The REAL Jack Hyles

Yet I know from personal experience that is not the case with HAC.

 

Wow... interesting thread. As an HAC grad I find it interesting that so many people have so many opinions about a man that in many cases, they never met. I was directly under his ministry for 8 years and have been influenced by his ministry in one way or the other for most of my life. Do I worship the man? No... of course not. Why not? Because he taught me that I should only worship God.

As for him being unable to admit to his mistakes, I heard him on numerous occassions in his Saturday night Preacher Boy's classes and in chapel sermons admit to mistakes he had made both in and out of the ministry.

I understand why some of you preacher's despise the man so much. He enjoyed more success than you can even dream of so why not try to tear him down? And yes... there is ample ammunition to fire at him. Some true and some simply "well-documented" (in the form of forums and online articles which we all know are completely factual and never contain opinion, only fact). Some of you that attack his doctrine so eloquently should put more effort into propogating your version of the truth than in tearing down his. Then you might enjoy some success of your own and know that you did some good with your ministry.

To answer the original poster's question, here is what I know of the man. He was very generous, he loved God and wanted nothing more than to serve his God in the way he saw best. Perhaps that is the problem... he didn't ask Dr. Bob or others in this forum how he should best serve God. I have met the man personally on several occassions and have listened to more of his sermons and read more of his books than most of the people throwing accusations around on this board. He was a good man... not perfect... but a good man.

 

Hello HAC grad,

One does not need to meet some one in order to understand what they teach and their philosophies.

Well I'm glad for that.

No you don't understand why we disagree with Jack Hyles, in fact if this what you believe you haven't got a clue. We don't think that man-centered, ego-inflating, numbers oriented minstiries are biblical, but rather harm the cause of Christ.

I hope to God that I never am "sucessful" like Jack Hyles was, I would rather glorify and exalt Christ.

We don't attack his doctrine, we simply proclaim the truth of Scripture and how it is contrary to many things that he blieved. As far as sucess goes again, you have a very warped view of sucess. I can say bibliclaly that I believe C4K's ministry in Ireland, though it may be small, is far more sucessfull in God's eyes than the man-centered Finney influnced ministry of Jack Hyles. You have no right in judging our ministries when you haven't even seen them. Whereas Mr. Hyles ministry is well observable to all.


It is this type of attitude that I have seen coming from the ministry of HAC that I believe is more detrimental to the Kingdom of Christ than good.

 

Why is it wrong for a church to see many salvations?

It is our job to plant and water the garden, and God's job to bring the increase. If there is a salvation it is because GOD convicted the heart.....
Sometimes the fruit does not show up in a person's life for years afterward, that does not mean that the salvation was a "false profession."
When a church has hundreds of people out soul winning every week, they are going to see alot of numbers of souls saved.
Its unfair to judge a ministry based on salvation numbers versus church attendance numbers. Even if they don't attend the particular church that the "witnesser" attends, they are SOMEWHERE, and God knows where they are.
There's actually many churches in the Chicago/Hammond area, many of them gospel preachin' and discipling churches.
Why do we think we have to "require" the convert to go the same church as the "witnesser" does?

 

bapmom, I understand your point, and I agree with you. But, shouldn't there be some sort of correlation between number of people saved and church attendance. If hundreds of people are soul-winning every week, which is likely, I wouldn't necessarily expect FBC attendance to increase by hundreds every week, but shouldn't it increase by some percentage?

I'm not saying that their attendance doesn't increase weekly, because it probably does. Maybe they finished their new auditorium because they are increasing attendance by that much every year. Maybe they have a 1:1 ratio of people leaving and other people joining every year, which is why attendance doesn't increase at a large percentage. I don't know anything about their attendance numbers, so I can't say.

But, I will give you a concrete example of why I don't trust the numbers that FBC says they convert weekly/monthly/yearly. We had a team from HAC at my church this last July. The preacher that morning (just to be clear, he was representing FBC/HAC) said that FBC had a goal of 25,000 baptisms in 2005 and that they were over halfway to their goal. If those numbers were true, it meant that FBC had baptized an average of 500 people every week from January to June.

According to their website, they have a traditional set of 3 services per week. If they baptize during every service, that's almost 167 baptisms per service. If they can dunk 1 person a minute, it works out to nearly 3 hours of baptizing every service.

BTW, I may have imagined it, but after making the 25,000 baptisms claim, the preacher paused for just a second, almost as if he was looking around to see who would accept such a ludicrous claim. But, I may have imagined it while I was trying to get my mind around a claim of 25,000 baptisms a year.

Anyway, does anybody think that FBC spends 3 hours baptizing every week? Remember that's what they have to average from January to June to get over 12,000 in a 6 month span.

HACGrad, would you care to address this claim? Maybe you have inside knowledge that I don't have. But, an FBC/HAC preacher stating that FBC has baptized over 12,000 people in a 6 month span presents a serious credibility problem because simple math says that it's just not possible.

Historically, from what I have read, this isn't an isolated incident of sensationalism from Dr. Hyles and FBC/HAC. When I hear baptism numbers being lied about, it makes me wonder what else is going on. 25,000 converts in a year? Sure, I'd believe that from a big church. 25,000 baptisms in a year? Not so fast, my friend.

I think that FBC/HAC is glorifying themselves to make sure that everybody in IFB-land knows that they are the "big dog", so to speak. (I have other reasons why I think that, btw. This claim just reinforces my view). I don't want to believe this about any church, but when a FBC/HAC preacher tries to feed me some claim that doesn't stand up under analysis, then something is seriously wrong. This post doesn't even begin to cover my own serious issues with FBC/HAC, but it's definitely a start.

 

ccrobinson,

I absolutely cannot argue with ya there. I don't like the "trend" toward publishing our numbers far and wide. If it isn't actually bragging, it certainly comes across that way.

I don't know how they do their baptisms, but I think they probably also baptize during their bus ministry outreach.

Thing is, a few days ago on this board, it was posted that the SBC had a goal of one million baptisms in this next year, and this was pretty much lauded as a great goal. I think having a baptism goal is a pretty good thing, because it shows tht people are actually coming forward and making their own personal, public declaration of faith.

You understand, I know where you're coming from. But I have to say, if any OTHER church had this goal they'd be applauded as not being into "easy-believism" because they are putting an emphasis on baptisms.

Does that make sense?

 

bapmom, I agree. A baptism goal is a good thing. If I implied that I thought it was a bad thing, then let me correct that. I think a baptist goal is a good thing for exactly the reason you state.

Maybe they're baptizing as a part of the bus ministry. I might buy that explanation if it makes sense.

I should add, and this has been discussed in this very thread btw, that my preacher said that he liked what was coming out of FBC/HAC these days. Does that mean that he wasn't so hot about what was coming out of FBC/HAC in the past? Well, it's a valid thought because a team from HAC hadn't been at my church for at 3 or 4 years prior, and the preacher that day said some things that were totally bragging.

I'm very curious to know what is happening over there under Dr. Schaap. Are they continuing the kinds of bad doctrine and bad practices of Dr. Hyles? Or, are they throwing out the bad and keeping the good? I hope it's the latter.

 

I don't know, ccrobinson. But then I don't know what bad doctrines you might be talking about, unless you are disagreeing with KJVonly. They are still that.
Otherwise Ive never heard anything that I would think would qualify as a bad doctrine from them. And I guess Im talking about actual doctrine....not just standards that might be higher than some people like.

 

I disagree with the designation of "higher" standards. Different standards is a more apt description.

 

Im sorry C4K,
it is a term which Ive always used just to designate stricter or less strict. We can get to the point where the standard is so "high" that we come across as trying to be "holier than God."

Like Ive said before, I think the Amish have "higher" standards than I do, this doesn't mean I think they're more Godly or more spiritual, or more Biblical.

Its just the term my circles have always used, and so I don't even think about it. Please don't take it to mean more from me than Im intending.
Ive tried to modify it so that those here dont get the wrong impression, especially since now Ive heard that there are people who get the wrong idea from it. But Im not always thinking about that when I write a post.

 

bapmom, after the discussion in the other thread, I had thought of "higher" standards in the same way you did. It wasn't a question to me of somebody else's standards being "more right" than mine, just stricter.

 

I appreciate the spirit of the previous two posters. The word "high" gives the impression of "superior" and that is what leads to the phrase being taken "wrong."

A lot of times we use terms and phrases just because we are used to using them, without thinking of how others might percieve them.

 

I'm specifically referring to KJVO at its most extreme. In the last few years of his ministry, he preached that you couldn't even be saved unless you used a KJV, and that's practically heresy.

 

ccrobinson,
Ive also heard that sentiment floating around in some circles....that a person can't be saved except through the KJV. I was not aware that Hyles held to that, but I also have not heard most of his sermons from those last few years of his ministry. During those years I was in Southern California, and we heard little or nothing about Hyles or Hammond.

I have no idea if Dr Schaap holds to the same view.

I do hope that certain things there get better. I am not one to say that there is no need for improvement. I hate to see the division that much of all of this controversy has caused.

I can tell you, I don't think my preacher would hold to that view, and they've had him preach at Pastor's School the last few years. But then, they've had several people preach lately that they probably don't agree with completely on every single nuance.

 

IFB's have "worshipped" Jack Hyles for way too long. My pastor knows some of the deacons from back in the days when Jack and his secretary got a bit too close. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree as well...Dave continues to follow in Saint Daddy's footsteps.

 

come on roseofSharon, this thread is far beyond that kind of inuendo and conjecture. None of what he was accused regarding that was ever proven, and in fact people who know him and were around him then insist that there was never anything going on between him and his secretary.

Like I said, we're beyond that here.

All of us here have agreed that Jack Hyles need not be "worshipped". The man himself certainly didn't require any sort of thing like that.

You know what the people of his church call him? They called him BROTHER Hyles, same with Dr Schaap, he's known as BROTHER Schaap. Im talking about those who are active, participating members of his church.
If Dr. Hyles had such an ego that he felt the need for some sort of "worship" than why would he not even insist on being called "pastor", much less put up with being called "Brother", as any other layman in his church.

We know full well that some people have carried their followship of everything Hyles way too far, to the point of telling others that they can't be right with God unless they go to HAC. But thats not a majority, and that sentiment doesn't and didn't come from Hyles himself.

 

ccrobinson,

thank you so much for being willing to just talk. Ive asked that same question about which doctrinal problems there are, and I couldn't seem to get an answer beyond the normal vitriol.

I honestly wanted to know, because then I can make my own judgements.

THanks again!

 

Still going I see!

How do they baptize so many people? Very creatively. The new auditorium has two baptistries, one for men, one for women. They baptize one immediately after the other with several men in each baptistry helping to move people in and out of position efficiently. At or around 12:30 every Sunday morning the service is dismissed even though baptisms continue.

In addition there are FAR more than 3 services per week on the FBC Hammond campus. The church owns dozens of buildings within a several block area of downtown Hammond. After the "main" church service there are other services conducted throughout the afternoon. Dozens of services are conducted every Sunday.

This is what I know... because again, I took the time to visit and SEE what was going on, rather than simply conjecture and throw my uneducated opinion around.

While I was at FBC in the late 80's early 90's we also conducted "off-site" meetings once or twice a year in which we would enlist the help of neighborhood churches in the greater Chicago area. These pastors were interested in helping people in their neighborhoods so they would allow us to use their buildings on Saturdays and conduct meetings at their churches and baptize people immediately upon salvation. (That IS how they did it in Acts... right?) Incidentally, we often would give the names and addresses of converts to the local pastor so he could follow up with the people in his area. It's not all about "numbers" you see... it's about people. How many pastors are willing to give contacts away?

My guess is that Bro. Schaap is just as creative as Bro. Hyles was and perhaps has found even more ways to baptize people. So again, while you sit here on this board figuring out why they CAN'T do it... they are going out and figuring out HOW to do it.

As to the "quality" of those baptisms? How many of the 3,000 in Acts were still around when the Apostles were martyred? I can tell you this, that after nearly a decade of being gone from FBC, when I visited this past summer, there were dozens of people I met who were "1-2-3 pray after me" converts from bus routes and other ministries from my time at FBC/HAC... still attending faithfully. Were there hundreds of others who fell by the wayside? Unfortunately yes. Is this a problem? Of course... and a "just" criticism of their ministry. But to say cart blanche that "numbers don't mean anything" is simply absurd when you realize that each of those "numbers" represents a soul. These are people I know personally who have been helped tremendously by the ministry of Bro. Hyles.

1% of 25,000 is 250...pastor, missionary, evangelist... how many people will you "add" to your church this year? I won't add anywhere close to that to the church I attend so I won't criticize the methods of someone who is reaching more souls...er.. numbers than I am.

 

Its never about numbers, its about glorifying God by being faithful to Him.

Sure there may have been dozens of people who were still there who were easy believism converts, but how many where not their, and how many of the those converts are truely saved. Many who make an easy believism profession are trusting in the prayer they said or the experience they had when they walked the aisle.

When it comes down to it though, I really don't care. HAC is a fringe hyper-fundamentalist institution, and they really don't affect me anyhow. Its just a shame that so many people are blind followers of a man-focused ministry.

 

4Hisglory,

so what about missionaries who are working hard in their field but not seeing many converts that stick?

Ive heard in the missions forum lately of good men who have seen people saved, but those people haven't started being faithful to church yet.

Sure their numbers don't equal those we are talking about here, but their numbers of men out door-knocking arent as big either.

I in no way believe that you'd disparage those good missionary men.....

And really, Im not exclusively talking about Hammond, or my own church either. But there's quite a few large churches that have numbers like that. Im beginning to think that the objection is only coming in when their numbers are large enough to be noticed by more people.

I know of a church in the Philippines thats like this. They see thousands of people saved each year. They are starting new churches everywhere. Im not sure how big their main church is, but not all their converts attend it. They are spread all throughout the islands. Ive heard people disparage his numbers too.