Why Fundamentalists Don’t Listen To Our Critics

Posted: April 6, 2013 in IFB, Why Fundamentalist Ignore Critics
Tags: , , , , , ,

Man-Holding-Ears-ShutIf you want to know what a fundamentalist really believes in, just ask someone like Jeri Massi or Jocelyn Zichterman, they have an entire list and an array of articles that define every tenant of faith any fundamentalist has ever believed in. In fact, with the help of astrology, Jeri Massi was probably aided in writing articles that Baptists forgot to write about.

There has certainly been enough fodder to feed the Wehrmacht Anti Christian Kiddy Order (“WACKOS”) , and with the crimes committed among members belonging to IFB churches, the leap has been made from the abuser to IFB doctrine itself. There have been criminal convictions, lives wrecked, families harmed, among accusations of cover-ups. The rhetoric from the WACKOS rivals that of the best conspiracy theorist in that every deviant act committed by a member of an IFB church was plotted by and covered up by a ruling member of the IFB body, and ultimately, it was the doctrines of the IFB that permitted and even caused the acts.

Nevertheless, there are some matters that the WACKOS have a right to point fingers at us fundamentalists for. But, if there are abuses permitted within the IFB with impunity, and cover ups, then why are the “fundies” not listening? Are the groups that ripped off the Bob Jones Sr “Do Right” slogan right about fundamentalists?

No, they are not, and there’s a good reason why we don’t listen to them.

The Dishonesty of the Critics

Embellishment of Facts

When news first surfaced about sexual abuse occurring at Bob Jones University, it was reported that nine rapes were covered up and made to appear that nine separate perpetrators had been involved. Eventually it was discovered that all nine cases were committed by the same person, and the perpetrator was arrested. I am certainly no fan of BJU due to issues over the KJV, but if accusations are getting leveled against an entire college, there’s no need to embellish and distort the facts.

Misrepresentation of Fundamentalist Beliefs

Any cursory perusal of blogs such as “Blog On The Way” by Jeri Massi, “Religions Cell” by Cynthia McClaskey, or “Stuff Fundies Like [which I have labeled “Stuffed Undies Like”] by Darrell Dow, one would think that the IFB promotes misogyny and the slaughter of animals for penance. Just a few of the erroneous assumptions made and self-imposed caricature created by these WACKOS are as follows:

*Baptists’ goal are to brain wash members and exercise total control over them.

*Baptists distort the Bible to make women slaves.

*Baptists attempt to forcefully prevent members from leaving the church. If you leave the church you are going to hell.

*Baptists promote “King James Onlyism” so they can control what their members believe.

*Baptist teach a fear-based religion to manipulate followers into worshiping their leaders and giving money.

*Baptists blame the victims for being abused (be sure to insert at least one good example, like Chuck Phelps or Mark Monte).

*Baptists teach that outward appearance is necessary to be in good standing with God.

*Baptists teach that a person should forgive their offender because the real goal of forgiveness is to prevent a person from reporting a possible criminal act and Baptists would rather pressure a person from “telling” than “hurt the cause of Christ”.

*Baptists force you to be what they want you to be.

*Baptists don’t believe in repentance.

*Baptists are all about glorifying themselves and praising each other (don’t forget to write that in your $19.95 book on “Schizophrenic Christianity”.)

Ad Nauseum

If I took the time to debunk all of the articles contained on these websites, I’d have a series that exceeds the Encyclopedia Britannica. It’s as if the statement of faith or the “What We Believe” section of a fundamental Baptist church reads:

1. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible [which by the way, Massi criticizes that view as well] 2. We believe that God exists in 3 persons; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit 3. We believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ 4. We believe that salvation is by grace through faith, and that salvation can not be attained by baptism or “being good”. 5. We believe that crimes should be covered up and children should be molested.

Jeri Massi wrote an article about repentance, but failed to mention that repentance means turning to God from idols, i.e, astrology and Buddhism. She wrote a practically Arminian view of repentance, and then wrote a Calvinist view of free will. In her article on the “erroneous IFB ‘free will” doctrine, she accuses Baptists of following Pelagianism, but only cites a the partial view that Pelagianism views man is a free moral agent, but leaves out the part that Pelagianism holds that man can achieve good works without the assistance of any Divine intervention, and that man has no original sin nature. Not even an honest Calvinist should make that kind of leap.

There is not one fundamental Baptist church that I know of that holds to the nature of sin in the manner that Pelagianism describes it.

In an article by Cynthia McClaskey, she opines that the Bible has been twisted and distorted and Baptists have deliberately left out “lost gospels” and perverted the canon of scripture. This view is put forth to prove that Baptists create their own theology by strategically using selected texts to their own advantage.

Not only is that one of the most ridiculous and uneducated arguments I’ve ever heard, but defies the facts of history, particularly considering the line up of PROTESTANT scholars that were on the King James translating committee. In her fallacious attempt to frame Baptists, she ignores an enormous amount of textual evidence that would make even Westcott and Hort shake their heads. Her argument posits that because there were men who were actively corrupting the Bible (which occurred even while the apostles were writing, 2 Cor 2:17) that ALL of the Bible from henceforth must be corrupt. But then of course she will USE the Bible in articles when it fits her presuppositions to do so.

You may view one of our articles about her attempt to paint Baptists as misogynists here

Not only have such critics failed to give an accurate description of what fundamentalism really is, or what the IFB churches actually teach, they have distorted facts, misinterpreted scripture and often even relied on anti Christian sources to prove their views. And hence one reason why fundamentalists don’t listen to our critics is because of their dishonesty.

The Motives Of The WACKOS

There is no question in my mind that there are ulterior motives behind many of the so-called “victim advocate” groups who make up a large majority of the critics against the IFB. It seems some want attention like Nadine Salgado who now maintains a You Tube page that gives the appearance that she has been some First Baptist Church insider that is now “coming out”. She maintains a group page called “What You Need To Know About Jack Schaap”. Really? What do we all need to know that isn’t already contained on every other website in the country and on court records?

Everyone is having their “coming out” party now. Former church members such as Jeremy Lape, among many for example, who haven’t stepped foot in ANY church for 20 years let alone an IFB church, now all of a sudden have a perfect recollection of every conversation they ever had with Jack Hyles, Jack Schaap, Victor Nischik, and the Pope.

I remember back in 1985, Jack Hyles winked at me from the pulpit and we shook hands after the service and he said hello to me.

Translation: “I knew Jack Hyles very well. I was at his church for 10 years (even though I only shook his hand once). I mowed his lawn, counseled his children, fed his dogs, aired his tires. Jack Hyles was my best friend until he died, then his ghost came to me in a dream and reminded me of all the evil things he did and when Jack Schaap got arrested just to taunt me, then I remembered all the times that Jack Hyles, John R. Rice, Lee Roberson, Shelton Smith drug me into an alley and stole my shoes, beat me senseless, and cast lots for my shoestrings”.

And if you have heard a rumor, because you have heard that rumor, you are now part of the “in crowd” of that particular church, and can craft the story any way you choose to give the appearance that you actually have first-hand knowledge of the events that surrounded the lives of IFB preachers. If you can’t think of an original story, find one closest to the time you may have been a member of the church or college, and run with it, but change a few details.

This is the 15 minutes of fame crowd, and some attempt to achieve longevity to exceed that 15 minute fuse by insisting that you buy the book on it, or bookmark the website.

Then there are the atheists and homosexuals. Never in my life have I seen such an influx of atheists and agnostics take such an interest in mingling with other Christians on a victim abuse site, nor the willingness of other so-called Christians to embrace them and give license to their unbelief.  Jocelyn Zichterman’s Facebook page is full of the most vile atheists who literally play the devil’s advocate in guaranteeing that those church members are aware that it is the belief in God that leads to abuse.

And homosexual groups such as BJUnity hop on the bandwagon attempting to convince followers that they are concerned about abuse within the fundamentalist churches. Of course, the abuse by their own communities is never addressed because their own community doesn’t call homosexuality a sin.

The preaching of sound Biblical doctrine which is vehemently opposed to homosexuality and atheism is a stumbling block and a rock of offense to them. As long as there are any conservative views held by politicians and voting church members  that believe in legislation based upon morals taught from the Bible, the homosexual community will attempt to silence those voices at all cost while preaching “tolerance” to all views but those of fundamentalists.

Therefore another reason fundamentalists don’t listen to our critics is because of the motivations of the accusers.

The Accusations Are Inaccurate And/Or Embellished

I wrote briefly heretofore of the inaccurate statements that critics have used to define fundamentalism, but one thing that needs emphasized is the ability of the critics to “make a mountain out of a mole hill”. Although abuse should not be tolerated anywhere, the abuses that have occurred within the IFB make up less than 1% of all the documented cases of abuse in public schools, public colleges, foster homes, other denominations, sex trafficking, secular clubs (e.g., Boyscouts), prisons, nursing homes and even among psychiatrists.

The atheists point fingers while atheism was the philosophy that inspired the murder and torture of millions of citizens under Joseph Stalin, Lenin, and Mao Tse-Tung. The homosexual community screams foul play while six of this country’s most notorious serial killers and rapists were homosexuals that account for more than double the rapes and murders of any IFB list with only the 6 of them.

Jeri Massi maintains of list of abusers. Some who have been convicted of a crime, and some, such as Alabama Governor and Fox talk show host, Mike Huckabee and pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Charles Stanley, who are merely “guilty by association”. Meaning that because they wouldn’t talk to protesters, or take the time to cancel a meeting that someone else scheduled for them or make abuse the topic of their show at the insistence of a protester, they get placed on the wall of shame with those actually convicted of a crime (and of course, Mike Huckabee is a Baptist).

There was the story of Tina Anderson whom was raped by Earnie Willis. The allegations that followed that case was also that Chuck Phelps sent Tina to another state to hush the matter after demanding that she apologize in front of the church. So the logic goes, Chuck Phelps attempted to cover up the crime, Chuck Phelps was a fundamentalists, therefore all fundamentalists ship rape victims off to another state and cover up the crime. (Chuck Phelps has created a website to respond to his accusers here)

Just recently, BJU was accused of hiding the criminal record of an employee convicted 20 years ago of soliciting a prostitute. Now I don’t know what BJU’s policy was concerning background checks, I do know that the technology for background checks is much more sophisticated and thorough now as it was back then. But nevertheless, BJU ultimately fired this man. Was that good enough for BJUnity founder Jeffrey Hoffman? Nope. At first, the contention was how could BJU have hired this man, and now the quibbling is over why BJU fired him.

Moreover, the crime this man was convicted of was portrayed by the WACKOS as a sex ABUSE case, and the prostitute who willingly received money from this man and willingly attempted to engage in sexual activity was labelled a “victim” and used as another example of IFB abuse. Now I do not defend these kind of actions at all, and if he purposely hid this crime when he was expected to disclose it, then he can’t complain that it caught up with him, even if it was 20 years later.

However, I have not seen where he actually had sex with this prostitute. The charge was SOLICITATION meaning that he ATTEMPTED False accusationto have sex with a prostitute. There was no manipulation or force or coercion such as is part of the mens rea that constitutes acts of a sex crime. A prostitute is a victim of her profession and perhaps a victim of her upbringing that led her/him to believe prostitution is an acceptable line of work. Or it is just greed (Read Proverbs chapters 5-7 to see the Bible’s position on prostitution).

Nevertheless, the WACKO crowd used this as an opportunity to embellish this matter to vilify fundamentalism.

Manufactured Crisis Tactics

A well-known tactic in politics is the “manufactured crisis” tactic. This is where you identify a potential problem, then create a panic about the problem, and then offer a solution and encourage the voters remember you at the ballot box.

a_peanutIf I find just one thing wrong with a peanut, I can find 100 other ways to describe the problem, and then create a blog about it, remind readers EVERY DAY that peanuts are dangerous, find at least 100 people world-wide that have choked on a peanut, buy air-time on CNN and every major radio outlet in the country, and within a month or so convince millions of people that peanuts are a menace to society and need to be eradicated.

Jeri Massi has amassed a list of approximately 86 offenders within the IFB. That list spans over about 10 years or so. So among the thousands of IFB church members in the world, lets round it to 100 known abuse cases. Now granted, the offenses were a manufacturing of the offenders own making, but the manufacturing of the perception that abuse in the IFB is epidemic is Jeri’s (and others such as Dwayne Walker “Bible Madness”, Chuckles Travels, and all of the afore-mentioned groups).

Now take a breather and look at those statistics again, only one-hundred cases in the span of ten years documented out of the hundreds of years of the recognized fundamentalist churches in the world and the thousands upon thousands of fundamental Baptist church members.

However, if a writer opines about one subject on a daily basis, and hammers on the subject incessantly, it has the exact same indoctrination effect of the appearance of an epidemic that the critics accuse the IFB of using with the Bible.

Most Abuses Occurred Within a Home Environment

Most of the abuse cases did not occur in an IFB church, but occurred in a separate environment and most at home. Acts of abuse that occur by a parent, spouse, sibling that occur within the home are not so unique from similarly situated cases of abuse that one can justify blaming the IFB simply because the abuser was a member of an IFB church. The IFB is not full of perfect people, nor is the church as a whole. Christians are just as capable at committing heinous and violent acts as the non-Christian. Although the Bible is clear that such behavior should not even been once named among the saints (Eph 5:3), there is no justification whatsoever that the churches are responsible for what occurs in the homes of its members.

The temptation is to blame the church because had the offender followed God the way he/she OUGHT to have followed God the abuse would have never occurred. But because it DID occur, then it must be the churches fault. The pastor must have taught false doctrine and that caused the perpetrator to wake up one morning and molest or beat their child.

Thus one more reason why fundamentalists do not listen to our critics is because the accusations are often inaccurate, embellished, and in some cases, turned out to be completely false.

Abuse Has Lost It’s Meaning

The term “abuse” has been described as everything from being spanked to being told by a parent to make your bed. Demanding that a child adhere to certain house rules can cause irreparable emotional damage and is therefore considered abuse. Preaching on sin and judgment is not conducive to a productive healthy mentality and is therefore deemed “emotional abuse” (2 Timothy 4:2).

Critics of the IFB don’t simply limit abuse to sexual or physical abuse. Virtually anything that is taught that conflicts with a lifestyle of debauchery, homosexuality, drug use, discipline, morality, or even affirming that Christ is the only way to heaven are viewed as “abuse” and said to cause psychological harm. Terms such as “bible”, “Jesus”, “sin”, “repent” are seen as “triggers” and anytime a believer attempts-even in the most gracious of spirit-to offer prayer or Biblical support, such an effort is stifled by the “triggers” excuse.

According to all the best advice from the “accredited” psycho therapitsts, victims should seek to solve their own problems their own way first, and “religion” should be a last resort. The Bible is a “trigger” that can re-victimize the abused. So Jesus is out, and Dr. Be Yourowngod is in. After all, 8 years of secular education outweighs an omnipotent eternal God any day, and Jesus wasn’t “accredited” (John 7:15).

According to Darrell Dow, even the term “Biblical” is abusive. Christians should not use the term “Biblical” to define a particular belief. Because that would give the impression that the belief is based on the Bible, and we know that the IFB doesn’t really believe the Bible.

Fundamentalists Maintain A Different View Than The World

For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: 1 Peter 4:3-4

The world thinks us “fundies” are strange. Well, we are a “peculiar people” (1 Peter 2:9). We do and believe things differently than what the rest of the world sees as good, positive and acceptable. We don’t buckle under the pressure of what our critics demand because “there is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” Proverbs 16:25, and, “every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD pondereth the hearts”, Proverbs 21:2.

Those who are not born again will not understand why we live differently (1 Cor 2:14) and the backslidden do not want to hear that their lifestyle is not pleasing to God. A person robbing a bank doesn’t want a lecture on greed anymore than a wayward Christian wants to be told they are robbing God by defying His commandments and living in spiritual adultery. Therefore the backslider must study the logic of the world and learn to accept it and promote it to ease his conscience and justify rejecting the holiness that God expects for those whom He bought by blood. Acts 20:28.

We preach forgiveness because Christ forgave us. Col 3:13. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Rom 5:8. The world wants vengeance. Forgiveness is not an option to the world because the flesh wants to be avenged. The carnal mind wants to make the offender suffer as much as they did, so it is unconscionable that one should cast their cares upon the LORD (Ps 55:22, 1 Peter 5:7) and let God mete out vengeance (Rom 12:19). To pray for those who persecute you and despitefully use you (Matt 5:44, Rom 12:14) is “fundy rhetoric”.

For the critics, it’s OK if Christ forgave THEIR sins, but don’t expect them to forgive YOURS. If the critic can not obtain their own vengeance, then they will join a group of like-minded critics and live their vengeance vicariously through the ire of other victims.

We preach hell or the lake of fire, because that is the destination of those who die without Christ. We do not preach it as a means of control or to install fear. (see our article on Would A Loving God Send Anyone To Hell). We preach hell for the same reason that hundreds of charity groups attempt to find a cure for cancer or diabetes. Michelle Obama and the New York City Mayor preach that unhealthy eating can lead to insurmountable health problems and liberals sing their praises. A Baptist tells a person that if he/she does not repent and receive Christ as Saviour they will spend an eternity in a burning lake of fire and we are labeled “hate mongers”.

We preach that salvation is by grace through faith, and that a believer is eternally secure in his/her salvation and can never lose what God wrought. Contrary to the misconception that Baptists teach outward appearance is necessary to please God, I have never seen one altar call in a Baptist church that did not emphasize that the sinner must forsake their own righteousness (Titus 3:5, Eph 2:8-9) and depend on the finished work of Christ and receive Him without relying on good works for salvation. We preach salvation by grace because the world believes that man is evolving and can somehow be good without God and get to heaven if they live a good life, never hurt anyone, be kind to all, give to the poor or join a church and get baptized. We preach that salvation is a “gift from God, not of works lest any man should boast”.

“Our righteousness are as filthy rags” sure doesn’t sound like “Baptists always emphasize the outward appearance”. “He must increase, I must decrease” doesn’t resemble the theme of Stop Baptist Predators.

We preach that Jesus Christ is THE ONLY way to heaven. Acts 4:12, John 14:6. Christianity is not a “religion” that is mutually corroborative with other beliefs; it is exclusive. The world believes that Jesus was just a good moral teacher if they even believe He existed at all (and there is more proof for the existence of Christ then there is for the existence of Abraham Lincoln). Muslims say Allah had no son, Buddhism and Hinduism deny that Jesus is God nor do they believe that Christ was crucified and raised from the dead. Yet the gospel of Jesus Christ is explained as Jesus dying for our sins, being buried and arising from the grave 3 days later (1 Cor 15:1-4) and that must be believed in order to be saved (Romans 10:9-10, 1 Thess 4:14)

We preach that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19-20) and that we are to glorify God in our bodies. Therefore we preach against drugs, and fornication, and adultery.

We preach that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it (Eph 5:25) thus we do not believe that husbands are permitted to control and abuse their wives. We preach that fathers are not to provoke their children to wrath but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph 6:4). That rules out child abuse whether physical or sexual.

We preach separation because the Bible says not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14) or those who call themselves my-way-frank-sinatrabelievers who walk like the rest of the world (1 Cor 5:11). God ordained the believer to walk in good works after salvation (Eph 2:10) and set the example of Christ, not act like the world and conform to it (Romans 12:1-2).

Fundamentalists don’t listen to critics because they have their own brand of what’s right and wrong, and most of the time, even though some of their accusations are correct (as were some of the accusations of the Pharisees, Matt 23:3) their manner of what constitutes the pursuit of a good moral person or what defines a Christian is warped. The church is expected to address sin of its members BY its members (1 Cor 6) and just because some have failed to follow that, doesn’t mean we now must forsake our views and turn our ears over to the worlds way of addressing church conflict.

Fundamentalists are not better than anyone else. We are not sinless, and not perfect  and it is certainly not a requirement to be a Baptist to be saved. Yet critics attempt to vilify the history of Baptists and even mock the “trail of blood” but when confronted by a Bible believer that can defend the history, tuck tail and run off to the closest gossip closet for immoral support. Our critics attempt to create their own model of the ideal fundamentalist, and then add lumpy appendages and deformed extremities to their model and criticize the model for not looking like a Michelangelo sculpture.

Independent fundamental Baptists have helped the homeless, fed the hungry, built hospitals, and have a genuine compassion for those in need of Christ. The few examples of those who have been offenders are not representative of the ilk of fundamentalism as a whole. And because of the dishonesty of the critics, their embellishment of abuses, lack of consistency in conveying sentiments for certain classes of victims, their misrepresentation of what fundamentalists believe, and sometimes just outright fabrication of allegations are some of the primary reasons why fundamentalists don’t listen to our critics.

Our standard is the life of Jesus Christ as written in God’s preserved word, not the humanistic logic of the world:

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” 1 Cor 1:18-24

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to go abuse a hamburger and wait patiently for the next critic to publish an article “Do Right Christians Calls Victims Wackos” who refuse to recognize the audience this article is directed toward.

J/A

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Steve Sorenson says:

    It’s interesting to me that you don’t listen to your critics yet you seem to “know” so well what we have to say. Aren’t you contradicting yourself? Could it be that this article misses the point because of the very fact that you don’t listen? Hmmm…

    Maybe – just maybe – you should pay more attention to your critics. It’s been said that “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care” (John Maxwell). Perhaps you’d have a greater impact for your cult, er I mean for Christ, if we knew that you cared.

    Besides, I’m just a little frustrated that I wasn’t included in your list with Jeri Massi and Jocelyn Zichterman. I only have the biggest anti-IFB website on the internet. It would appear that you do your research about as good as you listen to people.

    I don’t know why I’m even writing this since you won’t “listen” to it. Oh well, at least I get to feel that I’ve made my defense.

    • drjamesa says:

      Haven’t you ever heard the difference between listening and hearing? Just because I have knowledge of what a critic says does not mean I am contradicting myself when I say I’m not listening. How often does a husband and wife argue, and the wife says “you’re not listening” even though he heard every word.

      With as much as you patted yourself on the back, I’m surprised that I really have to explain that. But then you shift from assuming a contradiction into “you should PAY MORE ATTENTION” which proves that you understood what I meant in the first place. And that falls into the “Dishonesty of the Critics” section of the article.

      Furthermore, your comment gave nothing of substance, just a pejorative jab at the article supported by silly assumptions (having the biggest anti-IFB website on the internet, and assuming that if I am not aware of your site, I must not have done my research).

      You have a warped definition of caring as well. I can care about how a person is affected by criminal and sinful acts, without caring about what critics say when what they say falls into the categories discussed in the article. I don’t have to care about how you define “cult” to prove that I care about people that have truly been affected by abuse.

      It is preordained for you to write that comment! Just gives me another good example of why I was right about what I wrote. And if you have “the biggest anti-IFB website” then didn’t you already make your “defense”? Perhaps you should THINK about your defenses instead of FEELING for them (Prov 28:26), but if that made you FEEL good, you get 5 golf claps.

      • Steve Sorenson says:

        “Haven’t you ever heard the difference between listening and hearing?”

        Yes, that’s exactly my point. You may be hearing your critics, but you aren’t listening very well. And you’ve just confirmed that by not “listening” to me. How can you truly know what your critics are saying if you aren’t listening (and/or not willing to listen)? My question remains unanswered.

        Making assumptions and attacking me is hardly a way to win someone over. My comment was respectful and curious in nature. No “pejorative jab” was intended and I’m not sure why you took it that way (oh, and the part about my website was more playful banter than anything, but I don’t really care what you think of me or my website).

        I honestly didn’t think you’d respond given the content of the article. I thought that if you did respond that you’d at least provide a logical defense. But you took it personally and responded defensively and sarcastically which tells me that you are either (1) fearful that your argument is too weak to withstand scrutiny or (2) so devoted to your point of view that you couldn’t “listen” to your critics even if you wanted to. I find that ironic and so very much “fundamentalist” in nature that it would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

        By the way I find it interesting how you deleted the link to my website. If you were so interested in the “truth” then why would you not allow a simply link to an opposing point of view? Seems rather prideful to me and we all know what happens to the proud – Proverbs 16:18 (see I can pull verses out of context and twist them to fit my agenda just as well).

        Anyway, I’m so excited to have a shining example of the irrational and illogical fundamentalist type to use on my site. Not many fundamentalist types are so outspoked in written format. I’ll have much more fuel now. Keep up your work here and I’ll be looking forward to making an example out of your website.

      • drjamesa says:

        Yes, that’s exactly my point. You may be hearing your critics, but you aren’t listening very well. And you’ve just confirmed that by not “listening” to me. How can you truly know what your critics are saying if you aren’t listening (and/or not willing to listen)? My question remains unanswered.

        NO, that’s not your point, that’s my point 🙂 Like I said, the article is directed toward a specific audience, one that (like yours) is not concerned with whether or not any IFB listens or hears them. They are only interested in causing people to leave the IFB and question everything they have been taught by vilifying everything within the IFB. OH but wait, you use “inductive reasoning” so you don’t really vilify everything IFB, it’s just that all Baptist doctrine is deceptive and deliberately intended to deceive and control it’s followers, and to prove it there’s perhaps 100 or so examples, but don’t call it broad-brushing! (by the way, your argument against logical fallacies fails to distinguish the difference between definitions as applied and definitions that are illogical on their face which takes you back to square one in defending your sweeping generalization defense that you erroneously term inductive reasoning [one of many flaws that take you back to square one, I’ll get to that someday]).

        Making assumptions and attacking me is hardly a way to win someone over. My comment was respectful and curious in nature. No “pejorative jab” was intended and I’m not sure why you took it that way (oh, and the part about my website was more playful banter than anything, but I don’t really care what you think of me or my website).

        I don’t remember where I said it was my goal to win someone over who has their mind made up. Your comment was rhetorical, not curious and in context it was pejorative.

        I honestly didn’t think you’d respond given the content of the article. I thought that if you did respond that you’d at least provide a logical defense. But you took it personally and responded defensively and sarcastically which tells me that you are either (1) fearful that your argument is too weak to withstand scrutiny or (2) so devoted to your point of view that you couldn’t “listen” to your critics even if you wanted to. I find that ironic and so very much “fundamentalist” in nature that it would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

        People respond defensively when you start out offensively. Furthermore, I have a sense of humor but have a low tolerance for those who assume that they can build their own caricatures of fundamentalism and then claim their clay model is above reproach. This website criticizes many IFB practices and leaders as well as the anti fundamentalists. Does your website give equal criticism to those who are unfair toward the IFB? Didn’t think so, but yet you think I should open a door to listen to critics when your website is one-sided. Same argument I hear from all the “Tolerance” opponents: tolerate our lifestyle even though we won’t tolerate your opinion.

        *If my argument was too weak to withstand scrutiny, you should have posted a rebuttal to a specific argument.
        *Are you in the habit of writing points of view that your are not devoted too? Considering that your website is one-sided (and the bragging about having the largest anti-Baptist website) that would appear to me that you are devoted to your writings, but it’s wrong for me to be devoted to mine?
        *If being so devoted to ones point of view is what makes them a fundamentalist, then would not your myopic devotion against Baptists also make you a fundamentalist?
        *What is laughable is the fact that you came to my page debating about who I can and can’t listen to on my own website, or why others don’t listen to critics, and accuse me of not listening to you WHILE I’M RESPONDING TO YOU. Now THAT’S funny right there.

        However, too many anti-fundamentalists equate not agreeing with not listening. I don’t agree with you therefore I’m not listening and the only way to prove that I am listening is to capitulate my point of view in exchange for yours. Another reason I don’t listen to my critics (there’s that oxymoron again, you’ll figure it out eventually).

        By the way I find it interesting how you deleted the link to my website. If you were so interested in the “truth” then why would you not allow a simply link to an opposing point of view? Seems rather prideful to me and we all know what happens to the proud – Proverbs 16:18 (see I can pull verses out of context and twist them to fit my agenda just as well).

        I deleted the website link because I’m not getting paid to advertise for you! I don’t give gang members, strippers, bootleggers, hookers, or mafia members advertisement either. Accusing me of doing so out of pride is quite presumptuous. Deleting the link wouldn’t prevent me from reading your website, I could bookmark it if I wanted to, so that’s a pretty lame assumption.

        Furthermore, I don’t just give someone a carte blanche that shows a link to something I have not read or had a chance to respond. There are plenty of articles I have written on here that the link is given to the opposing party after I have reviewed and responded. If you want your link out there that bad, call Nelson’s. But wow, talk about pride, you must assume that you have material that I haven’t seen from every other anti Baptist website, or somehow that you are smarter than all the rest of those other wannabe anti-fundie sites. Them Baptist bashers don’t hold a candle to your website to they!

        And on Proverbs 16:18, actually, you did not pull the verse out of context, you just applied it to a presumptuous set of facts. Your analysis of pride and its consequences were right, but wrongfully applied to a caricature that you created. But at least you admit to having an agenda!

        Anyway, I’m so excited to have a shining example of the irrational and illogical fundamentalist type to use on my site. Not many fundamentalist types are so outspoked in written format. I’ll have much more fuel now. Keep up your work here and I’ll be looking forward to making an example out of your website.

        And I may just return the favor, just be sure to send me the article if you want a response because I doubt I’ll see it on your website since I keep deleting the link, being “scared” and all!

        What was that link again? 🙂

        PS (am I allowed to PS on a website!?)Speaking of removing links, why did you remove the link the guy posted who offered his testimony of how Nouthetic counseling helped him? and then criticize me for removing yours? I’ve spent 5 minutes or so perusing your site and I can see your horns already. Give someone the benefit of the doubt and they take a mile. SHeesh.

  2. TBD says:

    Why comment knowing you won’t listen. Be warm and filled and blessed, friend.

  3. Dr James Ach says:

    Here’s another example of stories that just don’t add up from Nancy Bicknell.

    I describing her flight out of the IFB in comment about homeschooling, Nancy attempts to claim that homeschooling is a tool use by the IFB to cover up sexual abuse.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/35429320847/permalink/10151410153495848/

    She first states that she put her son in homeschool after he was molested at 16 and that he was kicked out of their IFB church. But then after being kicked out, was locked in the basement of said church. Of course I find that a little odd, but it gets better.

    She claims that the IFB forced her to homeschool because if she had put him in public school, the incident would have gotten reported to the police, and the abuser exposed.

    Ahem…Ahem….HOLD YOUR HORSES. You mean to tell me that YOU KNEW YOUR SON HAD BEEN MOLESTED AND YOU DIDN’T REPORT IT YOURSELF??? And the IFB was to blame for “covering it up”.?????

    Either this story is a bald face lie, or Nancy Bicknell is the worst mother on the planet. I don’t care what excuse you give for not reporting something, IFB or no IFB, if your child is molested, don’t blame someone else for YOUR failure to report it. She is just as much of a wolf as the IFB perps she is accusing.

    I don’t care how much influence a church or even a cult has over you, nobody gets so ‘brainwashed’ that they permit the sexual abuse of their of child. And Nancy has the audacity to vilify the IFB while admitting that she enabled her son’s abuser for over a year? In my opinion, Nancy should be sharing a jail cell right next to the abuser. But hey, as long as she is using her experience to attack the IFB, all if forgivable.

    Just another reason why so many have difficulty taking these groups seriously..

  4. Jacki says:

    Even though I’m not of your denomination- I’m an evangelical Presbyterian- I agree with much you have to say. I knew someone who went to First Baptist when I was in nursing school and she was under the spell of Jack Hyles. I don’t know any other way to express it.

  5. The Real Reason Fundamentalists Don’t Listen To Their Critics – A Response To James Ach | Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) says:

    […] recently saw a blog post from James Ach entitled “Why Fundamentalists Don’t Listen To Our Critics” – I wouldn’t recommend wasting your time reading it – he basically just drones on and […]

    • drjamesa says:

      I’m going to post some of what you said at the end of the article just to show how biased and totally inaccurate you are which pretty much sums up everything you’ve said against the IFB:

      I don’t know much about him except to assume that he is trying to resurrect the “Do Right Christian” organization that apparently originated with Jack Hyles (or was it Bob Jones University?). He seems to be Independent Fundamental Baptist through and through and does nothing in the article to provide substance or rational explanation. He simply attacks his critics, blames the victim

      Apparently, you haven’t seen our articles on Jack Schaap and Jack Hyles. You can go to the right side of the webpage and look under “IFB” and find several articles critical of Schaap and Hyles.

      Your “blame the victim” accusation is typical of those who oppose the IFB that fly off the handle without actually knowing the position of the person they are pointing fingers at first. But of course, if you would have taken the time to read our article on Jack Schaap A Deceiver From The Beginning, (like you expected me to read all of yours, some of which I’ve even responded to already) you wouldn’t have been so quick to judge. But that seems to be the M/O of fundamentalist critics, shoot first, shoot last, and ignore what ANY IFB says about their own because to credit any IFB with calling out their own would prove that the critics of the IFB are wrong. For the IFB critic to be successful, they have to make everyone believe that all IFB are cut from the same cloth (which explains why you had to write a ridiculous defense and justification of broad-brushing).

      Funny thing is is that the MAJORITY of information extant about Jack Hyles and Schaap CAME FROM BAPTISTS (Robert Sumner, David Cloud, Jack Nischick while he was still IFB, Voyle Glover while he was still IFB, and numerous other IFB pastors, long before there was ever a “do right” group, or “IFB Cult Survivors” or “Baptist Deception”.)

      Furthermore, we are as equally critical with Bob Jones University as we do not agree with their stance on the KJV, Calvinism, nor many of the ecumenical practices that they have engaged in over the years. Therefore our skepticism of sites like yours are exactly why we write articles like this. You erroneously assumed that we support Hyles, Schaap, BJU when we hold the exact opposite of your groundless accusations.

      THIS is what I was talking about as to why we don’t listen to our critics, partly because of exactly the way you portray sites like this with inaccurate and misleading information, and totally dishonest and deceptive tactics designed to manipulate readers.

  6. Jesse G says:

    Should you really be calling critics of the church WHACKOS? I think nobody criticized the religious elite more than Jesus.

    There are serious, real, and pervasive problems in the church. Jack Schaap was almost universally acclaimed, and looking back at his preachings, he seemed out of control with incredibly harmful views on women, blaming them for “90% of sin in the world.” He had zero control over his temper, going on hateful red-faced screaming about things he hated in every sermon. These are not the signs of a man of humility, love, self control, or any other fruit of the spirit.

    I saw a short clip from one of his sermons, and immediately pegged him for someone with a sexual scandal, did a short search, and confirmed it. Further, predicted he would blame the 16 year old girl he abused: he sure did. How did the church not pick up on this, why did they and do they not reject his blaming the victim, and why do you call people who ask these questions WHACKOS?

  7. Ken says:

    Bravo! Excellent writing. Made my day.

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s