From Just a Member

[bgwilkinson]

My strong feeling is that 100% the deacon board should have resigned. Let us nominate and elect new members ourselves.

Do you ever get the feeling that Eddie has been around to long too?  He was both DH and JS right hand man as they went off the deep end.  (of course 30 years apart) 

As for Wilkerson, he seems like a nice guy, but I don't believe he has what it takes to clean house.  I think Eddie and the deacons picked him because he was a nice guy and would let them be.

I was hoping that someone like Jim Binney would be the pastor.  He was old enough not to care about stepping on some toes and could clean house for a couple of years and then someone like Wilkerson could take it.

Why do you think people should be run off?

Don't you think their sin should be exposed so they can be rebuked publicly so that others may fear, as the Bible says? Then they should be restored to fellowship, maybe not as a religious professional though.

Why should people be run off that have not sinned?

Bro. Hyles ran off Ed Minas and several other longtime members of FBCH. Then he bragged about it latter as it he was a hero for doing it.

Blessed are the peace makers.

It was not because of any Scriptural errors on the part of Mr Minas, it was only because of a difference of opinion on how to conduct church operations, ie. using bus transportation for Sunday School.

Bro Hyles was a bitter divider and someone who was always looking for a good fight. Bro. Wilkerson is more like the peace maker that is blessed.

When we had the vote to retain Bro. Hyles as pastor people under the age of 18 were allowed to vote, which is not allowed under Indiana not for profit corporation law. (FBCH has been a not for profit corporation since 1913) Bro. Hyles brought in kids to vote for him.

I have often wondered why the deacons at that time did not follow the law.  Had they followed the law Bro. Hyles would not have been retained as pastor.

I think it was Mr Minas and those that went with him to start the church on the south end of Holman Ave. that were the peace makers.

We surely have had a sordid history of bickering and ungodliness.

 

[Timotheus]

My strong feeling is that 100% the deacon board should have resigned. Let us nominate and elect new members ourselves.

Do you ever get the feeling that Eddie has been around to long too?  He was both DH and JS right hand man as they went off the deep end.  (of course 30 years apart) 

As for Wilkerson, he seems like a nice guy, but I don't believe he has what it takes to clean house.  I think Eddie and the deacons picked him because he was a nice guy and would let them be.

I was hoping that someone like Jim Binney would be the pastor.  He was old enough not to care about stepping on some toes and could clean house for a couple of years and then someone like Wilkerson could take it.

Why do you think people should be run off?

Don't you think their sin should be exposed so they can be rebuked publicly so that others may fear, as the Bible says? Then they should be restored to fellowship, maybe not as a religious professional though.

Why should people be run off that have not sinned?

I don't think people should be run off.  The predators, however, should be shown the door.  The deacons should have resigned and not be deacons for a while.  The staff leadership should have resigned and been laymen.  (not given vacations to Hawaii)

 

[Bravo]

Do you ever get the feeling that Eddie has been around to long too?  He was both DH and JS right hand man as they went off the deep end.  (of course 30 years apart) 


I was hoping that someone like Jim Binney would be the pastor.  He was old enough not to care about stepping on some toes and could clean house for a couple of years and then someone like Wilkerson could take it.

I felt that about Eddie ever since Eddie lied to us that Sunday of the Schaap debacle.

Jim Binney? No! Whatever went on in his previous ministry where they got rid of him is still up for question. He got hired by Schaap for a year at a salary no other staff was making. And for what? What exactly did he do at FBC? His sermon one Wednesday sometime after the debacle where he compared Schaap to king David was symptomatic of a huge problem at FBC. Comparing the pastor to a king? The most appropriate comparison should have been to him being Nathan the prophet since he was a preacher. You may think I'm nit picking but the pastor of a church should never be compared to a king.

 

[Timotheus]

Do you ever get the feeling that Eddie has been around to long too?  He was both DH and JS right hand man as they went off the deep end.  (of course 30 years apart) 


I was hoping that someone like Jim Binney would be the pastor.  He was old enough not to care about stepping on some toes and could clean house for a couple of years and then someone like Wilkerson could take it.

I felt that about Eddie ever since Eddie lied to us that Sunday of the Schaap debacle.

Jim Binney? No! Whatever went on in his previous ministry where they got rid of him is still up for question. He got hired by Schaap for a year at a salary no other staff was making. And for what? What exactly did he do at FBC? His sermon one Wednesday sometime after the debacle where he compared Schaap to king David was symptomatic of a huge problem at FBC. Comparing the pastor to a king? The most appropriate comparison should have been to him being Nathan the prophet since he was a preacher. You may think I'm not picking but the pastor of a church should never be compared to a king.

He was the only one who came to my mind old enough to fire Eddie.  He got shown the door pretty quickly after his Wed. night sermon.  That seemed to be a good sign to me.  All I knew of him before that was hearsay and the Wed. night prayer sheets.

You are right about a pastor should never be compared to a king, and I would say even a prophet.  Elder brother is the max that I can find in the NT.

 

[Bravo]

I don't mean to sound hateful about things or people but this does tend to weigh on you.

From what I heard Binney wasn't shown the door so much as his 1 year contract was over.

 

[Fresh Air]

Bro Hyles was a bitter divider

You post a lot of nonsensical things and  usually I can find it in me to ignore them, but this is just too much. I've known some bitter people, and I've studied it a bit in the Word of God. Bro. Hyles had some egregious flaws but bitter?

...stuff and nonsense.

It is this kind of verbiage from you that makes people throw your other opinions out the window without the courtesy of an honest look.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Bro Hyles was a bitter divider

You post a lot of nonsensical things and  usually I can find it in me to ignore them, but this is just too much. I've known some bitter people, and I've studied it a bit in the Word of God. Bro. Hyles had some egregious flaws but bitter?

...stuff and nonsense.

It is this kind of verbiage from you that makes people throw your other opinions out the window without the courtesy of an honest look.

Brother Tom,

With much respect to you I will try to explain.

Bro Hyles was growing in grace as we all are.  BG saw the early years of which Bro Hyles said himself that when you are young you make mistakes with people.  He admitted many times to mistakes in preaching that singled out individuals and going after grudges.

I think he matured spiritually and in age.  There were different Bro Hyles' throughout the many years.  I don't think he was always a divider.  I think sometimes to divide was for the best.  I think as he aged he exhibited more fruit of the Spirit just as we all should do.

I don't think a blanket statement of a divider represents every area of his life nor all of his life.

Bro Hyles did much for God, feet of clay, and he is now perfected. 

I hope I could do 1% of what he did.

BG comes full circle when all his thoughts on the matter come out.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Bro Hyles was a bitter divider

You post a lot of nonsensical things and  usually I can find it in me to ignore them, but this is just too much. I've known some bitter people, and I've studied it a bit in the Word of God. Bro. Hyles had some egregious flaws but bitter?

...stuff and nonsense.

It is this kind of verbiage from you that makes people throw your other opinions out the window without the courtesy of an honest look.

This was principally true in the 60s, he had a change of heart latter and tried to make it up to the folks at the new church on the south end of Holman, but it was too late they would have none of it.

Perhaps you did not know him in the 60s. He was a far different man then, than he was in later years after the college started.

He was very brash and abrasive. He mellowed as he aged. Perhaps bitter is too harsh, but I saw how he reacted up close. It was very hard for him in the 60s to adjust to the Chicago area.

I'm sorry to offend you, but I have to call it as I saw it. I loved and love Bro. Hyles but the truth should be told.
We have had lies and untruths for years, reality should now be setting in.

When we remember King David we don't just remember good things, we remember everything God put in the Bible concerning his whole life and work. The same for Bro. Hyles. Far to long people have glossed over the things about Bro. Hyles that we see now so negatively impact the cause of Christ.

 

[prophet]

Do you ever get the feeling that Eddie has been around to long too?  He was both DH and JS right hand man as they went off the deep end.  (of course 30 years apart) 


I was hoping that someone like Jim Binney would be the pastor.  He was old enough not to care about stepping on some toes and could clean house for a couple of years and then someone like Wilkerson could take it.

I felt that about Eddie ever since Eddie lied to us that Sunday of the Schaap debacle.

Jim Binney? No! Whatever went on in his previous ministry where they got rid of him is still up for question. He got hired by Schaap for a year at a salary no other staff was making. And for what? What exactly did he do at FBC? His sermon one Wednesday sometime after the debacle where he compared Schaap to king David was symptomatic of a huge problem at FBC. Comparing the pastor to a king? The most appropriate comparison should have been to him being Nathan the prophet since he was a preacher. You may think I'm nit picking but the pastor of a church should never be compared to a king.

Our Nicolaitan Way.

Anishinaabe

 

[bgwilkinson]

Do you ever get the feeling that Eddie has been around to long too?  He was both DH and JS right hand man as they went off the deep end.  (of course 30 years apart) 


I was hoping that someone like Jim Binney would be the pastor.  He was old enough not to care about stepping on some toes and could clean house for a couple of years and then someone like Wilkerson could take it.

I felt that about Eddie ever since Eddie lied to us that Sunday of the Schaap debacle.

Jim Binney? No! Whatever went on in his previous ministry where they got rid of him is still up for question. He got hired by Schaap for a year at a salary no other staff was making. And for what? What exactly did he do at FBC? His sermon one Wednesday sometime after the debacle where he compared Schaap to king David was symptomatic of a huge problem at FBC. Comparing the pastor to a king? The most appropriate comparison should have been to him being Nathan the prophet since he was a preacher. You may think I'm nit picking but the pastor of a church should never be compared to a king.

I believe EL has done a credible job in his post. He provided great transition from JH to JS on the business side.

EL has done much for my family. He has done much for my sons.

I do not know anything that would have disqualified him. Do you?

I have heard that EL lied. What was the lie that he told? I think it may have been the confusion of the whole
situation. No one really knew what was going on for sure on that Sunday. It was totally crazy.

I do feel for the folks out on the Left coast. I think they may know a little of what we went through.

As for EL and DH I have questioned him on this and believe he is not in any way responsible for anything DH did.
I would be more responsible as I and others did not do what should have been done with DH we relied on JH. Big mistake.

 

[brainisengaged]

Timotheus said: I don't think people should be run off.  The predators, however, should be shown the door.  The deacons should have resigned and not be deacons for a while.  The staff leadership should have resigned and been laymen.  (not given vacations to Hawaii)

Amen! Park there awhile!
I know I gave not a dime for THAT vacay.

However, I also do not wish to be misunderstood. By asking all of the deacons to resign, I do not mean they need to be run off. Let them be laity. The club needs to be broken up and new blood installed.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Timotheus said: I don't think people should be run off.  The predators, however, should be shown the door.  The deacons should have resigned and not be deacons for a while.  The staff leadership should have resigned and been laymen.  (not given vacations to Hawaii)

Amen! Park there awhile!
I know I gave not a dime for THAT vacay.

However, I also do not wish to be misunderstood. By asking all of the deacons to resign, I do not mean they need to be run off. Let them be laity. The club needs to be broken up and new blood installed.

I just want them to lead.  I want them all.  They are good men. I know they are servants I want them to lead by example.  Deacons lead us to revival.  I am praying for you.  Many of us are ready. 

 

[bgwilkinson]

Timotheus said: I don't think people should be run off.  The predators, however, should be shown the door.  The deacons should have resigned and not be deacons for a while.  The staff leadership should have resigned and been laymen.  (not given vacations to Hawaii)

Amen! Park there awhile!
I know I gave not a dime for THAT vacay.

However, I also do not wish to be misunderstood. By asking all of the deacons to resign, I do not mean they need to be run off. Let them be laity. The club needs to be broken up and new blood installed.

I have thought the same thing myself, but, how would you propose that we do that?

There is no provision to remove a deacon except for heresy, immoral or illegal behavior.

Then it would be quit the process.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

My strong feeling is that 100% the deacon board should have resigned. Let us nominate and elect new members ourselves.

Do you ever get the feeling that Eddie has been around to long too?  He was both DH and JS right hand man as they went off the deep end.  (of course 30 years apart) 

As for Wilkerson, he seems like a nice guy, but I don't believe he has what it takes to clean house.  I think Eddie and the deacons picked him because he was a nice guy and would let them be.

I was hoping that someone like Jim Binney would be the pastor.  He was old enough not to care about stepping on some toes and could clean house for a couple of years and then someone like Wilkerson could take it.

Why do you think people should be run off?

Don't you think their sin should be exposed so they can be rebuked publicly so that others may fear, as the Bible says? Then they should be restored to fellowship, maybe not as a religious professional though.

Why should people be run off that have not sinned?

I don't think people should be run off.  The predators, however, should be shown the door.  The deacons should have resigned and not be deacons for a while.  The staff leadership should have resigned and been laymen.  (not given vacations to Hawaii)

Eddie is far from innocent.  Timotheus knows of that which he speaks, and so do I.  Church discipline should be meeted out, not trips to Hawaii.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Do you ever get the feeling that Eddie has been around to long too?  He was both DH and JS right hand man as they went off the deep end.  (of course 30 years apart) 


I was hoping that someone like Jim Binney would be the pastor.  He was old enough not to care about stepping on some toes and could clean house for a couple of years and then someone like Wilkerson could take it.

I felt that about Eddie ever since Eddie lied to us that Sunday of the Schaap debacle.

Jim Binney? No! Whatever went on in his previous ministry where they got rid of him is still up for question. He got hired by Schaap for a year at a salary no other staff was making. And for what? What exactly did he do at FBC? His sermon one Wednesday sometime after the debacle where he compared Schaap to king David was symptomatic of a huge problem at FBC. Comparing the pastor to a king? The most appropriate comparison should have been to him being Nathan the prophet since he was a preacher. You may think I'm nit picking but the pastor of a church should never be compared to a king.

I believe EL has done a credible job in his post. He provided great transition from JH to JS on the business side.

EL has done much for my family. He has done much for my sons.

I do not know anything that would have disqualified him. Do you?

I have heard that EL lied. What was the lie that he told? I think it may have been the confusion of the whole
situation. No one really knew what was going on for sure on that Sunday. It was totally crazy.

I do feel for the folks out on the Left coast. I think they may know a little of what we went through.

As for EL and DH I have questioned him on this and believe he is not in any way responsible for anything DH did.
I would be more responsible as I and others did not do what should have been done with DH we relied on JH. Big mistake.

C'mon - Seriously?

The great lie is that which Eddie proclaimed to your church as he told them JS was sick, or on vacation, or something along that line the first Sunday. 

Eddie was right with DH through all of the junk.  Eddie was right with JS through all of the junk.  He seems like the caretaker of the cesspool, rather than a restorer of cleanliness.  He seems to be always with the one who is guilty of gross crimes and gross misconduct.  Eddie behaved inappropriately with girls in the youth group.  If a teen boy in HB behaved with his girlfriend in public the same way that Eddie behaved with that boy's girlfriend in public, the HB boy would be suspended form school.  It was frequent, obvious and open.  Who knows what went on in private.  The adoration among the teen girls for Eddie was only matched by the adoration of Jack Schaap - maybe Eddie's was higher.  It wasn't normal.

Grounds for a legal case?  Nope.  I don't have enough.  The world tells us "Where there is smoke, there is fire."  Scripture tells us "Pro_6:27  Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?"  Grounds for a church to act?  Put it this way - I won't be present on the property while he is on staff - even to visit with family who is still in your church.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Eddie is far from innocent.  Timotheus knows of that which he speaks, and so do I. Church discipline should be meeted out, not trips to Hawaii.

Ok I'm Game.  Church Discipline - I'm all for it. Scripturally of course.

1.  What are we disciplining for?

Matthew 18:15a Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee,


2.  Have you asked for a Matthew 18 meeting?

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone:

3.  Now if he won't meet with you then maybe I will help facilitate this in accordance with:
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Now we are on the correct road to church discipline.

Now if what you charge is true and he is unrepentant then we have to go a step further.

Matthew 18:17  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

C'mon - Seriously?

The great lie is that which Eddie proclaimed to your church as he told them JS was sick, or on vacation, or something along that line the first Sunday. 

Oh wait this is the charge?  Were you there?  I was.  "if thy brother shall trespass against thee" If you weren't there then how can this be a matter of church discipline?  I was there and I heard that others found this to be a lie.  So what did I do? I practiced Matthew 18:15.  So in this case church discipline was practiced.  I questioned the veracity of the statement made by him to me.  I was satisfied with his answer.  No longer did I have reason to pursue any other course of action.  I found his answer reasonable, truthful and forthcoming.

But that is what I did.  Others in the congregation should do the very same thing if they want to obey God.

Eddie was right with DH through all of the junk.  Eddie was right with JS through all of the junk.  He seems like the caretaker of the cesspool, rather than a restorer of cleanliness.  He seems to be always with the one who is guilty of gross crimes and gross misconduct.  Eddie behaved inappropriately with girls in the youth group.  If a teen boy in HB behaved with his girlfriend in public the same way that Eddie behaved with that boy's girlfriend in public, the HB boy would be suspended form school.  It was frequent, obvious and open.  Who knows what went on in private.  The adoration among the teen girls for Eddie was only matched by the adoration of Jack Schaap - maybe Eddie's was higher.  It wasn't normal.

Ok this seems to be of innuendo, supposition and hearsay but i'll bite if you feel any of these things come to the level of:  Matthew 18:15a Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee,

We may be into a different church discipline here because these kind of charges are things you saw as opposed to something done against you but nevertheless I am all for making sure we follow God in this area.

Let's move to the brother taken in a fault.

Ga 6:1  Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

So again we must go to him.

1.  Now if we follow the Matthew 18 model then you should start.  Before you do though make sure you are right with God and your spirit is in check so you are not tempted also.  Really important because this is spiritual warfare and there are unseen things that attack you in this world and if you are not spiritually prepared to handle them through the Spirit of God then you are at high risk.  Please don't do this kind of battle unprepared.  Full armour of God kind of stuff.

2.  And if you find that he won't hear you then we must get 1 or 2 others to go with you.  I will go as a matter of obedience to scripture.

Luke 17:3-4  Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

And then we can continue down the same path if the answer that you seek or the repentance that you seek is not forthcoming.

Now if what you imply is true that he is a sexual deviate then we must by all means move to remove him from the pastorate immediately. 

I Corinthians 5:9-13  I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:  Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Grounds for a legal case?  Nope.  I don't have enough.  The world tells us "Where there is smoke, there is fire." 

Yeah this makes it difficult because whether we want to admit it or not it is a bit of a "legal" case.  I mean we are dealing with the law of God here and there is a requirement of witnesses, prosecution, judgment and sentence so we have to at least have the ability to present a case.  I am not interested in what the world tells us.  I am interested in what God says.

Scripture tells us "Pro_6:27  Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?"

Ok scripture good although it is out of context for church discipline.  I can not make a judgment on what fire a man has taken into his bosom.  That is a personal warning to the individual and not an actionable area for church discipline.  Now the grounds you have stated for the church to act is:

Grounds for a church to act?  Put it this way - I won't be present on the property while he is on staff - even to visit with family who is still in your church.

1.  Extortion is not the biblical response to church discipline.
2.  Whether or not you personally will be on church grounds is not the reason for church discipline.
3.  Acts of any man should not prevent you from worship with your family.
4.  Forgive me for judging you if I am wrong but You seem like you are holding on to some personal issue against EL and you want justice for that issue.  The biblical response is back again to Matthew 18

I really want FBCH to practice Godly Scriptural church discipline.  I have wanted it for years.  However church discipline should be done strictly according to the Word of God.  Many have no idea what church discipline is.  They have never practiced it.  Never seen it.  Never saw God work wonderful restoration through it.  Church discipline is not a way to even scores.  It is not a way to air personal vendettas.  It is not God sanctioned vengeance.

Church discipline is a way for the church to correct members who are taking a wrong path and restore them to be useful for the kingdom of God. It is also a warning to all other members to examine themselves lest they also be overtaken.  It is a ministry of restoration when it is done correctly and rarely is it a ministry of ostracization.

Binaca Chugger  or anyone else, if you are serious about church discipline and obeying God's word of Matthew 18, Luke 17, Galatians 6 I will help you, I am serious about this matter but if you throw the word around and you are not practicing it yourself just talking about it then you can answer to God about it.

 

[Norefund]

".  I questioned the veracity of the statement made by him to me.  I was satisfied with his answer.  No longer did I have reason to pursue any other course of action.  I found his answer reasonable, truthful and forthcoming."

I would love to hear more detail on this as I have always been quite troubled by the mistruth/explanation about the JS absence  spoken to the congregation from the pulpit by EL that first morning. What question did you ask and what was the answer that satisfied you?

 

[TidesofTruth]

".  I questioned the veracity of the statement made by him to me.  I was satisfied with his answer.  No longer did I have reason to pursue any other course of action.  I found his answer reasonable, truthful and forthcoming."

I would love to hear more detail on this as I have always been quite troubled by the mistruth/explanation about the JS absence  spoken to the congregation from the pulpit by EL that first morning. What question did you ask and what was the answer that satisfied you?

All statements are paraphrases and impressions of questions and answers because I did not record him.
The Question:  Was the announcement of Jack Schaap being sick and subsequent sabbatical a coverup for his sexual sin.  Was it to buy time to figure out a course of action.  What did you know and when did you know it.

Answer:  Jack Schaap stated that he was "sick".  (me: We do know that to be what he stated in his answer to the courts) There was a photo found on his phone that was explained away by Jack Schaap that was inappropriate  but was not to the level of fornication.  On Sunday they had that picture, that excuse and an agreement of a sabbatical for health reasons.  (No detail on the health reasons were given to me.  But later stated in Schaap's brief)  The sabbatical was agreed to be for health reasons.  That was what was told to the church because that was what was agreed to.  It wasn't until the following day that the rest of the evidence was fully known. 

I would not expect with the picture that they had that he would get up on Sunday Morning and said "We have caught Jack Schaap in Fornication and we have terminated his employment".  It just wouldn't hold water at that time.  They did give him an out until they had more evidence of a health sabbatical.  I have no problem with that if you are in the middle of investigating something and not all the facts are in.  It would not be appropriate to go off half cocked with limited data and ruin a testimony until you had your case to present.  In my mind I believe they handled this quite well.  That is what I have come to as conclusion. 

However if you have questions BY ALL MEANS EXCERCISE MATTHEW 18 & LUKE 17.  You really need to practice this.  FBCH needs to start practicing scriptural church discipline and every member is responsible.  If we really examine ourselves and are contrite and humble in spirit we must repent of our sin of not following the Word of God in this area.  WE ARE RESPONSIBLE. 

 

[RAIDER]

>Deacons who let the Preacher Man walk all over them are guilty.
>Pew members who heard questionable things time and time again, but just swallowed them because they were said by the Preacher are guilty.
>Staff members who sat in meetings with unholy actions such as the reaming out of fellow staff-members, the use of profanity, and the vagaries of a tyrant king presiding over a kingdom of fawning yes-men are guilty.
>Pew members and staff alike who viciously shunned anyone who tried to voice their insight as to the fact there was something wrong in Camelot are guilty.
>A church that relentlessly knocks on every door in the area and acts as if you don't really go to church unless you go to OUR church...is guilty
>A church that thinks following a man who is following God (ostensibly) is the same as following God...is guilty

I think there is a lot for which to apologize, and I think the letterwriter felt the same inclination. Since some of these things were never properly acknowledged or addressed, they are starting to happen again.

Absolutely!

 

[brainisengaged]

Yes! I believe there are many who feel a lie was told from the pulpit that Sunday morning in July of 2012...

Believe it or not (I know my disparaging posts will make this hard to believe), I am trying to let EL off the hook in my own mind. I am TRYING to let it go.

But he did, if memory serves, get up there and say, in a fairly rambling speech that had my antennae up -- Pastor Schaap is on vacation in Maine right now. But he is sick. Very sick, his old health issues have returned. (Prostate) He is so sick, I flew to Maine to see him. I talked to him and to Cindy for a long, long time. He works too hard. We urge him constantly to take more time off. The burden of this church is so great...He is going to take some time off. He may be off for a long time. Maybe months. We told him, however long he needs to just get better.

Of course after all this time, I really am paraphrasing. But it was like, "Ok, he is so sick he is in dire straits. But he is in a remote area of Maine where he can't be close to his doctor or his hospital. Why did ELapina have to fly there....presumably also on the church's dime....to talk to him about the fact he is sick and needs to take more time off? Did not ring true.

And, turned out to be not true at all. This is all getting rather faded in my memory, but by then didn't ELapina know about the lewd photographs being discovered? The whole Youth Conference debacle had taken place the week before. I have heard that it was not merely ELapina that flew to Maine, and that it was not for the purpose of urging the pastor to take more time off and better care for his health.

To me, then, that was a lie. It either represents a person whose own character sees no problem with lying or a person who feels the church is so important it is necessary to do anything to protect it. Either viewpoint is disturbing to me. (I feel at FBC we make an idol of The Church)

I applaud the fact, Tides of Truth, that you went to speak to ELapina on this matter. I have heard of someone else doing the same. I do not know what answer the other person was given, but he has left the church. He did say he represented many people who wanted an answer.

What I want to know is, why do we have to personally go one by one and ask him to explain what SEEMED like a bald-faced lie that has many people disturbed to this day? Why can't he get up and explain himself publically? I would be entirely satisfied if he ever once would publically (and he has had plenty of opportunities behind the microphone on the platform) explain to us why he thought it best to say what he said. I would believe him and I would accept what he had to say. But he will never publically acknowledge it, and that is disturbing to me.