I am nervous about starting this discussion. But as I read another thread on the Biblical Evangelist's exposure of Jack Hyles' affair, I was struck by several paragraphs of the article. I would like to quote this article, because he makes a strong argument for why such sin needs to be exposed publicly.
"Why not just continue the cover-up that has apparently been going on in Fundamentalist circles for many, many years? There are two primary reasons, one biblical and the other practical. The biblical one relates to the demand that pastors must be absolutely blameless (I Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7), the very first qualification listed in both passages. A preacher who falls into sin is to be exposed, as Paul told Timothy: "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (I Timothy 5:20). To try and limit this command to local church situations is a cop-out, in my judgment; it states a principle that covers the whole body of Christ. One of the major inconsistencies within Fundamentalism today is that sin is so quietly and firmly swept under the rug and the guilty parties go free. Many who argue a cover-up for a fallen Fundamentalist are the first in line to condemn a Jim & Tammy Bakker or a Jimmy Swaggart. Where is the consistency – or even honesty – in this? Do we want to send a message to the world that if a man is "big" enough and " fundamental" enough, he can get by with anything? I think not. One thing is sure: with the massive cover-ups we've had of late, not many preachers are "fearing"; if we can put some holy fear back into men of God, the time and money spent researching this article will have been worthwhile.... Neither do New Testament passages about judging motives and casting the first stone concern this question. This issue is strictly about whether major sin should be covered up for men in the ministry. Regarding the latter, God didn't say, "Leave it up to me; I'll take care of it in my own time," He said, 'You openly take care of it immediately!' The other reason for this article is practical. Because this man is so important in Fundamentalist circles – he, himself, has boasted on several occasions that if he were brought down, Fundamentalism would fall with him ("Just think how much destruction would happen to America and the churches if I quit", "America needs me!" "First Baptist Church in _______ is the greatest church in the New Testament age"; "We are the greatest"); to which we respond, "If Fundamentalism has no better foundation than that, let it fall!' – word has reached us that both secular and New Evangelical presses have been working on exposés, including one of America's most prestigious metropolitan newspapers. Some of us have come to the conclusion that Fundamentalism ought to do its own housecleaning, uncovering its own failings by facing the matter scripturally and honestly. We concluded that less harm would come to Fundamentalism if exposure came from within the movement than if the outside world blew the whistle and then stood back to sneer. The scoffing and sneering will come anyway, but hopefully it will not be as loud nor last as long. We want to do what is right in helping Fundamentalism, but it will not be helped as long as sin is covered. As Jehovah said to Joshua of old when he was prostrate in prayer, "Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face? Israel hath sinned . . . " (Joshua 7:10,11). It was no time for a prayer meeting: there was sin in the camp. The same is true today."
In light of his arguments, there is a group outside of fundamentalism that is starting to expose such things on a facebook page, with a particular emphasis on physical and sexual child abuse. And it's taking off in numbers, and new stories of abuse are detailed daily. There are too many stories with too much believable detail to be denied. Yet, one pastor who is repeatedly named as an extreme abuser is still being affirmed on the website of a favorite fundamentalist evangelist. WHO confronts them? How many accusations do you have to have against you before the greater fundamentalist community names your sin and holds you accountable? There was outrage over the revelations about Jack Hyles. If there are segments of fundamentalism that cover up child abuse, shouldn't someone somewhere WITHIN FUNDAMENTALISM be outraged? And is this the place where we can discuss it? I would like to name the abuser who is still a pastor and the evangelist who supports him. Is that appropriate to do here? It seems so to me since all of it is public knowledge.
Anonymous reporting to the proper authorities might get an investigation going, but unless the victims will corroborate the report and follow through, what are a bunch of strangers with no firsthand information going to do about it via Facebook? Except engage in scandal-mongering? ... Edited to add: I object to the idea of a "Fundamentalism Survivors" group. It isn't the 'fault' of Fundamentalism that criminal behavior is engaged in, ignored or overlooked. Sexual abuse happens in every ethnic group, religious affiliation, culture, church, school, place of business.... so the initial premise IMO smacks of vengeance instead of a desire for justice and restoration. I agree that of all the groups in the world that should be the first to deal with sin up front, Fundies should lead the way, but we are all sinful human beings that make choices, and none of it is the responsibility of a denomination or ethnicity or socio-economic status.
First, the allegations on the facebook group are not anonymous and often are corroborated. For many, the statue of limitations has passed for pressing charges. But for the name I want to name, it is corroborated by two of his daughters, and he lost a lawsuit to his daughter on the issue. The Biblical Evangelist had less on Jack Hyles.
Second, the legitimacy of the facebook group is irrelevant. Maybe they are driven by vengeance or bitterness. But that doesn't excuse those from WITHIN fundamentalism of doing due diligence to name those who abuse children. That was the whole point of the article against Jack Hyles on the other thread. If fundamentalism ignores this and leaves the clean up to others without the movement, it is going to smear fundamentalism ten times worse than if they dealt with it themselves.
I agree that of all the groups in the world that should be the first to deal with sin up front, Fundies should lead the way,
But what if they are not leading the way. What if pockets of fundamentalism actually cover it up and protect the reputations of abusers at the expense of the abused? Shouldn't we be free to trumpet that here?