Jack Hyles died 25 years ago, today.

ALAYMAN said:
Well, I agree that there are boundaries that get crossed that turn from respect to hero worship, there’s nothing wrong with cultivating an attitude amongst our youth (which was usually the context that these kinds of signings took place) to see respect for godly men (and women), rather than sports stars and celebrities.
Click to expand...
As long as it’s consistent with Sunday school teachers and the plumbers in the church.
 
Ekklesian said:
In my experience, anyone who says "God told me," is either lying or deluded. This goes for so-called Baptists, too.

Stanley's governing principle expressed in the video, which he got from his Pentecostal grandfather, is wholly unbiblical. If you are right with God in your heart, and you're doing what God called you to do, then you keep doing what He called you to do until He tells you to do something else.

Man, that sounds all good and holy, but he's not talking about the clear commands of Scripture. He's talking about what he and others imagine God is telling them to do.

What is it that we are called of God to do? We are called to follow Christ. We are all called to take His yoke upon us and to learn of Him. That means we are to obey His commandments as they were delivered to us by the Apostles. Not what we feel or imagine God may be saying. The Holy Spirit gets blamed for a lot He had nothing to do with.

And the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Even through our periods of weakness and rebellion.

But no one is called to an office. What do the Scriptures say? If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. And he may serve in that capacity as long as he meets the qualifications.

I hate to burst the bubble of the men o' Gawd, but no one is called to the pastorate. That's something that you want to do, no doubt in good faith and from a pure heart. But it's still something you want to do, not what God has called you to do, and the moment you slip up and break faith, your term has ended, permanently.

In Stanley's case, it may be that since it was the wife that sought the divorce, that he is still technically qualified. And if he had argued that point from Scripture, his argument might have had some merit. But that's not the premise he argued from. He is saying that to step down from the pulpit would be disobedience to God, because God called him to preach, and hasn't told him to do anything else.

I think if he had argued from the Scriptures, that he is still technically qualified, his desire to remain in office would be revealed to be more self will than God's will. Who would advise someone to neglect his family for the sake of his "ministry"? His family is his ministry.

Legalism might say he's qualified, but the Spirit would have him look to his own house.
Click to expand...
Many believe Gods calls some to the ministry and others just volunteer. I have heard both Missionaries and Pastors say they did not really have a desire to be in the ministry, they had other dreams for their life. I also heard them say they believed with all their heart they were doing exactly what God wanted them to do with their lives. Perhaps you were never called but that does not mean others were not. John Rice often said God did not call me but I was a need and I step up and filled it.

Ephesians 4:1-3 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Can you show me in the scriptuire that Ephesians 4 does not mean God calls some into their profession.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Charles Stanley neglected his wife and his family for the ministry and such is far from anything I would consider virtuous and certainly not blameless! Too bad he was not accountable to elders who would have required him to step down and get his family life back in order. Such would've been a far better legacy than the one he had left us!

I do not mean to attack the man. He is certainly not around to defend himself anyway! What I am saying though is that he was NOT a good example in this area and those in the ministry today should acknowledge this and learn from his mistakes!
Click to expand...
That still would not have been a biblical reason to have his wife divorced him though, and he did seem to be agreeable to reconcialtion with her
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I stand by my words here. His statement was pragmatic and does not address what led to the divorce in the first place. Do you hear him taking any responsibility for his failures in the marriage? At this point it is over and done with so what can you do? We have discussed this before and you also know that I have been divorced. I do not believe that divorce permanently disqualifies you from ministry but when marital problems arise, you need to make that a priority and deal with that! What a legacy he would've left and what an example he would've been to other preachers had he put family first and sought restoration in his marriage long before it came to this? My understanding is that his wife was quite patient with him for many years! Too bad an older man didn't give a younger Charles Stanley some godly counsel when he was seriously messing up! This would be my counsel to young preachers today and I believe this to be right!
Click to expand...
So was not that he had committed adultery, but was more like emotional trauma to her by placing the work and ministry of God before her then?
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I’m not defending Stanley, just was pointing out his explanation. TBH, I think he should have resigned from his position as head pastor. My personal opinion is someone who has been divorced should only be an assistant pastor in church, but not the head pastor. (I don’t have any Bible verses to back me up on that stance, it’s just my opinion.)

Anyway, as I said to @ALAYMAN, I wasn’t aware of the church politics with Stanley back then. I was occasionally working graveyard shifts while enrolled in college, and I was at a very low spiritual place in life, and I give credit to Stanley’s late night sermons on the radio that helped me crawl out of a dark hole and get me interested in the Bible and spiritual things again.
Click to expand...
It all depends on who was the wounded partner, and was the divorce on biblical grounds or not
 
JesusFan said:
So was not that he had committed adultery, but was more like emotional trauma to her by placing the work and ministry of God before her then?
Click to expand...

Matthew 10:37-38
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me, and he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.​

​Full time Christian advice and any ministry is one of balance between service and family.
 
sword said:
* Kilts when in battle may be exempt.
Click to expand...

Kilts weren't "exempt." They were, and are, traditional Scottish men's clothing, albeit more formal wear today than everyday. It's a rather provincial idea that men's clothing has to have two leg holes and women's clothing has one.
 
abcaines said:
Noted, however, combat is the last place I would want to be wearing a skirt no matter how manly it is.
Click to expand...

Kilts offered more mobility than trousers and dried faster after a rainstorm. The "great kilt" wasn't just a skirt: it was up to 10 yards of wool fabric wrapped around the waist and over the shoulder, and could be used as a cloak or a blanket. The kilt was officially banned as a combat uniform once it became impractical for modern warfare.
 
JesusFan said:
That still would not have been a biblical reason to have his wife divorced him though, and he did seem to be agreeable to reconcialtion with her
Click to expand...
I believe the only biblical response for a believer is reconciliation. If they refuse to reconcile, the other is "free" (not under any bondage) according to 1 Cor 7. According to information I have read, it seemed like his wife was being reasonable and she wanted to work things out as well. Accounts from Andy Stanley (and others) was that he was basically an "absentee father!" I am certain he wanted reconcilliation as well but did he ever own up to anything of which he was to blame?
JesusFan said:
So was not that he had committed adultery, but was more like emotional trauma to her by placing the work and ministry of God before her then?
Click to expand...
Seems to me it was obvious neglect although we do not know to what extent. Not going to inject language like "Emotional Trauma" because such implies abuse and I would want to be careful here. Dr. Stanley seems like he was a nice guy but simply listened to the wrong people and was pragmatic when he should've been biblical!

The objective of my criticism is not to impugn his character or legacy but simply to acknowledge and learn from what I see are some obvious mistakes!
 
Ransom said:
Kilts weren't "exempt." They were, and are, traditional Scottish men's clothing, albeit more formal wear today than everyday. It's a rather provincial idea that men's clothing has to have two leg holes and women's clothing has one.
Click to expand...
This has been tradition in most cultures for generations. Not sure the orgin, customs change over time of course. What do you think Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV) refers to and why was it an abomination unto the Lord thy God. That seems a tad strong. Old Testament law perhaps?
 
sword said:
This has been tradition in most cultures for generations. Not sure the orgin, customs change over time of course. What do you think Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV) refers to and why was it an abomination unto the Lord thy God. That seems a tad strong. Old Testament law perhaps?
Click to expand...

That law was written to a culture where both men and women wore robes. So whatever it refers to, it's not "men wear pants, women wear dresses."
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I believe the only biblical response for a believer is reconciliation. If they refuse to reconcile, the other is "free" (not under any bondage) according to 1 Cor 7. According to information I have read, it seemed like his wife was being reasonable and she wanted to work things out as well. Accounts from Andy Stanley (and others) was that he was basically an "absentee father!" I am certain he wanted reconcilliation as well but did he ever own up to anything of which he was to blame?

Seems to me it was obvious neglect although we do not know to what extent. Not going to inject language like "Emotional Trauma" because such implies abuse and I would want to be careful here. Dr. Stanley seems like he was a nice guy but simply listened to the wrong people and was pragmatic when he should've been biblical!

The objective of my criticism is not to impugn his character or legacy but simply to acknowledge and learn from what I see are some obvious mistakes!
Click to expand...
Think that we have had too many examples of those who were in leadership among Christians and yet were really acting nasty out of the limelight, see Phillip Yancy and Ravi Zacharias for examples
 
JesusFan said:
Think that we have had too many examples of those who were in leadership among Christians and yet were really acting nasty out of the limelight, see Phillip Yancy and Ravi Zacharias for examples
Click to expand...
I believe that is a "sin" problem. Man is totally depraved. All of us. Even those professing to be "professional" Christians. It's sad, but true.

Romans 7:24-25

"O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."​

 
Justice1976 said:
I believe that is a "sin" problem. Man is totally depraved. All of us. Even those professing to be "professional" Christians. It's sad, but true.

Romans 7:24-25

"O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."​

Click to expand...
Yes, but when satan can get a "big name" to fall, that really gives a black eye to the body and work of Christ
 
sword said:
I'm not going to take a position, but there are many Godly preachers from the past (many who never heard of Jack Hyles) who stronly believed "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment" means men should not were dresses or skirts* and women should not wear pants. Until 1930 it was very unusual for a woman to wear pants even among non-christians. Throughout history this was a societal norm.

* Kilts when in battle may be exempt.
Click to expand...
Whatever. It is a twisting of the Bible. That is not what that passage is referring to.
 
JesusFan said:
Yes, but when satan can get a "big name" to fall, that really gives a black eye to the body and work of Christ
Click to expand...
i;ve heard that many times since getting to know people still involved in the fundamentalist movement... ...

but i;ve also heard that when big names fall it also shows common people out there that nobody gets special treatment or is given a free pass by God..... God does not wink at the sins of any man and allow him to side step earthly consequences of his sin just because he might be saved and might have been part of great things that were done for God...

what i see in it is this.... ..people trying to make a name for themselves doing the work of Christ might get a black eye - and no doubt the churches that sat under big name preachers who were corrupt and trying to glorify themselves get their eyes blackened...... but the truth is - when those men with big names fall... God is glorified... as He will always be - regardless of what men might do - or try to do...
 
aleshanee said:
i;ve heard that many times since getting to know people still involved in the fundamentalist movement... ...

but i;ve also heard that when big names fall it also shows common people out there that nobody gets special treatment or is given a free pass by God..... God does not wink at the sins of any man and allow him to side step earthly consequences of his sin just because he might be saved and might have been part of great things that were done for God...

what i see in it is this.... ..people trying to make a name for themselves doing the work of Christ might get a black eye - and no doubt the churches that sat under big name preachers who were corrupt and trying to glorify themselves get their eyes blackened...... but the truth is - when those men with big names fall... God is glorified... as He will always be - regardless of what men might do - or try to do...
Click to expand...
I have never been part of an IBF church, but would say that when known names fall into sinning, it dies give cause of Christ black eye among the unsaved
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top