FBCH making things right?

[Phooey-dini]

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"

EXACTLY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sawthruglassclearly]

I think there were countless false teachers there. I don't believe JH "created" ALL of them, though.  Without any doubt from me, he created the majority, but there were also false teachers who came TO him, to join WITH him, and he fostered them. Some of those had been exposed elsewhere and JH would offer them a job in Hammond.  I also feel that some of those were the MOST brazen false teachers, because they came to Hammond KNOWING that JH understood them, that they'd gotten away with it before, and that JH would allow them to continue in his own presence.  My abuser was one of those.  There had been abuse in another chuch, JH knew and offered the job.  Then there were other victims at FBCH before me.  I remember an item used as a threat to me; it was a letter, one from the days of carbon copies. It was a carbon of a letter sent to JH detailing all of the supposed eyewitness accounts of DH's indiscretions and it was addressed as if the original had been sent to JH. It did frighten me, but I knew that I had right and sanity on my side.  When the worst happened, and my family was in the eye of the storm, JH asked that all of our proof be given to him, without question. The sane and right members of my family absolutely would not do that and he became outrageously angry and indignant. We were told then, that he knew about some of what had happened to me and had done nothing to stop it because he was "in the process of finding another place for ________."  JH wanted to meet with me privately and when that was not agreed to, he asked many pointed questions regarding the perverse. He wanted to know about these things. It was as though he was getting a sick pleasure out of it.  He got no answers, but we could see the glint in his eye.  My family brought up the letter and its contents.  We could see that it struck home. His attitude was quite disgusting.  There was one person in my family who both respected and feared him.  It was because of that one person that things didn't end as they should have.  Seeing that place for what it really was, along with the abuse created a sad window for me for a while. A window that I could only look out of, not open.  That window got me working on a way out and I finally did it.  I got out and away.  My family tracked my abuser and made sure that other "placements" didn't work out, or happen at all.  If I'd not had the right family members to get me through, I don't know if I'd ever have gotten through it.
I offered up a lot there, as I was responding to the posters I'd just read.  I believe I can make a point, though:  There are so many stories about wrongdoing in that place, that I don't believe JW could deal with all of them.  There are undoubtedly many guilty who remain.  But some cases, like mine, go back so far,  with so many of the people involved ancient, dead, or long gone, that not everything can be verified.  Some wouldn't even believe it if it could. It would be ideal for that place to be cleaned out entirely so they could start over.  I also think that because there were so many victims who went unheard and that the damage could never be undone, we are consequently often stuck in the FBCH we knew at the time of our incident.  Liken it to "Hotel California"-- "you can check out, but you can never leave".  Even if JW cleaned house and began again, I could never go back to that place.  I've helped offer solace and/ or clarity to some over the years. Sadly, after rebuilding my life and having a life apart and some happiness, success, that is all I've been able to do.  There are those who just WiLL NOT see.

 

[Jo]

That coincides with everything I know about the place, as well.

You were very fortunate to have the majority of your family helping you and encouraging you.  I have a relative that prefers to keep her head in the sand.  Even when I say nothing about the place, she defends it.  I have great respect and love for her.  I often feel that it is not reciprocated.

I'm glad you got away.

 

[sawthruglassclearly]

Jo, I understand, and that is a tough and lonesome spot to be in.

 

[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.

[emoji23]

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

Well, it was 30+ years under JH, and about another 10 under Schaap.  That won't be done immediately.  He has been there for what? about 5 years?

 

[Walt]

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.

I understand what you are saying, and many leaders follow this philosophy.

However, I do not think that it is Scriptural to only preach truth; error must be pointed out and denounced as well... some people won't realize error until it is pointed out to them.

 

[Walt]

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.

You don't have to call the previous teacher a "moron" - you can say that some erroneously teach that 1+1=7, or that there has been teaching that 1+1=7, but that is not true for these reasons.

He can incorporate Hyles' and Schaap's sayings into error - "A pastor who insists that he has 'veto power' in your life is acting like a cult leader, not a pastor".  He can and should refute the prosperity teaching of Schaap.  He doesn't need to call them names, but he should identify the teachings and note that those teachings are wrong for these reasons...

 

[Walt]

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.

I agree, but he DOES make changes.  If the company is making buggy whips, he must lead them into making something relevant. If there are marketing people not doing their job, he needs to weed them out... perhaps make things uncomfortable so that they will look elsewhere.

There should be able to come a time when he can say "When I came here, this business had been going the wrong direction through mismanagement - I have turned that around".  I agree that he doesn't need to say it at the beginning, but if he does his job properly, he should (eventually) be able to point out that the previous CEO(s) were wrong.

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 don't know if FBCH knows about the problems of the past; Schaap was a symptom of the problem, not the problem.  The shallow evangelism, push for numbers, man worship, Baptist pope, and other leadership issues were the real problem.  I  would guess that about 40% of the church would love to have Jack Hyles as their pastor again, if such were possible.

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.

I personally think it would clear the air.

I cannot tell you what a tremendous blessing it was to listen to Tom Brennan's "39 Years and Independent Baptist..." message and to clear the air about some topics that really needed clearing out.  He didn't call Jack Hyles names, but he DID say he was wrong.  He pointed out errors with Revival Fires (Dennis Corle) and Sword of the Lord (Shelton Smith) in their dealing with sin among the people they promoted. He never demeaned them or called them names; he just pointed out that they were wrong in what they did.

The fact that there is concern about losing too many people from FBCH if he pointed out some of Hyles' errors is proof that much work still needs to be done.

 

[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.

I understand what you are saying, and many leaders follow this philosophy.

However, I do not think that it is Scriptural to only preach truth; error must be pointed out and denounced as well... some people won't realize error until it is pointed out to them.

I agree.  You can point our error without saying, "This church use to preach this, but....."

 

[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.

You don't have to call the previous teacher a "moron" - you can say that some erroneously teach that 1+1=7, or that there has been teaching that 1+1=7, but that is not true for these reasons.

He can incorporate Hyles' and Schaap's sayings into error - "A pastor who insists that he has 'veto power' in your life is acting like a cult leader, not a pastor".  He can and should refute the prosperity teaching of Schaap.  He doesn't need to call them names, but he should identify the teachings and note that those teachings are wrong for these reasons...

I can agree with that.

 

[Jo]

Just as victims of abuse must acknowledge it in order to heal, so must the church.  Rape is not always about sex. It is about power.  It is about hurting another human being. When it permeates a church body, it should be addressed, along with heresy, pride and everything else people grapple with.  Isn't that what Paul wrote about? It was necessary then. It is necessary now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sword]

Just as victims of abuse must acknowledge it in order to heal, so must the church.  Rape is not always about sex. It is about power.  It is about hurting another human being. When it permeates a church body, it should be addressed, along with heresy, pride and everything else people grapple with.  Isn't that what Paul wrote about? It was necessary then. It is necessary now.

You speak as if it happened a few months ago. Dave Hyles left Hammond over 40 years ago. Most of those in decision making positions, at that time, have either retired or are dead. The church has moved past this period many many years ago. There is nothing for it to confess or to heal from.

If trying to get the laws changed is helpful for Joy then I support her efforts. It's time for everyone to put the past in the past and move on. The less we hear of DH the better. I can only assume very few people will be sending him money, I know I will not be sending him a dime. It amazes me that he can go online and act like he is the victim.

 

[fishinnut]

You speak as if it happened a few months ago. Dave Hyles left Hammond over 40 years ago.
[/quote]40 years is a bit high. If my memory is right Davey-boy left in 1982 or 1983.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I know a church is not a business and deciding how to handle things in church are much more complicated and nuanced than a business or a corporation.
Especially when dealing with the congregation who do not get paid nor are they obligated to attend. However, dealing with paid staff members is a different proposition.
With all due deference to what someone posted earlier...when a troubled business is taken over the executive, decision making leadership of said failed business will find their days are numbered.

I repeat, I believe Pastor Wilkerson is a man of integrity.
But when it comes to his dealing (or not dealing) with the executive leadership of FBH, I have a few doubts about either his wisdom or his courage.
Not sure which. 

 

[Jo]

Just as victims of abuse must acknowledge it in order to heal, so must the church.  Rape is not always about sex. It is about power.  It is about hurting another human being. When it permeates a church body, it should be addressed, along with heresy, pride and everything else people grapple with.  Isn't that what Paul wrote about? It was necessary then. It is necessary now.

You speak as if it happened a few months ago. Dave Hyles left Hammond over 40 years ago. Most of those in decision making positions, at that time, have either retired or are dead. The church has moved past this period many many years ago. There is nothing for it to confess or to heal from.

If trying to get the laws changed is helpful for Joy then I support her efforts. It's time for everyone to put the past in the past and move on. The less we hear of DH the better. I can only assume very few people will be sending him money, I know I will not be sending him a dime. It amazes me that he can go online and act like he is the victim.

Interesting.  I realize now the OP was about Dave, but I wasn't specifically thinking of him.  My thoughts on this subject fit, however. Given the fact that there were repeated cases over the decades and the Schaap case was not all that long ago, I think it would be good for the church to put less stress on the outward appearance of a woman and more stress on the heart and soul.  We can all agree, I hope.

 

[Phooey-dini]

I repeat, I believe Pastor Wilkerson is a man of integrity.
But when it comes to his dealing (or not dealing) with the executive leadership of FBH, I have a few doubts about either his wisdom or his courage.
Not sure which. 

How about doubts about both?

 

[RAIDER]

You speak as if it happened a few months ago. Dave Hyles left Hammond over 40 years ago.

40 years is a bit high. If my memory is right Davey-boy left in 1982 or 1983.
[/quote]

I'm thinking it was around 1981.

 

[sword]

You speak as if it happened a few months ago. Dave Hyles left Hammond over 40 years ago.

40 years is a bit high. If my memory is right Davey-boy left in 1982 or 1983.

I'm thinking it was around 1981.
[/quote]

35 years is still a long time.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Just as victims of abuse must acknowledge it in order to heal, so must the church.  Rape is not always about sex. It is about power.  It is about hurting another human being. When it permeates a church body, it should be addressed, along with heresy, pride and everything else people grapple with.  Isn't that what Paul wrote about? It was necessary then. It is necessary now.

You speak as if it happened a few months ago. Dave Hyles left Hammond over 40 years ago. Most of those in decision making positions, at that time, have either retired or are dead. The church has moved past this period many many years ago. There is nothing for it to confess or to heal from.

If trying to get the laws changed is helpful for Joy then I support her efforts. It's time for everyone to put the past in the past and move on. The less we hear of DH the better. I can only assume very few people will be sending him money, I know I will not be sending him a dime. It amazes me that he can go online and act like he is the victim.

Interesting.  I realize now the OP was about Dave, but I wasn't specifically thinking of him.  My thoughts on this subject fit, however. Given the fact that there were repeated cases over the decades and the Schaap case was not all that long ago, I think it would be good for the church to put less stress on the outward appearance of a woman and more stress on the heart and soul.  We can all agree, I hope.

One does not negate the need for teaching on the other.  Modesty still is important.  I find it best if the elder women in the church take this charge.  So many young women do not have a modicum of proper decorum in their dress nor manners.  Simple things like foundation garments are totally lost on this generation (except for those who insist as wearing them as outer garments) and these things were common and understood by the most worldly of women of past generations.  I think using Schaap wickedness as an excuse to stray from biblical teaching is the secondary backlash that I have seen from many who were not grounded in the Word of God and followed teachings of men.  I knew and warned leadership of the rebellion soon coming in the youth after this debacle.  It is pure iniquity.

 

[Jo]

You speak as if it happened a few months ago. Dave Hyles left Hammond over 40 years ago.

40 years is a bit high. If my memory is right Davey-boy left in 1982 or 1983.

I'm thinking it was around 1981.

35 years is still a long time.
[/quote]

In 35 years, 45 years or 55 years, a LEGACY is established.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk