Fundamentalist Survivors Facebook Group
Forum category
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.
- 1 view
When it comes to criminal behavior, the first thing that needs to happen is for law enforcement to be notified and an investigation opened. Personally, I am not at all supportive of accusations being made willy-nilly on the internet, with no police reports or criminal investigations going on or any means with which to verify the information. I also do not care for information that is ‘public knowledge’ when it apparently isn’t important or damaging enough to become public record. If charges have been filed, then a reference to that information from a valid source is ‘public knowledge’ in the correct sense.
It is the church’s responsibility to clean their own clocks, but if that isn’t happening, there is little that can be done if the people who are actually involved will not come forward and press charges. 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?
Heresy, however, is IMO the distinct purview of the church. Even so, documentation is important. In our day and age, it is relatively easy to verify what has been said and written (thinking about the Caner debacle), and such should always accompany any accusations of false teaching or practices in a church.
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.
It is the church’s responsibility to clean their own clocks, but if that isn’t happening, there is little that can be done if the people who are actually involved will not come forward and press charges. 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?
Heresy, however, is IMO the distinct purview of the church. Even so, documentation is important. In our day and age, it is relatively easy to verify what has been said and written (thinking about the Caner debacle), and such should always accompany any accusations of false teaching or practices in a church.
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.
[Susan R] 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?
How many accusations do you have to have against you before the greater fundamentalist community names your sin and holds you accountableThere is no number of accusations that makes a person guilty. It comes down to quality. If these folks have evidence, crimes have been committed and they need to take these matters to the authorities. I would think that a large number of independent accusers would be considered “evidence,” though I’m not a lawyer.
But in the event of a case, folks trained in cross examination would get these folks together and start putting together testimony.
In short, it’s the quality of accusations that establishes guilt or innocence, not the quantity. I personally don’t know what a Facebook page of this sort can do. Facebook has never thrown anyone in jail. I suppose maybe it could indrectly facilitate a lawsuit.
I maintain that the best course of action though is for folks who have had crimes committed against them to go to the authorities.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
What about Jack Hyles and the Biblical Evangelist? Was Sumner’s exposure of Hyles out of line? He had about as much evidence as those on the facebook page. Actually less, because he wasn’t involved in first person.
I can’t reconcile Sumner being vindicated for exposing Hyles (which involved an adult) and someone not doing the same for corroborated accusations against leaders that involve a minor.
I maintain that the best course of action though is for folks who have had crimes committed against them to go to the authorities.What’s the 2nd best course of action? The statute of limitations has passed in the states where this abuse was done. 2 daughters’ accusations and a settled lawsuit in the daughter’s favor should be enough ammunition to move this from gossip to documented abuse. And forget the facebook page — again, they may or may not be effective at their agenda. What about US? Fundamentalists still within the movement? Don’t WE have an obligation?
I can’t reconcile Sumner being vindicated for exposing Hyles (which involved an adult) and someone not doing the same for corroborated accusations against leaders that involve a minor.
I think Louise has a point. The reason the survivors page is gaining traction is because some very bad things have been done. I think we need to be honest and deal with these sins. The good ole boy network is alive and well in our circles. I think we fundamentalists should hold ourselves to a higher standard than we do. The Survivors page may have an ax to grind. But maybe some of them have a reason to. We can say they need to go to the authorities before the statute runs out, and they should. But it’s easy for us to say that, when we werent the ones guilted into not coming forward. IMHO, I think there has to be truth in at least some of those stories. Instead of dismissing these as just disgruntled people, we should pray that the Lord would reveal the truth. We should stand firm on the Word and demand repentance from the perpetrators and the pastors who protected them (if they did). Above all, we need to put procedures in place to keep this from happening in our churches. And if (May it never be) someone abuses someone in our congregation, deal with the sin Bibically, including making certain that the offender has turned himself in (or he is out of the church) and not cover up or soft pedel because he is a prominent member of the church. Whether we believe the survivors are not, I would venture that many of us know of at least small scale things where bad things have been swept under the rug. It may not be to the level of some of the more recent news breakers, but we have seen people given special treatment because their Dad was the pastor or another leader/major contributor to the church.
Roger Carlson, PastorBerean Baptist Church
Well, I didn’t vindicate Sumner for his actions. I don’t really know any more about that case than I do any of the others. I only know that his offenses are now considered “common knowledge.” But I’ve never put much stock in the ol’ CK.
We need to face some facts here:
1) If crimes have been committed, folks should go to the authorities, not websites.
2) If the statue of limitations has run out, folks should accept the fact that they waited too long, and leave the matter in God’s hands. 1 Peter 2:23, 2 Pet. 3:7
3) If they really feel compelled to tell their story, they can start a blog or post on Facebook
4) The information that folks post in their blogs, at Facebook or at SI (if we were going to allow that, which we are not), is not actionable in any way by “fundamentalism.” Fundamentalism is not a denomination and cannot defrock anyone, banish anyone, jail anyone, fine anyone or even determine the guilt or innocence of anyone. SI is not staffed to judge cases and even if we were, our verdicts would be completely toothless.
If we cannot provide people with some means of evaluating accusations to determine their merits (what a court of law is for), we are not accomplishing anything by just putting stories out there. That’s just a recipe for continued frustration. (One major reason for statues of limitations is that after so long it is very difficult to establish reliable testimony… we would have the same problem if we tried to set up some kind of fundamentalist abuse court)
When something is in the news, we’ll generally post that here (typically with comments closed). But we have no way of telling a solid accusation from a mere rumor and no way of acting on the info even if we could tell which is which.
So SI is not going to be the place for this.
We need to face some facts here:
1) If crimes have been committed, folks should go to the authorities, not websites.
2) If the statue of limitations has run out, folks should accept the fact that they waited too long, and leave the matter in God’s hands. 1 Peter 2:23, 2 Pet. 3:7
3) If they really feel compelled to tell their story, they can start a blog or post on Facebook
4) The information that folks post in their blogs, at Facebook or at SI (if we were going to allow that, which we are not), is not actionable in any way by “fundamentalism.” Fundamentalism is not a denomination and cannot defrock anyone, banish anyone, jail anyone, fine anyone or even determine the guilt or innocence of anyone. SI is not staffed to judge cases and even if we were, our verdicts would be completely toothless.
If we cannot provide people with some means of evaluating accusations to determine their merits (what a court of law is for), we are not accomplishing anything by just putting stories out there. That’s just a recipe for continued frustration. (One major reason for statues of limitations is that after so long it is very difficult to establish reliable testimony… we would have the same problem if we tried to set up some kind of fundamentalist abuse court)
When something is in the news, we’ll generally post that here (typically with comments closed). But we have no way of telling a solid accusation from a mere rumor and no way of acting on the info even if we could tell which is which.
So SI is not going to be the place for this.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So SI is not going to be the place for this.And the truth is that there is no where IN fundamentalism that is the place. So people leave and start facebook pages. But there ought to be a better way. There ought to be some accountability in the larger movement.
There also ought to be a way to stop terrorism, cure cancer, eliminate crime and poverty… the list goes on.
I’m just pointing out that what ought to be should not be confused with what is. What is: fundamentalism is a way of thinking, not an organization. And SharperIron is a website/community not a court. All the problems I enumerated in my previous post remain.
If we really want to “solve” this problem, the place to begin is reorganize fundamentalism into, well, an organization—one with a head and authority over constituents and a body to try cases and issue penalties. But many of us would not be in favor of doing that even if it were possible… which I don’t think it is (I mean, just how many independent churches would join such a body?)
And where does it stop? It’s not like sexual abuse is the only evil being committed in places where sinners gather.
When it comes down to it, what’s left to handle with “old cases” that are no longer legally actionable must happen on the local church level. Churches looking for pastors (or who have current pastors) who have been accused (again, there are plenty of places to do that these days!), should investigate and form conclusions about whether or not to put these folks in leadership.
In theory, SI could function like “the press” in these cases. Find the facts, print them. But if you look at by that model rather than a court model, we a) don’t have the staff and budget to send out investigators, and b) in old cases, we face the same problem the legal system does: how do you establish reliable testimony for events people chose not to report for many years?
I’m just pointing out that what ought to be should not be confused with what is. What is: fundamentalism is a way of thinking, not an organization. And SharperIron is a website/community not a court. All the problems I enumerated in my previous post remain.
If we really want to “solve” this problem, the place to begin is reorganize fundamentalism into, well, an organization—one with a head and authority over constituents and a body to try cases and issue penalties. But many of us would not be in favor of doing that even if it were possible… which I don’t think it is (I mean, just how many independent churches would join such a body?)
And where does it stop? It’s not like sexual abuse is the only evil being committed in places where sinners gather.
When it comes down to it, what’s left to handle with “old cases” that are no longer legally actionable must happen on the local church level. Churches looking for pastors (or who have current pastors) who have been accused (again, there are plenty of places to do that these days!), should investigate and form conclusions about whether or not to put these folks in leadership.
In theory, SI could function like “the press” in these cases. Find the facts, print them. But if you look at by that model rather than a court model, we a) don’t have the staff and budget to send out investigators, and b) in old cases, we face the same problem the legal system does: how do you establish reliable testimony for events people chose not to report for many years?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As to your last paragraph, Sharper Iron wouldn’t have to send out staff to investigate. Your members are the investigators. And reliable testimony is established by two or more witnesses. Right now, the perception is that when a strong male leader in fundamentalism says something, it’s reliable, but when a no-named abuse victim speaks up, they can’t be believed. But when a son and his mother confirm the details of his spanking at school that turned into sexual abuse (by an administrator still teaching at a prominent Christian school) or when 2 daughters confirm abuse against their father who is still pastoring and hosting big name evangelistic teams, this gets into the area of reliable testimony. Sharper Iron could play an important role in this by functioning like the press. A wiki press. With restraint, of course. And SOMEONE in fundamentalism needs to draw attention to these serious, unresolved issues.
Louise, I think you definitely need to talk with the administrators of this site before you ‘out’ someone. It sounds to me like there is a specific individual in mind, and SI is not the proper place to report criminal activity. If the matter has already been addressed legally, then perhaps the facts of the case could be discussed, but I seem to recall quite a few people who were ready to beat up on Chuck Phelps for ‘covering up’ for a rape case when that turned out not to be the case at all, and that was just a few weeks ago.
~~Moderator Note~~
I don’t really want to do this, but I’m going to lock this thread until either Jim or Aaron can weigh in again on the topic. Frankly, I’m doing this to preserve the testimony of this site, the administrators, and all the participants and to protect both the site and the members of it. I’m acting on my own initiative, simply because I know someone who was slandered (with this very charge) unjustly by a disgruntled ex-church member and I don’t want to be a part of that. I think that this case is something that the administrators of this site haven’t really worked through yet and I would prefer that we not ‘out’ people in a haphazard or unplanned manner.
There are also legal ramifications for what you are advocating - libel and such. This is in addition to the spiritual problems of gossip and slander (if the allegations are not true, which they may be).
I’ll send a note to Jim and Aaron as well, so that they know what’s going on. They may reverse my actions, and that’s fine. As far as I’m concerned, this thread is closed.
~~Moderator Note~~
I don’t really want to do this, but I’m going to lock this thread until either Jim or Aaron can weigh in again on the topic. Frankly, I’m doing this to preserve the testimony of this site, the administrators, and all the participants and to protect both the site and the members of it. I’m acting on my own initiative, simply because I know someone who was slandered (with this very charge) unjustly by a disgruntled ex-church member and I don’t want to be a part of that. I think that this case is something that the administrators of this site haven’t really worked through yet and I would prefer that we not ‘out’ people in a haphazard or unplanned manner.
There are also legal ramifications for what you are advocating - libel and such. This is in addition to the spiritual problems of gossip and slander (if the allegations are not true, which they may be).
I’ll send a note to Jim and Aaron as well, so that they know what’s going on. They may reverse my actions, and that’s fine. As far as I’m concerned, this thread is closed.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
A final word on this one. The consensus is to leave the thread closed and I support that.
But the answer to uncritical acceptance of what a leader says is not to uncritically accept whatever nonleaders say. The cure here is to be discerning in response to all sources.
But there is more. The old Golden Rule says “do unto others…” Nobody wants accusations against them to be believed simply because they have been made—or repeated in large numbers. We would all want some careful vetting of the facts to be conducted by those who hear accusations against us. We all believe in “innocent until proven guilty” when we are the accused. Loving neighbor as self means we extend the same to others who are accused.
It’s not that I automatically believe the leader and disbelieve the accuser, but it’s only decent to refrain from passing judgment when you don’t really know the facts.
[Louise] As to your last paragraph, Sharper Iron wouldn’t have to send out staff to investigate. Your members are the investigators.How would we know whether they actually investigated? Someone would have to investigate the investigators.
[Louise] And reliable testimony is established by two or more witnesses.“Two or more witnesses” means more than a couple of folks saying the same thing. It’s witnesses who have been examined and verified to be providing reliable testimony. As I posted earlier no quantity of witnesses can ever establish the truth. What’s required is quality. Having witnesses that, under examination, prove to corroborate eachother’s testimony, strengthens the case, but it only does so if the quality of each has been found to be basically sound in the first place.
[Louise] Right now, the perception is that when a strong male leader in fundamentalism says something, it’s reliable, but when a no-named abuse victim speaks up, they can’t be believed.I don’t really think that’s the case. Well, I’m sure that’s “the perception” of some, but I doubt it’s all that many. This is America, we question authority.
But the answer to uncritical acceptance of what a leader says is not to uncritically accept whatever nonleaders say. The cure here is to be discerning in response to all sources.
But there is more. The old Golden Rule says “do unto others…” Nobody wants accusations against them to be believed simply because they have been made—or repeated in large numbers. We would all want some careful vetting of the facts to be conducted by those who hear accusations against us. We all believe in “innocent until proven guilty” when we are the accused. Loving neighbor as self means we extend the same to others who are accused.
It’s not that I automatically believe the leader and disbelieve the accuser, but it’s only decent to refrain from passing judgment when you don’t really know the facts.
[Louise]… this gets into the area of reliable testimony.Only if both witnesses are found to be providing reliable testimony. This is why, in court, they do cross examination.
Sharper Iron could play an important role in this by functioning like the press. A wiki press. With restraint, of course. And SOMEONE in fundamentalism needs to draw attention to these serious, unresolved issues.Wikis are infamous for not providing reliable information. SI is not going to be an “accuse fundamentalist leaders wiki.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion