So Bravo and others who were/are at FBCH........

[RAIDER]

I am interested in your thought pattern change in the past few years.  I know it has been much more difficult for you than for those of us who have been gone from FBCH for many years.  I believe most of us hurt over what has happened.  I'm sure your hurt is much deeper.

We all watched Schaap quickly go down hill.  Most of the FFF posters who were still attending FBCH had issues with Schaap while he was pastoring.  You saw many of the problems first hand.  I doubt anyone thought It would end the way it did.

Bravo, in several of your posts you have referenced that you now have different feelings about Dr. Hyles and his ministry.  You have also referenced some of the deacons now talking about things during Dr. Hyles time period. 

Here is my question to you and others who are still at FBCH or others who have left FBCH since 2010.  What have you heard that has changed you view of the Hyles' years?   

 

[Still There]

Honestly, there was nothing that has changed my view of Bro. Hyles, I think it was his predecessors.  Bro. Hyles brought in the crowds and he knew his Bible and people loved to hear him preach.  Bro. Hyles never liked change and he liked being in the old building where people were close knit.  Schaap had to have his big brand new building that is being wasted and can't even fill up and $$$$ are going down the tubes.  John Wilkerson is trying but people truly can't be loyal to him.  Even though he was trained at FBC/HAC, he's still considered an outsider.  There are good people who have left/leaving. 

 

[RAIDER]

Honestly, there was nothing that has changed my view of Bro. Hyles, I think it was his predecessors.  Bro. Hyles brought in the crowds and he knew his Bible and people loved to hear him preach.  Bro. Hyles never liked change and he liked being in the old building where people were close knit.  Schaap had to have his big brand new building that is being wasted and can't even fill up and $$$$ are going down the tubes.  John Wilkerson is trying but people truly can't be loyal to him.  Even though he was trained at FBC/HAC, he's still considered an outsider.  There are good people who have left/leaving.

Do you know why they are leaving?  What are their issues?

 

[kaba]

Honestly, there was nothing that has changed my view of Bro. Hyles, I think it was his predecessors.  Bro. Hyles brought in the crowds and he knew his Bible and people loved to hear him preach.  Bro. Hyles never liked change and he liked being in the old building where people were close knit.  Schaap had to have his big brand new building that is being wasted and can't even fill up and $$$$ are going down the tubes.  John Wilkerson is trying but people truly can't be loyal to him.  Even though he was trained at FBC/HAC, he's still considered an outsider.  There are good people who have left/leaving.

Not trying to be mean, but why does someone have to be "loyal" to the Pastor? What exactly does that mean?

 

[Still There]

Wouldn't you want your church people to be loyal to you as their pastor?  Being there when church doors are open, giving to the church, etc?  I don't think John Wilkerson has that from the church people.  There are still many people leaving and not many coming in.  He's more of a teacher than a preacher.  If you've lived under Bro. Hyles and Schaap, you'd understand. 

 

[Bruh]

Wouldn't you want your church people to be loyal to you as their pastor?  Being there when church doors are open, giving to the church, etc?  I don't think John Wilkerson has that from the church people.  There are still many people leaving and not many coming in.  He's more of a teacher than a preacher.  If you've lived under Bro. Hyles and Schaap, you'd understand.

And then people should understand the end result of Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap. 

 

[Fresh Air]

Wouldn't you want your church people to be loyal to you as their pastor?  Being there when church doors are open, giving to the church, etc?  I don't think John Wilkerson has that from the church people.  There are still many people leaving and not many coming in.  He's more of a teacher than a preacher.  If you've lived under Bro. Hyles and Schaap, you'd understand.

I must confess I feared this, and it is very sad to me. I knew JW could not compete with the pulpit presence of his predecessors, and I hoped that would actually be a good thing, driving people to stay for content instead of personality. Perhaps they still will, in the long run. Perhaps they are just too badly hurt to stay, and that is also what I feared as I have seen it happen elsewhere. But it is very sad to think that people who had little actual biblical content toward the end of Bro. Hyles' ministry or during Jack Schaap's ministry, and pastors filled with much pride would stay through all of that only to leave when a genuine man of integrity who simply teaches the Word of God shows up.

I do not mean this to be specifically critical of any one person's decisions, but rather indicative of either an overall weakness in the large group that called FBCH home, or a large pain that continues so long it saps the body's health and strength. I freely confess I'm an interested outsider, but I do not know what it was like to be there for the last ten years, or what it is like to be there now. But I would hope that people who finally have a man of integrity in the pulpit who actually preaches the Word of God would stay.

 

[RAIDER]

Wouldn't you want your church people to be loyal to you as their pastor?  Being there when church doors are open, giving to the church, etc?  I don't think John Wilkerson has that from the church people.  There are still many people leaving and not many coming in.  He's more of a teacher than a preacher.  If you've lived under Bro. Hyles and Schaap, you'd understand.

Still There, you have to remember that when you say the word "loyal" on the FFF everyone automatically assigns it the definition of "blind loyalty"  Do what I say without asking questions.  Believe what I believe because i believe it.  Defend me whether I'm wrong or right.  You get the picture.

With your last post I believe I agree with your definition of loyalty. 

 

[kaba]

Having graduated from HAC I understand the mentality of being loyal to the Pastor, Hyles and Schapp demanded it. But out in the real world I understand it with clearer eyes. I attend church to please my Lord, to learn more about him, to help me live a daily christian walk.  I also just answer to the Lord. And It might be a good thing that he is a "teacher", you guys are in a healing process and maybe your eyes need to be opened to be taught and not preached at. I think Pastor Wilkerson has a tender and understanding heart. Give him time. What was wronged can not be made right over night.

 

[RAIDER]

I must confess I feared this, and it is very sad to me. I knew JW could not compete with the pulpit presence of his predecessors, and I hoped that would actually be a good thing, driving people to stay for content instead of personality. Perhaps they still will, in the long run. Perhaps they are just too badly hurt to stay, and that is also what I feared as I have seen it happen elsewhere. But it is very sad to think that people who had little actual biblical content toward the end of Bro. Hyles' ministry or during Jack Schaap's ministry, and pastors filled with much pride would stay through all of that only to leave when a genuine man of integrity who simply teaches the Word of God shows up.

I do not mean this to be specifically critical of any one person's decisions, but rather indicative of either an overall weakness in the large group that called FBCH home, or a large pain that continues so long it saps the body's health and strength. I freely confess I'm an interested outsider, but I do not know what it was like to be there for the last ten years, or what it is like to be there now. But I would hope that people who finally have a man of integrity in the pulpit who actually preaches the Word of God would stay.

Great thoughts, Tom.

 

[abp]

Wouldn't you want your church people to be loyal to you as their pastor?  Being there when church doors are open, giving to the church, etc?  I don't think John Wilkerson has that from the church people.  There are still many people leaving and not many coming in.  He's more of a teacher than a preacher.  If you've lived under Bro. Hyles and Schaap, you'd understand.

It took me about 5 years to get used to having a shepard after having a cattle driver for so long. I would think being taught is much better than the decades of shouting and screaming about preferences but I guess that's why I'm not "still there".

 

[RAIDER]

I must confess I feared this, and it is very sad to me. I knew JW could not compete with the pulpit presence of his predecessors, and I hoped that would actually be a good thing, driving people to stay for content instead of personality. Perhaps they still will, in the long run. Perhaps they are just too badly hurt to stay, and that is also what I feared as I have seen it happen elsewhere. But it is very sad to think that people who had little actual biblical content toward the end of Bro. Hyles' ministry or during Jack Schaap's ministry, and pastors filled with much pride would stay through all of that only to leave when a genuine man of integrity who simply teaches the Word of God shows up.

I do not mean this to be specifically critical of any one person's decisions, but rather indicative of either an overall weakness in the large group that called FBCH home, or a large pain that continues so long it saps the body's health and strength. I freely confess I'm an interested outsider, but I do not know what it was like to be there for the last ten years, or what it is like to be there now. But I would hope that people who finally have a man of integrity in the pulpit who actually preaches the Word of God would stay.

Great thoughts, Tom.

While I know the answer to this question I'm going to go ahead and ask it.  Is it right to leave a church where the preacher is preaching God's Word in a bit of a boring style to go to a church where the preacher is preaching the Word of God in a more exciting style?  Let's say this is the only reason someone is leaving.

 

[kaba]

I must confess I feared this, and it is very sad to me. I knew JW could not compete with the pulpit presence of his predecessors, and I hoped that would actually be a good thing, driving people to stay for content instead of personality. Perhaps they still will, in the long run. Perhaps they are just too badly hurt to stay, and that is also what I feared as I have seen it happen elsewhere. But it is very sad to think that people who had little actual biblical content toward the end of Bro. Hyles' ministry or during Jack Schaap's ministry, and pastors filled with much pride would stay through all of that only to leave when a genuine man of integrity who simply teaches the Word of God shows up.

I do not mean this to be specifically critical of any one person's decisions, but rather indicative of either an overall weakness in the large group that called FBCH home, or a large pain that continues so long it saps the body's health and strength. I freely confess I'm an interested outsider, but I do not know what it was like to be there for the last ten years, or what it is like to be there now. But I would hope that people who finally have a man of integrity in the pulpit who actually preaches the Word of God would stay.

Great thoughts, Tom.

While I know the answer to this question I'm going to go ahead and ask it.  Is it right to leave a church where the preacher is preaching God's Word in a bit of a boring style to go to a church where the preacher is preaching the Word of God in a more exciting style?  Let's say this is the only reason someone is leaving.

I dont think there is a right or wrong to leaving a church. You want a different style, but they still preach God's word..go for it!

 

[brainisengaged]

I can speak for no one save myself. I find it hard to believe people would be leaving because they find JWilkerson to be "boring". He could not be called 'dynamic' but it is hard to miss the fact he is quite earnest. I find him a little simplistic, not to say I think I know more than he does, but we get the "Standard Moral Lesson" a few too many times.

(Standard Moral Lesson = Naomi was bitter against God, and look what happens to people who are bitter at God: They lose their very identity. She could no longer be Naomi, she had to become Mara for she was bitter...") That was an example from a recent sermon. Never mind that the Bible never actually says Naomi is bitter AT God...but it does state she said GOD HAD DEALT BITTERLY with her. And anyone who loses a spouse and both children might...just might... feel they'd been bitterly dealt with. Moreover, she couldn't have been bad-mouthing God all that much, since Ruth saw enough to want Naomi's God to be her God. Since someone would surely wonder what I meant by "Standard Moral Lesson" -- the speaker wants the lesson to be about how bad bitterness against God is, but it truly doesn't seem that is what is being taught by the account.

Anyhoo...there was this African proverb / story, goes like this:
"An anthropologist proposed a game to African tribe kids. He put a basket full of fruit near a tree and told them that whoever got there first won the sweet fruits. When he told them to run they all took each others hands and ran together, then sat together enjoying their treats. When he asked them why they had run like that as one could have had all the fruits for himself they said: How can one of us be happy if all the other ones are sad?"

Snopes calls it merely a legend, not something that actually happened...which sounds about right, but the moral of that legend kind of sticks with me and mirrors my own feelings about FBC. I now know so many people who have unresolved hurts, so much shady history, and I know so many situations I think are less than what they should be, that it is hard for me to be happy there when I know others who have been made sad.

 

[Bruh]

My question is this, if JW is the complete opposite of the two former Pastors, then why couldn't someone go to him and voice there concern about Eddie or any other staff member or deacon that should not be there?

 

 

[Angelface2011]

Here is my question to you and others who are still at FBCH or others who have left FBCH since 2010.  What have you heard that has changed you view of the Hyles' years? 

I didn't leave until this year, we moved out of state.....nothing I've heard has changed my views of the Hyles' years.

 

[Bravo]

I am interested in your thought pattern change in the past few years.  I know it has been much more difficult for you than for those of us who have been gone from FBCH for many years.  I believe most of us hurt over what has happened.  I'm sure your hurt is much deeper.

We all watched Schaap quickly go down hill.  Most of the FFF posters who were still attending FBCH had issues with Schaap while he was pastoring.  You saw many of the problems first hand.  I doubt anyone thought It would end the way it did.

Bravo, in several of your posts you have referenced that you now have different feelings about Dr. Hyles and his ministry.  You have also referenced some of the deacons now talking about things during Dr. Hyles time period. 

Here is my question to you and others who are still at FBCH or others who have left FBCH since 2010.  What have you heard that has changed you view of the Hyles' years? 

To be honest I am struggling with what to say in response to this. I was looking forward to answering but right now it's not easy. I just spent a half hour typing and felt I could not submit my answer.

On Wilkerson let me say this. I believe he is a good man. He is not the orator or larger than life figure Hyles/Schaap were. He goes to the lobby and shakes hands with people after the services. Why is this such a revolutionary idea? Why did we accept that Jack Hyles just could not shake hands with people after church? I've even seen him invite people that visited the church to his home on a Sunday afternoon. We've  recently returned to the other services with more regularity. If I did not feel he were genuine I would not do this. I do not feel people are leaving because of him, I feel they are leaving because of all that's happened in the previous years and it's just coming to a head now. He does not position himself as a hero, or potential victim of the Soviets or mafia. So now people can go to church because they want to not because it is a happening or a celebrity appeal. Do I agree with everything?...No. We have our Homecoming in the fall,... contrary to what you might think it is not about the Gaithers. I wish we would lay low and just be a bit more humble for a while. Apparently some of the old guard convinced him we needed to do this Homecoming or some sort of meeting. Speaking of the old guard that may have a good part to do with why people are leaving, they feel that it will just be more of the same. If you're Wilkerson do you risk rocking the boat by getting rid of some of the old staff? The sycophants are still there, you get the sense they would make him king by force so to speak. 

I realize I may be rambling,...

 

[Still There]

I am interested in your thought pattern change in the past few years.  I know it has been much more difficult for you than for those of us who have been gone from FBCH for many years.  I believe most of us hurt over what has happened.  I'm sure your hurt is much deeper.

We all watched Schaap quickly go down hill.  Most of the FFF posters who were still attending FBCH had issues with Schaap while he was pastoring.  You saw many of the problems first hand.  I doubt anyone thought It would end the way it did.

Bravo, in several of your posts you have referenced that you now have different feelings about Dr. Hyles and his ministry.  You have also referenced some of the deacons now talking about things during Dr. Hyles time period. 

Here is my question to you and others who are still at FBCH or others who have left FBCH since 2010.  What have you heard that has changed you view of the Hyles' years? 

To be honest I am struggling with what to say in response to this. I was looking forward to answering but right now it's not easy. I just spent a half hour typing and felt I could not submit my answer.

On Wilkerson let me say this. I believe he is a good man. He is not the orator or larger than life figure Hyles/Schaap were. He goes to the lobby and shakes hands with people after the services. Why is this such a revolutionary idea? Why did we accept that Jack Hyles just could not shake hands with people after church? I've even seen him invite people that visited the church to his home on a Sunday afternoon. We've  recently returned to the other services with more regularity. If I did not feel he were genuine I would not do this. I do not feel people are leaving because of him, I feel they are leaving because of all that's happened in the previous years and it's just coming to a head now. He does not position himself as a hero, or potential victim of the Soviets or mafia. So now people can go to church because they want to not because it is a happening or a celebrity appeal. Do I agree with everything?...No. We have our Homecoming in the fall,... contrary to what you might think it is not about the Gaithers. I wish we would lay low and just be a bit more humble for a while. Apparently some of the old guard convinced him we needed to do this Homecoming or some sort of meeting. Speaking of the old guard that may have a good part to do with why people are leaving, they feel that it will just be more of the same. If you're Wilkerson do you risk rocking the boat by getting rid of some of the old staff? The sycophants are still there, you get the sense they would make him king by force so to speak. 

I realize I may be rambling,...

Bravo - Bravo

You're right.  John Wilkerson is a good man and I do admire him for what he's trying to do but I think a lot of damage has been done and there's a lot of clean up to be done and a lot of people are hurt from what happened in the past.  I honestly don't know the answer to what JW can do except try to love his church people.  Time is on his side and I hope and pray that the people who remain give him a chance. 

 

[Mathew Ward]

Wouldn't you want your church people to be loyal to you as their pastor?  Being there when church doors are open, giving to the church, etc?  I don't think John Wilkerson has that from the church people.  There are still many people leaving and not many coming in.  He's more of a teacher than a preacher.  If you've lived under Bro. Hyles and Schaap, you'd understand.

I think a pastor should want the folks to be loyal to God. For the folks to have a relationship with God where God directs their steps. If people are doing it for the sake or loyalty to the pastor, then their reasoning or motives are wrong.

 

[brainisengaged]

Bravo, well said.

It is so 'odd' that it IS odd to me...walking in the hall and just seeing Pastor or Mrs. Wilkerson without an encasement of security detail surrounding them, 'protecting' them by keeping us riffraff away.

Lots of things like that. Things that at ANY OTHER CHURCH would just be normal everyday occurrences but to us, seem to usher in a new era.

To answer the OP's question: I think the Dave Hyles stories are irrefutable. I think they are true. I don't think, although I was not there, that they are stories made up in order to ruin his reputation. That alone has been enough to change my views of Jack Hyles. The way he handled it. Coverups, sending a very damaged man to pastor another unsuspecting church. Absolutely immoral and unforgiveable. That right there shows that people -- good honest caring unsuspecting people -- were NEVER his true care. His true care was empire building and reputation protecting and damage control at the expense of anyone who got in the way.

I cannot handle listening to old sermons of Jack Hyles any longer. They play them on the church's radio station and I listen for a bit but have to turn them off. So very little Bible was ever expounded upon. We simply settled in each service for a grand roller coaster ride on the Great Jack Hyles Personality Train. ("Give the people what they want")