May 16, 2009
Bauder, Sweatt, and the Ghosts
I
feel sorry for Dan Sweatt. People are piling on since I opened the can of worms on May 13th, and I have been contemplating whether I should pull some punches particularly since heavy-weights have moved in and made some of the same points that I think need to be said. After all, I said on my original post that I felt that “someone somewhere needed to issue a rebuttal.”
But there is something more significant about Kevin Bauder’s public rebuke than what most people are understanding. The real news is not that a seminary president hurled a public rebuke into the heart of a hitherto tightly-knit brotherhood. Something bigger happened. I’ve been analyzing fundamentalism for years and I’m willing to make a huge prediction.
Kevin Bauder came out two days after SharperIron linked to my blog with a strong rebuke and a clarion call to leaders in the FBFI to refute the bad kind of preaching that Dan Sweatt delivered. He was certainly aware of Andy Naselli’s widely read blog that highlighted the message with the provocative title, A Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving. Naselli is widely read beyond small fundamentalist circles. Somebody had to say something.
It is typically Bauderian: forceful, packed, tightly reasoned, and eloquent. It also has that intangible Bauderian feel to it, the feeling that he’s exercising restraint. It makes you kind of wish you knew what he could say if he wasn’t having to speak on our level. Or so diplomatically.
Naturally, he’s getting accolades in the blogosphere and I have plenty of contacts around the FBF world to know that his message is being, in the main, positively received. A younger set of fundamentalists have looked to Bauder several times for representation and he is highly admired. Deservedly. But, frankly, I think the acolytes who are extolling his boldness are going a little bit over the top. And here’s why:
The one quality that Bauder has (and he has many) that even his enemies would grudgingly affirm is smartness. It’s as obvious as the day as long that “the time to speak” had not only come, but was well nigh slipping away. I’m not sure it requires boldness to state the obvious when anyone who has the slightest feel for the pulse of the sub-culture knows that the majority of the “movement” is going to sigh with relief when infamously typical rants that are called preaching are finally forcefully answered. (It didn’t take boldness for me to post my blog about Dan Sweatt. I was stating something so obvious that I knew even his supporters would have a hard time defending.) The real thing for which Kevin must be given credit is not boldness, but savvy.
If Kevin’s generation was not going to lose influence once and for all, he (or someone) had to stand out by speaking up. It was a “time to speak” and leaders should know that time when it comes. Actually, it was almost overdue. My generation of leaders are maturing quickly, but mainstream fundamentalism doesn’t want to follow us for obvious and good reasons: they don’t know who we are, they don’t know where we are going, and we don’t know where we are going. But the void was obvious and it was destined to be filled. Soon. If you don’t think Bauder knew that, you dishonor his intelligence.
If Bauder had not spoken up (and I am assuming optimistically that most of the FBFI will hear his counsel) a whole generation of leadership in the FBF circles would have been effectively lost and the oft-prophesied death of the FBFI would have been fulfilled.
But this is bigger than the FBFI.
There have been no strong voices for fundamentalism that have the tone of leadership on a national scale in many years. What is the tone of leadership? It’s the tone of independence. It’s the tone that John MacArthur has (and too many others in the T4G/Gospel Coalition seem to lack) when he calls out a Mark Driscoll even though Driscoll is clearly now “one of the boys.” MacArthur is doing what leaders do. They state something individually and don’t run in packs. Whether Bauder had a whole bunch of other leaders around the nation holding his hand or not while he published his “Time to Speak” is irrelevant. It still came across as an independent move.
The fundamentalist “movement” is dying or at the very least undergoing a major transformation. Bauder himself has wondered out loud on several occasions if the movement has died or should die. He has also said in several places that he believes that the idea of fundamentalism should live on because it is a good idea. It always seemed to me that Bauder wondered (as I have often loudly bewailed) that the idea of fundamentalism has been held hostage by the movement. I have said that there is a resurgence of strong doctrine and biblical militancy for the truth developing in certain circles of conservative evangelicalism and that a revival of sound doctrine and biblical exposition in certain circles of fundamentalism has resulted in the irresistible inevitability of the “emerging middle.” This is a process that has been developing for years and there is nothing, Lord willing, that will stop it.
The problem, however, for those of us on the fundamentalist “movement” side of the “emerging middle” has been the entrapment of the movement itself. It has been frustrating because some of us have developed a heart-commitment to the idea of fundamentalism which could be rightly defined by the oft-quoted Curtis Lee Laws statement, the idea that if you love the truth you’ll do battle for the truth. The movement, however had lost a grip on the “truth,” but was still firmly committed to doing “battle royal” and had weighted down the idea with a ball and chain.
I have never for one day despaired of success because I believe that renewed biblical militancy in parts of conservative evangelicalism and the revived biblical soundness in fundamentalism are both from Sovereign Head of the Church, but I have often wondered if the success would be with or without a large chunk of the constituency of the fundamentalist “movement.” Plainly speaking, would the inevitable “emerging middle” get our schools and institutions and fellowships?
Dan Sweatt was right to decry a leadership void. The leadership in fundamentalism over the past twenty years has been, in the main, weak. I have told Kevin Bauder and Matt Olson recently that the current crop of leaders are much like a bunch of boys about to go skinny-dipping in a cold lake. They are trying to work up the nerve to jump in and they keep saying to one another, “I’ll jump if you jump.” However, no one wants to make the first move. I have no evidence of this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if even Bauder’s decimation of Dan Sweatt’s diatribe wasn’t passed on to other leaders within the movement before he pushed “send.” He really wouldn’t have had to do this, because even these leaders (as hesitant as they have been) know that now is the time to take the bull by the horns and lay claim to their turf.
And, frankly, I’m glad. Kevin Bauder did something really big and it’s much bigger than giving a local church pastor a verbal spanking for being unintelligent. Here it is, folks. This is what Kevin did for all of us on the fundamentalist side of the “emerging middle.”
The real newsworthy event of “A Time to Speak” is that Bauder decisively liberated us from the ghosts of past leaders.
Finally.
Finally, someone in the generation above me and with the credibility that his position justly deserves said what I and my generation have said and thought for the longest time. We not only don’t know who Frank Bumpus, Wayne Van Gelderen, Sr., Bob Jones, Jr., Jack Hyles, and John R. Rice were, but the little bit that we know we flat out don’t want to emulate.
I remember when I was in college at Northland when the leadership hailed Frank Bumpus as one of the greatest leaders in fundamentalism. Having no emotional reason to bond to him, I listened with virgin ears to his preaching and then looked with virgin eyes on his ministry and decided right then and there that if that was fundamentalism I wanted nothing to do with it. What I do want is Frank Bumpus’ heart for God that I thought to be genuine, his zeal for souls that I discerned to be exemplary, and his passion for ministry. Those are all excellent. But I categorically did not want his doctrine, his preaching, or the product of his ministerial philosophy. However, since that was presented to me as “fundamentalism,” and he was honored as a model of fundamentalism, I was then in a quandary.
I knew Bob Jones, Jr. too. Personally. He visited us on the mission field. He was gracious and kind and deep and real. I admire him and see him as a true champion of the truth. I will never in my life be able to accomplish what he has done for Christ. But I did not want a culture and philosophy that he propagated and maintained.
The “movement” was shackled to the ghosts of these strong leaders. A culture developed that made it so that you could not “honor” them unless you maintained their style, their works, their philosophy, and their hallowed memory. On the other hand, if you criticized their works and style, even while making every effort to honor their persons, you were considered unfaithful to the “movement,” and therefore, necessarily, the “idea” of fundamentalism.
But then finally — finally! — someone with national credibility and the immediacy that technology affords said this:
I am old enough to remember every one of the “giants” on Pastor Sweatt’s list. I watched them during their public ministries. Their leadership and spiritual insight never impressed me. These were not the men I wanted to be like then, and I do not want to be like them today. Indeed, when I was a twenty-something, they and their kind were the greatest hindrance to my becoming a fundamentalist. Along the way, however, I discovered that such men did not and do not represent mainstream, historic fundamentalism. They may have been “giants” in terms of their public image, but they contributed little to biblical fundamentalism. Indeed, they are among the very heavy liabilities that fundamentalism has had to bear.I am grateful to have been reared in a version of fundamentalism that was led by men who refused to become “giants.” You have probably never heard their names, because they were not trying to create or control empires. They were willing to stand up to bullies, however, and in some cases they were savaged by the very “giants” whom Pastor Sweatt identifies. They were men of faith and strength, but also men of kindness and gentleness. They were genuinely and biblically meek. They fought the battles of their day, but they did it for the most part without losing the sweetness of their spirits or the freshness of their walk with Christ. They were honest and fair and charitable, but they had backbone when they needed it. They revered the Word of God, and when they preached, they delighted to expound the Scriptures. As a young man I wanted to be like those leaders, and I still do. I chose their fundamentalism because it was a fundamentalism worth saving.
Maybe both the idea and the movement can live on now. The idea certainly will live and thrive. And for the godly men that shaped the movement there will be the greatest honor: a legacy that has unshackled itself from their own shadows and has sunk its anchor deep into the truth most of those men actually loved.
Dan Sweatt invoked the ghosts. Kevin Bauder turned the lights on. And the ghosts have disappeared.
Posted by Bob Bixby at May 16, 2009 07:07 PM | eMail this entry! | 2006 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Fundamentalism
Bob said:We not only don’t know who Frank Bumpus, Wayne Van Gelderen, Sr., Bob Jones, Jr., Jack Hyles, and John R. Rice were, but the little bit that we know we flat out don’t want to emulate.
Kevin said:
I am grateful to have been reared in a version of fundamentalism that was led by men who refused to become “giants.” You have probably never heard their names, because they were not trying to create or control empires.
Kevin’s (old-school GARBC) heritage is not an insignificant factor in this matter. Whatever else there was that caused a rift between GARBC and other strains of institutional Fundamentalism, it does seem that both sides have experienced losses as a result. A significant portion of the GARBC had/has lost its separatist sensibilities, and the “other strains” have been dominated by the demagoguery such as Bob references and Bauder calls out.
While I’m not suggesting the current institutions are the answer, the sensibilities I am referring to here (Fundamentalist separatism and servant humility) are as timelessly relevant to us as they ever have been. This has been a good reminder to renew ourselves together to that end.
Posted by: Greg Linscott at May 16, 2009 10:08 PMI can recall several chapel speakers in college, hailed as gaints in Fundamentalism, who left me utterly dissappointed. Yet, many of my fellow ministerial majors would eat it up. Their only response to the obvious lack of any depth or doctrinal content would simply be, “When you have accommlished what he has, then you will have the right to criticize.” For some people, it was always about personality. How sad. So much could be forgiven, overlookedor even swept under this cult of personality and fame.
Posted by: Kevin Thompson at May 17, 2009 08:22 AMBob, you wrote: “It was a ‘time to speak’ and leaders should know that time when it comes. Actually, it was almost overdue.”
Again, there’s a whole bunch of guys from several generations who came to believe that it was overdue a long, long time ago. There has already been more than one generation of leaders lost to the likes of FBF.
Macarthur (attended BJU) and Piper (who grew up in Greenville and whose father was on the board of BJU at one time) are among the oldest and most well known. However, there are many others, from every generation since, who have been of significant influence at places like Reformed Theological Seminary, Covenant Seminary, Knox Seminary, not to mention Pastors or leaders in the various (non fundy) Christian School Associations. These guys would be what you all call “conservative evangelicals.” But they’d just say they are orthodox, Bible believing Christians who’ve gotten along just fine without the fundamentalist “movement”.
Nevertheless, better late than never — good is good whenever it happens.
Posted by: Keith at May 17, 2009 07:10 PMDing Dong! The witch is dead!
I am so happy that Bauder “decisively liberated us from the ghosts of past leaders.” Bauder also “turned the lights on. And the ghosts have disappeared.”
Glad you guys found your fundamentalist Emancipation Proclamation. Woopee!
As someone not in Christian ministry who finds himself somewhere in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism, here is our perspective.
We see nothing better in you than we saw in the generation you are so viciously attacking. Instead, we see the same problems including arrogance, lack of civility, and man worship.
The current fawning over Bauder is both significant and sickening. Why must you guys always have a hero on a white horse? Aren’t you pastors of autonomous churches? Since when did you have to go to Danny Sweatt for marching orders or even advice?
Or do you guys simply have to have a group to fellowship with? Do you need others to cross-pollinate your blogs?
Rather than pulling out your poison pens, I would recommend going back to the Bible you claim to hold so dear (in your minds, MUCH more so than Sweatt) and read a few verses on pride.
Fortunately, most of the church could care less about this skirmish. But those of us that do watch are very unimpressed. If you represent the future leadership of fundamentalism, we are in trouble.
Posted by: Pete Simms at May 18, 2009 07:56 AMWhy do Pete Simms comments sound so much like those he castigates? Partly, I suppose, because the tone of words on a page must be supplied by the reader. Unlike verbal speech, where the tone of the speaker is evident, written words can be heard as either soft or strident depending upon the subjective analysis of the reader. A good reminder for us all.
However, it may also be because he evidently lacks a clear theological foundation. I used to be where he seems to be now. Now I realize I really couldn’t “sort things out” until I came to a deep, clear, Biblical understanding of the Gospel. That became the center of all truth. Evalutions shifted from personalities, institutions, movements, and fellowships, to the Gospel. The more Gospel centered Fundamentalism becomes, the more able to return to those fundamental issues that matter most.
May the debate center upon Bible doctrine, Scriptural interpretation, and central truth. Not upon personalities past and present.
G. N. Barkman
Posted by: G N Barkman at May 18, 2009 08:29 AMBob— I also posted this over at Andy Naselli’s blog—and hope it makes it on yours:
I’m coming over to your blog, before I post on my website. This is by far THE VERY REASON the IFB is what it is today. Am I the only person seeing a much bigger issue here than a Calvinism debate? What about the fact that Danny Sweat has lumped Lee Roberson, Bob Jones Jr., Bob Gray, Lestor Roloff, and Jack Hyles into the same orbit and PRAISED them for there work? Bob Gray— a PEDOPHILE. Lestor Roloff— a man who started unlicensed group homes around the country that have been well known and documented as houses of severely beaten and abused children for DECADES. Jack Hyles— a man/ministry riddeled with pedophilia and child abuse of all kinds. Isn’t this an even BIGGER issue than the so-called Calvinist debate? Is there not ONE MAN among you who will stand up on behalf of the victims of these atrocious crimes? Not ONE MAN who will step up and point out what the real fallicy of all of this is? Not ONE MAN who will look at the faces/messed up lives of the victims and say, “We get it”?
The issue in the IFB is that noone has the ability/right/privilege to make choices for themselves. They must look over their shoulders to find out what everyone else is doing before taking any steps backward/forward themselves. The “old men” despise the “young men” and the young men never get the backbone/character to stand up to the abuse. It is devastating and just plain terrible. When will the IFB realize it is not about following a man or a group of men or a group of leaders? It is about doing what CHRIST alone has called you to do!
I’m sorry if I sound harsh or “on a tangent,” but maybe when you read an email describing:
A beating so bad at a group home that a girl vomits and then is made to drink her own vomit,
A homeschool girls legs wrapped in barbed-wire (by her pastor/father) so she doesn’t sit down on the family farm while doing chores,
A 12-year-old girl coming forward about being molested by her step-father and then being beaten with crown molding in the office of a pastor for over a year for “lieing” about her abuse,
A pastor/father abusing a girl for several decades and by the time she’s found by police has over 400 scars/wounds on her body from the years of abuse, etc.
Unfortunately, I could go on and on and on. The abuses in the IFB are nothing more/less than POW kinds of abuse. When are the men in the IFB going to stop standing up for the “theological” errors and go after what I believe are the deeper/darker more horrifying issues that have never been addressed or even TALKED about publicly? Let me just say: I’m am sick to my stomach and horrified— and I feel great pain for the abuse victims of these men who have now been praised and exalted as the “larger than life” personalities within the IFB. SAD.
Posted by: Jocelyn Zichterman at May 18, 2009 10:06 AMJocelyn,
I have. Many times. For example, on my blog I mildly addressed some of this here and was confronted for misrepresenting leaders (which at the time I identified as pastors of any size congregation).
I will also concur with you that these things are more probable in the hyper-legalistic machismo of certain sectors of fundamentalism. I also think that because the purer elements of the movement did not stand up to these kinds of outrages they are now having to face the vexing humiliation of being lumped together with them now.
However, I think it is risky to lump all IFB in the same category (the hundreds of “unknowns” who are merely blooming where they have been planted in godly sincerity) even though the movement has been given a black eye by its unchallenged “heros”. They have brought this indictment on themselves.
In other words, I see your point. The challenge that takes so long, actually years, is for honest thinkers within a movement to sift philosophy, culture, history, experience, and theology. Your approach to helping the victims is commendable, but it is not the only way.
My approach is to listen to them (and I too have heard stories and witnessed things) and then show them by my own ministry that I’m not a koolaid drinker, develop a ministry of accountability for leadership within our own church, and try to reclaim the solid ground of sound theology. It’s a long process.
However, in the prison down the road from me is a man who molested a number of boys in his boys home. He was highly reputed in conservative evangelical circles, not fundamentalism.
The effect of the curse is everywhere.
Having said all that, I’d like to keep the discussion on this thread more about the sub-culture without digressing into a whole bunch of anecdotal evidence that we are obliged to take as true merely on the person’s word. True they may be, but I don’t want to turn this into a courtroom.
Posted by: bob at May 18, 2009 10:31 AMJocelyn, first, I believe you need to be honest and up front with readers about where you are coming from with your comments. You are (or at least you were, at the time you sent out your last mass email) very bitter about your experiences in fundamentalism. I get that. You chose to leave fundamentalism for something much worse. I don’t get that.
I’m a mom. As a matter of fact, I’m a homeschooling mom. I love my kids with all my heart, and if anyone tried to abuse them, I would lay down my life for them in a heartbeat. They’d have to come through me first, literally, and this mama bear would not make it easy for them! I say that to emphasize that what I am about to say in NO way is intended to excuse abuse. I have seen the results of abuse within my extended family, and I have also seen God’s merciful healing and grace extended bountifully.
That being said, your last paragraph intimates that you believe theological errors to be less serious than physical abuse. If that is what you truly believe, that is a grave and fatal error in your thinking. Holy Scripture says “fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). There are some doctrinal errors—most especially those which attack the Gospel—which must be fought with every fiber of our beings, for they herd foolish, spiritually blind men down the slippery slope to Hell.
Jocelyn, I mean this kindly, as an older woman to a younger one. What Fundamentalism needs is not feeling-oriented reactions, whether to child abuse or to doctrinal deviations. What Fundamentalism needs desperately are men who will speak the truth of God’s inspired Word and lead God’s people in loving obedience to ALL of God’s commandments. We don’t get to pick and choose which commandments we obey and which we can ignore. God alone deserves our absolute loyalty and unconditional trust. Whenever we give that absolute loyalty and unconditional trust to a man (and, like you, I have seen it), we make ourselves idolaters. We have that choice, and it is one that no one can take away from us. We need to own up to our own choices and quit blaming the IFB (or our parents, or our childhood, etc.) for the choices we have made.
Bob,
You say my generation and Bauder’s generation.
Example:
“If Kevin’s generation was not going to lose influence once and for all, he (or someone) had to stand out by speaking up. It was a “time to speak” and leaders should know that time when it comes. Actually, it was almost overdue. My generation of leaders…”
How do you break down the generations? I think Bauder is 54 and didn’t you just turn 39? Bauder seems to be closer to your generation than you are to mine. You are old enough to be his late oops brother:). I know you like to think of yourself as young, but brother, your stuck in the middle between us just graduating “young” guys (me 24) and the “old” guys.
John
Posted by: John at May 18, 2009 10:59 AMWell,
Lyn, you make my case. I think I will jump out of this discussion since it goes nowhere. But I must say that I will not allow Lyn to despise my youth. What I have said and will continue to say is nothing but the truth. I pray God opens your eyes.
Posted by: Jocelyn Zichterman at May 18, 2009 11:02 AMJocelyn, please do not assume that I despise you or your youth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am trying to obey the Biblical admonition for the older women to teach the younger (Titus 2).
Posted by: Lyn Marshall at May 18, 2009 11:08 AMSomehow the last post I posted didn’t make it through.
Bob, This.is.what.makes.me.so.sad.
The fact that everytime abuse comes up amongst the IFB and everyone cries foul. Noone wants to own it. Noone wants to say, “This is a really, really big problem that needs to be addressed.” Every time an IFB leader talks about this they say, “the bitter abuse victims,” “It happens in other groups, too” “I have addressed the issue, once,” “I don’t think you can lump us all in to the same bucket,” and on and on it goes.
And to this I say: God has called YOU to the IFB, God has put YOU in a position of leadership, and God has given YOU the opportunity to address the issues within YOUR group. It is not the SBC’s job to address the IFB. It is not the Chuch of God’s job, the Pentecostals job, etc.
When you spend your days talking to the FBI, police, and child advocacy groups about “latest developments” and your hear over and over, “This is nothing more than another sex/child abuse cult in America” becaue of the large number of horrifying cases being uncovered then you too would be passionate. I do not understand why any defense is necessary.
What I would love to see IFB leaders say is this:
“I have heard numerous stories of sex abuse and cover-ups within the IFB. I am horrified by this. I will stand up for the abuse victims and speak out on their behalf. I will be a leader who makes it known that I support any ministry that addresses these darker issues, because I understand that where there is hidden sin, God is not there. I will not sit back and do nothing about the matter. As a matter of fact, when I hear of abuse within our group that God has placed me in, I will rally the men and women in our church together to write letters of love and comfort to the victim/s. It breaks my heart the pain these kids have had to go through, and I want them to see Christ in me and in the members of our congregation. I do not want even ONE abused soul to walk out the door on God because of the way spiritual leaders handled their situation, because even ONE SOUL matters very much to God. We will not be the kind of people who excuse this away, but will choose to love like Christ loved.”
Posted by: Jocelyn Zichterman at May 18, 2009 11:17 AMI’m sorry Lyn, but I do not know you. I’ve never met you and you are calling me “bitter.” My “older women” mentors would never do such a thing. They are wise mentors who speak slowly and graciously to me and who are very supportive of what God has called me to do, due to my very difficult experiences in life. I am an open and transparent person, and unfortunately, that makes me an easy target for IFB members to attack me on all fronts. I’m sorry that people feel they have to resort to judging motives, which tells me a lot about someones heart in the matter. I do not allow “any woman” to be the “titus2” woman in my life. This would just not be wise or prudent. Again, I will graciously bow out of this thread now, but I hope that God sheds light brighter than my own.
Posted by: Jocelyn Zichterman at May 18, 2009 11:28 AMJocelyn wrote:
“And to this I say: God has called YOU to the IFB, God has put YOU in a position of leadership, and God has given YOU the opportunity to address the issues within YOUR group. It is not the SBC’s job to address the IFB. It is not the Chuch of God’s job, the Pentecostals job, etc.”
Well, that statement just sums up the IFB denial strategy, doesn’t it? Many IFBs who like to think of themselves as the balanced “mainstream” can always claim no relationship to the IFB lunatic fringe since they’re not part of any formal association. That distinction permits them to hang all the sins of SBCers like Billy Graham and Rick Warren on the necks of Al Mohler and Mark Dever because they all consider themselves “in friendly cooperation.”
Once I asked a highly respected IFB leader why IFB leaders should have any credibility with younger fundamentalists when the leaders criticize and separate from conservative evangelicals but fail to expose and separate from the serious errors in their own movement. (I listed several examples of things I observed for years.) This man told me that he knew those kinds of errors were out there among IFBs, but he had just never had any contact with that sort of thing personally in the circles he runs in. That was hard for me to believe at the time. I simply don’t believe it at all now that I look on the FBF website and see that he serves on the board. It’s preposterous.
Posted by: ben at May 18, 2009 01:25 PMBob, great perspective! Your last two paragraphs are a great summary. They deserve repeating …
Maybe both the idea and the movement can live on now. The idea certainly will live and thrive. And for the godly men that shaped the movement there will be the greatest honor: a legacy that has unshackled itself from their own shadows and has sunk its anchor deep into the truth most of those men actually loved.
Dan Sweatt invoked the ghosts. Kevin Bauder turned the lights on. And the ghosts have disappeared.
Do I dare jump into this exchange? Jocelyn, I gather that you have been abused in the past by a Christian leader. I am so sorry! Adamic sinfulness knows no denominational boundaries. I’m sure this has happened in every group of any size of every persuasion. It is without defense, and no true Christian should allow such to pass without strong denunciation.
On the other hand, I was raised in Fundamentalism, and have maintained ties to Fundamentalism for all of my sixty-one years, and I have seen very little of this. Has it happened? Obviously it has. Is it common? I see no reason to believe it is. Is it a greater problem within Fundamentalism than within other groups? Again, I see no reason to believe it is. In fact, from my experience, I would guess it is probably the other way around, but that would be hard to prove.
Most of the Fundamentalists I have known are sincere Christians who truly endeavor to conform to Biblical requirements, and to live godly lives. Do they always succeed? No. In fact, the more godly a person is, the more they are aware of remaining indwelling sin that grieves them deeply. Do I always agree with every Fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture? No. But that’s the beauty of the Body of Christ. We are taught to teach and admonish one another. I can endeavor to teach my brothers what I have learned from Scripture, and invite them to do the same for me.
Jocelyn, it appears to me that you are riding a hobby, and I fear you are mischaracterizing many good and godly people in the process. I trust you will be enabled to see that Fundamentalism is not really your enemy. Ungodliness is, and that crosses all labels and doctrinal divisions. Ungodliness also takes many forms, including pride and malace. May we all take heed.
In the bonds of Christ,
G. N. Barkman
You’re wrong, I have not been abused by ONE Christian leader in Fundamentalism, but an entire group of men in the IFB. You prove my point to an absolute “t.” The minute anyone in/outside the group cries out about this abuse, they are accused of having “malice” and “pride.” Excuse me? Am I really reading you right? You have been in the IFB for 61 years and you’re honestly saying you’ve seen “little” of this abuse.
With all due respect, have you been living in a cave, in the mountains, or in the backwoods? Or are you just purposely putting your head in the sand? Please, please, please visit my website www.freedomfromabuse.net. Over 1,000 (YES 1000) victims of horrible, terrible, incredible and painful abuse have started to talk (a little at a time) and the number is growing. We are talking everything from abuse in the group homes, to pastors homes, to christian schools, to churches— you NAME IT, it is happening.
Just in the last two months there have been 5 pastors/church leaders arrested or charged with crimes ranging from “torture” to pedophilia. Please open your eyes. It is absolutely WRONG for you to sit back silently and not only say NOTHING about these crimes, but to criticize those who are shouting about it is nothing but absolute COWARDLY behavior on every front. This is happening on YOUR WATCH and if there was ever a time for a GODLY, Christ-like man to stand up against it— now is the time. You can accuse me of any motive you wish— but it doesn’t make what I’m saying untrue. Look at my website— as I am proving one step at a time the truth of this, whereas you have absolutely nothing more than your opinion to base your claims on.
I am sorry for the people like you in the IFB who refuse to do what is right before GOD!!! May God open your eyes!
Posted by: Jocelyn Zichterman at May 18, 2009 07:00 PMHi, Bob
I know who Frank Bumpus and Dr. Wayne Van Gelderen Sr. are, and I must admit that I’m glad I do. Let me say a little bit about them for those who don’t know who they are but should. I’m sorry that your experience was so much different than mine.
Frank Bumpus was senior pastor at Bethel Baptist in Schaumburg, Illinois, where he served for many years. He was my senior pastor for four years. Dr. Bumpus spoke the truth and was unafraid to address the problems of our day and to encourage the believer in the pew. While I didn’t know Dr. Bumpus well during those few years before his passing on to glory, I could tell that proclaiming God’s truth was his heart’s cry. And it was always obvious to me that he loved his God. Whether everyone agreed with him is irrelevant. Whether he was perfect is also irrelevant. The fact is, he fought a lot of battles for Fundamentalism that, as you have indicated, nobody probably has any idea about. But in my opinion, we should know about these battles, and we should revere these men. They deserve our respect.
I also know Dr. Wayne Van Gelderen Sr. because one day in 1995 he gave me money to take my future wife out to eat in London. Dr. Van Gelderen was the notorious match maker on the trip to the Holy Land where I met my wife. Though I didn’t know him well, I was touched at the way he encouraged a young guy he didn’t know very well just to give him a nudge in the right direction. Since then, I’ve learned that Dr. Van Gelderen fought a lot of battles for separation that, again, most of us probably don’t know anything about. But we should because he was an important figure in Fundamentalism’s past and spent his life serving his Lord and Savior.
What you’ve written grieves my heart and makes me sad that you didn’t know these men better than you did. If you had, you may not have dismissed them as you have done here. I praise God for these men who served God with their lives, and I believe we should respect their memory!
Bob,
You say my generation and Bauder’s generation.
Example:
“If Kevin’s generation was not going to lose influence once and for all, he (or someone) had to stand out by speaking up. It was a “time to speak” and leaders should know that time when it comes. Actually, it was almost overdue. My generation of leaders…”
How do you break down the generations? I think Bauder is 54 and didn’t you just turn 39? Bauder seems to be closer to your generation than you are to mine. You are old enough to be his late oops brother:). I know you like to think of yourself as young, but brother, your stuck in the middle between us just graduating “young” guys (me 24) and the “old” guys.
John
I put up with a lot of insults on my blog, but this is just OVER THE TOP. I am still young and will be young for a very, very long time. Sheeesh!
;-)
Adam,
About Bumpus I said, What I do want is Frank Bumpus’ heart for God that I thought to be genuine, his zeal for souls that I discerned to be exemplary, and his passion for ministry. Those are all excellent.
That is hardly dismissal.
As to Wayne Van Gelderen Sr. I do wish I had made a similar effort. I’ll re-examine all that tomorrow. But, be it noted, when a man who is known for his plain speaking (as I am) says that he admires another man’s heart for God, zeal for souls, and passion for ministry then I think it is probably a bit touchy to act as if I have crossed some kind of line because I stated in equally plain terms that I do not like the product of his ministry or the philosophy and theology that he maintained.
Posted by: bob at May 18, 2009 11:13 PMJocelyn, sex abuse is serious. However, the general situation is not as simple as your posts suggest, nor is it the same as what prompted Pastor Bixby’s posts here. First, the situations that you mention are, at the presentation level, ones of conduct, not theology. They need to be addressed, obviously. The key questions are who should address them and how they should do so.
The who is straight forward: persons with requisite knowledge of the situation and the appropriate family members and ecclesiastical and civil authorities. Since we are talking about independent Baptist churches, appropriate ecclesiastical authority is the local churches of which the perpetrators are members. The appropriate civil authorities are the law enforcement personnel and other investigators responsible for enforcing laws regarding such behavior. The what is simple, too. If sufficient evidence exists, church discipline should be instituted in the church, and appropriate legal proceedings should be instituted in the relevant criminal courts and juvenile and domestic relations courts.
Yet most of us have no direct knowledge of such situations, are not members of the perpetrators’ churches, are not government investigators of such matters, and are not judges of the relevant courts. As a general matter, we can and should condemn this type of behavior (just as we condemn other sinful behavior). However, condemning an individual pastor or other leader’s behavior requires grounds for knowing that he has done such wrong. Generally, most of us lack the information necessary to judge a righteous judgment and take a side. The primary source for such information is not the Web. There are important reasons that we bring matters formally before the church, not into the blogosphere. There are important reasons that we try cases in courts (where both sides are heard, witnesses can be cross-examined, and large swaths of hearsay are excluded), not in Internet fora. Recall the Scripture:
“He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.” (Prov. 18:13)
“The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.” (Prov. 18:17)
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)
It is not cowardly to refuse to make a judgment or take a side where we lack the information to judge righteously.
Now, the rest of us can repeat things that we hear, passing on the sordid details, even re-posting them on the Internet. However, there are real risks of becoming gossips, of slandering our Christian brothers and sisters (and I mean to include both accusers and accused), and of violating the Ninth Commandment (as to both accusers and accused).
Second, and to go back to the point of the thread, this sex abuse situation is not similar to what Pastor Bixby has raised. The point here is to address issues raised in certain preaching. Anyone can hear it. The pastor’s words speak for themselves. A parallel situation involving sex abuse would be, for example, if the preachers in question had been preaching that such abusive behavior was morally acceptable or even pleasing in God’s sight. In that case, Christian leaders could—and should—stand up, openly disavow such error, and forcefully refute it. But what you decry is not that case.
Finally, contrary to what you imply, theology is important. Indeed, many of the weaknesses in IFB circles come from too much “folk theology” (to use Grenz and Olson’s term from Who Needs Theology?—a great book, by the way), and too little attention to sound theology. And I think that is a major part of Pastor Bixby’s point.
Posted by: Brent Marshall at May 18, 2009 11:29 PMBrent,
Thanks for your response. Jocelyn, if you would like to have the last word (and can make it relatively short), help yourself. Then, All, I’d really like to stay on the topic of preaching and leadership.
Bob
Posted by: bob at May 19, 2009 12:06 AMBob, what you said was disrespectful toward a bunch of dead men who cannot defend themselves. You even offended the Van Gelderen family.
Here is what you said: “We not only don’t know who Frank Bumpus, Wayne Van Gelderen, Sr., Bob Jones, Jr., Jack Hyles, and John R. Rice were, but the little bit that we know we flat out don’t want to emulate.” You honestly think that’s a loving, kind statement that glorifies God?
Posted by: Adam Blumer at May 19, 2009 07:01 AMI also attended Pastor Bumpus’ church growing up and I appreciated so many things about the man, but I also saw some things that concerned me. You follow the good, appreciate the good, and depart from the bad. It’s not that hard really. I think that’s pretty much what Bob said. I think Fundamentalists (as with all people) tend to expect those they speak against to have thick skin, but are so quick to become offended and almost purposely build mountains out of mole-hills simply so they can start their righteous crusade.
And Jocelyn, I know several (although not many) Fundamental pastors and I think all of them support the standards you call for. I hardly think there is a huge cover-up going on. And if so, you have the government who will gladly listen and prosecute abuse these cases, as they should.
Posted by: Steve Bradley at May 19, 2009 05:17 PMThat’s the EXACT problem with the IFB— everybody follows every rule and regulation as a denomination, but then claims its really not a denomination at all. Whatever. It is absolutely a denomination— where everybody knows everybody to one degree or another (just look at everyone’s list of 1,000 friends on facebook). The churches/colleges/christian schools/group homes are all supported by one another. The leaders fly from one church to another getting their love offerings——- while the “lowly” christian school personnel and the small church pastors live on next to nothing. The pastors in turn send kids to the colleges and get asked to speak at the “special meetings” and get more members and look good for having the “great” IFB leaders into their churches. When people get antsy about the lack of progress they start looking around for another “great man” to come out of the sky to direct the movement in a new way —- and all of this happens while they continually claim they are not interdependent.
If Bob Bixby or his “kin” say one negative thing, he is called to apologize to the group. But if a man is accused of pedophilia— there must be “proof” before any move is made to remove him from position and any measure is taken to ensure the safety of other kids. And in Bob Gray’s case- decades go by and noone does even one thing! Then some Danny dude steps up and says, “Let’s appreciate these men for what they DID do.” YUCK! Imagine being one of the victims of Bob Gray and hearing such a thing. Where’s the IFB’s empathy for the abused? It’s like everyone just walks on and makes another excuse for the sickness of it all. Where are the sermons on this stuff? Where are the public outcrys against the cover-ups? Where are the men who will step up and support the survivors from the Hephzibah House, The Bethany House, The Rebekah House, the IFB Churches and Schools? Where are they? Nowhere. They don’t exist. The victims are turned away, scorned, mocked, insulted, accused, betrayed and blasted. If you want to see the stories for yourself read through my website. They are there— you just have to WANT to see them!
In my opinion, the men in the IFB are nothing but cowards who can’t take personal criticism at any level. They teach their women to address them “just right” so they don’t get their feelings hurt by the truth. When are they going to grow up and be MEN?
In the real world, when a woman says, “So and so CREEPS ME OUT” the husband/friends say, “Let’s watch our children around him” and then they go and report the “creep factor” to people who can keep a lookout for the kids. In the IFB, that same woman is told she is, “Being overly suspicious, judgmental, and sowing discord.” I’m sorry, but God gives women a “creep meter” for a reason!! And if you don’t listen to your wives— no wonder the pedophiles invade. What stops them? They don’t exactly ask all the good, pure men to come watch them molest the children!
The IFB leaders stand against “false religion,” “CCM,” “Calvinism,” and ignore the plight of the women and children who’ve lost all hope. The “old men” want to be seen as wise and godly, with people swooning around them in “awe” but can’t get a backbone to do what needs to be done. I think of Jack Hyles going into the girls dormitory and throwing his ties to his fawning girl students. Its nonsense and sick.
As far as abuse cover-ups—- of course they are going on. When was the last time you ever heard of anyone in the IFB taking an IFB pastor’s daughter by the hand to the police department to help support her as she reports his crimes against her? I was in the IFB for over 30 years and never saw/heard of this even ONE TIME — and according to the primary IFB women’s counselor on campus at our christian college- 60% of the girls had endured some form of sexual abuse— and the majority of these girls were coming out of ministry homes in the IFB. Did this woman help these girls go to the police to report these crimes every time she heard of one even when the girl was a pastors daughter or missionary kid? Did she/or her husband contact the local police department in the area where the girl lived and report the abuse? I hardly think so. Just doesn’t happen in the IFB! Why? Because they have “their own laws” which include “forgiveness” and “lack of bitterness”— “Those outside laws don’t apply to us!” GRRRRROOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!!!!
G N Barkman — the cover-ups are real and that’s the reason you haven’t heard anything about the abuse. Why does this happen in the IFB? Because everyone is soooo used to claiming autonomy when accusations arise. No one is responsible to deal with the gorss sickness of it all. Its soooo convenient for cowardly men! When accusations arise, pastors should go right to the deacon boards, call for resignations and bring accountability. Period.
Another problem: Due to lack of education in the psychological field in the IFB the “counselors” (the FRAUDS who call themselves counselors/doctors- when their really not) don’t understand abuse trauma, repressed memories, flashbacks, mental illness, and that only 2% of all accusations turn out to be FALSE. ALL THE REST turn out to be FACT not FICTION. But the IFB leaders/institutions don’t understand this because they don’t educate their people on abuse correctly.
Also, most people in the IFB don’t understand the statute of limitations, recidivism rate of pedophiles, time lapse, etc.—- and that just because charges are not pressed or arrests aren’t made doesn’t mean you’re dealing with a “good guy” who doesn’t deserve absolute and total accountability. Many times by the time the abuse victim in the IFB understands what has happened to them the statute of limitations have past in their state. The last poster who posted this- doesn’t understand/get this obviously (more proof that IFBer’s just don’t get proper education about these issues). Abuse takes time to unravel. Also, there are many different reasons decisions are made in/out of the courts. Sometimes investigations take a very long time. Sometimes the kids were too young when the crimes were committed to stand trial. Every state/county is different. And ultimately, when an IFB pastor says to me that he has never had to call CPS or the police about abuse— I say: no doubt he is breaking the law! Why? Because pastors are mandatory reporters — and with all the counseling pastors do— there are times in every church when mandatory reporting must be done.
And yes, G N Barkman, I am riding a hobby and I’ll do it until the day I die. I am PROUD to say that my hobby is to protect women and children from abuse of all kinds and I’ll never apologize even one minute for the call on my life. Maybe you should try sticking up for the abused yourself! I have a few ideas how you could help. If you email me at jocelynfreedom@gmail.com I’ll share them with you.
It really is fulfilling and awesome when you see someone destroyed by abuse turn their heart to a God of love and learn to trust again.
