Grace Journey is out by Cindy Hyles Collins
- Thread starter Sherryh
- Start date
Amazon shows the author's name on the front cover as Cindy Hyles Schaap.
I went ahead and bought the book-I am interested to see what she has to say. I'm really mixed on her. I feel bad for her life falling apart for her the way it did, but also wonder where she would be had it not happened.
Last edited:
I read about half of her book last night. She's growing on me. She does seem to have exchanged fundamentalism for Biblical Christianity. She quotes a contemporary Christian song in her book as well as talks a little about getting over being judgmental. I understand it must be a difficult position for her to to recognize the error in the Hyles way, while at the same time not wanting to destroy those from her past including her own father. She manages to do it with class. She shows what she has learned without coming across as condemning those still part of the fundy world.
Interestingly she lives in the same areas of NC where I used to live. I was familiar with all of the churches there that had helped her on her journey. She mentions Liberty Baptist which is a (Hyles style Fundy church), Beacon Baptist (used to be Raleigh First Free Will) which used to be fundy free will baptist, although the pastor seems to run more in the fundy world now. Then she mentions Colonial Baptist, which is a huge baptist church that is not fundy, but still on the conservative side. I would assume based on her more reasonable beliefs this may be where she ended up.
Maybe her and her son will finally give the Hyles name a legacy folks will want to remember.
Interestingly she lives in the same areas of NC where I used to live. I was familiar with all of the churches there that had helped her on her journey. She mentions Liberty Baptist which is a (Hyles style Fundy church), Beacon Baptist (used to be Raleigh First Free Will) which used to be fundy free will baptist, although the pastor seems to run more in the fundy world now. Then she mentions Colonial Baptist, which is a huge baptist church that is not fundy, but still on the conservative side. I would assume based on her more reasonable beliefs this may be where she ended up.
Maybe her and her son will finally give the Hyles name a legacy folks will want to remember.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2013
- Messages
- 4,336
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 48
My wife read the entire book in a night. She really liked it and was really impressed with Cindy's perspective. Hard not to feel bad for her. Even if she was part of the problem at HAC, you hate for someone's world to crumble like that. Good to see her testify of God's grace and her growth through the problems.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2013
- Messages
- 4,336
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 48
Cindy was THE Christian Womanhood. Presenting all of the notions of what Christian women should be and not be. In her latest book, she acknowledges that she was wrong. She only knew this one perspective of what to teach in Marriage and Motherhood classes and seminars. By her advice or admonishment, many women stayed in abusive relationships. She acknowledges this and repents of it. I don't think of her as a Ray Young or Eddie Lapina or one of the many scandal ridden people. I think of her as a kid who grew up in the fishbowl and tried living up to expectations while feeling like the glue that held so much of it together at home. It is a pretty tough place to be in. She taught what she knew to teach because she was asked to teach it and doing so made it all work. I think she did believe all that she taught and I understand her pain and sorrow when her world came crashing down.
So, yes, she was part of the problem. But not in a sinister way. Make sense?
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 19
- Points
- 3
As a result of your post on 10/19, I purchased a Kindle copy that very day and completed the read on the very next night. I am always on the lookout for good material to help others recover from abuse (especially good material for our ladies) . It was an easy read, and it was obviously written with the desire to help others from her struggle and not from a position of bitterness seeking revenge (which to me is extremely important). There were many helpful Scriptures, and it was obvious that she purposely exercised great discretion when talking about sensitive issues / facts that the reader just did not need to know.
The ONLY part of the book that made me uncomfortable was the many times she used the phrase or suggested that "God spoke / led / directed / directly to me" or something similar. In my experience in dealing with men, ministry leadership, and pastors in ministry, this phrase is often used to cover and insulate a person from question and criticism. After all, if God told you, who am I to disagree with God. Typically, there is not any particular verse or passage on which to base the assertion. Often when questioned or pushed, the person admits it to be a strong feeling or sense that prompted the invoking of God's authority.
Other than that caution / disclaimer, I would recommend the book to others.
Another book that has been a great help to others that I HIGHLY recommend for hurting people is Ann Wagner's book, Hope for the Hurting: A Personal Account of Overcoming Abuse and Betrayal and Gaining the Victory.
Certainly true... everyone always claims to be led by the Lord in whatever they are doing, even if it turns out to be something else.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2013
- Messages
- 4,336
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 48
This is true of Southern Baptists also. So many interviews with pastors when they are sharing to other pastors begins with "The Lord laid on my heart..." "I felt God directing me..." It isn't just a fundy thing. It is a tactic employed by many to invoke God's name so that they are not to be questioned.
Indeed. I don't have to look far - in my own life, I could have and did use this phrase many times; some times, it was clearly God's leading; other times, it was my own inclinations I was following. There are big decisions, such as joining a church or whom to marry, and there are lesser decisions. I believe that time is a great revealer in these cases. I can say that my marriage has been God's leading. I have joined churches that I would have said were God's leading, but, in hindsight, they were not. However, the last time we left a (cult-like) church, I can definitely say that it was God's leading; we were blessed to find an excellent church, and all of the family has grown more spiritual there.
Her husband who was holding to these "standards" was raping a child. Does not seem like these standards protected him from going off the rails. From reading her book it does not seem these were ever "her" standards. More like what she was told she had to follow.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,411
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Yes, marrying a guy who didn't diddle teenagers was definitely dropping her standards.
She didn't drop standards. She changed them.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 2,818
- Reaction score
- 343
- Points
- 83
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 491
- Points
- 83
Someone please explain to me why the "standard" of banning women's pants should be maintained. In the 1980s I was a member of an IFB church where the ban on women's slacks was preached and obeyed, but as many as 9 girls became pregnant out of wedlock in a church with an attendance of less than 250.
The ban on women's slacks did not seem to prevent clergy immorality at FBC-Hammond, IN, or Trinity Baptist, Jacksonville, FL or Faith Baptist, Wildomar, CA or a lot of other IFB churches. This "standard" is helpful for putting all the blame for immorality on the ladies, and excusing the lustful IFB men who just couldn't help themselves because they saw a woman wearing slacks. I question whether there are really any IFB men anywhere who really have that kind of lust problem, but if they do, then they need to get saved instead of blaming the women for their own lust problems. (Or maybe pluck their own eyes out, Matthew 5:29, instead of shifting all the blame to the female victims of their lust).
Wayne Hardy, in Global Baptist Times, Nov.-Dec. 2017, stated that "There are few more polarizing issues among independent Baptist churches than the issue of dress. One reason is because many have made it a litmus test of spirituality for women. This not only seems wrong, but unfortunate. I've seen many instances in which a church's view of dress for ladies most closely resembled what Jesus must have fought against with the Pharisees." So far, so good, but then he goes on to explain why "I continue encouraging our ladies to embrace the dress." He has two reasons - because of what is on the signs on bathroom walls, and because if women do not wear "feminine dress," then the young men in his church (Bible Baptist Church, Stillwater, Oklahoma) might want to start wearing skirts. He concludes by admitting that "The articles of clothing are not in themselves biblical issues, giving pastors plenty of freedom." Presumably that gives Cindy Hyles and the other ladies some freedom, too.
Nowhere in his article does Pastor Hardy reference Deuteronomy 22:5, the favorite proof-text of those who uphold the britch-banning "standard." I take that omission as a tacit admission that this verse has no bearing on the question of whether Christian women in 21st Century AD America are forbidden to wear slacks. At the time that Moses gave that law, nobody in the region of Canaan wore slacks - everybody, men and women, wore robe-like garments. Why would Moses issue a prohibition for something that no one was doing anyhow?
End of rant.
The ban on women's slacks did not seem to prevent clergy immorality at FBC-Hammond, IN, or Trinity Baptist, Jacksonville, FL or Faith Baptist, Wildomar, CA or a lot of other IFB churches. This "standard" is helpful for putting all the blame for immorality on the ladies, and excusing the lustful IFB men who just couldn't help themselves because they saw a woman wearing slacks. I question whether there are really any IFB men anywhere who really have that kind of lust problem, but if they do, then they need to get saved instead of blaming the women for their own lust problems. (Or maybe pluck their own eyes out, Matthew 5:29, instead of shifting all the blame to the female victims of their lust).
Wayne Hardy, in Global Baptist Times, Nov.-Dec. 2017, stated that "There are few more polarizing issues among independent Baptist churches than the issue of dress. One reason is because many have made it a litmus test of spirituality for women. This not only seems wrong, but unfortunate. I've seen many instances in which a church's view of dress for ladies most closely resembled what Jesus must have fought against with the Pharisees." So far, so good, but then he goes on to explain why "I continue encouraging our ladies to embrace the dress." He has two reasons - because of what is on the signs on bathroom walls, and because if women do not wear "feminine dress," then the young men in his church (Bible Baptist Church, Stillwater, Oklahoma) might want to start wearing skirts. He concludes by admitting that "The articles of clothing are not in themselves biblical issues, giving pastors plenty of freedom." Presumably that gives Cindy Hyles and the other ladies some freedom, too.
Nowhere in his article does Pastor Hardy reference Deuteronomy 22:5, the favorite proof-text of those who uphold the britch-banning "standard." I take that omission as a tacit admission that this verse has no bearing on the question of whether Christian women in 21st Century AD America are forbidden to wear slacks. At the time that Moses gave that law, nobody in the region of Canaan wore slacks - everybody, men and women, wore robe-like garments. Why would Moses issue a prohibition for something that no one was doing anyhow?
End of rant.
Last edited:
One funny/sad instance of the "girls must wear skirts" rule happened at a volleyball tournament last year. My daughter played against a team (it was U17 - so 16 & 17 year-olds) that had 1 girl that wore a skirt over her volleyball shorts (I don't think that adhered to the USAV uniform rules but maybe she had a religious exemption). If the goal of wearing a skirt was modesty because the volleyball shorts were considered immodest, it was a failure. This girl still dove for balls and rolled as most other volleyball players do. This often caused the skirt to flip up and expose the volleyball shorts underneath. It seemed to me that adhering to a rule (wearing a skirt at all times) was the goal rather than what that rule was originally intended to accomplish.