Well, Zichterman has struck again.
I’ve been asked a number of times if I will be addressing his most recent statement explaining his move from NBBC to Willow Creek. My original thought was that I would not. Why bring any more attention to the speculation and mud-slinging than it deserves? Let it die.
On the other hand, Zichterman has decided to address the issue publicly again. That’s regrettable, but it’s done. Ironically, though he complains that he has been misrepresented and slandered, most of the damage his reputation has taken has been self-inflicted. When he moved away from NBBC a short time ago, very little was said about it. I don’t doubt that there were conversations about it (right or wrong) in the sphere of influence immediately around Dunbar, Wisconsin. However, most fundamentalists knew or heard nothing until Zichterman started giving speeches about rabid dogs, writing stories about Amish horses and sending mass emails to those under his previous ministry. The attention drawn to these events in the last few months is the result of Zichterman’s campaign, not the school’s.
Even more ironically, while he argues that NBBC’s leadership has tried to besmirch his character with unsubstantiated innuendos, this statement (like the last) is chock full of unsubstantiated innuendos. While he speaks of his love for NBBC, its leaders, and fundamentalists (“a group of people he can never stop caring about”), this statement (like the last) is vengeful and mean-spirited. Perhaps he has been wronged by his former employer. It happens—how are we to know? But even if he has been treated unfairly, a defense of “they hit me first” won’t satisfy most mothers, not to mention a God who urges His people to live at peace with one another, to pursue things which promote peace, to “suffer wrong” rather than airing a conflict before the unbelieving world. Instead, however, Zichterman is baiting NBBC with a 50-plus page allegory, all the while claiming to take the high road. It’s ugly.
At any rate, since it is once again a public issue, and since some friends whom I respect suggested that I address it as I did the first, I’ll offer a few reflections. But I do so with this disclaimer: if you haven’t read A Tale of Two Amishmen, don’t. Certainly don’t read it on my account. It’s not worth your time to consider.
I’ll limit my response to five basic observations, then offer two concluding thoughts.
1. Zichterman’s change of position is based on feelings, not biblical facts.
This statement, like the first, is almost entirely devoid of scriptural or theological support. Rather, it is filled with subjectivity and emotionalism that draw the reader’s attention away from the objective and authoritative statements of Scripture. This is a fatal flaw.
Feelings determine life-changing decisions.
Here are some of Zichterman’s explanations of his departure from fundamentalism and connection to Willow Creek:
- “After my family’s health issues surfaced a year and a half ago, the stirrings in my soul began growing in intensity about God’s long-term calling for my life. Then, when I lost my position as an elder, I knew this was God’s way of dynamiting me on to my next assignment. . .[My wife] and I have. . . now become convinced together that all of these circumstances have been providentially arranged to lead us to join [Willow Creek]. As hard as it’s going to be, I know this is God’s time for my family to make this transition.”
- He later wonders “if God may want to use [him] to help bring a little more balance” to his new church and movement.
- Still later, he says this regarding how one should decide where to minister: “I’d say that any follower of Christ should go where his sensibilities, instincts and passions lead him in respect to what evangelical ministry he should join.”
- At one point, he tells a friend, “I sincerely believe that God is leading me to leave the group (fundamentalism).”
- “It was so hard to think of leaving behind everything and everyone [I’d] ever loved to pursue the call that God had put in [my] heart.”
- Concerned about the school Zichterman is attending, his wife asks, “Have you ever stopped to think that God may be stirring me up about this for a reason?” She later prays, “Lord, there’s just something that’s really bothering me about this whole accreditation issue that I can’t seem to shake.”
- “[Our] new friends encouraged [us] that [we] would look back some day and be so glad [we] had followed God’s call to leave [fundamentalism].”
- Urging him to leave, his wife asks, “How many supernatural answers to prayer and undeniable confirmations from God have we received over the past several months since we made our decision to leave? God has opened door after door and sent person after person along at just the right time to make His path clear to us.”
- “[Zichterman’s wife] had always known in her heart that she was never meant to be an [fundamentalist] woman, but she never dreamed of branching out any farther than the [conservative evangelicals].”
How Zichterman knew that God was leading him/putting on his heart to leap from one side of evangelicalism to the other, or how he knows that God wants to use him to balance out Willow Creek is still a bit cloudy. He had “stirrings in his soul.” He went where “his sensibilities, instincts and passions” led. His wife “knew” it was right, and knew it “in her heart.” Besides, God had stirred them up and opened doors, and there’s no arguing with that. It certainly beats basing life-altering decisions on things that are truly subjective—say, tea leaves or dice. If I sound a bit incredulous that decisions were made on hunches, instincts and feelings rather than on biblical exegesis and theological convictions (especially by one who had devoted so much time to studying and exposing the errors of Willow Creek’s philosophy of ministry), it may be because I haven’t yet come to learn what Zichterman has—that “life is ‘messy’ and decisions aren’t always clear-cut, so you have to try to reflect God’s heart in what you do, rather than being purely legalistic.”
Feelings determine appropriate preaching.
If feelings are the basis for life-changing decisions, it should be no surprise that they are also sovereign when it comes to less important issues. For example, fundamentalist preaching (whatever that is—as though it were homogenous) is particularly dangerous for those who are “sensitive emotionally.” Zichterman explains:
“[M]ore sensitive temperaments could never thrive in the atmosphere of fear, guilt, shame, perfection, and morbid introspection that the [Fundamentalist] preaching style cultivated.”
Speaking of fundamentalist preaching, Zichterman says he earns laughs from his new pastor by “mimick[ing] the constant hell-fire and brimstone preaching style he’d heard almost every Sunday in the [fundamental] churches.” From one who is allegedly concerned about misrepresentations and sowing discord, that’s not exactly an accurate portrayal of fundamental preachers. On the other hand, it makes one wonder how the preaching of the prophets and apostles would be received by these men. They didn’t exactly “employ a strategy of overwhelmingly positive reinforcement.”
Feelings determine appropriate worship styles.
Zichterman writes the following:
“All I know is that [fundamentalist] worship makes me fall asleep, rather than feel like I’m drawing close to God. My heart is never satisfied. I never feel like I can fully express my love to God in authentic ways in our worship services.”
Now, the last thing I want to defend is dead worship. I agree that worship should involve loving God with our entire beings—heart, soul, mind and strength. I’m all for worshipers being engaged and intentional, especially as they reflect on the truths from Scripture. However, I’m not at all certain that the worship at Willow Creek (which, admittedly, won’t put one to sleep) is a step in the right direction. Contrary to Zichterman’s suggestion, the solution to dead worship is primarily spiritual, not musical or even emotional. This matter deserves more thought.
Zichterman’s allegory may lack quotations from best-selling authors and allusions to movies and cults, but unfortunately, it retains the emotionalism that permeated the initial speech. Sadly, this subjective mysticism may very well be something Zichterman learned from fundamentalists. Despite our rejection of continuing revelation, many fundamentalists are extremely mystical, making “peace-and-fleece” decisions in which they put an inordinate amount of confidence in their own feelings and circumstances. A proper understanding of the deceitfulness of our own hearts would do much to alleviate this (Jeremiah 17:9; Mark 17:21-23; James 4:1). Our own ways almost always seems right to us (Proverbs 12:15; 14:12; 16:2, 25; 21:2; 30:12). Yet, Scripture is clear that trusting in our own hearts is folly (Proverbs 28:26). The sort of feelings-based, “glandular” thinking which Zichterman describes is prevalent in our movement, and we need to weed it and replace it with a stout commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:14-4:4; 2 Peter 1:3-4). Otherwise, we will be subject to the whims of our own “gut feelings”—the very thing we’re warned against in Proverbs 3:5b.
(Note: Pastor Mark Dever deals with this issue ably here.)
2. Zichterman’s change of position is at least partly based on personal ambition.
I understand that I am on shaky ground here, but hear me out. I believe that we commit a grave error when we impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree. We can’t see one’s motives, we can’t know his heart, and we don’t know what he’s thinking—unless he tells us. And at least to a degree, Zichterman has told us what he’s thinking. According to his own statements, his decision was at least partly motivated by ambition. He makes it clear that he has big gifts to steward—to big for little old fundamentalism, apparently:
- “I just don’t feel like my wife and I could continue stewarding our gifts for maximum impact for God’s kingdom if we stayed in [fundamentalism].”
- Here’s more of the same from his wife: “I’ve been telling you for years that the vision God has placed in your heart could never be fulfilled if you stayed in the [fundamentalism].”
- He speaks of concern about his “lasting legacy.”
- Zichterman didn’t believe “it was sinful to remain in [fundamentalism], so long as one could steward his or her spiritual gifts for maximum impact.”
Thus, those of us with only average giftedness can steward them within fundamentalism, but we mustn’t blame the exceptionally gifted for seeking maximum impact in a bigger pond. What a narcissistic concept.
Seriously, it seems that Zichterman had been contemplating the departure for quite some time because something in fundamentalism was incompatible with his future plans and the “maximum impact” his gifts could make. On the other time, it also seems that he remained at least outwardly committed to fundamentalist principles as long as it was in his interest to do so. Per his own statement, the time when he lost his job was also the time when he started to change his philosophy of ministry:
“However, since [Zichterman] had lost his position…and it was not possible to continue doing what he loved in the [Fundamental] community, he had to acknowledge that he was a lot more open-minded now than he’d ever been before.”
That’s convenient. “Opening your mind” at the same time that you’re looking for a new place of employment and influence may be a happy coincidence, or perhaps a result of God’s working in your circumstances. On the other hand, it may just be ambition and opportunism.
3. Zichterman’s change of position is in part the result of reliance on the recommendations of prominent leaders at Willow Creek.
I certainly am not opposed to seeking counsel from spiritual leaders. However, Zichterman’s discussions of how he came to decisions at times borders on “guru-ism”:
- Justifying the use of drama in worship, Zichterman makes the following defense to his wife: “I noticed many visitors today who were moved to tears during several parts of the drama. Also, neither [our new pastor], nor any of the leadership staff seemed to be bothered by it, and I know they are sensitive to the Lord. Is it possible that your conscience has just been conditioned to be too scrupulous about things like this?”
- Zichterman later recounts the same reasoning from his wife: “Also, since so many other godly leaders and laymen at [Willow Creek] had no problem with the drama either, [she] felt that the safe position was to rest in the judgment of a multitude of counselors.”
Aside from the pragmatism of such reasoning, the fact that something is determined to be acceptable or unacceptable based on the response of prominent leaders is so…so…fundamental. Seriously, Zichterman tolerates within his new sphere the same sort of man-centered leadership and group-think decision making for which he criticizes fundamentalists.
4. Zichterman’s change of position is based on peripheral issues.
As with the first statement, Zichterman ties his decision to leave fundamentalism to a variety of contributing factors, not the least of which is fundamentalism’s “unnecessary suppression of women” (e.g. our belief that I Timothy 2 forbids women from having authority over men or teaching men in a church setting), the accreditation issue (something which I never imagined to be a topic of discussion among Amishmen, much less a reason for making a wholesale philosophical change), and what he repeatedly says is his hatred for the doctrine of separation. The first is biblically indefensible and the second is merely a hobby horse. The third appears to be the main issue, and I understand that many share his opinion. However, since he so heartily despises separation, one might suggest that the honorable thing would have been to resign from NBBC for the sake of conscience as soon as he knew he disagreed with the school’s doctrinal statement, rather than flying under the radar, trying repeatedly to stay, then blasting the school and movement after his departure.
5. Zichterman’s change of position is excused by what he perceives as mistreatment.
As for the innuendos and accusations and “he said/she said,” shenanigans, it’s not worth speculating over. Despite Zichterman’s belief that “God may want all of this brought out into the open so that the public can understand what it’s like to leave the [fundamentalist] community, and can be made aware of the abuses that sometimes occur within this group, to prevent other people from being hurt,” he doesn’t bring anything out into the open. He offers a pseudo-fictional story about Amishmen, elders and horses.
We’ll never know what happened in private meetings, what was said in private phone calls or emails, or what was diagnosed in doctor’s offices, so why speculate? Ironically, though Zichterman urges readers not to make a decision without hearing both sides of the matter, he tries to convince us to do this very thing by publishing his side for all to read. Per his own admission, he’s baiting NBBC to respond. It’s childish and hypocritical. Further, it would appear that Zichterman’s current pastors and lawyers have determined that he has been wronged—and may even have grounds for a lawsuit!— based solely on hearing his side of the matter. Does Proverbs 18:13 only apply to one side of the argument?
The truth is, the Zichtermans have been through a lot of hardships. When an employment relationship ends, nobody likes it. Tough decisions are made. Hard things—sometimes even wrong things—are said. Sometimes people are hurt. And frankly, I imagine that most of us have seen at least some of the abuses of authority that Zichterman says permeate fundamentalism at some point in our lives, though I would suggest they are not as pervasive as he indicates and are certainly not limited to one particular movement. At any rate, if we’re honest, these sorts of things happen. That said, no amount of hardship or hurt feelings can justify the wholesale change of position which Zichterman underwent.
Concluding Thoughts
Let me introduce two concluding thoughts for your consideration:
1. Joe Zichterman has absolutely no credibility.
Understanding that we cannot know the details of all that has transpired between Zichterman and NBBC, why in the world would be inclined to take Zichterman’s word for it? What credibility does he have to cast doubt on NBBC, or critique fundamentalism, or suggest that we abandon it? This is a man who has flip-flopped, first critiquing Willow Creek’s philosophy from within fundamentalism (even at the level of a doctoral dissertation!), then embracing and endorsing Willow Creek while critiquing fundamentalism—and doing both at the top of his lungs! For all we know, God may “stir him up” in the future to move back here, or to move further left. Though the entire situation is regrettable, and though I’m saddened to see a friend from college make such poor decisions, I urge those who are considering the content of his teachings to first consider the instability of the teacher.
2. Joe Zichterman’s allegory proves nothing.
Finally, I suggest that the very idea of using a story about a move from Amish culture to fundamentalism as a picture of Zichterman’s move from fundamentalism to mainstream evangelicalism is illegitimate from its very inception. Though the story may be engaging, it’s useless as an illustration. The same story could be used to justify any move from a more restrictive position to a less restrictive position, whether right or wrong: from conservative evangelicalism to broader evangelicalism, from broader evangelicalism to liberalism, etc. The fact that one is moving to the left doesn’t mean the move is biblically justifiable. Indeed, the same sort of allegories or “liberation” tales have been told by those leaving Christianity for homosexuality, theism for atheism, or creationism for evolution. I’m not equating those things with Zichterman’s change; I’m just nothing that telling a tale of progress to open-mindedness or liberation from restrictions does little to advance serious discussion. Let’s recognize that this allegory tilts the discussion in Zichterman’s favor (how many of us agree that electricity is “the devil’s current”?) and only muddles the discussion of concrete ideas. The only way to have a profitable discussion is to set aside the storytelling and comparisons (to cults and movies and dogs and horses) and focus instead on issues with our emotions checked and our Bibles open. What does Scripture say about gender roles? About the church’s relationship to culture? About preaching and music styles? About charismatic gifts? About separation?
What happened behind closed doors way up in Dunbar, Wisconsin? To quote the Tootsie Pop Owl, “The world may never know.” What we can know, however, based on Zichterman’s own words, is that a young man given prominence in at least 3 fundamental institutions is broadcasting his grievances and clamoring for a hearing, all while offering little but emotion-driven reasoning and impossible-to-prove accusations. It’s enough to make an Amish horse blush.
________
Link: Good thoughts from Ellis Murphee here.
Filed under: Contemporary Issues, Fundamentalism
Pastor Anderson, thank you for what you have said. I fear for the immature, impressionable young people who sat under Zichterman’s influence and imbibed some (or all) of his philosophy during the time he was flying under the NBBC radar.
Our homes, churches, and institutions of higher learning must teach our children to think Biblically and logically and not to follow their feelings hither and yon, and I pray that this situation will be a clarion call to all of us in whatever sphere of influence God has placed us.
I also pray that our schools of higher learning will, in the future, be much more discerning about handing out unearned accolades to young men who are yet unproved in spiritual battle.
Chris,
Fundamentalism has been pickled in subjectivism and emotionalism. Joe’s “calling,” “stirring in my soul,” and “God’s leading” language isn’t different at all from language I’ve heard in fundamentalist pulpits for years.
Should we be surprised at its fruits? Should we be surprised when someone takes subjectivism and emotionalism to their logical ends, even jumping ship for another cruise line that does subjectivism and emotionalism even more professionally and proficiently than we do?
Chris,
Good critique. Joe was a friend, fellow student and ministry partner of mine in the past. I am saddened by his choices in both ministry direction and in his present methodology of contacting some of us through the list of the former Keeping Hearts and Home periodical. Inexcusable.
Thanks to you, friend, for saving me the time to read and respond to the story!
“To quote the Tootsie Pop Owl”?????? That is too funny … I have never seen the Tootsie Pop owl quoted for authority.
But, why didn’t you comment on his last statement that this was fictitious? To me, that may be the most egregious part of the whole piece. IMO, FWIW, if you are going to do something like this, don’t hide behind “fiction.” And certainly don’t say it’s fiction when it isn’t. It is clearly a parable of sorts, which is fine I suppose … if you are given to that kind of writing. But fiction? I don’t think anyone even remotely familiar with this situation thinks that was fiction.
It is truly sad to see Joe respond this way. I would have hoped that Joe was above this.
BTW, if the unaccredited degree he has are worthless, why does he still have it listed on his website?
My unaccredited degrees apparently didn’t include courses on subject verb agreement. The last sentence should read either “if the unaccredited degrees he has are worthless” or “f the unaccredited degree he has is worthless.” It should be the latter technically, since he only has one listed on his website, so far as I know. He does however have more than one so the former is also accurate.
Apologies
Well, Larry, if your degrees were from accredited schools, you wouldn’t substitute “f” for “if.” This is getting embarrassing.
Chris,
I appreciate your analysis. While I never would have thought to quote the Tootsie Roll Pop Owl, your concluding thoughts are spot on, IMO!
I find myself in agreement with Larry’s assessment of Joe’s sarcastic post script to his parable. I suppose that the reason nobody is making a big deal about it at this point is that the entire statement seems so ludicrous…
Agreed.
I actually wondered if it the whole “fiction” idea and the disclaimer at the end were done for legal reasons, in case there is a lawsuit in the future, etc. Then again, maybe it’s just for effect.
At least I only misspelled “if” by one letter. It wasn’t like I left a bunch of letters out, or got them in the wrong order or anything.
Would it be an accurate assessment to say that we started the church growth movement to which Zichterman defected? Think world’s largest Sunday school…
[...] Chris Anderson: My Two Cents on Zichterman’s Horses [...]
This whole episode makes me want to go and join the Amish.
I am attempting to figure something out. Does it not seem a wee bit strange to anyone that Joe (who was on the bottom of the totem pole of Bible professors at NBBC) is now planning to suddenly bring balance to the galaxy of the CGM? Am I missing something here?
JoeZ has an “inflated sense of importance”. Frankly, before this news hit I had never even heard of him.
I read “The tale … “. Here it is in summary: “His job was eliminated … and he is having a hard time moving on”. So what! Out here in the “real world”, jobs are displaced and Christians move on.
But in the non-JoeZ world, people do it quietly and with grace and without radically changing their theological positions.
JoeZ … GROW UP!
Now that the dust is starting to settle, it seems to me that we’re starting to vilify Zichterman beyond the objective. To say he has an inflated sense of his importance is kind of odd considering that just about the entire fundamentalist world is following this thing play by play. The fact is, there was/is something about him and his ministry that has people’s attention, particularly young people. In other words, there is unrest with the status quo. Those who feel that unrest are considering how they will respond to it. Perhaps Z represents the wrong response. If the influencers in fundamentalism handle the Z situation poorly, they only give an excuse for others to respond in the wrong way.
Bottom line: I feel that this post and several comments go beyond the objective in questioning or condemning his motives. That said, I’m glad much of the focus was put right where it should be. “JoeZ, get out your Bible and talk to us about why what you originally taught from Scripture was wrong.”
I agree that questioning one’s motives is usually unwise. However, a person’s own words and actions do give a pretty strong indication of what he’s thinking, especially when what he’s saying and doing often revolve around himself. At any rate, I tried to focus on his own statements, though I’m sure I didn’t analyze them perfectly. But we’re not making this stuff up, and Zichterman has certainly invited the scrutiny.
Is there any hope that the ‘powers that be’ at SI would interview Z and ask him some of the hard biblical questions we are all wondering? Maybe take along an a unrelated theologian or two to help objectify it.
They could promise him the interview will be posted on SI for all to listen to (in some acceptable fashion – sensitive info @ the head elder situation, horses, etc. should probably be left alone).
This way he can say what he really wants to say in Bible black and white, and we all can determine if his arguments have any biblical weight. Certainly he owes the Fundies that have made him ‘famous’ some biblical answers.
He’s certainly attempting to get his story out, and we all want to know if he’s thinking biblically. He probably knows more about both movements than most in our movement. If we can’t listen to his real arguments and deal with them biblically, we’ve got our own problems.
The interview would at least help us objectively deal with the whole controversy in a profitable manner by directing the whole controversy back to the Scriptures, and may even expose what’s really going on here. Just my 2 cents.
Dan,
I think you’re mistaken. I don’t think Zichterman knows much about either movement. He certainly hasn’t given much evidence that he really knows what he’s talking about. Statements like yours will certainly flatter him, but what is astounding to me is that there are many people who think that he’s credible when, so far, he’s only offered emotional pablum. A reputable scholar, a solid theologian, and mature saint simply doesn’t operate the way Zichterman does. That should be a huge clue to everyone, but sadly there are some people who think he’s credible (although I think that number is quickly diminishing). He simply does not have anything to say if he can’t tell his story.
I think SI would be making a mistake to flatter him with an interview. They only interview real leaders for the most part.
[...] Feel We Should Think, Then Feel. In a previous post, I lamented the fact that much of fundamentalism is driven by emotionalism/mysticism/subjectivity [...]
You know, there are alot of folks who believe that God has led them to specific schools for training. I know that my fundamentalist friends at NBBC cut me off after I began attending TEDS.
Serving God for maximum impact may simply mean that a person is free to minister as God leads instead of worrying about what the fundamentalist leaders are going to say. It is freeing. It might even be biblical!
As to Scripture being our guide. Of course! But what about the Holy Spirit guiding us as well? I actually believe that I can pray to Jesus and that he hears me. I even believe that he answers and that I can hear his voice!
And he walks with me and he talks with me . . .
As for leaving fundamentalism, it happens all the time. Not everyone broadcasts it, trying to make themselves the victim and trying to pull others with them. And not everyone has written a doctoral dissertation refuting the philosophy to which they flee. At any rate, the attention only came to Joe when he begged for it.
As for TEDS, I have a good friend attending there. That’s not the issue at all.
As for your reasoning, especially the last line, well, I guess I can’t argue with that.
Attending TEDS in 1983 was an issue for NBBC.
At some point the hypocrisy of “head elders” at schools like NBBC needs to be challenged. They can ruin people for doing something that they will later approve of with nary an apology. Thankfully, God is our refuge.
I’m sorry you’ve had a bad experience, Paul. Honestly.
Apparently you have an ax or two to grind, but that won’t happen here.
Why the bashing, (some) assumptions, critiquing, gossip, slander etc… Talk is cheap. Prayer is powerful.
“Serving God for maximum impact may simply mean that a person is free to minister as God leads instead of worrying about what the fundamentalist leaders are going to say. It is freeing. It might even be biblical!”
I’m thankful for this comment. I don’t agree with everything that Dr. Joe Zichterman is now engaged in, but I believe that God can still use him…and I can pray for him to be open to God’s leading.
thanks for listening,
a wife of a seminary student
[...] A friend has brought to my attention that “A Tale of Two Amishmen” (which I discussed here) was written by Jocelyn Zichterman, not Joe. The concluding paragraph credits J. R. Zichterman [...]
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
A few random thoughts.
Several things are being repeated that are somewhat unfair. But to lend a tiny (and I truly mean that) bit of credibility to what I am about to comment on:
I attended BJU for 11 years with parents on staff.
I worked the information desk for 5 years
I was university host for 1 year
I was expelled in 1998 and given 3 hours to empty my belongings from my apartment.
Do I have an axe to grind. No. Honestly. I used to and if not prayerfully kept in check, I can start swinging the blessed thing around! :)
I knew Joe a little and I think I knew his wife fairly well, so I cannot say much about his personal decisions. He has made them public and that is his choice. I personally believe he should have given it a few years before doing so. It often takes much time to overcome these things.
Thoughts:
1. Joe did not just “lose a job so get over it” Trust me on this one. When you work for these places there is a strange convenience as to when it is a ministry or when it is your responsibility to your employer. More often than not it is a ministry when it comes to money issues. But since when does your employer have the right to tell you what you can where at Wal-mart? My mother was actually advised by a faculty member to go against her husbands wishes to quit work because “it is a ministry.” Talk about needing to get back to the Scriptures. And I know my experience is at BJU, but the truth is that all this kind of started there. My wife is a Pilsbury grad and even they are conforming to the rules and regulations of Big Brother.
Please do not misunderstand. My comments are not meant to be hurtful or bitter. I am well past that. I am simply trying to bring some balance to the discussion. And please forgive me if I seem a bit incoherent. I am definitely not as gifted as some who post.
2. Point 1. of the original post regarding feelings should be all but dismissed. Chris, from what little I remember of you and have read from you, I would have expected more. It could be that you have not experienced the Lord using circumstances and “gut feelings” along with Scripture to guide you. Everyone here is assuming that Joe just stopped reading the Bible one day. Granted, he does not use much Scripture to defend his position, but right now he is still running on emotion. I understand this from personal experience. Maybe he spoke too soon. But do we really think he stopped fellowshipping, praying and talking to God? Not likely. Were his decisions unwise? Some think so, some do not. Fools, rush in.
But let us all be perfectly honest. Every true fundamentalist would be very uncomfortable next to me in worship when I lift my hands heavenward. Fundamentalists fear emotions (among many other things, but that is another story) due to its abuses in some circles. Maybe we should go to the Scriptures instead of reacting.
3. Point 2 – Carefully phrased, but still ridiculous. Joe has a desired for he and his wife to be in a position that will allow their gifts to have the greatest impact for the body of Christ and the glory of God and this is labeled as “personal ambition?” I too have had a similar experience. I attended a church for years and continually approached the leadership for opportunities to minister. I was not asking for position or status – just ministry. I am not extremely gifted, but my wife has sung the national anthem at several professional sporting events and yet we had a very difficult time getting put into a place of ministry. I even had this discussion with the pastoral staff. Point: sometimes God will move people to better glorify Himself. Please do not sully Joe any more than necessary by questioning his motives based on your interpretation of his comments. God looks on the heart is found in the Bible that many think Joe has failed to read.
4. “Student bases his decision to attend BJU partly on recommendations from BJU faculty.” Sound petty? Yep. Of course he based his decision to go to Willow Creek partly on counsel received from Willow Creek. You don’t agree with Willow Creek. I don’t agree with every aspect of Willow Creek. Joe apparently does. This is an invalid and useless point. Again, I’m not being harsh. I’m actually a pretty laid back fellow!
5. Point 4 – So what are valid reasons for leaving a movement? I left my church because there was a lack of life in the worship and they wouldn’t let me try to add life by ministering in the church. (It also came about because BJU thought it best to separate from me because I didn’t have a problem with contemporary music in a worship service. But that is one of those “God working in my heart through circumstances and people along with prayerful consideration of the Scriptures.”)
Can you only leave for doctrinal apostasy? Be careful or you may end up with a “high control” label. I do not advocate church hopping or movement hopping, but I don’t think we should berate someone for aligning themselves with a group that best matches their own beliefs and preferences. You may disagree with his position, but do not bind someone unnecessarily. So at best, point 4 is not very solid.
6. Point 5 of the original post – Yes, we cannot speculate in this particular case, but I can verify dozens of ridiculous instances of ungodly, unethical and down-right hellish behaviour in similar institutions. Joe’s position does not need an excuse but an explanation. Mistreatment is never a reason for unscriptural behaviour. Again I would appeal to Joe still reeling from everything. It was several months after I was “fired” from BJU that the Lord showed me that I was treating them in the very manner that I felt they had wrongfully used with me. Perhaps Joe still sees a need to excuse his behaviour due to being so deeply rooted in fundamentalism. If you have been told that red is green all your life, it may take a while to see red as red and even longer to call it red. And if Joe is “baiting” NBBC, why shouldn’t they respond? Joe does sound a little angry and the Bible says a soft answer turns away wrath. It is interesting that Joe has at least tried to be transparent whereas it is hard to find anything about NBBC. Are they afraid to be transparent? Are they hiding something? They have been infiltrated with people trained to do just that. The biggest gain that I received from leaving the confines of the circles I was in was the encouragement to be transparent. I did not receive that in from the church I was attending when I was asked to leave BJU. In fact I all but had a scarlet letter. Sorry . . . another story.
7. Conclusion 1 – Have you ever changed your mind? Have you ever matured in your walk with the Lord to the point of changing your personal standard or application of the Scriptures? If so, your credibility is shot. Joe just happens to be very public right now. He also is probably not 100% emotionally, but it is not really fair to even say that. It is fair to say that no matter what circle you run in, if you are a passionate person, you tend to be passionate about your beliefs. So just must be somewhere between 35 and 40 years old and he has taken a different position on things. How does that make him a non-credible witness to his own experience? At least he is trying to be honest.
8. Conclusion 2 – Dead on. Who cares about the horses. Cute but fairly ineffective.
Listen. I love everyone who has posted here and for most of my life I quietly followed what I was told to follow. In the past two years the Lord has taken me to a point where man’s opinion does not matter. Someone stated that the way of a fool is right in his own eyes. Yes. Joe the fool. Chris the fool. Bob Jones the fool. Michael Willcox the fool. How many new converts in the BJU, NBBC circles? I know in Greenville that most church growth is due to church change. How many BJU faculty/staff kids have rebelled only to ‘defect’ to a more contemporary church? The point is we can all learn from each other. We don’t have to embrace each others opinions or applications of the Scriptures, but we ought to embrace each other. Why spend so much time squabbling over whether or not the Newsboys are godly men? Why not put energy into glorifying God and furthering His kingdom instead of using our personal preferences to tear apart fellow believers.
Thanks for your time and may God bless each one as they seek Him and His plan for their lives.
Respectfully,
Michael P. Willcox
A follow-up. I know I’m a little behind the times, but I try not to get too caught up in these things. I did not read Joe’s story based on Chris’ recommendation. I took the time to read it and now understand why Chris doesn’t want anyone to read it. It makes NBBC and those associated look bad. I take back my statement about Joe’s or his wife’s work and say that it was very well done and could even have qualified for the Parody part of this site.
Interestingly enough, Chris, all of the behaviours criticized in the story are the exact same ones you used to criticize his story. In essence, you give credence to his situation. It really is shameful how all of this has gone down, but unless you allow yourself to step outside of your comfort zone you will not be able to understand. We all fight the same things. No one has a corner on the market. The difference is, some want to share the market and others stubbornly refuse to. May God save us all from our pride.
Michael,
Rather than responding to your points one by one (I’ve dissected this situation plenty), I thought I’d just clarify a few things regarding my relationship to the circumstance and why I decided to address it.
First, I have no immediate interest in defending Northland (which I’ve never even visited). Further, I’m certain that fundamentalist people and institutions have blown it plenty, sometimes hurting people in the process. There is no question that there is room for improvement. So I’m certainly not arguing for the perfection of any institution or movement. I’ve shown here and elsewhere that I’m not averse to critiquing fundamentalism. All that to say, I’m not the “we’re-right-no-matter-what,” party-line guy you may assume I am.
As for Joe, obviously he has a right to change his mind. He can do whatever he wants. The fact that he did it so radically (critiquing WC loudly to fundamentalists, then critiquing fundamentalists loudly to WC) should at least give us pause. But little was said or known when he left Northland. I didn’t even know about it until Joe broadcast it. The attention and criticism he received was a result of his own grandstanding after his departure—sending out emails to thousands of contacts from his days in fundamental circles, making sweeping accusations, writing articles and stories comparing fundamentalists to rabid dogs, child-molesting Mormons, and other cults.
As for your departure, you stepped out of the fundamentalist orb. It happens, plenty. While I almost certainly disagree with your reasons, I haven’t publicly critiqued you or anyone else who has left, and the reason is obvious: while you did leave, what you didn’t do is shout far and wide for everyone to listen to you, or pity you, or follow you, or rally around you. You just left. Had Joe done the same, I would have disagreed with the final result (I mean, mercy, man, why not go after Mac or Piper or Dever? why Hybels?), but I wouldn’t have responded as I have.
Joe asked for attention, and he got it. It is worth noting that the ones who critiqued him most vocally (take Bob Bixby as an example) aren’t exactly “homers.” I’ve challenged some of the traditional positions of fundamentalists, critiquing ill-advised separatism, expressing my disagreement with the decisions and ads of institutions like Majesty Music, questioning things like the taboo on theater attendance, etc. In other words, we’re not circling the wagons here. We just think what Joe did was unbiblical and unethical.
And you can raise your hands all you want. David did it, and Paul commanded it.
Amen, brother. Amen. Well put.
Michael,
I am saddened to hear your story. It was great seeing you a couple of years ago in Atlanta. If you are ever in Tampa, we would love to have you visit our new church plant.
BTW, is it hard to raise your hands in those ugly old cowboy boots you wear? Do you raise them listening to “Do not forsake me o’ my darling?”
Here I think my friend Andrew is coming to defend me from a vicious attack, but Nooooo. :)
I’ve actually got pretty new boots! Besides, I’m not the one who bought the contraband Cathedrals while representing our school across America!
Good to hear from you and if I’m in Tampa, I’ll stop in and fellowship.
And in case I haven’t said it before, I look back fondly on our trip and your leadership!
Thanks and God bless
Michael
Oops, sorry. Michael, stop picking on Chris :)
Seriously, though, you had already done a great job of answering. I was going to come to your defense had you not.
Michael, I honestly cannot remember that, although I do remember listening to Men of Calvary on that trip a lot. Not that I was averse to Southern Gospel. I was more of a Gold City fan. I did grow up on the Kingsmen and Cathedrals, though.
Have a great evening. If you ever need anything, give me a call. My number is 813.470.8104. I also hope that you continue to read Chris’ blog. It is definitely one of the best out there. (There Chris, how was that?)
That’s more like it, though it’s always more effective if the help isn’t actually requested. Be ready next time. ;-)
Now, about the Cathedrals…
Wow. That’s just embarrassing.
Chris, man, give me a break. My family is from East Tennessee. Where I come from, “Garlock” was an obscure brand of homemade moonshine, “Forrest” was a place you went to smoke so mama wouldn’t catch you, and “Lynch” was something you and some buddies wanted to do to Bama fans. Cathedrals were high church, my friend.
All that is in the past now. Well, gotta go, the Gaither Christmas special is starting.