Jack Hyles' daughter speaks out: "bizarre world" ... Dad a "cult leader" ... brother like Dad ... speaks about Jack's mistress

I saw this on Stuff Fundies Like but I could not figure out who her father was. Now I know.

Per this link: http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/Dr-Jack-Hyles-Obituary.html

• Becky Smith of Texas,
• David Hyles of Florida (serial adulterer / defrocked pastor)
• Linda Murphrey of Texas,
• Cindy Schaap of Indiana (wife of Jack Schaap)

I don’t know how theologically or legally precise Linda is at points, but her testimony is incredibly damning.

As I listen to this, I cannot help but think that others had to know, or at least suspect, that something was rotten in Hammond. As college students, many of us could see serious problems with Hyles’ ministry long before any allegations came out against him publicly, so I am not sure how many of the leaders of fundamentalism could have been completely unaware of the hint of scandal, even as they continued to promote and cozy up to him. Perhaps they chose to look away, at least from the cultic aspects of it all, because of their preoccupation with “new evangelicalism.”

I believe the last time I heard Hyles preach he compared himself favorably to John MacArthur. Let me say for the record, there is NO COMPARISON. We were listening to the wrong one.

I hope that fundamentalism continues to learn its lessons from this whole sorry episode. There is plenty of shame to go around.

[Paul J. Scharf]

I don’t know how theologically or legally precise Linda is at points, but her testimony is incredibly damning.

As I listen to this, I cannot help but think that others had to know, or at least suspect, that something was rotten in Hammond. As college students, many of us could see serious problems with Hyles’ ministry long before any allegations came out against him publicly, so I am not sure how many of the leaders of fundamentalism could have been completely unaware of the hint of scandal, even as they continued to promote and cozy up to him. Perhaps they chose to look away, at least from the cultic aspects of it all, because of their preoccupation with “new evangelicalism.”

I believe the last time I heard Hyles preach he compared himself favorably to John MacArthur. Let me say for the record, there is NO COMPARISON. We were listening to the wrong one.

I hope that fundamentalism continues to learn its lessons from this whole sorry episode. There is plenty of shame to go around.

Paul,

Have you read “Wizard of God” or “Fundamental Seduction”? It has been said that Linda Hyles Murphrey was somewhat instrumental in some of the finer points in these books. Linda and Becky sided with Beverly Hyles and Dave and Cindy sided with Jack, Sr. Some of the points that Linda makes are actually not correct but the overall theme of the talk is spot on. FBCH sowed to the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

Matthew

I have not read those, nor was I aware of them. Do you have more information on them?

Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case

Anyone willing to listen carefully and provide a transcription?

If so please post.

Thanks

After watching the Linda Hyles Murphrey video one really can’t blame her for turning her back on Christianity and embracing the therapeutic culture. She walked away from a cult led by her father and now embraces “freedom and truth.” Linda desires the freedom to be able to express herself as she wishes, to be free to disagree, and enjoy the freedom to love. There is certainly nothing wrong with these desires. But it is rather unclear what Murphrey considers “truth.” She has rejected the “truth” that her father shoved down her throat during childhood, the teen years, and as a young adult. Much of this “truth” should be rejected. But the eternal question remains: “What is truth?” It is and will always be Jesus Christ, even to someone who was intimately subjected to a perverted version of Him.

Is First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana a cult? In many ways this church is thoroughly orthodox. Its statement of faith is essentially the same as other Independent Fundamental Baptist churches and associated organizations. The difference between the Hammond church and other IFB churches is the amount of control the senior pastor had over the membership. Linda Murphrey spoke of Jack Hyles’ span of control extending to his approval of the time and location of vacations. Did this control extend to the immediate family, the church staff, or to the entire membership of the church? She indicated that “they would have drank the Kool-Aid if he had told them to,” referring to the infamous Jim Jones. If these and other statements are true, Jack Hyles was at best an effective manipulator of people and at worst an evil cult leader. Jack Schaap continued to employ Hyles’ brand of Fundamentalism well after his death in 2001.

As a pastor I wonder what will happen to the people and the church organization. Established local churches are enduring things. It it truly amazing how long some churches can endure. First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana will likely divide into several pieces. If a division occurs it will be difficult for this church to retain Hyles-Anderson College. And because of the damage to its reputation it will be extraordinarily difficult for this church to accomplish the mission of a local church. But the damage to the members and staff of First Baptist of Hammond is incalculable. Linda Hyles Murphrey’s testimony is a clear indication of just how wounded those closest to Jack Hyles can be.

This is a truly sad case. It is also an outrage that both Hyles and Schaap were allowed by the church leadership to have such power over a local church. First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana has brought great shame to the Name of Jesus Christ.

It seemed to me that she might have put an unfair spin on parts of her story. For example, speaking as if her father personally owned schools, church buildings, etc. which gave him great wealth, but when he died he left all of this to the ministry. I would think that such properties always belonged to the church. Playing up his great wealth, and then noting that he left nothing for his children makes her story seem more plightful, but I don’t see how it would have been possible for him to own what she says he owned. And repeatedly calling the church a cult? Maybe it felt that way to her.

As a pastor I wonder what will happen to the people and the church organization. Established local churches are enduring things.

I has occurred to me that nothing much will change at all. My guess is that you will simply see Schaap measured by his own measure—the works-based theology that he taught will be applied to him in this situation. FBC will simply find another man to elevate that they deem “worthy” of the position. Decades of church philosophy do not change overnight.

I took took pause when she made that allegation as well, but I can understand why she felt that way. Hyles used his “Hyles-Publications” as a personal slush fund (and I do not use that term haphazardly). It was under the church’s tax-exempt umbrella, but he made millions (and I DO mean millions) of dollars through the sale of his books. Just the sales generated by nearly 3,000 college students being required to buy his books back in the late 70’s-early 80’s alone was hundreds of thousands of profit. There were no financial reports on that. He alone made the decisions on it. Remember, he was self-publishing those books at literally a dollar or two a copy and selling them for 4-6x their cost. There were two people who knew that business — him and Jennie Nischik. No one knew how all the extra things were done, lavish gifts given to guests and the occasional congregant or college student and other ways in which money was used to curry favor and gain loyalty. He used to get up and talk about how he made just a few thousand dollars a year and drove the “church mail car”, but he lived in Munster, wore top of the line suits and by his own “admission” gave thousands of dollars away routinely. I knew Linda from a distance and let’s just charitably say, she was not a “complex” person. It would be very easy to understand why she felt like he did “own” those things and the reason it was “left to the ministry” was because he had no other way to do it — otherwise, he was guilty of years and year of tax fraud (which by the way, he was.) I think Voyle mentioned that in his book if I’m not mistaken, but I can assure you that Voyle could make the case for it. Hyles was a high-profit phenomenon — his pastor’s conferences generated huge windfalls, he spoke virtually every week in at least one place and guys would bend over backwards to give him an impressive honarium and of course, every where he went, he sold his books, tapes, etc… Then, let’s not forget his ability to milk people like Anderson, Beiler and DeKoster for additional funds for his “vision”. Yet, no one really knew how much, where it all came from or where it was went. The “ministries” there were run like a sole-propietership and you didn’t have to be an “insider” to know that.

As for the “cult” label, as a first-hand witness to it, that whether it is labeled a “cult” or simply “cultic”, we are only talking a matter of a few degrees and depending on which recognized “list” of cult characteristics one uses, it met the technical definition of the term. In recent years, I don’t believe there is any question that it met the definitio of “cult”.

For years, I have struggled with the “poor victim” role that Beverly has been assigned. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that. She was very well-kept. For all the alleged scorn and hatred she received from her family, she was adored by the church people, she lived an extremely comfortable life-style, she had a small group of intimate friends and there were very few demands made upon her as part of the church. She knew her role and she played it with excellence. I know of very few of my friends who would put up with the stuff she allegedly endured (including full knowledge of Jenny Nischik’s relationship with her husband) or are married to a woman who would. Kept women always have to pay a price of some sort. It seems to me that she was quite willing to pay that price. I don’t know her at any level, it just all seems too curiously convenient for me to just swallow the “poor Beverly” defense of her culpability of her husband’s and son’s atrocities.

Her assessment of her father’s ownership may or may not be correct. It depends on how the ministry is legally set up and also the ownership of the properties. I know of church that was a legal entity, but the sole trustee was the pastor. He had left the church, but nothing could be done to the property without his permission. Dangerous!!

[jimfrank]…. If a division occurs it will be difficult for this church to retain Hyles-Anderson College.

Recent 990 attached (PDF) (From Guidestar.org)

Is First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana a cult? In many ways this church is thoroughly orthodox. Its statement of faith is essentially the same as other Independent Fundamental Baptist churches and associated organizations. The difference between the Hammond church and other IFB churches is the amount of control the senior pastor had over the membership. Linda Murphrey spoke of Jack Hyles’ span of control extending to his approval of the time and location of vacations. Did this control extend to the immediate family, the church staff, or to the entire membership of the church?

You can have an orthodox statement of faith (which they don’t) and even preach and understand (logically) the gospel, but not be saved. Demons believe and tremble, remember? There will be many who know who Jesus is, but they will be cursed to eternal judgment.

Jim, I understand that Hyles-Anderson College is a legal entity all its own. In reality it’s a “wholly-owned subsidiary” and completely controlled by First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana.

My observation about the orthodoxy of FBCH’s statement of faith was based on a cursory look at it and not a comprehensive analysis. It seemed to be essentially the same as the Sword of the Lord’s statement, which is also published online. Of course, if one disagrees with the Fundamentalist “flavor,” it will seem to be unorthodox.

As to things staying essentially the same because “decades of church philosophy do not change overnight,” I respectfully disagree. Events will dictate otherwise. The FBCH “dekes” may want things to stay the same. They will go through the same motions and try to find a man “worthy” of the position of its senior pastor. Some members will vote with their feet, beginning with a trickle and then a flood. Within two years I predict a drop of at least 40% of the attendance at Jack Schaap’s last Sunday morning service. Giving will also decrease significantly, resulting in staff cuts and the curtailment of some church functions. If the present leadership of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana believes that all it must do is plug-in the right man and continue blindly on, both the leadership and the church will be sorely disappointed. As one of my seminary profs observed in similar case, “(The replacement) will be an interim whether he realizes it or not.” The large church building will soon become an empty “white elephant” that they will no longer be able to afford.