Hammond, Accountability and Legalism
The pastoral scandal in Hammond has sparked many conversations about why these disasters keep happening, what the phenomenon says about independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches and ministies, and what ought to be done to fix whatever exactly is broken. The idea of accountability has figured prominently in several of these conversations.
But if IFB and other branches of Christendom1 are going to use accountability effectively, we’ll have to arrive at a clearer understanding of what accountability is, what it’s limitations are, and where its real value lies. My aim here is to make a small contribution toward that end.
Defining “accountability”
For some, accountability has an almost magical power to keep all bad behavior from happening. Whenever some kind of shocking sin comes to light, their first and last response is “we need more accountability.” In these cases the term “accountability” tends to be defined vaguely if at all. At the other end of the spectrum, some argue that accountability is only something that occurs in response to wrongdoing and that has no power to prevent it (see the conversation here, for example).
From what I’ve seen, though, most understand the idea of accountability in a more nuanced way.
Merriam-Webster2 defines accountability as follows.
: the quality or state of being accountable, especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions
accountability>
On “accountable,” the same source provides the following:
1 : subject to giving an account : answerable
accountable for the damage> 2 : capable of being accounted for : explainable
Other dictionaries have similar entries, such as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary’s entry for “accountable.”
1 required or expected to justify actions or decisions.
2 explicable; understandable.
In ministry settings
In my experience, when people speak of accountability in church and ministry settings, they usually have one of two things in mind.
- Structured diffusion of power
- Personal mentoring or discipling relationships
In the first case, it’s common to hear the sentiment that if only IFB (and similar) pastors were forced to make decisions jointly with other pastors or elders, these leaders would be less vulnerable to the temptations of power. In this case, advocates use the term “accountability” for diffusion of a leader’s decision-making authority.
In the second case, many are confident that we’d see less of this sort of pastoral failure if all Christians—but especially leaders—had close, mentoring/discipleship relationships with people who ask them tough questions about their walk with God, their marriage, their family life, the temptations they’re struggling with, etc.
A third group sees the solution as a combination of both of these forms of accountability.
What these understandings of accountability have in common is limitation on a person’s ability or willingless to act independently. In one case, he is structurally prevented from at least some independent actions. In the other, his conduct is restrained by the anticipation that he’ll be expected to defend it.
Some limitations of “accountability”
At this point, I feel like joining the crowd shouting “Vive la accountability!” But we need to temper our expectations.
First, accountability can never be comprehensive. Unless we’re prepared to handcuff every pastor to a practically sinless accountability partner who watches his every move, he’ll be able to find ways around any accountability mechanism if he really wants to. And unless the accountability partner is also a mind-reader, the leader being monitored will still be free to be as internally proud, malicious, greedy or lustful as chooses to be.
Second, there aren’t any perfect accountability partners or perfect elder teams. When you take a pastor who is a sinner and join him with another pastor and rename them “the elders,” you now just have two sinners instead of one. And yep, the math works all the way up to infinity—or at least up to the total number of men who can be enlisted to be elders. As a safeguard against a naïve confidence that multiplicity is inherently more righteous than individuality, consider how many “bishops” worked together at Trent to reject the doctrine of salvation through faith alone.
Third, there seems to be a character trade off here. If our accountability method actually prevents a leader from committing a particular sin, we have to conclude that he would have committed it without our accountability program. If we weren’t looking over his shoulder or forcing him to share decision-making with a group, he’d freely choose to do the wrong. If that’s the case, what sort of leader is he? What sort of Christian is he?
The real value of accountability
Some of the conversations about events in Hammond have included an interesting irony. Some of those who passionately oppose “legalism,” and broadly devalue rules, are equally passionate that IFB leaders need more accountability.
Don’t see the irony? Let’s see if I can help.
Though it may not seem so at first, accountability and what many like to call “man made rules” are two species of the same genus. As such, their value and limitations are almost perfectly parallel. In some cases, rules—and the penalties connected to them—really are accountability measures.
But this is not a vote against accountability. It’s a call to understand that the value of accountability is ultimately inseparable from the value of rules.
- Both rules and accountability measures are external restraints. They cannot, by themselves, change a person’s heart.
- In other words, both rules and accountability are limited to regulating conduct, not affections.
- Both rules and accountability measures involve human discernment and judgment. (People are accountble to someone who is not God.)
- Both rules and accountability measures can become objects of pride or refuges for people engaging in superficial conformity to standards.
- Both rules and accountability can be poorly devised and executed, and can be counterproductively excessive (in both quantity and quality).
So those who see rules as unfortunate necessities that ought to be kept to an absolute minimum ought to believe—based on all the same arguments—that accountability is an unfortunate necessity that ought to be kept to a minimum.
Real value
But there is genuine importance in both rules and accountability.
Since not sinning is always better than sinning, both rules and accountability measures have value in keeping believers from harm they would otherwise suffer and in preventing dishonor to the Lord’s name that it would otherwise suffer. Since a believer’s spiritual vitality is always harmed more by sinning than by not sinning, both rules and accountability measures can be instrumental in helping Christians thrive. Both can help develop good habits. Both can help prevent the suffering of victims. Willingness to submit to both can be, along with other things, a measure of godly maturity. Both can limit believers’ exposure to temptations.
At the same time, both are less necessary for the strong than for the weak. The more genuine godly character a believer has (that is, the more God has deeply changed him) the less need he has for external restraints, whether these take the form of imposed rules or imposed accountability.
So, in the case of pastors, the more accountability we say a pastor needs, the less confidence we are claiming to have in his character. If a congregation believes its pastor needs someone looking over his shoulder all the time, that congregation should either rethink its estimation of the pastor’s character or replace him with someone who is the kind of man described in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.
Would “more accountability” have prevented the devastation in Hammond and other places? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, sensible accountability measures (whether structured or informal) are vital in order to help good men remain good men and grow into better men. At the same time, no set of accountability measures, however ingenious or numerous, can serve as a substitute for genuine godly character.
Notes
1 Let’s not forget that sex and money offenses by ministry leaders is a problem in congregations and ministries of all sorts whether independent Baptist, independent something else or not independent at all (including, famously, the Roman Catholic Church). For a small sample take a look at this depressing Wikipedia entry.
2 Web version. Accessed 8/14/12.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
I agree with you that structure does not necessarily mean accountability (if Schaap had elders, couldn’t they be “yes men” just as easily?), and while he needed accountability, that accountability needed to come from within as much as without. He was hiding, evading, etc., and that was the real problem. While we are all accountable to the Lord for our actions, and ought to treat our lives as such, that accountability ought to drive us to be more forthcoming about what is going on inside us.
As pastor of a small church, I find it important to “over-communicate” about what is going on in order to make sure to hold myself accountable. I also seek out strong Christian men to fellowship with in order to stay sharp and faithful. If we allow our lives to be an open book, God is more fully able to trust us, as are men. What is needed is more personal accountability, which is seen through increasing transparency.
Aaron makes some excellent points, and helps bring clarity to what is oftentimes obscured in vague and undefined terminology.
However, I am uneasy with equating “man-made” rules with human accountability structures. Yes, they may serve much the same purpose, but the difference is that human accountability is Biblically taught, whereas extra-Biblical rules are denounced by Christ as pharisaism.
True, human accountability structures do not guarantee perfection, nor does the Bible encourage us to think that they will. But surely the way forward is to endeavor to make our practice of Christianity as Biblical as we can, recognizing that perfection must await the final consummation.
G. N. Barkman
Proverbs 16:18, “Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall”
No amount of accountability, rules, or transparency could have stopped that train wreck!
Have to run to a meeting but a couple thoughts on this…
However, I am uneasy with equating “man-made” rules with human accountability structures. Yes, they may serve much the same purpose, but the difference is that human accountability is Biblically taught, whereas extra-Biblical rules are denounced by Christ as pharisaism.
First, where is “accountability” biblically taught?
Second, what was the actual error of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned?
One the first, we have structures and principles that we apply in our concept of accountability, and certainly church discipline is a form of accountability. But we are also commanded to apply Scripture (which, as I’ve explained elsewhere, requires that we make at least some rules). A quick example is Peter’s imperative that we “be holy,” and Paul’s that we live “soberly, righteously and godly.” Both of these are too broad to be obeyed at all without human beings supplying details in the form of application. These applications will often be rules.
But specifically on the second question, where does Jesus specifically say “I condemn the practice of man made rules”? He doesn’t do that. He condemns them for using rules to hide disobedience, maintain appearances while robbing widows secretly. In Mark 7 He condemns them for attaching God’s authority to their rules—in fact, for contravening God’s authority through particular rules.
For an exploration of the Pharisees’ real problem, see:
http://sharperiron.org/article/defense-of-rules-part-2#pharisees
One aspect the linked piece doesn’t delve into much is the fact that it’s really doubtful much genuine comparison can be made between born again saints and the consciously truth-rejecting Pharisees. The Ph. were not Christians with too many rules. They were sons of their father the devil who only used rules to manipulate other people.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Good article Aaron. Some basic rules regarding counseling, being alone with a member of the opposite gender, driving in a car alone with the opposite gender, being accountable for your time, all help protect against sin. When leaders are breaking those kinds of rules, the likelihood of foul play greatly increases.
Schaap had forecasted his own deficient character by both publicly writing and preaching sexual non-sense (blasphemous sacrilege) regarding the Lord’s supper, by promoting Jack Hyles’ books, image, statue, mural after lengthy books and articles had already been published detailing Jack’s heterodoxy and heteropraxy, and by grossly exaggerating the size and scope of the ministry. Doran was on target when he pointed out the small crowd that gathered at the Wednesday night service to be informed about the biggest event in the church’s history—less than 10 percent of their regularly boasted numbers.
Though IFB’s are not a denomination, there is no excuse for any IFB church or pastor to have maintained ecclesiastical partnerships with Hammond PRIOR to this recent scandal. That’s a level of accountability that should have been invoked. Yet, Sexton invites Schaap twice to be a keynote speaker at his FRIENDS conference. I don’t blame Sexton for not knowing the future, but I do blame him for not knowing the past. It was willful neglect. If biblical separation is simply based on labels rather than doctrine and practice, this is the kind of non-sense we end up with.
Pastor Mike Harding
like the article aaron. My point would be that we can’t isolate this to IFB. This is humanity in power. men in power with the ability to manipulate and take advantage of opportunities often do just that. it happens every day in the halls of organizations labeled christian or secular. those of the faith should take steps to provide accountability and possibly prevent such disasters. yet God’s annointed and the man on whose throne Jesus will sit also fell into grave sexual sin.
As to your question regarding accountability biblically. I think that’s a semantical issue. “Accountability” is simply biblical discipleship and fellowship. It is maintaining biblical relationships that are spiritual and deeper than affinity based interaction. Hebrews 10:24 - 25 mindset.
Here I go again with the draw of personality, but it seems obvious that the power-monger types are drawn to sins that exert power over the vulnerable. We all have temptation and we are all capable of great sin, but it is the STYLE of sin that is most disturbing, taking advantage of minors or barely adults.
Christians want to believe that there are leaders out there who exist on another level of humanity; the more “elevated” a leader is (big church, church members only know the person from a distance, etc.), the easier it is to believe that person is at some higher level (not just godly, but almost of another species). It is easier to believe this about someone if you have little personal dealings with him; his wife or kids, however, may have a completely opposite opinion. We know of great Bible teachers/speakers whose wives have left them and whose kids hate them. But to the person in the pew, that leader is a saint among saints.
That’s why people are of the “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos” mentality today. Some leaders include power-mongers (in some circles, esp. the IFB of the Hyles ilk), while others have proven more consistently godly but are still viewed as above humanity and mesmerize their fans (like Piper, MacArthur, etc.). The popular myth —embraced by drooling Christian fans — that big name leaders can be on such a high plane nurtures the egos of even the most humble leader, much more so the egotist. This is where we need to nip the problem, but people are SO BENT on seeking out and following this person who has discovered the “spiritual secret” —and supposedly has it all together — that they often undervalue the (sometimes more) godly Christians in their own life. The fame thing is hurting us. As a matter of fact, some of the godliest Christians may even be afraid to speak publicly. We give too much credit to good speakers, strong leaders, and the musically talented. Those do not equate to godliness.
And Aaron’s point about what we want to do in our heart (vs. outward constraint) is valid. His thoughts sort of reminded me of I Timothy 1:8-11. How you interpret this passage has bearing on your view of accountability:
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
"The Midrash Detective"
The “one another” passages in the NT involve and require accountability. The plurality of elders in the NT implies accountability among pastors, as well as church discipline (which Aaron mentioned) which gives the procedures to confront and rebuke sinning elders. It seems to me that relationships within the local church, as the NT describes them, are loaded with accountability requirements. We wouldn’t miss it too far by saying that is the essence of church membership.
As to Christ saying “no man-made rules,” I agree that no statement of this exact nature is recorded. Perhaps you are correct, that it is only the abuse of human traditions that is denounced. But I cannot help thinking that when we multiply “man-made” rules, and defend the right to do so, we are heading down the slippery slope that Christ denounced. It seems to me that we should take the position that, although some extra-Biblical rules will be required in certain situations (think Acts 15), our goal is to keep them to a minimum, teach our people to obey everything Scripture requires, but be suspicious of extra-Biblical requirements, and help them to godly maturity where they can make wise and Christ-honoring decisions in areas of Christian liberty.
G. N. Barkman
I guess in fundamentalist circles, everything turns into a discussion about following rules….[sigh]
I don’t think people are talking about rules and structures, per se, when they criticize IFB power structures. I think they are criticizing a culture that holds pastors as a special privileged class. Many IFB leaders rule are more akin to tyrrants (Mark 10:42-45) than the types of older, wiser, guides, shepherds, and teachers we find described in the NT. I think Mr. Vaskicek is RIGHT ON in this regard.
Andrew,
I agree that Mr. Vasicek wrote an excellent comment to which I am in full agreement. Consider that the very nature of tyrants is that they are a nation of men and not a nation of laws. Our current administration and many in congress think they are above the laws of our country, above the Constitution itself. Good pastors have healthy policies that they follow regardless of what circles or denominations they serve in. A Child Protection Policy is essentially rules.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Mike Harding] Though IFB’s are not a denomination, there is no excuse for any IFB church or pastor to have maintained ecclesiastical partnerships with Hammond PRIOR to this recent scandal. That’s a level of accountability that should have been invoked.
Out of curiousity, during the 11 years of Schaap’s “pastorship,” how many official warnings about him/his ministry were sounded by the FBFI, via resolution or otherwise?
My wife is my best accountability partner. Sadly she was discouraged by a church member from holding me accountable. My wife is a great helpmate and I used her in a sermon illustration as I told how she pointed out sin in my life and how I realized I was wrong.
After that message my wife was given a note from a lady rebuking her for confronting her husband. My wife showed me the note and explained that she had read these same ideas in the Debbie Pearl book (which this lady promotes).
This led to me asking questions about the book Created to Be His Helpmeet by Debbie Pearl, and I realized that instead of teaching women to be their husband’s helpmeet they were being taught to enable his sin in much the same way the church in Hammond has been taught to enable their pastors.
Pearl teaches it is wrong for wives to hold their husbands accountable for sin. They are taught instead to enable their husbands and to cover their sins. She even promotes sinful attitudes of husbands as assets. This sounds a lot like what happened in Hammond.
We have spent much time warning about Hammond over the past few weeks. We need to warn about Debbie Pearl as well. We also need to value our wives and the accountability they can and must provide.
Again, our ultimate accountability is to God. However, if there is a person who I can be accountable to so that I don’t have to face God about some “blind spot” or known sin, I ought to do that. There are structures in Scripture for sharing of power and wise use of power, which have been ignored by Schaap and FBCH. There are lots of abuses of power.
It is dangerous to have the “super-leader” syndrome in lots of contexts, including business and ministry. The cues of many larger churches seem to come from the business world in this regard, where as long as the “bottom line” looks OK, the management must be good. Lots of short-sighted ministry is being done on this model today.
Does it help to be accountable to men? We should not fear it. Is it necessary? We ought to have enough sense of accountability to God to not get into this kind of gross sin, especially if we are “spiritual leaders” of any sort.
Very good insight from Aaron Blumer. The implied pressure in the IBM, which is hard to define specifically as to who is included in this title, not to humbly address the issues involved. It is much safer to confront those dangerous “conservative evangelicals”, especially if they are Calvinistic, rather sins in some of the IBM churches. Thank you for the courage to address this and I am greatly encouraged by the many wise comments.
[DavidO][Mike Harding] Though IFB’s are not a denomination, there is no excuse for any IFB church or pastor to have maintained ecclesiastical partnerships with Hammond PRIOR to this recent scandal. That’s a level of accountability that should have been invoked.Out of curiousity, during the 11 years of Schaap’s “pastorship,” how many official warnings about him/his ministry were sounded by the FBFI, via resolution or otherwise?
Probably about as many as there were about his predecessor.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Appreciate the comments.
The “one another” passages certainly imply relationships that operate in somewhat accountable ways. They enjoin us to pay attention to one another and respond to what concerns us. What’s different there from what most have in mind by “accountability” is an element I didn’t touch on much (at all?) in the essay: an element of obtaining knowledge of people’s actions that they might otherwise hide or keep to themselves. So part of the restraint factor is linked to this obtaining of information about actions—whether in the form of required reporting, intentional observation or something like that.
The one another passages don’t seem to constitute commands to intentionally seek knowledge of people’s actions beyond what they happen to know about.
But I’m not about to argue that there is no biblical basis for these accountability efforts. My point in asking about biblical teaching on accountability was to try to draw into focus that in the case of accountability measures and in the case of rules, we are applying Scripture in entirely human ways. Both are important yet limited.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Jack Schaap really hasn’t been on our radar during his years as pastor. By that point in time the paths had diverged and there was little overlap. The Hyles crowd was going one way and the FBFI in particular was going another way.
However, in earlier years there were issues we were sorting out because there were people from both camps sort of swirling about in the same milieu. I had a roommate at BJU one year who was converted through the ministry of FBCH but came to BJU for his education. There was another guy in my prayer group one year who would constantly play tapes of Jack Hyles in his room (at full volume, we could hear it through our adjoining wall). My point is, there was an overlap and the lines of distinction were not clear at that point. (This was in the 70s, I think you and I were there at the same time, roughly. I have a hazy recollection of you, but I find more and more haze in recollections as time goes on.)
However, things changed. I know of at least one specific resolution against Hyles in 1995. I don’t want to go searching through all of them, but if you wish, go to www.fbfi.org and you can find the 1995 resolutions. Here’s the headline:
REGARDING THE DIVISIVE TEACHING OF JACK HYLES ON THE “INCORRUPTIBLE SEED” AS THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE
You can search to see if there are more. It is not as if we have stood side by side with the Hyles crowd and said nothing about errors. Could we have done more? Maybe. But then we would get criticized because we publish resolutions at all. I seem to remember that charge coming up on SI from time to time.
Last, I am not sure what this has to do with Aaron’s article, but there have been a couple of remarks made about the FBFI and its resolutions so this is an attempt to set the record a little straighter on that point.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Probably about as many as there were about his predecessor.
In addition to the one Don mentions, there were a couple other resolutions that didn’t name Hyles but seemed to refer to him. All were passed ‘94 or earlier if I recall correctly.
You wrote, “The fame thing is hurting us. As a matter of fact, some of the godliest Christians may even be afraid to speak publicly. We give too much credit to good speakers, strong leaders, and the musically talented. Those do not equate to godliness.”
Very insightful, brother. You should write a separate article on this heart issue.
And thanks for this article, Aaron.
This pretty much my recollection on the matter. Further, what would have been gained? The Hyles’ camp would have ignored any resolution they didn’t agree with, so, all that’s left is going on record.
[Don Johnson] Jack Schaap really hasn’t been on our radar during his years as pastor. By that point in time the paths had diverged and there was little overlap. The Hyles crowd was going one way and the FBFI in particular was going another way.
[DavidO]Probably about as many as there were about his predecessor.
In addition to the one Don mentions, there were a couple other resolutions that didn’t name Hyles but seemed to refer to him. All were passed ‘94 or earlier if I recall correctly.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Thanks for the reminder, Don. My memory gets a little hazy sometimes. (I dug out an old yearbook and recall you from grad class.)
I had some contact with Hyles and his followers in the early 80’s and it was enough to make me distance myself from them. Since then I’ve wondered why my brethren considered MacArthur a greater problem than Hyles.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
And therefore, if he is in error, the error is more subtle and harder to see. After the eighties, I forget exactly when, for those of us outside of the Hyles crowd, there was very little attraction, hence little need to make a big deal about it.
MacArthur has a lot of attractiveness - did then and still does. I do think there are errors in his approach, but to go into that will lead us even further afield.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
To connect MacArthur and Hyles in the same post!
MacArthur … a man of moral integrity
I mean please Don! Don’t embarrass yourself.
time be reminded how a fundamentalist leader smeared John MacArthur on the blood issue
Like I said…
So I’ll just moderate the moderator here and not rise to the bait.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Here’s a case where the FBFI warned against MacArthur as a threat …
http://www.fbfi.org/flm-articles/115-the-fbfi-and-the-local-church
Don’t see any warning here about association w First Baptist Church of Hammond
What is more surprising than not having any warnings against Schaap, was the leaders of the FBFI join together with them in conference. This links to the discussion we had at that time - one link in that filings still works - the other does not. Not to mention Gibbs, Garlock, Hamilton and Binney all being involved with different Pastor’s Schools throughout the recent years. Very interesting to see people within the FBFI distance themselves now and not before. And there’s one of the reasons I just cannot seem to buy into our state fellowship and the FBF - too much acceptance of very questionable teaching because one follows the preferences in dress and music. Aaron, that is the problem I have with the rules - not that we have rules - the idea that as long as our pet “preferences” rules are kept, it seems as though people are willing to look the other way with questionable teaching.
I was wondering how you were going to get back on topic, Bob. It was an attempt, at least.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Jim]To connect MacArthur and Hyles in the same post!
MacArthur … a man of moral integrity
I mean please Don! Don’t embarrass yourself.
He was responding to the post immediately above him, which said this:
[Ron Bean]Since then I’ve wondered why my brethren considered MacArthur a greater problem than Hyles.
Pretty hard to answer that question without, well, connecting MacArthur and Hyles in the same post. It was a legitimate question and a reasonable answer even if one disagrees with it.
I agree with JG in post 30.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Bob makes a good point in #28.
[Bob Nutzhorn]And there’s one of the reasons I just cannot seem to buy into our state fellowship and the FBF - too much acceptance of very questionable teaching because one follows the preferences in dress and music. Aaron, that is the problem I have with the rules - not that we have rules - the idea that as long as our pet “preferences” rules are kept, it seems as though people are willing to look the other way with questionable teaching.
I’ve often thought that ‘fundamentalist’ is a misnomer. I think ‘traditionalist’ would be a better moniker.
[Rob Fall] The Hyles’ camp would have ignored any resolution they didn’t agree with, so, all that’s left is going on record.
Whereas the SBC, who apparently warrants a resolution every other year or so, pays really close attention?? Going on record is what the resolutions seem to be about as often as not.
Don before you moderate me, you might note who started us down the “Fundies haven’t separated appropriately” path.
Separation is what fundamentalists do. To say not separating from Schaap was somehow judicious restraint is laughable.
Thanks for the correction
Sorry Don
The FBF did separate from Hyles. I think what some are objecting to was the reaching out to Schaap. More than one of my FBF told me they were hopeful about Hammond. I think some may also been thinking about Dr. Vaughn being put in a conference with Schaap (Dr Vaughn has said he regretted that). Also, the allignment that many FBF men are making with West Coast (Hyles-Lite) also contributes to the perception.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Bob]…that is the problem I have with the rules - not that we have rules - the idea that as long as our pet “preferences” rules are kept, it seems as though people are willing to look the other way with questionable teaching.
Yes, this is a real problem. Progress means accurately identifying the problem, though. For every fundamentalist who misuses rules you have at least one non-fund. evangelical who misuses liberty. Scripture warns against both.
- Misuse of rules: Pharisee passages (e.g., Matt 23)
- Misuse of liberty: 1 Cor. 8:9, Gal. 5:13, 1 Pet. 2:16
So what’s really the problem in the rules-abuse scenarios? It’s always some kind of misuse of a good tool. And always there is a analog in accountability tools.
We’re harmed if we don’t use these tools, but harmed at least as much if we misuse them.
A hammer is a great tool but you can’t wash windows with it and will only make a mess if you try.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Yes, many misuse liberty. But it is because they fail to understand and apply all Scripture that applies. Some act as if the existence of the doctrine of Christian Liberty cancels out all other commandments. Hence, because I believe in Christian Liberty, its OK to get drunk. (Not!)
Others ignore the Biblical “rules” that apply to the application of Christian Liberty. The Bible says more about when and why Not to exercise liberty than it does to encourage its use. And yet, others will try to apply the “rules” of Christian Liberty for everyone else, which makes a mockery of the whole concept of Liberty.
Surely everyone agrees that “rules” that are in the Bible are both valid and mandatory. Its those man-made rules that get us into trouble.
G. N. Barkman
[rogercarlson]The FBF did separate from Hyles. I think what some are objecting to was the reaching out to Schaap. More than one of my FBF told me they were hopeful about Hammond. I think some may also been thinking about Dr. Vaughn being put in a conference with Schaap (Dr Vaughn has said he regretted that). Also, the allignment that many FBF men are making with West Coast (Hyles-Lite) also contributes to the perception.
If the FBF was reaching out to Schaap (and I hope they were privately confronting him on his errors), why didn’t they ever reach out to brethren like Dever, Mohler or MacArthur whose perceived errors (IMO) were not as dangerous as Schaap’s and who were evicting liberals from the Southern Baptist seminaries.
BTW, I’m glad John Vaughn has said he regretted being in a conference with Schaap. I hadn’t seen his statement and would like to read it.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I agree with G.N. Barkman’s thoughts - nicely said. Aaron, I agree with what you are saying, but I am not talking about the problems of non-fund. evangelical. I am talking about fundamentalists. This is what frustrates me within the movement. The constant need to point out the problems with evangelicals as if that makes the way our movement in general acts acceptable. I am not saying that is what you are trying to do, but that is the way it comes across. It reminds me of dealing with daughters - one is getting in trouble and wants to point out the other’s wrong doing as if that makes what they did not wrong. If we as fundamentalist are striving to be upright and living as close to the Bible as we can, why do we feel the need to point out the errors of another group? I know some believe that by pointing out the error in the evangelicals during the arguments will dissuade others from jumping from fundamentalism. It is by not dealing with the problems and instead of pointing the finger at others that is causing many to flee fundamentalism.
If we are to follow Romans 14, we must allow others to have different “rules” in areas not clear in Scripture. That should not be reason for separation - this goes for both those who believe they have more liberty and those who believe they need to have more rules in place. If God is all-knowing (and He is) and sovereign (and He is), He could have recorded for us exactly what He wanted in every area of church and personal life. Instead of making things clear one way or the other in Romans 14, Paul said get along even though you do not agree - even in the same church. In today’s fundamentalism, that is not practiced.
As one of the heirs to the Historic Northern Baptists (the GARBC is another), it’s not unexpected to see rivalry surfacing. The two have been rivals (HNB\SBC) since the Triennial Convention dissolved back in the day.
As far as I am concerned, the SBC is not the Mother Convention from which we are descended.
[DavidO][Rob Fall] The Hyles’ camp would have ignored any resolution they didn’t agree with, so, all that’s left is going on record.Whereas the SBC, who apparently warrants a resolution every other year or so, pays really close attention?? Going on record is what the resolutions seem to be about as often as not.
Don before you moderate me, you might note who started us down the “Fundies haven’t separated appropriately” path.
Separation is what fundamentalists do. To say not separating from Schaap was somehow judicious restraint is laughable.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[DavidO] Whereas the SBC, who apparently warrants a resolution every other year or so, pays really close attention?? Going on record is what the resolutions seem to be about as often as not.
Resolutions are not simply going on record. They define how the FBFI sees itself and presents that definition to those who are interested. Some are attracted to join, some are not. That’s the way it is.
[DavidO] Don before you moderate me, you might note who started us down the “Fundies haven’t separated appropriately” path.
Actually, I thought that was you in post #12. Everything else was a response to that.
[DavidO] Separation is what fundamentalists do. To say not separating from Schaap was somehow judicious restraint is laughable.
I don’t think I’m saying that it was. I am saying that the FBFI men have been operating outside the Hyles circles since at least the 90s. The Clarence Sexton meeting that is brought up was more a reaching out to Sexton than anyone else, certainly not a reaching out to Schaap. Schaap wasn’t on the program when the invitations were accepted. He came on later as a relatively minor speaker in the program, did some kind of workshop, if I recall. Certainly not a “keynote” speaker. Regardless, because of his presence the invitation the following year was refused and regret expressed for confusion caused the previous year.
So now I hope we can bow out of this sideline and let the thread return to discussion of Aaron’s excellent article.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The constant need to point out the problems with evangelicals as if that makes the way our movement in general acts acceptable. I am not saying that is what you are trying to do, but that is the way it comes across.
What I’m interested in is locating problems accurately. The value of pointing out how evangelicals abuse liberty is that it helps us avoid incorrectly locating the problems in fundamentalism as, for example, believing that rules are “a means of spirituality.” This is simply not the problem any more than liberty is the problem when believers use it to justify, as in someone’s example, getting drunk.
I’m sure that many engage in finger pointing at the other guys as tu quoue reasoning (“you do it too, so I’m justified”). And I’ve heard my share of that. I stopped attending the annual meetings of a certain fellowship of churches some years ago because I didn’t see the point in driving there, paying for a motel, etc., just to hear that sort of thing in copious amounts. So I’m not for that. That doesn’t make what “the other guys’ problems” irrelevant to understanding our own, though.
My own “look at the other side” efforts are aimed at helping folks back up and look at the whole picture so that they more accurately identify what’s wrong with their (our) own part of it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It’s sad to see most of the discussions on this topic (here and elsewhere) devolve into a discussion of my-team versus your-team. Fundamentalists need to repent in sack cloth and ashes, mourn that we have sin in the camp, pray for our brethren, and seek God’s leading. Instead, in this instance (and much more in other recent scandals), protecting ‘our team’ seems more important than mourning over sin.
WHO CARES WHETHER ONE CIRCLE THREW MUD ON ANOTHER ONE!?!?
I’ve never understood why the ‘denominational’ mindset is so POWERFUL in the IFB movement.
And then there was this unfortunate “conference” that has renewed irony if you read all the names closely. My understanding is that not everyone would have wanted to be associated with everyone else.
http://emmanuelbaptisttemple.org/media/bcflyer2011.pdf
The point is: dear FBFI men, if you are associated publicly with a false teacher online, then publicly disassociate yourself from the same false teacher (preferably online). Otherwise, people will be confused. Private concerns about a false teacher are not enough. If you see a wolf influencing sheep (especially if you’re influencing them too) to believe false teaching, it’s not enough to have private concerns. Anyone with access to Youtube could have seen for years that Schaap was a wolf. (Which begs the question, I wonder if FBFI pastors in fact have access to Youtube?)
Very interesting. Thanks for the link. I saw some people I know very well, and others I’ve never heard of before. I guess I don’t travel much in these circles.
I had a question, which is really off subject. I wonder how many of these men, all of whom have “Dr.” in front of their name, actually have bona fide doctors degrees from a credible University? I have long believed that the conferring of honorary doctors degrees to friends and supporters is a questionable practice. If fundamentalism hopes to achieve credibility among thoughtful Christians, they need to encourage solid, earned doctors degrees, and drop the phony-baloney of making everybody a doctor. That depreciates the value to practical meaninglessness.
G. N. Barkman
[AndrewSuttles]It’s sad to see most of the discussions on this topic (here and elsewhere) devolve into a discussion of my-team versus your-team. Fundamentalists need to repent in sack cloth and ashes, mourn that we have sin in the camp, pray for our brethren, and seek God’s leading. Instead, in this instance (and much more in other recent scandals), protecting ‘our team’ seems more important than mourning over sin.
WHO CARES WHETHER ONE CIRCLE THREW MUD ON ANOTHER ONE!?!?
I’ve never understood why the ‘denominational’ mindset is so POWERFUL in the IFB movement.
I have to say that I’m also not very interested in whether this group or that said or did enough about/in response to Hyles or Schaap. On the other hand, in defense of those who have brought it up, it’s about much more than “denominational mindset.” It’s about whether one group or another has been obedient to biblical principles enjoining believers to mark and have no fellowship with disobedient brethren. Whether “resolutions” and that sort of thing are a valid form of that is a topic all its own, but the question is an important one.
It’s important for a second reason: arriving at some different thinking and choices for the future. In short, there are definitely lessons to learn here about whether mud ought to have been slung and whether it should be more intentionally and promptly slung in the future.
So… though the question of whether one IFB group or another did enough is a bit off topic in this thread it’s definitely not trivial or petty. (I just tend to think that there is really not much that fellowships of this sort can do about these things—that will actually make a difference)
The whole “camp” thing has always been a bit puzzling to me… I’ve never considered myself to be in a camp or to be responsible for the actions of a camp. What makes me a “fundamentalist” is not my connection to others who are fundamentalists. It’s what I believe and do.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron and Andrew,
It is more than just the fact that the FBF did not raise concerns about Schaap and instead joined with him in more than one conference. It is the fact that now, after Schaap has fallen, they seem to be acknowledging that they knew something was wrong all along. This interview shows the ugly side of things at Hammond. Had they really not heard this before this most recent event? Why ignore it before and then now that something big happened act as though they had always known that something was wrong. Binney, while preaching this past Wednesday night at Hammond, actually admitted that! That he knew something was not right from the time he started attending there, but thought he should attend a year before he said something. WHAT IN THE WORLD! This is the man who preached at Faith in Taylors after John Vaughn retired a few years ago. That is what is so frustrating to me - the fact that all of these “powerful” men came along side him, seemingly saying everything was ok with what he was doing and saying. Not until after he has abused a girl do they finally say - oh, well we knew something was off, but we thought we would let it slide for a while. That makes no sense to me.
Bob,
First I’ll agree that some fellows have made decisions about association that should not have been made. Hopefully this event might be a motivator for change.
However, what would you suggest be done now? Would you propose a resolution instructing pastors to break all ties with FBCH? What would that serve? How would it be implemented? Who would follow it?
The fundamentalist movement (such as it is) is a loose coalition of likeminded men who rarely do anything together or entirely alike. We promote certain endeavours together, but our ministries are all different and our choices are individual.
Are you proposing some kind of secondary separation where we create some rules against “anybody who is 100% for Hyles” (what if they are 75%, or 50%?)? Are you advocating a new set of extra-biblical parameters to guide us in making associational choices?
Rather than simply spout your frustrations, how about making some constructive suggestions about a way forward? I agree that mistakes have been made, some of them pretty big and obvious mistakes. Well, then, what should be done now? Tar and feather the lot?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
My point is that I hope we learn from this - learn to speak out against heretical teaching - to at the very least not be willing to speak at conferences with Pastors like Schaap who are preaching error and promoting an un-biblical way to pastor. Instead even those who knew better were willing to wait and see what happened. Let me quote what you said two years ago in the discussion we had then about Vaughn preaching at a conference with Schaap.
Finally, I have to acknowledge that the situation we are discussing is a concern. It is a concern because of the association. I have a lot of misgivings about it. I hope that time will make the rationale for continuing to participate a little clearer. I don’t know if the rationale would satisfy anyone here. I am not sure if it entirely satisfies me. However, I do have a lot of confidence in Dr. Vaughn and am willing to wait and see.
You can find that quote here.
I appreciated your concern back then, and I appreciate it now. I just am losing confidence in our movement when those who are leading it don’t seem to make good decisions and those following are willing to sit back and watch it happen because they have confidence in the men leading it.
What is the answer? I am not sure there is an easy one. I do think much of the problem lies in what I said earlier - the powers that be put more emphasis on the preferences in music and dress than anything else. Rules are not going to help that - abiding in Christ will help that. Searching His Word will help that. Living out the Word will help that. Not exalting our preferences above the Word will help that. Making sound application will help that. Not blindly following men will help that. Thinking will help that! How can a thinking man who is abiding in Christ, living out the Word possibly think it is a good idea to overlook it when someone wrote what Schaap wrote about the Lord’s Supper? I don’t understand it.
Bob, in the main I agree with what you are saying. I hope that this incident can be used for improved decisions going forward.
Not as a point of disagreement, but as an observation of reality: We are dealing with individuals here - it takes time for change to occur. If you look at the history of the FBF and the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy you will find that the decision to pull out of the Northern Baptist Convention took a long time for some, even when the cancer was obvious. Ketcham and the GARBC folks pulled out first, W. B. Riley didn’t pull out until almost the end of his life. (Going by memory… hope I have all facts right.) Even so, many Bible-believers simply stayed in, in spite of the obvious errors of modernism all around them.
So my point is that we don’t all see things the same way at the same time.
And it isn’t that there has been tremendous cooperation between the Hyles crowd and, for example, the FBF crowd. There has been a definite difference, in spite of some minor overlap at times. The overlap raises questions, may cause some confusion, may need to be addressed more plainly and more publicly, etc. However, there has been a pretty distinct difference in general between these groups, including a specific FBFI resolution as I cited above.
Last, on a point of disagreement: I don’t agree about so-called man made rules. I am with Aaron on this, rules have their place, the Lord gave us a ton of them, and there is, I think, Biblical warrant for applying those Scriptural rules beyond the specific commands of Scripture. 1 Cor 8-10 models this kind of thinking to some extent, for example.
We don’t want rules to become the be-all and end-all, as if we can be assured of holiness if we get our rules right. But at the same time, if we are walking in the Spirit, we will be keeping the rules.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]Last, on a point of disagreement: I don’t agree about so-called man made rules. I am with Aaron on this, rules have their place, the Lord gave us a ton of them, and there is, I think, Biblical warrant for applying those Scriptural rules beyond the specific commands of Scripture. 1 Cor 8-10 models this kind of thinking to some extent, for example.
We don’t want rules to become the be-all and end-all, as if we can be assured of holiness if we get our rules right. But at the same time, if we are walking in the Spirit, we will be keeping the rules.
I agree with that Don. Sorry I was not clear in what I was referring to. I was answering your previous post where you said:
Are you proposing some kind of secondary separation where we create some rules against “anybody who is 100% for Hyles” (what if they are 75%, or 50%?)? Are you advocating a new set of extra-biblical parameters to guide us in making associational choices?
That was what I was talking about rules not helping. Sorry for the confusion. I do agree that we need rules. We just need to refocus on your last thought:
We don’t want rules to become the be-all and end-all, as if we can be assured of holiness if we get our rules right. But at the same time, if we are walking in the Spirit, we will be keeping the rules.
Discussion