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

Chicago Magazine: “Let Us Prey” (starts on page 78)

Updated with article in text format:

Let Us Prey: Big Trouble at First Baptist Church

13328 reads

There are 73 Comments

Bob Hayton's picture

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.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

DavidO's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
. . . 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.

Jay's picture

dcbii wrote:

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.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jim's picture

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

Rob Fall's picture

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

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Alex Guggenheim's picture

DavidO wrote:

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
. . . 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.

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.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Bob Hayton wrote:

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 wrote:
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.

I don't see anyone arguing that there was not a double-standard or good 'ole boys network, but what I do see is some soberly explaining why others may not have the controversy, it was not as public or obvious to everyone. You seem to think everyone should have seen the same thing but not everyone gets all the same information.

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.

Dan Burrell's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

Andrew K. wrote:

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.

 

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

DavidO's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
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.

Dan Burrell's picture

Matthew Richards wrote:

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.

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

Dan Burrell's picture

Alex Guggenheim]</p> <p>[quote=Bob Hayton wrote:

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.

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

Alex Guggenheim's picture

DavidO wrote:

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.

I believe there are many contributors but also believe there are some main contributors to this in every similar situation, even outside of Christianity. It is not the existence of these dynamics but how they are permitted to develop until it is too late which I believe has to be examined.

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.

 

 

Bob Hayton's picture

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.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Dan Burrell]</p> <p>[quote=Alex Guggenheim wrote:

Bob Hayton wrote:

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. Smile

Or you could simply recognize hyperbole when used.

Bob Hayton's picture

Dan Burrell wrote:
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....

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Dan Burrell wrote:

Matthew Richards wrote:

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.

Dan, totally innocent question here in case I'm missing something here. I am one of the people who was outraged. I have no connection to Binney, but I did contact majesty music requesting an explanation. My request was ignored - twice, so I withdrew my business from them. I love a lot of what they do, but this was very important. So, what did the three have in common? Are you referencing BJ? If so, I agree with great disappointment in the university's unwillingness to take a stand over this. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Dan Burrell's picture

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 Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

Don Johnson's picture

Dan Burrell wrote:

Don Johnson wrote:

Andrew K. wrote:

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 wrote:
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?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Dan Burrell's picture

Bob Hayton wrote:

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.

[/quote]

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. Smile

Or you could simply recognize hyperbole when used.

[/quote]

 

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'

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Bob Hayton wrote:
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.

I am not so sure fundies write "everyone" off as instantly as you assert. Some maybe, but plenty do not do this. They seem to be selective up to a point. But once you cross a point, well, any ministry will "mark them" as the Bible teaches. They appear to have a lesser threshold and frankly, I believe they guard their pulpits in an admirable and principled manner though I may not always agree with every point as to why.

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.

 

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Dan Burrell wrote:
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'

Thank you for laughing, it was intended only as it was received.

Dan Burrell's picture

Andrew K. wrote:

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.
 

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 wrote:
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. Smile

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

Jay's picture

Dan Burrell wrote:

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'.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Don Johnson's picture

Dan Burrell wrote:

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. Smile

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.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Matthew Richards's picture

Bob Hayton wrote:

 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

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Don Johnson wrote:
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.

Not by much! That's like saying Phoenix is a dry heat. 

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

DrJamesAch's picture

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???

Dr James Ach

What Kills You Makes You Stronger Rom 8:13; 7:24-25

Do Right Christians, and Calvinisms Other Side

Pages