FBCH making things right?

[RAIDER]

We know that DH is many years removed from FBCH.  There have been two pastors since his time there.  We have also heard of the terrible things in which DH was involved and those whom he hurt.  Here is the question - At this time what is the responsibility of FBCH and what should their actions be?  What think ye, Hacker Nation?!!     

 

[Sherryh]

Let him run his course to nothing...we can't change people only warn them.

 

[Twisted]

At this time what is the responsibility of FBCH and what should their actions be? 

1.  None

2.  If deacons/staff who were the enablers of Hyles/Schapp are still there, fire them.

 

[Teri in NC]

At this time what is the responsibility of FBCH and what should their actions be? 

1.  None

2.  If deacons/staff who were the enablers of Hyles/Schapp are still there, fire them.

Starting with EL.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think the damage has been done.
The ministry is a shell of what it once was...in every way.
Bro Wilkerson should have immediately cleaned house, or demanded that it be cleaned before he took over. But it's never too late to do right...

 

[Walt]

At this time what is the responsibility of FBCH and what should their actions be? 

1.  None

2.  If deacons/staff who were the enablers of Hyles/Schapp are still there, fire them.

I agree - I don't think that FBCH has any responsibility toward DH; but people who supported or still support Hyles/Schaap should indeed be fired.

 

[sword]

At this time what is the responsibility of FBCH and what should their actions be? 

1.  None

2.  If deacons/staff who were the enablers of Hyles/Schapp are still there, fire them.

I agree - I don't think that FBCH has any responsibility toward DH; but people who supported or still support Hyles/Schaap should indeed be fired.

1. I don't know of any current staff people who defend what Schapp did or think he should have his job back. Most are angry and a little bitter because of the hurt Schapp caused to so many. I suspect some are still grateful for the opportunities he gave them and in some cases the kindness he may have shown.

2. If Wilkerson would have required people to renounce Jack Hyles as a requirement for his employment, the committee would have moved to the next man on their list.

3. I Wilkerson would have been required to renounce Jack Hyles, then I do not believe he would have took the job.

Not sure why some want to dwell on the past, instead of focusing on the changes and the future Wilkerson is so trying to bring to FBCH. Some here will not be happy unless the whole ministry dies.

 

[Twisted]

Not sure why some want to dwell on the past

"The past is the only future a true HACker has"

 

[sawthruglassclearly]

Judge Judy uses an analogy about one bad, moldy blueberry that " will not be made ripe again by all of the good blueberries in the carton, but will bring to rot all of the good blueberries around it." She isn't the only person to use an analogy like this one, but any of them apply here:  The "rotten fruit" that is left at FBCH will not be made ripe again by any "good berries" there.  All of the "rotten fruit" has to be tossed out to truly begin again.

 

[Phooey-dini]

We know that DH is many years removed from FBCH.  There have been two pastors since his time there.  We have also heard of the terrible things in which DH was involved and those whom he hurt.  Here is the question - At this time what is the responsibility of FBCH and what should their actions be?  What think ye, Hacker Nation?!!   

They should close up shop as they're as irrelevant as can get. A complete subculture which has little to no impact on much of anything, save for their scores of disgraced alumni, former staff, and former pastors who all the surrounding citizenry has been made well aware of by now.

In a word, Ichabod.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Walt]

At this time what is the responsibility of FBCH and what should their actions be? 

1.  None

2.  If deacons/staff who were the enablers of Hyles/Schapp are still there, fire them.

I agree - I don't think that FBCH has any responsibility toward DH; but people who supported or still support Hyles/Schaap should indeed be fired.

1. I don't know of any current staff people who defend what Schaap did or think he should have his job back. Most are angry and a little bitter because of the hurt Schaap caused to so many. I suspect some are still grateful for the opportunities he gave them and in some cases the kindness he may have shown.

Apparently, several were taking the position "we shouldn't judge him" AFTER he was caught. This is the erroneous thinking that the pastor as pope that JH promulgated, and it is still (sadly) widespread among IFB churches.

It is one thing to point out the generosity of JH, or what God showed him through the preaching at FBCH, or to recount the kindness of Schaap.  It's been over 16 years since JH death, but I'm amazed at the people who still think he was the greatest Chrisitan ever, or who seem to support him wholeheartedly without any warning.  The errors taught there, unfortunately, still live on today.

2. If Wilkerson would have required people to renounce Jack Hyles as a requirement for his employment, the committee would have moved to the next man on their list.

I completely agree.  But, from reports here, he has gradually been removing the old guard: perhaps - perhaps - it is time to publicly denounce JH, or at least counter the false teachings.

3. If Wilkerson would have been required to renounce Jack Hyles, then I do not believe he would have took the job.

Yes, at the time. But that was then; this is now.  If he has been making good changes to distance himself and the church from JH, maybe it is the time to make it clear.  Or maybe not.  However, I think it must be done before they can be fully blessed of God.

Not sure why some want to dwell on the past, instead of focusing on the changes and the future Wilkerson is so trying to bring to FBCH. Some here will not be happy unless the whole ministry dies.

Would love to see Bro Wilkerson have the ministry there glorify God, but, as stated above, I believe they will need to publicly recant JH false teachings.

I noted above, too, that this is still relevant because people today still (blindly) follow JH teachings.

 

[sword]

At this time what is the responsibility of FBCH and what should their actions be? 

1.  None

2.  If deacons/staff who were the enablers of Hyles/Schapp are still there, fire them.

I agree - I don't think that FBCH has any responsibility toward DH; but people who supported or still support Hyles/Schaap should indeed be fired.

1. I don't know of any current staff people who defend what Schaap did or think he should have his job back. Most are angry and a little bitter because of the hurt Schaap caused to so many. I suspect some are still grateful for the opportunities he gave them and in some cases the kindness he may have shown.

Apparently, several were taking the position "we shouldn't judge him" AFTER he was caught. This is the erroneous thinking that the pastor as pope that JH promulgated, and it is still (sadly) widespread among IFB churches.

It is one thing to point out the generosity of JH, or what God showed him through the preaching at FBCH, or to recount the kindness of Schaap.  It's been over 16 years since JH death, but I'm amazed at the people who still think he was the greatest Chrisitan ever, or who seem to support him wholeheartedly without any warning.  The errors taught there, unfortunately, still live on today.

2. If Wilkerson would have required people to renounce Jack Hyles as a requirement for his employment, the committee would have moved to the next man on their list.

I completely agree.  But, from reports here, he has gradually been removing the old guard: perhaps - perhaps - it is time to publicly denounce JH, or at least counter the false teachings.

3. If Wilkerson would have been required to renounce Jack Hyles, then I do not believe he would have took the job.

Yes, at the time. But that was then; this is now.  If he has been making good changes to distance himself and the church from JH, maybe it is the time to make it clear.  Or maybe not.  However, I think it must be done before they can be fully blessed of God.

Not sure why some want to dwell on the past, instead of focusing on the changes and the future Wilkerson is so trying to bring to FBCH. Some here will not be happy unless the whole ministry dies.

Would love to see Bro Wilkerson have the ministry there glorify God, but, as stated above, I believe they will need to publicly recant JH false teachings.

I noted above, too, that this is still relevant because people today still (blindly) follow JH teachings.

Pastors regularly get called to existing churches, that had major problems, and never acknowledge past wrongs or criticize the former pastor(s) who may have committed sin or who were doctrinally wrong in some area. They just step in and attempt to move forward.

Most commonly, they come in and slowly begin to change what needs changed. They put new procedures and checks in place to prevent the past from reoccurring. They slowly change past culture and staff of the church as needed and over time correct the direction of the ship.
Wilkerson did not attempt to run down the former pastor at Long Beach when he was called there, he just rolled his sleeves up and got to work. He slowly made the changes needed to correct their heading and most of all he loved the people. He showed them love and they quickly loved him back.

Remember many at FBCH still respect and look up to JH. FBCH is struggling to maintain the membership they have, why would Wilkerson run off those who have been there for years. I think JW still respects JH and is very unlikely to run him down. Not everyone see this issue in black and white as you may. Time heals most if not all wounds and FBCH is already seeing results from the changes Wilkerson has put into place. 

 

[RAIDER]

Pastors regularly get called to existing churches, that had major problems, and never acknowledge past wrongs or criticize the former pastor(s) who may have committed sin or who were doctrinally wrong in some area. They just step in and attempt to move forward.

Most commonly, they come in and slowly begin to change what needs changed. They put new procedures and checks in place to prevent the past from reoccurring. They slowly change past culture and staff of the church as needed and over time correct the direction of the ship.
Wilkerson did not attempt to run down the former pastor at Long Beach when he was called there, he just rolled his sleeves up and got to work. He slowly made the changes needed to correct their heading and most of all he loved the people. He showed them love and they quickly loved him back.

Remember many at FBCH still respect and look up to JH. FBCH is struggling to maintain the membership they have, why would Wilkerson run off those who have been there for years. I think JW still respects JH and is very unlikely to run him down. Not everyone see this issue in black and white as you may. Time heals most if not all wounds and FBCH is already seeing results from the changes Wilkerson has put into place.

Very well said!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Pastors regularly get called to existing churches, that had major problems, and never acknowledge past wrongs or criticize the former pastor(s) who may have committed sin or who were doctrinally wrong in some area. They just step in and attempt to move forward.

Most commonly, they come in and slowly begin to change what needs changed. They put new procedures and checks in place to prevent the past from reoccurring. They slowly change past culture and staff of the church as needed and over time correct the direction of the ship.
Wilkerson did not attempt to run down the former pastor at Long Beach when he was called there, he just rolled his sleeves up and got to work. He slowly made the changes needed to correct their heading and most of all he loved the people. He showed them love and they quickly loved him back.

Remember many at FBCH still respect and look up to JH. FBCH is struggling to maintain the membership they have, why would Wilkerson run off those who have been there for years. I think JW still respects JH and is very unlikely to run him down. Not everyone see this issue in black and white as you may. Time heals most if not all wounds and FBCH is already seeing results from the changes Wilkerson has put into place.

Very well said!

It was indeed very well said but not entirely true or factual.
There is a huge difference in taking a church with problems that led to a decline and taking a church that hit a proverbial iceburg.
When a new Pastor takes a church that has experienced a disaster such as FBH they usually directly and purposely address the elephant in the church. They acknowledge the sin and explain how they are going to go forward and prevent such from happening again. It is NOT simply ignored out of respect for the past sinners.
When you have a culture that aided, enabled or ignored what happened in the past, to slowly change the staff or culture IS NOT an option. At least not a viable option for someone who wants to right the ship. Pastor Wilkerson, IMO, should have insisted on the resignations of said staff members BEFORE accepting the position.

As to Dr Hyles' and Dave's immorality...that is another matter, at least as far as Pastor Wilkerson is concerned.

 

[RAIDER]

It was indeed very well said but not entirely true or factual.
There is a huge difference in taking a church with problems that led to a decline and taking a church that hit a proverbial iceburg.
When a new Pastor takes a church that has experienced a disaster such as FBH they usually directly and purposely address the elephant in the church. They acknowledge the sin and explain how they are going to go forward and prevent such from happening again. It is NOT simply ignored out of respect for the past sinners.
When you have a culture that aided, enabled or ignored what happened in the past, to slowly change the staff or culture IS NOT an option. At least not a viable option for someone who wants to right the ship. Pastor Wilkerson, IMO, should have insisted on the resignations of said staff members BEFORE accepting the position.

As to Dr Hyles' and Dave's immorality...that is another matter, at least as far as Pastor Wilkerson is concerned.

The "elephant in the church" was dealt with and he is in prison.  There was a period of time that passed before Wilkerson accepted the pastorate.  If Wilkerson felt that anyone on staff had propagated evil in the church I would think he would have asked for their resignation before accepting the pastorate.  What facts would a new pastor have that would give him reason to require the resignation of anyone at FBCH?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It was indeed very well said but not entirely true or factual.
There is a huge difference in taking a church with problems that led to a decline and taking a church that hit a proverbial iceburg.
When a new Pastor takes a church that has experienced a disaster such as FBH they usually directly and purposely address the elephant in the church. They acknowledge the sin and explain how they are going to go forward and prevent such from happening again. It is NOT simply ignored out of respect for the past sinners.
When you have a culture that aided, enabled or ignored what happened in the past, to slowly change the staff or culture IS NOT an option. At least not a viable option for someone who wants to right the ship. Pastor Wilkerson, IMO, should have insisted on the resignations of said staff members BEFORE accepting the position.

As to Dr Hyles' and Dave's immorality...that is another matter, at least as far as Pastor Wilkerson is concerned.

The "elephant in the church" was dealt with and he is in prison.  There was a period of time that passed before Wilkerson accepted the pastorate.  If Wilkerson felt that anyone on staff had propagated evil in the church I would think he would have asked for their resignation before accepting the pastorate.  What facts would a new pastor have that would give him reason to require the resignation of anyone at FBCH?

I'm sorry.
I was not aware that the executive staff who enabled and ignored Schaap were gone. And if they all believe it was properly dealt with, that explains a lot. I guess I just had greater expectations for Pastor Wilkerson.

 

[Jim Jones]

It was indeed very well said but not entirely true or factual.
There is a huge difference in taking a church with problems that led to a decline and taking a church that hit a proverbial iceburg.
When a new Pastor takes a church that has experienced a disaster such as FBH they usually directly and purposely address the elephant in the church. They acknowledge the sin and explain how they are going to go forward and prevent such from happening again. It is NOT simply ignored out of respect for the past sinners.
When you have a culture that aided, enabled or ignored what happened in the past, to slowly change the staff or culture IS NOT an option. At least not a viable option for someone who wants to right the ship. Pastor Wilkerson, IMO, should have insisted on the resignations of said staff members BEFORE accepting the position.

As to Dr Hyles' and Dave's immorality...that is another matter, at least as far as Pastor Wilkerson is concerned.

The "elephant in the church" was dealt with and he is in prison.  There was a period of time that passed before Wilkerson accepted the pastorate.  If Wilkerson felt that anyone on staff had propagated evil in the church I would think he would have asked for their resignation before accepting the pastorate.  What facts would a new pastor have that would give him reason to require the resignation of anyone at FBCH?

The elephant was the idol worship. Not JS.

JS was just the latest incarnation of the sin of idol worship.

Obviously you've dismissed the main sin.

 

[Phooey-dini]

The "elephant in the church" was dealt with and he is in prison.  There was a period of time that passed before Wilkerson accepted the pastorate.  If Wilkerson felt that anyone on staff had propagated evil in the church I would think he would have asked for their resignation before accepting the pastorate.  What facts would a new pastor have that would give him reason to require the resignation of anyone at FBCH?

Nah. Lapina, Young, etc. know where all the "bodies are buried" so to speak. All those goofs should have been required to resign for incompetence and idolatry of Schaap/Hyles. Either that, or for their fear of man in failing to call Schaap out FAR sooner than when he was busted publicly.

But heck, I think they still take a "communion"  of Reese's PB Cups an Diet Dr. Pepper on Hyles' birthday. Sigh.

 

[RAIDER]

It was indeed very well said but not entirely true or factual.
There is a huge difference in taking a church with problems that led to a decline and taking a church that hit a proverbial iceburg.
When a new Pastor takes a church that has experienced a disaster such as FBH they usually directly and purposely address the elephant in the church. They acknowledge the sin and explain how they are going to go forward and prevent such from happening again. It is NOT simply ignored out of respect for the past sinners.
When you have a culture that aided, enabled or ignored what happened in the past, to slowly change the staff or culture IS NOT an option. At least not a viable option for someone who wants to right the ship. Pastor Wilkerson, IMO, should have insisted on the resignations of said staff members BEFORE accepting the position.

As to Dr Hyles' and Dave's immorality...that is another matter, at least as far as Pastor Wilkerson is concerned.

The "elephant in the church" was dealt with and he is in prison.  There was a period of time that passed before Wilkerson accepted the pastorate.  If Wilkerson felt that anyone on staff had propagated evil in the church I would think he would have asked for their resignation before accepting the pastorate.  What facts would a new pastor have that would give him reason to require the resignation of anyone at FBCH?

I'm sorry.
I was not aware that the executive staff who enabled and ignored Schaap were gone. And if they all believe it was properly dealt with, that explains a lot. I guess I just had greater expectations for Pastor Wilkerson.

No, I do not believe that all of the staff that worked for Schaap are gone.  Again, what facts would Wilkerson have of any of the staff's wrongdoing when it came to Schaap.  Should the staff all be dismissed because they worked for a guy who committed terrible sin?  I have issues with the staff listening to Schaap's goofy teaching and preaching.  Should the deacon board also have been forced to resign before Wilkerson took the pastorate?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It was indeed very well said but not entirely true or factual.
There is a huge difference in taking a church with problems that led to a decline and taking a church that hit a proverbial iceburg.
When a new Pastor takes a church that has experienced a disaster such as FBH they usually directly and purposely address the elephant in the church. They acknowledge the sin and explain how they are going to go forward and prevent such from happening again. It is NOT simply ignored out of respect for the past sinners.
When you have a culture that aided, enabled or ignored what happened in the past, to slowly change the staff or culture IS NOT an option. At least not a viable option for someone who wants to right the ship. Pastor Wilkerson, IMO, should have insisted on the resignations of said staff members BEFORE accepting the position.

As to Dr Hyles' and Dave's immorality...that is another matter, at least as far as Pastor Wilkerson is concerned.

The "elephant in the church" was dealt with and he is in prison.  There was a period of time that passed before Wilkerson accepted the pastorate.  If Wilkerson felt that anyone on staff had propagated evil in the church I would think he would have asked for their resignation before accepting the pastorate.  What facts would a new pastor have that would give him reason to require the resignation of anyone at FBCH?

I'm sorry.
I was not aware that the executive staff who enabled and ignored Schaap were gone. And if they all believe it was properly dealt with, that explains a lot. I guess I just had greater expectations for Pastor Wilkerson.

No, I do not believe that all of the staff that worked for Schaap are gone.  Again, what facts would Wilkerson have of any of the staff's wrongdoing when it came to Schaap.  Should the staff all be dismissed because they worked for a guy who committed terrible sin?  I have issues with the staff listening to Schaap's goofy teaching and preaching.  Should the deacon board also have been forced to resign before Wilkerson took the pastorate?

So, when a man teaches and preaches as Schaap did...for years...his staff holds NO responsibility to confront him and his error? He could not have continued without the complete capitulation and co-operation of the staff...especially Lapina and Young. Period.

As to the Deacons...if it were not assumed and accepted that they were simply figure head yes men, they would have been held responsible. Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable being 'spiritually led' by them.