A little over a week ago, Jack Schaap, pastor of First Baptist Church in Hammond Indiana, was fired over a sexual relationship he had with a sixteen/seventeen year old girl in the church. I wrote about this here and here.
Twenty-three plus years ago, Jack Schaap’s father-in-law, Jack Hyles, was accused of having an affair with a woman in the church. I wrote about this here. The evidence for his affair was overwhelming but the church rejected the evidence and Hyles remained the church’s pastor until his death.
First Baptist Church in Hammond is an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) Church. (if you don’t know what an IFB church is read here) The church was an American Baptist church until Jack Hyles pulled it out the convention.
Sexual and financial scandals are quite common among IFB churches. Pastors have sexual affairs, molest children, surf porn sites, cavort with prostitutes, lie, cheat, and steal. They are, in every way, just like the rest of the human race.
Deacons, Sunday School teachers, church bus workers, Christian School workers, and every-day church members are also just like the rest of the human race. No matter how much they might protest, they know if the curtain was pulled back, it would expose for all to see that IFB church pastors, leaders, and members are no different than atheists, Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons,Methodists, or Southern Baptists.
They are human beings, capable of doing good or bad things. They are capable of being good, decent, kind, loving people and they are also capable of being evil, unkind, indecent, and unloving people.
Like all of us, they have the power to choose what kind of person they want to be. No matter what their theology tells them about the depraved, sinful condition of the natural, unregenerate, unsaved human being, they KNOW they have the power to be whatever kind of person they want to be.
They KNOW that there are countless atheists, deists, non-IFB Christians, Catholics, etc who are good, decent, kind, loving people, without believing the King James Version of the Bible is the Word of God or believing in the IFB God at all.
The IFB religion (and it IS a sectarian religion no matter how much they protest that it is not) believes the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. IFB churches and pastors are Bible literalists. Most of them are young earth creationists and believe in the pretribulational, premillennial second coming of Jesus Christ. (which they believe could happen at any moment)
They believe the miracles in the Bible actually happened and that everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally unless it is very clear that it is not meant to be taken literally. (they have very specific, albeit contradictory, hermeneutics for determining this)
As Bible literalists, they believe that Christians are to live sanctified (set apart for God’s service), godly, holy lives. To ensure this they have long lists of things they consider sins, sins that no Jesus loving, sin-hating, devil chasing, IFB Christian would ever commit.
Every IFB church and pastor has their own l-o-n-g list of things they consider a sin. Besides the “big” sins like adultery, fornication, and homosexuality, IFB churches have rules (standards) about things that many non-IFB Christians might not consider a sin. Things like:
- Watching TV
- Listening to secular music or Contemporary Christian music
- Going to the movies
- Gambling, playing cards
- Men and women swimming together
- Drinking alcohol
- Smoking
- Cursing or using bywords
- Women wearing pants or shorts
- Women wearing anything that reveals their “shape”
- Long hair on men, short hair on women
Over the years, I heard IFB pastors, including myself, say the following things were a sin:
- Wearing wire rim glasses
- Having a beard
- Having a mustache
- Wearing any clothing with “worldly” advertising
- Going to stock races
- Sending your children to a public school
- Using any Bible but a King James Bible
- Not having a Sunday Evening or Midweek service
- Not having an altar call
- Using prerecorded (canned) music
- Marrying a non-IFB Christian
- Going to a non-IFB college
- Having non-IFB friends
- Working on Sunday
- Letting your children play sports on prayer meeting night or Sunday
- Not giving at least 10% of your money to the church (plus special offerings)
- Eating in restaurants that serve alcohol
- Allowing women to pray or teach anyone other than women or children
I am sure, by now, you are trying to figure where the heaven I am going with this post. Let me tie it all together.
The IFB church movement prides itself on being “better” than other Christian sects and the “world” in general. Their literalist belief system, along with their lists of sinful behaviors are the standard every IFB church member is expected to live by.
For all their talk about salvation by faith and grace, their religion is all about works. (as is every religion, to some degree or the other) They will tell you that a person does not have to do any works in order to be saved but…ask them if a person who refuses to live by the above standards is a Christian and they are likely to say, I doubt it.
In the IFB world, “true” Christianity is determined by how well a person adheres to the church’s/pastor’s interpretation of the Bible and whatever list of “standards” they have.
Some allowance is given for difference of opinion, but not much. Church members who don’t conform are labeled as: worldly, carnal, weak, fleshly, or backslidden.
The moral and and ethical standard is high, way too high. Remember what I said earlier about IFB pastors, leaders, and church members being just like the rest of us? Well, this poses a real problem for them. They take the high moral ground, believing they are superior to everyone else, including other Christians. They consider themselves pillars of moral virtue.
But…they are not, and when pastors, leaders, and church members get in trouble, like in the case of Jack Schaap and Jack Hyles, they have a real dilemma on their hands.
Their moral and ethical failures expose the bankruptcy of their claim of superiority. They show that the fundamentalist emperor has no clothes.
The right thing to do would be to admit their failures, confess their “sins,” and come on down from Mount “I am Holier than Thou.” Of course doing this would mean that they are just like the rest of us…
And that ain’t gonna happen.
The latest IFB scandal, courtesy of Jack Schaap and First Baptist Church in Hammond, provides for us an excellent example of HOW IFB churches handle having their “humanness” exposed.
First, they deny. When the Schaap scandal first became public, IFB commenters on blogs and news sites were quick to deny that Schaap had done anything wrong. The accusations were lies and they were certain that Schaap was completely innocent. (IFB pastors are often worshiped like a god)
Second, they marginalize. When they could no longer deny the reality of the Schaap scandal, they turned to letting everyone know that Schaap was a “sinner” just like everyone else and, while his “fall” was regrettable, people should not judge the IFB church movement or First Baptist Church negatively. One bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole bushel. (actually it can)
Third, attack the critics. Instead of owning the scandal, many IFB defenders decided to attack those who reported the scandal or wrote negative things about Schaap, Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church in Hammond, and the IFB. You can read about one such attack here.
Across the blogosphere, in discussion forums, in blog comments, and emails, the defenders of the IFB have attempted to ameliorate the scandal by attacking people like me. They can’t dismiss my impeccable IFB credentials so they attack me personally or they dismiss me out of hand because I am an atheist. Why should anyone listen to what I have say, they write. I am a God-hater. I am bitter, angry, have an axe to grind.
They try and discredit the messenger so they won’t have to deal with his/her message. The goal is direct attention away from the facts.
Fourth, if all else fails, attack the victim. Let’s not forget that there is a victim in the Jack Schaap scandal. Schaap’s “sin” was not a victimless one. He had sexual relations with a minor in the church. Some media sites are reporting that the girl was being counseled by Schaap. (in Ohio, such a relationship is illegal)
Jack Schaap is a 54 year old man. He is my age. The victim is almost young enough to be his granddaughter. As a grown, mature man, he should be in control of his sexual desire. Surely he KNEW it was morally and ethically wrong (regardless of whether or not it was illegal) to have sex with this girl.
Schaap had the power to control the relationship he had with this girl. He was the grownup, he was the “man of God,” he was a married man with children, he was the one with everything to lose…
If he had overt sexual desire, a need to get laid, he could have sought out the help of a professional, a prostitute. I am sure there are plenty of adult establishments in the Chicago area that Schaap could have went to in order to get his sexual need met. (and more than a few IFB pastors have availed themselves to the services of a prostitute)
But, Schaap did none of these things and now everyone knows…
In the sleaziest of attempts to justify Jack Schaap’s behavior, they attack the girl. One commenter on this blog suggested the girl was a slut, that she seduced Schaap. She wrote:
So…what about the teenage girl? How hot was she? How hard did she pursue him? We all know young girls flaunt everything these days to get what they want. a rise from any man they can. especially one in the limelight (our a uniform!) They don’t care if he’s married our not, or if he’s her best friends dad. it’s really sad.young girls are a whoring in our churches.
I responded:
Bullshit.
It doesn’t matter how hot she was or whether or not she flaunted herself before him.
He is a grown, mature man, a few years younger than me. By now, he should have learned how to deal with temptation and keep his penis in his pants.
It is reported that he was counseling this girl. If this is true, then he abused his power and authority and, here in Ohio, could be held criminally liable.
Whatever the girl’s faults, she is not the problem in this story.
She responded:
You men and women be careful. She is closer than we think. the world is full of young sluts stealing our husbands and sons! Praying for Cindy!
And, I responded:
You mean stealing pathetic, poor Christian men who have been taught they are helpless creatures unable to withstand sexual temptation? How about teaching them to be accountable for their own sexual behavior? They have a choice, do they not? Or are they so weak that the slightest temptation turns them into sexed crazed maniacs who are unable to control their lust?
The only right answer to the Jack Schaap scandal, the Jack Hyles scandal, or any other church scandal, is IMMEDIATE, COMPLETE disclosure. Instead of trying to cover the matter up or trying to make it disappear, churches should show they take these kinds of things seriously and expose the offending parties.
What First Baptist Church in Hammond needs is a Penn State moment. They need to come to terms with fifty years of cover-ups and denials. The deacons and church membership need to own their own culpability in this matter. (they first tried to deal with this by saying Schaap was on medical leave) They are they ones who did nothing about Jack Hyles and his serial-adulterer son David. They are the ones who allowed an abusive, controlling, cultic environment to develop in the church. (and those who stood against this were run off or left)
This will not be the last scandal in the IFB church movement. Their theology and ecclesiology makes it certain that scandals will continue to happen.
IFB church pastors, leaders, and members are human beings. That they will, despite their theology and practice, do things that are considered bad is a given. The only issue left to decide is HOW to respond to these bad acts. What First Baptist Church in Hammond and many churches and pastors in the IFB have done over the past fifty years in response to scandal is not the answer.
The Joe Paterno statues have been pulled down as a public act of contrition and it remains to be seen if the Jack Hyles statute will face the same fate. (there is a direct connection between the current scandal and the Jack Hyles scandal twenty three years ago) One can only hope that public scrutiny will force the IFB church movement to own their “sins” and that dramatic change will be made to lessen the frequency of predatory acts against children and teenagers. (if this was an affair between Schaap and an adult woman this story would be a non-issue, IMO)
Bruce, your lists boggle the mind. I wasn’t raised with many of those being considered sinful. Working on Sunday was considered a sin by many. Having a father who was a policeman and a husband who was at one time in radio proved how stupid that was.
My father used to slip in and out of church in uniform when necessary to get to attend at all. Then some people complained that he had his gun on. It was against regulations to be in uniform without it. He went to his chief for permission to lock it in the glove compartment just long enough for church. Permission was given, but the chief asked what kind of people they were that protested anyone’s “work clothes” if that was the only way they could come to church.
Many years ago, while my husband was in radio, we were attending a church that was having a real to do about trying to keep blue laws in place and saying we shouldn’t be working on Sunday. My husband thought it was a joke. As a radio announcer, he had put many a Sunday church service on the air. If he hadn’t been working, the service could not have been on the air for people to listen to. He also made the point that the preacher was working every Sunday.
People are so very strange.
Bruce,
As one raised in an IFB church, I can attest to the accuracy of your description of the movement, including its responses to controversy. And your suggestion for how they should proceed is spot-on. I’ve stood before the statue on HAC’s campus – it isn’t coming down, if for no other reason than, as you said, they refute the overwhelming evidence in their founder’s own scandal.
Thankfully, I was raised by parents who allowed and, indeed, encouraged me to do as instructed in Ii Timothy 2:15, to “study to…rightly divide the word of truth.” they taught me that truth is not true because of the man or woman who spoke it. I am grateful for their teaching. Through my own studies, and my own life experiences, I have come to an eternally saving knowledge of and faith in Jesus Christ. And, that eternal salvation has nothing at all to do with my actions thereafter. Who I am in the eyes of others is affected by this, but who I am in Christ is not. I’m thankful for parents wise enough to show me the difference.
And I’m thankful for your careful advice to the IFB church. It is unfortunate that history shows it will go unheeded!
Keep writing!
Josh
Dude, I disagree. The way they rant and rave and howl and whine
about “heifers” and “whores” and call women every other dirty name
that they can think of, while screaming about “adultery” and “fornication”, this would still be an issue. It would clearly expose Schaap as a hypocrite of the highest order.
You are sooooo right when you say that they believe they are morally
superior. In light of that, Schaap has certainly proved that he isn’t.
He is just as horny and full of come to shoot in something as all the
rest of us. And you are also right on target saying he should’ve just
went to a prostitute. But of course, they are “whores”, so that was out of the question.
In the words of Hit-Girl, “what a douche” (Schaap and all the rest of them are).
Clarification: It would still be an issue if the female involved were an Adult woman. I thought I had that in there. Duhhhhh, on me!
Bruce, another wonderful piece about the dynamics of the IFB world. You are writing and acknowledging things which have never been openly talked about. The thing about the Independent Baptists is that they harp more on the issue of sex, sexuality, sexual expression than any group I’ve ever run across (well, perhaps strict Muslims). They truly are a group (of men) who are afraid of the power of women. Thus, they are so focused on constantly emphasizing the power and authority of patriarchy.
Thanks, Larry!!
My first church was so laid back about much of this that it could be considered IFB-lite. Yet, looking back, I can see the spirit that you spell out here. Especially the Man of god can do no wrong, and speaks inspired behind the pulpit. The people look for someone to tell them what to do so they don’t have to take responsibility. You speak hard words, but true ones.
I did not ever attend an IFB church, but I’d say that this list of sins and ‘pastor as king’ behavior is pretty common from my experiences in other fundamentalist denominations (and even fundy denominations that claimed they weren’t denominations!) It’s essential to put safeguards in place that protect the young and helpless from the pastors, elders, youth leaders and anyone ‘in authority’.
Yes, the IFB is not alone here. This kind of thinking is quite common in generic, every day Evangelical churches.
Hi Bruce,
What gets in my gullet about so many Fundamentalists is that they take the high moral and doctrinal grounds and reject other Christians and people who are non Christians. They fail to find common ground in our common humanity. They have a “them” and “us” mentality.
If they realised that we are all fallible human beings who are meant to treat one another with dignity, maybe they might just reform their system, but closed minds are unlikely to change to make pastors and other church leaders accountable to the people. Trying to blame the teenage girl is reprehensible. Schaap was in a position of power over this girl and he abused his power.
It is a good thing that you are one of the ones exposing this shameful behaviour in marshalling the facts.
Well done!
Shalom,
John Arthur
The IFB is worse than most because they even separate from their own. (called secondary separation) I remember listening to a preacher rant for a half hour on how “evil” Bob Jones University was.. The IFB movement is noted for being divisive.
It totally sickens me the way victims are blamed. This happens outside of churches too. For ex here in Ohio a few years ago a lacrosse coach assaulted a player on the way back from a h’s game. The boy was ostracized by the community. Come to find out thecoaches dad was a child perv as well.
Bruce,
you mention ‘Pastors have sexual affairs, molest children, surf porn sites, cavort with prostitutes, lie, cheat, and steal’
Is this really true? How common is it? When you are in the church, you assume they are not like this.
It’s true. I’d add murder to the list as well. As for the porn issue. Many churches run porn seminars to help porn addicts.
It may seem uncommon because churches are excellent at covering up their sins. They do it in the name of Jesus. They don’t want to hurt the cause of Christ all the while floating down the river in that big boat on denial.
As well, even when the “sin” is found out, the church is very quick to move towards forgiveness and reminds everyone how God forgives and this is done to quickly forget and move on before attendance numbers go down and the money flow stops.
I think people grossly underestimate how great the cover-ups are. One day the person is there and the next day they are gone. People are discouraged from talking (gossiping) about so and so and in a short while so and so is forgotten.
I agree.
Is it true? Absolutely. I have first hand knowledge and experience in these matters. While I never had an affair or molested a child, I did , from time to time look at porn. Oh I felt guilty as hell over it but I just prayed the 1 John 1:9 prayer and got a clean slate. Of course now I don’t view looking a porn a “sin” so it is not a big deal.
How common is it? Good question. Pastors lying? Very common. Pastors stealing? Depends on what you consider stealing. The other stuff? I know of men who did these kinds of things, more than a few men too. Does this mean the IFB church has a huge problem with pervert pastors? No, but it has far more pervert pastors than they are willing to admit. Since the churches are Independent, pervert behavior often goes unreported. The pastor is asked to resign, he move a thousand miles away, and pastors another church. The IFB movement is big on starting churches, so the pervert pastor can just start a new church if he so desires.
Christians can play two cards:
1. “I have God in me, I’m annointed, I’m part of a ryal priesthood born again, I’m a sheep not a goat,” etc. I.e., more-than-human. They use this card when they want to get others to obey them or see things their way.
2. “I’m only human! I’m not perfect!” they use this card when they mess up and want some compassion.
I don’t see how they can do this in good conscience. And I think it proves the bible and Christianity wrong. If you have a supernatural being in you, then you aren’t ‘only human.’ It’s not a mystery or a paradox, it is a nonsensical contradiction. Christian’s bad behavior proves Christianity wrong. If they want to make the claim that God lives in them, then their behavior is the proof of that claim.
I have rarely seen this as well stated! That’s exactly the issue. We should see some radical and significant changes in a person’s life if they are actually filled with a supernatural being.
The observation that Christians don’t appear to live very different lives than the rest of us is pretty strong evidence that there’s no supernatural person involved here.
Thanks I’ve been pondering it for a while. I’ve heard Christians say, “Just because a Christian behaves badly, doesn’t prove Christianity wrong.” But it does!
And when I expect Godlike behavior from Christians, they tell me I’m being unfair. If God is in a person, then why shouldn’t I expect anything less than God like behavior, supernatural lovingkindness, and supernatural wisdom from that person?
Christianity preaches a message of deliverance, redemption, and transformation. It teaches that Christians have been given a new life in Christ, old things pass away and all things become new. Yet, what do we see? We see that most Christians are no different than non-Christians. It is proper and right to point out this contradiction since they say that Jesus gives to them a higher plane of living, a better life. It is evident that he doesn’t.
Thanks for writing truth, Bruce. The truth may be difficult to hear but the cool thing about truth is it is based in reality…you can count on it…and no energy is required to hold it up.
I attended an evangelical church for 27 years and the previous pastor was fired for embezzling. The church members voted in favor of giving him a big severance check plus monthly living expenses for 6 months. **shaking head** Why would you throw more money at someone who obviously has issues with it?? That pastor now leads a new church in a different state. They protect their own.
For me, walking away from religion was like shaking slime off my hand…not easy at first but sure feels better when it is gone!
Thanks for commenting, Sue.
Yep, I’ve got some stories of IFB high-ups in sexual scandals I could add to your list. I don’t know much about Jack Hyles, but what I’ve read of his writings persuades me that he has played a part in spreading genuinely evil teaching (and I use the word evil advisedly).
I think the theology that we are sinners by nature (and that women must be modest to avoid causing men to stumble) shares culpability here. It’s like the men shouldn’t expect to be able to control themselves, without divine help.
The pastoral micromanaging, the control over minutae of members’ lives, the hypocrisy, the misogyny, the utter lack of accountability from leaders … The Independent Baptists sound less like a religious group and more like a cult at times.
Organized religion is not the same as one’s personal faith.
I am not able to change the minds of the majority here. What I can present, in the interest of learning, is a Christian viewpoint. The word Christianity does not exist in the Bible. Mankind has often searched for a generally agreed-upon interpretation of Biblical principle. But the number of Christian religions brings to bear how many variations there can be, let alone the different sects within religions.
Biblically, each man and woman individually will give account to God someday for the choice they made. What church one attended or what term one used to identify themselves and their type of interpretation of the Bible will be irrelevant at that time, according to the Bible.
It is unfortunate that so many have not only deluded themselves in their interpretation, but have led so many others falsely. And I am in agreement with you all that such individuals are guilty of coercion, abuse, and generally reprehensible behavior of the highest order.
I’m one of the few Christian regulars here, and I agree with you. Well stated.
“Biblically, each man and woman individually will give account to God someday for the choice they made.”
The bible is wrong. It says Christians will have god-like supernatural loving kindness and wisdom, yet no Christian does. Why then should anyone trust the bible or care what it has to say?
“[The Bible] says Christians will have god-like supernatural loving kindness and wisdom.”
I’m no expert on the Bible. I’ve never read this. Could you tell me where in the Bible this is written?
Hi Josh,
The bible does say that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers. It also says that we should be compassionate, merciful and kind.
And furthermore, it says that believers are being conformed to the image of Christ.
And Christ is said to be our wisdom.
So although the bible may not have a verse that explicitly has what Chikirin has put in inverted commas, it does teach what he claims.
I would add that if churches would get rid of their church buildings and hierarchies and fire their pastors and tell them to get a real job and begin to live the Sermon on the Mount on a seven day a week basis, then maybe the skeptical public might at least begin to believe that Christians are genuine, even when they themselves to do believe the bible message.
Hi Josh,
I meant to say “do NOT believe the biblical message” in the last line.
Hi, John. I couldn’t agree more. Well said!
Correct. The Bible portrays faith in Christ as transformative. We live in a country where the majority of its citizens claim to be Christians. I would think such a large majority would bring on the millennial kingdom of God.
Josh,’
How does a person have personal faith apart from religion? Who gave us the Bible? Religion did. Who tells us how the Bible should be interpreted? Religion does.
I suppose you could appeal to the priesthood of the believer but all that means is that you have a religion with one member, yourself.
Who are you to say another person’s interpretation is deluded? are you not, by saying this, saying YOUR interpretation is right (your religion is right) and others are wrong?
Every Christian is sectarian to some degree or another. The Bible demands fidelity not plurality. There are not many roads, many salvations, there is one way, one truth, one life.
Bruce,
As a biblical scholar yourself, surely you understand that the biblical genesis for Scripture is not religion; it is God Himself, who inspired the authors of its various texts. Now, I know it takes a measure of faith to believe this. I’m not trying to sway you; I can’t do that. I’m simply stating the position.
As such, the Bible is clear that each individual will be judged by God one day. The church, or local group of believers, is meant for support, edification, education and fellowship. The Bible teaches nothing about Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc., etc. The Bible, in point of fact, teaches about followers of Christ. Organized religion, most commonly exemplified in a church or group of officially or unofficially associated churches, is man’s attempt to associate and assimilate.
You are correct that by these statements and beliefs, I am choosing one interpretation to be mine, and therefore stating that divergent ones are wrong. I have nothing against this sectarianism; the Bible teaches this. In fact, it is by our personal beliefs that each will be judged. I simply choose not to divide or dissassociate over anything other than salvation. And, as you stated well, the Bible teaches that there is only one way to eternal life: belief in Jesus Christ, acceptance of the gift for which He paid an ultimate price.
“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved. For everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved.” (Romans 10:9, 10, 13 NLT)
So, you then divide and disassociate yourself from hundreds of millions of people who say they worship the same Jesus as you? Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Church of Christ, Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, to name a few.
This would make you every bit as fundamentalist, at least on salvation, as any Independent Baptist. This again proves my contention that all religionists, save universalists, are fundamentalist to some degree.
I see you couldn’t help lapsing into preacher mode with your Bible verse quotation. What other reason could there be since you know I know that passage quite well, as do most of my readers.
Bruce,
If I disagree with them, it is not because they call themselves Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc.; it is because they do not believe by faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and have not accepted His gift of salvation through faith. That is my position. And disagreement with them doesn’t give me any right to treat them with harm or malice.
You keep insinuating that one’s choice of church membership or religion has eternal bearing, as if the Bible teaches that. It does not. Your life story lends credence to your words, and people will believe you to be correct on matters of the Bible. But in this area, it must be shown that what you claim the Bible to say, it does not.
I’m thoroughly enjoying this. As a believer in Jesus Christ, I should be expected to state my position on such teachings. I should be able to defend my position, even of by faith, without hatred or malice. That is all I’m doing.
Thank you, Bruce for giving my the opportunity, and for your writing! Much of what you say, especially about the IFB church, needs to be said.
-Josh
I see you glossed right over my point that, on the issue of salvation, you are every bit as fundamentalist as someone in the IFB.
Of course a person’s choice of church membership or religion has eternal bearing, in the minds of Christians anyway.(I don’t believe that because I don’t think God exists) No one believes what they believe apart from a particular religion. For example: Suppose a person had only Genesis 1-3 and had never been exposed to Christianity. When they read, let us make man in our image, what would they conclude? That God is a Trinity or that multiple Gods made man in their image?
Religion is what gives every person the interpretive skills necessary to believe what they believe. No person is a blank slate.
Which Christianity in the New Testament is the “right” one, Josh. Jesus’s Christianity, Paul’s Christianity, or James’s Christianity? Take a big step back from your sectarian beliefs and read each book in the New Testament independent of any other book in the New Testament. Write down what each book teaches about salvation. You will have multiple different salvations when you are done. Christians, knowing this is a huge problem, try to harmonize the various contradictory passages and the result is the mess we have today.
You consign hundreds of millions of faithful, loving, Bible believing Christians to hell (and that is what you are doing in the first paragraph even if you are unwilling to say it. Please don’r reply that their eternal destiny is up to God. That’s a cop-out. You must own the consequences of your theology) These Christ-following Christians read and believe the same Bible you do. Yet, they believe things you don’t believe. Things like baptismal regeneration and salvation by works or they deny that God is a trinity. All of these teachings are clearly found in the Bible. Why should we accept your sect’s interpretation as the “faith once delivered to the saints?” Especially, since the MAJORITY position within Christianity historically has been BAPTISM SAVES.
Baptists naively and arrogantly think they are the Church Jesus built. They think they have the true faith, the right salvation, the true interpretation and they believe these things because they are ignorant of the history of Christianity or have decided to hold to a truncated view of Christianity.
You have not yet begun to “defend” your faith, Josh. Are you sure you want to go down this path with me?
I enjoy these discussions as long as they remain civil and do not turn into preach sessions or Bible quoting sessions. Lots of people read these comments and most of them already are quite familiar with the Bible, having either gone to church for years or are ex-pastors, ex-Sunday School teachers, ex-pastors wives, ex-most any job title a Christian can have.
“I see you glossed right over my point that, on the issue of salvation, you are every bit as fundamentalist as someone in the IFB.” -BG
Bruce, I apologize for acting in such a way as to allow you to think I was glossing over it. So, let me be clear: in my experience, yes, I have agreed with the vast majority of fundamentalists on the issue of salvation. This agreement does not me a fundamentalist make, for in the eyes of fundamentalists, there is much more to staunch fundamentalism than salvation. The simple fact that salvation is the only issue on which I separate theologically, makes me far from a fundamentalist. But, yes, I’m a fundamentalist on the topic of salvation.
“Of course a person’s choice of church membership or religion has eternal bearing, in the minds of Christians anyway.(I don’t believe that because I don’t think God exists) No one believes what they believe apart from a particular religion…Religion is what gives every person the interpretive skills necessary to believe what they believe.” -BG
I disagree. The Bible teaches that God gives us those interpretive skills. (I realize you don’t believe in God, and therefore also don’t believe in the Bible as God’s Word. Once again, I’m using it simply to state the position as part of this dialogue, and in this case, to show that what you’re saying about it is not true.) Again, the Bible teaches that the church is for edification and fellowship. Part of that edification may be to encourage the individual person to interpret for themselves, or to suggest how (to varying degrees of voracity), but the person is judged individually for what those interpretations become. To suggest that the church grants the individual the ability to interpret is awfully close to claiming the same autocratic authority for churches which you so vehemently (and rightly) denounce of the IFB movement. You’re saying a person cannot interpret Scripture without a pastor or church to tell them how. That’s simply not true, according to the Bible (II Timothy 2:15).
“…read each book in the New Testament independent of any other book in the New Testament.” -BG
Thankfully, I don’t have to. By faith, I believe God (through the Holy Spirit) inspired each author to write the words contained in each book. Next, I believe God divinely preserved those books en masse within the Bible. Why would I read and understand them separately? I believe they expound upon one another, working together. Scripture is not mutually exclusive.
“You consign hundreds of millions of faithful, loving, Bible believing Christians to hell (and that is what you are doing in the first paragraph even if you are unwilling to say it.” -BG
Apart from the process of salvation outlined clearly in the Bible, yes, God does consign them to hell. (I don’t.) Theologically, and by faith, this is not a cop-out. Unfortunately and sadly, I believe there will be many in hell someday who on earth called themselves Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Adventist, etc., and many in Heaven, too. The Bible is clear God couldn’t care less about such titles.
“These Christ-following Christians read and believe the same Bible you do. Yet, they believe things you don’t believe…Why should we accept your sect’s interpretation?” -BG
One should only believe as they do after they’ve searched it out for themselves and drawn their own conclusion. It certainly is about me, or about an belief being “mine.” And, hey, maybe I’m wrong. All I’ve ever said is that each man has the right to believe as he chooses about anything. Prejudices and peer pressure may make one more inclined to believe a certain thing, but the Bible says that each INDIVIDUAL human will give an account to God for what they chose.
“Baptists naively and arrogantly think they are the Church Jesus built. They think they have the true faith, the right salvation, the true interpretation and they believe these things because they are ignorant of the history of Christianity or have decided to hold to a truncated view of Christianity.” -BG
You couldn’t be more right. Heaven is not for Baptists only. I don’t believe the Bible ever teaches anything at all about baptism (in any of it’s forms) being a part of salvation. I can’t say why others do. But it simply can’t be defended by the Bible. Biblically, baptism is a next-step after salvation, an analogous display of the act of salvation and a public announcement of the partaking individual’s decision.
“I enjoy these discussions as long as they remain civil and do not turn into preach sessions or Bible quoting sessions.” -BG
There is a different between persuasive dialogue and educational dialogue. As ive previously states, from the beginning I have considered this dialogue educational in nature. As such, two or more positions must be clearly detailed and defended to maintain the proper format. The defense of my position, by faith, is the Bible. It is worth noting that I have not ever asked you to cease the employment of anything upon which you base your position, such as logic, yet it would appear you are now telling me I’m not welcome to use the text upon which I base mine. Dr. Ed Hindson observed recently, “Those who call followers of Christ intolerant for what they believe, are themselves intolerant in the way they treat such people.”
If this is going to be a dialogue about personal convictions, I’m going to kindly point out flaws in your statements regarding those espousing my convictions, as I recognize them. And I’m going to use the Bible because it is the text upon which I base my position.
Oh, I suspect, upon full disclosure, you are a lot more fundamentalist than you let on. I get it, Evangelicals fear being lumped together with Fred Phelps so they run like roaches exposed to light to distance themselves from the fundamentalist label. However, ALL religions have fundamentalist tendencies and Evangelicals, no matter how much they protest, are fundamentalists. (and before your object I hope you know the difference between social and theological fundamentalism. All Evangelicals are theological fundamentalists. Many reject social fundamentalism. IFB churches tend to be be social and theological fundamentalists)
It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion as long as you appeal to a spiritual being that you can’t prove exists. Faith is subjective and cannot be proven. Either one believes or they don’t. This is why discussions like this will always break down. No matter the evidence, the Christian will ultimately appeal to their faith.
Baptists turn every church member into the pope. They are the final answer, their interpretation is king. No matter what history, the pastor, or theologians teach, it is all about “what does this text mean to me.” Result? Endless strife and division with members routinely hopping from church to church to find a pastor who agrees with their interpretation. In many ways, the priesthood of the believer allows each church member to have their own version of Christianity.
This is why Catholic ecclesiology is preferable. It is the church, those God has called to lead the church, who decide what the Bible says. Object all you will, but this form of ecclesiology is well-supported in the Bible. It is Baptists and other congregationalists who are in the minority on this.
You need to read up a bit on baptismal regeneration, the continuity between the Old and New Testament, and baptism being a sign and seal of the covenant. Again, the Bible supports these things. Acts 2:38 says what? Repent and be baptized. Why? For the remission of sins. How about Mark 16:16? He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?
Again, these beliefs are supported by the Bible. If God, through the Holy Spirit, directs people as you say he does, why do so many Christians come to different conclusions? Even among Baptists, there is strife and division over the most basic of beliefs. You say your beliefs are true. On what basis should we accept anything you say as true? If I can go to the Bible and find teaching that contradicts your beliefs doesn’t that make you a liar, a false teacher? Again, as long as I am the final authority, as you suggest I am, I have every right to say you are a false teacher if you reject baptismal regeneration. (this by the way is the fatal flaw of Protestant individualism, particularly the Baptist version of it)
All I am telling you about Bible quoting is that they do nothing for your argument. I get it, you think the Bible says XXX. What I am trying to get you to see is that there are flaws in your closed system of thinking and that, contrary to your objections, you are far more fundamentalist than you are willing to admit.
You have come to an atheist’s blog, an atheist who spent a lifetime studying and preaching the Bible, and are trying to suggest that “your” theology is THE truth. In everything you write, there is an air of certainty. You KNOW what you believe about salvation is right and you know all other views are wrong. All I am trying to do is show you that your certainty is built on a foundation that ignores 2000 years of Christian church history and textual interpretation.
The purpose of my suggestion that you read each book individually was in hopes that you might at least consider that you might be wrong. (silly me, such thinking among Evangelicals, especially Baptists, is rarely found) What if the whole foundation of your belief system is wrong? Or are you so certain you are right that you have no room for any more questions? (or God forbid, doubt)
Again, believe what you will. However, if you are certain in your beliefs, exactly why are you engaging in a discussion with me? Surely, not to try and convert me? You know that is not going to happen and I am far stronger than your “Holy Spirit,” so why the discussion?
Put a man on an island by himself. Give him a Bible. Would he come to the conclusions you have about what the Bible teaches? That’s a rhetorical question. They answer is NO. Beliefs such as yours require a sect like the one you are a part of.
I suspect you were either raised in church or around Christian beliefs. It was not the God or the Holy Spirit who gave you your beliefs, it was your family, your tribe. Look at any country in the world and ask WHY the people of that country choose the religion they do. Look at it from a sociological perspective. People choose the religion they do because that is the dominate religion of their family and tribe. Yes, you were saved, baptized, and do and believe all the things people of your religion do, but the question is, WHY? You appeal to God, the Holy Spirit. I contend the answer is much closer than a God that can not seen. I became a Christian because there was no other option and that’s the case for most people who become Christians in America. We become what we are surrounded by, most familiar with.
I suspect we are quickly coming to an end here. Appeals to the Holy Spirit is a discussion killer. I understand why you do so, and I understand completely your theology, but it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion when one party appeals to a being that the the other does not think exists. (similar to a Mormon and a Baptist having a discussion when the Mormon wants to include the Book of Mormon in the discussion) This is usually the way all discussions with Christians end. This is not meant to be a criticism, but I live in a rational world where it is expected that things are “proved.” You live in a world where an appeal is made to faith, the believing in things that can not be seen. There is really no meaningful way to find common ground. Now, if you want to discuss the Bible strictly on exegetical or hermeneutical grounds then we can have a discussion. But, we can not have a meaningful discussion when one party appeals to the supernatural. This would be like me saying, I believe XXX and appealing to the spirit of Zeus and I book I says Zeus wrote as proof.(which, in my eyes, is just as valid of an argument as yours, both us appealing to the supernatural) There is no way for you to mount a rational argument against my belief because I appealed to supernatural authority.
I have probably said all I can say on this matter. Thanks for the discussion.
Bruce
“I see you glossed right over my point that, on the issue of salvation, you are every bit as fundamentalist as someone in the IFB.” -BG
Bruce, I apologize for acting in such a way as to allow you to think I was glossing over it. So, let me be clear: in my experience, yes, I have agreed with the vast majority of fundamentalists on the issue of salvation. This agreement does not me a fundamentalist make, for in the eyes of fundamentalists, there is much more to staunch fundamentalism than salvation. The simple fact that salvation is the only issue on which I separate theologically, makes me far from a fundamentalist. But, yes, I’m a fundamentalist on the topic of salvation.
“Of course a person’s choice of church membership or religion has eternal bearing, in the minds of Christians anyway.(I don’t believe that because I don’t think God exists) No one believes what they believe apart from a particular religion…Religion is what gives every person the interpretive skills necessary to believe what they believe.” -BG
I disagree. The Bible teaches that God gives us those interpretive skills. (I realize you don’t believe in God, and therefore also don’t believe in the Bible as God’s Word. Once again, I’m using it simply to state the position as part of this dialogue, and in this case, to show that what you’re saying about it is not true.) Again, the Bible teaches that the church is for edification and fellowship. Part of that edification may be to encourage the individual person to interpret for themselves, or to suggest how (to varying degrees of voracity), but the person is judged individually for what those interpretations become. To suggest that the church grants the individual the ability to interpret is awfully close to claiming the same autocratic authority for churches which you so vehemently (and rightly) denounce of the IFB movement. You’re saying a person cannot interpret Scripture without a pastor or church to tell them how. That’s simply not true, according to the Bible (II Timothy 2:15).
“…read each book in the New Testament independent of any other book in the New Testament.” -BG
Thankfully, I don’t have to. By faith, I believe God (through the Holy Spirit) inspired each author to write the words contained in each book. Next, I believe God divinely preserved those books en masse within the Bible. Why would I read and understand them separately? I believe they expound upon one another, working together. Scripture is not mutually exclusive.
I know this is slightly off-topic, but…wire-rim glasses are sinful? I grew up in an IFB church and school, and heard all of the rants against women wearing pants, men having long hair, etc., but I never heard anything against wire-rim glasses. What, pray tell, is their problem with wire-rim glasses? (I don’t recall spectacles being mentioned in the Bible!) Even knowing the weird mindset of the IFB preachers and congregants, I cannot imagine why on earth they would be averse to wire-rim glasses. For heaven’s sake, my AMISH neighbors wear wire-rimmed glasses!
In the 1970′s wire rimmed glasses were worn by hippies, especially the John Lennon style glasses. This was enough for preachers to deem wire rimmed glasses as “worldly.”
It’s one thing for the pew-dwellers to lift a pastor up on high (Hyles?), but I have also encountered men of God who held themselves out as the epitome of virtue and above reproach. It’s as though they harbor the delusion that they are above sin and temptation, and make it clear their example is the one to follow. When my brother asked me about this super-human trait in the IFB movement, I simply answered, “I was not a Christian before I became a Christian.” That says it all. I cannot reinvent myself once I became a new creature in Christ. In fact, it was my very sin and hopeless state that propelled me into the arms of Jesus to begin with. How then could I ever attempt to pass myself off as beyond the reach of sin (even before Christ) for the sake of holding myself out to others as an example to follow? Yet, this sort of bizarre Baptist behavior is epidemic in our IFB churches. I, like Bruce, speak from experience. If any of this JS stuff proves anything, it’s why we need a Savior!
One man did wrong. There’s no need to blame First Baptist Church for it. Much less the entire Fundamental Baptist movement. Every man is responsible for his own actions.
Hi, Bruce,
You’ve pretty much nailed it on the head in pointing out the hypocrisy in the church, and it’s a sad state of affairs, indeed! But, as you know all too well, all human beings are sinful, including “Christians.” The only differences amongst men is that some of us admit our sin and continuously fights against our sinful nature over and over again, while others don’t. There is a reason why Jesus included the words, “Depart from me . . . I never knew you.” I don’t know who those people are that He will command to depart from Him, but He does.
And keeping a balanced and honest view of these issues is the other side of the coin, as well. As you also well know, there are those of us who know we’re sinners, saved sinners, but sinners nonetheless. There are those of us who know what’s in our own eye and, in the love that Christ commands, do our best to avoid pointing out that someone else has something in their eye.
Likewise, there are those of us who acknowledge that it’s not our job to judge those outside the church (as unsaved), but to love and pray for them. At the same time, we respect their right to choose, i.e, exercise the very free will that God gave to them in the first place. Honestly, who are we to trump their free will when God himself gives that to them Himself?
So, I agree with a substantial portion of what you have shared in truth, and in truth I likewise appeal to you to keep balance in your own view and for you to not judge all, some of whom are honest in their faith by our confusing them with those who aren’t? By it’s very nature, being judgmental and intolerant of those who are judgmental and intolerant actually puts us in their camp–keep balance, my Brother!
In His love and truth,
Mick