38 Comments

1.   Ryan DeBarr wrote:

   Wow.

   Monday, April 30, 2007 at 10:26 pm | Permalink
2.   Todd Mitchell wrote:

   I once heard him speak against the populism of the church marketers. My understanding at that time was that he was involved with Patch the Pirate, the approved church-growth schemer of Fundamentalism. I remember being struck with the irony of this.

   Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 3:03 am | Permalink
3.   Andy Efting wrote:

   This is very sad news. How disappointing.

   Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 6:42 am | Permalink
4.   Phil Gons wrote:

   Hmm. So should we stop singing “A Passion for Thee”?

   Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 8:27 am | Permalink
5.   Greg Linscott wrote:

   Ingrid Schlueter posted this on April 17:
   

   We are told of a time of great falling away. We shouldn’t be surprised. But friends, I know you would agree with me when I say that it is a terrible thing to watch. Pray, press in to the Lord, and ask Him to keep us faithful in these times. A pastor I interviewed a couple of years ago just emailed me to take his interview down from our Crosstalk Radio site. Rev. Joe Zichterman had done his Ph.D. on church growth methods that were unbiblical and he had warned about the dangers of the Willow Creek/Rick Warren philosophy. Rev. Zichterman has now left his biblically run church and is at Willow Creek, having fully embraced the doctrines of Bill Hybels. I only mention this as a warning and a cautionary example of what can happen if we do not guard our hearts and stay in the Word. Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word. (There’s a great hymn by Luther by that title!)

   Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 9:51 am | Permalink
6.   Scott Aniol wrote:

   BJU gave Zichterman a honorary doctorate for writing “A Passion,” didn’t they?

   Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 10:41 am | Permalink
7.   Melissa Kempf wrote:

   “A Passion for Thee” seems to me that the most natural and appropriate end would be to find where God is working and become a part of it. Not writing our own stories in our way with our own traditions and cultural prejudices driving us frees us to find HIS story for us and become as active a part of that as is humanly possible. PTL, Mr. Zichterman! Glad to hear it!

   Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 5:22 am | Permalink
8.   Aaron Blumer wrote:

   Joe,
   The heading says “explains why” but I don’t see an explanation of why. Maybe I’m overlooking a link here somehwere?
   I’d love know what the thought process was, how you came to the conclusion that you were wrong before and why you believe attending a variety of churches with contradictory claims will accomplish something important.
   I’ll be honest here: I’m inclined to criticize, but I need to understand first.

   Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 9:58 am | Permalink
9.   Sam Hanna wrote:

   At least Dr “Casual” Joe Zichterman has had the honesty in his convictions to join Willow Creek.

   Most Young Fundamentalists are de facto Neo Evangelical so the jump was not as big a one as so many seem to imagine. When you steer as close to the edge as possible it is too easy to fall off.

   What surprises me in all of this and the “Duller Iron” Forum is that everyone thinks this man is some kind of infantile and immature thinker when he was a Professor at NBBC and an “expert” on Church Growth Movement. He just had the courage of were his true orthopraxy was heading - I fully expect Janz et al to jump ship some time in the future.

   Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 6:23 pm | Permalink
10.   Bobby Mitchell wrote:

    Sam,

    Your first sentence is dead on.

    The reactions from the young fundamentalists is absolutely astounding. Why don’t they just come out of the closet and admit they are new evangelicals? A few are saying it is a sad day, but the majority seem to cast all the blame at the feet of preachers, churches, and colleges that have stood for truth and against error. There is all kinds of talk of having coffee with Joe, trying to understand, and dialogue. Nobody is saying anything like the Lord and His Apostles said.

    Steve Pettit and Matt Herbster are the strongest in their stand and they are being accused of everything short of Naziism.

    Check out this one statement from Pastor Joe Roof. It is definitely illustrative of the mindset among the new breed of fundamentalists: “As I humbly reflect on this situation, one big need jumps out at me. It is the need for a genuine revival of love. In fundamentalism, biblical love have been replaced by conditional love. The environment of control that Joe Z discusses on his site often prevents people who are struggling from going to others in their churches and circles for prayer and counsel. One of the big attractions of other movements is that it appears there is a greater atmosphere of love in them. They have not perfected love, but the grace and kindness displayed to one another is such a wonderful change over what many people experience in their fundamental churches. This was an obvious attraction for Joe Z according to his site.”

    I guess Joe has never read how the Bible defines love: 1Jo 5:1 ¶ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 2Jo 1:5 ¶ And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

    We KNOW we love God’s children when we keep God’s commandments! Right from the Apostle of love himself! Why some cannot see this is beyond me.

    Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 9:09 pm | Permalink
11.   Joe Roof wrote:

    Bobby Mitchel,
    I do not have the time to begin a lengthy discussion on Greg’s site but I am offended by your misrepresentation of me and I humbly ask Greg to consider my words.

    First of all, I am not some “new breed” of fundamentalist. By God’s grace, I have spent 15 years beating the pavement of Albany, NY as an independent, fundamental, Bible-believing minister and 14 of those years as a Senior Pastor. By God’s grace, I am known as one of the few fundamentalists preachers in this largely population area. By God’s grace, I have and continue to pay a price for my fundamental convictions and will gladly continue to do so for the glory of Christ.

    Secondly, what is so compromising about approaching Joe Zichterman in a spirit of meekness? Separation in this case, should be the last option, not the first choice. Since this information about Joe is new, I would want to do all to help and restore before completely separation. To try to paint me as a compromiser for this approach is ridiculous and unfair.

    This is currentchristian.com, not cuttingdownchristians.com.

    Greg,
    You and I may not always agree on everything but you know that I love and highly respect you. I humbly ask that you might reconsider allow this type of venom on your site.

    Hanna’s comment about Janz is unfair. Jason explained that he disagreed with his brother-in-law but still loves him and his sister. My guess is that this was not easy for Jason to do or for his family to watch. Hanna’s misrepresentation of Jason is unfair.

    Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
12.   Greg Linscott wrote:

    All commenter’s comments are their opinions, not mine.

    That being said, I understand the responses of those who have a relationship with him. Having family myself that have to some degree or another departed from the faith, I can testify that it is not at all pleasant, and can be difficult to discern when and on what level to confront, converse, and coexist.

    That being said, I believe that Zichterman knows what he is doing, or at least should, given his background and level of investment in the direction he has now embraced. He is a teacher, and thus is held to a higher standard of expectation, from my understanding of Scripture. While I might, like Joe, be willing to sit down over coffee with him were I in the vicinity, I also would not hesitate to observe that this man has, at best, demonstrated himself to be somewhat duplicitous in the scope of his teaching ministry. The credibility of his analysis and conclusions has taken a major hit.

    However, as my friend Bob Bixby has observed, his move to the pragmatism of Willow Creek is perhaps not as big a jump as one might think, given his roots in the pragmatic, revivalist methodology that marks much of the American Fundamentalist movement.

    I also believe Sam Hanna’s comments particularly to add to an already deserved reputation of being quick to speak, quick to judge, and quick to condemn. Knowing some of the “young fundamentalists” as I do, I believe it is quite inaccurate to assume that everyone in “that crowd” will “jump ship,” at least in the same fashion that Zichterman has. While I have little doubt that Fundamentalism as we have known it continues to unravel, I believe that Sam Hanna is representative of an unraveling as well- a different direction, perhaps- but still not representative of the “true fundamentalism” he purports to represent.

    To Bobby specifically:

    I would agree with your assessment that love and obedience are inherently connected. However, I cannot completely fault my brothers who have shared and enjoyed connections and relationships with someone like Joe wishing to express degrees of remorse, sympathy, and compassion on this matter. It’s a shock to many, and there is some degree of forbearance due to brothers and sisters who are a bit bewildered by this turn of events, I believe.

    To Joe, specifically:

    I also believe Mitchell’s point needs to be considered. While there is need for introspection and evaluation in Fundamentalism, we should also not be careful not to “sell the farm” and diminish truth and conviction to the point that it appears those distinctive beliefs and practices no longer matter. I don’t believe in a “sloppy agape”- love must be generous, forbearing, and gentle, but it must also be precise and devoted to the truth, even- or especially- when it is being questioned.

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 9:37 am | Permalink
13.   Bobby Mitchell wrote:

    Joe and others,

    The Scriptural pattern is that the shepherds are to be concerned with pleasing the Great Shepherd and protecting the sheep. The emphasis among many in this case seems to be an understanding and communicating with the one who has revealed himself as a false teacher. Paul’s attitude was “Mark and avoid.” Listen to his message and you cannot reach any other Scriptural conclusion than “mark and avoid.” Joe is a false teacher. He is blatantly contradicting the Word of God and he seems to be more influenced by Hybels, Warren, The Village, and other men and their works than the Scriptures. This is a sad case, but the Scriptures have told us for 2,000 years that this would happen. Our focus should be on rescuing those that Joe could influence, not on trying to “understand.” I agree with the SI poster that said there is not really anything to understand. Joe did what he did because he wanted to! Again, listen to the message. It is truly “pap” as Bixby said. My wife and I listened together and she could not get over the fact that this guy has multiple degrees from Fundamentalist institutions and seems to know nothing of studying the Scpriptures and THINKING!

    Gotta go, but I’ll try to be back later.

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 9:54 am | Permalink
14.   Todd Mitchell wrote:

    Greg said, “However, as my friend Bob Bixby has observed, his move to the pragmatism of Willow Creek is perhaps not as big a jump as one might think, given his roots in the pragmatic, revivalist methodology that marks much of the American Fundamentalist movement.”

    Exactly, Greg. That was what I meant by my first observation. Patch the Pirate is not substantially different from anything he taught against. Dr. Zichterman is simply being consistent now.

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 10:27 am | Permalink
15.   Bobby Mitchell wrote:

    Joe,

    If you will read my original post here, you will find that you did not answer the flaw in your statement that I protested against. Your error was in stating that fundamentalism has replaced biblical love with conditional love and that it appears there is a greater atmosphere of love in the Church Growth Movement (CGM). You gave a condemnation of fundamentalism and a commendation of the CGM’s love without any warning concerning all of the false doctrine and unbiblical practice that is prevalent in the CGM.

    I responded by pointing out that the BIBLE teaches that true love of the brethren is keeping God’s commands. The CGM does not keep God’s commandments.

    I did not say it was compromising to try to help Joe. I simply expressed surprise that those who claim to be fundamentalists seem to be more intersted in understanding this teacher-in-error than they do in warning of his error.

    Can you please show me where I am wrong according to the Bible?

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 11:45 am | Permalink
16.   Bobby Mitchell wrote:

    I want to go on record in stating that maybe Joe and those he associated with treated their wives in a bad way like he spoke of in his lecture. That doesn’t mean we all do. The men I associate with love their wives as Christ loves the church. They are kind, gracious, gentle, caring, and uplifting in their marriages.

    Joe is going against plain Scripture regarding the role of the woman in the church. And he can’t say that the commands in 1 Timothy were only for that time. The commands of 1 Timothy were given to be kept “until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:14).

    There are so many obvious errors in his message that it would really take a booklet to deal with all of them.

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 11:52 am | Permalink
17.   Bobby Mitchell wrote:

    Greg,

    Thanks for ignoring Joe’s request to ban me from the site. Citing the Scriptures and using them to “prove all things” is not “venom.” I don’t understand why men who are so eager to sit down and understand everyone to the left of them are so quick to have those to the right banned from participating in any discussions!

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 11:54 am | Permalink
18.   Sam Hanna wrote:

    Joe Roof

    I am glad Greg Linscott has enough discernment not to censor anyone that is right of you. Thankfully, this is not the “Duller Iron” forum where you can paint as negative a caricature of an historic Fundamentalist who is opposed to CCM, believes in the KJV and holiness with impunity and not be responded to. For a guy that trains his guns on everyone to his right, it is downright hypocritical of you to cry “foul” when you are biblically taken to task.

    It is also hugely ironic that you should claim “I am not some “new breed” of fundamentalist.” Really?? Why are you spending all your time telling us all on “Duller Iron” of how Fundamentalism needs to be “changed” and “reformed.” The problem with people like you is that you don’t actually know what historic fundamentalism preached or taught in their standards, music etc. As you don’t have a point of reference, to judge things by you assume that you have not changed. You should try comparing the preaching of Dr Bob Jones Sr and Dr Stephen Jones or comparing the BJU Choir records of 1970 to Soundforth’s 2007 album to see the massive mutation in Fundamentalism. In the choir recordings of BJU, NBBC, PCC, Maranatha we have now weak, syncopated beat, effeminate sounding men with contemporary melodies and lyrics in the music and you think nothing has changed. That is why you openly boasted on “Duller Iron” that you spent the day hanging out with Jerry Falwell and what a blessing that was to you and what a testimony he had. Do you really think Dr Bob Jones Sr/Jr or Dr James Singleton would have written or done such a thing?

    My comments about Janz et al is that is where they are all heading – in fact I believe they are already in Neo-Evangelicalism with a “Fundamentalist” label stuck on. They feed their souls on the diet of their authors, listen and play their music, embrace their Bible versions, preaching styles and casual attitudes to dress, standards and worship. In fact, it is arguable that the Fuller Crowd of 1948 was probably more conservative than most young Fundamentalists!

    Greg

    Thanks for your claim, but I don’t believe I am being visceral in my condemnations – I have read far too much of what these guys believe on the internet to base my judgements on tenuous grounds. I believe you got you eyes opened a tad when you recently faced the ire of the “Duller Iron” cabal when you defended the right for someone to call an Episcopal lady preachers a “priestess.” If 10 years from now I am wrong, I will be happy to apologize but sadly I don’t see it. Maybe you have sheltered life in Maine but try coming to the mission field for a while, as I have in Asia, and you will see the majority of Young Fundamentalists from all of the above schools promoting Jazz, U2 and reading and distributing Hybels/Rick Warren’s books to new converts.

    Bobby Mitchell

    As always, it is refreshing to hear that some in America have not given in to the passivity and neutrality of what calls itself Fundamentalism today.

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
19.   Joel Grassi wrote:

    Greg, Ryan, Joe, and others,

    Did you read Dr. Aaron Strouse’s article “A Critique of Historic Fundamentalism” from the Fall/Winter 2006 Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary Journal (available on the website now under “Published Articles”)?

    He has a section beginning on page 97 (complete with a chart) on how Fundamentalism naturally leads to New Evangelicalism. He shows how the New Evangelicals are actually more consistent than the Fundamentalists based on the catholic ecclesiology they both espouse.

    Of course, there is a third, even more consistent position, which he covers as well.

    (This reminds of me of how five point Calvinists view four point Calvinists.)

    I just bring this up here because I thought a reread of Dr. Aaron’s article might help shed some light on this current discussion. I hope this helps.

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
20.   Dustin Battles wrote:

    Quote by Sam Hanna:
    “In the choir recordings of BJU, NBBC, PCC, Maranatha we have now weak, syncopated beat, effeminate sounding men with contemporary melodies and lyrics in the music and you think nothing has changed.”

    Sam would you please source which BJU recordings/songs you are referring to?
    As someone who was asked to audition for SoundForth, and am heavily involved in the upper choirs at BJU, I would like to be able to discuss this with you. I can do that if you cite specific examples.

    Thank you,
    Dustin Battles

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
21.   Sam Hanna wrote:

    Hi Dustin

    I have just listened to “Depth of Mercy” the latest offering from Soundforth.

    As a general observation, all their melodies lack any militancy and are weak, “pretty” and sedative. If you did not hear the words you would think they were from “Anne of Green Gables.”

    They have taken the old classic hymns of the faith that were strong songs of worship and turned them into music to fall sleep to. Take “Rejoice the Lord is King” which used to be a strong militant and triumphant song and the emphasis was on the word “King” and softened it down to a carnival melody were “Rejoice” is emphasized. A strong but subtle syncopated beat can be heard on the second and fourth beat, which is of course the rock beat for all musicans.

    The men throughout sound effeminate and sensual in their voices - in fact just like the Gaither singers without the drums. Much of the rhythms are dissonant and chopped up - again a contemporary style. In “Rejoice the Lord is King” a subtle New Age melody permeates through at certain points.

    All the modern songs they sing such as “to you alone” are theologically light and would be perfectly acceptable at a Moromon Tabernacle or Catholic Church. God is not interested in weak preaching, prayers or worship!

    Check out the BJU choirs of the 60/70s and you will find the men sounded like men and the women like women with strong miltant voices and music.

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 7:53 pm | Permalink
22.   Bobby Mitchell wrote:

    Joel,

    I’m glad you mentioned that article. It crossed my mind more than once today and I was thinking of recommending it. You are exactly right that Joe is being consistent with his understanding of the Body of Christ. I’m sure everyone here knows that fundamentalism is much too broad of an umbrella for me. It is fatally flawed and has been from its inception. I am a New Testament Baptist and a member of a New Testament Baptist Church. That is the only “movement” the Lord Jesus founded.

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
23.   Ryan DeBarr wrote:

    Joel,

    Why yes, yes I did read that article.

    http://www.ryandebarr.com/blog/2006/11/24/a-call-to-separate-from-fundamentalism/

    Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 11:09 pm | Permalink
24.   lilrabbi wrote:

    Dustin, how are things? I think Sam just wants you to sound meaner when you sing of the depth of God’s mercy. Its as simple as that. And we can here you tapping your foot during the recording…

    Friday, May 4, 2007 at 2:31 am | Permalink
25.   Ryan DeBarr wrote:

    Why do people live under the illusion that musical style is the dividing line between New Evangelicals and Fundamentalists? I guess I live at ground zero of Baptist New Evangelicalism and we have (and use) the largest pipe organ in the South.

    The dividing line is eschatology.

    Friday, May 4, 2007 at 10:52 am | Permalink
26.   Greg Linscott wrote:

    Joel, Sam, et al,

    While I am not one to censor comments overly much here, I must ask first of all that comments such as “Duller Iron,” etc. be refrained from here. I have no particular axe to grind with SI, and don’t particularly wish for CC to become a haven for people to express their frustrations with the site or its administrators.

    This leads me to my second point. Some of you continue to harp on “YFs” and Fundamentalism in general, while also acknowledging you have deserted it for better pastures. Fine. But I would also observe that if you have deserted it, you have also to some degree surrendered your rights to correct and influence those who remain in agreement with its principles. At some point, you appear to become loud and obnoxious, beating a horse that stopped trotting a long time ago. You disagree. You made your point. Move on. Sometimes, we just have to realize when it’s time to stop (and yes, I need this counsel as much as anyone).

    So, Dr. Grassi and Bobby, pursue you third and better option. Sam Hanna, earnestly contend for the days when BJU choirs sang Rodeheaver and Crosby as opposed to Getty and Townend. Based on what I see in the video here (minute 33 or so), I’m not sure you as a Free Presbyterian have much room to be criticizing BJU on as far as music goes. But CC doesn’t exist to be a platform for all you see wrong with Fundamentalism. If you want to do that, there are plenty of other places you can go, or its easy enough to start one of your own if that doesn’t suit you.

    Thanks for reading.

    Friday, May 4, 2007 at 11:35 am | Permalink
27.   Bobby Mitchell wrote:

    Greg,

    Thanks for your suggestions and I have something for you to think about too. For a man who will spend several pages arguing over “wimp” and “priestess” it is funny for you to spank our hands over a few comments that are absolutely relevent to the conversation that conerns Joe Z. The news broke on SI and the initial reactions were at SI. That is why SI is in the discussion. If you don’t like Joel’s statement that fundamentalism leads to NE then answer it, but don’t just dismiss it out-of-hand. If you choose to go the route of censorship and sticking with the “safe” and “cool” crowd then that is your business. I would suggest that you decide where you are and say what you mean to those that you know are wrong. Say it without the smiley face, too. It would actually help, friend.

    Friday, May 4, 2007 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
28.   Greg Linscott wrote:

    Bobby,

    I did say this:

    Sometimes, we just have to realize when it’s time to stop (and yes, I need this counsel as much as anyone).

    The situation of which you speak is precisely what I had in mind when I said it.

    The comments may be relevant- and I’m not spanking your hand. I just don’t want to turn CC into a “Greg vs. SI” thing. It’s not about that, and never was meant to be.

    Perhaps I will address the concerns you mention- but if I do, it will be elsewhere- maybe Irrelevant. But believe me, I’m concerned with neither “safe” nor “cool.” If I was, I wouldn’t be a borderline 5 point Calvinist working in Fundamental Baptist circles in Maine.

    Friday, May 4, 2007 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
29.   Bobby Mitchell wrote:

    Understood, Greg. Thanks for the response. And I look forward to you addressing those concerns, when and if you do.

    Friday, May 4, 2007 at 5:30 pm | Permalink
30.   lilrabbi wrote:

    Greg’s the man.

    Saturday, May 5, 2007 at 12:42 am | Permalink
31.   David Dansker wrote:

    Perhaps the reason Zichterman is now attending church functions five times a week (members of Willow Creek, taking part in Life on the Vine, attending a charismatic church) is because it takes that much empty calories to simulate a feeling of fullness. Bill Hybles at Willow Creek noted last week that his congregation called him on not providing “deep truths of God,” and he admitted he has not intention of altering his approach to provide any meat with his new Vision 2010 campaign. The Christian Post reported him to say that he intends to coach attendees to become “self-feeding individuals.”

    David
    TheNewsBeats.com

    Saturday, May 5, 2007 at 4:05 pm | Permalink
32.   Bruce Countryman wrote:

    Dustin, I recorded with Soundforth for the better part of three years. I’m trying to picture how militant the sound could be if Larry directed with a pistol, Max threw a few handgrenades, or if they could make the electric piano do some really cool explosion sounds. You need to take Sam’s recommendations to heart if Fundamentalism is to be saved.

    Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:27 am | Permalink
33.   James Sundquist wrote:

    Joe Zichterman’s departure from the faith he once contended for now joins the ranks of Dr. Frank Beckwith who just resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society to return to Roman Catholicism. Both of these men will now be used by the opposition as poster children to mock true defenders of the faith. But God will not be mocked! What a tragedy now even the once watchmen on the wall are falling away and abandoning their posts and trying to discredit those who truly are defenders of the faith!

    I can’t help but be reminded of the Scriptural warning:

    2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

    These men are every learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. What Mr. Zichterman should have done was to be a good Berean to study the Scriptures to see if Hybel’s and Warren’s teachings were biblical as I did in writing two books on Rick Warren. Instead, Mr. Zichterman does his doctorate on the church growth movement.Joe Zichterman’s departure from the faith he once contended for now joins the ranks of Dr. Frank Beckwith who just resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society to return to Roman Catholicism. Both of these men will now be used by the opposition as poster children to mock true defenders of the faith. But God will not be mocked! What a tragedy now even the once watchmen on the wall are falling away and abandoning their posts and trying to discredit those who truly are defenders of the faith!

    I can’t help but be reminded of the Scriptural warning:

    2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

    These men are every learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. What Mr. Zichterman should have done was to be a good Berean to study the Scriptures to see if Hybel’s and Warren’s teachings were biblical instead of doing his doctorate on the church growth movement.

    James Sundquist
    Director
    Rock Salt Publishing
    http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/False-Teachers.html

    James Sundquist
    Director
    Rock Salt Publishing
    http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/False-Teachers.html

    Sunday, May 13, 2007 at 11:54 am | Permalink
34.   Former colleague, Dr. L wrote:

    As a former employee myself of the same college Joe Z left, and posting these thoughts anonymously with some hesitation and regret (without naming any names in particular other than my friend and former colleague Joe Z), it is my view that Dr. Z has brought up some legitimate concerns and issues which need to be addressed, particularly by those high control groups within Fundamentalism who employ guilt and fear to control “their” people. Some individuals exhibited tact and graciousness, others rated much lower by way of standard of ethics and integrity (for example, having no problem lying about job-related issues, even attempting to break a written employer-employee contract –yes, this actually happened to me, but I would not allow myself to be completely fleeced and shorn—sure must be nice to jetset around while your underlings are living on WIC cheese and other welfare handouts; Dr. Z’s right on about this embarrassing aspect of working for peanuts just because it’s a so-called “ministry”).

    Things may have changed since I was there, but I have to say in all honesty that I also felt like I was leaving a cult—and my job wasn’t terminated. I just knew it was time to move on, and I came to this realization sooner than some, but still not soon enough. But the admin weren’t about to let someone leave on his own terms. To maintain “control”, several of the administration let out innuendo, of the sort to which Joe Z seems to reference in the Amishmen tale–innuendo that I could hardly believe. It became a “he said, she said” breakup for me as well, although I just kept my head down (mostly—not being as well known or popular as Dr. Z) and moved on to a very well-paying job which I believe opened providentially for deliverance from this strange organization. But to the powers that were at the time, I was leaving because I had an “authority problem”; the motto of the moment, parroted from the top down was “We have no room for an independent spirit”. My character was also slandered—never directly, of course, but with just enough details that the rest of the shorn and shivering “sheep” knew to whom the references were directed. Private phone conversations were listened to by the administration, and it was just an immense relief to finally leave (it’s possible things have changed—one can only hope—but I seriously doubt this and can’t say since I haven’t been back, and never intend to go back). I still struggle spiritually with anger and frustration resulting from having worked at this “college.” It was enough to make one suicidal.

    Have you ever been chased to your office by a supervisor just for politely but firmly refusing to attend a late night activity (say for example, a staff appreciation banquet) due to family commitments (sick young children and wife at home needing you there)? What would you do if said supervisor shouted at you, threatened your job, and was so domineering that he basically pounded down your office door after chasing you to your office? It was a situation such as this that made me realize my family was more important than any super high control freak of a supervisor/organization, and it was with an immense sense of relief that I decided to leave, and then watched with bewilderment as the admin played their games of innuendo and information control.

    I’ve heard since then that other employees have had similar experiences, “the worst experience of my life” (paraphrasing here) sort of thing. It was an oppressive place to work, and I can vouch for some of the same tactics and techniques being used against me from certain of the leadership platforms . . . this doesn’t mean they are a cult, just that some of the control techniques used bear similarities to bona fide cults. One certain “high control” person there during my tenure would have made a good cult leader, in my view. Shorn and shivering would the flock be under such a cult leader, sad to say. “High Control Group” definitely characterized the attitude of certain administrators during my time there. It’s been a number of years now . . . but, evidently these problems still persist. Hopefully the college leadership will do some self-study and other introspection, particularly on how they treat those who serve with them, or “beneath” them as they seem to see it. Papa Patz has gotta be rolling over in his grave if he’s aware of what’s going on at the institution he founded. I wonder what this inventor’s thoughts were about an “independent spirit”?

    Joe Z. told me a story my last few days on campus—he was both preaching and moralizing . For sure, the criticism about “high control” is warranted. No doubt about that—you’ve really got to be there and go through it to understand. People learn over time, and “mistakes are made”, particularly by novices. The story Joe told me then was that of Joseph of the Bible whom G_d used to save his family, including the brothers who had betrayed and sold him into slavery. As Joe put it, G_d often puts people in a situation similar to one they have been in before in order to test them, prompting them to recall their previous sins and failures as they are presented with a new opportunity to succeed (in resisting temptation, struggling against the flesh, etc). This is what happened to Joseph’s brothers. By having his cup hidden in Benjamin’s sack, Joseph seems to have engineered things to test his brothers to see how they would react when he held their younger brother Benjamin as a “hostage” (c.f. Joseph’s experience years earlier—except for Reuben the brothers had no compassion then for younger brother Joseph). Instead of leaving their youngest brother hostage in Egypt, one of them took his place while the others traveled back to their father.

    From my own experience, and from knowing him as a colleague at the college in Dunbar, I’d say Dr. Z has got a great deal of credibility. He was certainly not one that seemed to have an inflated sense of self importance when I knew him. Quite the opposite—humble, reflective, true to his convictions, dedicated to his position. Could it quite possibly be the other way around? College admin having a self-inflated sense of their own position and importance within Baptist fundamentalism? Could there have been twinges of jealousy at Dr. Z gaining recognition for his songs and other ministries? I don’t know for sure, but it wouldn’t at all surprise me. Joseph of the Bible was also accused of being full of himself after telling his dreams to his brethren.

    I’ve said enough. Other than family and close friends, I haven’t spoken out about my own horrific experience in Dunbar, and I just had to write this in defense of the credibility of Dr. Z. I’m not saying he’s right in every area—again, I haven’t talked w/ Joe in years. All I’m saying is that his “high control” critique is dead on. Possible illegalities and questionable employer practices occurred during my several years there, and I’m truly sad to see my former colleague and his family go through this in a very public sort of way. Time heals all wounds as they say, but not completely. How does one get back years wasted in building the egos and empires of corporate, fundamentalist demi-gods only to be let go on short notice? No tenure at Dunbar last I knew. Too late to start paying attention to your kids once they’ve grown up. Too late to change jobs on the fly once you arrive and realize you’ve been suckered in by slick wordmeisters, hoaxsters, and con-men constantly stroking their egos through mass-hypnotism style, manipulative invitations to “surrender”, to be completely “broken”, to “serve”.

    If G_d is in it, “high control” tactics should not be needed. As they say in AA, “Let go, and let G_d”. Stop playing the Holy Spirit. Stop grasping for power like wolves and learn from this experience with Joseph so that the next time a similar situation presents itself, you may break this pattern of failure.

    Truthfully,

    Dr. L
    A former colleague

    Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
35.   jblaha wrote:

    I find this combination of this post and these comments quite disturbing. After reading all of this, I do not see why any one of you would want to be associated with this kind of dissension and argumentation. I was a student at the college which Dr. Z taught. I loved him very much. He was a very humble man. He knows me and my family. I cannot speak much for the faculty because I was not on the staff and choose not to express an opinion on the subject since the article is not about that.

    It is very clear that some of you do not know of the very thing you speak about. You are discussing love. What love is there in this? Please reflect and read what you are writing of each other. Why would anyone want to play a part of this kind of quarreling. Having grown up in Greenville, SC and seen the heart of fundamentalism, there is far too much fighting (even supposedly against error) and discussing and very little practicing. I cannot help but think that this is what Dr. Z had in mind. It appears that he decided that it was time to change from philosophy and turn it into application. Just read what he wrote in the article we are discussing. I have scanned through most of these comments and have not once seen someone quote what he says. Most have been commenting on his actions. See his heart please. If you truly love him, pray for him. If you do not know him, then do not concern yourself with something that is none of your business. Proverbs 26:17 says, “Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears.” If you do know him and think he has done some error, approach him and quit commenting on random blogs about him. Live what you speak.

    Finally, I cannot help but agree with Dr. L. Thank you.

    –jblaha

    Monday, October 29, 2007 at 6:26 pm | Permalink
36.   Jon S. wrote:

    I think people from both sides of the spectrum use the term “fundamentalism/fundamentalist” way to loosely.

    We don’t even know what a fundamentalist is anymore. When I tell other believers that I am a fundamentalist (even to other fundamentalist) I have to explain what it is.

    “Fundamentalist” have had such a bad reputation because they don’t live the doctrine they preach. Doctrine is to be lived as much as preached. If we don’t live it, what good is it?

    Too many people who are walking around calling themselves “fundamentalist” really have no idea what they are talking about? They have given fundamentalism such a bad name (such as the fighting fundies) that the other side of the spectrum (our neo-evangelical friends) looks upon fundametalism with disdain. I honestly can’t blame them.

    I believe Dr. Z was so hurt by what he experienced in “fundamentalist” circles that he ran to the other extreme, which is dangerous in its own way.

    Is he my brother in Christ? Yes. Do I agree with what he did? Yes, as far as getting away from the environment that he left. I do not think he made a wise decision to run to the opposite extreme. However, if I am to live the doctrine I preach, I cannot call into question his moral character (Titus 3:2) when I have never met the man, nor know of the real circumstances behind his departure from “fundamentalism.”

    Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
37.   Zack Mansfield wrote:

    do something constructive people… read your Bible. I am glad there are so many perfect people here. No wonder I also left this “circle” as well.

    Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 11:46 am | Permalink
38.   Sam Hendrickson (not Hanna) wrote:

    Perhaps this will never be read due to the age of the thread. To those who are somehow equating Greg’s action of posting a news item, with some of the poorly thought-out, rude or clearly unkind things said in some of the posts–well, your thinking is off-base. Also, he has managed the comments well, even admonishing those aformentioned posters (poorly thought-out, rude or unkind). Yes, your thinking is foolish. Before the tears start, please note that I questioned your ideas, and did not aim something at you personally. You are not a fool (near as I can tell) but, your ideas…well you get it.

    This inability to discriminate between attacking people versus ideas is clearly a weakness among many younger ones and those wanting to be called “young.” It’s kind of wierd because I went to school with some of them, or to the same school, and we were taught that you didn’t go into the fetal position when your idea was attacked, nor did you work to become an expert in ad hominem. Anyway…

    It is foolish to accuse Greg of some mean-spirited attack because he offered this news item (which Joe Z clearly was making public) or because he did/didn’t interact (to your satisfaction) with foolish/rude comments rather than removing them. His actions prove the very thing that many of us know about Greg: Whatever happens in his life, if he remains the man he is (of course, we expect more prog. sanct.) such a news item will not be written of him. I am not alone in this opinion.

    There often seems to be an inordinate amount of broad-brushing which takes place when people discuss how or why they have left f’ism. Sometimes, it seems like some of them make the same mistakes in talking about people, and the movement, which they themselves ascribe to those who they find so offensive…

    Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

4 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

1. The Gospel and feminism « Immoderate on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 1:51 pm

   [...] May 2nd, 2007 by Ryan Martin After recently listening to the audio of a recently former fundamentalist try desperately to defend, among other things, egalitarianism (or something like it), I found the topic of the most recent 9Marks interview to be a good opportunity for some “cleansing.” [...]

2. Former Fundamentalist Explains Why He Joined Willow Creek at PastorBlog on Thursday, May 3, 2007 at 9:41 am

   [...] Former Northland BBC Professor Joe Zichterman Explains “Why I Joined Willow Creek Community Church” (see esp. the comments) [...]

3. What should be our posture towards evangelical feminists? « Immoderate on Friday, May 4, 2007 at 7:50 am

   [...] Compare this kind of thought to the emotional pleas for women pastors by Joseph Zichterman on the basis that “there is so much at stake.” Indeed there is. For him, the happiness of egalitarian women who deny the entire trajectory of Scripture is at stake. For us, the Gospel is at stake. Compare this to his advancing the notion that the Christian church should ordain women for the sake of winning unregenerate (!) women who refuse repent and confess Jesus is Lord because the Church will not allow them to become pastors. [...]

4. On man-centeredness « Immoderate on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 8:24 am

   [...] May 7th, 2007 by Ryan Martin At the risk of only furthering the inordinate amount of attention begin given to the Joseph Zichterman incident, I would like to make further comment on something he said in his “lecture” why he joined Willow Creek. On the subject of the ordination of women into Gospel ministry he says, There are compelling arguments on the egalitarian side that at least ought to back their opponents down from unchallenged dogmatism. Listen, it’s not the safe position to take when people’s gifts get shelved for good and the entire direction of their lives is changed if we’re stricter than scripture allows. We really need to wrestle through those tough passages. [...]

Post a Comment