Well Fed???? Part 2 Conclusion

Here is the second part and conclusion to the "Well Fed" post. In Part 1 I explained that Pastor Schaap goes to great lengths to emphasize the fact that the FBCH congregation was and still is very well fed from the Word every week. As I read this passage in his book, I was wondering how he came to this conclusion--I do, however, realize this is a very general claim that any pastor would claim concerning his respective church. Pastor Schaap goes on to explain how he defines a "well fed" church. This is how Pastor Schaap came to these conclusions regarding the flock in Hammond and the extended FBCH flock across the globe. On page 11 of "Principles of Church Growth", Pastor Schaap opines:

"I think of all the soul-winning teaching of Brother Hyles through the years. How many times he pounded his fist on the pulpit, thundering out to the First Baptist Church members to be soul winners. Two of Brother Hyles' greatest messages, "If You Can't Be A Soul Winner, Be A Soul Warner" and "The Four Calls To Soulwinning" were filled with powerful, powerful truths.

Again and again Brother Hyles thundered out the truths about soulwinning, the King James Bible, separation, the body of Christ, and the blood of Jesus Christ. His studies of the Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon gave us teachings that helped us with our marriages, our child rearing, and our families. These truths make us more accountable because we have received much.

The First Baptist Church people continue to be very richly nourished from Brother Hyles' many tributaries: his books, his Bible studies, his preaching, and his counseling. First Baptist Church and Christians across the world are recipients of a rich, flavorful menu as we have our libraries stocked with Brother Hyles' materials; our minds and our memories are filled with his voice and his teachings. We have been well fed."

Did anyone else notice how Pastor Schaap describes being "well fed"? In his world the foundational truths that need to be "thundered" from a pastor's pulpit ministry are:

1. Soulwinning
2. King James Bible
3. Separation
4. The body of Christ
5. The blood of Christ

These are the ingredients of a well fed church flock according to the leader of IFBxdom. I don't think that anyone would disagree with the last two, but even these would be considered foundational doctrines that all Christians regardless of their maturity would need to embrace. I believe that we see here what truly motivates FBCH whether Hyles is pastor or Jack Schaap--they can try to say that things have changed for the better--statements like these are what cause me to doubt the veracity of those claims.

Until FBCH changes her philosophy of ministry those who attend will NOT be Biblically well fed. As long as their ministry focus follows the above list, the dear people in the congregation will continue to be malnourished. Members of FBCH may believe sincerely with all of their hearts that they ARE well fed--I believe they are sincerely wrong--unless they go elsewhere (radio preachers, good books, the Word of God without the IFBx filter, etc...) they will never grow up into Christ. I certainly do not wish to imply that I have arrived in my spiritual walk--nothing could be further from the truth. I am still daily learning and studying so that I might bring forth fruit to the glory of God. I am burdened by the delusional statements that emanate from the pulpit of FBCH on a regular basis--let's pray that eyes will be opened and the ship will be righted or that folks will abandon ship and seek a Christ-centered church.

Here are some questions: Is a "powerful truth" sometimes different than a Biblical truth? Is a church only well fed when they hear the topics of soulwinning, separation, KJB, the blood of Christ, and the body of Christ thundered from the pulpit on a regular basis? Can a church truly be well fed outside of regular and systematic expository preaching? Is it possible for a man-centered and numbers driven church to be well fed? We would love to hear your thoughts on this--maybe I am way off base and just don't realize it yet.

Colossians 1:3-6;9-14 ESB "We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing —as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth...And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

Phineas

Well Fed???? Part 1

As a young person I can remember vividly an illustration that Pastor Hyles gave on numerous occasions regarding the Biblical literacy of his parishioners. Here is a brief summary of the story--you will get the gist. A pastor (obviously a BJU or Master's Seminary educated "deeper- lifer") told Bro. Hyles that he basically had a church full of busy Christians who knew very little Bible doctrine--Hyles proceeded to challenge the pastor to a Bible knowledge showdown. Bro. Hyles offered to write up some questions for this other pastor's flock and the other pastor was to do likewise--only one church would be crowned Bible Bowl Champion! Of course the other pastor (he will remain nameless since he probably was invented for this story) declined the challenge and at this point the raucous FBCH Sunday evening crowd would erupt into wild shouts of "Glory!" and "Come on, Preacher!" This was one of my favorite bits that Pastor Hyles would regularly entertain us with.

Fast forward 20 years to 2004--Pastor Jack Schaap is now at the helm of the USS Sibley and he has obviously bought into the bit about FBCH and her "well fed" flock. I was recently thumbing through a book written by Jack Schaap entitled, "Principles of Church Growth", and found some gems that go along perfectly with this idea of IFBxers and their "well fed" and "well watered" congregations. What initially caught my attention was the very first chapter, "Rich, Fat, Salty, Lazy, and Dead". Here are some highlights--this will take a couple of posts:

Pastor Schaap begins with some interesting facts about the Dead Sea also known as the Salt Sea. He points out that this body of water is well fed but does not flow anywhere--apparently this is what causes it to be toxic and unable to sustain life. Pastor Schaap goes on to relate this story to the First Baptist Church of Hammond and the "fact" that she is now and always has been "well fed". On page 10 of his book, Principles of Church Growth, Pastor Schaap writes:

"The congregation of the First Baptist Church of Hammond has been and continues to be well fed. I do not apologize for that statement. I am not ashamed to admit that I am a student of the Bible, I study it diligently, and have been studying and preaching it for nearly 30 years. When I first began teaching at Hyles-Anderson College, my wife can testify to this, there was rarely a night that I went to bed before 1:30 in the morning because I was studying and laboring. With my books all around me, I had no idea that I was gathering into the storage files of my mind the tools necessary to bring to the First Baptist Church congregation the truths that I teach and preach week after week.

I was a student of Brother Hyles and other good men. I love good books. I have been a reader of good books and a student of good men for these nearly 30 years that I have been in the ministry...I say all of that to say this: First Baptist Church was well fed by Brother Hyles. First Baptist Church continues to be well fed from the pulpit--that is important to me. I work hard at it. I want the First Baptist Church congregation to be well fed, and they will continue to be well fed."

Those of you who currently attend or have attended FBCH in the past--would you agree with Pastor Schaap's unbiased assessment? I certainly do not listen to every message preached at FBCH, but judging from the sermons I have recently listened to his statements are somewhat curious. Part 2 will tell us how Pastor Schaap comes to this conclusion and what his definition of a "well fed" church actually is.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Phineas

Philippians 1:9-11 ESV "And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God."

The Label of "Fundamentalism" Part 2 by Dan Davey

Here is the second part of the post we made a couple days ago--a message delivered by Dr. Dan Davey who is pastor of Colonial Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia. If you have not had a chance to read Part 1 I would encourage you to read it before jumping into the second half. I trust that this will be a catalyst for some good discussions on fundamentalism.

Phineas

The Label of "Fundamentalism" Part 2 by Dr. Dan Davey

The second category is made-up of conservative evangelicals. These are well-written men who take a strong stand on certain--—and I underscore "“certain"--—cultural and theological issues. They are well-respected men and speak with an air of authority. This group includes such men as John MacArthur, John Piper, Philip Graham Ryken, R. Kent Hughes, D. A. Carson, and a few in the conservative movement of the Southern Baptist Denomination. These men speak with one accord on the integrity of Scripture and the necessity of this written truth being foundational in the church today. They are decrying the culturally-relevant church as the modern-day Laodicean church, and are calling all evangelicals back to the Word. However, this group--as powerful as it is--—finds itself with major flaws, of which one of their own, David Wells, has carefully crafted in an extensive and well-written expose entitled No Place for Truth, subtitled, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? Their major problem is actually a crisis of implementation--—the effecting of boundaries, or better termed, ecclesiastical separation. For example, John Piper takes a proper and strong stand against "“open theism."” He forcefully takes on Greg Boyd, a fellow pastor just a few miles away from his church in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Though Piper says Boyd'’s view is scriptural heresy and a direct attack on the God of Scripture, he stays in the same Baptist denomination with Greg Boyd who openly espouses Piper'’s theological aggravation. Piper is to be commended for his public debate and well-written position, but his lack of Spurgeonic conviction allows him to remain in a denomination that, in his words, holds a view that is a direct attack on the God of Scripture. This category of evangelicalism does not seem willing to follow the apostle Paul's directive which concludes his most formidable statement on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, when he plainly writes, "Now I urge you brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." Therefore, the net result is that this category has some excellent proponents who write eloquently on certain subjects, but confuse an innumerable host of followers because their written word is not precisely illustrated in their daily word. In sum, the disciples of their ministries and works have not been able to clearly mark the difference between anaginosis and epiginosis.

The final category relates to our question today, and is the category in which most of us in this auditorium find ourselves. As a formal term, "Fundamentalist"” was first put into literary usage on July 1, 1920--—exactly 84 years ago this month. Curtis Lee Laws wrote in the Watchman-Examiner:

"We here and now move that a new word be adopted to describe the men
among us who insist that the landmarks shall not be removed...… We suggest that those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals shall be called 'Fundamentalists'’."

Laws' definition has marked our movement by three distinct pillars: First, fundamentalists hold to the integrity of Scripture. Second, they will do battle royal over these biblical truths. Silence is not an alternative. Interestingly, the conservative evangelical group finds great commonality with fundamentalism on these first two pillars. By way of illustration, I would submit to you John MacArthur'’s article, "“What are the fundamentals of Christianity", in his 35th anniversary anthology entitled, Truth Matters. Clearly, in this article he embraces these two historic pillars.

The third pillar is actually the inevitable outgrowth of Laws'’ penmanship. Those in the major denominations who "“did battle royal"” for the truth in the first half of the 1900s, eventually were forced to embrace the New Testament doctrine of separation. After the Bible Conferences were over, and the denominational floors sat silent from debate, and small church prayer meetings asking for God'’s wisdom were concluded, many denominational fundamentalist men did what only what was left for them to do--—much like Spurgeon did before them with his beloved Baptist Union--—and that was to separate from those who practice doctrinal inclusivism. If heresy was to be tolerated by their denomination, then, with tears and sackcloth, they slowly but methodically left their beloved denominations, colleges, seminaries, in some cases, life-long friends, and most excruciatingly, their pulpits.

Now, as I fast forward the fundamentalist movement to the present day we find our beloved movement facing two clear issues--—one of international concern and the other more germane to our conference. Internationally, the term "“fundamentalist"” has militant, cultural overtones. Often, missionaries prefer to delete this term from their vocabulary since the nationals with which they work do not have the mental strength to understand the difference between a "“theological fundamentalist"” and a "“Moslem fundamentalist."” In such cases, we must allow our missionaries the freedom to use or strike this term from their vocabulary depending on their cultural judgment. Such an international challenge may cause us pause in American terminology, but not abandonment--—at least as of today.

However, the other issue facing our beloved movement and more relevant to our current discussion, is the polarization of American fundamentalism into two distinct factions. This divide has rocked fundamentalism to its core so that now some are asking if we should throw off the old label and find a new one--—as if a new garment will somehow heal our festering sores. I contend that just as a bandage will not heal a physical wound, so a fresh garment (i.e. a new label) will not heal the deep lesions of fundamentalism. I humbly, but strongly submit to this body of fundamentalists not to cast off our identifying historic label--—at least not now. What is needed is to clearly dissect our current problem in fundamentalism, and, in Pauline metaphorical terminology, "“cast out the bondwoman."” In simple terms, I offer this short analysis.

Fundamentalism is viewed today through the eyes of not just the younger generation, but many in the evangelical movement, as a group of small thinkers, loud talkers, and silly teachers. Yet, what they really see is not, I repeat, not, those who identify themselves as "“historic fundamentalists"” but a loud, nt, vocal group of "“cultural fundamentalists."” This narrow subset of fundamentalists equates any change or moderation from the past as synonymous with spiritual compromise and worldliness. They are suspicious of anyone in their movement who reads from a different English translation, sings from a different hymnbook, embraces a different methodological principle for church visitation or church worship, or reaches out to someone of a different ethnicity. They are quick to denounce, and they emphasize a militant separation from those who do not see eye-to-eye with them on the external issues of culture. These have little regard for the significance of Spirit baptism--—which is the judicious placement of all believers into the Body of Christ--—and all its attendant blessings; rather, they quickly write off good brothers without personal investigation, personal contact, and personal prayer. In short, cultural fundamentalists treat anyone who does not agree with them on their cultural issues as an enemy of the faith. Therefore, they may be found immersed in their own form of Galatianism, or pure legalism; hence, they are identified by what they abrasively emphasize. Their self-created brand of fundamentalism is less than true to their historic roots, and they operate in an exegetical vacuum. They talk of Scripture, but they most often speak around the text or above the text, and not the full and accurate exposition of the text in its context. These non-exegetical, issue-orientated men have boldly, but wrongly hijacked our beloved term. They speak vociferously, but they do not speak for us.

Historic fundamentalism, on the other hand, functions as did their historic ancestors. Time will not allow me to identify all that this movement has done and is now doing, but it is my prayer that this conference will clearly identify who we are, and deal fully and accurately with the text of Scripture and the history of our movement so that like the men of Issachar, "“we will have an understanding of our times."” Yet, I cannot conclude without giving you seven words that have marked historic fundamentalism and will I pray continue to do so. These words are Christ, Scripture, church, grace, holiness, separation, and love. When these words are fully understood in their biblical framework and their historic application within our movement, one can easily distinguish between cultural fundamentalists and the historic fundamentalist. Simply put, one is marked by their dogmatic discussion of issues and their insistence that all true fundamentalists accept their position, while the other is marked by their insistence upon the exposition of Scripture and how it properly applies within its context to the full Body of Christ.

The younger generation of historic fundamentalists eagerly awaits our immediate action, and properly demands from us a unified, articulate voice--—in both written and oral forms. Therefore, we must not abandon either our rich history nor our full label. In contrast with the past few decades, let us properly and resoundingly defend and promote historic fundamentalism with one heart and one voice. We stand at an incredible cross-roads within our movement, and we cannot pretend that silence will erase our problems. In addition, we must not allow our movement to be hustled by weak-thinking culturalists. Let us resolve here and now to stand together--—shoulder-to-shoulder, church-to-church, ministry-to-ministry--—on the theological issues of biblical truth. Make no mistake, neither open or conservative evangelicals properly understand us, and I strongly submit to you that cultural fundamentalists are in the same unlettered--—or more directly--—ignorant position. Surely, we fundamentalists will see cultural accessories in different lights--—let'’s accept this about one another, and move on. These cultural issues do not divide us nor define us--—either in history past or history present. Like our initiating forefathers, Jesus Christ, Holy Scripture, and pure theology inseparably bind us together.

I beg you, as a body of thinking fundamentalists, let us capture and master this opportunity history has handed to us. We must not fail, indeed, if I speak the truth and by the grace of Jesus Christ, we will not fail. May God help and empower us--—as a Body of historic fundamentalists--—to fully flesh-out Romans 15:5-6, which says, "Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Jesus Christ, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Amen.

The Label of "Fundamentalism" Part 1 by Dan Davey

In July of 2004 I heard Dr. Davey deliver this message concerning what he believed to be the current condition of Fundamentalism. He communicated the lecture with passion and an obvious burden for a return to historic Fundamentalism. No doubt there will be some things here that we all will not agree on, but I believe that this is a great conversation starter in regards to true Fundamentalism. Feel free to share your concerns and/or observations. BTW, I sent Dr. Davey an email asking for his permission to post this and he responded within 24 hours with a very gracious and humble spirit--much more than I can say for some others.

We will post this in two installments since it is rather lengthy--please do not let that keep you from reading it as I believe it is worth your careful consideration. You can check out Colonial Baptist Church and Central Baptist Theological Seminary for some more background on the ministry that the LORD has entrusted to Dr. Davey.

Phineas Taylor Barnum


I, too was present when this lecture was given in Indianapolis. It was and still is like a refreshing breath of spring to see articulated what I have now come to realize regarding "hysteric fundamentalism". For me personally, this was one of those conferences and lectures that will most likely never be forgotten, which is more than I can say for the many Hammond Pastors' Schools that I attended as a youth.

Would to God that many would read this and be willing by God's grace to reconsider what they have always assumed to be true fundamentalism and the Biblical philosophy of ministry.

Joshua Richards




The Label of "Fundamentalism"”
Dr. Daniel K. Davey
Presented: Young Fundamentalists Conference, July 2004
Indianapolis, Indiana

I have been assigned several questions that relate to the use or nonuse of the label "fundamentalism." There seems to be swirling around in our orbit a surface discussion of how we should or should not label ourselves; however, the deeper issue remains dormant. The real discussion is not the label as much as it is the definition of that label. Who we are as fundamentalists is not determined by how we verbally cloak ourselves, but how we publicly and privately exercise our biblical convictions. Labels are inescapable--—whether in a grocery store or in a theological discussion--—but the authentic matter is how we understand our history, and how we define and implement our biblical persuasion.

I have been at Colonial Baptist Church for the past 22 years, and very early in my ministry I came to the realization that people hold labels and titles without understanding a proper definition of that label or title. In effect, they may call themselves a fundamentalist, but they are unable to articulate what that means to their neighbors and friends, and more importantly, they do not seem to fully comprehend the core beliefs of their assumed title. This has been heightened for me since I assumed the Presidency of CBTS of Virginia Beach. For the past eight years I have dealt with Christian college graduates preparing for formal ministry of the Gospel who, like many in our orbit, seem unable to accurately identify the historic movement to which they ascribe. This has been a great shock, and I am saddened by what I witness.

Since I live in a town that houses the world's largest naval base, our church--—like our town--—must deal with the constant flow of military personal being moved into or out of our city. Many folks who move in are looking for a local church that has certain comfort markers. They want a church to be independent, fundamental, Baptist, pre-millennial, and, of course, have the red AWANA letters somewhere on its literature. Though many are looking for a church which embraces these necessities, few will agree on how these theological and historic terms are to be circumscribed. For some, a church that is "“independent"” means that there are to be no ties of any kind to any other local church, group of churches, or church fellowships (incredibly, some churches refuse to even accept another church'’s baptism); however, for others, they seem to understand the term "“independent"” in light of the term "“autonomous." So, as long as a church retains its self-government it is independent. Some arrive at our church with a view that all Baptists are like their former church. This means that the KJV of the Bible will be in constant use and that all dynamic equivalent translations or, for some, all other formal equivalent translations, are not the Word of God. Also, some will come with the idea that an independent Baptist church will always sing from the same hymnbook, and that hymnbook--—be it green, blue, or red on its cover (a matter of long debate and church vote)--—will be titled, Great Hymns of the Faith. Any thought that another hymnbook would be used, or that a hymn or chorus might be projected on a screen from a powerpoint presentation is a sure sign that this church is succumbing to neo-evangelicalism--—whatever and however they see fit to define that term. Happily, others in the church, hold an entirely different view of these subjects.

Again, some view their theology, and especially their eschatology through the lens of their former Baptist church. Some, however, view the word "“eschatology"” much like the German term angst--—in both cases it is a foreign term. In short, what is not related directly to them is put into the box marked "“inconsequential."” Others, however, view theology as the rudder which guides the ship, and are vitally interested in the doctrinal stance of the church, and if the church'’s viewpoint is fully adopted by the pastor.

Finally, we come to the term "“fundamental."” Is this not why we are all here at this conference? Again, though this term is necessary on the sign of the church and somewhere on its letterhead for one to feel comfortable in his pew, a teaching, practice, or belief system from the past may cause an emotional cloud to pass over their hearts, and doubt begins its negative control when things are done differently in the "“new church."” Yet, what is often the case is one'’s belief system about the historicity or core values of fundamentalism is nothing but a sham, or a mere shell of the term'’s depth and embodiment. Sadly, their view has eroded fundamentalism from its oak-like reality into a fragile flower which is scarcely supported by the roots of historic and exegetical truth.

Now, having set the field in which I view with incredible sadness at the historic ignorance that is displayed by us who have such a high regard for the name, I must say that this question is not to be merely waged by academicians who write eloquently, but pastor none. The battle is to be fought one new member at a time in our local churches which are committed to orthodox, historic truth, and can truly say with Jude, "“I earnestly contend for the faith"--—and I emphasize the necessity of including the last prepositional phrase, "“for the faith."”

So, let me define for you my redactionist understanding of the Christian world in which we live. This is somewhat guided by the fallible "“lamp of experience"” a phrase which Patrick Henry made famous in his "“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death"” speech. Yet, my lamp has been lit by biblical truth and its light illuminates certain facts of history--—so I want to "“stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance."” Again, I preface my words from the same speech of Patrick Henry I referred to before. As Henry rose to speak before the Virginia Convention of Delegates on March 28, 1775 he began with these words:

"Mr. President: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism and well abilities of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony."

In like manner, I esteem others in our movement to be good men with unsullied motives, and I have malice toward none, so I may speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. Indeed, this is no time for ceremony.

I see our current evangelical world in three manageable and distinct categories. These categories are as follows: The broad or open evangelical, the conservative evangelical, and the Fundamentalist. The fundamentalist category actually is made-up of two sub-groups: cultural fundamentalists and historic fundamentalists.

The open evangelical category is made up of men who affirm their personal salvation in Jesus Christ as outlined in Romans 1:16-17, but refuse to go further, especially when it relates to others--—both pagans and Christian brothers. It includes the Clark Pinnocks who depending on the day has a new view, the John Sanders and the Greg Boyds with their open theism heresy, the Christianity Today circle which cannot determine if ordained women in the pulpit are acceptable or not, or if Seventh Day Adventism fits their biblical framework or not, and finally the Willow-Creek gang which sees no such thing as cultural worldliness--—publicly embracing movies, and opening their churches to unprincipled theologies of grace. These broad evangelicals distinctly match their label. They revel in their expansive, non-confrontational, soft and pliable theological stance. Many wonder how their light is actually guided, or if it is really lit at all.

Stay tuned and we will post the remainder of the message in the next couple of days--comments or thoughts anyone?

Soulwinning: The Thermometer for True Ministry...?

As we have endeavored to make plain in the past, we are not trying to stir up unnecessary strife. Before this blog was born, we anticipated that some would view any post we made to be "gossip", "slander", or "outright lies." We viewed negative opinions about FBCH and HAC in this very same manner in years gone by. Notwithstanding, that is not our present desire. More than anything else we would like to promote independent and Biblical thinking on the part of the impressionable future blogger who may stumble upon Bread and Circuses. We are FOR Cross-centered, Holy Spirit-led and enabled, Biblical witnessing. I want so much for that to be made clear before we receive a verbal onslaught from those who wish to discredit our claims and/or opinions.

Now then, I think it is appropriate at this particular time to explore the concept of what is commonly called "“soulwinning"” in IFBx circles, especially in light of recent comments made by a well-meaning fellow blogger in response to the recent Mike Hess editorial.

One of the most defining characteristics of Hyles-Anderson College and First Baptist Church is their purported soulwinning zeal and personal evangelism.

From the Hyles-Anderson College website:

"Maybe You Wouldn't Like: OUR INTENSE EVANGELISTIC ATMOSPHERE

All faculty, staff, and students are required to go soul winning weekly. Students participate in the evangelistic ministry of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, which builds its ministry around personal soul winning. An average of over 10,000 new converts were baptized each year for the past several years."

Unfortunately, this very characteristic becomes little more than a man-made methodology. I regret to say that these two institutions have become the benchmark for (un)biblical witnessing for churches turning in the IFBx orbit.

Do I have to ask it? Sir(s), if an average of 10,000 new converts were baptized each year for the past several years, could you not plant churches with these converts and in effect change the spiritual landscape of greater Chicagoland? These folks are evidently seeing better "success" than our LORD did during his earthly ministry(tongue in cheek)! Why do they boast of such a number while simultaneously advertising that their new auditorium has a capacity for 7,500 people? I sense a tremendous disconnect.



I myself know from personal participation, that HAC has basically become the proverbial beast of burden for FBCH to achieve her pie-in-the-sky numerical goals. I also would like to note that they have categorically made their version of "“confrontational soulwinning" a litmus test for fellowship with other ministries. I digress.

From my experience there, the only Scriptural support offerred for their concept of soulwinning is taken from Proverbs 11:30 "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he that winneth souls is wise." Hyles used to use this proof text as his basis for drawing all church members into his office for counseling--he had won the most souls so he was the wisest person to seek counsel from (that is another post for another day). In retrospect, it seems hermeneutically dishonest to beat this particular passage into the ground while neglecting to even attempt to elaborate upon the great commission as given by our LORD and recorded in the 28th chapter of Matthew's gospel. In my estimation, the Great Commission does not necessarily square with their methodology for witnessing and quest for numbers. Can we equate "door-to-door soulwinning" with Christ's directive to make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe ALL that He has commanded us? My answer to that question from the standpoint of a HAC alumnus is an emphatic "NO".

Let us take Northland Baptist Bible College, in Dunbar, Wisconsin, for example. It is my understanding that although they share some Baptist distinctives in common with HAC, the two have very different definitions of and approaches toward witnessing to the lost. Other Christian colleges and universities that don'’t hold to the same methodologies regarding numeric goals as HAC are usually labeled as "“cold"”, "“dead"”, "“liberal"”, or even "“hyper-calvinistic"”. Oddly enough, one would not have to be a Calvinist to be labeled as such by FBCH/HAC. I am willing to bet that the majority of our readership here at B&C would be calvinistic as compared with them.

Detractors, allow me to beat you to the punch: we were probably never real soulwinners while there, just critics...we probably couldn't even run a hot dog stand, let alone FBC Hammond...we are bitter and are capitalizing on this blogging opportunity to grind our axes, ad nauseum.

The truth of the matter is that we are trying to re-focus on what the scripture says about this matter of "soulwinning". Should "soulwinning" be the cornerstone of our philosophy of ministry? Is the book of Acts our blueprint for the church age? Should Proverbs 11:30 be our central battle cry as Christ followers? Why would Jesus seemingly refuse to "draw the net" as many "great soulwinners" have taught us to do? Would Jesus meet the typical IFBX convert at the church altar and share words with them that would cause them to walk away in sadness? Is true saving faith something you can try like a new pair of running shoes to see if it "works" for you? Is someone who gladly "accepts" Christ "into his heart" but refuses to follow the LORD in baptism truly saved? Is it possible to turn from darkness to light without a radical change in one's life? Are we truly a new creation after the new birth? Does God give us the option of bearing Christian fruit? Is discipleship an optional item as well? These are all questions worthy of engagement--why should IFBs be shallow and unbiblical? Why are IFBs content to allow the silly thinkers and exegetically illiterate in their movement to speak for them on such issues? What do you think the Bible teaches?

Joshua Z. Richards

Fundamental Gimmickry

Mike Hess and I (Phineas) attended Hyles-Anderson College at the same time during the early 1990's. We did not know each other very well during those years since I was an off campus student and he was living in the dorms. We both worked in the bus ministry--he worked on the Chicago routes and I worked on the local "A" bus routes in East Chicago. We became re-acquainted over the last year through the Sharper Iron website--I am so glad that we have been able to share some wonderful fellowship and look forward to much more of the same for many years to come. Mike used to share blog duties at "The World From Our Window" and now has his very own blog called, "Extreme Fundamental Makeover". I asked him when we first started if he would make a guest post for us here at Bread and Circuses and he graciously accepted our invitation--so without further adieu, enjoy!

"When one does not adhere to the doctrines of grace you are forced to allow your methodology to transform your theology. Hence, we have First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College. To this day, they lead the world with their pragmatic "“do anything for numbers" tactics.

It was a summer day in 1996 shortly after I had been married. I was called into Ray Young'’s office (then bus director) and was to be asked to be a division leader. A division leader was the highest position that any student at HAC could hold as a non-staff member. Having been totally enamored with position and loyalty, thanks to a steady dose of that teaching being pumped into me every day of the week for two years now, I would do anything that the "“man of God" told me to do. I accepted the call to duty and became director of nearly ten different bus routes on the south side of Chicago. Ready to take on the world and get Bro. Hyles'’ attention, I was eager to find new and innovative ways to coerce people to ride our buses and win the latest gimmicky contest that displayed the glory of man and his ability to impress God by not being "“mediocre"”. I had already won trips to Gatlinburg TN, the Canadian Boundary Waters, and several other keepsakes that were once owned by Young and Hyles (e.g. suits and ties). This kind of sounds like the methods that were used during the early apostolic church period to encourage Christians who were being tortured and beaten to death for their faith in Christ…..right???



Now began the numbers race. I would do anything that I could to win over the respect and admiration of Young, Hyles, and the rest of my college cohorts. One of the main tactics used by those at HAC is motivation by recognition. Those who "“produce"” numbers are the ones who are elevated to the status of rock star and celebrity. Here are some examples of what Young told me in regards to my new position:

"You are being brought on to produce. You have produced in the past and that is what is expected of you now."” Now I wonder...Produce what??? People who are passionate followers of the Lord Jesus Christ or people who are simply another "notch in my belt"?

"The attendances need to grow in an immediate time frame."” Now I wonder...Why? To produce Christ-like holiness in the lives of those who ride the buses? Which is more important numerical growth or the growth of Christian fruit in the lives of God's people?

"There should be no question as to where your loyalty resides in regards to Bro. Hyles. Your division and your loyalty personally should be public and intentional."” Nothing about uplifting, exalting, and treasuring Christ--that took second place to lord Jack--always has and still does at FBCH.

"Make sure that special attention and rewards are given to those who produce."



Much of this was during our campaign to baptize 10,000 converts (circa 1995-96). I now see that this has been more than doubled by Pastor Schaap. I shudder to think about some of the methods that have been used to coerce this number of unsuspecting souls to enter the baptistery waters without any grasp whatsoever of the Gospel. In order to accomplish these kinds of goals, Hyles and Young would call for "Baptism Saturdays"”. These were Saturdays where we would go into the African-American neighborhoods in Chicago (blacks were not allowed to ride the buses on Sundays--only on secluded bus routes that came in the afternoon when most of the church was gone). Normally, we would rent a black church on the south side of Chicago with a baptistery and use it to baptize scores of black children. This would produce several thousand baptisms a year. These would also be included in the count that went out nationally at Pastor’s' School and would also be added to the 100,000 member church roll. Sounds like a good way to go about doing church, right? Sounds like the pattern laid out in the New Testament, huh?

I wonder how many of those 10,000 people who were baptized that year can tell me the name of one deacon at that church today. I would venture to say less than a dozen of these 10,000 could. What about the 25,000 who were baptized last year? The saddest part about this is the fact that I once fell for this hook, line, and sinker. Why? Was it for the glory of God? Was it for the pursuit of personal holiness to the glory of Christ? Was it for the glory of Christ to be spread to the far reaches of the Chicagoland area? No...simply put (and I take personal responsibility for this) it was all for the praise of man and the recognition of others. This was our motivation and the tactics used by the abusive leadership at HAC to produce their "“numbers"” and to get their recognition for the glory of Jack--nothing more and nothing less."

Mike Hess
Extreme Fundamental Makeover

Smoke and Mirrors

Jeremiah 48:29-30 ASV "We have heard of the pride of Moab, [that] he is very proud; his loftiness, and his pride, and his arrogancy, and the haughtiness of his heart. I know his wrath, saith Jehovah, that it is nought; his boastings have wrought nothing.

As a kid growing up smack in the middle of hysteric fundamentalism I never realized that FBCH was not a mainstream IFB church--I cannot imagine that now, but it is still very true among current members of FBCH. We heard Bro. Hyles preach so much about Hammond being the center of it all and all the thousands of pastors that looked to Hammond for encouragement and guidance. We heard stories from Bro. Hyles about all the people that uprooted their families from across the fruited plain in order to move to Hammond and be under his preaching and ministry. We heard about all the other churches in our area and across the nation that were selling out and changing and turning away from Fundamentalism. We heard about the weekly speaking engagements that Hyles had all across the nation and even the world to "help save America" and to "keep this nation free"! We saw his entourage of body guards and security guards armed with guns to keep "preacher" safe. We heard week in and week out about the plots on his ministry and even some death threats on his life because he was preaching the truth.

I can still remember as a kid thinking that Bro. Hyles was some sort of famous movie star or celebrity. We were given glossy pictures of him, coffee mugs with his face looking up from the bottom, and even a cardboard cutout of his face to wear as a mask--maybe someday he would remember my name--maybe someday he would mention my family from the pulpit during a sermon--maybe someday he would say "hi" to me in the hallway--maybe someday he would send me a letter he wrote with his own hand!



Recently I heard some chatter from some current members of FBCH about how Dr. Schaap was invited to the White House for a meeting with the POTUS. I also read about this and saw a picture of Pastor Schaap with President George W. Bush in an issue of "The Voice". The same shock and awe that Hyles' stories and image created in me years ago were evident in the glimmering eyes of those who regaled me with tales of a Baptist preacher going to Washington to set things right! It brought back memories of times when Hyles would talk about actually refusing a meeting with either Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan when he was President--Pastor Hyles was far too busy to meet with any mere President--he was carrying a nation and a world on his shoulders!

Adoring fans, bodyguards, and tall tales--all the ingredients for a hyper-fundy superhero! This was my relationship with my pastor for over 20 years--now you know why I am so wacky.


Phineas

Relevance By Numbers????

"Mediocrity is not very impressive to Jesus Christ."”
--Dr. Jack Schaap

Most IFBxers have an insatiable desire for numbers--of converts, baptisms, buildings, budgets, attendees, etc.--this is one of the many warts they typically wear as a badge of honor. The response to this observation is most often one of attack asking how many people you have "gotten saved" over the last week or month. We could probably make scores of posts about First Baptist of Hammond's touting of buildings, budgets, and buses as validation of "God's blessing" their ministry--at this point I would like to simply draw attention to something I received in the mail a while back and is still available for your perusal in its entirety at the official First Baptist Church website under "The Voice" December 2003 tab.

There is always a greeting from Pastor Schaap in each issue of "The Voice" which is their official church paper edited by Robert E. Auclair. This was the first edition of the paper and definitely sets the tone for all of the rest that have followed. Here are some snippets from Pastor Schaap's pen in that particular issue:

"For over a century, First Baptist Church has been a fixture of downtown Hammond. Through the years, the church's influence has increased as literally thousands of Christian leaders around the globe look to our church for inspiration and example. We host three major national yearly conferences, operate the largest independent Baptist Bible College, and baptize upwards of 10,000 converts annually. Researchers tell us that we are the largest church of our kind in the world."

"Presently we are constructing a new multi-million dollar auditorium complex that will seat over 7,000 and provide much needed space for our Bible-teaching program which includes more than 600 Sunday School classes."

"Our public services are built around the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. For 23 years I taught Bible in our college and seminary. I love to take the truths of God's Word and present them in a practical and helpful way to strengthen the marriages, families, and individual lives of our congregation. I believe with all my heart the Bible is relevant for today, and the 10,000 plus people who come each Sunday are a testimony to that."

--Dr. Jack Schaap (emphasis mine)

Now I am not usually one to nitpick, but the tone of the greeting was very man-centered and most conclusions were arrived at by the exorbitant numbers and statistics cited. Beyond the numbers emphasis I am a little puzzled by the statement concerning the "researchers tell us that we are the largest church of our kind in the world." I know that "researchers" is a general term, but I would be interested to know who these researchers were--the impression is given that an actual study was done and FBCH was crowned as the "largest". I also was appalled at the declaration that the public services are "built around the preaching and teaching of the Word of God." I think even the biggest supporters of FBCH would have to admit that there is much more entertainment and pop-psychology in a typical service than true Biblical exposition.

What else did you notice in this article--you may want to check it out at the church's website before commenting--I don't have time to type the entire thing from the pdf file--I only posted the "highlights" so to speak.

If you draw attention to this kind of pragmatism does it mean you are just jealous and too lazy to get "busy for God"? Is God impressed by our numbers? Should the people of God be impressed by numbers? To take it a step further, is God impressed by anything done in a spirit of pride? Do our motives matter or does the end justify the means? Does this type of emphasis help create the "hero worship" that has been rampant in IFBxdom for decades? Should we not be concerned at all about numbers in our ministries? Didn't the Lord mention numbers on many different occasions? Should this fact not cause us to strive for big numbers? What do you think is the Biblical philosophy of numbers in ministry? Maybe there are other questions that come to your mind--please share them in a spirit of meekness.

James 4:6 KJV "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."

James 4:10 KJV "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up."

1 Peter 5:5-6 KJV "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:"

Philippians 2:3-11 KJV "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Phineas

Red-Hot Preaching???

As I was cerebrating over Matt's post regarding the HAC website, I was reminded of my years there, and of the exorbitant emphasis that was placed on what was and apparently still is referred to as "red-hot preaching". The letter to prospective students from Jack Schaap on the HAC site seems to insinuate that this "red-hot preaching" is part of what has stayed judgment from falling upon our nation. I believe that "narcissistic" was the word that Matt used to describe the theme of the letter, and I do not believe that a more befitting word could have been chosen.

I would not want to communicate to the B & C audience that I never heard an encouraging word from the chapel pulpit there, but systematic sermons that stay true to the text were essentially nonexistent, hence I still would like to probe this IFBx concept of "red-hot preaching". What does "red-hot preaching" mean to you? What does it mean to the average Christian young person? I think I know exactly what HAC means by it, and I shudder at the very thought of it.

Since officially leaving Hammond two years ago, I am pleased to state that I have not heard any sermon that would fall into the category of "red-hot preaching". I have heard many sound Biblically expository sermons since then. I have heard many sermons inspiring me to a more passionate devotion to Christ and His Word since then. Consequently, I have heard far less stories about these sermons' pulpiteers' personal lives, feats, and exploits!

During my tenure at Hyles-Anderson College, I heard very few if any sermons that were Biblically systematic. I have stated this before but what characterizes the typical HAC chapel time they would like to describe as zeal, but can be identified as nothing short of unbridled, manic frenzy. Any kind of schismatic remark from the chapel speaker can elicit a chorus of hearty "AMEN"s regardless of how unscriptural it may be. All in the name of "old-fashioned fundamentalism." To take it further, I would speculate that most of them were largely man-centered and thus not glorifying the Lord. A brief listen to the average chapel sermon at the HAC website would certainly verify that it continues to this day. In my own homiletics class there, my prepared sermon was referred to as a "lecture" by the instructor, something clearly meant as a derogatory description of a sermon at HAC. I reckon that I didn't yell, spit, and foment enough during my discourse.

The attitude taken at HAC was always that the other "liberal" Christian colleges (Maranatha, BJU, Northland, Clearwater, Moody, Cedarville, Master's College, etc.) did not believe in this breed of "red-hot preaching" like we do. In retrospect, I realize what was meant by that was that these other schools aim for a Biblicist approach to homiletics and the ministry of the Word. They were often described as the schools that had "gone liberal" and "changed". The plain truth is that the aforementioned schools have stayed much closer to historic Christian orthodoxy than HAC has.

Again, what is "red-hot preaching"? What does it mean to you, and what do you think that it means to the HAC brass when they mention it? Is there a Biblical mandate for what they refer to as "red-hot preaching"? Furthermore, do the pragmatic results of this "red-hot preaching" at HAC make it acceptable fare?

May we all pray that God would free our brethren from man-centered preaching.

Josh

More Visions of Grandeur in Hammond

For those who would like to think that things have changed in Hammond I have some more evidence to the contrary. I was recently perusing the official website for Hyles-Anderson College and found this little gem. This is a letter from the chancellor, Jack Schaap, to the wide-eyed prospective college student:

Dear Friend,

Hyles-Anderson College was started 30 years ago as the fulfillment of the vision of Dr. Jack Hyles. His heart burned with a love and a deep concern for the direction his beloved nation was taking. The United States Supreme Court was permitting the genocide of the unborn infants of this land; the illegal drug culture was at its peak in our public schools; and the rock-and-roll culture of rebellion and promiscuity was having a profound influence upon the teenagers of our land. Brother Hyles feared our country was quickly slipping from the old-fashioned ways upon which She had been founded. He wanted to do what he could to save this nation from the sin and destruction She was bringing upon Herself.

Walking along a highway in Southern California late one night into the early morning hours of the next day, Bro. Hyles felt God speak to his heart about founding an old-fashioned, sin- hating, Devil-fighting, Christ-honoring Bible college where the students would dress modestly and act courteously; a college where all the students went soul winning and were trained by soul winners; a college where the chapel pulpit was ablaze with - preaching; a college where authority was respected and sin was abhorred; a college where young men would be trained to preach with zeal and knowledge; a college where young ladies were taught to be submissive wives and dedicated servants of God. Thus was the birthright of Hyles-Anderson College when the doors opened in 1972.

Thirty-two years later, our founder is in Heaven. He gave us a legacy that burns brighter and with more intensity today than it has ever before. The soul-winning zeal, the fervent love for the lost, the evangelistic fervor, the - preaching, the old-fashioned standards of decency and propriety are alive and well here at Hyles-Anderson College.

I believe the chief reason for this is that this college is owned and operated by the great First Baptist Church of Hammond. Our church has led the nation in soul winning, baptisms, standards, and the training of missionaries and pastors for decades. First Baptist Church is host to the giant annual Pastors' School and Youth Conference.

As pastor and chancellor, I am totally dedicated to keeping this church and this college on the same path as when Brother Hyles was pastor and chancellor. I am committed to the legacy we have been given. If your heart burns and yearns to make a difference in your nation, Hyles- Anderson College may be just the place for you. Come join us and let's save America together!

Enthusiastically yours,

Jack Schaap
Chancellor

Did any of the rest of you find this modern day epistle slightly entertaining? This letter could have been written by Bro. Hyles himself--it is so reminiscent of the kind of "visions of grandeur" that FBCH and HAC are famous for. They are legends only in their own minds and the minds of those who have ed their ministries after them. When I was a part of IFBx this kind of letter would have stirred completely different kinds of emotions--now I read this narcissistic twaddle and I have to wonder how they can keep a straight face while producing and propagating this. Let's take a closer look and see if you notice any false doctrine or aberrant heresy in this letter. I am going to take to the sidelines on this one for a little while--who wants to be first to add their observation? I suppose someone may think this letter is right on the money--that is OK--tell us why you think it is scriptural and accurate.

Not everybody at once now...

Phineas

Time Out!

I want to make a brief interjection here and point out a few things that I have been thinking about lately. I know from personal experience that it is easy to blame others when we feel like we have been hoodwinked or misled for any length of time. I have struggled with these very feelings in the past and understand that they are real and it is by God's grace alone that I am no longer in bondage to them. Many of us bought into the IFBx movement and the man-centered ministries that promote it in years past--God is gracious to have shown many of us the errors and directed us to Christ-centered ministries--Praise the LORD!

I have seen many individuals and families move from distant states to Hammond in order to be under "the greatest church since First Baptist of Jerusalem" and the ministry of Jack Hyles. Far too often these same people become disenchanted with many things at FBCH and in the end leave church and following Christ altogether--Northwest Indiana is littered with many of these spiritual corpses. I find this heartbreaking and no doubt the LORD desires to see them come to a saving faith in Him for His glory! We must not throw out Christ when men disappoint us and fall away--if I have learned anything from my time in Hammond it is to ALWAYS keep my eyes on Christ and not on men.

As believers we are responsible for our own actions and/or inactions. We cannot adopt the worldly philosophy of playing the blame game whenever we feel like we have been "burned". I want to make it clear that I hold no bitterness or feelings of hatred towards FBCH, Jack Hyles, or anyone else in their related ministries. We all remember well the story of Joseph and his words to his brothers upon revealing himself to them in Genesis 50 verse 20: "But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive." I would not change the fact that I was raised in FBCH for anything--I serve a Sovereign God who had me there for a purpose and I don't need to be able to wrap my 8 ounces of grey matter around all of the reasons right now. I came in contact with some fine and sincere Christian folks at FBCH and HAC--I learned things that I would not have learned anywhere else.

Psalm 145:17 says: "The LORD is righteous in all His ways, Gracious in all His works."

Does God know what He is doing with my life? Does God want us to dwell on past mistakes? Does God want us to blame our decisions on others? Does God want us to seek revenge and waste our days grinding axes? I believe the answers to these questions are obvious in light of the Scriptures. I want to focus the rest of my life on seeking God's glory alone with or without man's approval--every day is full of His grace towards us who are His children.

I believe it was Becky who commented the other day that we need to echo what the Apostle Paul said in Philippians 3:13-14: "Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." I agree wholeheartedly with her and think that this is a great challenge for B&C! The future is bright and full of possibilities when our focus is right--on the LORD Jesus Christ and His glory alone!

Play on...

Phineas

Another Question:

I would add another question to Matt's list pertaining to King James Onlyism: is it wise or profitable for a pastor who is basically King James Preferred to leave the issue unaddressed so as to avoid the controversy entirely? This would be the situation that some hopefuls would attribute to post-Hyles FBCH, yet I find it to be misleading. The absence of fringe-KJVO-rhetoric does not necessarily place a church in the balanced category. In other words, the absence of Al Lacey on the Pastors' School agenda does not negate the influence that he has had on Hammond in the past. If my memory serves me correctly, Gail Riplinger was granted an honorary doctorate by Jack Hyles at a past Pastors' School. If FBCH is currently KJVP, should not these things be addressed publicly?

More thoughts to consider: does HAC promote Biblical thinking on this subject or just opt to throw fuel on the flames of ignorance? Do they encourage or enjoy fellowship with any churches or institutions who take the historic position of Biblical inerrancy in the original writings? I would be utterly shocked if I discovered that their campus bookstore offered any volumes to provoke thought regarding this current controversy. I would think it wise to offer the book From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man if for nothing else to provoke independent thinking on the part of the impressionable preacher boy.

Just some thoughts...

Josh

King James Only?

SCRIPTURES - We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. The Old and New Testament are definitely inspired word for word. We accept the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which came the King James Bible. The Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice...We stand for the King James Bible as the only Bible.

The above statement was pulled from the official website for Hyles-Anderson College. During a recent discussion with some members of First Baptist Church of Hammond, I was informed that apparently the position of FBCH had changed regarding the translation issue. The reasoning goes something like this, since Pastor Schaap does not teach the aberrant type of KJVO that views the KJ as the "incorruptible seed", he must not be KJVO. I have even been told that perhaps Pastor Schaap is King James Preferred and not coming out and declaring it because he is "handcuffed". These statements started me thinking that perhaps a little more investigation was in order.

I have written a letter to Pastor Schaap asking for some clarification on his stance and the official stance of FBCH/HAC regarding the Holy Scriptures. In the meanwhile I went ahead and pulled the statement above from the HAC website--this did NOT come from the warped site that Ken Christensen runs by the name of Baptist-City.



We will LORD-willing be addressing the blight of King James Onlyism again as we continue blogging at Bread and Circuses, but for now we will only declare the facts. First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College are unapologetically KJVO and have never publicly recanted or eschewed this divisive and dangerous teaching. I believe that those who would have us to believe that FBCH is not KJVO are just enjoying a little wishful thinking and desperately want to believe that things have changed and this is a new and fresh era at FBCH. I hate to be the one to put a wet blanket on their fire by informing them that until a public statement is made by Pastor Schaap and books by Hyles propagating this error are revised, they will forever wear the label of KJVO.

Here are a few questions for discussion--what do you think?

1. Is KJVOnlyism a heretical teaching?
2. Is KJVOnlyism a new doctrine or has it always been a part of historic fundamentalism?
3. Is it possible for a ministry to make a major change on doctrine and not announce it publicly?
4. Is KJVOnlyism just a crazy isolated teaching that good people can disagree on with no change in fellowship?
5. Could you disagree with your church on the translation issue and still be a member in good standing?


Phineas

More Thoughts On Worship

This was originally a comment by Jim Clement under the Worship thread from last week--I thought it could stimulate some more discussion so I asked Jim if he would mind if I posted it as a new thread to address these questions. Clement spent many of his early years growing up at FBCH--he has been gone for many years but has never left historic fundamentalism. Whether or not Hyles realized it, within this "study" he was not only giving his philosophy of ministry but also his answer to the centuries old confessional question, "What is the chief end of man?"~~Phineas Taylor Barnum

"Misunderstood Worship" by Jim Clement

Bro. Hyles said: "When formal worship is substituted for the real purpose of the assembly, Christians do not get strengthened, encouraged, exhorted or motivated to do the main task of the church, and that is to carry out the Great Commission, which is soul winning. To that end, formal worship becomes an enemy of soul winning!"

It is clear from this statement that Bro. Hyles dogmatically believed and taught that the "real purpose" and "main task" of the church is soulwinning. Thus, the thrust of his ministry was to motivate the people of FBC to go soul winning.

Besides the fact that I may disagree with that emphasis, the statement raises several questions that must be answered from a Biblical perspective.

1. What is "formal" worship?

2. What is the "real purpose" of the assembly or the "main task" of the church?

3. Does an assembly either engage in formal worship or its real purpose? Or is it possible for an assembly to engage in formal worship without being distracted from its real purpose and main task as those terms are understood by Bro. Hyles?

4. Is the "main task" of the church to carry out the Great Commission?

5. Is the Great Commission properly defined as "soul winning"?

6. Is it the role of the pastor to motivate the assembly to go soul winning?

7. Is Biblical worship always private and never public?

Biblical answers to these questions will likely determine our philosophy of the local church as well as the style of church we will attend. Is worship really an enemy of soul winning? Or is motivational preaching that emphasizes soul winning an enemy of worship and an enemy of the Great Commission?

Just my random thoughts.

Jim Clement

"Phooey On The Theologians!"

Hyles-Anderson College is known for several things; the scholarship of its faculty not being one of those. Let me make it clear that I admire to some degree the zeal that my alma mater promotes. The issue I have is that it is most often a zeal that is apart from knowledge. In Romans 10:2 Paul describes his countrymen in Israel who had a zeal for God, but demonstrated it by legalistic conformity to the law and hatred for anyone who opposed their teachings: "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." I was speaking with an uncle recently and communicated to him what I believed to be "marks of a rebellious young person" at HAC/HBS: listening to current secular music of any kind, untraditional haircut/hairstyle, not spending large amounts of time on a bus route. This mentality immediately reminds me of the passage in Romans 10, but I digress.

Any casual observer of the typical chapel service at HAC could not deny that there is a type of zeal present. Some would rightly opt to define it as a form of mania, no doubt. Nevertheless, it is a characteristic that they claim is virtually non-existent in all other corners of Christendom besides at HAC and it’s clone institutions (Texas Baptist College, Oklahoma BC, etc.). This claim is partially true, yet partially unfounded at the same time. While I hope it is true that unbridled, manic frenzy is absent in the more balanced and Bible-centered colleges and seminaries, it would be foolish to assume that these other schools have no zeal for Christ, His Word, or to promote His glory.

The vast majority of staffers and faculty at HAC have little more than a bachelor’s degree from HAC. I understand that there is a very small handful that studied elsewhere, and may possibly be qualified in the class that they teach, but it is a small handful. The Bible faculty at HAC is woefully lacking. I would dare estimate that 95 to 98 percent of the teachers merely studied at HAC under the Jack Hyles regime. There is the slight possibility that I am unaware of some theological heavy-hitters that they have hired in the last two years, but that is highly unlikely. Let’s pretend that the college leadership and Pastor Schaap were interested in a widely-known Bible teacher to hire. Would this man be willing to compromise sound theology by adhering to the new “doctrine” of King James Onlyism? I suspect not. Would he be willing to help the church “scorch the turf” throughout greater Chicagoland? He would have to be willing to do so.

Let me underline the fact that we are not criticizing any particular staffer or faculty member at HAC; however, these are the stated facts regarding their credentials. I also understand that credentials are not everything; many fine Christian leaders in the past lacked the formal training that is widely available today. A.W. Tozer, for example, the mighty preacher and pastor of Southside Alliance Church in Chicago, possessed no formal ministerial training to my knowledge. The difference here is when an institution revels in the concept that they don't have or need validation from any institution of higher learning. This mentality can only lend itself to isolationism, which would more than adequately define First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College.

Josh Richards

Sunday Worship Revelation!

The Church Assembled for Things Other Than Worship--by Jack Hyles

Though worship was a private matter and not a public matter, we nevertheless are commanded to assemble ourselves together as God's people. Hebrews 10:25, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."

According to the New Testament, the public meetings were for strength for God's people, for fellowship, for the taking of the Lord's Supper, for praying, for studying the Bible, for praise, etc. The soul winning was to be done publicly and from house to house. The worshipping was to be done alone, and the church assembled for the aforementioned reasons.

When formal worship is substituted for the real purpose of the assembly, Christians do not get strengthened, encouraged, exhorted or motivated to do the main task of the church, and that is to carry out the Great Commission, which is soul winning (emphasis mine). To that end, formal worship becomes an enemy of soul winning!

It has been so long since I have heard or read this statement by Jack Hyles that I could hardly believe it when I saw it again. During the early 90's Hyles gave some Wednesday evening talks on the so called "Enemies of Soulwinning". Later these "gems" were compiled into a book entitled "The Enemies of Soulwinning" and it is chock full of Biblical eisegesis of the worst kind. I can still remember that Hyles and the teachers at HAC taught us preacher boys that we should NEVER refer to any of our church services as "worship services"! This was a cardinal rule the breaking of which was tantamount to having the forbidden phrase "Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior" in your plan of salvation! I suppose that is another post for another day--for now let's just look at this matter of worship.

1. Hyles taught that the public assembly was only for strength for God's people, for fellowship, for taking the LORD's Supper, for praying, for studying the Word, for praise, etc...

2. Hyles taught that worshipping was only to be done alone--never in the assembly.

3. Hyles taught that "formal worship" will not strengthen, encourage, exhort, or motivate Christians to do the main task of the church which is the Great Commission or "Soulwinning". Therefore worship in church is an "enemy of soulwinning".

Where shall we begin? I remember vividly the attitude of arrogance that accompanied this hobby horse that Hyles loved to ride. The mental gymnastics and circular reasoning that he practiced were brilliant! Shame on me for not being a Berean at that point in my life--it would have saved me a lot of heartache, but we serve a gracious and perfect God who meant all of it for my good.

First of all, Hyles' teaching that church was for fellowship, for taking the LORD's Supper, for praying, for studying the Word, for praise, etc... is not wrong in and of itself. My issue here is that his church did not study the Word and he did not encourage Bible study--he may have made mention of reading your Bibles, but never encouraged true Bible study. I am amazed how he could harp on such things and not see how unbalanced his ministry really was. When I consider the type of preaching that Hyles loved to perform it is no wonder that he could not understand corporate worship. I am reminded of what John Stott said in " Between Two Worlds":

"Word and worship belong indissolubly to each other. All worship is an intelligent and loving response to the revelation of God, because it is the adoration of His name. Therefore acceptable worship is impossible without preaching. For preaching is making known the Name of the LORD, and worship is praising the Name of the LORD made known...when the Word of God is expounded in its fullness, and the congregation begins to glimpse the glory of the living God, they bow down in solemn awe and joyful wonder before His throne."(emphasis mine)

When you look at the three weekly pep rallies that Hyles held at FBCH is it any wonder that he had such a low view of corporate worship? There was only room for one object of worship on the platform at FBCH--I believe this is the root of the problem he had with worship as part of the church assembly. John Stott hits the nail on the head--Biblical exegesis by the regular exposition of scripture in its context is the foundation for meaningful and heart-felt worship. We ought to stand in awe and wonder of a holy God high and lifted up after a sermon is preached--when the Word is explained and preached in a systematic way God's Word has free course and will change lives and produce fruit in a powerful way! Hyles believed that power in preaching was found in the style of delivery and the response at the altar during the invitation--this is purely pragmatic and nothing short of rank decisionism.

Secondly, Hyles' teaching on worship being something only done in private is pure foolishness! Certainly we cannot honor God in our corporate worship unless our private worship is sincere and regular. To state that our gathering together is simply for fellowship, the LORD's Supper, prayer and Bible study, but not for worship is misguided at best. Worship is our ultimate priority and everything we do ought to be to that end. The Apostle Paul gives this command in 1 Corinthians 10:31, "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

Last of all, Hyles taught that "formal worship" will not strengthen, encourage, exhort, or motivate Christians to do the main task of the church which is the Great Commission, or "Soulwinning". This statement is so rife with error that it baffles me how anyone took him seriously. Let me begin by stating that Hyles' complete philosophy of ministry is summarized in this statement-- he had a job to motivate the good folks of FBCH so that they would go out and "win" some more converts for his kingdom. Conversely, how better to strengthen, encourage, exhort, and motivate holy living than the heart-felt worship of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ? Hyles believed it was a preacher's job to motivate--the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the motivator not to simply "go soulwinning" but to glorify God.

More to follow...

Phineas Taylor Barnum