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

[dcbii]

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.

Yup. I’d NEVER heard of Hammond pre-college, heard snatches about it in very isolated incidents in college and seminary, but it wasn’t until I got to SI in 2005(ish) that I was even interested enough to voluntarily read about it or look it up. Now it’s like a tar baby - and just as ugly.

The IFB circles that I used to run in treat Hammond as the red headed stepchild. Yes, it’s there, and yes, we’ll send our people there to educate or help, but don’t really pry too much into it. That’s disgusting and shameful behavior on ‘our’ part.

I serve on many boards. I am on so many college boards, I couldn’t even begin to tell you how many.

I serve on many boards. I am on so many college boards, I couldn’t even begin to tell you how many. My secretary and I don’t know how many boards on which I serve. I never go to a board meeting. I’ve been on the board of Norfolk Bible College for about twelve years. (I don’t even know where the Norfolk Bible College is located. I think it’s in Los Angeles or somewhere.) I know it’s in Norfolk, Virginia; that’s all I know. I know the president. I have confidence in him. He wrote me and said could you be on my board. I said, “Sure.” I’ve never been to a meeting. He sends me an annual report, a financial report. I use it for scratch paper. I’m on the Board of Bob Jones University and have been since 1959. I’ve attended one board meeting and that was because they were giving me an honorary doctor’s degree and I figured I ought to go the board meeting after I got my degree. As I walked in and they said, “All in favor,” and I said, “I.” Why? I have confidence in Bob Jones, Jr., you see. I’m on the pastoral advisory board at Tennessee Temple University, and I have not been to one board meeting. I have not read the minutes or hours

It’s that fundy interlocking directorate that we all want to deny exists. Hyles was on multiple boards because he was powerful and successful. No one wanted to cross him until Sumner took him on.

The schools get the principle of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours!

Piper and Warren’s books are available in your average generic Christian bookstore. The same can not be said for Hyles.

One such ad

HT: Stuff Fundies Like

[DavidO]

[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.

But in spite of IFB during the Hyles era of seeming to be predominated by what is commonly called these days, “the cult of personality”, there were others who did not share the view that the Hyles or personality driven ministry was something to be embraced or rewarded. I find them to be the properly formed IBF kind.

Now, me, personally, it didn’t take more than listening to Jack Hyles destroying a passage in 1 Peter for me to understand that he should not be pastoring or teaching Bible doctrine, never mind his antics in the pulpit.. I suspect that Hyles, like many in the IFB who became Pastors, were really gifted to fulfill the office of Evangelist and as the Bible indicates with this distinction their gifting was with the intention they stick with the gospel message in their ministry while yielding to the Teaching ministry of a Pastor/Teacher somewhere. This would explain a great deal as to why they were such poor exegetes (if they ever did) or expositors. But that is another ball of wax altogether.

http://www.jackhyles.com/bobgray-book.htm

[Bob Hayton]

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.

“Our movement”? Speak for yourself, there are many fundies that would like to hug MacArthur on a daily basis and give him the keys to their ministry. And there are others that make it a point of commending MacArthur when and where he is right but still rightly point out where he is wrong (which, btw, are not limited to only IFBers who consider MacArthur wrong on critical points, there are esteemed denominational men, Lutheran and Reformed, who take issue with MacArthur and would never share a platform with him while respecting his ministry to some degree). Separation is not about where someone is right but where they are wrong.

Piper, well, he isn’t a fundie and certainly errant, very errant, on some important issues. So that stands to reason.

[Bob Hayton] 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.

Maybe you want all notable big name ministries to come forward and confess their associative sins. I can’t say that would be a bad thing but it isn’t necessarily an essential thing, either. There are more principles from God’s Word involved than simply satisfying the wish to publicly admit mistakes and name all the participants in such a case.

The objections to MacArthur are doctrinal and practical and usually are regarding his errant Lordship salvation and transfers of trust by sharing platforms with the likes of CJ Mahaney, a wacky type himself whose history and practice mirror the Jack Hyles model which includes the fact that the sharing of a platform with Mahaney speaks to a willing duplicity by MacArthur concerning his allegedly adamant rejection of charismaticism and affirmation of historical Protestant/Evangelical apostolically based cessationism.

Again, as to Piper, well he isn’t a fundie and he errs quite critically on some very important points and his Christian Hedonism is a monument to self-contradiction and theological (if not just logical) malfeasance. Piper is about three steps removed from MacArthur regarding any kind of conservative Evangelicalism so why you place them together is inexplicable. MacArthur tries to stay bound by his theology and exegesis (though it is quite clear his theology leads his exegesis in numerous places) but Piper, he throws both out when he gets a novel idea, you know, like Jack Hyles did.

But this is not really about those things or those people and none of that matters because what you really are complaining about is something you can do nothing about, namely history. It cannot be changed and you were part of it, you supported a KJVO, personality denominated ministry. So you have seen the light, good, but remember, you are historically guilty, you were a supporter of such by your own admission. It appears you gave yourself room and time to see the light but you have a rather heavy blow for others who did not during this time and have not since.

Now, maybe others who have seen the light or are coming out of this do not share your perspective on how things should have been handled or should be handled now but if that is what you demand you have a long way go in the world of moving past things. Many ministries are generally focused on the Word of God and establishing good associations. How much time, energy and detail do you wish for them to commit to “outing” what has already been “outed”?

But there does seem to be a contradiction of your own, Bob. It seems you have little toleration for those out “out” fundies who are departing to the left but have excessive interest in those on the right being tolerated. Maybe you are guilty of the very thing you assert is the guilt of these “others”. This is called projection. Not saying you are doing it but something I have observed and offer for your consideration.

[Don Johnson]

[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 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.

So if it didn’t happen to you in your context it didn’t happen?

It was consistently on the list of “largest” whatevers for 40 years. Hyles sold more books than most any other CGM guru to date. Tens of thousands “worshipped” him at his Pastor’s Schools. And you were never approached by anyone in your congregation about him? How did you pull that off?

I’ve been with every creed and color of fundamentalist, evangelicals and even some protestants who had heard about him. Sometimes it was directly…sometimes it was because one of his sycophants had been making a name for himself locally. But they all knew “of” him.

Andrew had it perfectly correct. Piper, MacArthur, Graham and many others received far worse “press” from fundamentalists than Hyles ever did. Particularly prior to 1989. Even when he had his concocted “breakdown” at the ‘89 Sword Conference in the Founders Amphitorium on the campus of Bob Jones University after he was confronted specifically by Walt Handford and a few others, there was never the hue and cry raised at a level of….say, John MacArthur and the “Blood” controversy. Were it not for Bob Sumner and his courageous and costly expose, I wonder if there ever would have been a serious challenge to his conduct.

[Alex Guggenheim] First I will re-emphasize that everyone is looking back in hindsight. This is not to say that it excuses anything but it does explain some things. That is, being in the midst of something and looking back are two different vantage points.

But in spite of IFB during the Hyles era of seeming to be predominated by what is commonly called these days, “the cult of personality”, there were others who did not share the view that the Hyles or personality driven ministry was something to be embraced or rewarded. I find them to be the properly formed IBF kind.

Now, me, personally, it didn’t take more than listening to Jack Hyles destroying a passage in 1 Peter for me to understand that he should not be pastoring or teaching Bible doctrine, never mind his antics in the pulpit.. I suspect that Hyles, like many in the IFB who became Pastors, were really gifted to fulfill the office of Evangelist and as the Bible indicates with this distinction their gifting was with the intention they stick with the gospel message in their ministry while yielding to the Teaching ministry of a Pastor/Teacher somewhere. This would explain a great deal as to why they were such poor exegetes (if they ever did) or expositors. But that is another ball of wax altogether.

Fair enough about hindsight.

Your personal anecdote aside, the fact remains that there was a broad swath of mainstream fundamentalism (however properly or improperly formed) that was (in some/many instances) deceived into partnering with Hyles, or did so for pragmatic purposes as Jim suggests.

In fact your personal anecdote begs another question: What made the difference between being deceived by or seeing through the Jack Hyles Show. I was deceived until the Sumner piece came out. Meanwhile, my best friend, who had gone to the same IFB schools and church as myself (although, admittedly, was just plain smarter than I was) sniffed him out as an emotional manipulator who didn’t really preach the text while we were yet in high school. 1986ish it would have been. Puzzling.

[Matthew Richards]

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.

Why was there little/no outrage when Binney, Hamilton and Garlock were giving credibility to Hyles/Schaap/FBC? C’mon….we all know, but just don’t want to say it out loud. What did the three of them have in common?

Yep.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Bob Hayton]

rSpeak for yourself, there are many fundies that would like to hug MacArthur on a daily basis and give him the keys to their ministry.

Name one.

[DavidO]

Fair enough about hindsight.

Your personal anecdote aside, the fact remains that there was a broad swath of mainstream fundamentalism (however properly or improperly formed) that was (in some/many instances) deceived into partnering with Hyles, or did so for pragmatic purposes as Jim suggests.

In fact your personal anecdote begs another question: What made the difference between being deceived by or seeing through the Jack Hyles Show. I was deceived until the Sumner piece came out. Meanwhile, my best friend, who had gone to the same IFB schools and church as myself (although, admittedly, was just plain smarter than I was) sniffed him out as an emotional manipulator who didn’t really preach the text while we were yet in high school. 1986ish it would have been. Puzzling.

Some people are weaker, that explains their tardiness in coming to an understanding.

Some people, many I believe, are ego-invested, thus it becomes personal and they are unable to concede being wrong or having been misled. I wrote my own article on this, “Never Bring Your Ego to a Theological Gunfight…”.

Power corrupts the willing participant. Temptation at each level of life has its unique forms.

We are sheep (Luke 16:8) and are often easily misled.

We permit the good to out weigh the bad and fail to distinguish between tolerable short-comings and damaging problems.

Leaders believe all the good they are doing justifies their peccany.

Theological ignorance.

Alex,

I appreciate the spirit of your response and you are right that there are pendulum swings and this could just be my issue with pointing blame on fundies too much.

But I don’t think that is the case. The issue for MacArthur and Piper is that they are not fundamentalists. They don’t separate from errant believers like fundamentalists do. They are too close to people that fundamentalists see way past gone.

MacArthur has Mohler in and Mohler chaired a Graham crusade. Piper schmoozes too closely with Rick Warren and Mark Driscoll.

The vast majority of the discussion about why the conservative evangelicals cannot be trusted and should not be fellowshipped with has centered around their personal associations and choices to not separate with others in the same way that fundamentalists would separate from them.

Granted this is my own assessment, but I think a strong case could be made that this is indeed the case. It boils down to secondary separation, or separation from errant believers. Fundamentalists can’t see how people can get by without employing this kind of separation.

My point is that, with this being such a BIG DEAL for fundamentalists, I find it strange that hobnobbing with the Hammond crowd doesn’t draw the same kind of flak as schmoozing with Piper’s bunch would.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate for secondary separation in the typical fundamentalist way. I would be fine with some association across both the right and left lines. But it would be more of a case by case basis, and I personally see greater danger in the cultic, personality-driven, shallow doctrine, legalistic (or close) side of things, than the conservative evangelicals who aren’t ready to write everyone off as instantly and permanently as fundamentalists often do.

[Dan Burrell]

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Bob Hayton]

rSpeak for yourself, there are many fundies that would like to hug MacArthur on a daily basis and give him the keys to their ministry.

Name one.

Yeah, Dan….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.

I am sure you are familiar with this dish. :)

Or you could simply recognize hyperbole when used.