If not for Dave Hyles.............

[RAIDER]

And people wonder why that place is referred to as a "cult".  You are fortunate that you left after 4 years.  This stuff just doesn't make sense, does it.  But, sadly....I get it.  The one thing I don't get is why BG is still there.

BG has had many an issue for many a year yet remained.  Why gripe, whine, and complain about it when you are still in it.

Let's be a little more fair please. He is asked questions about his time there of his take on issues that have happened. Answering a question, that several others have asked, cannot be called griping, it's called
answering a question.

The recent post was a lot stronger today, but I will still give him a benefit of the doubt at this time

I will correct my post.

BG has had many an issue for many a year, yet remained.  He has remained a deacon when he knew there was wrong taking place.  BG had insight that few had, yet continued to support the ministry. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And people wonder why that place is referred to as a "cult".  You are fortunate that you left after 4 years.  This stuff just doesn't make sense, does it.  But, sadly....I get it.  The one thing I don't get is why BG is still there.

BG has had many an issue for many a year yet remained.  Why gripe, whine, and complain about it when you are still in it.

I don't know BG and cannot answer for him. I do know of others who stayed to keep harmony within their own family. To them, losing family relationships for the sake of leaving wasn't a risk they were willing to take.

While I do know where you are coming from, people have to make a choice to do right regardless of family.  To sit under the preaching of a pastor that you basically feel is a heretic and a blasphemer for the sake of family is crazy.

Actually that was a choice I had to make and I did it. It just so happened that my parents were kinda seeing the things I was and were supportive but I still felt somewhat of a risk. A friend of mine left and his staff parents "disowned" him.

I do know of a staff marriage where he felt the need to leave and his wife refused to leave. He left HAC and their marriage dissolved not too long afterward.

We can't judge what a person's mindset is when faced with such decisions. It is easier to Monday Morning Quarterback while not being in the actual line of fire. The older I get, the more the world seems gray to me than black-and-white.

I would also add, that my perspective of who God is was based on that place. I basically felt the need to do what I thought was right and defy God (God's will) or stay amongst the wrong and be in God's favor. In essence, I walked away from the faith as I understood it to be at that time in my life.

 

[cast.sheep]

I would also add, that my perspective of who God is was based on that place. I basically felt the need to do what I thought was right and defy God (God's will) or stay amongst the wrong and be in God's favor. In essence, I walked away from the faith as I understood it to be at that time in my life.

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

 

[16KJV11]

I have said from the pulpit many times:  If you can't be happy at this church, find somewhere where you can be happy or, pray that God changes what is making you unhappy, or pray that God will change you so you won't be unhappy.  Both parties will be better off for it.

That's very good. I've got to remember it... Thanks.

For sure this is a very pragmatic approach,...  Where does this philosophy end though? Do we then carry this philosophy to its conclusion and counsel people who are married with this same philosophy?

Still not answered?

What does leaving a church have to do with staying married?  Kind of an apples and oranges comparison if you ask me.

 

[16KJV11]

I have said from the pulpit many times:  If you can't be happy at this church, find somewhere where you can be happy or, pray that God changes what is making you unhappy, or pray that God will change you so you won't be unhappy.  Both parties will be better off for it.

That's very good. I've got to remember it... Thanks.

For sure this is a very pragmatic approach,...  Where does this philosophy end though? Do we then carry this philosophy to its conclusion and counsel people who are married with this same philosophy?

Still not answered?

What does leaving a church have to do with staying married?  Kind of an apples and oranges comparison if you ask me.

But you are right, it is too simplistic an approach...
I always invite our people if they have disagreements to talk with me about it and some have taken advantage of the offer.
In fact, I will mention it again in my Sunday sermon.
There are deacons in my church who are not yes men and will confront me if I am doing something questionable or preach something unscriptural.
But, if after they have talked to me and we do not agree, if they have talked to the deacons and do not get satisfaction, what more should you do?
Split the church?
Why stay if you are not happy?
Several years ago, about two years after we first merged two churches together, I had family get very disgruntled.
They had made a decision to leave and wanted to tell me why.
I had one of the deacons meet with me and the family, with their consent.
They produced a list of things they didn't like about the church and myself, things they thought we should do or change.
Me and my deacon shook our heads.
If they had just talked with me or my deacon about these things, we could have logically explained why things were the way they were, but they never said a word, they just let things bottle up in side of them until they quit.
Now, I'm glad they spoke to me about those things and I did the best I could to explain, but to no avail.
They had already made up their minds to quit.
After they left, I sent them a kind note telling them that we would pray for them and that they would always be welcomed back.
I have had other people come to me about things they wanted to do or to change, some I agreed with, others I didn't and I explained why.
Believe it or not, no one who has done this has left our church, even if we did not agree after the conversation was over.
In my original quote, I should have qualified the phrase: After you have personally and scripturally tried to work something out...
If you can't be happy at this church, find somewhere where you can be happy or, pray that God changes what is making you unhappy, or pray that God will change you so you won't be unhappy.  Both parties will be better off for it.

 

[Bruh]

BG, I understand what you have said and I am in no way trying to be antagonistic, but for the life of me I cannot understand why you would have stayed in an organization that you had such profound distrust & difference of opinion in (in many ways).  You are severely critical of all things FBC, JH and HAC.  If JH, FBC Hammond and HAC so violated scriptural principles as they have been accused of (and you have obviously seen much of this first hand), why would you not leave?  I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts but when He does, He validates Scripture and the principles from the Word of God. 
During this time, when the Holy Spirit was convicting you about all of these issues, wasn't that the leadership of God saying: This is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, get out, get out!
What other leadership do you need?
But you just stayed on and let it make you more and more bitter.
And I do see a lot of bitterness in your life, but I am not sympathetic to your pleas and it's hard for me to give you much credence for the reasons that I have stated above.
Again, I'm not trying to be unkind, but you constantly saw the ditch and still stayed on the trail heading towards it.

I have a man in my church that is the longest standing member of our church. He's probably been here about 40 years. He reminds me a lot of BG. He is constantly negative, constantly critical, constantly attacking, etc. The previous pastor before served for 23 years and told me this guy was his single biggest problem. I've served here for 11 years and I have to sadly say the same thing. But he-just-won't-leave... And I think the reason is pride. As I understand the book of Proverbs this man in my church is a scorner, and scorners are motivated by pride. I think this guy who-just-won't-leave won't leave because he is proud of how long he has been here, proud that he has been here longer than anybody, and proud that everybody knows it, and proud that he has stuck it out even though he thinks everything has always been done wrong. He is too proud to leave.

I am NOT saying BG is the same as this guy. I don't have near the sample size/in depth knowledge of BG's life. But that is how/why/what has happened here so I can see how a guy like BG can be so negative for so long and yet stay for decades.

I have said from the pulpit many times:  If you can't be happy at this church, find somewhere where you can be happy or, pray that God changes what is making you unhappy, or pray that God will change you so you won't be unhappy.  Both parties will be better off for it.

I guess I understand what both 1611 and Tom are saying to an extent.  Tom the man in your church if it is not the majority, yes he should leave.

But 1611 or Tom, what I don't understand is why is it always the people should leave? or It's always the peoples fault.  I completely understand that some people are just idiots or very disgruntled for not reason but that is not always the case.

As I said, why is it always the peoples fault?  I'm not bitter or angry but that's just my take...

For instances, Revelations 2 is written to Pastors but I have ONLY heard it preached to congregations to repent not pastors.  If I understand Revelations 2 correctly the church will cease to be a church because of the pastor not the people it is a rebuke for the pastors not the people.  Again, why is it always the peoples fault? 

Hope I have made since.  Thanks! 

Rev. 2 isn't "written to pastors".

If you hadn't bought into the false practice of "one annointed under-shepherd per church", you would think that the statement you just made was ludicrous.

The whole church, including its elders, is being addressed. 
"the angel" never once in Scripture refers to an actual human.
Since there is no verse that says anything remotely close to "pick out one elder, from among you, and annoint him the head elder" or "I've called an undershepherd for each flock", than there is not one single reason to think that somehow by Rev. 2, all of the churches had been assigned one "called man of god" each, and he is the only person that is given "the message" for each "service".

Don't just repeat the same old lines, prove what you say, from the Scripture.

I know the older men will never get it, they sold their birthright long ago, but our generation has to study, to see why we were given such a mess, to not repeat the errors.

By instinct, you realize that "the people aren't nec. the problem, so you asked a good question, but negated the right answer by perpetuating a false premise.

The answer is there, hidden by lies.

So how do we know who the angel is?

I briefly looked up the word angel and from what I saw it is a literal angel. 

Or the angel wrote Revelation 2? Right?
From the wording it would appear that would be the answer. 

“Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write:"

 

[Bravo]

I have said from the pulpit many times:  If you can't be happy at this church, find somewhere where you can be happy or, pray that God changes what is making you unhappy, or pray that God will change you so you won't be unhappy.  Both parties will be better off for it.

That's very good. I've got to remember it... Thanks.

For sure this is a very pragmatic approach,...  Where does this philosophy end though? Do we then carry this philosophy to its conclusion and counsel people who are married with this same philosophy?

Still not answered?

What does leaving a church have to do with staying married?  Kind of an apples and oranges comparison if you ask me.

"What does leaving a church have to do with staying married?" What is has to do with it is this,... It's a relationship. You try to work things out, hear eachother out.

2 Timothy 2:24 KJV
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men , apt to teach, patient,

Granted servant could be any Christian. My question /concern was to clarify that you weren't saying, "If you don't like it, get out".

After all, we were taught, "The ministry is people."

 

[prophet]

BG, I understand what you have said and I am in no way trying to be antagonistic, but for the life of me I cannot understand why you would have stayed in an organization that you had such profound distrust & difference of opinion in (in many ways).  You are severely critical of all things FBC, JH and HAC.  If JH, FBC Hammond and HAC so violated scriptural principles as they have been accused of (and you have obviously seen much of this first hand), why would you not leave?  I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts but when He does, He validates Scripture and the principles from the Word of God. 
During this time, when the Holy Spirit was convicting you about all of these issues, wasn't that the leadership of God saying: This is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, get out, get out!
What other leadership do you need?
But you just stayed on and let it make you more and more bitter.
And I do see a lot of bitterness in your life, but I am not sympathetic to your pleas and it's hard for me to give you much credence for the reasons that I have stated above.
Again, I'm not trying to be unkind, but you constantly saw the ditch and still stayed on the trail heading towards it.

I have a man in my church that is the longest standing member of our church. He's probably been here about 40 years. He reminds me a lot of BG. He is constantly negative, constantly critical, constantly attacking, etc. The previous pastor before served for 23 years and told me this guy was his single biggest problem. I've served here for 11 years and I have to sadly say the same thing. But he-just-won't-leave... And I think the reason is pride. As I understand the book of Proverbs this man in my church is a scorner, and scorners are motivated by pride. I think this guy who-just-won't-leave won't leave because he is proud of how long he has been here, proud that he has been here longer than anybody, and proud that everybody knows it, and proud that he has stuck it out even though he thinks everything has always been done wrong. He is too proud to leave.

I am NOT saying BG is the same as this guy. I don't have near the sample size/in depth knowledge of BG's life. But that is how/why/what has happened here so I can see how a guy like BG can be so negative for so long and yet stay for decades.

I have said from the pulpit many times:  If you can't be happy at this church, find somewhere where you can be happy or, pray that God changes what is making you unhappy, or pray that God will change you so you won't be unhappy.  Both parties will be better off for it.

I guess I understand what both 1611 and Tom are saying to an extent.  Tom the man in your church if it is not the majority, yes he should leave.

But 1611 or Tom, what I don't understand is why is it always the people should leave? or It's always the peoples fault.  I completely understand that some people are just idiots or very disgruntled for not reason but that is not always the case.

As I said, why is it always the peoples fault?  I'm not bitter or angry but that's just my take...

For instances, Revelations 2 is written to Pastors but I have ONLY heard it preached to congregations to repent not pastors.  If I understand Revelations 2 correctly the church will cease to be a church because of the pastor not the people it is a rebuke for the pastors not the people.  Again, why is it always the peoples fault? 

Hope I have made since.  Thanks! 

Rev. 2 isn't "written to pastors".

If you hadn't bought into the false practice of "one annointed under-shepherd per church", you would think that the statement you just made was ludicrous.

The whole church, including its elders, is being addressed. 
"the angel" never once in Scripture refers to an actual human.
Since there is no verse that says anything remotely close to "pick out one elder, from among you, and annoint him the head elder" or "I've called an undershepherd for each flock", than there is not one single reason to think that somehow by Rev. 2, all of the churches had been assigned one "called man of god" each, and he is the only person that is given "the message" for each "service".

Don't just repeat the same old lines, prove what you say, from the Scripture.

I know the older men will never get it, they sold their birthright long ago, but our generation has to study, to see why we were given such a mess, to not repeat the errors.

By instinct, you realize that "the people aren't nec. the problem, so you asked a good question, but negated the right answer by perpetuating a false premise.

The answer is there, hidden by lies.

So how do we know who the angel is?

I briefly looked up the word angel and from what I saw it is a literal angel. 

Or the angel wrote Revelation 2? Right?
From the wording it would appear that would be the answer. 

“Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write:"

Yes.  It is a literal angel, we have no reason to believe otherwise.
Since Rev. is full of examples of angels bearing messages from God, we can assume that nothing is different in Rev. 2-3, than ch. 1.
So then,  a statement like : "Rev. 2 is written to pastors", is completely speculative, and an attempt to align Scripture with a system of practice, and not to conform practice to Scripture.

Psa 104:4
4 Who maketh his angels spirits;
his ministers a flaming fire:

Unless the Scripture says "to the bishop at Laodecea", then we can only say that the passage is to the whole church.

 

[Fresh Air]

I have said from the pulpit many times:  If you can't be happy at this church, find somewhere where you can be happy or, pray that God changes what is making you unhappy, or pray that God will change you so you won't be unhappy.  Both parties will be better off for it.

That's very good. I've got to remember it... Thanks.

For sure this is a very pragmatic approach,...  Where does this philosophy end though? Do we then carry this philosophy to its conclusion and counsel people who are married with this same philosophy?

Still not answered?

No, we don't.

 

[Norefund]

Again, I applaud your approach to handling members who are less than enthusiastic (I refuse to use the words "disgruntled" and "member" together as that phrase is a derogatory FBC insult). I maintain there was no actual chance of a member being able to follow your method of discourse at FBC. First, JH and everyone else in a position of authority were too far above the average member to be concerned with how the member felt. Secondly, anyone who did not agree needed to get right with God, period.

I have said from the pulpit many times:  If you can't be happy at this church, find somewhere where you can be happy or, pray that God changes what is making you unhappy, or pray that God will change you so you won't be unhappy.  Both parties will be better off for it.

That's very good. I've got to remember it... Thanks.

For sure this is a very pragmatic approach,...  Where does this philosophy end though? Do we then carry this philosophy to its conclusion and counsel people who are married with this same philosophy?

Still not answered?

What does leaving a church have to do with staying married?  Kind of an apples and oranges comparison if you ask me.

But you are right, it is too simplistic an approach...
I always invite our people if they have disagreements to talk with me about it and some have taken advantage of the offer.
In fact, I will mention it again in my Sunday sermon.
There are deacons in my church who are not yes men and will confront me if I am doing something questionable or preach something unscriptural.
But, if after they have talked to me and we do not agree, if they have talked to the deacons and do not get satisfaction, what more should you do?
Split the church?
Why stay if you are not happy?
Several years ago, about two years after we first merged two churches together, I had family get very disgruntled.
They had made a decision to leave and wanted to tell me why.
I had one of the deacons meet with me and the family, with their consent.
They produced a list of things they didn't like about the church and myself, things they thought we should do or change.
Me and my deacon shook our heads.
If they had just talked with me or my deacon about these things, we could have logically explained why things were the way they were, but they never said a word, they just let things bottle up in side of them until they quit.
Now, I'm glad they spoke to me about those things and I did the best I could to explain, but to no avail.
They had already made up their minds to quit.
After they left, I sent them a kind note telling them that we would pray for them and that they would always be welcomed back.
I have had other people come to me about things they wanted to do or to change, some I agreed with, others I didn't and I explained why.
Believe it or not, no one who has done this has left our church, even if we did not agree after the conversation was over.
In my original quote, I should have qualified the phrase: After you have personally and scripturally tried to work something out...
If you can't be happy at this church, find somewhere where you can be happy or, pray that God changes what is making you unhappy, or pray that God will change you so you won't be unhappy.  Both parties will be better off for it.

 

[Matthew1323]

And people wonder why that place is referred to as a "cult".  You are fortunate that you left after 4 years.  This stuff just doesn't make sense, does it.  But, sadly....I get it.  The one thing I don't get is why BG is still there.

BG has had many an issue for many a year yet remained.  Why gripe, whine, and complain about it when you are still in it.

Let's be a little more fair please. He is asked questions about his time there or his take on issues that have happened. Answering a question, that several others have asked, cannot be called griping, it's called answering a question.

The recent post was a lot stronger today, but I will still give him a benefit of the doubt at this time

I agree also. He has patiently and thoroughly answered several questions from his perspective and then is characterized somewhat unfairly in my opinion.

Oh, on a side note, what about some of you who have slandered and criticized the FFF for the ungodliness and wickedness HERE.......but.......somehow are still participating and/or reading, etc...  Well, I guess your reasons must be more noble in your mind than BG's for staying.

In conclusion, I just want to be clear to everyone where I stand on the most important matter that can be discussed on this earth, "I'll take the bus kids!" 

 

[Mathew Ward]

what would Dr. Hyles' legacy look like?

There are many opinions of Jack Hyles on the FFF.  For the most part, those that did not attend HAC/FBCH are very critical.  Many of them have heard nothing but the negative.  There is a bit of a mixture of opinions from those who attended HAC/FBCH.  Much of the criticism begins and ends with Dave Hyles.  It is obvious to the wide majority that Dave was doing wrong while on staff at FBCH.  It has also become obvious that Dr. Hyles knew of this wrong and did not handle it properly.  This is a major issue.

For FFF discussion purposes let's remove Dave Hyles from the equation.  Let's say there was never a Dave Hyles.  What would the discussions about Jack Hyles look like?  I'm sure there would still be those who have nothing but negative to say, but what would the general consensus be?  What would Dr. Hyles' legacy be?

Revisionists like to rewrite history in order to validate their point of view.

So we take Dave out of the history books, should we look at Jack's other children and see how they turned out? It seems his legacy is placing building his kingdom above the place of his family and his family paid the price dearly.

With Dave in the picture it seems Jack's legacy of Dave has caused a whole lot of other families to pay the price dearly.

 

[RAIDER]

what would Dr. Hyles' legacy look like?

There are many opinions of Jack Hyles on the FFF.  For the most part, those that did not attend HAC/FBCH are very critical.  Many of them have heard nothing but the negative.  There is a bit of a mixture of opinions from those who attended HAC/FBCH.  Much of the criticism begins and ends with Dave Hyles.  It is obvious to the wide majority that Dave was doing wrong while on staff at FBCH.  It has also become obvious that Dr. Hyles knew of this wrong and did not handle it properly.  This is a major issue.

For FFF discussion purposes let's remove Dave Hyles from the equation.  Let's say there was never a Dave Hyles.  What would the discussions about Jack Hyles look like?  I'm sure there would still be those who have nothing but negative to say, but what would the general consensus be?  What would Dr. Hyles' legacy be?

Revisionists like to rewrite history in order to validate their point of view.

So we take Dave out of the history books, should we look at Jack's other children and see how they turned out? It seems his legacy is placing building his kingdom above the place of his family and his family paid the price dearly.

With Dave in the picture it seems Jack's legacy of Dave has caused a whole lot of other families to pay the price dearly.

I am validating no point of view.  I just thought it was an interesting topic to discuss.

 

[Mathew Ward]

what would Dr. Hyles' legacy look like?

There are many opinions of Jack Hyles on the FFF.  For the most part, those that did not attend HAC/FBCH are very critical.  Many of them have heard nothing but the negative.  There is a bit of a mixture of opinions from those who attended HAC/FBCH.  Much of the criticism begins and ends with Dave Hyles.  It is obvious to the wide majority that Dave was doing wrong while on staff at FBCH.  It has also become obvious that Dr. Hyles knew of this wrong and did not handle it properly.  This is a major issue.

For FFF discussion purposes let's remove Dave Hyles from the equation.  Let's say there was never a Dave Hyles.  What would the discussions about Jack Hyles look like?  I'm sure there would still be those who have nothing but negative to say, but what would the general consensus be?  What would Dr. Hyles' legacy be?

Revisionists like to rewrite history in order to validate their point of view.

So we take Dave out of the history books, should we look at Jack's other children and see how they turned out? It seems his legacy is placing building his kingdom above the place of his family and his family paid the price dearly.

With Dave in the picture it seems Jack's legacy of Dave has caused a whole lot of other families to pay the price dearly.

I am validating no point of view.  I just thought it was an interesting topic to discuss.

Except for the fact that you yearn for the days of Hyles and would love to see FBC return to the glory days of Jack. But I do agree it is an interesting topic to ponder...

 

[WESLEY]

In the first years of HAC, Dr. Hyles' sermons were magnificent. But from the very first day, HAC was founded on deceit.

I can only guess, but I think that eventually the corruption would have caught up with him.

And what was the "deceit" upon which HAC was founded?

Here is a possibility that I studied in ethics classes in college.

It is called Consequentialism. It is an ethical theory that holds that the consequences of ones actions are the ultimate basis for any judgement on whether one's actions are right or wrong.

Commonly expressed as "the ends justify the means".

If you ever asked Bro. Hyles if he believed that, he would tell you that he based his beliefs on his mother's  Bible.

However, his actions did not agree.

Maybe that is the thing that animated Bro. Hyles.

In practice he based things he did on how well they turned out. Did he achieve his objective?

How many souls were saved? How many sermons were preached? Did he get his way? Did he win?



Example, his confrontations with Edward C. Minas, who was a long time member and major financier in FBCH.

Mr. Minas did not like what was happening with all the wild kids that were coming to the church every Sunday.

Bro. Hyles did not agree with Mr. Minas.

So Bro. Hyles demonized Mr. Minas, without cause or reason, other than he wanted his own way.

All Bro. Hyles wanted was to run the bus ministry.

He got his way. Bro. Hyles was so proud of his victory over Mr. Minas, not so in his latter years when he was having second thoughts and remorse over his actions.



He was so proud of his victory for the bus kids, at the expense of many long time members of FBCH.

Mr. Minas and many others, the legacy monied families, left the church and started a new church on South Hohman Ave.

Yes Bro. Hyles split the church to get his way, but it was ok since he had won.

He stated many times, in sermons, "I ain't never lost".  It seemed, all he really cared about was getting his way and winning.

The methods used to get there are still having their negative impacts and results that are still felt today.

The lies and deceit from Bro. Hyles early years in Hammond are plaguing us today.

We need a church-wide turning back to God and repentance from past sins while confessing and admitting them openly.


As always this is just my humble opinion.

this is one of the arguments against jack hyles that i;ve heard many times on the other forums too....... and i must admit....... it;s one of the few things i hear that actually turns my heart in favor of him... even if only in a small way.... rather than against him as the posts are often intended to do............ because........ while i was never anywhere close to hammond... i was nevertheless... a bus kid..... ....i was saved on a church bus and i have no doubt the members of the church that bus brought me to saw us as no less wild and out of control as the members of hammond did..... especially when compared to their own....and i know i smelled a whole lot worse than any of their own children did.......

but the brief glimpse i was given into their world on those few sunday mornings is what gave me courage to believe i could stand up against what was wrong in mine..... ...i can;t explain all of what was going on inside me then....and it wasn;t even any of them that explained salvation to me and led me to Christ...... . but their church and on their bus was where the change in me started........... so.... for all his faults.....and though i didn;t even know him..... his desire to reach out to underpriveleged kids is one thing i am can actually admire him for...... and if he is what influenced others where i lived to do the same then i am also very grateful........

I agree wholeheartedly in the worth and importance of the bus ministry.

I worked on an A bus route in the 70s 80s and 90s.

I was writing to point out the problem that was caused at FBCH by choosing the bus ministry over the rich people. Bro. Hyles could not tell the rich people what to do and it galled him to no end.

So he plotted to get rid of the rich people.

He set up what is called a false dilemma, by asserting he could only keep one or the other, but not both.

Thus the false dilemma.

He said he had to choose between the rich people and the bus kids, remember his famous rallying cry, "I'll take the bus kids"?

He was not a diplomat and did not believe in doing right by all the members. He wanted his way period.

He was always a my way or the highway kind of guy.

He could have and should have kept the rich people and the bus kids. He did not need to create the false dilemma.

I believe he could have worked with the rich people and enlisted their help with the bus ministry instead of turning it into a knock-down drag-out fight, splitting the church.

We are hurting today because he chased those rich people away. He chopped off part of Christ's body and threw it away.

Jesus wants both the rich and the poor, he wants everybody, not just the poor or just the rich.

It is quite ironic that our new auditorium sits on the site of the Edward C. Minas Co. department store. This was the premier department store in the whole area in the early 20th century.

I believe the LORD had in mind having the new auditorium there all along, It could have been built there in the late 80s or 90s when the Minas store was moved to south Lake county, but for one problem, and that was the bad blood Bro. Hyles generated all those years before between those rich people and himself.


This is my humble opinion and how I see it.

Out of curiosity... it you were in the bus ministry for 20+ years, why did you leave it?

 

[bgwilkinson]

It  was the sexual immorality that was going on between the bus workers daughters and the bus kids. I did not want my daughters getting pregnant or my son's getting the bus girls pregnate. We all left the bus ministry as a family before that sexual immorality got into my family. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people. My children are all married adults in their 40s and early 50s. None of them got pregnant out of wedlock.

What most do not realize is that the reason so many HAC students leave is due to sexual immorality. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people.
I do not want to tell all the details but much of it was due to Bro. Hyles flippant attitude toward immorality on his staff. How could he really come out against it as far too many people knew what he was doing in his office.

We have been paying the price as a congregation all these years and still no official repentance.

 

[RAIDER]

It  was the sexual immorality that was going on between the bus workers daughters and the bus kids. I did not want my daughters getting pregnant or my son's getting the bus girls pregnate. We all left the bus ministry as a family before that sexual immorality got into my family. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people. My children are all married adults in their 40s and early 50s. None of them got pregnant out of wedlock.

What most do not realize is that the reason so many HAC students leave is due to sexual immorality. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people.
I do not want to tell all the details but much of it was due to Bro. Hyles flippant attitude toward immorality on his staff. How could he really come out against it as far too many people knew what he was doing in his office.

We have been paying the price as a congregation all these years and still no official repentance.

And what was he "doing in his office"?

 

[16KJV11]

It  was the sexual immorality that was going on between the bus workers daughters and the bus kids. I did not want my daughters getting pregnant or my son's getting the bus girls pregnate. We all left the bus ministry as a family before that sexual immorality got into my family. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people. My children are all married adults in their 40s and early 50s. None of them got pregnant out of wedlock.

What most do not realize is that the reason so many HAC students leave is due to sexual immorality. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people.
I do not want to tell all the details but much of it was due to Bro. Hyles flippant attitude toward immorality on his staff. How could he really come out against it as far too many people knew what he was doing in his office.

We have been paying the price as a congregation all these years and still no official repentance.

And what was he "doing in his office"?

And why did you stay at the church even when you knew immorality was going on in the bus ministry and the powers that were did nothing about it?

 

[RAIDER]

It  was the sexual immorality that was going on between the bus workers daughters and the bus kids. I did not want my daughters getting pregnant or my son's getting the bus girls pregnate. We all left the bus ministry as a family before that sexual immorality got into my family. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people. My children are all married adults in their 40s and early 50s. None of them got pregnant out of wedlock.

What most do not realize is that the reason so many HAC students leave is due to sexual immorality. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people.
I do not want to tell all the details but much of it was due to Bro. Hyles flippant attitude toward immorality on his staff. How could he really come out against it as far too many people knew what he was doing in his office.

We have been paying the price as a congregation all these years and still no official repentance.

And what was he "doing in his office"?

And why did you stay at the church even when you knew immorality was going on in the bus ministry and the powers that were did nothing about it?

This has always been my biggest issue with many of the critics.

 

[WESLEY]

It  was the sexual immorality that was going on between the bus workers daughters and the bus kids. I did not want my daughters getting pregnant or my son's getting the bus girls pregnate. We all left the bus ministry as a family before that sexual immorality got into my family. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people. My children are all married adults in their 40s and early 50s. None of them got pregnant out of wedlock.

What most do not realize is that the reason so many HAC students leave is due to sexual immorality. The bus ministry is a dangerous place for young people.
I do not want to tell all the details but much of it was due to Bro. Hyles flippant attitude toward immorality on his staff. How could he really come out against it as far too many people knew what he was doing in his office.

We have been paying the price as a congregation all these years and still no official repentance.

Kind of curious... where was your route?  Do you feel that the same problem is still prevalent?