Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap & John Vaughn ??

[RPittman] Well, should I withdraw from BJU because they invited Jim to Bible Conference who also filled a similar role at Jack’s Pastors School repeatedly? Are you shredding your BJU Alumni card in protest of Jim’s speaking? Jay, it’s easy to tell someone else how to handle their associations but it really is different when it comes one’s own cherished relationships.

RPittman,

You’ve thrown a lot at me and I’ll deal with that later, but I’d just like to take a second to point out that the cherished relationships here are the issue. I heard many, many lectures and messages from BJU and other institutions [the FBF] about separating and the cost that it would carry to end friendships with people who were compromised, and in every case, separation was the recommended course of action despite the pain it would cause. If John and Jim and others are unwilling to end relationships with those who teach heresy, that’s a big deal.

I’m also going to address one quick point. Bibliology isn’t esoteric doctrine that’s debated within the safe confines of seminary. It has profound and far reaching ramifications including how a person views and responds to God and it also reflects upon God’s own character. That’s why Schaap’s claim of KJV Inspiration is so important, and that’s why I don’t think any serious minded Christian should have any relationship with them. Bibliology is the fountainhead of Christianity, and those who poison the waters from “inside the camp” are more of an enemy than those outside the camp and shooting into it.

I’m not trying to make myself the scourge of fundamentalism as much as I’m so incredibly frustrated at the willing suspension of doctrine for sake of ‘cherished relationships’ by men who know better. Didn’t Jesus [URL=http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Matthew+10:34-39] talk about this in the Gospels[/URL]?

I join Jay C in his puzzlement over why this issue seems unimportant to so many.

In addition to Jay C’s observations about Doctrine — and they are points of doctrine — I would also like to interject the idea of abusive leadership and cult-like power at FBC Hammond and HAC. The time when we can admire “great” men who cannot practice Christ-like leadership has passed. I attended HAC for a year. I sat in classes under Jack Schaap, and in church under his father-in-law. I should think that any Biblicist of any stripe who was truly loyal to Christ-likeness and thoroughly informed of conditions in that ministry would be very cautious about lending support to what functions as little better than a religious cult. Beyond that, disengagement with the accurately exposited Bible text and embracing of ignorance are raised to an art-form there.

I’m hardly a Type-A Fundamentalist (to use Tetreau’s scale). I find the case for separating from Schaap far more compelling than that for separating from most of the CE’s. I’m tired of people separating over movement loyalty and trivia instead of issues of substance. Doesn’t anyone remember the dictionary definition of Fundamental anymore?

Clarity about the exact meaning of “separation” would be helpful for discussions like this one. As I grew up in Fundamentalism, the understanding of the term that I “caught” (though, I’m not sure if it was formally taught) was that separation from a brother (or organization) meant that that brother (or organization) was sinning (“disobedient”). Because of this, I thought of separation as a binary choice: either a brother (or organization) was 1) in sin, and we needed to separate (after attempting to confront or educate, if the sin was due to ignorance), or they were 2) not in sin, and we could, therefore, have fellowship. However, in practice, I saw the term “separation” also applied in situations where the differences were over honest disagreements on non-fundamental matters rather than willful sin (and often, the issues involved were truly quite subjective—particularly when it came to things like which Christian leader spoke with which other Christian leader). What made it worse was that many times Fundamentalists attempted to justify this latter type of “separation” by appealing to the relatively straightforward texts on personal and ecclesiastical separation where the people involved were clearly sinning. The inconsistency of this was a source of consternation and frustration for me from the time I was a teenager. (I am now 45.)

Until I began reading Kevin Bauder’s excellent essays several years ago, I don’t think I had ever heard the biblical principle of separation (and it’s practice) analyzed in a way that wasn’t facile. Bauder’s model of applying “separation” in a way that is dynamic rather than binary allowed me to form categories that included practical “separation” from another brother (or organization) without necessarily impugning them as “disobedient.”

You will notice above that I have repeatedly put the term “separation” in quotes. The reason is that as I think through the issues, I believe discourse would be better served if we didn’t use the term “separation” so broadly. If I were a “fundamentalist pope” :-), I would reserve the word “separation” to refer to separation from disobedient brothers and use a term like “non-cooperation” or “limited cooperation” to refer to other situations where we have to restrict our level of cooperation due to honest disagreements over non-fundamentals.

[PhilKnight]
Until I began reading Kevin Bauder’s excellent essays several years ago, I don’t think I had ever heard the biblical principle of separation (and it’s practice) analyzed in a way that wasn’t facile.

Correction: Above should read: “facile to the point of oversimplification”

hilarious. I wouldn’t walk across the street to attend this meeting.

[Mike Durning] I join Jay C in his puzzlement over why this issue seems unimportant to so many.

In addition to Jay C’s observations about Doctrine — and they are points of doctrine — I would also like to interject the idea of abusive leadership and cult-like power at FBC Hammond and HAC. The time when we can admire “great” men who cannot practice Christ-like leadership has passed. I attended HAC for a year. I sat in classes under Jack Schaap, and in church under his father-in-law. I should think that any Biblicist of any stripe who was truly loyal to Christ-likeness and thoroughly informed of conditions in that ministry would be very cautious about lending support to what functions as little better than a religious cult. Beyond that, disengagement with the accurately exposited Bible text and embracing of ignorance are raised to an art-form there.

I’m hardly a Type-A Fundamentalist (to use Tetreau’s scale). I find the case for separating from Schaap far more compelling than that for separating from most of the CE’s. I’m tired of people separating over movement loyalty and trivia instead of issues of substance. Doesn’t anyone remember the dictionary definition of Fundamental anymore?

This is good stuff here. I started in the nursery under the Hyles regime and twenty some years later walked away from that garbage forever. I thank God often for leading me out of that mess. Mike just said a mouthful—Amen my friend!

[rogercarlson] Maybe you can answer this question for me. I would never have Piper in my pulpit, even though I had been to conferences where he has preached. The subject of this thread is Schaap and Vaughn. Let me say I think the world of Dr. Vaughn. When I was a student, i went to his church before I was had an assistant pastor position in another Greenville area church. If it is concerning for young guys like me to go to conferences where the CE’s are why is it not wrong for the FBFI president to preach with someone like Schaap who preaches blasphemy reguarding the Lord’s Supper? I am really trying to understand the disconnect. I just don’t get it so please tell me where I am wrong.

Roger, sorry for the delay in replying, been gone all day… and it is late now.

First, I am not at all saying that it isn’t a concern. I would suggest that you might contact Dr. Vaughn personally and see what he says. I would say that he has his reasons and he is aware of the problem. But… nothing is as simple as it seems.

Second it is quite true that we could say the same about incidences of cooperation between fundamentalists and some of the CE men … nothing is as simple as it seems. I have spoken directly to some of them over their involvement on some occasions. These men likewise have their reasons for what they are doing. While I can see their reasons, I am not sure I always agree with them. Nevertheless, I wait and see if they will eventually be justified in their reasons. (No holding of my breath, however…)

BTW, as to the attendance at conferences where CEs are… I don’t think I have ever argued against attending conferences to hear what men have to say. I just wouldn’t spend any money going to one, but if they happened to be conveniently located and didn’t require a paid admission, I’d go hear what they had to say. In fact, in late May, Brian McLaren of emerging church fame is scheduled to speak at a liberal Anglican cathedral in my city. I would go hear him speak … if they weren’t charging admission at the door. If he were appearing on a free-will offering basis, I wouldn’t have any problem going to listen. So my issues with the CE movement and involvement with them isn’t one that advocates never hearing them, never listening to them, etc. I do have big problems with some of the things they do and some of the people they associate with.

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.

I don’t know if that helps any.

[Jay C.] I’m also going to address one quick point. Bibliology isn’t esoteric doctrine that’s debated within the safe confines of seminary. It has profound and far reaching ramifications including how a person views and responds to God and it also reflects upon God’s own character. That’s why Schaap’s claim of KJV Inspiration is so important, and that’s why I don’t think any serious minded Christian should have any relationship with them. Bibliology is the fountainhead of Christianity, and those who poison the waters from “inside the camp” are more of an enemy than those outside the camp and shooting into it.

Jay, I may be missing something, but I thought Schaap took some heat recently from the more extreme KJO camp because he wouldn’t say the KJV was inspired. I thought that was the big kerfuffle anyway… I don’t pay a lot of attention to that part of the world, so I could be mistaken here.

Also, let me ask you to define what you mean here. You use the term “Bibliology” - does that mean that you won’t tolerate any sort of KJO view? Do you mean that anyone who merely prefers the KJV over all others is heretical or do you reserve that view only for the Ruckman-like positions? Or somewhere in between?

[Jay C.] I’m not trying to make myself the scourge of fundamentalism as much as I’m so incredibly frustrated at the willing suspension of doctrine for sake of ‘cherished relationships’ by men who know better.

I don’t think that is the rationale behind this particular situation at all. In fact, I can guarantee that it isn’t. There isn’t much of a history for there to have been “cherished relationships”. There has been a pretty wide gulf between between the Hyles/Sword crowd and the BJU/FBF crowd for quite a while.

You asked, Let me ask you this: should we be united with Mohler and make no distinctions at all?

No, there are always distinctions. My mind continually is drawn to charting distinctions … distinctions among Baptists … and distinctions further yet among the subsets within the specific camps of Baptists.

And so absolutely there are distinctions between Mohler and me. My Baptist family tree for the last 150 years has been non-Calvinistic, moving from the Northern Baptist (NBC), to the Conservative Baptist (CBA), to now Independent Baptist (with Paul Chappell being now one of the main leaders, no doubt about it) here in Western America.

I am distinct from the three other little Independent Baptist churches in my town - practically no fellowship with any of them over the last ten years because we are so distinct.

But since I have been studying John 17 (and not Ockenga or Henry) for some time now … I have been a little convicted by the Lord’s prayer on the night before He died.

Today, I am finding that the precious unity is not necessary within a specific Baptist camp. I could find precious fellowship with a SBC pastor, a FBF pastor, a GARBC pastor, or some other Independent, etc., and not necessary so much with others within their camps because of various reasons. We have four distinctives at our church: (1) Worship of the Triune God, (2) Gospel for holy living, (3) Always the Word, and (4) Loving and serving others. In this day in America, I appreciate others inside and outside of my camp who seriously edify and fortify my heart in these areas.

And to all, if John Vaughn can aggressively and passionately push other independent Baptists in America forward in these areas, I will rejoice for him. Anytime I hear him preach, my heart is greatly edified. I would go to the conference not to hear Schaap but to hear Vaughn. This kind of selectiveness could be said of any kind of Conservative Evangelical conference that I would go to as well.

for those of you who don’t know much about Hyles/Schaap/FBC Hammond I would be glad to lend you my extra copy of his biography written by his daughter, Cindy Hyles Schaap. One condition would be that you read “Fundamental Seduction” by my friend, Voyle Glover, as well since there is a LOT of revisionist history in Hyles’ biography “The Fundamental Man”!

Schaap has never publicly decried any of the abuses of his father in law and I doubt he ever will. Standing ovations for child molesters and the physical mutilation of Bibles are just two examples from my time there. Add to that the KJO heresy, easy believism, hero worship, absence of discipleship, legalism, absence of any expository preaching, schaap’s view on the LORD’s Table, etc… and you will see that there is no excuse to lend the appearance of an endorsement by cooperation with some of these folks. I can assure you that when I talk to my family members who are still at FBC Hammond they believe that this kind of cooperation makes them credible. They also believe that everyone else is coming to their way of thinking—it is beat into their heads that FBC Hammond doesn’t change—ever. Hyles is still held up as a larger than life icon in Hammond and nobody dare apologize or confess that any of his antics were incorrect or sinful. Keep in mind as well that Schaap is a Hyles Anderson College trained preacher—his BS and Masters are from HAC under the Hyles regime. I am a HAC graduate and can attest to its lack of any real challenge. All that to say that these are not just small differences in style—I have so much more in common belief with pastors like John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and John Piper than those in the hyper-fundy camps.

Matthew

They also believe that everyone else is coming to their way of thinking—it is beat into their heads that FBC Hammond doesn’t change—ever.

They will find out differently, won’t they.

If people are burning Bibles or abusing sheep in 2010, may God have mercy on their souls, because the Son’s prayer to His Father in John 17 is unstoppable. How terrifying it should be for the obstacle standing in pride before the King.

[Don Johnson] Jay, I may be missing something, but I thought Schaap took some heat recently from the more extreme KJO camp because he wouldn’t say the KJV was inspired. I thought that was the big kerfuffle anyway… I don’t pay a lot of attention to that part of the world, so I could be mistaken here.

Also, let me ask you to define what you mean here. You use the term “Bibliology” - does that mean that you won’t tolerate any sort of KJO view? Do you mean that anyone who merely prefers the KJV over all others is heretical or do you reserve that view only for the Ruckman-like positions? Or somewhere in between?

…I don’t think that is the rationale behind this particular situation at all. In fact, I can guarantee that it isn’t. There isn’t much of a history for there to have been “cherished relationships”. There has been a pretty wide gulf between between the Hyles/Sword crowd and the BJU/FBF crowd for quite a while.

Hi Don-

I covered this already, but you can read Schaap’s position at http://www.fbchammond.com/dr-jack-schaap-speaks-on-inspiration-and-the-… . It’ obvious that he believes in the inspiration of the KJV [note the definite article on the last line]. There’s also a written PDF and sermon audio if you want to look at that.

[Todd Wood] They also believe that everyone else is coming to their way of thinking—it is beat into their heads that FBC Hammond doesn’t change—ever.

They will find out differently, won’t they.

If people are burning Bibles or abusing sheep in 2010, may God have mercy on their souls, because the Son’s prayer to His Father in John 17 is unstoppable. How terrifying it should be for the obstacle standing in pride before the King.

I hope you are right. Jim Binney, Ron Hamilton, and Frank Garlock have been speaking at Schaap’s Pastor’s School for at least 5 years straight now—no one that I talk to at FBC believes that FBC or Schaap have changed one bit. I can say without any hesitation that my family members at FBC believe that Binney, Hamilton, and Garlock are in support of the FBC Hammond/Hyles/Schaap ministry and philosophy of ministry. Their perceived support has worked against any good dialogue that myself and others in the family had started with some who are still members there. God can bring them out in His time but it was more than a little frustrating five years back when it all started. I reached out to Ron Hamilton and my brother contacted Jim Binney the very first year to figure out what they were thinking. I guess you would have to know the basic mentality and psychological programming that goes on in Hammond—this could turn into a very lengthy discussion!

FWIW, we can’t just give a ministry, especially one with this kind of size, a free pass when a new leader takes over. IMHO, there is a laundry list of public apologies and public repentance that needs to take place as well as a change in many areas of basic orthodox Christian doctrine before this ministry should be supported.

Matthew

[Jay C.] I covered this already, but you can read Schaap’s position at http://www.fbchammond.com/dr-jack-schaap-speaks-on-inspiration-and-the-… . It’ obvious that he believes in the inspiration of the KJV [note the definite article on the last line]. There’s also a written PDF and sermon audio if you want to look at that.

You are correct. The flap over inspiration was simply over what word they used to arrive at the same conclusion. Schaap, Fugate, Trieber, etc… all believe that the KJV is perfect and without any translational error of any sort. Those in Hammond even go so far as to only refer to it as the King James Bible—not just a version. I have actually had correspondence with Schaap regarding this and he definitely believes that only the KJV is God’s preserved Word.

Matthew

Don asked:

Also, let me ask you to define what you mean here. You use the term “Bibliology” - does that mean that you won’t tolerate any sort of KJO view? Do you mean that anyone who merely prefers the KJV over all others is heretical or do you reserve that view only for the Ruckman-like positions? Or somewhere in between?

Here’s a basic list of what I believe, which I think most people on SharperIron would gladly affirm:

*It is not a sin or a problem to have a preferred Bible translation - I have one myself.
*It is not a sin or a problem to have a preferred set of Greek manuscripts
*It is not a sin or a problem to argue/discuss those topics.
*It IS a sin to ascribe a specific act of Divine (Re-)Inspiration to a specific translation.

So, Don, if you use, prefer, and love the KJV, we’ve got no problems :)

When I talk about “Bibliology” - I’m talking about the specific doctrine of the Bible. This includes preservation, inspiration, and authenticity, among other topics. Wayne Grudem or several other good systematic theologies [Reymond, or Erickson come to mind] unpack that term far more than I could in a discussion board post.