Israel is evil.

aleshanee said:
you don;t have a clue when you are reading about it or seeing it on tv from the comfort of your armchair - 6 thousand miles away... ... but the people on the ground trying to live and work there know plenty about it..... and they are not having fun at all.....
Click to expand...
I agree I have no clue.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I never root against people, so still hope he’ll get life turned around. Even guys sitting on death row can still be redeemed.
Click to expand...
it;s true.... they can... . but a man on death row is never released just because he made a jail house conversion... .. it;s only when evidence is found that proves he was innocent........ and even a man convicted of robbing a bank he worked for - who serves his sentence and does his time... is not put back into a bank or made bank president.....

but for some reason many baptists believe a preacher turned predator then claims he has been redeemed - should be put right back to work in the church and sat down in a pew next to the people he abused... .or worse..restored to a pastorate and put in the pulpit to preach to them..... and from what i have seen they will do more to try and restore that abuser than they ever do to help the people he abused heal......
 
aleshanee said:
but for some reason many baptists believe a preacher turned predator then claims he has been redeemed - should be put right back to work in the church and sat down in a pew next to the people he abused... .or worse.
Click to expand...
That’s one of the chief arguments against the IFB churches. Although the other denominations aren’t completely exempt from this pattern either, I think it’s much more prevalent in the IFB model. Those IFB pastors like to say they’re accountable to the deacons, but the reality is no deacon is ever going to get promoted to that position without the approval of the pastor,” so in essence, the IFB pastor usually ends up only being accountable to himself unless he really goes over the line and law enforcement gets involved—even then, it sometimes doesn’t expel the pastor.
 
Last edited:
DrHuk&Duck said:
That’s one of the chief arguments against the IFB churches. Although the other denominations aren’t completely exempt from this pattern either, I think it’s much more prevalent in the IFB model. Those IFB pastors like to say they’re accountable to the deacons, but the reality is no deacon is ever going to get promoted to that position without the approval of the pastor,” so in essence, the IFB pastor usually ends up only being accountable to himself unless he really goes over the line and law enforcement gets involved—even then, it sometimes doesn’t expel the pastor.
Click to expand...
Hyles wasn't accountable to ANY deacon. Matter of fact he often emasculated them, stating they would jump off a bridge if he told them to.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Wow…that’s quite a litany of accusations. Regardless of Dave’s checkered past, the article started out by accusing Jack Hyles of being a serial adulterer. Did I read that correctly? Jack, as in the college president and church pastor. Correct?
Click to expand...

The answer is "maybe." Whether Hyles's affair with his secretary was physical or emotional was the cause of some speculation. He did lie about it.

But for the sake of argument, leave Hyles himself alone. In addition to his son David, his circle also included the following men, convicted of crimes related to sex abuse: Jack Schaap his son-in-law, deacon A. V. Ballenger, and HAC teacher Joe Combs. How many actual sex offenders does a typical man have in his circle of associates?
 
ALAYMAN said:
Hyles wasn't accountable to ANY deacon. Matter of fact he often emasculated them, stating they would jump off a bridge if he told them to.
Click to expand...
i heard about a sermon jack hyles preached where he said he hoped one day God would look down on his life and exclaim He didn;t know He was capable of doing a certain thing until jack hyles showed Him...😲.. ... the very arrogance of a man thinking..even bragging.. he could teach God something.....

my dad said he had that sermon on a cassette tape hyles used to send out to students... ..he spent some time looking for it after he told us about it ... only to realize it got weeded out and tossed when they were packing boxes in texas getting ready to move to hawaii..... ....i wish we had it ...i would love to post the audio of something like that on the forum........
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
That’s one of the chief arguments against the IFB churches. Although the other denominations aren’t completely exempt from this pattern either, I think it’s much more prevalent in the IFB model. Those IFB pastors like to say they’re accountable to the deacons, but the reality is no deacon is ever going to get promoted to that position without the approval of the pastor,” so in essence, the IFB pastor usually ends up only being accountable to himself unless he really goes over the line and law enforcement gets involved—even then, it sometimes doesn’t expel the pastor.
Click to expand...
I spent several years at Lancaster Baptist Church which is considered by many to be the "Model IFB Church" and I recall seeing new faces in the deacon ranks all the time but never recalled there ever being a nomination process or any church-wide election for deacons. It is therefore a mystery to me regarding their selection process. Perhaps one became a deacon when Paul Chappel would approach someone and said "I would like you to be a deacon" or maybe it was the deacons themselves who nominated other men to serve as deacons? I guess I will never know now. I remember his speaking about being accused of having only "yes men" around him to which he responded "would you rather they were all 'no' men?" My thoughts on the matter (which I obviously kept to myself) was that I wanted deacons (and the pastoral staff) who were loyal to Christ, loyal to the scriptures, loyal to (and therefore protective of) the church that Christ had purchased with his own blood. So long as Bro. Chappell was of this same mind, there shouldn't be any issue between himself and the deacons or anyone else in leadership! Accountability should not be to a particular man but to the church as a whole! Chappell once spoke of accountability saying that he had made himself accountable to certain "Pastor Friends" across the nation that he looked up to implying to me that he did not feel accountable to anyone in the church that he was pastoring. If this is actually his position (he'd likely deny it and accuse me of slander), it is not only unbiblical but very much contrary to the Baptist view of local church autonomy!

The last Church I was a part of in California was a pure "eldership rule" where the congregation did not vote. Deacons were selected by the elders and the congregation had a specified time in which they could raise any questions or concerns regarding the personal character and integrity of these candidates. You would think such a church to be much more heavy-handed and authoritarian but the leadership was quite humble, approachable, and treated me as an equal! The Senior Pastor drove an old F-150 and referred to himself as being "one of the elders." Although I disagree with their polity, I learned much from them while I was there.

It wasn't until after I moved back to Texas that I heard of "elections" for the offices of deacon, elder, trustee, or whatever else. At our Church, any member in good standing can nominate someone to serve either as an elder or deacon and our church constitution has specific requirements for both. Every nominee is carefully vetted by the eldership (personal character and biblical qualifications, etc.) before they are placed on the ballot. Every candidate is elected and installed into office if they receive an affirmative vote of at least 2/3 of the membership.

If a Church has deacons but no elders (just one sole "Senior Pastor"), the deacons will act like elders by default due to the fact that there is a power vacuum that must be filled -especially if there has been a "revolving door" of pastors and the deacon board is the only semblance of stability a congregation may have. For this reason, I am a strong proponent of an elder led, congregational rule church where there is a plurality of elders forming an elder board of which the pastor is a member and may be regarded as a "first among equals." It is at this level that a pastor should be held accountable as there should be mutual accountability among the elders. I do not believe it is the deacon's job to hold a pastor accountable but the pastor be willfully accountable to the deacons as well as the congregation but such accountablilty is to be ensured and enforced through the eldership.

Hope this makes sense and my apologies for the long-windedness.

I am no fan of Hyles but in his defense, he has come out and acknowledged times where he was vary much in the wrong regarding his actions and attitude towards the deacons of his church.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
recall seeing new faces in the deacon ranks all the time but never recalled there ever being a nomination process or any church-wide election for deacons.
Click to expand...

Our deacons are unelected, but they assist the pastors and elected elders, who delegate some of their responsibilities (e.g. visitation, offering advice, or other support). Constitutionally, the deacons are more like the elders appointed in Acts by the apostles: they offer assistance but have no role in governance. They aren't, like you say later, de facto elders who fill a vacuum left by the absence of lay elders.

(And that is why Israel is evil. LOL, has this thread squirreled.)
 
Ransom said:
Our deacons are unelected, but they assist the pastors and elected elders, who delegate some of their responsibilities (e.g. visitation, offering advice, or other support). Constitutionally, the deacons are more like the elders appointed in Acts by the apostles: they offer assistance but have no role in governance. They aren't, like you say later, de facto elders who fill a vacuum left by the absence of lay elders.

(And that is why Israel is evil. LOL, has this thread squirreled.)
Click to expand...
This is also the function of deacons in our church and I can speak first-hand because I are one. We are elected though or perhaps better said "Ratified" by a 2/3 vote from the congregation. Actually, the account in Acts 6 pushed me further towards a congregational rule polity. It was the congregation who selected (nominated) those who would serve as deacons and the apostles gave the ultimate approval appointing them to this office.

Deacons finding themselves in a governance role are acting unbiblically but it is a role that must be performed by somebody and in the absence of elders, who else is left aside from a dictatorial "Moses figure" pastor? This is the reason why a plurality of elders is essential for a stable and biblical congregation.

Ok, let's wake up and smell the coffee now. Israel is evil!
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I never root against people, so still hope he’ll get life turned around. Even guys sitting on death row can still be redeemed.
Click to expand...
I believe that genuine evidence of conversion for a death row inmate would be that he or she, stands up, owns up to their heinous crime, expresses genuine remorse, waives any further "appeals" for clemency or whatever, and accepts the just punishment for their crime! It has happened before and is pretty much the testimony of Carla Faye Tucker who was executed in Huntsville some years ago. God can forgive and wash away your sins, grant you eternal life and the promise of heaven but this does not change the fact that you have forfeited all rights to continue living in this life.

And this, my friends is why Israel is evil!
 
Baptist Renegade said:
in the absence of elders, who else is left aside from a dictatorial "Moses figure" pastor? This is the reason why a plurality of elders is essential for a stable and biblical congregation.
Click to expand...

I have had some unpleasant experiences in IFB churches with congregational rule (at least in theory) because if I got on the pastor's enemies list, the congregation would blindly support the pastor against me and I would have to leave (or be excommunicated). Now I am in a church with elder rule, not congregational rule, but I am more comfortable in that situation and less likely to be thrown under the bus by an authoritarian pastor.

Oh, by the way, Israel is evil. "Israel delenda est."
 
Last edited:
illinoisguy said:
I have had some unpleasant experiences in IFB churches with congregational rule (at least in theory) because if I got on the pastor's enemies list, the congregation would blindly support the pastor against me and I would have to leave (or be excommunicated). Now I am in a church with elder rule, not congregational rule, but I am more comfortable in that situation and less likely to be thrown under the bus by an authoritarian pastor.

Oh, by the way, Israel is evil. "Israel delenda est."
Click to expand...
No church governmence style is perfect and out total depravity must be factored in. Lancaster Baptist was congregational rule (in theory anyway) but one had better "toe the line" and express unquestioning loyalty and be singing the praises of the pastor and the church otherwise you were pretty much on the outside looking in and were met with hostility if you dared to express any criticism. My main reason for leaving was not so much Pastor Chappell but the mentality of the congregation of which I speak. My wife and daughter were suffering, I had to get them someplace better, and God had been calling me out of this mess for quite some time! As I said, the "eldership rule" church I found myself in was a breath of fresh air and just what I needed at the time. I am still on friendly terms with the elders and many of the members! I don't even hate Paul Chappell!

But Israel sure is evil... :cool:
 
illinoisguy said:
Now I am in a church with elder rule, not congregational rule
Click to expand...

How are the elders chosen? Our lay elders are elected for two-year terms at the annual meeting. Pastors are also elders, and they are called based on recommendation by the board and the ratification of the membership.

On the one hand, there's no blind following of the pastors or elders, and there is also considerable (well-earned) trust in the leadership. I don't think I'd be too comfortable in a purely elder-led congregation. Feels like we've got the checks and balances tuned just right.
 
Ransom said:
How are the elders chosen? Our lay elders are elected for two-year terms at the annual meeting. Pastors are also elders, and they are called based on recommendation by the board and the ratification of the membership.
Click to expand...

We do it the same way in my church. I still support the principle of congregational rule, but I don't see congregational versus elder rule as a deal breaker as far as selecting a church is concerned. We all have plenty enough other issues to fight over. :cool:
 
Our deacons are appointed by the pastor and confirmed by congregational vote. This vote normally takes place at a business meeting after the church service on a Sunday night when basically very few members are present, or many in attendance have to take off by the time the service ends and don’t have time to hang around for 30 minutes after the PM service. I don’t attend the evening services except on rare occasions, so I never have a voice regardless.
 
every officer or office holder in my church from the kahu.. (pastor)... on down to the most junior council member is nominated and voted on by the membership..... of course what constitutes a church member is rather strict and covered under the churches laws and bylaws - of which there are 35 pages.... any changes to the laws and bylaws are voted on too..... most of the laws in the church constitution have been there since the time of the monarchy... all the way back to king kamehameha himself... .he was among the churches first members....

when ever an election is warranted it is always held at special meeting after the sunday night church service.... ...i have attended some of them and voted when i knew the people being considered for office and understood the rules and laws behind the office.... . ..some of them i attended and didn;t vote because admittedly i wasn;t sure what was going on.... (business stuff deacons chose to bring before the membership)...... but there have been several meetings i had to miss.... ....

there is one rule in place that some believe should be changed and which has been on the books since kamehameha.... but which is always upheld every time a vote is taken on it... .. and that is both the kahu and his assistant must be fluent in the hawaiian language and also be of native hawaiian decent.... ....personally i never had a problem with any of that and nobody i know disagrees with the language part of it.... or has a major problem with the hawaiian decent requirement either .. but a few people think it should probably be changed to be more pc ...and so that the church doesn;t appear racist.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top