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

[Dan Burrell] 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.

The “blood” controversy is still alive and well. A friend of mine in college almost got kicked out in 2001 for defending MacArthur on the blood issue. A rule was instated saying that if anyone quoted from MacArthur in a paper, they’d get an automatic zero on it! We were given a 20+ year old lowdown on what MacArthur believes on the blood and why it is wrong…. The administration or the president, wouldn’t stand for the possibility of any graduate who might possibly smell favorable toward MacArthur….

[Dan Burrell]

[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.

Exactly.

Putting on my asbestos suit now….

(BTW…Jim was a personal friend for many years as was Frank. Distance and directions have long separated us, but I still appreciate both men in different ways. I’m just pointing out incongruities.)

[Dan Burrell]

[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.

Dan, I live 3,000 miles away, on an island. Most of our people don’t know what goes on in churches 40 miles away because we are separated by water that is very expensive to cross.

And more than that, we are ministering to people who are first generation Christians, taken out of the world and overcoming all sorts of problems of the past. Ecclesiastical turf wars aren’t on their radar.

Guys like MacArthur are on the radio here. I get more questions about him than anyone. Piper has a big web presence, has been up this way to preach at least once that I know of, so I get some questions about him. And so on.

Hyles and the Hylots just aren’t on our radar screens and never have been.

[Dan Burrell] Andrew had it perfectly correct. Piper, MacArthur, Graham and many others received far worse “press” from fundamentalists than Hyles ever did.

Now why are you bringing Graham into the conversation? Are you talking about the guy who said to Robert Shuler that there are many sincere people who God will take to heaven even though they have never received Christ? Are you saying he doesn’t deserve the bad press he’s gotten?

[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.

Got me good, Alex! I’m honestly laughing right now. I love a good verbal parlay — even when I get stuck with my own words. I think we’ve all made our points with a flourish.

Touche’

[Bob Hayton] 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.

As I have pointed out, by the way, the LCMS and WELS make fundies blush regarding how most practice separation. You cannot participate in communion in many of their congregations unless you are a member of that local congregation or in the least, the denomination.

And certainly their pulpits are not filled with doctrinal foreigners, that is those outside of their denomination. Should they be accused of writing people off instantly and permanently?

No. Their practical integrity is due to their doctrinal integrity and the two cannot be separated.

It might be some fundamentalists are wrong as to why they separate but in principle they do not err and if they followed the model of the LCMS or WELS (which is quite Evangelical and Protestant) you would be even more shocked at degrees of separation existing in healthy ministries (there are some LCMS and WELS congregations which vary in this, it is not true of every single one). And the LCMS and WELS are not theological hillbillies of which fundamentalist baptist have been accused and sometimes guilty but also very not guilty and contributors to good theological apologetics.

I believe certain failures by certain men and segments in fundamentalism have resulted in a great unfairness in general and a willingness by too many to stereotype all of them resulting in demands from any and all of them which are not warranted.

I will say this for the record, however, which is that any Fundamentalist who had or has an interest in the Hyles phenomenon and is unwilling to clearly and emphatically deal with issue with respect to its principles and dogmatically reject its errant properties should be identified with the same warning flags as any ministry which lacks healthy theological and practical perspicacity. But I do not hold all fundamentalists responsible to revisit history and elaborate as to why Hyles’s doctrine and practice had many problems as a litmus test for its acceptability. They may not have had any historical or immediate interest in that context.

[Dan Burrell] Got me good, Alex! I’m honestly laughing right now. I love a good verbal parlay — even when I get stuck with my own words. I think we’ve all made our points with a flourish.

Touche’

[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.

Dan, I live 3,000 miles away, on an island. Most of our people don’t know what goes on in churches 40 miles away because we are separated by water that is very expensive to cross.

And more than that, we are ministering to people who are first generation Christians, taken out of the world and overcoming all sorts of problems of the past. Ecclesiastical turf wars aren’t on their radar.

Guys like MacArthur are on the radio here. I get more questions about him than anyone. Piper has a big web presence, has been up this way to preach at least once that I know of, so I get some questions about him. And so on.

Hyles and the Hylots just aren’t on our radar screens and never have been.

[Dan Burrell] Andrew had it perfectly correct. Piper, MacArthur, Graham and many others received far worse “press” from fundamentalists than Hyles ever did.

Now why are you bringing Graham into the conversation? Are you talking about the guy who said to Robert Shuler that there are many sincere people who God will take to heaven even though they have never received Christ? Are you saying he doesn’t deserve the bad press he’s gotten?

Don…you live on an island? How cool is that! I honestly did not realize that so apologies for my ignorance and that explains a lot. I’ve actually always wanted to live on an island and coincidentally, no small number of folks have wanted to banish me to an island, but I digress.

You won’t find any disagreement from me regarding exposing false statements regarding the Gospel as I sit here in my comfortable office some 10 miles from Billy Graham Parkway and 15 miles from the headquarters of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Headquarters in Charlotte. Bro. Billy has made several incomprehensible statements like that over the years…more so as he aged, but at whatever age, it is always wrong and it is our duty to point them out. I was at the dedication of his library about 5 years ago when he implied that Pope John Paull II was in heaven during his rambling comments. As soon as he was finished, Franklin walked straight to the lectern and without saying anything more or less, quoted John 14:6 and then turned around and sat down. Everyone in the room capable of logic knew exactly what he had done. But I digress again….

I was speaking comparatively so. There seemed to be more of an, er….”enthusiasm” to expose-to-evicerate those “outside” of any self-identified fundamentalist branch than even such a perverted (form-of) fundamentalist as Hyles and Crew. That was the point I was trying to make.

Still taken back about the island thing though….and frankly, I’m thinking if I had to live on an island, I’d prefer one in the Caribbean than off the coast of Canada, but that’s probably just me. :-)

[Dan Burrell]

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.

Just a little history lesson here:

Dr. Jim Binney Teaches at Hyles-Anderson?

Hamilton, Garlock, & Binney Becoming Established at Pastors’ School In Hammond

Just sayin’.

[Dan Burrell]

Still taken back about the island thing though….and frankly, I’m thinking if I had to live on an island, I’d prefer one in the Caribbean than off the coast of Canada, but that’s probably just me. :-)

Well, yes, the Caribbean would be nice. But as it is, my son lives in the place of my birth, Edmonton, AB. I was visting a couple of weeks ago for a week where the high was -15C. I had forgotten what that was like. We rarely drop below 0C here, usually our winter days are around 4 or 5 C. (You’ll have to do the conversion, 0 C = 32 F). Anyway, the other day, as I was enjoying a pouring rain at about 5 C, I realized that I have to embrace my inner aquifer and enjoy winter as God has given it to me. Regardless of grey days and moisture most of the time, it still beats -15 C.

[Bob Hayton]

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.

Couldn’t agree more, Bob. The Hyles branch of IFB is far more dangerous than the conservative evangelicals, IMHO. 1-2-3 pray after me and you are in the club forever! No church discipline. No expository preaching. No hermeneutic whatsoever. No real training. In the early days there were many from BJU or TTU that had something to offer—now it is just a bunch of HAC trained boot-lickers. FWIW, another staff guy at FBCH was just let go this month. He was caught being involved with prostitution, adulterous relationships, and pornography as well as physical abuse of his wife when she blew the whistle on him. This is a systemic problem and not just a few isolated incidents. No accountability whatsoever and as long as your hair is tapered and your women are not in britches you are all good. Sick.

Matthew

[Don Johnson] Anyway, the other day, as I was enjoying a pouring rain at about 5 C, I realized that I have to embrace my inner aquifer and enjoy winter as God has given it to me. Regardless of grey days and moisture most of the time, it still beats -15 C.

That in a nutshell summed up the entire website I had on the anti-IFBers at Do Right Christians (although I remain KJV, but will refrain from that debate here). There are legitimate claims in both sides of the debate, at least by “sides”, the “deformers” and the IFB who have NOT been participants in cover ups and scandal who don’t appreciate being labeled as a cult.

There was a law in Leviticus that if a person witnessed or even knew of a crime and remained silent, he was guilty of the same. Lev 5:1. The lawyer-up first mentality was astonishing and the manner in which these crimes are being handle all over the country dumbfounds me.

I posted an article on our site about David Hyles and did not expect that literally hundreds of IFB “rebuked me” and asked what right I had to “judge” Hyles (and this, coming from IFBers who are known to defend Matthew 7 in comparison with the “judge righteous judgment” of John 7:24), and if God has forgiven someone why can’t I let it go. Of course, when I pointed out that the death of his 17 month old son has never been solved and he’s the prime suspect, and pleaded the 5th when he had the opportunity to provide answers, I got accused of not even being a Baptist.

And there are those still defending Schaap and Jack Hyles. So there is certainly a cult-like mentality prominent within the IFB.

However, what many forget (or perhaps don’t know) is that most of the information about Jack Hyles CAME FROM A BAPTIST via Robert Sumner in the Baptist Evangelist as far back as 1989 and other IFB pastors spoke out about Hyles issues with his secretary back in the 70s. So it wasn’t like all IFB churches had a conspiratorial cover up conference. The IFB were the loudest before there was ever a “do right” group, a Jocely Zichterman, Jeri Massi or Darrell Dow.

I have never seen a statement of faith posted on an IFB website that read “We believe in….the deity of Jesus Christ..the Trinity…the inerrancy of Scripture..eternal security of the believer..and by the way, the molestation of teenagers”. So to label such churches a cult in the same sense (and I guess “same sense” would be the contention) as the Watchtower, the Mormons, Islam, et al, without conclusive evidence that these churches have grossly deviated from the foundational doctrines of Christianity to me seems erroneous. The evidence behind the smoking gun is the idiot that pulled the trigger.

And certainly there is a bias among the most outspoken groups, mainly the “do right” groups being the worst. I have my own disagreements with Darrell Dow and Jeri Massi due to differing doctrinal issues, but I can not say that they have attacked the issues with the same dishonesty and lack of integrity that are behind some of the “do right” groups. When I showed evidence that Trisha Lacroix claimed to have a marketing degree from Hyles Anderson and used that on resumes that she gave to companies to obtain employment for 10 years while attempting to create a group called Fundamental Revolution that intended on selling merchandise and the only thing on the site that was operational was the Pay Pal tab, do right members scoffed in the same way FBC members scoffed when accusations about Schaap and Hyles surfaced. Her sister even posted on our site that Trisha had been convicted of a felony in Elgin,Illinois (we did find a match for the name and same age but was unable to completely verify the information, only that the age and name were the same, and that many of her posts on FB were coming from Elgin, Illinois. Seemed to be a convincing coincidence, but that’s an accusation that really needs a verification from a clerk and frankly that’s too much work).

Therefore the question that I have seen asked “what can we do about it” and the angry responses at those who even dare ask that question, I think is legitimate. Certainly as David Cloud has espoused, separation from these groups should be in the top of that list, but when there are groups that are aggressively attempting to label all of the IFB churches cults, and those groups are made of up atheists, skeptics, homosexuals who have obvious agendas against churches as a whole, it has to make one wonder whether the revelation of crimes perpetrated by these churches has been a convenient platform for these groups to launch a crusade against fundamentalist churches, and that brings into question the credibility of any legitimate claims that may arise.

It is counter productive for the antagonists against the fundamentalists to succumb to the exact same tactics and rhetoric that they vilify their opponents for. Was it necessary for the actions of FBC to be exposed in such mass media fashion? I would have to say yes, because you can’t tell the world “we will handle it in-house like the Bible says” and then watch in astonishment as Jack polishes his shaft and sends player-posed pictures to teenagers as a birthday card. Am I disappointed that groups of non-Christians are mounting a successful attack against the churches? Somewhat, I am disappointed in the methods but not the results, but the question for the IFBers that are frustrated about that …what choice did you give them???

And by the way, another example of the dishonesty, In October, Trisha Lacroix alleged she had audio tapes of Eddie Lapina admitting to a cover up of the Schaap case. We called non-sense on it and predicted when the week was up she would give an excuse for not providing the tapes.

Sure enough, when the week arrived, she said they were in the hands of the grand jury. When another month rolled around, and no new charges or grand juries were convened, the question was brought up again, and this time she stated that the audio tapes were given to a publisher and would be posted in a famous magazine article in January (comment on DHRAC bullet #9:

“9. The recordings of Eddie Lapena are still in my possession. I have emailed the recordings to a few trusted individuals. I have also released a few of the recordings to a magazine who is writing an article about the corruption at FBC. At this point, I will not release the recordings on the wall because of people who run blogs who want it so badly. I refuse to allow them to hear what is said. But it will all be in the article that is coming out in January 2013”

Well that magazine was the January issue which is now availabe and not one hint in their of any audio tapes or even the accusation of a cover up. (And if she didn’t want them to hear what was being said, wouldn’t they hear about it anyway if it was being published in a major newspaper?)

This is part of what I’m talking about. If you want to nail someone for a cover up, then bring forth truthful information. Don’t stoop to the same tactics that you accuse your enemies of.

[DrJamesAch]

And by the way, another example of the dishonesty, In October, Trisha Lacroix alleged she had audio tapes of Eddie Lapina admitting to a cover up of the Schaap case. We called non-sense on it and predicted when the week was up she would give an excuse for not providing the tapes.

Sure enough, when the week arrived, she said they were in the hands of the grand jury. When another month rolled around, and no new charges or grand juries were convened, the question was brought up again, and this time she stated that the audio tapes were given to a publisher and would be posted in a famous magazine article in January (comment on DHRAC bullet #9:

“9. The recordings of Eddie Lapena are still in my possession. I have emailed the recordings to a few trusted individuals. I have also released a few of the recordings to a magazine who is writing an article about the corruption at FBC. At this point, I will not release the recordings on the wall because of people who run blogs who want it so badly. I refuse to allow them to hear what is said. But it will all be in the article that is coming out in January 2013”

Well that magazine was the January issue which is now availabe and not one hint in their of any audio tapes or even the accusation of a cover up. (And if she didn’t want them to hear what was being said, wouldn’t they hear about it anyway if it was being published in a major newspaper?)

This is part of what I’m talking about. If you want to nail someone for a cover up, then bring forth truthful information. Don’t stoop to the same tactics that you accuse your enemies of.

They actually posted another follow up article yesterday at Chicago Magazine. Sounds as if it might be a series of articles in the online version througout January. I suppose there is a chance that something about the recording could be written still. Just an FYI for you.