What is the new pastor to do?

[RAIDER]

Would it be sufficient if Wilkerson stood up and said to the church, "There have been some wrong things done and taught by your 2 previous pastors and for this I am sorry".  Would he need to name exact sins done and exact errors taught?

That would be difficult unless he himself were faultless in his teachings.  I wouldn't make any direct reference to Hyles but would speak to the Schaap issue as it is so fresh.  Has that ever happened since Schaap left?  Then I would, on occasion, make it clear that my policy of dealing with sexual offensives would be swift and not tolerated.  Openness is key and it will take years for trust to be established.

Lastly, old staff that turned a blind eye to the past evils must be replaced.

Nicely done.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

It would be in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, in an act of humility, to confess the sins of previous generations of whatever institutions and try to repair as much damage and soothe as much hurt as is possible. If you can't see that, not sure how much more I can add to the conversation.

Would it be sufficient if Wilkerson stood up and said to the church, "There have been some wrong things done and taught by your 2 previous pastors and for this I am sorry".  Would he need to name exact sins done and exact errors taught?

I would think it would be of a benefit if he mentioned exact things without naming names. It beats a generic "I'm sorry - let's get on with the program now" mentality. Healing wounds takes time and sometimes personal time. It is about hearing grievances, personal apologies for specific actions. Granted, certain details need not be made public but one can be more specific than a general acknowledgement of past issues.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Would it be sufficient if Wilkerson stood up and said to the church, "There have been some wrong things done and taught by your 2 previous pastors and for this I am sorry".  Would he need to name exact sins done and exact errors taught?

That would be difficult unless he himself were faultless in his teachings.  I wouldn't make any direct reference to Hyles but would speak to the Schaap issue as it is so fresh.  Has that ever happened since Schaap left?  Then I would, on occasion, make it clear that my policy of dealing with sexual offensives would be swift and not tolerated.  Openness is key and it will take years for trust to be established.

Lastly, old staff that turned a blind eye to the past evils must be replaced.

I agree.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

On another thread someone mentioned that they had broken ties with FBCH shortly after Schaap became pastor.  They also mentioned that they liked Wilkerson and the direction he is going.  Another poster entered the following comment:

"There has been no public renunciation or repentance of the sin of Jack Schaap and the unscriptural leadership promoted by Jack Hyles."

Here is the topic for this thread.  What responsibility does a new pastor have concerning rumors, facts, and issues with the previous pastors?  Since he was not there, should he start fresh and concern himself with the future?  Should he start an investigation and take his findings to the church?

Hacker Nation, what think ye?

I think these issues should have been (and may have been) dealt with during the candidating process. Specific questions should have been asked. If they weren't, the pastoral candidate should have answered them anyway describing what he would do as pastor and what he would expect the church to do before he gets there relative to the two former pastors.

 

[Bruh]

Would it be sufficient if Wilkerson stood up and said to the church, "There have been some wrong things done and taught by your 2 previous pastors and for this I am sorry".  Would he need to name exact sins done and exact errors taught?

That would be difficult unless he himself were faultless in his teachings.  I wouldn't make any direct reference to Hyles but would speak to the Schaap issue as it is so fresh.  Has that ever happened since Schaap left?  Then I would, on occasion, make it clear that my policy of dealing with sexual offensives would be swift and not tolerated.  Openness is key and it will take years for trust to be established.

Lastly, old staff that turned a blind eye to the past evils must be replaced.

Old staff?

How is it that the staff is more responsible than the laymen?

 

[Bruh]

I believe that it's really simple.

1st address the man worship, and stop all the clapping for men or anyone that walks across any platform in the ministry.  Use Scripture when it comes to the man worship lay it out. He doesn't have to name thier names but be very authoritative and be sure to mention that this goes for me or any man on staff.

2nd any written material that is heresy needs to stop printing. Like JH book that says only if a KJ bible is used can a person get saved.

Use scripture lay it out line upon line.

 

[Walt]

The church can't move on until it deals with its past. If there was sin, heresy, unscriptural practices and philosophies present in the church before his tenure, I believe to properly lead the church forward, the pastor should lead the church to recognize and repent of these issues.

IMO here is the problem.  While there may be some obvious things (i.e. Schaap's sin with the young lady) there are a lot of rumors that may or may not be true depending to whom you talk.  Is Wilkerson suppose to get up and say, "Here is a list of heresies that your previous pastor preached"?  Would a new pastor of a church of 200 do this?  Is he suppose to say, "Here are some things to which I don't agree that your previous, previous pastor preached"?  How deep is he suppose to dig? 

When Wilkerson arrived, he said something like "I have great respect for the previous pastors of FBCH".  To me, that means he is in agreement with their practices and teachings.

In my opinion, Wilkerson should clear the air by stating (1) Schaap's teaching in "The Divine Intimacy" was heresy and is NOT supported by FBCH.  (2)  Schaap's teaching regarding money is Charismatic and rejected by him  (3) Jack Hyles lied to protect his son  (4) Jack Hyles taught an unhealthy and unscriptural leadership philosophy.

I don't think that there is any question of these points; they have been so well documented.  This would be a good beginning.

 

[IFB X-Files]

In my opinion, Wilkerson should clear the air by stating (1) Schaap's teaching in "The Divine Intimacy" was heresy and is NOT supported by FBCH.  (2)  Schaap's teaching regarding money is Charismatic and rejected by him  (3) Jack Hyles lied to protect his son  (4) Jack Hyles taught an unhealthy and unscriptural leadership philosophy.

One thing for sure, if he preached that message, I'd buy the DVD.

 

[bgwilkinson]

While I do not always agree with David Cloud, I do believe he is giving us some advise worth considering.

These are quotes from his web site.

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/ignoring_sin_first_baptist_hammond.html

"WHAT IS THE SIN OF FIRST BAPTIST?"

"THE SIN OF BOASTING

"Pride is no small sin. The Bible says God hates pride. It was the first sin of the devil. For pastors and churches, which are to be examples of humility to this haughty world, to walk in pride is a great sin."

"Boasting about Preachers"

"Boasting about Churches"

"Boasting about Numbers"

"The Boasting of Jack Hyles Himself"

"THE SIN OF SERIAL IMMORALITY"

"But a church that becomes a byword for immorality cannot excuse its great sin by saying, “All of God’s people sin.”

"THE SIN OF CULTIC OBEDIENCE TO A PASTOR"

"First Baptist of Hammond is also guilty of cultic obedience to a man, which is a great sin. It is the sin of popery."



David Cloud has nailed us to the wall.

He is right and right on point with these sins.

This would be a good place to start, public confession and repentance of these vile sins of Christian men.


Can you think of others we should confess?

 

[RAIDER]

I would think it would be of a benefit if he mentioned exact things without naming names. It beats a generic "I'm sorry - let's get on with the program now" mentality. Healing wounds takes time and sometimes personal time. It is about hearing grievances, personal apologies for specific actions. Granted, certain details need not be made public but one can be more specific than a general acknowledgement of past issues.

Possible reactions to your idea:

"That didn't happen.  I was around during that time.  That's just a rumor."

"He mentioned (name the sin) but totally skipped over (name another sin).  I can't believe he would do that!"

"He doesn't have all his facts straight.  He should have done more research."

"He 'sugar coated' that.  I know far more than he does about it."

It is easy for us to say, "Wilkerson needs to get up and confess the sins of the 2 previous pastors, hear the grievance from people who have been hurt, and make things right".  Far easier said than done.

Do we have a modern example of a pastor who has done this?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I would think it would be of a benefit if he mentioned exact things without naming names. It beats a generic "I'm sorry - let's get on with the program now" mentality. Healing wounds takes time and sometimes personal time. It is about hearing grievances, personal apologies for specific actions. Granted, certain details need not be made public but one can be more specific than a general acknowledgement of past issues.

Possible reactions to your idea:

"That didn't happen.  I was around during that time.  That's just a rumor."

"He mentioned (name the sin) but totally skipped over (name another sin).  I can't believe he would do that!"

"He doesn't have all his facts straight.  He should have done more research."

"He 'sugar coated' that.  I know far more than he does about it."

It is easy for us to say, "Wilkerson needs to get up and confess the sins of the 2 previous pastors, hear the grievance from people who have been hurt, and make things right".  Far easier said than done.

Do we have a modern example of a pastor who has done this?

I don't have an example of anyone who has done it.

That being said up front, the idea that people's reactions are in self-defense and questioning is evidence enough the mindset is wrong. The mindset should be about repentance. We aren't talking about a criminal confession so why should a church's initial reaction be in self-preservation mode instead of humility mode?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Do we have a modern example of a pastor who has done this?

Though this isn't a church, it is a group of college Christians apologizing to heathens for our history of behaviors:

[youtube]NAbrPyc7fhU[/youtube]

Part of a documentary where straight Christians did a takeoff of the Reed College group and did a confessional booth, confessing to gay people for our prejudices against them:

[youtube]PeDopjLJ0nA[/youtube]

 

[RAIDER]

I would think it would be of a benefit if he mentioned exact things without naming names. It beats a generic "I'm sorry - let's get on with the program now" mentality. Healing wounds takes time and sometimes personal time. It is about hearing grievances, personal apologies for specific actions. Granted, certain details need not be made public but one can be more specific than a general acknowledgement of past issues.

Possible reactions to your idea:

"That didn't happen.  I was around during that time.  That's just a rumor."

"He mentioned (name the sin) but totally skipped over (name another sin).  I can't believe he would do that!"

"He doesn't have all his facts straight.  He should have done more research."

"He 'sugar coated' that.  I know far more than he does about it."

It is easy for us to say, "Wilkerson needs to get up and confess the sins of the 2 previous pastors, hear the grievance from people who have been hurt, and make things right".  Far easier said than done.

Do we have a modern example of a pastor who has done this?

I don't have an example of anyone who has done it.

That being said up front, the idea that people's reactions are in self-defense and questioning is evidence enough the mindset is wrong. The mindset should be about repentance. We aren't talking about a criminal confession so why should a church's initial reaction be in self-preservation mode instead of humility mode?

Because you are dealing with people.  People who believe that terrible things were done to them or a loved one.  People who believe that only this-or-that was done.  People who have preconceived ideas on how Wilkerson should deal with their issues.

It's not that I don't believe something needs to be done.  I just don't believe you can go into detail with events. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I would think it would be of a benefit if he mentioned exact things without naming names. It beats a generic "I'm sorry - let's get on with the program now" mentality. Healing wounds takes time and sometimes personal time. It is about hearing grievances, personal apologies for specific actions. Granted, certain details need not be made public but one can be more specific than a general acknowledgement of past issues.

Possible reactions to your idea:

"That didn't happen.  I was around during that time.  That's just a rumor."

"He mentioned (name the sin) but totally skipped over (name another sin).  I can't believe he would do that!"

"He doesn't have all his facts straight.  He should have done more research."

"He 'sugar coated' that.  I know far more than he does about it."

It is easy for us to say, "Wilkerson needs to get up and confess the sins of the 2 previous pastors, hear the grievance from people who have been hurt, and make things right".  Far easier said than done.

Do we have a modern example of a pastor who has done this?

I don't have an example of anyone who has done it.

That being said up front, the idea that people's reactions are in self-defense and questioning is evidence enough the mindset is wrong. The mindset should be about repentance. We aren't talking about a criminal confession so why should a church's initial reaction be in self-preservation mode instead of humility mode?

Because you are dealing with people.  People who believe that terrible things were done to them or a loved one.  People who believe that only this-or-that was done.  People who have preconceived ideas on how Wilkerson should deal with their issues.

It's not that I don't believe something needs to be done.  I just don't believe you can go into detail with events.

This is why I suggested earlier that personal communication both ways should be a necessity (where possible) in addition to public confession.

 

[RAIDER]

This is why I suggested earlier that personal communication both ways should be a necessity (where possible) in addition to public confession.

We don't know what Wilkerson has and hasn't heard.  Should he get up and say, "We want to move forward at FBCH with God's blessing.  There have been some past sins during the time of my 2 predecessors.  If you have unresolved issues or things about which you need to talk, please stop by the office and see me."

Is he then to collect a list and go before the church and mention issues without names?  Is he to ask those with issues what can be done to help them?

On another side of the coin, if Wilkerson does this are they opening FBCH up for possible legal problems and false accusations? 

 

[RAIDER]

Maybe Wilkerson could just play Linda Hyles Murphrey's video for the church.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

This is why I suggested earlier that personal communication both ways should be a necessity (where possible) in addition to public confession.

We don't know what Wilkerson has and hasn't heard.  Should he get up and say, "We want to move forward at FBCH with God's blessing.  There have been some past sins during the time of my 2 predecessors.  If you have unresolved issues or things about which you need to talk, please stop by the office and see me."

Is he then to collect a list and go before the church and mention issues without names?  Is he to ask those with issues what can be done to help them?

On another side of the coin, if Wilkerson does this are they opening FBCH up for possible legal problems and false accusations?

Names cannot be named because that could be considered slander. But publicly acknowledging the sins of the fathers, open the door for personal communication with those who were hurt, humbly asking forgiveness of those people on behalf of the church, having the deacon board accessible to hear the issues and extend apologies, etc. would go a long way in both the demonstration of humility and people who have been hurt will know they have an open door to communicate their hurts/concerns without feeling they will be judged for their feelings of victimization.

 

[RAIDER]

Names cannot be named because that could be considered slander. But publicly acknowledging the sins of the fathers, open the door for personal communication with those who were hurt, humbly asking forgiveness of those people on behalf of the church, having the deacon board accessible to hear the issues and extend apologies, etc. would go a long way in both the demonstration of humility and people who have been hurt will know they have an open door to communicate their hurts/concerns without feeling they will be judged for their feelings of victimization.

While all this sounds good (and it truly does), is it possible to do this without having people becoming "issue band wagon jumpers" and looking for $$$ taking it to the next level by getting an attorney.  After all, the pastor "asked forgiveness publicly from the people of the church".

I'm not sure what has or hasn't been dealt with by Wilkerson, but I believe doing what you are saying may open a can of worms.

 

[rsc2a]

Why should fear stop Christ followers from doing what is right?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Names cannot be named because that could be considered slander. But publicly acknowledging the sins of the fathers, open the door for personal communication with those who were hurt, humbly asking forgiveness of those people on behalf of the church, having the deacon board accessible to hear the issues and extend apologies, etc. would go a long way in both the demonstration of humility and people who have been hurt will know they have an open door to communicate their hurts/concerns without feeling they will be judged for their feelings of victimization.

While all this sounds good (and it truly does), is it possible to do this without having people becoming "issue band wagon jumpers" and looking for $$$ taking it to the next level by getting an attorney.  After all, the pastor "asked forgiveness publicly from the people of the church".

I'm not sure what has or hasn't been dealt with by Wilkerson, but I believe doing what you are saying may open a can of worms.

When Zacchaeus apologized, he WILLINGLY paid back 4-fold. I hardly think money when necessary, should hinder a display of public repentance. Do right and let God deal with the greedy, if that is their intent. In the end, this might be the end demise of the church as an organization and if so, they can put it to bed knowing they did what was right regardless of the cost.