Mrs. Hyles and the kids

[Justice1976]

Justice not sure how you know she suffered great loss they divorced and the court would have to make sure Cindy had money. Cindy is a licensed therapist. She moved to NC to be close to her daughter. Then she met a man who was married several times. She seems very happy. Which she deserves to be.

dh is trash and his day of justice is coming..........

Sherry, she has told how she worked as nurses' aid in NC while living there. Nurse's aids do not earn a lot. She has spoken of how she was nearly destitute in those days. I would think if Beverly had $ to share with Cindy, she should/would have. Cindy and her husband now live a very modest life. Cindy works a job (a receptionist) that isn't very lucrative financially. I can find nothing that leads me to believe that any of those children received money from either of their parents.

As far as their divorce, I don't think there was much to divide. I suspect that Jack "ratholed" some money before he went to prison. Money that Cindy knew nothing about and was not traceable or admitted in the divorce proceeding. Remember, they divorced after he went to prison. What's a divorce court going to threaten him with if he doesn't disclose his assets? Prison? When you're already doing hard time (and he did a decade) another year or two isn't much of a threat. Quite often, spouses such as she, simply want AWAY from the man, upon realizing the truth of what had been going on.

 

[WESLEY]

I'm pretty sure their house should have been paid for... and nearly certain she bought a brand new house when she moved to NC.... perhaps her pastor in NC could have helped her out

 

[Bruh]

After a pretty much a lifetime of IFB, I decided to go the SBC route. I lost all desire to “make it work” in IFB.

I completely understand. My wife and I have been members of five different IFB churches. In one the pastor was molesting kids in the church. Three others the pastors covered and hid men molesting kids. The fifth tried telling me I needed to quit my job because I was gone all the time and said, if I’d just downsized my lifestyle I wouldn’t need to be in the oil field and make the money I was making. And that I needed to sell my house and live in a trailer. true story.

(sigh) we were tired. And like you, decided to go a different route. It actually helped our marriage not that we had a bad marriage in the IFB but it was less stressful not having to keep appearances up.

This is our experience in 5 IFB churches. My experience tells me, it’s wide spread.

 

[Dr. Duck]

I completely understand. My wife and I have been members of five different IFB churches. In one the pastor was molesting kids in the church. Three others the pastors covered and hid men molesting kids. The fifth tried telling me I needed to quit my job because I was gone all the time and said, if I’d just downsized my lifestyle I wouldn’t need to be in the oil field and make the money I was making. And that I needed to sell my house and live in a trailer. true story.

(sigh) we were tired. And like you, decided to go a different route. It actually helped our marriage not that we had a bad marriage in the IFB but it was less stressful not having to keep appearances up.

This is our experience in 5 IFB churches. My experience tells me, it’s wide spread.

Humans are humans, and I think all churches have had these issues, but I think the IFB model lends itself to the perpetuity of the problem because there’s no real human accountability by default of each church’s independence.

 

[Bruh]

Humans are humans, and I think all churches have had these issues, but I think the IFB model lends itself to the perpetuity of the problem because there’s no real human accountability by default of each church’s independence.

Humans are humans? Kinda sounds to me like you’re giving them a pass? Like eh, hey the dude got drunk last night give him some grace. Sorry I don’t feel that way about organizations that look at it that way. No, they didn’t get drunk last night they harmed children and that child will never be the same. And these churches treat pedophiles like they would someone that got drunk last night.

I may be misunderstanding you and if I am I apologize.

As far as I know the church we attend now has never covered and hid pedophiles.

The church we attend now the pastor in a sermon said a couple years ago. If you’re here and are on the Pedophile list there are men here with your picture in their back pocket and they have eyes on you. Your gonna sit on the back row and when the service is over leave don’t stay leave. You’re not gonna take the offering you’re not gonna volunteer in any way shape or form. If I’m making you uncomfortable… good. Just know men are watching your every move.

See, I’ve never not one time heard something like this in an IFB church, ever.

 

[Dr. Duck]

Humans are humans? Kinda sounds to me like you’re giving them a pass? Like eh, hey the dude got drunk last night give him some grace. Sorry I don’t feel that way about organizations that look at it that way. No, they didn’t get drunk last night they harmed children and that child will never be the same. And these churches treat pedophiles like they would someone that got drunk last night.

Wow, you really twisted and misinterpreted my post in a huge way. Not cool. Maybe you need to go back and reread my post again in its entirety. If you still don’t understand, I probably can’t explain it any better.

 

[Bruh]

Wow, you really twisted and misinterpreted my post in a huge way. Not cool. Maybe you need to go back and reread my post again in its entirety. If you still don’t understand, I probably can’t explain it any better.

Reread your right my bad. But if you did say what I thought you said I would’ve had some good points though……

 

[Dr. Duck]

Reread your right my bad. But if you did say what I thought you said I would’ve had some good points though……

“Humans are humans” just means that sins will be committed regardless of denomination, but my point was that there’s a lack of accountability within the IFB model. Think of a store in which you have an issue and you can call corporate for it to be resolved, but if you have a problem with a store, and the manager is also the owner of the store, you’re kind of screwed from getting a problem fixed. The latter is the IFB.

 

[ALAYMAN]

… Should someone caught in that trap stay and battle it out, or might it be better to just move on?

I think that “trap” generally smacks of the overly controlling and authoritarian group and clique that I would likewise avoid. So if that was the only available church type I would consider other denoms, like a Bible Church, Commmunity Church, etc.

And for the record, I don’t think that consulting or working with the church that a person is leaving is necessarily a bad idea, nor is it absolutely a sign of an abusive church. Knowing why someone is leaving a church can help a church know the context from which they are fleeing, for good or ill.

 

[illinoisguy]

I don’t think that consulting or working with the church that a person is leaving is necessarily a bad idea, nor is it absolutely a sign of an abusive church. Knowing why someone is leaving a church can help a church know the context from which they are fleeing, for good or ill.

I totally agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong, in itself, with church leadership meeting in an amicable manner for an exit interview with members who are leaving. Such a meeting can be mutually beneficial for the congregation and for the member who is leaving.

Some leaving members may decline to agree to such a meeting, because they fear, rightly or wrongly, that the purpose of the meeting is to intimidate them and try to coerce them to stay with the church.

On two occasions, when I was leaving an abusive IFB church, the pastors of both churches asked me to meet with them for an exit interview. In both cases I responded and agreed to the meeting, and spelled out a list of issues that I planned to discuss. In both cases, the meeting was never scheduled by the pastor. One pastor never responded at all, the other one never scheduled the meeting but he did respond to say "Since you have repeatedly refused to meet with me, I do not want any more contact with you, and for the good of our congregation, you should worship elsewhere." My surmise is that in both cases, the pastors sensed that I was not in a mood to let myself be bullied or intimidated by them, and therefore the meeting would not serve their purposes, but if anyone asked about me, they could say "We did our very best, we tried to meet with him and deal with his sin, but he refused to meet."

 

[ALAYMAN]

I totally agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong, in itself, with church leadership meeting in an amicable manner for an exit interview with members who are leaving. Such a meeting can be mutually beneficial for the congregation and for the member who is leaving.

Some leaving members may decline to agree to such a meeting, because they fear, rightly or wrongly, that the purpose of the meeting is to intimidate them and try to coerce them to stay with the church.

On two occasions, when I was leaving an abusive IFB church, the pastors of both churches asked me to meet with them for an exit interview. In both cases I responded and agreed to the meeting, and spelled out a list of issues that I planned to discuss. In both cases, the meeting was never scheduled by the pastor. One pastor never responded at all, the other one never scheduled the meeting but he did respond to say "Since you have repeatedly refused to meet with me, I do not want any more contact with you, and for the good of our congregation, you should worship elsewhere." My surmise is that in both cases, the pastors sensed that I was not in a mood to let myself be bullied or intimidated by them, and therefore the meeting would not serve their purposes, but if anyone asked about me, they could say "We did our very best, we tried to meet with him and deal with his sin, but he refused to meet."

I see why you are a bit jaded. But I would still maintain that such behavior is that which mainly is associated with the Indy-Fundy style of IFBs. That variety is certainly a player in the pond, but not the only species. Maybe it’s a regional thing, because it certainly hasn’t been my experience with my church or ones in the vicinity where I live. Matter of fact, in all of the years I’ve been in leadership position I could only say I’ve seen a handful times where meetings were requested with church leaders, and never once seen it done when people were leaving the church. It’s usually just the opposite, they don’t want any attention, hearing, or accountability.

 

[Justice1976]

I think the way people make up their minds to leave a congregation is most often a progression of issues that finally inform the member that he/she is in the wrong congregation. Perhaps if it were only one doctrinal issue, someone might request a meeting with the pastor or other church leader to insure that a full understanding of the matter was accurate. In such a case, the individual could be convinced that the particular church was still the right one for him.

But if it is an accumulation of issues, it is my belief that the member is likely not going to want to defend their reasoning to a pastor or other leader. And frankly, they probably should just quietly let themself out the door. I have never heard of a church offering exit interviews. I'm not against it per se, but just not aware of such.

 

[illinoisguy]

I have been in a number of church situations where I found myself being relentlessly hounded, harassed and hazed by pastors and sometimes prominent members, over issues for which I felt there was no scriptural basis, and that it would be impossible to resolve everything to everyone's satisfaction until I became 100% submissive and in agreement concerning all the multiple offenses I was being charged with. My advice to any church member who finds himself or herself in such a dilemma is to "just quietly let yourself out the door." In all these situations, I have always been willing to be accountable to the church that I was leaving, but it has been the church leadership, not me, that was unwilling to be held accountable or even talk about it. In an abusive situation, the pastor and his henchmen are not really going to want to talk things over with you - they want you to submit completely to their control, without asking any questions. They don't want to deal with members who ask "Where is this taught in the Bible?" or who deny false accusations that the leaders make for intimidation purposes. They regard that type of response as a challenge to their pastoral authority, which cannot be tolerated.

Signed, "Jaded"

 

[ALAYMAN]

I have been in a number of church situations where I found myself being relentlessly hounded, harassed and hazed by pastors and sometimes prominent members, over issues for which I felt there was no scriptural basis, and that it would be impossible to resolve everything to everyone's satisfaction until I became 100% submissive and in agreement concerning all the multiple offenses I was being charged with. My advice to any church member who finds himself or herself in such a dilemma is to "just quietly let yourself out the door." In all these situations, I have always been willing to be accountable to the church that I was leaving, but it has been the church leadership, not me, that was unwilling to be held accountable or even talk about it. In an abusive situation, the pastor and his henchmen are not really going to want to talk things over with you - they want you to submit completely to their control, without asking any questions. They don't want to deal with members who ask "Where is this taught in the Bible?" or who deny false accusations that the leaders make for intimidation purposes. They regard that type of response as a challenge to their pastoral authority, which cannot be tolerated.

Signed, "Jaded"

One of the most godly men (and his wonderful Christian wife) that I have ever known, had a slight issue with my allowance of breakfast being served in the Sunday school room. This elderly couple who had served the Lord in this church for decades, took a principled stand and elected to frequently absent themselves from my adult Sunday School class. Do you know what the scripture citation was that they gave for the principle? 1 Corinthians 11, “don’t you have houses that you can eat in”?

Myself in the pastor at the time, sat down with them in their home and tried to explain context to them, to no avail. But you know what? We didn’t let our differences on secondary issues wrinkle us and divide us. We still worshiped together. I’m afraid that the situation that you describe comes from an attitude in leadership that feels like any challenge to their practices must be met with belligerence and over authoritative reach, which translate sometimes to preaching at the individuals who challenged their authority. In that case, I agree that the best thing to do is just quietly walk away. And of course, lastly, not everybody in leadership is like that.

 

[abcaines]

One of the most godly men (and his wonderful Christian wife) that I have ever known, had a slight issue with my allowance of breakfast being served in the Sunday school room. This elderly couple who had served the Lord in this church for decades, took a principled stand and elected to frequently absent themselves from my adult Sunday School class. Do you know what the scripture citation was that they gave for the principle? 1 Corinthians 11, “don’t you have houses that you can eat in”?

Myself in the pastor at the time, sat down with them in their home and tried to explain context to them, to no avail. But you know what? We didn’t let our differences on secondary issues wrinkle us and divide us. We still worshiped together. I’m afraid that the situation that you describe comes from an attitude in leadership that feels like any challenge to their practices must be met with belligerence and over authoritative reach, which translate sometimes to preaching at the individuals who challenged their authority. In that case, I agree that the best thing to do is just quietly walk away. And of course, lastly, not everybody in leadership is like that.

So... Church potlucks are taboo for them? They'd have a real problem with Calorie Chapel... er... I mean Calvary Chapel...

 

[Jo]

Sherry, she has told how she worked as nurses' aid in NC while living there. Nurse's aids do not earn a lot. She has spoken of how she was nearly destitute in those days. I would think if Beverly had $ to share with Cindy, she should/would have. Cindy and her husband now live a very modest life. Cindy works a job (a receptionist) that isn't very lucrative financially. I can find nothing that leads me to believe that any of those children received money from either of their parents.

As far as their divorce, I don't think there was much to divide. I suspect that Jack "ratholed" some money before he went to prison. Money that Cindy knew nothing about and was not traceable or admitted in the divorce proceeding. Remember, they divorced after he went to prison. What's a divorce court going to threaten him with if he doesn't disclose his assets? Prison? When you're already doing hard time (and he did a decade) another year or two isn't much of a threat. Quite often, spouses such as she, simply want AWAY from the man, upon realizing the truth of what had been going on.

I either heard or read somewhere that the bulk of money they inherited was from the Hyles Publishing branch. Does anyone know if that's true?

 

[ALAYMAN]

So... Church potlucks are taboo for them? They'd have a real problem with Calorie Chapel... er... I mean Calvary Chapel...

No, because they were held in the fellowship hall, a place designated for eating, lol. Of course never mind my Sunday School being connected to the sanctuary at about the same distance as was the fellowship hall.

 

[Justice1976]

I either heard or read somewhere that the bulk of money they inherited was from the Hyles Publishing branch. Does anyone know if that's true?

I'll probably get criticized for this, because I concede that some of what I am about to write is conjecture or second hand information.

But it is my understanding that the Hyles Publication assets did comprise a large portion of what Jack Hyles left behind in death. I believe some legal issues ensued -- I don't believe they reached the litigation phase. But the issue was whether the Hyles Publication money was the property of FBC or the intellectual property of Jack Hyles and thus, part of his personal estate. I believe the issue was largely decided because Hyles Publications had always been tax sheltererd as a ministry of the church.

The obvious players were Jack Schaap, representing the interests of the church and Mrs. Hyles and her children who would benefit from a finding of personal property. I do not know where Cindy came down in this matter as she would have been obviously conflicted. I also do not know if a negotiated resolution was reached, wherein they Hyles family was able to take a portion of the proceeds. Finally, I understand this caused a schism between Schaap/FBC and the Hyles family.

I think what is certain is that twenty-five years later, however much money there was and who was able to take ownership, that money is long gone.

 

[Jo]

I'll probably get criticized for this, because I concede that some of what I am about to write is conjecture or second hand information.

But it is my understanding that the Hyles Publication assets did comprise a large portion of what Jack Hyles left behind in death. I believe some legal issues ensued -- I don't believe they reached the litigation phase. But the issue was whether the Hyles Publication money was the property of FBC or the intellectual property of Jack Hyles and thus, part of his personal estate. I believe the issue was largely decided because Hyles Publications had always been tax sheltererd as a ministry of the church.

The obvious players were Jack Schaap, representing the interests of the church and Mrs. Hyles and her children who would benefit from a finding of personal property. I do not know where Cindy came down in this matter as she would have been obviously conflicted. I also do not know if a negotiated resolution was reached, wherein they Hyles family was able to take a portion of the proceeds. Finally, I understand this caused a schism between Schaap/FBC and the Hyles family.

I think what is certain is that twenty-five years later, however much money there was and who was able to take ownership, that money is long gone.

Interesting.

I'm not an attorney, but I have read a few court cases and depositions in my lifetime. Sometimes, they're interesting. I found the following case below. I don't pretend to understand all of it, but it is a sad commentary on the church history of FBC Hammond et al.

https://foresterhaynie.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Court-Stamped-Complaint.pdf

"Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” I Corinthians 10:12

 

[illinoisguy]

Copilot search on current state of lawsuit by Nanette Miles:

Nanette Miles’ Lawsuit Against David Hyles and First Baptist Church of Hammond​

Nanette Miles, a former parishioner, filed a class action civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in 2020 against David Hyles, the former youth director and son of Hyles-Anderson College founder Jack Hyles, and First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, along with Hyles-Anderson College roysreport.com.

The complaint alleged that Hyles sexually assaulted Miles when she was 13 in 1976 and that church and college officials covered up the abuse for years. Miles claimed at least 10 other individuals had credibly accused Hyles of similar abuse, and that “likely hundreds” of other survivors were harmed roysreport.com. The suit sought undisclosed damages on behalf of herself and others, aiming to hold church and college leaders accountable for decades of alleged abuse and cover-up.

The case was part of a broader pattern of litigation against Hyles. In February 2020, Joy Ryder also filed a civil suit alleging repeated sexual abuse in the 1970s, but her claim was dismissed in 2022 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for failing to allege injury to “business or property” required for a RICO civil claim Justia Law.

While the provided results do not explicitly state that Miles’ case was dismissed, the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Ryder v. Hyles shows that civil RICO claims in this context were not allowed to proceed due to pleading deficiencies. This outcome is relevant because Miles’ lawsuit also invoked RICO’s civil cause of action, and similar legal standards apply in such cases.

In summary, Miles’ lawsuit was not publicly reported as dismissed in the provided sources, but the legal precedent from the Ryder case indicates that civil RICO claims in this type of abuse litigation face significant hurdles unless plaintiffs can clearly allege injury to business or property. Without a public dismissal notice, the case may still be pending or have been resolved through settlement or other means not covered in the available records.