Moreover [they] must have a good report of them which are without.” (1 Tim. 3:7a KJV) So, this changing opinion of the public in regard to allegations of child abuse is something that fundamentalists need to pay attention to.

Penn State University, when faced with the potential that some of their employees allowed child abuse to happen and didn’t report or ensure that a report was made to the police, quickly acted to remove all doubt about their stance against child abuse and to fire their high ranking, “good ol’ boys” who had come under a cloud of suspicion. But in Fundamentalism, this is not the road that churches and institutions usually take.

In Chuck Phelps’ case, he filed a report, but allowed the victim to flee the state while the police sought her in vain. He had done his duty by reporting, but didn’t go out of his way to help, because after all this was an allegation, one might say. The perpetrator of the abuse maintained his membership in good standing at the church, while the victim was viewed as a troubled teen who needed special care and who wasn’t worthy of being in the church-run school. Phelps wasn’t censured, that I know of, by any church or institution. He did lose a speaking engagement, and stepped down from the presidency of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (but we don’t know if that was related to this allegation), but he is still on the board of Bob Jones University.

In Fairhaven’s case, when CNN investigated allegations of abuse, there was no apology and no sympathy for the victims. They were said to be kids who caused a lot of trouble, or outright liars. Instead of apologizing and investigating the incidents, Fairhaven staff gave the CNN reporter a souvenir paddle in a mockery of the gravity of these allegations.

Thankfully, not all fundamentalist institutions react this way. The American Council of Christian Churches, a fundamentalist group parallel to the National Association of Evangelicals, publicly condemned Fairhaven’s actions – specifically referencing the giving of a souvenir paddle as an over-the-top and unChristian reaction to these serious charges. A fundamentalist mission board, ABWE, when faced with numerous people going forward about specific cases of abuse, launched an independent investigation, publicly apologized and took radical steps toward changing the culture of their organization in this regard.

Joe Paterno presents an example for fundamentalists that I hope they won’t ignore. The watching public won’t let us give the benefit of the doubt to the “good ol’ boys” anymore. We need to be as concerned as God is, over the victims of abuse. A man I respect, when learning of certain systematic abuse at a Fundamentalist institution that he had given years of his life to, reacted by confronting the leader of the church and institution, and then leaving. From what I’ve heard of this incident, he was told something to the effect of “Well, what do you want us to do about that? There’s nothing we can do.” He replied, “I’d dedicate my ministry to helping every last child who was harmed by the abuse that happened.”

Good advice for all of us. Don’t hide behind the fact that these are only “allegations”. Don’t refuse to investigate the matter, or have it investigated by a third party, for fear of what the high-up, protected and revered leaders would think– or what could happen to them. Stand up for the oppressed and the abused, and take a stand. A watching world wonders if we really are as much like Jesus Christ as we say we are.

Q & A: What About the Arguments against CCM?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 103 Comments

From time to time I get asked various questions through my blog contact form. I don’t always have time to respond. Sometimes, the question and my response seem appropriate to share with my wider blog audience. So I’ll begin a feature on my blog addressing reader’s questions. If you have any questions you would like me to consider for this feature, just contact me.

Reader’s Question:

I have read through your posts and the comments on music. I have found it very helpful as I have grown up with the fundamentalist view on music and it is extremely hard to shake. I have broadened my musical tastes, though, and have grown to be blessed by much of “ccm” and find it very God-honoring.

I know you are not an expert on the music debate but you have written much about it on this blog and have changed your own view point from the conservative to less so. Because of that I was wondering if you could answer a question I have. I feel like I can biblically counter much of the arguments thrown at me that condemn CCM. The one thing I have not yet been able to find an answer for is the argument that the beginnings of rock and roll as stated by those artists who wrote it was rebellion and illicit sex. I can say from my own experience that I am not driven to those things when listening. But I would be told that is personal experience and that that is a poor judge of truth. Their argument would be that the music itself is inherently rebellious and sensual as stated by even those who wrote it. I am curious as to if you have faced that and what you answer would be to that. It is hard to find people who I can discuss this with where I am currently so I appreciate your taking the time to read this and answer.

My Answer:

Great question. For starters, it should be said that fundamentalists don’t have a universal approach to music. I’ve experienced fundamentalist churches that utilize CCM music, or close to it, in their services but still preach from the KJB. Many fundamentalist and conservative evangelical churches shy away from using CCM music in public worship, but don’t have as big of a problem with people listening to that music for entertainment or personal edification. But I came from a wing of fundamentalism that was very anti-CCM and that marshaled the very arguments you shared in your question, so I’ll try to share how I would respond.

I should also state that I prefer CCM music for my personal music listening. I don’t like everything I hear equally, but I would rather focus on God in my music than listen to just secular music. Not all Christian music is created equal in its emphasis on a clear, Christ-focused lyrics and a melody and rhythm that complement that. But a lot does. Our church too, uses a blended form of worship where we sing older hymns as well as contemporary songs and choruses. Last week I led the worship at our church and we sang “Nothing but the Blood” and “Holy, Holy, Holy” right alongside “Revelation Song”, and “Worthy is the Lamb“. We also sang
“Before the Throne of God Above“. We had an acoustic guitar, a keyboardist and an electric drum-set. Some songs the drums bowed out completely. (I help serve in a church plant, so we don’t have a permanent home – hence no piano).

Regarding the origins of rock and roll, I think you could say at one time the aura of rock and roll was all about sex. But that has changed over time. Tchaikovsky, along with other composers of classical music, had a horrendous personal story filled with homosexuality and aberrant behavior. Tchaikovsky’s music was described as “vulgar” and “supersensous”. But that stigma hasn’t survived to this day. So the association that rock and roll had with sex is something that can change over time. There was an association with free love and rebellion, too. But today it is just an art form. It’s something that plays at the dentist’s office and grocery store, not just at large, sexually-charged concerts.

Music without lyrical content, lacks the ability to communicate with specificity apart from cultural factors. A minor key means something sad to our culture, but something happy to others. When music is coupled with lyrics, then it has the ability, as a whole, to communicate with a degree of specificity that lets us judge it morally and accept or reject it.

There’s also the testimony you share about how you respond to CCM. It isn’t just an emotional response. There is a biblical principle that if you look at the fruits of something, you can know its character. The fruit in my life and my church of the best of CCM music with it’s God-ward focus, has been positive spiritual growth, not a tendency to carnality and sensuality.

I will also say that a person’s previous associations or personal prejudices will make it hard to adopt the style of CCM music for their own use. It can anyway. But for me, the music of 100+ years ago was just as sentimental and emotionally driven as today’s CCM. But the difference is I don’t respond to that, because it isn’t music of my generation. CCM does communicate and resonate with me powerfully, and has the ability to engage my whole being — emotions and heart and mind — in the power of the song. And that ability is something that CCM is using for good. I still think more emphasis on other emotions beyond praise and joy are needed in CCM music and music in the Church today. We need to bring back lament and Psalm-singing somehow. But I’m thankful for the blessing that CCM has brought to the church, particularly with the modern hymns and content-rich songs.

I’m sure my readers might be able to pipe in here and add their own thoughts. So, please take the time to share your thoughts here for the benefit of the one who asked the question, as well as to contribute to the conversation here for everyone’s benefit.

True Fundamentalists and the Pretenders

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

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

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

Doran Continues:

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

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

[emphasis added]

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

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

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

A Fundamentalist Self-Critique

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

The last few years have seen the world wide web do a number on fundamentalism. I speak particularly of the independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement, and the influence of blogs like Sharper Iron (SI).

Jason Janz, SI’s founder, published his young fundamentalist survey, and soon thereafter Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniac fame), delivered his speech “Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism“. A maelstrom of web action, interaction and reaction ensued which has yet to calm down. The fundamentalist blogosphere has been a place for theological critique and development, and has been the occasion for a slow exodus from the IFB movement.

Some, like myself, left the IFB from other considerations. Others were awoken to errors in extreme fundamentalism (IFBx) through the web. For all, the availability of conservative evangelical materials produced by John Piper and John MacArthur and others, has given a greater intellectual freedom to many as they can see what life outside IFB (or IFBx) halls looks like.

With the winds of change blowing strong, and with the emergent movement and other bleak theological developments on the horizon, many a fundamentalist leader and institution has taken a skeptical view of the web and of Sharper Iron and other fundamentalist blogs. This should not be surprising.

The reactions have not all been so stick-in-the-mud-like, however. Many fundamentalist leaders are jumping into the fray and being honest and open about the problems they see. Leaders like Dr. Dave Doran and Dr. Kevin Bauder and other contributors at Sharper Iron, give hope to fundamentalism as a willingness to change is displayed. The idea and merits of fundamentalism are being clearly put forth, and many a young man stays within the IFB ship hoping to play a part in righting it and seeing fundamentalism play a part in helping wider evangelicalism see the errors of its way (and there are many).

Now that I’ve brought you up to speed, let me encourage you to read this fundamentalist self-critique by Kevin Bauder. He has just started a series that will detail a history and critical examination of fundamentalism. His posts come first as essays in his online publication In the Nick of Time, from Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis. Then they are showcased at Sharper Iron. Andy Naselli tipped me off to the article being available, and I’m sure this week SI will be publishing it there. You can read it now here (pdf). [Update: here’s the link for the article on SI]. Let me add an excerpt or two from it to entice you to read the whole thing. Part 1 is also available here.

…Because they are cut off from the Christian past, fundamentalists have little sense of the extent to which they have truncated the whole counsel of God. While they rightly insist upon the necessity of confessing certain fundamentals, they have little patience for careful doctrinal exploration and articulation, even when the doctrines under consideration are fundamental. They profess to love the Bible as an object, but even in the better neighborhoods of fundamentalism it is not difficult to find people who despise the attempt to understand biblical teaching in any depth.

Fundamentalists are all about defending the faith. Too often, however, all that they are willing to defend is a truncated faith of slogans and clichés. Even the most important areas of doctrine are reduced to rather pat formulae. Non-fundamental areas of the faith may be left completely unexplored.

Comparing Fundamentalist faith and practice to the faith and practice of historic Christianity is like comparing a hamburger to a filet mignon. The two obviously have something in common, but it would be misleading to say that everything in the steak is also in the hamburger.

Kirsopp Lake said that Fundamentalism is the “partial . . . survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians.” To the extent that he is correct, Fundamentalists should probably be a little less enthralled with his description. And I think that he is right.

Problematic Polemic Puritanism

~ Bob Hayton

You know I was stretching to come up with that title! Seriously though, I wanted to highlight D.A. Carson’s recent editorial on polemical theology, in the online (and free) theological journal Themelios (connected with The Gospel Coalition).

Carson explains the inevitability of polemics: anyone “contending for a particular theological understanding” is practicing polemical theology. He then offers some wise thoughts on various aspects concerning polemics. I found a few sections of his piece particularly interesting, given my experience with fundamentalism. The problem isn’t exclusive to fundamentalists, by any stretch, however. And when I use the term “puritanism” in my title, I am thinking “Pharisee”, but am not implying that all puritans were pharisees.

So without further ado, here are Carson’s words for us to ponder. Be sure to read his whole piece (which is only about 2 pages long). [HT: Justin Taylor]

Nevertheless there is something wrong-headed about making polemical theology the focus of one’s theological identity. This can be done in many ways. There are well-known scholars whose every publication has an undertone of “everyone-has-got-this-wrong-before-me-but-here-is-the-true-synthesis.” Some become far better known for what they are against than for the overflow of their worship or for their generosity to the needy or even for their affirmation of historically confessed truth. Still other Christians develop websites and ministries whose sole aim is to confute error. God knows there is plenty of error to confute. To make the refutation of error into a specialized “ministry,” however, is likely to diminish the joyful affirmation of truth and make every affirmation of truth sound angry, supercilious, self-righteous””in a word, polemical. In short, while polemical theology is just about unavoidable in theory and should not, as a matter of faithfulness, be skirted, one worries about those who make it their specialism.

…Second, at the risk of a generalization, those who spend their lives refuting and correcting fellow believers but who rarely engage at a serious level with ideas and stances in the broader world almost always find themselves at increasing odds with more and more believers. That should be unsurprising. Those who engage in a broader polemical theology are, on the whole, more grateful to focus with gratitude on the common heritage of Christians.