The dangers of hyper-fundamentalism,

.....can be illustrated in a single quote.

First, some background; those people who may have read my blog over the past few weeks (all three of them? ha!)  may have inferred from my posts regarding the KJV-only movement and other characteristics of hyper-fundamentalist Baptist churches that my "axe to grind" may have been somewhat personal.  If they have, they are right; my family has just left such a church that was trying to keep these objectionable theologies "under wraps" for a while.  Obviously, there are any number of side issues there, which I will not go into here.

However, inspired by dear brother Jim's comment on Sword of the Lord, a hyper-fundamentalist newspaper, I've found a quote from a book loaned to me by my now former pastor that illustrates a lot of things brilliantly.  The author tries to make the case that Bibles translated from the Critical Text are not valid Bibles with such brilliant evidence such as this (page 110)

This author has in his possession a photograph of the man puffing on a cigar.

Now, I would agree that tobacco is disgusting, and that it is good to avoid it for any number of reasons.  However, what the author is doing here is called, in informal logic, the ad hominem fallacy, the erroneous belief that an argument can be refuted by drawing attention to personal traits of the speaker.  The quote above is one of four such attacks in a relatively short paragraph on page 110 of that book.  Put gently, verse 9 of Jude comes to mind regarding this author!

There are any number of conclusions we can draw from this.  First, it is critically important that a pastor or teacher learn, and apply, the rules of formal and informal logic.  For that matter, it's not a bad idea for any deacon or church member to do the same--both to understand Scripture better and to keep the pastor honest. 

Next, it is unfortunately a fact that too many hyper-fundamentalists--King James Version enthusiasts, Trail of Blood enthusiasts, Sword of the Lord writers/readers, and so on--not only indulge ad hominem and guilt by association fallacies, but they do so (e.g. cigar quote above) on bases not even endorsed by Scripture. 

Personally, I love the fundamentals of the faith too much to allow the "King James and culottes, I don't drink and I don't chew and I don't go with girls that do" crowd to be the only face of fundamentalism the world sees.

The tragedy of hyperfundamentalism

I was thinking about the hyperfundamentalism that most evangelicals and fundamentalists--and OK, quite a few in and out of other churches--come into contact with from time to time, and realized that the tragedy of hyperfundamentalism ("I don't drink and I don't chew and I don't go with girls that do") is summed up in a simple precept; it undoes fundamentalism and the good it did and does.

Now for some, "the good that fundamentalism did" is subtle, to put it mildly, but let's remember the real fundamentals; the inerrancy of Scripture in its autographs, the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, the physical resurrection, and the second coming.  In specifying these as essential for Christian faith, they provided a needed shorthand where believers could discern sheep from wolves, and thus they created a powerful unifying force where Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and others could find fellowship despite significant theological differences.  (little known fact; Bob Jones was a Methodist)

Now consider hyperfundamentalism; King James Only, Trail of Blood, Landmark, prohibitions on everything from alcohol to cigarettes to playing cards to red cars, dictatorship of the head pastor in too many churches, hymns only, psalms only, .....and what do we have but a profoundly divisive movement, or....let's face it, set of movements.  What they have in common is substitution of the rules of men for the Word of God and the Gospel, and hence....what do we have but an un-doing of the good that the original fundamentalists did a century ago?

That's what I'll call a tragedy.

Arguing theology

A few years back, I led a Bible study of young singles, and one thing I could count on was for two young men to start a parallel debate on Calvin vs. Arminius. What was most interesting to me was that I was pretty sure that at least one participant had never read a word of either theologian.

Fast forward to last night, and I was talking with a neighbor who is a member of a church that's now Reformed Baptist. Or, sort of. It's been Arminian, Calvinist, and at least two varieties of Landmark/King James Only in the past five years as well, and always with something of an emphasis on works to boot. At times, spirituality in this place often seems to be measured by how many members are expelled.

As in the former case, I'm pretty sure that the pastor has never bothered to read Calvin, Arminius, or any number of other theologians. Rather, it's just a rapid-fire set of attacks on theological opponents, and it's sent a number of people who love the Lord and each other to separate churches--very often in anguish over what they've experienced.

I would be tempted to berate people for this, but it's merely an extreme example of something we see all too often; people quit one church because it's too dispensational, too reformed, too Calvinistic, too Arminian, and so on--and that when they've never bothered to learn even the exegetical or hermeneutical distinctives of their favored perspective.

And so we see millions running from church to church, infecting each with the poison of uninformed theological views while more or less failing to lift a finger to reach the lost and encourage those in the flock.

If you think you might be partly or fully in this pattern, here are some sites that might be encouraging to you:

Living Waters

Evangie Tales

Things to watch out for at church--or anywhere

My friend Jim has a post about a scandal at First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana.  Evidently, the head pastor has been found to have bedded a then 16-year-old female member.

Now, despite growing up 25 miles from Hammond (exit 26 on I-94 in Indiana, you can figure it out), I never have entered their building, nor did I have a desire to do so.  However, there are a number of things from which we can learn in this sad case if we're willing.

First of all, as Jim points out, it can be very dangerous to have a father and son ministering together--a father will tend to overlook the moral faults of his son, as Jack Hyles is said to have done for both his son and son-in-law.  A commenter of Jim's and mine also notes that a similar thing happened at Jim's current church.

On a different level, though, churches that avoid nepotism can fall into the same trap by falling into a cult of personality.  Let's take a look at First Baptist since Hyles arrived in 1959.

1.  You have a church filled with images of their most famous pastor, including a gaudy bronze of him and his wife.
2.  You have a Bible college named after him, also filled with images of Hyles.
3.  Hyles persuaded his congregation, with no Biblical or secular evidence, that not only was the King James the "only" Bible, but also that no one could be saved unless the KJV was somehow involved.
4.  He kept his Bible college and pastorate despite a string of sexual scandals, many involving his own family.
5.  When his son in law took the pastorate, he changed the church away from KJV-only theology simply by announcing that the KJV was not the only Bible out there--nobody apparently challenging him.
6.  His son also came up with a theology that argued that when someone comes to Christ, it is a spiritual version of intercourse with Christ.

Now look at #6 carefully; it's very close to, but not, good theology.  As Ephesians 5 notes, the Bride is being prepared for wedding to her Lord--not yet wed.  She is betrothed, not married.  So we have first of all the problem that people stayed despite Schaak's argument--not too many saw through it.  And it gives the obvious question; did the young lady come for counseling because of doubt of her salvation, and the pastor volunteered to give her "a little bit of Christ" for her faith's sake?  And to how many did he do it?  The statistics I've seen indicate that molesters of girls average about eight to ten victims.

No matter what happens with this sordid case, I think we call can agree that if the doctrine of a church--or the positions of any other organization--are grounded in no authority higher than the head of the organization, that organization (church, company, etc..) is in trouble.  Pray for the leadership of 1st Baptist, that they will see their need to build their church on the teachings of the Bible, and not simply upon the authority and personality of their leaders.  They will then face the daunting task of teaching their members--if they indeed stay--to be good Bereans who will keep their pastors honest.

Now this is something I'd like to see more of!

"Ben" comments on the 400th anniversary of the King James Version:

As a committed 1560 Geneva Bible Only (GBO) advocate, I mourn this last day of the last year before the New Age Bible (Per)Versions gained ascendancy in the English language. In 1611 dawned a day when a "bible" produced by Anglican, gospel-compromising, Erastian, Puritan-hating, monarchists changed God's Word and displaced a TR-dependent, nonconformist-influenced, divinely designated Word of God in English produced in the REPUBLIC of Geneva

Now seriously, I love and treasure the 1611 Authorized Version (and am doing my daily devotions in it), but the bibiolatry practiced by KJV only (and KJV preferred) advocates desperately needs this kind of mockery, as it does nearly immense damage to the Church.

That said, this blogger has in his possession a picture of "Ben" (who as far as I know I do not know) sitting in a leather armchair puffing on a cigar, so obviously his view means nothing.  (paraphrase of an actual argument against the eclectic text offered by one KJV advocate.....)

Rescuing the use of Matthew 18

In recent weeks, events like the opening of the GRACE report about sexual abuse at Bob Jones University have made me aware of an interesting approach to Matthew 18 made by GRACE and others; that this reconciliation process only applies to minor, personal matters between individuals in the church.  Now I'm amenable to the motivation--who wants to force the 90 pound victim to confront her (his) 250 pound assailant alone?--but simply speaking, there is a lot of trouble with this approach.  For starters, the passage simply says "if your brother sins against you"--it doesn't tell us what sins might, or might not, be included. 

Couple that with Romans 13 (which indicates a significant role for kings in justice) and 1 Corinthians 6 (which indicates that believers in Corinth weren't supposed to go to law at all), and we have a recipe for confusion if we view this through modern eyes, where we have a large and fairly adequate civil and criminal justice system.   So let's try to look at these passages through "ancient eyes". 

A good place to start with Romans 13 and 1 Cor. 6 is to remember that only Roman citizens had access to the courts.  So when 1 Corinthians 6 was read for the first time, the minority who were wealthy citizens (probably some of the deacons and elders) were singled out.  The majority--slaves and poor--would have seen Romans 13 as an example of what could be done to them more than what could be done for them, the King's authority more than a promise of justice for them.

Hence, 1 Corinthians 6 might also read rich people, don't use the courts to abuse your poorer brothers; James 2:6 says this as well.  Today, we see this a lot in civil and family law, where people use false accusations and the civil courts to stomp the less fortunate into submission.  Thankfully in criminal law, the accuser at least must persuade an independent prosecutor that charges ought to be filed!

In this light, the application of Matthew 18 is very broad--it was the only recourse that most people had.  And we are left, again, with the question of whether we force that 90 pound victim to face her 250 pound offender alone.  Should we then abandon Matthew 18?

As repulsive as the picture we've discussed is, keep in mind that if we abandon Biblical process, we then will either exonerate the guilty or blame the innocent for one reason; criminal law is not necessarily God's law.  Plus, Matthew 18 works as much for reconciliation as it does for excommunication--it's a spiritual tool not given to the government.  How do we then rescue it?

First, remember that the first meeting where the accused was aware of his sin is when the assault(s) occurred.  Hence it looks like we ought to proceed directly to Matthew 18:16, where other witnesses would be involved.

Along the same lines, Scripture enjoins men to stand in for their wives and children, and even for widows and orphans, while pronouncing a curse against those who pervert justice.  So in that light, we ought to argue that any vulnerable accuser ought to be represented when confronting the one who has abused her--by parents, husband, or other responsible person capable of handling the situation.

That then leaves a very simple question; when does a church bring in civil authorities in the Matthew 18 process?  I'll present some thoughts soon.