**Recently it was brought to my attention that Pastor Schaap made some statements in an April 23rd sermon about people who critique and scrutinize his books and/or sermons. He went on to say that he was basically just wingin' it with his sermons and not concerned with who agreed or disagreed with him. He wrapped it all up by advising the critics to write their own cotton-pickin' books so that he could analyze and dissect them.
I personally believe that if you are going to write a book or preach a sermon that you need to be able to back up what you state or write Biblically and in the proper context--to have the attitude that it does not matter or that you do not owe anyone a clarification is nothing but the heighth of arrogance. I am sure that there are many areas where Pastor Schaap and I would agree and find some common ground. We are not attempting to pick on every little mistake or misstatement he makes--we simply want to look at some of the revisionist history that has been going on in Hammond for years and continues to this day.
**************************************************************************
To listen to a current sermon or to read a recent book by Pastor Jack Schaap is to inevitably hear him chatter about his version of the legacy of the late Pastor Jack Hyles. At this point let me interject that I do cut him some slack since Hyles was his father-in-law, but even with that in mind his adoration of all things Hyles is nothing short of nauseating. As a loyal Hylesite some years ago, this particular proclivity of Pastor Schaap would not have even caused me to "bat an eye". As I now listen to his sermons at Baptist City and read his books from Hyles Publications, I am struck by the similarities between he and Jack Hyles.
Since the LORD removed the cobwebs of cultural fundamentalism from my mind and heart, it has been interesting to notice some of these things for the very first time. When you are entangled in the politics and emotional rhetoric of IFBxdom, it is nearly impossible to see the exaggerations, fabrications, and all out tall tales that are synonymous with HAC/FBCH. Hyles was a master at these home spun stories and anecdotal illustrations, but I do believe that Pastor Schaap has surpassed his teacher and dethroned him as IFBX's newest "Uncle Arthur".
I want to begin looking at a particular chapter in Pastor Schaap's book entitled, "Principles of Church Growth". The title of this particular chapter is "Balancing the Past With the Present" in which he is attempting to motivate his flock to greater goals and higher attendance aspirations! This chapter is chock full of interesting teachings and it will probably take a few posts to look at all of the revisionist history contained in just this chapter. This entire book is based on the book of Acts, but has a good bit of John's Revelation sprinkled throughout. On pages 145 and 146 Pastor Schaap begins to build his case for rejecting the idea that we are living in the "Laodicean Age" by stating:
"When I was a freshman in college, I was enraptured with the teaching of theologians regarding the seven different church ages, and I thought it was very intriguing. However, as I studied the Bible, I found this teaching was a bunch of baloney.I was relieved when I found out Brother Hyles thought this teaching was a bunch of baloney, too! I felt vindicated. Every theologian I have ever read states that he felt he was living in the Laodicean Age, whether that theologian lived 1,000 years ago or is presently living.
One reason I believe theologians teach this is because the Laodicean Age was a compromised age, and it appears that Jesus is just about ready to return. It appears that not much church building can go on. My personal opinion is that theologians write that because they are too cotton-pickin' lazy to go out and knock on doors and build bus routes. Or maybe these theologians tried building a church and failed, so now they would rather tell everyone that building a church can't be done. They write books instead!
This business of church ages is not in the Scriptures. The reason I do not like or believe this theory is because my heart is set on church growth, not on church excuse. I'm not looking for an excuse as to why First Baptist Church of Hammond cannot go to the next stage of growth. During the fall of 2003, First Baptist Church started 17 new adult Sunday School classes...If I believed that we are living in the "Laodicean Age", starting new Sunday school classes would be the stupidest thing I could ever do. If I believed we are living in the Laodicean Age, I would just get comfortable in my pulpit and tend the flock God has given me and let the law of attrition peel off church members as they die or move away until eventually the church could meet in the two center sections of the auditorium and talk about the glory days of the past and the good old days when Brother Hyles used to be here."
Later on page 148, Pastor Schaap describes this conversation:
"I was talking to a man about our church recently. He said, 'Name your top men.' I gave him the names of my men who are great producers and loyal helpers in our ministry. He then asked, 'What kind of man do you have in your bus ministry?' I said, 'I could pick up the phone and make one phone call and have 5,000 more people next Sunday.' "Initially, I would ask readers to take notice of the mysterious absence of any mention of the glory of God. This is nothing new to anyone even marginally familiar with this ministry, however. I will stop now and open this one up for some discussion. Later on we will look at the rest of the chapter as Pastor Schaap waxes eloquent on the demise of churches once pastored by Charles Spurgeon, D.L. Moody, and Charles Finney. You will see the predictable ploy of attempting to compare these men to Jack Hyles--Finney is actually a great comparison, but the attempt to link C.H. Spurgeon and D.L. Moody to Hyles is a quantum leap!
I could not help but chuckle as I read Pastor Schaap correcting theologians for their teaching that was obviously tainted by their laziness and lack of evangelistic zeal! He goes on to assume that many of them probably had never built a church or tried and failed miserably so they teach and write books now! The irony here is that Pastor Schaap never pastored a day in his life until he was given his father-in-law's church! The person at FBCH considered an "expert" on church building is none other than a man, Bob Marshall, who has not pastored a second in his life!
I also noticed that Pastor Schaap assumes that anyone who believes we are living in the Laodicean Age is obviously not concerned about souls or seeing their church grow. Why do these folks always have to cast others in this light? In their eyes it seems anyone who disagrees with their methodology or theology is obviously a lazy rascal who cannot or will not be a witness for the LORD Jesus Christ.
Any other takes on what you have read? I started the ball rolling now someone else needs to take over...
Phineas
30 comments:
Same story yet ten years later. I often think back to when Hyles would rant about the "deeper life theologians" who were too lazy to go soul winning and build a church. Only problem with Hyles saying that is the fact that Hyles himself was not a regular soul winner and did not personally go out soul winning for nearly twenty years. What a sham!!!
It has been fun having much of this same discussion over at the FFF. Why is it that so many of the followers of Schaap/Hyles fail to look past the surface issues of being enamored with their personalities and never look at what Scripture really teaches about man worship?
Sad, truly sad.
Have a fabulous evening!!!
Matthew,
Sadly, I'm also not a believer of church ages and don't beleive we're living in the Laodicean age. I'm just not a dispensational guy.
Anyway, I do see a lot of similarities between FBC/HAC and the church at Sardis (http://wildernessvoice.com/revelation/rev3-1to6.html).
At Sardis we see a church that existed for several centuries. Their big fault was that they were spiritually dead and didn't even know it.
What made them dead? Their utter abandonment of doctrine. Despite their worst efforts to preserve and to teach sound doctrine, Christ declared that there were some names there that were actual believers.
The reason I see the similarities is that FBC believes they're on fire for God. They've got it made and look at all their good works. But it's one of the world's biggest Tare factories.
The church of Laodicea was neither hot nor cold. This definitely doesn't describe such a ministry. They're definitely hot. But they're still dead.
Then I consider how you and your brother came out of there. My wife is also a product of that ministry. But in each of your cases, your eyes have been opened up to the truth of scripture, which is contrary to what you were rigorously taught.
Do you see why I equate it to Sardis? The elders at Sardis probably also considered their true believers to be heretics and trouble makers.
Anyway, it is a good article and I really don't mean to split hairs about ages, etc. I'm just dealing with the first three chapters of revelation in the literal sense in which they were written to the seven churches. The seven churches stand as great examples of the types of churches we can mimic.
Keep up the great work and I'm looking forward to the follow post.
-Mike
You are exactly right!!!!
Same old thing. Exaggeration and all glory to Jack. They are two peas in a pod! Such humility????
I love to hear these men tell us how "great" they are! Illustration after illustration on their "great" exploits for God. God needs them! It is almost as if God can't exist without them.
I don't necessarily agree witht the Laodicean Age either--my point was all of the assumptions and arrogance attached to his "reason" for disputing it. This post was more to begin to show the revision of history and wild assumptions that FBCH is famous for.
Thanks for your comments and I do see the similarities between FBCH and the church at Sardis.
Matthew
jk stated: "4. You yahoos out here in cyberspace are not - I repeat, are not - allowed to define (or apparently comment on) his - yes, his - ministry. (He's got a monopoly on that, just like any absolute monarchy or dictatorship would in a third world country - or early 20th century Germany, I suppose)."
Ouch! This reminds me of a post to be made in the near future regarding accountability---something TOTALLY ABSENT in Hammond (unless you are a teenager on MySpace.com). Sig Heil!
It would be a mistake to expect a sermon from the FBCH pulpit to stick to the text---that is exactly what it will NOT do. Those pesky systematic sermons never generate enough "AMENS" and "Glory Hallelujahs".
Edward,
What did you learn? Perhaps you can bless us with what you gleaned. I'm serious.
-Mike
Ed,
Good to see you back. Now that we know that you have returned, could you please address the questions from the previous post on the KJVO position? That has yet to be addressed. Once you have done that, we would love to be enlightened on what you learned from last night's spit fest.
Have a fabulous day!!!
Mike
If Schaap is "winging it," he is going to be in big trouble on judgment day. Jesus in Matthew says we will give an account for every idle word. And James said that teachers will receive the greater judgment.
".not because FBC is a circus, but because those who post here aer a circus act...more like a freak show sometimes. Catch you freaks later! Ed"
Ed, did you write the above? jb
Ed,
I’m real. I deleted the post because it was negative and did not properly address the topic presented by Matthew. It was written in the wrong spirit. And I’m fairly certain that if Pastor Schaap had read the post he would know who wrote it; I’ve approached him about issues in the past.
On to the commentary about the seven churches. I don’t see church ages in this passage, but I do see a challenge to church members to overcome in their own lives the weaknesses of the church. Most church members will go along with the status quo, but those who do not, but in fact overcome, will be rewarded. The realization that I cannot let the church be my excuse for underachieving has me examining my church, FBCH, lately, to see its shortcomings.
I think that many who post here had a similar realization at some point and began to examine the institutions (IFBx churches, FBCH, HAC, etc.) they were born into or submitted themselves to for a period of time. They decided to step back for a biblical perspective and eventually courageously stepped out, away from those they grew up with and those they were taught to seek approval from. It would usually be easier for these to go along with the status quo, but they are trying to please Christ, not the church or college they attended. So you find them here at B&C, imperfect (negative and argumentative at times, like me), but trying to sort out and/or proclaim what was, in fact, wrong and warn others about it. FBCH/HAC/certain IFBx churches have built-in defenses against potential overcomers – primarily numbers (pragmatism) – so that their circular logic is nearly impregnable. There is much that these institutions do well, and it would be an error to forget these things. The only reason I am still at FBCH is because so many things are done well, but I am beginning to suspect the well-done things are primarily cosmetic.
jk
JK,
Thanks for your honest analyses. I can tell that they were heartfelt and sincere. I hope that we are able to soften much of what is perceived as "bile" and "venom" here at B&C. It is difficult to please everyone--the very existence of a place like this is tantamount to treason in the eyes of the IFBx--even ONE negative comment would negate its relevance in their minds.
I for one am very glad that you are here and participating in the discussion--there is room under the big top for more FBCHers! Maybe we should run a promotion of sorts?
Matthew
There really isn't any room for meanness, spite, or hatred. And I really don't think that has been conveyed in any of the articles. I honestly think the most contempt, disregard for others, and ill treatment has come from Edward. As I've said before, there is absolutely nothing Christian about any of his dialogue.
With respect to what goes on at FBCH, or my former church at NVBC (nvbc.org), is that much does have the appearance of being so very good. As I've noted before, I arrived at NVBC when I moved from Jax FL to San Jose CA. I was a southern baptist at the time and knew absolutely nothing about IFB.
What truly impressed me was seeing the incredible emphasis on soul winning. My first impression was that these guys really had their priorities straight. I couldn't wait to be a part of it and was a member of the Soul Winning Attack Team (SWAT).
After being in that ministry for 18 months to 2 years, I began to notice the errors and inconsistencies with the word of God. I also noticed it in every single guest preacher's message too. There were common themes to preach and common methods. It's like you heard the same things over and over. And it's not like the stuff preached really needed to be said. It would usually contradict scripture; and no one seemed to care.
Anyway, I really don't want to nit pick on specifics. I simply think of the church at Sardis and also the folks in Matt 7. In both cases you've got pastors, elders, and the bulk of the congregations sentenced to the lake of fire because they were ultimately unregenerate.
Check the fruit of the spirit in all who claim Christ. And see whether there is any love towards their fellow brethren, neighbor and enemy. If not, then beware.
To All,
I think one of the greatest tragedies within the FBCH/HAC ministerial community is the constant degradation of theologians.
I noticed from your book excerpt that theologians are made to be the bad guys - the nerdy, lazy, liberals who write books instead of go soul winning. (Apparently, only select IFB celebs are capable of reaching the lost and "writing' books!)
Granted, there are some pretty lousy theologians, but not all. Likewise, there are some pretty lousy ind. fund. Baptists, but not all.
It is such a shame that in some IFBx circles, "theologian" is tantamount to "heretic". This animosity towards theologians, and subsequently theology in general, inevitably leads to shallow doctrine and an overemphasis on petty surface issues.
jk stated: There is much that these institutions do well, and it would be an error to forget these things. The only reason I am still at FBCH is because so many things are done well, but I am beginning to suspect the well-done things are primarily cosmetic.
Josh: There indeed are still things that they do well and could be emulated for good. I am finding those items to be less and less, however. Don't get me wrong, there are hundreds of fine, faithful people there. What troubles me is the incredible lack of concern/thirst for solid, Biblical preaching. Many, many of them have never known it so probably do not even realize that it exists. They need a lot less quasi-pop-psychology and a lot more theological contextual Biblical truth. Without this element a congregation is bound to stagnate even if they don't realize it because they are so busy.
Back when I was pretty fired up to be an IFBxer (around 1994), I started to see a trend within the congregation and soon saw it with those who visited. Back then I dubbed it "Derivitive Theology". What I noticed was that with a decline in scholarship, people were forced to rely more and more on obtaining their doctrinal stances from those above them. And when they passed on or died off, we would take yet another derivitive.
Consider the theological stance currently taken vs. under even Hyles or Lee Roberson or Tom Malone.
What we have now is nothing close to those men before. And they were weak in various areas that contradicted with their dogma too.
The problem with the succeeding generations is that they're merely taught to replicate what they've been taught. And since it's not pure doctrine, there is no promise of preservation to cling to, hence what doctrine's there gets more and more dilluted.
Why is it that many FBCH and HAC visitors to B&C cannot answer the questions posed with biblical references? Why is it all they can do is hurl insults such as call us liberals, freaks, heretics, and puff themselves up to be a great hero of the faith. It sounds like what Hyles did when an opposer objected to his unbiblical teaching or practice-he cut them down and called them maneuer spreaders. It's called deflection.
As far as the topic posted, I look at the seven churches as possibly seven denominations within the church. Each branch of the church has a different gift and fault. But that is just an initial impression and I've not realy studied it. It could just be historical. I do some possible analogies for man-centered and numbers centered churches. All of the Bible was written for reproof, doctrine, instruction in righteousness, so whethere something is meant for a particular church or not, there is still something all of us can learn. The big point made by the expose of the Laodician church was that they were lukewarm. That describes much of what is called Christianity today. But I also see those churches who think they are hot but are not, those who have charity but don't have doctrine, those who say they are Christian but really follow Satan, those who teach false doctrine,works, etc., So I guess this is consistent with my initial theory.
Also, regarding Mr. Schaap's assumption that those who write are not "soul-winning", he's wrong.
I am a writer and I've witnessed to several people this week. And many of the greatest "soul winners" were authors as well.
In my view, writing is an extension of the teaching gift and if that is the case, the one writing ought to be mindful of
2 Timothy 2:15 where we are told to study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. If we are going to write about biblical matters, we must hold ourselves to a standard of "dividing" or dissecting and expounding on the Word of truth, not merely speaking off-the- cuff. From a strictly literary view, writers are suppose to be sure of their facts before they include them in a book. There are two kinds of writers "plotser" and "pantser". The Plotser writes strictly from a planned and outlined method while the Panster writes "from the seat of his pants". Both, however, are concerned with accuracy and relevancy in conent and historical placement/setting. So, whether or not Mr. Schaap was writing off-the cuff is irrelevant; he still needs to be accurate in his writing. Also, writers are always under the scruntiny of their readers, not the other way around.
Ed said:
"I would rather be a lousy thelogian and great personal soulwinner than a lousy soulwinner and great theologian. "
Why can't a person be both a good theologian and a good soul winner? Why does it have to be either/or. your comment implies exactly that.
Ed said:
"Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners..he sends us just as the Father sent him-our main task is to win souls. I did not write it...God did so take it up with him."
Again with the rhetoric? Why should I "take it up with Him?" I believe in reaching the lost and do it every week. Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with FBCH or studies theology does not reach the lost? You prove my point even more that FBCH places a black cloud of suspicion over anything "theological".
Ed said:
"It really is quite simple. I don't expect those of you who believe in Lordship Salvation or what I call plain old works salvation to agree with me on this point."
Not sure that I could be labeled thusly, but I do believe one of the primary functions of the church is to reach the lost.
Ed said:
"Everything we do as Christians or as a church ought to be in order to win more souls to Christ"
Really? Everything? I thought all was to be done for the glory of Christ. God's glory is the chief end of all, soul winning included. It's not that I'm against winning more souls, it's just that it should be done with discipleship in mind, not with more numbers repeating a prayer in mind. A proper understanding of the Great Comission will show this.
Ed said:
"...the harvest is plenteous but the labourers are very few. This blog is a good case adn point."
Again, you assume that any who disagree with you are not labouring. You also assume that those engaged in writing for this blog, and commenting on this blog do not reach the lost (except for you, of course). And again you've proved my point that there is a false dichotomy made between theologians and soul winners.
I'll leave you with some quotes from Charles Spurgeon (one of your hero's hero):
"Brethren, if you are not theologians you are in your pastorates just nothing at all. You may be fine rhetoricians, and be rich in polished sentences; but without knowledge of the gospel, and
aptness to teach it, you are but a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal."
"Ignorance of theology is no rare thing in our pulpits, and the
wonder is not that so few men are extempore speakers, but that so many
are, when theologians are so scarce. We shall never have great preachers
till we have great divines. You cannot build a man-of-war out of a currant bush, nor can great soul-moving preachers be formed out of superficial students."
You see, Ed, not only should we be soul winners, but we should also be theologians.
beckyjoie,
We have to realize that in Pastor Schaap's case, the books are simply sermons or studies compiled by topic (usually a series of studies), lightly edited and proofed, then put out there for the world. He does not write them per se; he preaches them. It may not be fair to evaluate them as books.
But they look and feel so much like books, it's hard to resist calling them books.
His preaching style seems to be extemporaneous and his comments on the matter (April 23rd a.m.) appear to verify that observation. Unfortunately, lightly edited extemporaneous studies do not yield memorable books.
jk
JK, how true and all the more reason why the comments should not be off the cuff. A sermon should be the result of studied Bible text.
Matthew Sims,
you are correct. The term "winning souls" in Proverbs 11:30 is talking more about winning the person over by your righteous living. It says the righteous will have more influence and fruit than the ungodly. It doesn't say they will go door to door.
Sing this new version of Sam Cook's song: "Don't know much about theology, don't know much eschatology, don't know much about history but I think I know the KJV...."
Circusers,
Greetings and salutations. My wife, Amber just gave birth this past Wednesday to our first little . We named her Linda Lanae--my mother who went to Heaven after an eight year battle with breast cancer was Linda. We just walked through the door and are so glad to be home. She was born at 7:06 on Wednesday evening--we missed church by the way.
I have not had much time if any to check on the blog, but it seems like things are going as they normally go here under the big top! I would like to comment on the fact that Schaap feels like he does not owe any explanations for what he writes or says because he is "just wingin' it"?
This is a perfect example of why topical and pop-psychology laiden sermons are anthropocentric and usually extremely unprofitable. If you are preaching the Word and especially what is obviously taught in the Word, you do not need to despair so much about your sermons.
Matthew
Matthew,
Congrats on the little one! Welcome to the wonderful world of fatherhood!
actually I have two boys ages 8 and 6--I made a copyist type error and forgot to insert the word, "girl". Linda is our first but our third overall--she even smells different than the boys did!
BTW, I leave cyberspace for a couple of days and come back to find Coyote gone? I thought initially he was stepping away from just the Underground--now he is leaving altogether. He will be missed.
Matthew
Matthew,
Congrats from Chelle and me!!! That's awesome.
-Mike
Matthew,
That is AWESOME!!! I rejoice with you and Amber in the arrival of your new little one. May God bless you as you raise this child in the nurture and admonition of the the Lord!
Mike
Ryan said:
"Just about every book in the New Testament commands its reader to study the Word of God. If a person does not see them it is because he (a) is brainwashed, and (b) doesn't read the Bible himself. To this we must add (c) they ignore the commands out of fear."
and..
"It's even harder for a thirty year old Christian to admit they spent ten years of their life in a false or seriously deficient religion."
I just wanted to Amen that.
ryan and joe,
I'll add one more thing to this that ought to wake some folks up. It is impossible to understand the word of God and to live consistent with it and still be a tare.
However, unregenerate scholars can retain enough facts from scripture to sound convincing, but manifest they are tares in the lives they live. Likewise, it is very easy under derivitive theology, and men's standards, to be a counterfeit.
So, this is why personal study is so vital and why every Christian, to a certain extent, is to be a theologian. This is what the folks in Berea did.
Let's face it, every man we know is fully capable of error. And those who have gone before us had the same problem. So, while there are many great preachers to learn from, it is less important the doctrines they preached than how they personally wrestled with and dealt with the scriptures in the face of their challenges. I mean this as it applies to us generations later. Don't take this to mean that I don't care about doctrines preached in the past. I mean that we should derive doctrine from our studies in God's word. We should learn from these other men, how to live against the opposition of the world and with our own frailty.
Also,
To derive one's theology from a careful theologian is one thing--to derive one's theology from a buffoonish IFBx ringmaster is quite another. Neither are ideal, but this is what brought us to the quote in our sidebar:
"The errors of Hylesology will only be surpassed by the theological errors of the next generation of his most devoted disciples."
Spiritual inbreeding is much more dangerous than the inbreeding going on in the backwoods of _________. I didn't want to name a state that someone here under the big top calls home--I am attempting to be diplomatic!
Matthew
:-)
Post a Comment