January '13 Chicago Mag article "Let Us Prey" reports on First Baptist Church of Hammond

What do you suppose is the link between spiritually abusive authoritarianism and sexual perversion? Here’s a nationally known “Fundamentalist” acting out publicly in a way that any Bible believing Christian would utterly condemn as a sign of a decadent culture gone wild had it been done, say, at a gay pride parade or on television.

They just sat there. It is a darkness that staggers the mind.

Dan, I was thinking as much too, I just didn’t state it.

The church-based college I graduated from was run in much the same way. Our doctrine was better (we preached repentance), but still the school functioned like a cult.

Not sure why it is that every fundamentalist church worth its salt has to start its own Bible college… It seems to be king-man-on-totem-pole syndrome or something. Everyone has to be THE guy for his little circle. There is far too much politics in fundamentalism, of any and every stripe, from my vantage point.

[Dan Burrell]

By that definition, I can also name no fewer than a dozen additional similar fundamentalist ministries that would also be thus categorized.

Just saying.

Aren’t you just perpetuating the problem? Enabling the cultists? After all if it was the shocking silence of fundamentalists that allowed the Hammond situation to develop, what is your silence, if not shocking as well?

Yeah, Don….that’s what I want to do. Name a few names to give you ammunition to flame me.

No thanks.

I’m not interested in the bait. I’m fairly sure most everyone else on this board at least knows a few worthy nominees.

Merry Christmas.

[Wayne Wilson]

What do you suppose is the link between spiritually abusive authoritarianism and sexual perversion? Here’s a nationally known “Fundamentalist” acting out publicly in a way that any Bible believing Christian would utterly condemn as a sign of a decadent culture gone wild had it been done, say, at a gay pride parade or on television.

They just sat there. It is a darkness that staggers the mind.

Well said, Wayne. VERY Well said.

[Dan Burrell]

Yeah, Don….that’s what I want to do. Name a few names to give you ammunition to flame me.

No thanks.

I’m not interested in the bait. I’m fairly sure most everyone else on this board at least knows a few worthy nominees.

Merry Christmas.

Dan, you are the one that brought it up. You make a sweeping, broad-brush claim, tut-tutting about the corruption of fundamentalism, yet have nothing more to say. It’s really just a smear.

The situation in Hammond is tragic. Surely people needed to speak up. Oh, wait, they did. It’s not that the problems were that hard to spot or weren’t known or condemned. But those in the Hammond crowd chose for reasons of their own to overlook or ignore the reports that were made. What else should have been done that wasn’t being done?

Should Schaap’s infamous sermon have been condemned more? Should it have been brought to the attention of the authorities? What else could have been done?

Your comment was just a cheap shot.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2013/Let-Us-Prey-Big…

I find it interesting that those within more historic IFB camps did not take a more public stand when some of their own, Jim Binney, Ron Hamilton, and Frank Garlock jumped into the yoke with Jack, Jr. I never could really understand the lack of outrage. It was almost as if nobody really believed how bad things had progressively gotten in Hammond since Hyles blew into town back in 1959. People kept wanting to see a pattern before speaking out and after 3 or 4 years in a row they forgot what they originally had stated about a pattern.

I remember seeing a little curfuffle here over their cooperation with FBCH’s Pastor’s School, but nothing with any teeth. Binney said Schaap was turning a big ship around and it would take time. If you take away the fact that Schaap is now a registered sex offender and destroyed a young girl’s life, the church in Hammond is still a disgrace. FBCH is nothing short of a circus— abhorrent theology, KJVOnlyism, and decades of sexual cover-ups just to name a few.

Schaap was a teacher of mine in college and I worked on his bus route during my time at HAC. He did not seem nearly as full of himself then from what I can remember. I believe he began to change drastically once he was ruling from the FBC throne. He built a building they did not need and could never afford to satisfy his own ego. The philosophy of ministry there that is 100% man-centered is no doubt a huge part of this equation, IMHO. My heart breaks for my family members who are among the sheeple still holding on in Hammond.

Matthew

[Matthew Richards]

It was almost as if nobody really believed how bad things had progressively gotten in Hammond since Hyles blew into town back in 1959.

Or knew. Those of us not in Hammond orbits heard a few things here or there, but since we had so little contact with that church, school, people from there, etc., it was pretty easy to “wonder” why someone like Hamilton would go there without being outraged about it. We heard about what had happened to Jack Hyles, of course, but not much about the people or ministry there since that time.

Unless you were a “follower” of their ministry(ies) (or hooked into the various fundamental “rumor mills”), Hammond was simply not on the radar.

Honestly, when I first joined SI in early 2005, I had no idea what I would find out from everyone in the various camps of fundamentalism, but I don’t think any of us anticipated what was going on in Hammond until some former insiders gave out some information.

Clearly that has changed now.

[dcbii]

Unless you were a “follower” of their ministry(ies) (or hooked into the various fundamental “rumor mills”), Hammond was simply not on the radar.

Hi Dave

You are right about this. And the same condition continues to be true. Most pastors I know are not information junkies like me. The internet makes a lot of information available, but it is amazing how many of my pastor friends have no idea about some fundie argument/issue/scandal that has been fully discussed on SI months ago.

Those who cry for fundamentalists to “do something” should remember that beyond talking about it, 1) what can we do? and 2) aren’t we supposed to be moving past the fundamentalist scandal sheets anyway?

[Andrew K.]

Piper has gotten far more attention from fundies, and Bethlehem only averages over 4,000. MacArthur? 8,000. Yet I’ve heard messages preached against them.

I didn’t know about all these scandals either, but I knew about the man-worship. Everyone knew about the man-worship, but nobody seemed very eager to call it out for the idolatry that it was.

In what context have you heard messages against Piper/MacArthur? Would you say that every pastor is aware of issues with respect to them? I just wonder if you have talked to the average pastor in most churches. Go to a few fellowship meetings and see if the average knows more about Piper, say, than “I’ve heard their is some kind of problem with him.” I doubt the average guy would know about his relationships with Driscoll/Warren, etc. that make some of us strongly opposed.

As far as Hammond, “everyone knew” about it, so what more was to be said?

And, if you were in a fundie circle outside of the Hammond orbit, how many of your people would be tempted to head that direction? Not many. Piper/MacArthur are more noticeable, hence more problematic. I don’t preach about them per se (though I write about them), but I do get questions from my church people about them (especially MacArthur).

Because of questions I get, it behooves me to know something about Piper/MacArthur et al and have a reason for my reservations.

In 27 years of ministry, I have NEVER had anyone ask me about Hyles, Hammond, Schaap, etc. It just has no impact on my ministry. If I were in Indiana, it would probably be different.

We complain about Hammond being soo man-centered, but if we’re honest, isn’t there a little bit of ego or at least a small amount of arrogance in the leadership of a lot large churches? The fact that some large ministries only start other churches unless they are tied or lead by the “mother” church, is a feeling by some that people can only be lead by ME.

Recently, I’ve read two articles on pastors that surprised me. I think they were both linked here. I know most pastors you see on TV outwardly display their egos, but I never thought Charles Stanley to be that way until I read the article about the battle between him and his son. His program was always modest and he seemed very genuine. The other was an interview about Rick Warren. I’ve never agreed with the Seeker movement, but I always thought Rick Warren’s main focus was to reach the world for Christ even though I questioned his methods. Although it wasn’t the point of the article, the article showed a traveling rock star lifestyle and some arrogance in a few of his answers. Those two articles kind of threw me back a little bit. It makes me think that it is more the norm in large churches than the exception.

We all have seeds of pride in our lives and even though the pastorate can be quite humbling, I’m sure there are times being the pastor also has moments that feed fleshly pride.

Good question, what are “we” suppose to do about it? If one wishes all they need to do these days is search the internet to read criticisms of Hyles’ leadership and theology from days gone by up until even now looking back as well as the model itself transferred and practiced by Schaap. But they are gone.

The loudest cries I often here come from disaffected former groupies who have simply traded one guru and/or theology for another and display the very sycophantic traits they did when they were what I might call Deformed IFBers (I say Deformed because I do not believe Hyles represented a true form of IFB). They, once crusading for the KJVO Hyles form, and immaturely and ignorantly against other forms, while being enlightened to their former error are so enlightened only partly, not understanding the arrogant and self-righteous nature of their opposition, now, though some of their protests may contain points of validity.

The second group I see are those overly identifying with real or imagined victims of the sins of these Pastors. They again, have a point but are seduced by the temptation to engage in crusader-mentality hysterics which really do not wish to remedy what can be remedied but wish to reach beyond into private lives and add to the crushing of failed men over and over. It is a vengeance based reaction. A lust for their pound of flesh.

There are sober minds that have hearty objections, and have for decades. They were not always listened to and part of the non-listening crowd are those former Deformed IBFers to which I referred and they ought to remember their part in hoisting their man-idols so high, as I see them doing with new ones. One of the best illustrations of why hindsight should be tempered with humility is the Ellerslie thread. Here we have a budding ministry with all the early warning signs and not only were just a few able to hear the warnings but some aggressively argued against the observation. People often forget they are looking back as if they received full enlightenment the whole time.

A full study and robust discussion of the practical and theological errors of Jack Hyles would serve many, if done appropriately. But beyond that no one can change history or rightly demand FBCH and Hyles/Anderson College adopt their views and practices. If they continue with dangerous views and practices then it needs to be warned against as well as those who would recommend such an errant ministry. Ultimately, however, it is not the fault of “other IFB” ministries but the congregation itself which voted for and supported what they did over the years. The past cannot be changed and repeated hysterical astonishment at the bad actions and theology only encourage people to be drunk with arrogant emotionalism (and I am not saying one cannot have emotions or express exasperation but as a marked style or continued form of investigation and discovery, it only leads to self-serving conclusions).

So the question stands, “What are we supposed to do about it?”

This strikes me as almost hilarious! What do you do about Piper/MacArthur? Numerous fundamentalists make fellowship or, rather, non-fellowship with them a mark of being a true fundamentalist or not. For the pastors or evangelists who would share a pulpit in those churches, our movement would shun them and separate from them, stand out against them, etc.

What Matthew is saying, and what many others have pointed out over the years, is that FBC Hammond is evidence of double-standard. Hamilton, Benny and the like join up with Hammond, and we say, “well we didn’t really know how bad Hammond was, we were looking for a pattern, etc.” No such forgiveness would be given those who would join the platform with MacArthur, however…

It is inconsistent to decry any kind of fellowship with the left ditch and overlook fellowship and overtures toward the right one.

[Alex Guggenheim]… Deformed IFBers (I say Deformed because I do not believe Hyles represented a true form of IFB).

Are you using the word true in the sense of “reasonable Biblical fundamentalist Baptist” or in the sense of “generally representing the IFB mainstream”?

If the latter, I would have to disagree with you since he was regularly featured as a speaker and treated as a celebrity at such “non-crazy” IFB schools as MBBC and BJU.