FBCH making things right?

[Tarheel Baptist]

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.

You would think so...but FBH must have been a la la land where common sense and biblical integrity were unknown or ignored. At least by anyone in leadership.

 

[RAIDER]

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.

Yes, his staff AND the deacon board should have approached him about the times he preached error.  I believe they were an intimidated bunch.  If they didn't have the guts to approach him, they should have left.  I believe you and I are in agreement on this.  Now, should a new pastor fire the old staff and clean out the deacon board because of this?  I'm not sure that would be wise.

 

[prophet]

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.

Yes, his staff AND the deacon board should have approached him about the times he preached error.  I believe they were an intimidated bunch.  If they didn't have the guts to approach him, they should have left.  I believe you and I are in agreement on this.  Now, should a new pastor fire the old staff and clean out the deacon board because of this?  I'm not sure that would be wise.

Tardheel is unaware that FBCH is structurally a Deacon Board run church, not a "Strong Pastoral Authority" RCC cult.

The problem arose when JH ignored this, and wagged the dog.

JS had no fight, JH had already run anyone with a backbone off, years earlier...except a few families that remembered the former days of FBCH's "glory" (the Purdy administration, for one).

They showed up to JS deacons meetings waiting to be told what to say "Yes" to...

Many should be in prison for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, embezzlement, theft, etc.

Schaap wasn't as stupid as we made him out to be, pleading guilty quickly, and starting his sentence.
The prosecutor never got to build a case, or a lot more than transporting a minor across state lines would have been on the docket.

I offered to testify of impropriety that I had been asked to partake in, as a staff member, and was met with: "meh".

There is an underlying culture of ravenous sex fiends, neighing after their neighbor's wives or kids.
The financial mess is epic.

Solving these problems "behind the scenes", builds zero confidence in the current admin., and that's where most of us are now.

If you are still connected at all with FBCH, and you've ever tried to converse with a current member on the subject of systemic sin, then you well know that Hammond hasn't changed 1 iota.


Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[Twisted]

If you are still connected at all with FBCH, and you've ever tried to converse with a current member on the subject of systemic sin, then you well know that Hammond hasn't changed 1 iota.

Are you saying that Wilkerson is party to all this?

 

[prophet]

If you are still connected at all with FBCH, and you've ever tried to converse with a current member on the subject of systemic sin, then you well know that Hammond hasn't changed 1 iota.

Are you saying that Wilkerson is party to all this?

I don't know, so I'll take a guess here, but it is conjecture...

He was brought in to do what he did in Long Beach, and is doing so.

FBCH people are getting accustomed to him, and appreciate much of what he does differently.

He is either too foolish to see the maniacal rabid psychosis with which the starry-eyed zealots defend the institutions there, or else he is wise enough to milk the cash cow with his head down, and pull off the smoothing of the transition that he was hired to produce.

In other words, I guess he "knows where his bread is buttered", and doesn't want to "upset the apple cart", so he is taking the loooooooooooong way around, emphasizing outreach (meat in seats) to create a new customer base that is not loyal to the past.

When he leaves the Fox in the henhouse, it is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[Twisted]

If you are still connected at all with FBCH, and you've ever tried to converse with a current member on the subject of systemic sin, then you well know that Hammond hasn't changed 1 iota.

Are you saying that Wilkerson is party to all this?

I don't know, so I'll take a guess here, but it is conjecture...

He was brought in to do what he did in Long Beach, and is doing so.

FBCH people are getting accustomed to him, and appreciate much of what he does differently.

He is either too foolish to see the maniacal rabid psychosis with which the starry-eyed zealots defend the institutions there, or else he is wise enough to milk the cash cow with his head down, and pull off the smoothing of the transition that he was hired to produce.

In other words, I guess he "knows where his bread is buttered", and doesn't want to "upset the apple cart", so he is taking the loooooooooooong way around, emphasizing outreach (meat in seats) to create a new customer base that is not loyal to the past.

When he leaves the Fox in the henhouse, it is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

"Meat in seats" - LOL!!  Never heard that one before.

 

[prophet]

If you are still connected at all with FBCH, and you've ever tried to converse with a current member on the subject of systemic sin, then you well know that Hammond hasn't changed 1 iota.

Are you saying that Wilkerson is party to all this?

I don't know, so I'll take a guess here, but it is conjecture...

He was brought in to do what he did in Long Beach, and is doing so.

FBCH people are getting accustomed to him, and appreciate much of what he does differently.

He is either too foolish to see the maniacal rabid psychosis with which the starry-eyed zealots defend the institutions there, or else he is wise enough to milk the cash cow with his head down, and pull off the smoothing of the transition that he was hired to produce.

In other words, I guess he "knows where his bread is buttered", and doesn't want to "upset the apple cart", so he is taking the loooooooooooong way around, emphasizing outreach (meat in seats) to create a new customer base that is not loyal to the past.

When he leaves the Fox in the henhouse, it is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

"Meat in seats" - LOL!!  Never heard that one before.

Read my posts, see original ideas...

Or, find something actually productive to do...

Your call.

Sent from my H1611 using Tapatalk

 

[Walt]

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?

This is where we disagree. The "elephant in the church" (to use your expression) was, to summarize, the practice that the pastor is the pope of the church - that what he taught was infallible, and it was a sin against God to question his teaching.  This was JH philosophy that carried forward into the JS era.

To be fair to the leadership and the deacons under JS, they had been soaked, yea steeped, in that philosophy from JH, so they would have found it very, very hard to stand up to JS.

In my opinion, Bro Wilkerson has done a pretty good job; it is my impression that he is gently trying to steer people away from the man-worship and is slowing weeding out those who, knowing their errors, still supported JH and JS.

As I said previously, a time needs to come when he does need to publicly state that the former teachings were not Scriptural.

 

[Walt]

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.

I agree that EL and RY need to go, and I hope that this is Bro Wilkerson's game plan.  But it is also true that if Bro Wilkerson had said that he wouldn't take the church unless they got rid of these men, they would have passed over him.

 

[Walt]

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.

Certainly the staff was responsible, but we have to remember all the time they spent being taught error by JH; they may have thought it would be wrong.

However, in reality, it is the job of ALL members of the church - not just the staff to check teachings against the Bible.

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.

All of the men who were deacons under JS and JH (if there are still any) should have either resigned or not been re-appointed when their term was up.

Note that deacons aren't supposed to be leaders, but servants.

 

[Walt]

If you are still connected at all with FBCH, and you've ever tried to converse with a current member on the subject of systemic sin, then you well know that Hammond hasn't changed 1 iota.

Are you saying that Wilkerson is party to all this?

I don't know, so I'll take a guess here, but it is conjecture...

He was brought in to do what he did in Long Beach, and is doing so.

FBCH people are getting accustomed to him, and appreciate much of what he does differently.

He is either too foolish to see the maniacal rabid psychosis with which the starry-eyed zealots defend the institutions there, or else he is wise enough to milk the cash cow with his head down, and pull off the smoothing of the transition that he was hired to produce.

In other words, I guess he "knows where his bread is buttered", and doesn't want to "upset the apple cart", so he is taking the loooooooooooong way around, emphasizing outreach (meat in seats) to create a new customer base that is not loyal to the past.

When he leaves the Fox in the henhouse, it is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In my opinion, this is overly cynical.  I believe that Bro Wilkerson is trying to do right, but has decades of accumulated "junk" to clean out.  I am hoping that he will try to deal with the "starry-eyed zealots" at the right time.  One step is to remove such from positions of power.

 

[Phooey-dini]

If you are still connected at all with FBCH, and you've ever tried to converse with a current member on the subject of systemic sin, then you well know that Hammond hasn't changed 1 iota.

Are you saying that Wilkerson is party to all this?

I don't know, so I'll take a guess here, but it is conjecture...

He was brought in to do what he did in Long Beach, and is doing so.

FBCH people are getting accustomed to him, and appreciate much of what he does differently.

He is either too foolish to see the maniacal rabid psychosis with which the starry-eyed zealots defend the institutions there, or else he is wise enough to milk the cash cow with his head down, and pull off the smoothing of the transition that he was hired to produce.

In other words, I guess he "knows where his bread is buttered", and doesn't want to "upset the apple cart", so he is taking the loooooooooooong way around, emphasizing outreach (meat in seats) to create a new customer base that is not loyal to the past.

When he leaves the Fox in the henhouse, it is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In my opinion, this is overly cynical.  I believe that Bro Wilkerson is trying to do right, but has decades of accumulated "junk" to clean out.  I am hoping that he will try to deal with the "starry-eyed zealots" at the right time.  One step is to remove such from positions of power.

[emoji23]

So...how long are you giving him to clean out this "junk"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RAIDER]

This is where we disagree. The "elephant in the church" (to use your expression) was, to summarize, the practice that the pastor is the pope of the church - that what he taught was infallible, and it was a sin against God to question his teaching.  This was JH philosophy that carried forward into the JS era.

To be fair to the leadership and the deacons under JS, they had been soaked, yea steeped, in that philosophy from JH, so they would have found it very, very hard to stand up to JS.

In my opinion, Bro Wilkerson has done a pretty good job; it is my impression that he is gently trying to steer people away from the man-worship and is slowing weeding out those who, knowing their errors, still supported JH and JS.

As I said previously, a time needs to come when he does need to publicly state that the former teachings were not Scriptural.

If Wilkerson is rightly dividing God's Word why does he need to go back and dig up old dirt.  The very fact that he is teaching/preaching God's Word would mean that he is preaching against any unscriptural practices from the past.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

This is where we disagree. The "elephant in the church" (to use your expression) was, to summarize, the practice that the pastor is the pope of the church - that what he taught was infallible, and it was a sin against God to question his teaching.  This was JH philosophy that carried forward into the JS era.

To be fair to the leadership and the deacons under JS, they had been soaked, yea steeped, in that philosophy from JH, so they would have found it very, very hard to stand up to JS.

In my opinion, Bro Wilkerson has done a pretty good job; it is my impression that he is gently trying to steer people away from the man-worship and is slowing weeding out those who, knowing their errors, still supported JH and JS.

As I said previously, a time needs to come when he does need to publicly state that the former teachings were not Scriptural.

If Wilkerson is rightly dividing God's Word why does he need to go back and dig up old dirt.  The very fact that he is teaching/preaching God's Word would mean that he is preaching against any unscriptural practices from the past.

He's leading a church...as in the arms, legs and voice of Christ on earth.
He's leading a church that has, in the past, proclaimed it led Fundamentalism.
And he's not supposed to acknowledge and correct past DOCTRINAL error?

That's akin to a math teacher who's predecessor taught 1+1=7. You've got to address the error or you cause great confusion.

And there is an entire herd of elephants in Hammond.

 

[RAIDER]

This is where we disagree. The "elephant in the church" (to use your expression) was, to summarize, the practice that the pastor is the pope of the church - that what he taught was infallible, and it was a sin against God to question his teaching.  This was JH philosophy that carried forward into the JS era.

To be fair to the leadership and the deacons under JS, they had been soaked, yea steeped, in that philosophy from JH, so they would have found it very, very hard to stand up to JS.

In my opinion, Bro Wilkerson has done a pretty good job; it is my impression that he is gently trying to steer people away from the man-worship and is slowing weeding out those who, knowing their errors, still supported JH and JS.

As I said previously, a time needs to come when he does need to publicly state that the former teachings were not Scriptural.

If Wilkerson is rightly dividing God's Word why does he need to go back and dig up old dirt.  The very fact that he is teaching/preaching God's Word would mean that he is preaching against any unscriptural practices from the past.

He's leading a church...as in the arms, legs and voice of Christ on earth.
He's leading a church that has, in the past, proclaimed it led Fundamentalism.
And he's not supposed to acknowledge and correct past DOCTRINAL error?

That's akin to a math teacher who's predecessor taught 1+1=7. You've got to address the error or you cause great confusion.

And there is an entire herd of elephants in Hammond.

He is correcting doctrinal error by rightly dividing God's Word.  He doesn't have to say, "Let me tell you about the doctrinal error that has been taught by my predecessor(s)".  He corrects doctrinal error by saying, "Here's what the Scripture teaches and here's what is true and false based on that".

A Math teacher does not need to come in and say, "Your previous teacher was a moron".  The math teacher can come in and say, "Let me show you why 1 + 1 = 2".  It achieves the same goal.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

This is where we disagree. The "elephant in the church" (to use your expression) was, to summarize, the practice that the pastor is the pope of the church - that what he taught was infallible, and it was a sin against God to question his teaching.  This was JH philosophy that carried forward into the JS era.

To be fair to the leadership and the deacons under JS, they had been soaked, yea steeped, in that philosophy from JH, so they would have found it very, very hard to stand up to JS.

In my opinion, Bro Wilkerson has done a pretty good job; it is my impression that he is gently trying to steer people away from the man-worship and is slowing weeding out those who, knowing their errors, still supported JH and JS.

As I said previously, a time needs to come when he does need to publicly state that the former teachings were not Scriptural.

If Wilkerson is rightly dividing God's Word why does he need to go back and dig up old dirt.  The very fact that he is teaching/preaching God's Word would mean that he is preaching against any unscriptural practices from the past.

He's leading a church...as in the arms, legs and voice of Christ on earth.
He's leading a church that has, in the past, proclaimed it led Fundamentalism.
And he's not supposed to acknowledge and correct past DOCTRINAL error?

That's akin to a math teacher who's predecessor taught 1+1=7. You've got to address the error or you cause great confusion.

And there is an entire herd of elephants in Hammond.

He is correcting doctrinal error by rightly dividing God's Word.  He doesn't have to say, "Let me tell you about the doctrinal error that has been taught by my predecessor(s)".  He corrects doctrinal error by saying, "Here's what the Scripture teaches and here's what is true and false based on that".

A Math teacher does not need to come in and say, "Your previous teacher was a moron".  The math teacher can come in and say, "Let me show you why 1 + 1 = 2".  It achieves the same goal.

Have you considered what scripture tells us to do about false teachers in the church?
I do not see how you can deal with a terrible sin that you refuse even to speak about publicly.
But, that's just me, i'm not trying to salvage a legacy, just deal with the sin.

 

[RAIDER]

This is where we disagree. The "elephant in the church" (to use your expression) was, to summarize, the practice that the pastor is the pope of the church - that what he taught was infallible, and it was a sin against God to question his teaching.  This was JH philosophy that carried forward into the JS era.

To be fair to the leadership and the deacons under JS, they had been soaked, yea steeped, in that philosophy from JH, so they would have found it very, very hard to stand up to JS.

In my opinion, Bro Wilkerson has done a pretty good job; it is my impression that he is gently trying to steer people away from the man-worship and is slowing weeding out those who, knowing their errors, still supported JH and JS.

As I said previously, a time needs to come when he does need to publicly state that the former teachings were not Scriptural.

If Wilkerson is rightly dividing God's Word why does he need to go back and dig up old dirt.  The very fact that he is teaching/preaching God's Word would mean that he is preaching against any unscriptural practices from the past.

He's leading a church...as in the arms, legs and voice of Christ on earth.
He's leading a church that has, in the past, proclaimed it led Fundamentalism.
And he's not supposed to acknowledge and correct past DOCTRINAL error?

That's akin to a math teacher who's predecessor taught 1+1=7. You've got to address the error or you cause great confusion.

And there is an entire herd of elephants in Hammond.

He is correcting doctrinal error by rightly dividing God's Word.  He doesn't have to say, "Let me tell you about the doctrinal error that has been taught by my predecessor(s)".  He corrects doctrinal error by saying, "Here's what the Scripture teaches and here's what is true and false based on that".

A Math teacher does not need to come in and say, "Your previous teacher was a moron".  The math teacher can come in and say, "Let me show you why 1 + 1 = 2".  It achieves the same goal.

Have you considered what scripture tells us to do about false teachers in the church?
I do not see how you can deal with a terrible sin that you refuse even to speak about publicly.
But, that's just me, i'm not trying to salvage a legacy, just deal with the sin.

Who would you put on the list of false teachers at FBCH?

 

[sword]

I have never known a pastor to take over a troubled church and start by pointing out all the places the church was wrong in the past. I have never heard of a new CEO, at a troubled corporation, come in and point out all the mistakes the company made before he arrived. A smart CEO comes in and quickly begins to change the culture, the climate and the direction of the company. He establishes new directives, sets new goals, and presents a vision for the future. In almost every case, the past is ignored and the focus is mainly on the future. Going forward, past mistakes are to be be avoided, but they should not the focus.

FBCH already knows about the problems of the past, what they need is to be led in the right direction going forward. The rebuilding pastor?s job is to start with the foundation and rebuild the ministry line upon line, precept upon precept. He goes back to the basics (soul winning & personal evangelism, discipleship, the home, Heaven, personal sacrifice and service, separation from the word, the love of God...) all of which Wilkerson has done.

I think trying to address & point out the mistakes, his predecessors may or may not have made, would cause more harm than good. As far as Eddie is concerned, the deacons and the congregation displayed trust and confidence in him when they choose him as the interim pastor. I do not see any changes in his employment unless he chooses to leave.

 

[Phooey-dini]

Are they still making candy-grams for their mennagawd?

 

[Baptist City Holdout]

Are they still making candy-grams for their mennagawd?

As in "There may be SNICKERS, but we think you are worth a 100Grand since you're the best preacher from CLARK ST. to the end of the MILKY WAY"