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 new book forthcoming from Zondervan includes a chapter from Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis. I won’t talk about the book other than to mention its title, and that it is worth getting! The book is Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Collin Hansen and Andrew Naselli.
I’m still only about half-way through a galley copy of this book, but my eyes lit up when I came across Bauder’s characteristics of hyper-fundamentalism. I think he has captured lightning in a bottle with this list of descriptors, since for a very long time I’ve struggled to pinpoint the cross-over line from reasonable fundamentalism to fundamentalism run wild.
I just have to share Bauder’s eight characteristics of hyper-fundamentalism with you, but I strongly encourage you to get the book and read his entire essay. This quotation is from a pre-published version of the book so it may diverge in part from the final published product.
————————
First, hyper-fundamentalists often understand fundamentalism in terms of loyalty to an organization, movement, or even leader. They equate the defense of the faith with the prosperity of their organization or its leader. Someone who criticizes or contradicts it is subjected to censure or separation.
Second, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes adopt a militant stance regarding some extrabiblical or even antibiblical teaching. [He sites KJV-onlyism as an example.] …When individuals become militant over such nonbiblical teachings, they cross the line into hyper-fundamentalism.
Third, hyper-fundamentlists understand separation in terms of guilt by association. To associate with someone who holds any error constitutes an endorsement of that error….
Fourth, hyper-fundamentalists are marked by an inability to receive criticism. For them, questioning implies weakness or compromise. Any criticism — especially if it is offered publicly — constitutes an attack….
A fifth characteristic of hyper-fundamentalism is anti-intellectualism. Some hyper-fundamentalists view education as detrimental to spiritual well-being…. Colleges, when they exist, are strictly for the purpose of practical training.
Sixth, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes turn nonessentials into tests of fundamentalism. For example, some hyper-fundamentalists assume that only Baptists should be recognized as fundamentalists…. One’s fundamentalist standing may be judged by such criteria as hair length, musical preferences, and whether one allows women to wear trousers.
Seventh, hyper-fundamentalists occasionally treat militant political involvement as a criterion for fundamentalist standing. During the 1960s and 1970s, anticommunism was a definitive factor for some fundamentalists. Its place has now been taken by antiabortion and antihomosexual activism. Most fundamentalists do agree about these issues, but hyper-fundamentalists make militant activism a necessary obligation of the Christian faith.
Eight and last, hyper-fundamentalists sometimes hold a double standard for personal ethics. They see themselves engaged in an ecclesiastical war, and they reason that some things are permissible in a warfare that would not be permissible in ordinary life. They may employ name-calling, half-truths, and innuendo as legitimate weapons. They may excuse broken promises and political backstabbing.
Hyper-fundamentalism takes many forms, including some that I have not listed. Nevertheless, these are the forms that are most frequently encountered. When a version of fundamentalism bears one or more of these marks, it should be viewed as hyper-fundamentalist…
Hyper-fundamentalism is not fundamentalism. It is as a parasite on the fundamentalist movement. For many years it was simply a nuisance, largely ignored by mainstream fundamentalists. Ignoring the problem, however, permitted it to grow. While statistics are not available, hyper-fundamentalists now constitute a significant percentage of self-identified fundamentalists, perhaps even a majority. They have become the noisiest and often the most visible representatives of fundamentalism. They may be the only version of fundamentalism that many people ever see.
–Excerpted from Kevin Bauder’s chapter on Fundamentalism, in Four Views of the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 2011).
————————
Let me know what you think. Doesn’t Bauder nail it with this description? I think so.
David Cloud has out done himself. As king of the fundamentalist “dirt alert” squad, Cloud recently declared that the original fundamentalists were all wrong. They cared about the fundamentals of the faith, as something to rally around and unite over. They actually stood by the age-old maxim: “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.” Imagine that! Boy were they duped. There is no such thing as a non-essential, don’t you know. Rom. 14 and Matt. 23:23 not withstanding.
Cloud has an article entitled “In Essentials Unity”, where he quotes disapprovingly many wise comments from other fundamentalists, like Charles Keen and Clayton Reed, who are waking up to the fact that standing with a brother for the gospel doesn’t imply a wholesale endorsement of every single doctrinal position he may espouse. In fact we can appreciate the contributions of those who differ with us on less important points. Cloud however disagrees, saying, “I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as ‘non-essential’ or to ‘stand for the cardinal truths and downplay the peripherals’.”
My point in this post, however, is to seize on a small bit of Cloud’s post which speaks volumes about how he and many other fundamentalists think about “fellowship” and “partnership”. This actually might reveal why Cloud and his disciples find themselves so far afield from their fundamentalist forebears.
Cloud brings up Calvary Baptist Seminary’s upcoming National Leadership Conference where they (a fundamentalist institution), will be inviting Mark Dever to be their keynote speaker. Dever, of course, is a leading conservative evangelical, who is not a fundamentalist insider, and certainly not acceptable for fellowship of any kind in Cloud’s book. Here is how Cloud lets us know this problem as to Dever’s credentials:
…and New Evangelical Southern Baptist Mark Dever in 2010. (Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, which is partnered with the very liberal American Baptist Church, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and Baptist World Alliance. For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “Partners.”)
In Cloud’s mind, Dever’s association with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention makes his case even more egregious. Not only is he a “new evangelical” and a Southern Baptist, but he is “partnered with” the liberal organizations listed above.
What struck me about this is how completely far off the mark Cloud is in this assertion. Mark Dever is known throughout Christian circles as a conservative’s conservative in many respects. He defends substitutionary atonement and stands for a complementarian position on women in ministry, and he is certainly a champion of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Dever encourages a very local-church-centric philosophy of ministry, and has some of the best resources available for Biblical church life. Before I go on to defend Dever, the charges against him are actually going to get worse.
Perhaps as a result of some feedback, Cloud recently sent out two clarifying emails about this statement, through his Fundamental Baptist Information Service newsletter. The second clarification expands on the original statement:
In the article “In Essentials Unity,” December 7, 2010, I made the following statement:
“Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is also a member of the liberal American Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the horribly apostate National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches.”
I have been challenged on this, as the Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s web site only lists its affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention.
While Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not a member of the American Baptist Church directly, it is definitely partnered with the ABC, as well as the very liberal Baptist World Alliance and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, by dint of its membership in the District of Columbia Baptist Convention.
For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “DCBC Directory of Churches” and “Partner Organizations.”
Tod Brainard, author of “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” The Projector, Fall 2010, wrote to me on December 8 as follows:
“Before the publication of my article I contacted the DC Baptist Association in Washington to verify Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s membership with them. The DC Baptist director told me personally that Capitol Hill Baptist Church was a paying member of the association and current on their dues. He further indicated that they had not questioned or expressed concerns over the DC Baptist Association affiliates including all those listed in my article. By the way, Jesse Jackson is a member of the National Baptist Association [which is partnered with the DC Baptist Association].”
In “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” Pastor Brainard wrote:
“Capitol Hill Baptist Church is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention which is affiliated with the following three national associations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Southern Baptist Convention; and the Progressive National Baptist Convention. The American Baptist Churches, USA and the Progressive National Baptist Convention are both members of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, which are both blatantly apostate. In addition the American Baptist Churches, USA and Progressive National Baptist Convention maintain affiliation with the Baptist World Alliance which in turn maintains ecumenical relations with the apostate Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Roman Catholic Church).
“It does not take a person long to realize that Mark Dever’s associations and that of his church reveal associations with apostasy. If I am playing Ring-Around-the-Rosie and I join hands with Mark Dever, and Mark Dever joins hands with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, and the District of Columbia Baptist Convention joins hands with the American Baptist Churches, USA, Southern Baptist Convention, and around to the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sooner or later we come full circle and we realize that we all are holding hands together. To say that my hand-holding of Dr. Dever is a separate issue from Dr. Dever’s hand-holding with compromising associations is disingenuous and deceptive. Dr. Dever writes eloquently on many Biblical subjects, but rejects Biblical Separation. ”
———-
I cut off the article at that point where it continues to expound on the perceived dangers of such awful associations and partnerships and where all this can lead. From staunch conservative, Mark Dever has now been transformed into a closet Roman Catholic who collaborates with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity! Better be careful what kind of perceived associations fundamentalists will find in you!
Now for the killer. All of this is just a bunch of hooey. The only thing that is true is that Dever’s church is a member of the DCBC. But not a paying member, nor a compliant member. In fact, years ago, Dever led the charge in the SBC to defund the DCBC from any national convention dollars due to their liberal ties. Dever’s church in fact does not pay dues to the DCBC, in fact they don’t even charge dues, they just accept free will offerings (which Dever’s church does not send their way).
A contact of mine at Dever’s church, verified that the church secretary has been receiving calls about this and just this week called the DCBC to verify that they haven’t received funds from Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Dever’s church). In fact, CHBC is on a list of “non-contributing” member churches. The church is in the DC and perhaps there is some benefit to being listed in the DCBC listings. But their “membership” is anything but a complicit involvement in apostasy!
This account is documented in Christianity Today which did a story on the controversy surrounding the DC Baptist Convention and their defunding by the SBC national convention. Here are some quotes from CT documenting Dever’s stance to all of this:
Most area pastors line up with the local convention. Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not among them.
“They [DCBC] are presenting this as a political move,” Dever says. “But these agreements presume a common understanding of our purpose. I would encourage the SBC not to give a penny to the D.C. convention.”
…
Dever believes the district convention has a confused theology.
“There’s no personal animus,” Dever says. “That’s what I keep hearing from the DCBC, like somebody’s out to get them. I don’t think they have a good category for genuine theological disagreement.”
So the record is plain for all to see, Dever is not partnering with the DCBC in any theological sense. But David Cloud and his like, see it differently. Any membership or association of any kind, entails a complete agreement, not only of the association itself, but all the associations each group has which is associated with the other group. I don’t see how most of those Baptist groups are really and truly connected in spirit with the Pontiff of Rome. But the fundamentalist notion of “partnership” can magically make this happen.
This isn’t just a crazy story. This isn’t just a ludicrous blunder by Cloud. This is a travesty of Christian fellowship. If this is how we treat fellow ministers of the Gospel, woe be to us! Such foolishness crowds out the Gospel, which becomes just another hill we will die on. With the Gospel as “just another doctrine”, we lose a Christ-centered, Gospel-rooted faith. The result is a schismatic, piety which is no one’s true friend. And grace is left out of the mix. I’ll close with some wise words of old, from the Puritan, Thomas Manton (commenting on Phil. 3:15):
…when men give themselves up to separating and narrow principles, the power of godliness is lost, and all their zeal is laid out upon their petty and private opinions, and so religion is turned into a disputacity…. Observe it where you will, and you shall find that separation and distance from the rest of believers, doth not befriend godliness, but undermine it. A regiment fighting apart from the rest of the army of Christ, is always lost through their own peevishness; at least, they lose great advantages of promoting the kingdom of Christ.
The higher you rise, the harder you fall. There seems to be nothing more universally revolting than the fall of a big name preacher. The scandals of Jim & Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard all made the national news headlines. But not every scandal gets such nationwide attention. Sadly, such falls by “men of God” are all too common.
Yesterday, I found out about one such fall that sits far too close to home for my liking. Rodney Stewart, an evangelist who was a frequent preacher at the Bible College I attended, was recently caught in an online sex sting. I own several cassette tapes of this man’s preaching, which always struck me as intense and radically serious. He was a great preacher who stuck close to the Biblical text in most of his messages. Yet he was found out in his sin and now is sitting in prison awaiting his trial and sentencing. The sad story is covered by a local news station in the Cleveland area here.
Why is it that men who are respected and hold a revered office (such as pastor, evangelist or preacher) would do such horrendous things? Why would they be found soliciting sex online from a 15 year old? And why exactly are such failures so commonplace, as it seems?
I can’t speak for all sectors of Christianity, or for the Roman Catholic Church. I do know that sin is common to all men, that is sure. But for conservative evangelical churches, particularly of the fundamentalist variety, there are several factors which I believe contribute to this problem.
1) Too much emphasis on morals
This might sound crazy to some. But an over-emphasis on morality actually encourages sin. Moralism cannot save. It cannot free someone of sinful urges within. Only the Gospel of grace can truly transform our hearts.
2) An external focus
Many fundamentalist churches stress external conformity to rules and standards. Christians need to look different, act different and dress differently than the world. Christians need to read their Bibles, spend time evangelizing their friends and neighbors, and actively serve in their church. All of this, people can trick themselves into thinking they can do. And then keeping up the appearance of spirituality can in turn become a heavy burden.
3) Little emphasis on grace
Grace, or God’s favor for undeserving sinners, is not emphasized. God’s holiness and his high standards are. Grace comes into play in salvation, but living the Christian life is all about effort, character, and duty. So when people struggle, there is no saving grace that can help them. They must dust themselves off and try harder. Often a do-it-yourself-mentality is the practical effect of an over-emphasis on externals and conformity.
4) Failure to appreciate the Gospel
Similar to what was said above, the Gospel is seen as the 101 class for becoming a Christian. The meat and the nitty-gritty of Christian living leaves the Gospel behind. The Gospel is good news for the lost unbeliever, and its an assumed thing for believers. This misunderstanding cuts off the Christian from his only sure hope. The Gospel teaches that God accepts us not on the basis of how well we behave, but as a matter of pure grace and on account of Jesus’ death on the cross in our place.
5) Legalism and burnout
All of this leads to a practical legalism. Christians live as if God is not happy with them. To please God and to truly grow in faith, one must add mountains of work to the faith that saves. If we measure up to our own (or our group’s) expectations, if we perform, if we put out, only then are we satisfied with ourselves, and only then is God pleased with us. When we fail in a myriad of ways, we have to struggle on alone. This leads to burnout. All work, no recognition of God’s love and approval, and no grace. It’s hard struggling on in such a condition.
6) No mutual accountability
The ethos of a legalistic church does not lend itself to mutual accountability. Pastors rarely mention that they too struggle with sin. If one confesses a sin, he is dealt with as a sinner. Grace isn’t proffered. There is no benefit to opening up to others about your struggles. You’ll be rejected, written off and then treated so differently. For those struggling with sexual addiction, mutual accountability is balm to the soul. Understanding that others share the same struggles and hearing others be open about their struggles to overcome the sin are key to victory.
7) Lone Ranger Christianity
This final aspect is an American trait that has affected the church. People think that the Christian life is something that is purely personal, and can be accomplished on their own. The Bible stresses the role of the church and the need for brothers and sisters in the faith to encourage each other. Often, in a high-stress environment, where a judgmental spirit is present, the communal aspects of church life are downplayed. We get together to eat and socialize but never to discuss the impact of the Gospel on our personal lives. This is only intensified in the life of a pastor or evangelist. They are even more prone to the lone ranger phenomenon. The pastor has to keep himself aloof from his congregation, it is thought. The very thought of a pastor wanting help for struggling with his personal sins and thought life, is unheard of in many such legalistic environments.
I suppose other factors come into play, but these are certainly influential in many fundamentalist church environments. But it isn’t only legalistic churches that can harbor such ideas about the Christian life. People can tend toward legalism in any context.
It’s so easy to cast stones at the fallen pastor. I would hope that we could pray for him and his family, and be on guard lest the sin in our own hearts come to overcome us as well. I certainly don’t excuse him for his crimes. however. I just wish the system he was in would have been more grace-oriented. But for the grace of God, I too could be consumed by my sin.
I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this, too. Feel free to chime in and let me know what you think.
What does Jack the Ripper have to do with the King James Bible? Well, apparently he represents judgment on those of us who abandoned that old faithful translation of generations past. In 1881 the Revised Version came out and met with widespread approval. So seven years later, in 1888, 5 women faced a gruesome death at the heads of a maniac dubbed Jack the Ripper. Who’d have known this was retribution for abandoning the King James Bible?
Here’s the comment we received at the KJV Only? debate blog yesterday which alleges this very thing, that Jack the Ripper was judgment on Britain for abandoning the King James Bible.
I would think 1881 is a good year to note as a line of demarcation of overlap and underlap of the Church of the Laodiceans and the Church in Philadelphia because after all, that is when the Laodiceans started to accept the old/new Bible which after 7 years were rewarded for their deeds by being visited by Jack the Ripper (by their fruits ye shall know them). The Philadelphian Church Age will continue as long as the Rapture because there are going to be those who stand for the faith once delivered to the saints until that time. Revelation 3 says (well at least it does in my Bible) …
Re 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Now of course, the 2001 ESV is to blame for America’s tragic terror incident of 911. But we could turn the tables on the KJB. In 1607 the translation work for the KJB was being done in earnest. That’s also the year that the England’s Bristol Channel flooded, killing over 2,000 people. (That’s a lot more than 5.) Then around the time the King James Bible was finally gaining or surpassing the place of the Geneva Bible as the most used English Bible, there was the Great Plague of London which killed over 100,000 people (1665-1666). Surely that was judgment on England for abandoning the old Geneva Bible.
This comment illustrates that sometimes, people will see connections where they want to see them. It’s hard reasoning with this mentality. For those on either side of the KJB debate, let us work toward a careful and calm interaction, not a conspiracy theory-driven mentality that frankly doesn’t edify anyone.
**Illustration by Henrik Rehr, taken from the Danish comic Slim nr. 7 (Slime no. 7), used by permission.
What does Jack the Ripper have to do with the King James Bible? Well, apparently he represents judgment on those of us who abandoned that old faithful translation of generations past. In 1881 the Revised Version came out and met with widespread approval. So seven years later, in 1888, 5 women faced a gruesome death at the heads of a maniac dubbed Jack the Ripper. Who’d have known this was retribution for abandoning the King James Bible?