bread and circuses

Who Changed?

2008-12-03T23:00:00.003-05:00

Here I am again--apologizing for our not posting anything new for many months now! Family, work, church, kid's sports, potty training, etc... have contributed to this most recent silence. I don't know that an apology is needed--these are far more important than any blog. Oh well, this is a short one but I have been chewing on it for a while now.

Here is what Pastor Jack Schaap, First Baptist Church of Hammond, and Hyles Anderson College believes regarding the Holy Scriptures in 2008:

"WE BELIEVE THE BIBLE is the Word of God. We believe in the King James Version of the Bible."

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."

REWIND APPROXIMATELY 100 YEARS...

Here is what James Gray had to say in 1909 regarding inspiration in The Fundamentals Volume 2 Chapter 1:

"Let it be stated further in this defnitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record — the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it."

One question begs asking--who changed their belief on the Holy Scriptures? Stay tuned for more to come...

PT

You Write the Caption!

2008-03-27T20:06:00.004-05:00

On a much lighter note, let's play a fun game of "You Write the Caption" for this photo. I have a few that I jotted down already, but I want to see everyone's creative side before I reveal them! Let's keep it clean and above reproach now people!

PT Barnum

Numbers Are Still King in Hammond

2008-03-11T21:04:00.007-05:00

Hello again everybody. I want to apologize for being gone again for such a long time. I have been very busy at work--a website redesign, safety program revamp, and usual business development duties. I have also been an assistant coach on my 9 year old son's basketball team. My 8 year old son has been playing basketball as well and my 20 month old girl is getting into everything!

I didn't want to pass on this opportunity since I have recently received an invitation to attend Pastor's School (this is where I copied this gem from) and a DVD with information on the meetings as well.

Obviously we take issue with a lot of what goes on in Hammond--one of our biggest problems is with their incessant penchant for NUMBERS. If you read the following article by Jack Schaap you will see this fetish clear as day. First Baptist Church of Hammond today is the same as the FBCH of Jack Hyles. Their self love is nauseating to me personally and it is comical to hear them define ministry success. I am looking forward to watching some of the morning sessions when Jack Schaap pontificates on what has "happened" to all the large independent fundamental churches of yesteryear!

Little does Jack Schaap realize it but it is entirely possible for the LORD to receive more glory from a bunch of "little" churches than from one "mega" church. I frankly don't care about mega churches--IMHO any church over 1,000 should be starting other churches all over their area instead of building the "mother church". Take a look at what our self proclaimed expert on "church growth" has to say:

"Do We Suffer From An Identity Crisis?"

"In 1976 Dr. Elmer Towns, dean of the Church Growth Institute at Liberty University, wrote a book about the largest Sunday schools in America. His purpose was to show what large churches were successfully doing which might help other churches to do their part in obeying the Great Commission as well. In his book, The 100 Largest Sunday Schools, he recorded 33 churches which today would be classified as mega churches. Of those 33 churches, 20 were independent Baptist churches. It seems we were moving on in obedience to the Lord.

During the same decade, my predecessor, former pastor, and mentor, Dr. Jack Hyles, made a short study of growing Baptist churches across America. His research revealed that the largest church of any kind in 14 different states was an independent Baptist church. It would appear, at least, that Baptists were on their way to doing what Baptists were supposed to do and that is reaching the lost with the Gospel, getting converts baptized, and teaching them to win others to Christ and to reproduce themselves spiritually.

At age 50, I stand over the midway point of my preaching career. Thirty-two years ago, I began my ministry amongst the most aggressive, growing, and influential pastors and churches. I have wondered to myself and asked my staff, “Where are independent Baptists 33 years later?” and the next obvious question, “Where are we going?”

I commissioned a team of my staff to do follow-up research on the same 14 churches that my predecessor researched over 30 years ago. I discovered that only one of the 14 still held the position of largest church in their state, and that is the church I pastor. I question not only where did the other 13 go, but also, what is the state of the church growth movement today? I do not make these statements to sit in judgment independent Baptists or of those who followed other church growth models, but rather to point out the obvious decline among those who over 33 years ago were very focused and successful.

It is my personal belief that Christ gave us the method and the model and the message. I am convinced that God would not give us such an important truth without giving us an example of how truth should be spread. Furthermore, there is both a consensus and confusion among church growth experts as to which model is successful, along with a tremendous hunger to find any method that will fill our pews. One of the most recent, oft-copied, contemporary models of church growth in America has admitted a failure in effectively discipling converts to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ.

Nearly all Christian groups would agree that a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ is one of our foundational goals. If a comparison were made of Christian models, one would find a strong thread of commonality with that message. What is often the discrepancy is the method and model used.

I think it is valid to ask, “Where have we gone, and where are we going? Have we given up on building effective churches that pattern the book of Acts? Have we left the highways and hedges where the lame, the halt, the maimed, and the blind still await our coming?”

To those of us who diligently study church growth, we find that some vacillate between a prosperity Gospel and deeper life with an occasional visit to a soul-winning ministry. It appears we are never quite able to find the balance and cadence of the Great Commission.

Have our morals shifted along with our models? I fear some of us have become distracted by our brothers’ ministries and have found that acting as judge of our fellow-laborer’s ministry is easier than acting as a soldier performing our Christian duties.

This year’s Pastor’s School will be revelatory and relevant! Join me each morning at Pastor’s School as we examine the facts and search the Scriptures and exalt the Savior."

--Dr. Jack Schaap

Hope you enjoyed this little glimpse into the fundyism from which we have come.

Matthew

The Precious Word of God

2008-01-15T19:28:00.000-05:00

I found a very interesting article over at Sharper Iron. This young fellow by the name of Doug Smith hits the nail squarely on the head. We here at Bread and Circuses do not bash the KJV--it is a very good version that has been used by God, but we believe that there are other good versions with more modern language. We are wondering how long the false teaching of King James Onlyism will continue to be pushed among the hysterical fundamentalists. We are praying for a return to the historic and orthodox position on the Holy Scriptures--won't you join us? Check the article out here and enjoy!

PT Barnum

Predators: Home-Made Monsters

2007-12-23T13:57:00.000-05:00

Voyle Glover is a friend of ours and has been a guest poster here at Bread and Circuses in the past. Here is a piece that he has recently finished and we thought that it would be a good read for everyone here.

Voyle Glover is an attorney in private practice in Lake County, Indiana. He’s a member of Lake Hills Baptist Church in Schererville, Indiana, is married to Trudy, and together they have three children. Attorney Glover is the author of "Protecting Your Church Against Sexual Predators" (Kregel), and has authored other books, articles, and columns over the years. His website, Brevia Notes, contains a wide assortment of his writings. He teaches on Wednesday evenings in his church, and also preaches in various churches from time to time.

You can find his most recent article here on his Brevia website--a very compelling article indeed. Check out some of his other articles as well--one of my favorites focuses on Christ's Crucifixion.

**Recently Voyle has had some health challenges and he is still recovering from heart surgery. Please keep Voyle, Trudy, and the entire Glover family in your prayers.

PT Barnum

To Change or Not To Change?

2007-11-29T20:00:00.000-05:00

Sorry we have been so irregular in our posting lately--things have been extremely busy for us the past few months. With children in baseball practice, baseball games, football practice, and football games time is still very limited to invest in our blog.

All that being said, I wanted to revisit a comment from one of our previous posts concerning "change" and make sure that it did not get lost in the comments section. I meant to post this back in August, but things got very busy at work and home so I never got around to it. I want to clarify what I have observed at FBCH/HAC concerning their view of "change".

A young man who calls himself Jeremy has some venting to do over our criticisms of HAC/FBCH. You can find his comments under the "Old-Timer Religion" thread. He begins by quoting a portion of my last post taken from the Reformers by way of Mark Dever in his book, The Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Here is the comment in its entirety and I will respond to it at the end.

**Disclaimer: I am not attacking Jeremy nor do I wish to lash out at him in any way, shape, or form. I just could not allow his comments to go unchallenged as I see them flawed on many levels. If you feel compelled to comment here please be sure to do so in a Christ-like spirit. I believe that Jeremy is probably a sincere follower of Christ just like I am--I simply wanted to set the record straight concerning his accusation that we are "making things up".

“We need God’s Word to be saved, but we also need it to continually challenge and shape us. His Word not only gives us life; it also gives us direction as it keeps molding and shaping us in the image of the God who is speaking to us." "For someone that sat under the ministry of FBCH for multiple decades (and apparently can't get through one blog about anything other than FBCH)you'd think that you'd understand the difference between Mark Dever's explanation of "changing" and Jack Hyles/Jack Schaap's explantion. The former is a continual shaping by God to be in his image. The latter is the determination to never change from the "doctrines" that DO NOT change. Of course, a perpetual desire to degrade, attack, and diminish the work of FBCH needs more fuel. Sometimes, you just make it up if it's not there, right? In your epic quest to portray IFB as man-centered and far from the humility and meekness of Christ, not once do I read a humble experience of learning that you've received from God. Nor do you admit your short comings. Your persistent criticism makes clear the mental "ivory tower" upon which you've placed your philosophies and doctrines over those of people with whom you disagree. Jack Schaap's actions may translate as pride and gaudy number exaltation to you, but what do your constant criticisms translate about you to others? I can't wait until FBCH falls, or changes to your thinking ... whichever you desire. Apparently, thanks to the learning I received on this site, it's the whole point of Christianity. Godspeed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please understand that my comment is in no way an attempt to sway you, change you, or get back at you. I'm no better than you are. Consider it a friendly "venting". The best to you."

First of all I would like to address the assertion that the Reformers were talking about something entirely different than Schaap concerning "change". In all of my years at FBCH/HAC the great majority of the time that "change" was brought up it was in the context of changing from the "old paths". We heard places like Bob Jones University railed upon because of their "liberal" ways--can you imagine anyone thinking that a place like BJU is liberal? A casual survey of their website will prove otherwise to any reasonable investigator.

Nevertheless, to this day Pastor Schaap is throwing tantrums about Tennessee Temple University and how liberal they have gone--i.e. contemporary worship music, different Bible versions, and abandonment of certain dress standards. What many of the culturalists cannot grasp is that it is entirely possible for someone to be a sold out Christ-follower and not agree with them on music, Bible versions, the "old sawdust trail", dress standards, or a personality within larger Fundamentalism. Standards, associations, and preferences are NOT fundamentals of the faith--the fact that you don't change on silly cultural issues is not the same as not changing on the cardinal doctrines of our faith.

When FBCH puts up a billboard trumpeting themselves as an "unchanging church" they are referring to differences in worship style mostly and not to anything about doctrines that DO NOT change. If you think that this is not accurate you need only to listen to a few Sunday night sermons where Jack Schaap screeches about other colleges or ministries that are not still stuck in the 1950's like FBCH/HAC.

Pastors Hyles and Schaap usually reference "change" as a negative thing--rarely if ever are they talking about the core doctrines of our faith--usually they are referring to gray issues that although they may illicit bronx cheers from the rowdy Sunday evening college crowd they do not threaten the faith or Gospel that has been handed down to us.

I am saddened that this young man feels that we desire to see FBCH/HAC fall--I truly do not want them to fall but to reform. I desire to see them cease from their man-centered ways. I desire that Pastor Schaap begins to feed his flock by the expository preaching/teaching of the Word. I desire that those who attend FBCH would not need to get fed by radio preachers because of the spiritual malnutrition they experience from the pulpit ministry of FBCH. I desire that FBCH forsake the heresy of King James Onlyism in all of its forms and that they would go back to an orthodox position on the inspiration of Scripture that the original fundamentalists espoused. I do not have time to go on here--that is another post for another day.

The object of Christianity is not to see FBCH fall or change to my desires--the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Our lives are about so much more than this blog--if you haven't noticed we can go months without posting anything new. This blog was established for those who are "on the fence" in Hammond--it is certainly not for everyone and we have attempted to make that point clear.

It is simply smoke and mirrors to pretend that since we operate a blog that takes issue with the hysteric portion of fundamentalism it must be all that we do in our spare time. It is more of the same IFBx defense mechanism that rears its ugly head when one encounters this blog and others like it. What so often happens is the offended reader then jumps to a non sequitur, e.g., since the blog is primarily dealing with the constructive criticism of IFBx it must be all that the blog operators invest their time in...? We are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination--just ask our wives and friends who know us well. I do not take lightly when someone accuses us of "making things up".

We do hope that those who object to this blog will continue to visit and comment as they feel led. We know that they have few places where they can voice their dissent--we want this to be a place where people are free to disagree with a gracious spirit. I hope that "Jeremy" will come back again and vent here at Bread and Circuses in the near future.

To the praise of His glorious grace,

PT Barnum

Veto Power--Not Just For the POTUS

2007-11-14T15:00:00.000-05:00

I was reminded recently of a teaching I encountered as a young lad smack in the middle of IFBxdom. This teaching is what some have come to call "veto power". I know, I know--you thought that only the President of the United States had this power--you were dead wrong. Some within IFBx believe that the pastor or some other Christian leader ought to hold "veto power" over the decisions in your life. I know this is a foreign concept to most of you who are reading this, but let me assure you that it is taught among the cultural fundamentalists.

I want to begin by saying that I believe in wise Christian counsel--I believe in the Scriptural principle of seeking guidance or counsel when an important decision lays in the balance.

Proverbs 11:14 tells us: "Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in abundance of counselors there is safety." Proverbs 15:22 explains: "Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed." Lastly, Proverbs 24:6 says: "For by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory." I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that it is our first priority to seek the LORD's guidance on everything. In those instances when we encounter a situation where God remains silent and we are struggling for peace, a group of wise Christian counselors is both a wise and scriptural principle.

All that being said, I recently picked up a copy of Christian Womanhood (a monthly magazine published by the ministries of the First Baptist Church of Hammond) and found an article that gave me pause. I believe that the lady who wrote this article is a fine Christian woman--I actually had the opportunity while in college of working with her and her family on an East Chicago bus route. My issue with this teaching is not directed at her personally and so I will withhold her name from this discussion.

Here is the paraphrased version of her story. She was a Hyles Anderson College student and away from home. She had been dating a man who I believe proposed to her and so she went in to see Pastor Hyles about it. She had already decided to adopt Pastor Hyles' teaching of "veto power" being held by ones pastor. Pastor Hyles listened as she explained the good news of her proposal--Pastor Hyles exercised his power of veto in this young lady's life and forbade her from accepting this marriage proposal. Later this same young lady met her husband and Pastor Hyles approved and they are still living happily ever after and working in the ministries of FBCH.

I love to hear stories about couples who have been married for 25, 30, 40, 50, and 60 years--we need more marriages like this in our culture today for sure! The only part of this story that I am taking issue with is the fact that this individual had given Pastor Hyles veto power in her life. I think everything worked out great for this particular lady, but I wonder how many other similar stories could be told with the exact opposite result?

I do not believe that FBC Hammond is a cult--I do believe that teachings like this about a pastor's "veto power" are unfortunately both cultic and unscriptural. I do not believe that every college student or member of FBCH has adopted this philosophy--I praise God for that. If you ever encounter someone trying to teach you this little-known doctrine run as fast as you can in the opposite direction!

PT Barnum

We Are Still Alive

2007-11-08T16:55:00.000-05:00

It has been over 6 months since we have posted anything new--we never intended to be gone so long. We used to have over 100 visits to the big top on an average day--much of that traffic is now gone since we have neglected to keep things current.

We don't have anything ready just yet for a real post, but I wanted to check in and let anyone who cares know that although we may be sleeping--we are still alive! We will soon wake up and have some fresh takes in regards to hysteric fundyism.

To the praise of His glorious grace,

PT Barnum

Old Timer Religion

2007-05-03T11:17:00.000-05:00

Recently I began to re-read a book I read for the first time a couple years ago. The book is “The Nine Marks of a Healthy Church” by Mark Dever. Mark is Senior Pastor of the Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC and executive director of 9Marks Ministries. I enjoyed the book the first time I read it and benefited greatly from his teaching on church membership and church discipline.

You may be wondering where I am going with this—hold on and I will explain. In my honest opinion, the book as a whole runs counter to most everything pushed in the world of the cultural fundamentalist. This is obviously not an exhaustive list but it is still extremely thought provoking. Just look at the chapter titles alone to see how far many in contemporary Fundamentalism have drifted. Expositional Preaching, Biblical Theology, The Gospel, A Biblical Understanding of Conversion, A Biblical Understanding of Evangelism, A Biblical Understanding of Church Membership, Biblical Church Discipline, A Concern for Discipleship and Growth and Biblical Church Leadership.

What especially caught my eye the other night was a paragraph on page 51 of chapter 1 on the subject of expositional preaching and its transforming power in the sanctification of the believer. Pastor Dever says:

“We need God’s Word to be saved, but we also need it to continually challenge and shape us. His Word not only gives us life; it also gives us direction as it keeps molding and shaping us in the image of the God who is speaking to us.
At the time of the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church had a Latin phrase that became something of a motto: semper idem. It means ‘always the same.’ Well, the Reformed churches, too, had a ‘semper’ motto: ecclesia reformata, simper reformanda secundum verbum Dei. ‘The church reformed, always being reformed according to the Word of God.’ A healthy church is a church that hears the Word of God and continues to hear the Word of God. And such a church is composed of individual Christians who hear the Word of God and continue to hear the Word of God, always being refashioned and reshaped by it, constantly being washed in the Word and sanctified by God’s truth.”

On a recent visit to the region I noticed a billboard that promoted First Baptist of Hammond as an "Unchanging Church for a Changing World". I remember hearing this kind of plug in the past used by churches to describe themselves. No doubt they want to set themselves apart from the seeker sensitive and ever changing churches of our day. In the past I would have never questioned this kind of statement but now when I see this it just hits me differently. You will notice that FBCH has also plastered this statement on the front page of their website.

I realize that to some this will seem petty, but I don't ever want to have the attitude that I have all the answers and a corner on God. Unfortunately this is an attitude that many in Fundamentalism exhibit regularly--especially on topics such as Bible versions, music, church polity, worship styles, matters of separation, etc... We should always want to be in a state of reformation--sensitive to the Spirit and constantly being transformed by the Word of God.

FBCH wants to wear the title "Unchanging Church for a Changing World" like a badge of honor--same old black Book, same old-fashioned preachin', same old tried and true methods and philosophies of ministry, etc... As Jack Schaap has said since taking over the old church downtown, "Same old stuff...just a heap more of it".

This is the kind of Fundamentalism that I want nothing to do with anymore--the kind that is arrogant and vitriolic--the kind that is man-centered and egomaniacal--the kind that is pragmatic, egocentric, and more concerned with empire building than Biblical Christianity.

**I do not wish to imply that Mark Dever has all the answers or that I think that ALL Fundamentalists fit my above description. I am simply reflecting on what I have observed on the fringes of Fundamentalism growing up at FBCH.

PT Barnum

Komen Race For The Cure

2007-04-04T13:26:00.000-05:00

I know this is a little off topic--I feel like it is important enough to warrant this. As many of you know our mother, Linda Richards, was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 38--she fought the disease and put up with multiple versions of chemotherapy as well as radiation for more than 8 years. In 1996 at the age of 46 our mother went to be with the LORD--thank God for His Grace!

Over the past 10 years I have not really done anything in the way of raising money or helping to support the fight against breast cancer--I am not sure why I haven't, but for one reason or another I refused to get involved. On June 28th of last year, my wife and I were blessed with our third child and first daughter--Linda Lanae Richards. For some reason now I have begun to think about breast cancer in a completely different light--my mother is in the presence of the LORD right now, but this disease keeps affecting women the world over. I now view breast cancer as a disease that could potentially affect my wife or even my daughter, Lindi, and not necessarily a disease that is out of my life forever.

I am running in the 5K race coming up on April 21, 2007--if any of you would like to contribute to the fight against breast cancer feel free to follow this link if you so wish. Thanks for listening to me as I shared my thoughts.

God bless,

Pt Barnum

Another Former PBBC Student Speaks Out

2007-03-27T16:30:00.000-05:00

I was perusing Sharper Iron the other day and noticed that someone else who attended PBBC back in the 70's commented on the Jack Schaap debacle. I suppose this is a follow up on our previous post "Pillsbury Baptist Bible College Defended"

Here is the link directly to his post regarding Pastor Schaap's sermon--very interesting.
IMHO, Pastor Schaap needs to realize that with modern inventions such as the internet all of his stories will be checked. Gone are the days of "just wingin'it" and being able to get away with it! May the LORD give us more preachers and pastors who break this mold and endeavor to preach the Word instead of building their legacy/image.

PT Barnum

Transforming Grace Indeed!

2007-03-10T13:23:00.000-05:00

Recently, I read for the second time Transforming Grace by Jerry Bridges. I have found that the second time through any good book I am typically doubly blessed and this was certainly no exception.

Those who have read and enjoyed Bridges’ works will most likely agree with my assessment of him as both a tremendous author and communicator of Biblical truth. What makes Transforming Grace even more powerful is when one has a church background similar to mine and Matthew’s, i.e., one saturated with performance-based Christianity, unmitigated externalism, and what I think to be legalistic tendencies.

**DISCLAIMER: I would like to point out that I have used the word "legalistic" denoting the similarity to true legalism. I am fairly certain that even in Hammond, Indiana, they would deny that the externals earn them merit toward salvation.

The common thread, however, always seemed to be that the preacherboy-appearance, including a “right” haircut, and the IFBx-deemed appropriate neckwear all combine wonderfully to provide a faithful thermometer of one’s "spiritual temperature". I understand that is an exaggeration of sorts, albeit only slightly. It seemed to be forgotten that one of the most vocal enemies of our LORD Jesus during His earthly ministry was the sect of the Pharisees. These same “religious” Pharisees were noted for doing all the "right" things externally speaking but failed miserably in the spiritual disciplines that truly mattered to our LORD. We know from the gospel accounts that they held fast to the regulations laid out in the Mosaic law, yet their hearts were rotten with pride and self-reliance.

I would add that as a student at Hammond Baptist and Hyles-Anderson, only a few major issues were of importance and indicators of one’s love for God or lack thereof. Topping this list would be a close tie between whether a student had ever smoked or drank alcohol and what kind or haircut or hairstyle one wore. We were often told by our leadership how that a young person’s hairstyle was an overt indicator of that individual’s rebellion or their submission to authority...?! This was reinforced via the pulpit ministry in downtown Hammond where we often heard the stories from Pastor Hyles how he had NEVER tasted a even a drop of alcohol nor had he EVER smoked tobacco. He would often tell a story about how on a double date one evening his date and the other couple bodily forced him to the ground and attempted to pour whiskey down his gullet. The story ends with Pastor Hyles demanding them to take him home where he found his mother praying out loud for him to resist temptation. For him to have done so would have been to desecrate the Holy Spirit’s temple. Please do not misunderstand the preceding sentences as they are meant to demonstrate the overemphasis on what are thought by many to be gray areas in the Christian life and exalting them to an unnecessary status while ignoring what Bridges terms the “refined sins” in the Christian life, e.g., anger, pride, resentment, covetousness, etc. I do not at all intend to engage in debate about the use of alcohol or tobacco but would like to point out that the concept seemed to suggest that there was great spiritual merit in having never partaken of these indulgences. Never mind the selfishness and pride which so often go unchecked in the Christian life...! This has only begun to demonstrate the point that externals were so preeminent there.

I understand that the Galatian form of legalism dictated that specific works of the law were necessary for salvation in addition to faith in Christ, His substitutionary death, and resurrection. Nevertheless, as Bridges so aptly points out in his book, there are other forms of modern-day legalism and teachings that perpetuate legalistic thinking and tendencies. Bridges tackles these issues head-on in what I consider to be the most thought-provoking chapter in the book, chapter nine. He points out that legalism is anything we do or do not do to earn favor with God. There is so much that could be said here but I will only take the time and space to include this specific and powerful quotation from chapter nine, "Called To Be Free":

"Despite God's call to be free and His earnest admonition to resist all efforts to curtail it, there is very little emphasis in Christian circles today on the importance of Christian freedom. Just the opposite seems to be true. Instead of promoting freedom, we stress our rules of conformity. Instead of preaching living by grace, we preach living by performance. Instead of encouraging new believers to be conformed to Christ, we subtly insist that they be conformed to our particular style of Christian culture. We don't intend to do this and would earnestly deny we are. Yet that's the "bottom line" effect of most of our emphases in Christian circles today.

For example, many people would react negatively to my quoting only part of Galatians 5:12, "You , my brothers, were called to be free." Despite the fact that this statement is a complete sentence, they would say, "But that's not all of the verse. Go on to quote the remainder: 'But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.' " (We seem to forget that verse divisions were not inspired.)

The person who reacts that way has made my point. We are much more concerned about someone abusing his freedom than we are about his guarding it. We are more afraid of indulging the sinful nature than we are of falling into legalism. Yet legalism does indulge the sinful nature because it fosters self-righteousness and religious pride. It also diverts us from the real issues of the Christian life by focusing on external and sometimes trivial rules."

Another relevant case in point is something that was brought to my attention on the FFF recently. It is reported that a special meeting was held for men at a certain IFBx college for the express purpose of banning the practice of spiking their hair to any degree. This seems to picture so well the IFBx obsession with avoiding “worldly” external practices and making the avoidance of such paramount to true spirituality. Make no mistake, the LORD that we serve is holy and has called His children to holiness as well. What needs clarification, however, is how we would define holiness or sanctification if you will. The IFBx model is that of forced "external sanctification". That is, Christ likeness = maintaining the “right” appearance, avoidance of all “worldly” music (however that is defined), being present at all the regularly scheduled services of the “red-hot” church of which you are a member, going cold-turkey soul-winning at a scheduled time each week, etc. Interestingly enough, this IFBx model is simply that–- it is their model and not to be found in the canon of Scripture. I am reminded of the LORD’s words to the prophet Samuel upon the choosing of a new king for Israel, “...the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."

In closing, I would like to encourage you to get a copy of Transforming Grace--- read it and reread it. I also was informed of a new title from IFBx Publishing put out in response to Bridges' works but only have the cover artwork for it...;)

Josh

Poetic License In The Pulpit

2006-12-22T22:33:00.000-05:00

Growing up in IFBxdom, I have always been accustomed to hearing fantastic stories told during sermons. These seemingly innocent little tales became legends that I could recount nearly verbatim to my children even today. Most of these stories happened while "Preacher" was very young and living in a state far, far away or while he was out of state preaching at a special meeting. While I was in the thick of this, I completely believed every story that was told--I think there was something inside of me that wanted to believe that MY pastor would always tell the truth especially while preaching the Word of God to his people--now I am not so sure.

Once I left the realm of IFBx I began to wonder about these fantastic stories that were missing from the sermons at my new church. I began to re-listen to sermons and re-read portions of books written by my former pastor and those who patterned their ministries after him with a more discerning heart--I was troubled by what I found. I struggled with the notion that I must have been so gullible to believe such perfectly orchestrated illustrations. I even remembered how my IFBx pastor would comment after telling a fabulous story about how the reason some people thought he made those stories up was because they were not yielded to the Holy Spirit--if you were REALLY under the Spirit's guidance these things would happen in your life too! Does that sound at all like emotional manipulation to anyone else? I digress.

I can still remember the day when I told my wife for the first time that I did not believe all of Hyles' illustrations--needless to say she was absolutely shocked. I went on to tell her that I believed that he was lying and embellishing more often than telling the complete truth. After the initial "blasphemy"of such an accusation wore off, she slowly began to understand where I was coming from.

...fast forward to 2006

I had not really thought about this particular aspect of the IFBxers until recently. I rarely take the time to listen to sermons preached by IFBxers--I have had more than my fill of the yelling and storytelling even though it is quite entertaining at times. Having spent over 20 years under this kind of preaching and sitting in homiletics classes at HAC that teach this style, I have developed a certain resistance to it. I have heard the constant drone over the past few years how that things have changed in Hammond--here is yet another area where it seems like it is just more of the same only a heap more of it...!

All of this brings us to these basic questions: As a preacher of the Gospel is it OK to fib during a sermon (or anytime for that matter)? As a preacher of the Gospel is it OK to exaggerate during a sermon (or anytime for that matter)? As a preacher of the Gospel is it OK to embellish during a sermon (or anytime for that matter)? As a preacher of the Gospel is it OK to exaggerate, embellish, lie, or whatever else you want to call it as long as you motivate your listeners? Anyone who knows me or has read even a little bit of Bread and Circuses knows where I stand on this, but I am curious if anyone else following this story has a different take.

Personally I would take it a step farther and say that the typical topical style of preaching that is so prevalent among hysteric fundamentalists lends itself to this kind of perversion. Notice I did not say that ALL topical preaching includes lies--nor did I say that all stories or illustrations were wrong. What I mean is that the man-centered flavor of topical preaching that I enjoyed for all of my growing up years included countless lies, fibs, exaggerations, embellishments, or whatever other word you want to use--bottom line is that every man is commanded to speak the truth PERIOD.

Sadly, Hyles and Schaap are not the only ones who have told whoppers from behind the sacred desk. Recently I was told about a fabulous sermon that was preached recently during a chapel hour. The reason given for its appeal was that the preacher shared details about the 40 day fast he had just completed and the countless things he had given up recently to be more "holy". There are many clones and HAC graduates out there who are doing the same thing. Certainly there are preachers from other institutions and denominations who play loose with the truth--I am willing to bet that there is a much higher percentage from HAC circles who participate in this practice.
Many will give preachers a pass on this type of poetic license from the pulpit--I fail to see one shred of Scriptural reason to do so. Many will cry that the results are so awesome and the numbers motivated so large that these "little white lies" are inconsequential. Many especially among our hysteric fundamental brethren will shout that the end (an altar full of motivated people) justifies the means (a lie or two).

I completely disagree with all of the above excuses for lying based upon my understanding of Scripture. There is no such thing as a "white lie"--embellishment and exaggeration are tantamount to a bold faced lie.

PTB

Pillsbury Baptist Bible College Defended

2006-11-30T18:39:00.000-05:00

Recently we made a post regarding a chapel sermon Pastor Jack Schaap preached in September of 2006 at Hyles-Anderson College. We touched on some troubling things that Pastor Schaap said about Pillsbury Baptist Bible College where he attended before transferring to HAC in the late 70's. Pastor Schaap has also included some of this story in his book entitled, "A Fresh Anointing" on pages 17-30. Sharper Iron picked up on this sermon as well and has an interesting thread in regards to its veracity here.

I had also mentioned that there were some people who actually attended PBBC when these events supposedly transpired. A couple of these men have added their comments to the above thread and you can check them out here, here, and here. Kevin Bauder who is President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary also addressed this particular sermon by Pastor Schaap in his most recent article which you can read here.

It is obvious that Pastor Schaap's predecessor used personal illustrations quite skillfully--most of them were unverifiable and therefore often accepted as true. It seems that Pastor Schaap has used a really exciting personal story that appears to be very easily disputed by those who were present at PBBC 30 years ago. Nowadays preachers who like to tell stories ought to consider that the internet makes verification or disputation of said whoppers very simple.

Is this just a case of different perspectives of the same event? Is it possible that this legend has grown simply because it happened 30 years ago? Is it likewise feasible that Pastor Schaap has embellished and lied only to make Hyles-Anderson appear to be a more superior college than PBBC?

As badly as I would like to comment in more detail here I will wait until some of you have a crack at it after reading the above refutations.

Ephesians 4:25 NKJB "Therefore, putting away lying, 'Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,' for we are members of one another."

PT Barnum

Kindred Hearts

2006-11-17T22:35:00.000-05:00

Recently I came across this post at Paleoevangelical--if you have not noticed we link to this site under our "top shelf links" section. Take a look at the excerpt from Doug McLachlan's book, Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism. He has some great thoughts on what he refers to as "succeeding miserably". Many pastors and churches in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's did just that--now it is time to reap what was sown. I noticed he nailed a lot of the themes that we have been harping on here at Bread and Circuses. Here is the portion Ben cites from page 20 of Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism:

"For more than a quarter of a century, we have labored under the false assumption that bigness equals greatness and that success can be measured quantitatively. We are much more effective at counting numbers than weighing ideas. This is a form of secularization and an indication that we have bought into the affluence mentality of our day. We seem always to be thinking in terms of numbers, numbers, numbers! How much? How many? How big? This push has led to the disintegration of ethics in reporting statistics and represents a tragic failure to recognize that invisible spiritual growth cannot be accurately gauged by mechanical measuring devices. Moreover, it forms the ground of pragmatism which has invaded so much of Christian ministry. The trouble with pragmatism is that it works: it attracts large crowds. But under its influence, we end up "succeeding miserably" because we are not succeeding Biblically.

In many cases the result has been the development of a philosophy of ministry which revolves around a celebrity focus (the star of the show who attracts the crowd) who functions as a corporate executive manipulating and then discarding his people in his relentless advance toward statistical superiority. All too often, evangelism in this context has been reduced to humanism as the Spirit and the Word are set aside while the Gospel is packaged and marketed almost as though it were a plastic toy."

Numbers, numbers, numbers...
Salvation = plastic toy to give away...
Philosophy of ministry centered around iconic egomaniac...
True success in ministry always equated with implementation of pragmatic methodologies...

Does any of this ring any bells? I feel like I have discovered a kindred heart living up in the northernmost parts of Minnesota! After discovering this snippet, I made haste to ebay and found a copy of Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism--I should have it within the week and cannot wait to dig in.

I am sure that Dr. McLachlan and I would not agree on every issue facing the current generation of fundamentalism--no doubt I will find out that I am off on some things when I grow older and wiser. I do believe that he has a very keen insight into his own generation and that he has no patience with the outer fringes of what we affectionately call, "Hysterical Fundamentalism". My prayer is that more and more people will begin to utterly reject cultural fundamentalism and embrace a Christ-centered and authentic historic fundamentalism--this is the purpose for our blog.

Take the time and check out the above links--you may even want to bookmark Paleoevangelical and check back regularly to see what is on Ben's mind.

PT Barnum

Get Your Gear Here!

2006-11-13T19:27:00.000-05:00

Sorry we have not posted in a while, but things have been very busy around the big top! The animals need our constant care and those who would shut down this circus are doubling their efforts. We have done some shuffling of responsibilities here at Bread and Circuses, but we intend to continue to bring you relevant tidbits--some novel and others very serious.

Here is something I happened upon while checking out the Jack Hyles Web Page. This is a Cafe Press store with nothing but Hyles stuff. Coffee mugs, mouse pads, T-shirts, sweatshirts, and duffel bags! I have a few people in mind who will be on the other end of a wonderful gag gift this Christmas! Enjoy and we will be back with a real post very soon.

God bless!

Phineas

Leaving the IFBx* Fold

2006-10-27T05:54:00.000-05:00

Recently I received an email with a link to this article by my friend, Voyle Glover. I enjoy his articles and this one is worth sharing. If you have not had a chance to check out the link on our sidebar to his website, Brevia Notes, I would encourage you to bookmark it and read some of his material. You can find it here.

It is never easy when we feel like we have disappointed someone we dearly love--my wife and I still have to battle some of these feelings of nostalgia. Nobody wants their family to believe that they are out of God's plan for their lives or that they have left the faith. The sooner we realize that our loyalties are to our LORD and Savior and not men the better off we will be. The bottom line is that although it is not easy to leave a church or ministry where we have put down roots, sometimes it is necessary. I want to encourage anyone reading this who is going through these difficult times to press on prayerfully--there is definitely light at the end of the tunnel! Feel free to email us in confidence and we will pray with you along the way!

Phineas

Leaving the IFBX Fold

by Voyle A. Glover

Leaving a church where one has put nearly twenty years of roots down is not an easy task. I was reminded of the difficulties recently when, during a discussion with a friend, he mentioned a certain couple who were in the process of leaving their church, an Independent Fundamental Baptist church which has a philosophy and doctrinal perspectives, coupled with certain standards, which defy grace, whilst purporting to embrace traditional Christianity. In short, what I and others have come to call IFBx.

I thought of the incredibly difficult journey ahead for them.

When I left the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana in 1987, I knew, without anyone telling me, that I had been corrupted. I knew that. I wasn’t sure how corrupted, nor was I sure exactly where. I just knew that the God I’d learned about as a new Christian was not the same God I learned about in the nearly twenty years I’d spent in that church. I knew that many of the things I'd heard propounded as being the truths of God were, in fact, highly suspect.

It took some time, prayer, and an in-depth immersion into the Word of God for me to regain my spiritual equilibrium and for God to cleanse me from so many things that were either flat-out error, or were, in some instances, nonsensical; and not a few things that were simply the preferences of a man which had no biblical basis.

For example, I recall one evening service in my new church, less than a year or so after we’d left, when a lady stood up to sing a song. Suddenly, there was background music (a tape) and some background singers (also on the tape) who were singing along with her.

My thoughts were instantly negative. I did not like it. I did not feel that it belonged in church (a singer with backgrounded music). However, by this time, I’d developed a little mental routine when I had negative reactions to something or someone in the church. This time, it was a silent conversation with myself and went something like this:

Why is this wrong?
Well, it just is. The music tape is wrong.
Is the music bad?
No.
Are the words bad?
No.
If folks were there playing musical instruments, or an orchestra, would that be wrong?
No.
If the background singers were there, would that be wrong?
No.
Why then is this wrong?

This was a thought process that went very quickly and as I did the analysis, I realized I could posit no biblical justification for the position. I also quickly realized that I’d adopted the preferences of a man and given them spiritual significance, to wit, using a background tape for a singer was “wrong,” which meant it was not pleasing to God, which meant it was sin. (I found it fascinating on one level that I'd adopted this man's preferences so completely as to actually have strong feelings of it being sinful for a singer to use a background tape.)

But the difficult issues for me and others like myself (and which will come for virtually all those who leave an IFBx church) came from teachings that had been imprinted onto our psyche such that these ideas were infused into our spiritual makeup. Our perspective was that any church that deviated from these teachings was liberal and no place for a “good fundamental Baptist.” These teachings were wide-ranging, some taking on the trappings of doctrine, while others were imbued with doctrine-like importance.

There are five primary issues that every IFBx’r will run into when he or she leaves the IFBx fold. Those issues are, in about this order of importance: (1) is the church a red-hot “soul winning” church?; (2) Does the church permit the wearing of pants on women?; (3) Do the men all have short hair; (4) Is the music without a beat and non-contemporary Christian (CCM)?; and (5) Does the church prohibit attendance at the movie theater (watching them at home on video was all right)? While there are others, those are what I call the “Five Spiritual Straight-jackets.” It is not an exclusive list and in some churches, there may be other "major" issues of importance. (Today, in that same church I left, for example, the issue of the exclusive use of the KJV Bible is an absolute.) Once you’ve been sewed up in these spiritual straight-jackets, getting your mind and spirit free from them can be a feat worthy of the best efforts of Houdini.

The place of “soul winning” was, in terms of importance, almost up there with the doctrine of salvation. A Christian who didn’t go “soul winning” on a regular basis was considered more than just unspiritual, but was deemed unworthy of the name Christian. And if one dared voice opposition to this activity, such a person was probably not saved. Going out and knocking on doors was seen to be an activity that revealed the true spiritual nature of an individual. One could not be a spiritual Christian and neglect this activity.

Imagine the inner conflicts of a church member who leaves the IFBx fold and enters a church were there is not an emphasis on door-to-door “soul winning,” but emphasizes instead, a wide array of evangelistic methods, which, while permitting an individual church member to utilize such a method, does not actively promote such a method amongst its members. Or imagine an IFBx church member who comes into a church and immediately sees some of the women dressed in slacks, or one who comes to a Wednesday service and sees some of the women in jeans. Or they hear a solo is sung by a member who is a bit more contemporary than the usual fare. Or suppose the pianist’s hair is a bit long. The list is long. It is not uncommon in IFBx circles for preferences to on a level with doctrine.

It is almost a certainty that a former IFBx church member whose mind is still in the mold that was set so long ago, will recoil within from such things. It will be an automatic reaction caused by a conditioning very similar to the methods used on Pavlov's dog. (A dog was trained to salivatate when a bell was rung.) They will see so many negatives and never comprehend that they've been programmed to react that way.

For such Christians, a myriad of questions will arise within his or her mind. They will question why they left, whether it was the will of God, whether they are going to be chastened for it, whether they’ve been deceived by Satan, and on and on. They will begin second-guessing themselves. This is a process that may be instant, i.e., on the first visit to another church, or it might take months; and in some instances, it may surface years later because those issues were never resolved but instead, had been submerged. The mold was still in place, still shaping the mental focus and perspective without them realizing it until one day they sprang back in full force.

They left the IFBx fold but had not managed to leave the mold.

They left the particular IFBx church but the shaped doctrines, philosophies and standards had not left them. It was what brought them back, or in some instances, brought them such conflict as to negate their enjoyment of their new church (and their effectiveness there, as well).

Many Christians who leave the IFBx fold become very conflicted, some become bitter, some abandon church, being unwilling to return to the fold they left, unable to extract themselves from the mold into which they’ve been cast, and unwilling therefore to accept the “liberal” standards of the new church they had hoped to attend. There are some who stick it out in the new church, but become very critical, possessed of a spiritual smugness, and feeling they have a superior understanding of the way God would want the church run in certain areas (such as “soul winning” or the musical program). They can create havoc in their new church and are often the cause of much dissension within a church as they seek to impose their “more spiritual” ways upon the church. When they have resistance, they view this as coming from liberals, weak Christians who should have no say in running the church. Their own actions are perceived as being on a spiritual level and thus, justified actions. These individuals will continue their campaign unabated, even relentless, demanding conformity to the "biblical standards" to which they are accustomed and which they believe every "real" Christian church must adopt. It can and often does, get very ugly. It can and has caused church splits.

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO LEAVE THE WORLD OF IFBx

Here are some “musts” for you if you’re someone who is attempting to come out of the IFBx world. They worked for me and have worked for many others. If you don’t do this, then the odds are you’ll either return, or you’ll have a miserable existence in whatever non-IFBx church you join, such that eventually you’ll probably leave it; or you’ll just shut down spiritually because of the inner conflicts that keep arising, or you'll end up causing great contention within that church.

1. Get into the Word of God and ask God to show you TRUTH. Claim the promises of God. It is His will that we know truth and you have every right to expect God to lead you into His truth.

2. Assume that you have been corrupted. You don’t need to determine where or how. God will reveal that to you. Just adopt an attitude that is willing to (a) admit your error when it is revealed to you; and (b) allow yourself to be taught of the Lord. You have to have a teachable spirit.

Then sit back and expect God to open your eyes and show you things. Don’t be afraid to read books by men or women who you ordinarily might not read. Remember, YOU ARE ON A QUEST FOR TRUTH. Nothing else matters. You are not looking for the opinions of others. You are looking for God to reveal truth to you. Pray for guidance over every book you read, including the Bible. He will do that through His Word, through the teaching and preaching of others and by prayer. Bottom line is: God will show you truth. Are you willing to let Him lead you where that truth will take you? Never be afraid to learn truth. Never be afraid to go wherever truth leads, even if it leads your version of truth over the cliffs and onto the rocks.

3. Be patient. Do not be quick to make up your mind about things, either positive or negative. Cleansing comes slowly. Things that have been taught to you for years, things that are impressed on your spiritual psyche, are not easily erased. It is difficult for anyone to admit he or she has been wrong and has embraced error for years. For years, we labored under the notion that we had the truth. It is difficult to come to the conclusion that we embraced a lie. Trust me when I tell you that it takes the grace of God to overcome this.

4. Get off your high horse. Do not be offended at what you view as worldly Christians. In the IFBx world, spirituality is determined by a manifestation of externals, to wit, appearance, souls won, participation in “soul winning” and obedience to the pastor and leaders. In your new world, the spirituality of other Christians is often not readily visible until you examine their lives, where you will often find good deeds that are often unheralded; and good works that are not fancy, which lack the “wow” factor, and aren’t always on the “cup of cold water” level. But they are consistent, day by day good works that come from a heart and life that is sincere and loves God. Learn to examine their fruit without a critical spirit and without demanding to know the number of souls won that week. Be patient with people. Allow judgment of their spirituality to come from God, not you. God will judge the merit of their works. God has not blessed you with a closet full of blue ribbons to hand out in spiritual judging events you may wish to hold.

5. Pray constantly. Ask God to show you yourself. Ask God to reveal the real you to you. Ask God to open your eyes and to make you spiritual, to make you humble, to give you wisdom and understanding. Ask God to allow you to be used to help in the work of this new church in whatever role He chooses (as opposed to your volunteering to do “X” because you’re so good at doing “X”). In short, surrender to God and accept your place in this new church as a field in which God has placed you. Be prepared to help the weak Christians there, to mentor, to pray for, to teach, to reach out and help in whatever way God deems fit to use you in His service there. In short, BE A SERVANT THERE, not a Chief. If you view half the congregation as weak or liberal, then assume it is a mission field and you're there to serve God to be salt.

That’s it. If you’ll do those things and adopt that perspective, you’ll have joy, you’ll interact with the people there without being so judgmental and Pharisaical that no one can stand to be around you; and best of all, God will use you. You may never enjoy the music program as much as you did in your IFBx church, but you’ll learn to appreciate some of the new music and you’ll come to understand that the music program is designed for others besides yourself and that your preferences are not what governs the music program. You’ll realize that music that leaves you cold or “bothers” you is blessing someone else and lifting their hearts to God. You’ll actually accept the fact that tastes in music are very wide ranging and what blesses your soul may put someone else to sleep.

A final thought. This has not been an essay designed to “lure” anyone from their IFBx church and it certainly is not meant to be a critique of IFBx churches. (That would take more time and space than I care to devote.) It is simply designed to be a help for those of you who, for one reason or another, have decided that you no longer care to associate yourself with such a church. Realize that you have been psychologically imprinted far more than you know. If you’re going to break free, realize that true freedom lies in God, not in a book, not in a sermon or teachings and not in an essay such as this. These are merely tools God may use in His working to bring you along the path to liberty.

But that freedom ultimately lies in Christ.

You can move towards it and into it, or you can creep backwards into the cave of darkness from whence you came. It really is your call.

May your journey be blessed of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* IFBx is an abbreviation for what we refer to as the cultural or hysteric fundamentalists, not to be confused with the true branch of orthodox historic fundamentalism known still as IFB. Some common denominators of IFBx have already been touched on in Voyle's article and are as follows: extreme adulation/borderline worship of pastors, leaders, or other preachers; extreme and militant KJVOnly positions; arrogant "preaching" that is more screeching than anything else and void of much Biblical content; light on theology but heavy on "soulwinning" which usually amounts to little more than coercion without any regard to the work of the Holy Spirit of God. This is only the short definition. ;)

More Tall Tales From HAC

2006-10-20T18:45:00.000-05:00

I received an email a couple of weeks ago from one of our readers who had found a real gem of a sermon on the Hyles Anderson College website. I understand that this sermon is preached in a chapel setting, but you must get a load of the perfect stories and illustrations used. I highly recommend putting your waders on before wasting 5o minutes or so on this jewel--if you have some time to kill and won't blame me when it is over, have a listen to it here.

P.S. Sorry we have been so slack in posting lately--Josh is buried in seminary classes and I have a newborn, 6.5 and 8 year old in the house. I have recently had some communication with someone who was actually at Pillsbury when all of these stories supposedly happened. I am going to protect his identity, but I will let you know what I find out soon.

Feel free to post some of your thoughts after listening to this stuff--I still cannot believe that I used to be able to sit through this kind of garbage without busting a gut--sad to say the least. What I also find interesting is that I don't remember ever hearing most of these stories--now they are suddenly crystal clear and able to be shared with the masses. I am looking forward to more of these stories--Pastor Schaap makes his father-in-law seem almost dull with his storytelling prowess...! Truly entertaining.

ENJOY!

Phineas

***DISCLAIMER: Josh and I in no way, shape, or form endorse the heavy metal band from Sweden known as The Storyteller.

Circus Blogroll II

2006-10-02T21:22:00.000-05:00

We wanted to focus our attention on a couple more of the blogs that we link to here at Bread and Circuses. I want to assure everyone that we are simply going in the random order by which they are listed on our sidebar--we love all of these blogs and brethren equally in the LORD!

The World From Our Window is a blog that we became familiar with after meeting Mike Hess over on the FFF. Mike and I went to Hyles-Anderson College in the mid-90's. We were all stirring up a hornet's nest over on the FFF and Mike emailed me. At that time Mike was blogging with Ken Fields at The World From Our Window, but has recently ventured out on his own over at Extreme Fundamental Makeover which we highlighted a few weeks ago. Now there are four contributors--Ken Fields, Don Fields, Matthew Sims and Mike Hess. Most of the posting is done by Ken Fields who is a pastor in Illinois and Matthew Sims who is a student at Geneva Reformed Seminary near Greenville, SC. Many of you are already familiar with this site, but if you are not I would highly recommend that you check it daily for some really good stuff!

Fundamentally Reformed is a blog that we found through the old Texas Baptist Underground. Many of you will remember this blog by James Spurgeon that actually inspired our blog here at B&C. Bob Hayton spent some years under the influence of Fairhaven Baptist in Chesterton, Indiana. You will enjoy his analysis of the Cultural Baptists and some of his experiences at Fairhaven. I remember Fairhaven well--we used to play them in soccer while I was a student at Hyles High. As far as cultural fundies go, even the Hylesites thought that the Fairhavenites were strict! Now that ought to tell you something! Bob is currently a member of Bethlehem Baptist Church pastored by John Piper. If you enjoy Bread and Circuses you will no doubt find the postings over at Fundamentally Reformed both edifying and enjoyable.

Both of these blogs are committed to endeavor to bring more glory and honor to our LORD Jesus Christ. You may not agree with every single jot and tittle, but you will agree that these brethren are sincere in their desire to follow the Word of God and exalt the name of Christ. I thank the LORD for these blogs and pray that they will continue to shine as a light of discernment during these dark times.

We will be highlighting the other blogs and sites that we link to in the very near future. Our next post will be coming soon and it grieves our hearts to visit this particular topic yet again--stay tuned and keep your eyes peeled for our next blog entry.

Phineas

"The Duke" and the Cultural Fundies

2006-09-17T11:01:00.000-05:00

Psalm 138:6 "For though the LORD is exalted, Yet He regards the lowly, But the haughty He knows from afar."

We want to get things back on track here at Bread and Circuses--the last couple of weeks have been filled with laughter and sadness over the man-worship going on among those on the fringes of Christian Fundamentalism. As I thought and meditated on this tragic philosophy, I came across a couple of articles that stirred my thoughts.

If you are looking for the headquarters of the Cultural Fundamentalists, you need look no further than First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana. Recently I had the joy of reading a blog article that reminded me of the many years I spent smack-dab in the middle of IFBXdom. I found this article by way of Sharper Iron and it was written by Dr. Sean Michael Lucas of Covenant Theological Seminary in Saint Louis, Missouri. Dr. Lucas is a BJU and Westminster Theological Seminary graduate and conservative Presbyterian. He was commenting on the recent Youth Conference video that we highlighted a few weeks ago--his comments reached back into my memory banks and brought to thought some themes that I heard on a regular basis growing up as a hysterical Baptist. He mentioned the connection he has noticed between some Fundamentalists and their typical cult-like following of a "muscular personality". If you have not read his post yet I would highly recommend that you give it your attention.

FBCH was and still is led by a pastor who loves to invoke his similarities to a "rootin' tootin' cowboy" or "spiritual renegade". There was and still are certain elements of machismo and imperiousness, not to mention the standard braggadocio and swagger that goes along with being the "biggest and best in the world." The stories I heard growing up were of Jack Hyles, Lee Roberson, John Rice, and Lester Roloff being "kicked out" of the SBC. Another story I heard ad nauseum was that "Preacher x" was a sissy because he wore a dress to lecture his church on Sunday morning. Often times "Preacher x's" name was changed to reflect a woman's name in order to incite more hootin' and hollerin' from the crowd. Pastor Hyles would say things about how the pulpit was his and if he wanted to split his britches on his pulpit that it was his business--the deacons were to stay out of his preachin' or else there was going to be a gunfight at sundown in Dodge! There was one bit Jack Hyles did where he would say "some of you here think I shouldn't call names when I'm preachin'...OK then don't you ever do it!" The idea that Hyles was a rebel with a cause--to save America and your future children and grandchildren from the evils of everything not associated with his empire--was pushed on a regular basis. Now FBCHers are fed a steady diet of these same old Hyles stories as well as legends of Pastor Schaap and his adventures at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College--Pastor Schaap wanted the power of God and these dead and dry "neos" ran him off because he was a zealous soulwinner!? Someone really ought to produce a full length movie about these men--the comedic value would be priceless!

Some of you may wonder why all the emphasis on Jack Hyles since he has been dead and gone for years--first of all, it is the culturalists who keep bringing up his "legacy". The Youth Conference video is a perfect example, but not an isolated incident. Secondly, you would be hard pressed to listen to a sermon by Jack Schaap and NOT find a reference to Jack Hyles and his "legacy"--his muscular memory is still very powerful to those in IFBXdom and Pastor Schaap takes every opportunity to keep that alive. What is most troubling is the fact that Pastor Schaap is also perceived as a muscular personality in his own rite. I would encourage everyone here to take the time to listen to some of his sermons at the Baptist City website.

I am an independent baptistic neo-fundamentalist--I do not identify anymore with the muscular personalities on the fringes of Fundamentalism and their silly personal fiefdoms as Dr. Lucas described them. I believe that man-centered philosophies of ministry and muscular personalities are intrinsically linked to one another--these teachings should be abhorred and denounced with vigor by Christ followers whenever and wherever they are detected.

Psalm 12:3 NASB "May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts,"

Phineas

The Gaudy Shoes Of An IFBX Icon

2006-09-12T19:10:00.000-05:00

Following is a poem that my friend, Pat, wrote about a different part of Dr. Hyles' legacy. I have also included a never before seen stanza towards the end of the poem. If this ballad brings you even half the joy that it brought to me you will be greatly enriched! Enjoy!

Phineas

Wow, that was really inspiring. It got me to thinking about other instruments that were used to support this man of God. Of course, when I'm inspired, I use iambic pentameter.

I was born in a lowly stable
just a little spotted calf,
I sensed my life would not be long,
I'd never grow to play and laugh.

My mother was an older cow
Who provided milk and cream
But as a male I was born to die
Long life was just a dream.

But still there was some hope for me
That I could do some good
I'd heard about this royal chair
That started as some wood.

Perhaps my hide could be used to wrap
This man's Scofield KJV
I'd be the sword in the hands
Of fundamentalist royalty

Or maybe I'd be the belt of truth
Wrapped 'round the God man's waist
I'd hold him up as he preached the Word
and save dear souls with haste.

He'd pull me off for another use
When his children needed spanked
The rod of correction I could be
And later I'd be thanked

I have an even higher dream
If I could be so bold
Could I just be a leather coat
To shelter him from cold.

It's really just a small request
It could hardly be deemed wrong
To be the garment that is touched
By the many admiring throngs

What's this I hear you have in store
What is this fate I'll meet?
I'm going to be a pair of shoes?
You're going to put me on his feet?

Stacy Adams? Who are they?
Designers of men's clothes?
How I wish I could just be a coat,
Rather than cover his toes.

Oh please, dear Lord, why must I be
given a fate so bleak
To have to endure smelly socks
seven days a week

But then I heard the Lord's reply
and I want the world to know
That while the coat would keep him warm
His shoes would make him go.

The miles he trod to seek the lost
he made through snow and rain
and I protected him from the cold
and kept him out of pain.

I walked with him for many miles
I caught his many tears
I also felt his laughs and smiles
As he wore me through the years.

Now I see God's bigger plan
that He had in store for me
Of all the things God could have done
I became part of history.

I never preached a sermon
I never read the Word
But I was there for every step
As he made God's voice heard.

Just a humble little calf
born in a stable filled with hay,
What have I done in my life you ask?
This is what I say:

I provided soles that saved some souls
and filled some empty pews;
Without a voice I preached the word
For I became Jack Hyles' shoes.

~~Pat

If that doesn't put a tear in your eye and a lump in your throat you just might want to check your pulse. You will notice that my new friend, Pat, honored my wishes for a reference to Stacy Adams--I laughed so hard I cried. I want to publicly thank Pat for his quick whit and medicinal ode! Any other aspiring versifiers or sonneteers out there? Feel free to scratch one out in a comment--you may just end up as a guest blogger at B&C!

Phineas

The Golden Throne Of An IFBX Icon

2006-09-08T10:55:00.000-05:00

I wanted to take this opportunity and post something on more of a light note. We have all been grieved and saddened by the horrendous assumptions and outright man-worship exhibited in the video from the First Baptist Youth Conference. All of the controversy and attention on Jack Hyles' golden chair er throne reminded me of something I read a couple of years ago.

I imagine that the actual chair that Jack Hyles sat ensconced upon week after week in Hammond is actually on display somewhere. If I were a betting man I would wager that the well-worn golden-hewed throne is enclosed in the glass case of a memorabilia room at 8400 Burr Street. Chances are it is somewhere between a pair of Pastor Hyles' black Stacey Adams shoes and the wreckage of Lester Roloff's last flight.

As we head into the weekend I want everyone here to just kick back and enjoy reading this poem written by Pastor Jack Schaap as the plush golden chair that Pastor Hyles enjoyed for many decades was retired from service. I remember as a young child hearing a poem read similar to this one only focusing on Christ's manger, a boat He preached from, and the cross on which He was crucified. Somehow this poem does not have the same "punch" for obvious reasons (unless you are a rabid Hylesite).

Well, here we go--enjoy this masterpiece that was read at Pastor's School 2001. I am looking forward to your comments.

Phineas

FBCH Man-Centered...? NAWWWW!

2006-09-04T21:00:00.000-05:00

HYSTERIC FUNDIES AND THEIR FERTILE IMAGINATIONS

Allow us to begin this particular blog entry with an earnest apology for the upcoming link and subsequent video that you are about to view. In no way does it reflect the views of the staff here at B&C. What you are about to see is hyper-cultural-fundie sensationalism at its worst.
_________________________________________________
We recently had the unfortunate privilege to view the promotional video for Youth Conference 2006. We apologize for not finding this sooner--Youth Conference is now over, but this video speaks volumes. I for one cannot remember ever watching something so stomach wrenching. I fondly remember the old "Church With A Heart" video that FBCH made back in the late 80's and all of the aggrandizement found there--I have to admit that this current little eight minute video clip exhibits even more arrogance--truly disturbing.

You can find the video here--I recommend that everyone view this realizing that we here at Bread and Circuses did NOT produce this video to bolster the points we have been making the last few months! It is almost too perfect in that it fits everything that has been said concerning the anthropocentric philosophy of ministry put forth in Hammond. As you might suspect there are those who can view this filth and not find anything out of line--this is sad but not surprising when dealing with this group.

If you listen closely you will hear the adoring fans in the background as this was shown at Youth Conference 2006--or was it a rock concert? Not sure judging by the screaming fans as the name "Jack Hyles" was announced!

Here is a brief view of the characters found in the video--notice the relevance of most and the irrelevance of a few:

Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers

General MacArthur

Vietnam Veterans

Marines and Navy corpsman raise flag atop Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima

Jack Hyles standing as his church is burned by an arsonist

Apollo 11 landing on the moon for the first time in history

Miracle on Ice as USA Olympians defeat Russians in 1980 Winter Games

John F. Kennedy and his opposition of communism

Ronald Reagan and his opposition of communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall

Students in Tiananmen Square standing against the tanks of Red China

George Bush after 9-11 at Ground Zero promising retribution

Thousands voting in Baghdad for the first time after the fall of the Hussein regime

Thousands of Christians giving their lives as martyrs from AD 33 to AD 2006

CH Spurgeon

DL Moody

J Frank Norris

Billy Sunday

John R Rice

Lee Roberson

Jack Hyles

Jack Schaap

The connection between these events and First Baptist of Hammond is ludicrous. Nothing more than the exaltation of man and the emotional manipulation of young people in promotion of decisionism.

Phineas
&
Joshua

Passionate Peacockery versus Christ-Centered Preaching

2006-08-28T21:08:00.000-05:00

Over the past decade since I graduated from Hyles Anderson College in 1995, my philosophy of ministry has undergone a complete transformation--some may even refer to it as an Extreme Fundamental Makeover! Many of the "doctrines" that were preached ad nauseum as "fundamentals of the faith" during my upbringing I have since found out were nothing more than emotional dynamite to excite a raucous Sunday evening congregation. Jack Hyles taught that preaching more often than not needed to be shouting and that all good and effective sermons were topical in nature. Jack Hyles decried the expository sermon as nothing more than a lecture. They were boring, ineffective, unbiblical and "dry/dead as last year's Christmas tree"! I bought into this foolishness as a young lad and it took some gracious de-programming by the LORD to place me back on the right path. One of the areas in my own system of beliefs where the greatest change has taken place is in this matter of preaching--what is the difference between a "Man-Centered" sermon and a "Christ-Centered" sermon? Over the past 10 years my thinking on this topic has been completely transformed.

Two Sunday evenings ago I had the chance to watch about 20 minutes of the live video feed from First Baptist Church of Hammond. What I saw was nothing new--only the cast of characters has changed. I have many memories of Jack Hyles prancing around on stage and commanding the attention of thousands with a seemingly endless stream of comical personal illustrations. What I saw this past Sunday evening was nothing short of Passionate Peacockery. Again I wish that I had thought of this keen image--I cannot lie. This is an analogy that my brother Josh relayed to me just before he left FBCH. The cobwebs had been removed and he called me one night and with all due respect mentioned that Pastor Schaap strutted around on stage like a peacock in full bloom! As we have reflected on our years in Hammond this analogy has stuck and for good reason--I highly recommend that those of you who doubt our analysis check out the FBCH website during one of their scheduled services.

One of the things we all need to keep in mind is that the First Baptist Church of Hammond is a college church--it was when I was growing up there and it is even more so today. The college is the machine that keeps everything clipping along. These dear college folks have a hunger for what they believe to be "red hot preaching". I believe that this is one of the reasons that the typical service at FBCH is more like a college chapel service or pep rally. (I realize that FBCH became the World's Largest Sunday School without HAC, but at the present time FBCH is made up almost exclusively of people who came to Hammond in order to train for the full-time ministry at HAC. Countless former college students and graduates put down their roots for decades in Hammond and they crave the kind of preaching that we are going to look at today).

Those in Hammond will try to tell you that they are just teeming with new and excited "middle class" converts. They will try to convince you that they have new Sunday School classes that have pulled in literally hundreds yea thousands of new middle class couples who are being assimilated into the church family on a regular basis--DO NOT BELIEVE IT. For the most part there has simply been a reshuffling of the deck to populate these new classes. I digress.

In a previous post Josh mentioned the penchant that those at FBCH and HAC have for "red hot preaching". I would like to build upon that first post concerning this topic and provide a link for your investigation. Many of you have never experienced the kind of IFBxdom that Josh and I were raised in--here is your chance to learn a little more about these folks and what the focus of their ministry truly is.

I want to direct you all to a couple of gems that I have had the chance to listen to over the past couple of weeks. The first sermon is titled, "Mistakes of the Modern Ministry", and has some very interesting items missing from its content--here is the link to listen to it for yourself so you know that I am not just making this stuff up.

You will notice that among other things, Pastor Schaap lays down the "fundamentals" as he sees them of the "old-time religion." His list includes the heresy of King James Onlyism, emphasis on external "standards", traditional music, and soulwinning! He would classify all of these as "non-negotiables". He goes on to make the claim that a non-soulwinner is worse in the eyes of God than a gambler or an adulterer--simply unbelievable! These are statements that I remember Jack Hyles making, but I had never heard Pastor Schaap mention these things until this sermon. Pastor Schaap goes on to drive the point home that the Gideons and those who print Bibles and put them in the hands of the lost are not doing very much good--he reasons that those Bibles are in hotel rooms and people are still going into these rooms and committing all sorts of sexual sins and drinking liquor from the mini-bar--in Schaap's opinion a fiery soulwinner is much more powerful and vital to ministry than 100,000 copies of the Word of God!

Does anyone see the continual elevation of man and downplaying of the Eternal Word here? Certainly we all ought to be better witnesses than we are, but these careless statements give more proof that Pastor Schaap truly is by his own admission, "winging it" every week at FBCH.

What we want everyone to explore is the content, style, and method of preaching that these folks in the clutches of IFBxdom employ. I have no problem with a preacher raising his voice or getting excited about a truth--the problem is that when the typical IFBXer preaches, he is floating around in an exegetical vacuum and proud of it! Notice the lack of true Biblical exegesis and the abundance of rank eisegesis. Pastor Schaap mentions some things that are very true about the state of the modern church--I do not disagree with every point that he makes--our point is that this is nothing more than a pep rally of sorts to stir up the college kids. It is man-centered to the very core and the proof is to just simply watch the next video feed from FBCH--you will find Passionate Peacockery and not a shred of Biblical and Christocentric exegesis.

What else did you take away from this sermon? Are we just being too hard on FBCH because of our history there? Does anyone else notice the peacockery or are we simply seeing what we want to see? Sometimes I have to rewind some of the statements just to be sure I am hearing them correctly--unfortunately all my fears are confirmed upon further review. Next time we will look at another sermon that will have all God-fearing believers in tears--either of laughter or of sincere sorrow. Stay tuned...

Phineas

Circus Blogroll

2006-08-12T14:48:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to take some time to recommend some of our favorite blogs that we link to on our sidebar here at B&C. If you are using Microsoft Internet Explorer they will be out of their proper place and down at the bottom of our blog--if you are using the official browser of Bread and Circuses, Firefox, you will find these links up in their rightful place near the top of the page. We believe that you will find some very thought provoking articles/posts on these blogs and also that you will be edified and blessed by them. All of these sites endeavor to keep things civil and Christ-honoring--we truly appreciate this kind of spirit among believers especially. I want to just introduce you to a couple of them at a time and give you my take on their content.

Extreme Fundamental Makeover - This is a blog whose author is the pastor of a historic fundamental church in Illinois. Mike Hess and I went to Hyles Anderson College back in the early 90's. We met a couple of times, but did not really get to know each other very well during our college years--he was on-campus and I was off-campus. I discovered Mike through Sharper Iron and found the other blog he used to contribute to, The World From Our Window. Mike used to be very active in the Chicago bus ministry that FBCH runs--he was even a division leader within that ministry responsible for many Chicago bus routes. You will find that Mike has a heart for our Gracious Savior and a passion to help those caught in the clutches of cultural fundamentalism. Take some time to check out his blog--you will be glad that you did.

Neofundamentalist - This is a blog by three other pastors of historic fundamental churches with a burden for those caught in the web of IFBxdom. Thomas Pryde, Joel Tetreau, and Charlie Eldred have a knack for hitting the proverbial nail square on the head in regards to the hysteric fundies. I came into contact with Pastor Pryde through Sharper Iron as well--his blog will challenge many of the gray areas on which so many IFBxers oft dogmatically opine. Turns out that Thomas attended Hammond Baptist Grade School for a year back in the 80's! He even had the opportunity to preach a sermon to his fifth grade school class while enrolled there. I do not remember him, but I am sure that is only because he is so much older than me--just kidding. These young pastors share their burden for calling IFBers back to the sound exegesis of Scripture. Do yourself a favor and check to see if you are a Neofundamentalist and just haven't realized it yet--you may even begin to "Explore Proactive Fundamentalism!"

We will be highlighting the other blogs and sites we link to in the weeks ahead. Also, be sure to download the official web browser here under the big top in order to fully enjoy our circus.

Phineas

Grandiose FBCH Memories and Re-Writing History (Part 2)

2006-08-03T21:22:00.000-05:00

I apologize for leaving some of you hanging on this one--no doubt some of you were on the edge of your computer chairs just waiting with bated breath for the conclusion to our post from a couple of weeks ago--OK, maybe that was just Josh. Since that post, we have received some lively email and comments from people who obviously are taking things here at B & C very personally. I want to preface this post by saying again that we wish no ill will to anyone at FBCH--we truly believe that it is possible to disagree and not be disagreeable. We have been called "traitor", "deceived", "disloyal", and last but not least, "bitter". Nobody who knows us well would agree with any of those descriptors.

That being said, we are going to try and analyze Pastor Schaap's books sparingly--it becomes very tedious and time consuming to delve into these books--we could literally spend months looking at them, and those at FBCH would simply charge that we should write our own books if we do not like the ones they are producing--I partly agree and will not make this type of post the norm. Since we did begin looking at this portion of one of Pastor Schaap's books, I do want to finish it before jumping into some other topic. I believe I left off with the fact that FBCH believes that she is one of the last truly great churches in existence today--Pastor Schaap doesn't want her to go the way that Moody's, Finney's, and Spurgeon's churches have gone! FBCH believes she is "headquarters" or the "mother church" for "true" fundamentalism. The entire premise for this conclusion by those in IFBxdom distills down to one thing--numbers.

Here is another portion from Pastor Schaap's book, "Principles of Church Growth", on page 147 he compares FBCH to the church of Sardis in the book of Revelation--of whom Jesus said, "Thou hast a name that thou livest." He goes on to recount all of the great works that the LORD has done at FBCH over the years:

"First Baptist Church of Hammond has enjoyed a tremendous name through the years. What a name with 41 Pastors' Schools! What a name hosting our 31st Youth Conference! What a name in 1972 being called the "World's Largest Sunday School" and holding that title for many decades! What a reputation when Brother Hyles was pastor for 41 years and 5 months!"

On page 148 he continues with:

"The influence First Baptist Church has, the missionaries and preacher boys we have, the college and the Christian schools we have, the preaching the First Baptist Church congregation heard under Brother Hyles' ministry--all these show that we were spoiled rotten and spoon-fed by a master pulpiteer."

On page 149 he continues with:

"Wow! Hasn't First Baptist Church enjoyed a good life? How many times has the altar been jam packed! For over 44 years, there has not been a Sunday in First Baptist Church when someone has not been baptized in our baptistery. In 2002, twenty thousand folks walked an aisle at First Baptist Church trusting Christ as Saviour. That number doesn't include the 8,000 to 10,000 saved on special days like our Teenage Soul-Winning marathon. It doesn't include the 29,000 people our teenagers won to Christ on the streets in 2002 or all of the souls won by college kids while visiting on their bus routes on Saturdays. That number doesn't include the folks won to Christ by the Phoster Club or the Fishermen's Club or the Gospel League Home ministry and the homeless ministry and the nursing home ministry and the truck stop ministry and the sailor ministry. That number does not include the 48,000 who professed faith in Christ on one day in multiple services.

First Baptist Church has a great past. We have a past that Charles Spurgeon's Tabernacle once had. We have a past that the First Church of Oberlin, Ohio, had under Charles G. Finney. We have a past that Moody Memorial Church had when D.L. Moody graced her pulpit. Yet, if I know history, I believe First Baptist Church of Hammond has had a greater past than all three of these churches together. Charles Spurgeon baptized 700 in a great year. First Baptist has had days when we baptized 5,300 in one day. What a phenomenal past!"

Pastor Schaap goes on to tell a story about a group that he took to Oberlin College in Ohio and also the First Church of Oberlin where Charles G. Finney once pastored. Pastor Schaap and his group stumbled upon a man who told them that the church used to be packed full with 1,600 in attendance! Pastor Schaap proceeded to ask the IFBx million dollar question--how many you running now--the man answered that on a good day they would have 70! He went on to say that the group of men with him was saddened to hear this and they knelt around a pulpit and put their hands on Charles Finney's Bible and asked God to use them in a mighty way. They asked God to "do it again" and raise up some powerful preachers from among their group.

Later on during that visit, Bob Marshall, a staff member at HAC, slipped away from the group and came running up to them later and told them about his having won a sophomore college student at Oberlin to the LORD. When Bob Marshall had asked the young lad if he knew he was going to heaven, the sophomore student grabbed him and told him that he had asked every student and every professor at Oberlin for the past two years how he could go to heaven and not a single one could help him. He was terrified of going to hell and had been waiting for someone who could tell him how to be saved. I digress.

Later on in the chapter on page 154, Pastor Schaap talks about a trip he and his father took to the Moody Church for a tour:

"There was a rock concert going on with a bunch of teenagers dancing around like animals in frenzy. We left the concert and walked down the halls to an old storage room. We could see through the window a picture of D.L. Moody. A janitor came walking by. I asked him, 'Is that a picture of D.L. Moody in there?' The janitor answered, 'Yes.' I asked him, 'Are you going to do anything with that picture?' He said, 'No. Nobody wants anything to do with that guy.'"

These stories can speak different things to different readers--interesting at least to someone who can clear away the cobwebs of hysteric fundamentalism, but to the loyal fan they are stories and words that will stir up a certain amount of pride and arrogance as numerical statistics and teary-eyed illustrations are hurled about. What Pastor Schaap doesn't tell you is that you can actually find a solid independent fundamental Baptist church where Spurgeon once pastored--contrary to popular belief within the bubble of the cultural fundies.

Pastors Hyles and Schaap consistently forget/forgot to mention that Metropolitan Tabernacle was bombed in 1941 during World War II--in the 1970's attendance did drop--today the church is thriving and making an impact in England! We need to always keep in mind that a good illustration that pulls at the heartstrings trumps the truth more often than not at FBCH. To tell the whole story would destroy the strawman that they have created and the veneer of FBCH as the only mega church that can thrive after a famous pastor leaves. Although I could probably find something to disagree with Moody Memorial Church and her affiliated ministries , is there any doubt that they are still training some very fine Christian servants--missionaries, pastors, and teachers? Are they not still having an impact across America and the world with their radio stations that happen to carry some very good Bible preaching and teaching? The idea that any church that has less noses today than she had at some time in her past history equals the withdrawal of God's blessing is pure folly. The pride and arrogance that emanates from books and sermons where these assumptions are made is disturbing. As far as Oberlin College is concerned I do not have much to say--needless to say the aforementioned illustrations are a bit much for me to swallow. I do not hold Charles G. Finney as a hero or an example of what a pastor or preacher ought to be--these folks may hold him in very high regard--I will pass on this one for now--that is another post for another day.

The focus of all things in Hammond shines through at this juncture just like it always does--numbers, numbers, numbers, and more numbers. Their definition of success in ministry since the 1960's has been that simple--how many YOU got? This mentality was big during the years Pastor Hyles was at the helm, but I believe that this mentality is pushed even more under the current leadership--Pastor Schaap has an admitted infatuation with this thing of "church growth". This philosophy permeates the entire ministry model put forth in Hammond.

Micah 6:8: ESV "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

Some questions to ponder:

1. Is the LORD more pleased with large churches because they are large and less pleased with small churches accordingly?
2. Is it possible for a church to please the LORD and not have record attendance campaigns?
3. Where did this philosophy of ministry begin? When did programs and numbers become the standard by which certain churches measured themselves?
4. Is it possible for a church of 70 to please the LORD and be more God-glorifying than a church of say 1,600 or 18,000?

Phineas

Christian Fruit

2006-07-18T19:30:00.000-05:00

A Tribute To Linda Clement Richards: September 14, 1949 - July 17, 1996

Galatians 5:22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

Over the past few months several people from FBCH have found the big top here at Bread and Circuses. We had one particular member who insisted that we were attacking her faith since we do not believe the heresy of King James Onlyism. I do not doubt that she is a sincere and lovely individual, but she was dead wrong on her description of our beliefs. We have also been told by some good people that we must be "bitter" in order to have a blog like this--again this is an emotional response to our criticism of unbiblical teachings at FBCH. Just yesterday we had an apparent staff member with family high up at FBCH accuse us of being "bitter" and "betraying traitors" who are trying to "attack" FBCH and her pastor. Lastly, I have heard recently that some members believe that Josh and I must hate FBCH because we are "attacking" them with this blog--I want to say that we absolutely DO NOT hate anyone at FBCH and count many there as dear friends besides the many family members that we both have involved in that ministry. This accusation caused me to think long and hard about what we are trying to say with this blog--I suppose that there is at least a kernel of truth in any criticism--perception is reality to some people and so I would like to clear the air on a few things. There are some people on the internet who would have us to believe that everyone and everything at FBCH is wrong and evil--that certainly is not the case here at Bread and Circuses.

Allow me to share a very personal story from the lives of Josh and I that will help us to clarify some of these misunderstandings.

In the winter of 1988, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and told by her doctor that she probably would live only 18 to 24 months. You can imagine the shock and disappointment when a seemingly healthy 38 year-old woman with 4 children between the ages of 9 and 18 receives this news. We were all very sad and over the next 8 years or so my mother fought and no doubt was kept alive in part by the prayers of God's people. Exactly 10 years ago yesterday, my mother went to Heaven after battling cancer for 8 years--she finally received the complete healing for which we had prayed--God does all things so well. As I think about her today I am reminded of what the Psalmist said in Psalm 115:

"Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness! Why should the nations say, 'Where is their God?' Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases."

Later the Psalmist continues in Psalm 135:6

"Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps."

John Piper comments on this topic in his book, The Pleasures of God, by stating:

"God has His wise and holy purposes in all that He does and He does all that He does according to His own good pleasure."

Our mother was a godly woman who loved the LORD dearly. She was a wonderful example to us not only by the way she lived, but also by the way she fought cancer and departed from this life. Many of the things on this blog that we are criticized for are issues which I debated with my mother while I was at HAC--I have come full circle to where she already was--I thank God for such a blessing to have a mother who loved me even when I was belligerent and foolishly parroting unorthodox and unscriptural beliefs that I learned at college. Our mother loved to read books by Francis Schaeffer, Watchman Nee, C.S. Lewis, and John MacArthur among others. We miss our mother badly, but we know that she is where God wants her right now and we trust that God knows best and He does everything perfectly and in accordance with His own good pleasure.

It may seem unclear where I am headed with this story and post--it is very personal, but I hope that you will bear with me a little longer. As my mother was battling cancer--chemotherapy, radiation, bone pain, nauseau, etc... some of the good people of FBCH offered much help and care. I hesitate to list names because there is no way to remember everyone--the LORD knows how kind and helpful they were, and He will remember their service. My mother's missionary circle was the Canada Circle and they brought meals to my father and us four boys on a regular basis. Names like Ault, Auclair, Boardway, Duff, Colsten, Moffitt, Kimmel, Moore, Jorgensen, Weber, Mock, Streeter, Mitchell, and the list could go on and on. I am sure that over the 8 years we received hundreds of meals from these fine people and others like them at FBCH. Many of these folks were the wives of men who taught at HAC or were deacons at FBCH. I will never forget their care for my mother and our family--they were and are still some of the most kind-hearted and generous people that I have been privileged to know.

I want to go on record as saying that these people showed Christian fruit and Christ-like care for our family--I would never question their genuine salvation, their love for the LORD, and their devotion to Him. All that being said, I do not believe that because we are calling some false teaching into question that we are automatically "ungrateful" or "bitter". Nothing could be further from the truth--we cannot allow sentiment and emotion to control our theology. Jack Hyles himself told stories about his being disowned by the SBC and his home church because of his problem with some of their doctrine--funny how no one in Hammond called him bitter or ungrateful, but somehow it is much different when we find ourselves at odds with some of the teachings at our "home" church and alma mater.

As I look back at the life that my mother lived, I cannot help but remember the wonderful testimony that her many friends at FBCH showed by their acts of service and fervent prayers. Some of my mother's best and dearest friends were and still are members of FBCH--I pray that they would never take personally our issues with certain doctrines at HAC and FBCH. I do not wish any harm or ill will to those involved in the ministry of FBCH. I seek only to analyze the ministry of FBCH in the areas where she is propagating unorthodox and erroneous teachings. Nobody is required or forced to visit this blog--we are simply providing a place where open debate is fostered in a Christ-like and humble spirit. It is easy for those at FBCH to simply cast Josh and I as "bitter" or "traitors", they were taught by the best at this kind of game. We are not bitter and we are not filled with hatred for all things at FBCH--we love hundreds of folks there and simply desire to point them to the Word of God for their doctrine and methodology and not to what some man dogmatically trumpets as Gospel truth.

Phineas

If It Looks Like A Duck And Walks Like A Duck...

2006-07-08T11:00:00.000-05:00

Daniel 1:8 ESV "But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's food, or with the wine that "he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself."

I wanted to take this opportunity to make a quick post concerning Youth Conference 2006 since it is set to commence in less than a week in beautiful Hammond, Indiana. If you have not had a chance to review the brochure for the upcoming Youth Conference at First Baptist Church of Hammond I highly recommend your taking a quick glance at it here.

It is amazing to me how anyone can still argue that First Baptist Church and Hyles-Anderson College are not unashamedly anthropocentric to the very core. On a regular basis I have sincere members of FBCH inform me just how much things have changed for the better at the old church downtown. The first couple of times that I heard this claim I was anxious to find out the reason for this conclusion--sadly after just a small amount of research all of these claims lose their credence.

This brings us to the topic at hand--a simple perusal of the brochure sent across the fruited plain promoting Youth Conference 2006. We are told that our teens should be resolved to stand and be one of the 10,000 people who attend Youth Conference this year! I can think of many things that Christian teens ought to be committed to--standing as one of 10,000 noses to be counted at FBCH does not make my list.

The brochure goes on to announce that interested teens will have the opportunity to hear some dynamic youth speakers! There will be a talent contest, three on three basketball tournament, dodgeball aplenty, and a chance to meet Jack Schaap at the altar on Thursday evening! Does anyone else notice the absence of a Cross-centered message? Some may think that we are nitpicking, but why is it that there is no mention of God's glory or the grace of God? I have seen some announcements for conferences and conventions in the past, but I do not think that I have ever seen one so void of anything Christ-exalting.

The dandelion of pragmatism is in full bloom at First Baptist of Hammond during this exciting time on the church calendar! Week after week and event after event FBCH just keeps heading down the path that provides ample material for us here at B&C--my prayer is that they do in fact change their methods and man-centered ways and put us out of commission--I spent a lot of years under the influence of this ministry and sincerely desire to someday see the old ship on the right course.

**You will notice that FBCH does not fail to mention what is most important to them--numbers and this standard little quip:

"Young ladies are not permitted to wear pants, gauchos, or walking shorts at any time."

Externalism, pragmatism, decisionism, narcissism, and good old-fashioned anthropocentrism--all the essential ingredients for youth ministry Hammond-style!

Any other thoughts?

Phineas

Grandiose FBCH Memories and Re-Writing History (Part 1)

2006-06-25T21:30:00.000-05:00

**Recently it was brought to my attention that Pastor Schaap made some statements in an April 23rd sermon about people who critique and scrutinize his books and/or sermons. He went on to say that he was basically just wingin' it with his sermons and not concerned with who agreed or disagreed with him. He wrapped it all up by advising the critics to write their own cotton-pickin' books so that he could analyze and dissect them.

I personally believe that if you are going to write a book or preach a sermon that you need to be able to back up what you state or write Biblically and in the proper context--to have the attitude that it does not matter or that you do not owe anyone a clarification is nothing but the heighth of arrogance. I am sure that there are many areas where Pastor Schaap and I would agree and find some common ground. We are not attempting to pick on every little mistake or misstatement he makes--we simply want to look at some of the revisionist history that has been going on in Hammond for years and continues to this day.

**************************************************************************

To listen to a current sermon or to read a recent book by Pastor Jack Schaap is to inevitably hear him chatter about his version of the legacy of the late Pastor Jack Hyles. At this point let me interject that I do cut him some slack since Hyles was his father-in-law, but even with that in mind his adoration of all things Hyles is nothing short of nauseating. As a loyal Hylesite some years ago, this particular proclivity of Pastor Schaap would not have even caused me to "bat an eye". As I now listen to his sermons at Baptist City and read his books from Hyles Publications, I am struck by the similarities between he and Jack Hyles.

Since the LORD removed the cobwebs of cultural fundamentalism from my mind and heart, it has been interesting to notice some of these things for the very first time. When you are entangled in the politics and emotional rhetoric of IFBxdom, it is nearly impossible to see the exaggerations, fabrications, and all out tall tales that are synonymous with HAC/FBCH. Hyles was a master at these home spun stories and anecdotal illustrations, but I do believe that Pastor Schaap has surpassed his teacher and dethroned him as IFBX's newest "Uncle Arthur".

I want to begin looking at a particular chapter in Pastor Schaap's book entitled, "Principles of Church Growth". The title of this particular chapter is "Balancing the Past With the Present" in which he is attempting to motivate his flock to greater goals and higher attendance aspirations! This chapter is chock full of interesting teachings and it will probably take a few posts to look at all of the revisionist history contained in just this chapter. This entire book is based on the book of Acts, but has a good bit of John's Revelation sprinkled throughout. On pages 145 and 146 Pastor Schaap begins to build his case for rejecting the idea that we are living in the "Laodicean Age" by stating:

"When I was a freshman in college, I was enraptured with the teaching of theologians regarding the seven different church ages, and I thought it was very intriguing. However, as I studied the Bible, I found this teaching was a bunch of baloney.

I was relieved when I found out Brother Hyles thought this teaching was a bunch of baloney, too! I felt vindicated. Every theologian I have ever read states that he felt he was living in the Laodicean Age, whether that theologian lived 1,000 years ago or is presently living.

One reason I believe theologians teach this is because the Laodicean Age was a compromised age, and it appears that Jesus is just about ready to return. It appears that not much church building can go on. My personal opinion is that theologians write that because they are too cotton-pickin' lazy to go out and knock on doors and build bus routes. Or maybe these theologians tried building a church and failed, so now they would rather tell everyone that building a church can't be done. They write books instead!

This business of church ages is not in the Scriptures. The reason I do not like or believe this theory is because my heart is set on church growth, not on church excuse. I'm not looking for an excuse as to why First Baptist Church of Hammond cannot go to the next stage of growth. During the fall of 2003, First Baptist Church started 17 new adult Sunday School classes...If I believed that we are living in the "Laodicean Age", starting new Sunday school classes would be the stupidest thing I could ever do. If I believed we are living in the Laodicean Age, I would just get comfortable in my pulpit and tend the flock God has given me and let the law of attrition peel off church members as they die or move away until eventually the church could meet in the two center sections of the auditorium and talk about the glory days of the past and the good old days when Brother Hyles used to be here."

Later on page 148, Pastor Schaap describes this conversation:

"I was talking to a man about our church recently. He said, 'Name your top men.' I gave him the names of my men who are great producers and loyal helpers in our ministry. He then asked, 'What kind of man do you have in your bus ministry?' I said, 'I could pick up the phone and make one phone call and have 5,000 more people next Sunday.' "

Initially, I would ask readers to take notice of the mysterious absence of any mention of the glory of God. This is nothing new to anyone even marginally familiar with this ministry, however. I will stop now and open this one up for some discussion. Later on we will look at the rest of the chapter as Pastor Schaap waxes eloquent on the demise of churches once pastored by Charles Spurgeon, D.L. Moody, and Charles Finney. You will see the predictable ploy of attempting to compare these men to Jack Hyles--Finney is actually a great comparison, but the attempt to link C.H. Spurgeon and D.L. Moody to Hyles is a quantum leap!

I could not help but chuckle as I read Pastor Schaap correcting theologians for their teaching that was obviously tainted by their laziness and lack of evangelistic zeal! He goes on to assume that many of them probably had never built a church or tried and failed miserably so they teach and write books now! The irony here is that Pastor Schaap never pastored a day in his life until he was given his father-in-law's church! The person at FBCH considered an "expert" on church building is none other than a man, Bob Marshall, who has not pastored a second in his life!

I also noticed that Pastor Schaap assumes that anyone who believes we are living in the Laodicean Age is obviously not concerned about souls or seeing their church grow. Why do these folks always have to cast others in this light? In their eyes it seems anyone who disagrees with their methodology or theology is obviously a lazy rascal who cannot or will not be a witness for the LORD Jesus Christ.

Any other takes on what you have read? I started the ball rolling now someone else needs to take over...

Phineas

Assuming the KJVO Position

2006-06-17T13:16:00.000-05:00

Judging from the turn that our last post took towards the canker of what is commonly known as exclusive King James Onlyism, we decided to attempt to flesh out some more thoughts on this crucial topic. **********************************

Knowing full well that we will be accused of beating a dead horse so to speak, I'd like to again address the topic that so pervades the teachings and philosophies of FBCH/HAC---the new doctrine of King James Onlyism. It is one that will no doubt be touched upon often here as it is one of the most prominent "new doctrines" espoused by both First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College.

What we have seen exhibited lately here at Bread and Circuses can only be described as "assuming the position" of the proverbial ostrich with its head buried firmly within the sand of hysteric fundamentalism. We do not say this to condemn those caught in this error--both Matthew and I were at one time King James Only nuts as wide-eyed knuckleheads at FBCH. Sadly many who are in the KJVO camp admit that they have never even read any books that give the other side of the translation story--in their mind there is no need to investigate this matter any further--Riplinger, Ruckman, Grady, Fuller, and Hyles said it and that is good enough for them.

I still struggle to process this fact but during my last semester at HAC, I took Bible Doctrines class. I reckon that they saw the need to at least pretend that they teach these doctrines, hence the class. The very first "doctrine" that the instructor presented was that of KJVOnlyism. To state it mildly, I was aghast. It is well-known that they not only dogmatically proclaim this new doctrine but that they will and do separate regarding it.

In the recent comment sections of our blog, the topic has been brought to the forefront by some well-meaning pro-FBCHers. Concurrently, much misinformation has been displayed at the forefront as well. We have noticed remarks from these folks who would equate our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with the KJV that they carry to church via the first chapter of John's gospel account...? Both Matthew and myself have sustained verbal injury by those who would label us as "liberal" by our view of Biblical inerrancy. Basically, since we are not KJVOnly, therefore in the minds of some we deny the inerrancy of Scripture...? My brethren, misinformation abounds, indeed.

It has been stated by some commenting here that "Fundamentalists have always believed that the Bible was without error." Who would deny this fact? The Bible, as given to the original penman was without error and given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Where in the New Testament or Old for that matter are we reminded that it would be exclusively without error and perfectly translated in the Authorized Version of A.D. 1611? We at Bread and Circuses have yet to find this passage in our Bibles, King James Version or otherwise. Perchance it is contained in the apocryphal books of the original 1611 AV?

The question is put forth, "Have you ever seen the originals?" Quite simply and honestly the answer is an obvious "no". Howbeit, I have utterly failed to recognize the connection that this question shares with the issue that is at hand. Again, what does the Bible say about its own preservation and inspiration? Please do not hesitate to return your answers with Scripture references. There is one hitch---context WILL count. This will no doubt serve as a devastating blow to the "Jesus= 1611 KJV" crowd.

What part of "God has preserved His Word in the totality of extant manuscripts and resulting translations" do we not understand? Is our God so small that He can no longer use even the errors of fallen man to ultimately preserve His written Word for believers today? Indeed, he can and has, and I rejoice greatly in this fact.

We claim the original autographs to be perfect due to the Scripture's own teaching on inspiration. The original human authors wrote their respective portions of Holy Writ under direct influence of the Holy Spirit of God. Edward, et al, THIS is the historic position regarding the Holy Scriptures.

In one recent exchange, a pro-FBCHer stated "If I honestly believed the way some of you do here about the Scriptures, I would throw in the towel and live it up." What great faith verbalized! I would advise this gentleman against reading the Da Vinci Code---if we here at B&C have shaken your faith, Dan Brown's heretical novelty most certainly will! I praise God that He is bigger than our all too often little faith.

Here are some questions to ponder...Where did God promise to preserve a 17th century English translation in Scripture? Is there a perfectly translated Bible version in every known language? Is the LORD a respecter of persons--favoring only English speaking peoples with His "perfect" man made translation in the KJV? Are there any Bible scholars with well respected earned degrees or sound Bible expositors that espouse this teaching of King James Onlyism? If your answer is "yes", please list them for us. Do you believe that the King James Version of the Bible is perfectly translated and free of any error? If your answer is "yes", which edition of the KJV is the perfect one?

Any takers?

Joshua

Well Fed???? Part 2 Conclusion

2006-06-10T12:30:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-07T18:38:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-03T22:36:00.000-05:00

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

2006-06-01T22:30:00.000-05:00

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...?

2006-05-26T05:48:00.000-05:00

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

2006-05-17T20:53:00.000-05:00

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

2006-05-11T21:35:00.000-05:00

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????

2006-05-06T08:09:00.000-05:00

"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???

2006-05-01T05:54:00.000-05:00

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

2006-04-25T21:00:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-04-19T20:27:00.000-05:00

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:

2006-04-17T20:31:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-04-15T20:34:00.000-05:00

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

2006-04-11T14:39:00.000-05:00

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!"

2006-04-08T16:07:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-04-05T17:00:00.000-05:00

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

Why Bread and Circuses?

2006-03-31T21:07:00.000-05:00

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!!"

As I have been trying to spread the word about our new blog, I have had more than one person ask me, "Why Bread and Circuses?" I would love to tell them and everyone else for that matter that the idea was entirely mine and that I had no help whatsoever. I would love to say that, but I would be lying--actually my brother Josh thought up this name without any help from me. When people have asked me this question about the name of our blog, I knew that eventually we would need to make a post giving its relation to our experiences at FBCH. First a little history would be in order:

During the years of the Roman Empire, there were some who used entertainment and food in the form of great feasts, Roman games, and grand circuses to divert attention from the current political injustice and unrest.

"In Juvenal's time (55-127 A.D.), the Roman Republic was but a distant memory as the power of the emperors grew stronger and stronger. The once proud Senate that had witnessed the splendid orations of Cato and Cicero, dominated and weakened year after year by the succession of dictators, atrophied into a figurehead of an institution. However, Juvenal felt that the populace took the duties of citizenship far more seriously during the days of the Republic than in the virtual dictatorships of the Caesars. He lamented that the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddle no more and longs eagerly for just two things, bread and circuses."

"Those scornful words 'bread and circuses,' or 'panem et circenses' in Latin, become more meaningful when you understand that Roman citizens became increasingly addicted to free distributions of food and the violent gladiatorial and other contests held in the Colosseum and the chariot races of the Circus Maximus. He felt that Romans had lost the capacity to govern themselves so distracted by mindless self-gratification had they become."1

"The Plebeian and freed population of Rome vastly outnumbered the Equestrian and Patrician classes, and their lives were much harder. Many had no jobs, little money and little food. Augustus, realizing that the masses of average Romans had to be kept both fed and happy enough to remain peaceful, began the system of patronage we now refer to as "bread and circuses." He gave the people food by means of grain distribution and legislation of food prices and free entertainment such as chariot races, gladiators, lavish spectacles in amphitheaters and the Circus Maximus."2

When I read about this Roman society and their appetite for more and more free entertainment and grandiose circus-like events, I could not help but immediately think of FBCH. They wait with bated breath for the next magnificent show and each one must outdo the last--the next big day--the next "famous" guest--the next fabulous fall or stupendous spring program--the next narcissistic event on the church calendar!

Just like the people of Rome during the days of the Republic, at one time FBCH was not ruled by one strong and charismatic personality! Just like the citizens in Rome under the direction of dictatorial Caesars became lazy and complacent with simply "not rocking the boat", I believe many of the good and decent people of FBCH have likewise adopted this philosophy. The picture of the impotent Roman Senate during the time of the emperors pictures almost perfectly the good men on the deacon board at FBCH--they are nothing more than a rubber stamp for anything the preacher/emperor desires to do or refrain from doing.

Much of what goes on in Hammond in the guise of ministry is nothing more than "free entertainment" in the form of panem et circenses! When you read about the Circus Maximus does any FBCH event come to mind? I can certainly think of a few!

Stay tuned...

Matthew Richards

1 Taken from article "Bread and Circuses" www.Suite101.com by Thomas James Martin
2 The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy www.bartelby.com

The Texas Baptist Crucible

2006-03-30T22:17:00.000-05:00

We at Bread and Circuses have decided unanimously to post a brief plug here for our friend James Spurgeon at the Texas Baptist Underground. James was involved with a school and ministry in Longview, Texas, for seven harrowing years until the Lord saw fit to open his eyes to the extremely unbiblical and man-centered philosophies that were so rampant.

I think it would be safe to state that Texas Baptist College and Longview Baptist Temple could best be described as both extremely man-centered and legalistic. The book is aimed at informing those who may be involved in one of these ministries of the unbiblical principles on which they are based and thrive upon.

It was not too long ago that I sat in disbelief reading some of his 'Tales from the Temple' on what was known in cyberspace as the Fighting Fundamentalist Forums. 'Tales from the Temple' are the basis, I believe, for what now has been published as "The Texas Baptist Crucible". I can honestly say that they were a forum favorite for many people for several years.

I soon will be submitting my order for a copy of "The Texas Baptist Crucible", and I hope that you will do the same.

order from Barnes and Noble

Joshua Richards

To Discipline or Not To Discipline?

2006-03-29T00:19:00.000-05:00

Last Sunday in the church that I attend our pastor spoke from and expounded upon I Corinthians chapter five. In my later meditations upon the instruction in the letter I was reminded that the concept of church discipline was not even stabbed at from the pulpit in Hammond, Indiana.

During my 20 plus years at First Baptist Church of Hammond, not one time to my knowledge was there exercised anything remotely close to a New Testament model of church discipline. Beyond that, the topic of what we call local church discipline was never even addressed Scripturally, but was avoided. I reckon that the closest Hyles ever approached this topic was during his Wednesday evening Bible studies that would later be manifest in the book form of "Jack Hyles On Justice", but that is for an entirely different post.

There are multiplied reasons for this that I will not propound upon at this time, but the fact remains. In the aftermath of my exiting FBCH, I have come to see that a plethora of problematic situations could have been easily avoided and wayward believers brought to Biblical repentance via church discipline.

Is not a purpose of the Pauline epistles to lay a correct Biblical framework for the local church in this present age? My answer to myself would be "yes."

I Corinthians 5:6 "...Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"

I find the Apostle to be abundantly clear on this matter. Maybe it's just me.

More to come...

Joshua Richards

The Making of a "Classic" Sermon

2006-03-27T15:50:00.001-05:00

Great Preachin' Hammond Style

Joshua's post about pop-psychology vs. Biblical exegesis in preaching got me thinking. While growing up at FBCH, major staples of our spiritual diet were topical and personal illustration-saturated sermons. Here are some thoughts on the topic.

It has been said that the more things change the more they stay the same--this is certainly not always the case, but this statement did come to mind as I listened to a recent sermon from the First Baptist Church of Hammond. It was the Sunday morning sermon from March 12, 2006 entitled, "The Breakaway Moment". I have been told time and time again by current members of FBCH that the church is heading in a fresh direction and that many things are changing for the better. I certainly pray that this is the case, but a simple listen to many of the Sunday services broadcast from Hammond will quickly quell any glimmer of hope that these assertions are valid.

Jack Hyles was the infamous pastor of this church for over 4 decades and he created an insatiable appetite in his church members for "story hour" in place of weekly sound Biblical preaching.

I recently read a sermon Hyles preached on a Sunday evening entitled "Inferior Churches" and was reminded why he was so entertaining to listen to as a young and impressionable lad--his stories were second to none and his comedic timing was fabulous! In the aforementioned sermon he berates churches in the Bible as "inferior churches" because they did not win souls as Hyles thought they should. He goes on to brag ad nauseum about how FBCH was winning the lost like none other--thus the conclusion that FBCH was in fact NOT an inferior church but truly a superior church! One scripture is alluded to briefly and the rest of the 45 minute diatribe is nothing but personal illustrations and criticism of those who do not see things his way. The lack of scripture was tragic, but sadly I was not surprised.

Fast forward a few decades to the sermon I referenced earlier preached by Jack Schaap on March 12, 2006. I listened to this sermon desperately longing to hear something different--alas I found much of the same ingredients that were commonplace on Sibley Street during the Hyles era. The sermon begins with 12 minutes of fluff about personal situations before a scripture passage is even mentioned. Of course they all read a text before the performance began, but the scripture he mentions 12 minutes in isn't even from that text. I heard about all the marriage counseling that Dr. Schaap does on a weekly basis, I heard about all the teens in the youth group that come by his office on Saturday and "cut up" with him, I heard about all the negative influences we have in our lives (speeding tickets, angry drivers, terrorism, etc...), and I even heard a very familiar refrain when Schaap asks some "Brother Brian" who is sitting on the platform to stand on the stage and hold a glass half-full of water for his object lesson.

Some may say that this is just the style of preaching that these folks have chosen so get over it--I couldn't disagree more. Herein is one of the ways that the "image machine" works every week in Hammond. Preacher is an expert on everything--he is an expert on which churches are inferior and which churches are superior--he is an expert on marriage counseling and has pieced together scores of marriages--he is an expert on politics--he is an expert on how to deal with teenagers--he is an expert on everything that you struggle with and he will never tire of telling you just how wise he is! Here are my questions for you:

1. If he is an expert why does he have to keep reminding you about it?
2. Is he really an expert or is he a "self-proclaimed" expert?
3. Wouldn't you rather have the Word of God preached in a systematic and expository manner than hear favorite proof texts taken out of context wrapped neatly with silly personal illustrations?

I know which one I choose! How about you?

2 Timothy 4:2 KJV "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine."

Matthew Richards

Pop-psychology vs. the Systematic Preaching of the Word

2006-03-26T15:16:00.000-05:00

In the coming days I plan to elaborate on my journeys growing up in the ministry of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana. As has been stated in the initial welcome post, both myself and Matt possess a good deal of experience with the aforementioned church and its related ministries. This includes not only kindergarten through 12th grade, but also four years at Hyles-Anderson College.

For the moment, however, I would like to provoke thought regarding their philosophy of the ministry of preaching. Jack Hyles was certainly famous for grand storytelling, and Pastor Jack Schaap is also quite adept at this art. Now then, before you current members pounce on me to prove me wrong regarding the current leadership there, let me express that I don’t doubt that Schaap may stay closer to his text as a whole than his late father-in-law. The point that I would like to make is this: if we as Christians truly believe what the Word speaks about itself, namely Hebrews 4:12, why is the ratio of pop-psychology application to Scriptural exegesis so lopsided? If one were to visit the chapel sermons section of the college website they would not need to listen for long before finding this to be the stark reality.

This is one that for the life of me I have been unable to figure out since leaving FBCH and its related ministries. In retrospect it appears as such a pronounced wart on their theological nose, yet I highly doubt that the leadership there has thought twice regarding it. For this I am saddened. What I fear is that their reason for avoiding systematic teaching and preaching is that it would "quench" the "fire" of the preacher boy crowd and thus do damage to their numerical and visible results. That would be less than befitting for the "flagship church of fundamentalism", no doubt.

The truth is that nothing is more powerful than the "twoedged sword" of Scripture. What could produce more authentic fruit for the Kingdom of God than a disciplined exposition of the "holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."? Let us endeavor to pray that hearts may be changed regarding this issue.

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Joshua Richards

A View from the Lighter Side

2006-03-26T08:55:00.000-05:00

I was speaking with a friend of mine last week about the opening day of Pastors' School in Hammond on Sunday, March 19. He made a statement that almost caused me to have an accident as I was driving. He said, "I have never seen so many tapered haircuts, ten gallon hats, and double-breasted suits in one place!" Granted that this would probably be the case among other groups especially south of the Mason Dixon Line, I found it dead-on accurate and hilarious all at the same time!

Matthew Richards