Letting Evil Triumph


Original video is the property of Harold Snure. Used by permission.)

While watching the video above keep in mind that Bill Wininger, the man being loudly defended by Hyles and Gibbs in 1993, resigned from his church twenty years later after his accusers finally gained enough attention to prompt a new investigation.

What’s really mind-blowing in this video is the way that David Gibbs, Jr. of the Christian Law Association stands in front of this group of people and blatantly acknowledges that there are abuse allegations against Hyles-camp churches all over THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. But then he takes that information and spins a conspiracy theory that the real reason that these allegations are surfacing is that Christ-hating liberals hate bus ministries.

Twenty years of abuse. Twenty years of lives ruined. Twenty years of pain and suffering. Twenty years — and they knew the entire time. These men are nothing short of evil.

178 thoughts on “Letting Evil Triumph”

      1. Yes, I’m also confused.

        One of the Gibb’s is defending Lourdes-Torres, the woman sexually molested/abused by David Phillips of Vision Forum, Inc/Vision Forum Ministries in her upcoming lawsuit.

        I had heard it was Gibb’s Jr (the son) but perhaps – as you suggest – it is Gibb’s Jr III who has truly departed from his father’s ideology. ??

        1. Some have speculated that taking this case is just part of Gibbs III recent attempts to rebrand. Others think he just found it more lucrative to represent victims (pragmatism).

          Whatever the motivation, I hope he fights hard for this victim.

          Why then, did Gibbs III say there were victims who needed to be prayed for in the Michael Zachary scandal, only to go silent shortly afterward when West Coast Baptist College announced the investigation was over and the Zacharys had moved to FL.

    1. Yeah, David Gibbs III (the younger) is trying to rebrand himself as a good guy and someone who would never cover up abuse (*cough*Michael Zachary*cough*NVBC*cough*).

  1. “There is not a person in my church who would harm a child” Just shut up – there is no way anyone can know that!! Ugh, bus conference – not in the mood for this – so glad I don’t HAVE TO listen if I don’t feel like it 🙂 YES!!!

    1. I haven’t listened to it yet (have to be well-fortified before subjecting oneself to that), but how could ANYONE with any intelligence or integrity make such a statement? Are they not aware of Jer. 17:9 — “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” — or 2 Cor. 11:13-15 — “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works”?

      Humility, awareness of human nature, wisdom, and restraint would keep a reasonable man from making such an extravagant statement. Did he think the walls of his church or the “holiness” oozing off his personality somehow killed off any evil that entered the building?

    2. Under all the buzzwords like “modesty” and “separation” and “protection”, fundy Men of gid believe that all the men in their churches are lustful, weak, self-indulgent womanizers who are restrained from their uncontrollable desires only because the women wear skirts past their knees, nylons, and shoes with covered toes.

      They also believe that all women are harlots and temptresses ruled by satin, who are restrained by a combination of dress code and chaperoning (not being left alone with men). Apparently he feels the same way about underage girls, because they’re held to the same “standards”

      So why on earth does this guy believe that there is not even one person in his church who would do something harmful to someone under 18?

      If that is the case, then why all the rules?

      1. “So why on earth does this guy believe that there is not even one person in his church who would do something harmful to someone under 18?

        If that is the case, then why all the rules?”

        This is a very good question.

        1. I’ve met some women who were ruled by satin 😉 , but it’s an exaggeration to say that all women are.

  2. If Gibbs were making the argument that all criminals deserve a vigorous defense, and lawyer ethic of defending the guilty, I would understand. This is unbearably evil.

  3. Gibbs made it pretty clear that the eternal fate of hundreds of thousands of souls hinges upon banding together to resist those evil ones who dare to bring accusations against people with a bus ministry. Gibbs, Hyles, Wininger, all sociopaths.

    After watching the video I read the article about the Wininger abuse allegations resurfacing. We need to remember those little girls who were abused. Has anyone heard about any prosecution of this sicko?

      1. I’m not defending either category, but seeing people come across the border every day who are fleeing the narcoterrorists, I’m not disposed to cut the narcotraficantes any slack at all.

        (Newbies may not know that I live on the southern border of the U.S.)

  4. How can Gibbs know every single person in HIS church (their thoughts, deeds throughout the week), let alone every person of every church represented in that meeting so long ago, and then assume ALL of those churches are just like his and that no one could possibly do the things they were accused of?

    Someone touched a nerve in calling them a cult. It’s amazing how truth can strike a nerve.

    B.R.O.

  5. What I do not understand in the Fundamentalist community is the willingness to lie and to tolerate abuse.

    Okay, okay, I *do* understand it. But it flatly contradicts their stated theology.

    Even if Gibbs (and now his son, Jr.) were to be defending these people in court, their profession as Christians should mean that they would be constrained to let the TRUTH be shown. Yes, they could “defend” their clients by showing extenuating circumstances, mental illness, and so on. They could show inappropriate influence by other people.

    But honestly, as ‘Christian’ lawyers, they have no call for being willing to lie and cover up crimes on behalf of their clients. It means they have ingested the “World’s” view of a criminal defense (when the client is guilty). They do not “throw themselves on the mercy of the court.”

    One of the Big Hairy Deals about Fundamentalism is that they deliberately Lie to defend what they call the Truth. They call what is good “evil” and what is evil, “good.” Seems to me I remember a curse in Scripture on those who do that!

    It isn’t even a problem of “the blind leading the blind.” It is a problem of “wicked men and seducers shall wax worse and worse.”

    In my struggle with Fundamentalist doctrine I admit to having doubts about the eternality of hell, or even the actual existence of a place where God sends souls He created to exist in conscious torment as He tortures them for any amount of time. I find that idea to be completely contrary to a God of Love.

    However, for men like these, the abusers and those who lie to defend them, I would be willing to make an exception. It is a visceral reaction, to be sure. But such people should reap their just rewards. Too bad it isn’t where everyone can see them.

    1. “It flatly contradicts their stated theology.” EXACTLY!

      For most of my life, I was foolish enough to think such people meant what they said when they spoke of living godly lives, but it’s nothing but a joke. Who CARES how long someone’s hair is or how syncopated a beat is when abuse against children is covered up? How dare they pretend to care for truth and holiness yet excuse such evil. Truly, they strain at gnats and swallow camels.

    2. Dear rtgmath:

      This is a damning indictment, and Pastor’s Wife [above] rightly zeros in on the heart of it — this is counter to their stated theology.

      Exponents of fundamentalism must put in place such mechanisms as ensure full transparency. If not, they give communities the right to judge them not to be good neighbors.

      If it refuses to correct itself, fundamentalism gives society the right to say that fundamentalism itself does not believe its professed theology. Either way, the gordian knot must be cut.

      Christian Socialist

  6. “Why would anyone bring kids in who have no money to give you? Why would anyone car to go out and inconvenience themselves by reaching those who no one else wants to reach?”

    -Doctor David C. Gibbs Jr. (circa 1993)

    What answers could be provide the good doctor to these two questions twenty-one years later?

    B.R.O.

  7. At 13:39
    “A community has no greater friend than a Bible believing church that wants to reach out and touch the lives of children”

    The churches he is referring to (and no, I would not consider them Bible believing) have shown they can not be trusted with children. Not one little bit. Because whenever an accusation comes out, they bury it and deny the possibility that the victim is telling the truth. This has happened consistently.

    Never again would I trust such a church or pastor with a child. Never again.

    1. And because reaching out and helping the parents (who may need help also) is just too darn hard. The kids are sooooo much easier to get on the bus. A couple of candy bars, a swallowed goldfish and presto, we’ve added to our bus numbers.

  8. The enemy for the fanatic is pleasure, which makes it extremely important to continue to indulge in pleasure. There’s got to be something wrong with the religion itself if those who strictly adhere to its most fundamental principles are violent bigots and sexists and child molesters/rapists. If these allegations are true, then there is a special place in hell for this man.

    1. ???

      Where did you make that connection? No one has said that.

      These guys like to try to link themselves to dead popular pastors in order to give themselves some historical cred, but the truth is neither DL Moody, Spurgeon, nor Edwards would have ever fit in with the IFBx.

      1. David Gibbs mentioned in the video that D.L. Moody was “roundly criticized” in the same way and with the same allegations as these pastors at around the 14:00 mark. That was news to me, I don’t remember hearing about those type allegations with Moody before.

        1. Ok. I must have missed that.

          No, I have never heard that about Moody either. I would need to see outside proof before believing anything a Gibbs said.

          (I still remember Gibbs Jr. telling a tall tale during a sermon about how he landed an airplane in Alaska after the pilot went unconscious, with only verbal assistance from the control tower…. eyeroll)

        2. Dear formerHACgirl:

          I wondered about that. It seems rather outrageous that such statements would be invented to serve the cited purpose in this more recent hour. But then, consider the people we’re seeing.

          It occurred to me that he might have said, ‘you find the same accusations leveled against D. L. Moody in _________ and ________ .

          Christian Socialist

        3. I can find no record anywhere that DL Moody was accused of child sexual predation. I suspect this is the typical oily speech you get from the Gibbs family – not technically a falsehood (DL Moody was roundly criticized, after all), but also intentionally misleading.

        4. I think they mean that DL Moody was criticized for bringing lots of children to church, much in the same way that some churches are criticized for having a large bus ministry – that he just wanted numbers to look good; conversion numbers of children aren’t to be trusted, etc.

          I’ve never heard that DL Moody was accused of abuse.

  9. This is horrific. They are defending Dr Hyles by stating that Bill Wininger (or his church was accused), apparently got off, so therefore all accusations are wrong?!?!?!?

    But it is turning out that the accusations are TRUE!, Mr Gibbs!

    1. Gibbs is worse than the lawyers defending the narco-traficantes. Gibbs defends these molesters in the name of The Lord. The lawyers for MS-13, the Zetas, they defend the drug lords for money. They don’t say they defend them for the salvation of thousands of souls. They don’t say that if this person is convicted people will go to hell. But Gibbs did. How can they live with that? Did the gospel ever really get down into their heart? What about “allow little children–and forbid them not–to come unto me” did they not understand?

  10. What’s all this about busses getting shot up? Does anybody remember that actually happening?
    Also, his comments make you wonder if this style of problem does extend all the way back to Moody. These men are scary.

  11. What is even more amazing about stories like this is that despite the despicable acts they have committed followers who will believe their lies and follow them. All that one has to do is review the facts in cases where Jimmy Swaggart consorts with a prostitute, then returns to his church, sobs a confession, and is fully restored. When channel surfing, it looks like his church is full. I could cite numerous other examples. Whoever said there’s a fool born every minute was right.

  12. in the book of James (i Think) it says we are to restore the sinner who repents. Maybe Swaggart did truly repent? does anyone know if he did the same thing again? However pedophiles who engage in sexual abuse on more than occasion are a completely different animal. Such behavior is actually addictive. Studys have shown that pedophiles tend not to change, no matter how religious they get. The only way to stop these predators is to keep them far far away from any child. Preferably behind bars. Or surgery.

    1. Dear Paul Best:

      Several texts speak to restoration. But what does restoration mean? It is one thing to say that it includes a restoration of full fellowship. They may also receive sacraments and their children may be baptized where ecclesial polity allows for that.

      But church office is another matter entirely.

      ‘… he must have a good reputation with those outside the church…’ [1Ti 3:7].

      This passage is clear in what it affirms, and it deals directly with the Biblical qualifications for overseeing God’s people. And on this ground, child molesters fail to meet this qualification, however restored they otherwise are.

      1Ti 3:7 isn’t open for debate. Either this is your practice, or you refuse Christ’s rule in the church.

      Christian Socialist

      1. Thanks for your post CS, this has always been how I felt about this type of situation but wasn’t aware of the verse you quoted. I get so fed up with the ‘King David, a man after God’s own heart’ defence…

        1. Yeah, King David was a political leader, not a spiritual one. Church elders are held to a higher standard than politicians, both in the Bible and in the world.

        2. Dear Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

          Interesting character, that David. He broke every commandment except the one to love God with all your heart. Go figure.

          When I had a chance to preach, I once painted David as a picture of power run amok. You know — powerful, untouchable guy pulls strings and does evil behind the scenes. People gaped.

          At least, David makes a good case study in how compromised leaders seek to cover their tracks. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see these blokes squirm through that sermon!

          Christian Socialist

      2. CS, thanks for clarifying that. I think it can be harder for many Christians to fogive and restore those guilty of sexual sins than any other sin, even if the person is truly repentant – unless that person is a highly respected fundamentalist pastor or preacher – then different rules obviously apply. However evidence seems to show that pedophiles seldom change no matter how religious they are. Also David’s sin was forgiven but he spent the rest of his life facing the horrendous consequences.

        1. It really is a matter of CONTROL. Those who are in Control know how to manipulate those who they control. Those who are being controlled are used to being manipulated, and get cues for how they think, feel, and believe from their controllers.

          Cult, much?

          So as the Controller (ahem! MOG!), you execute Judgment on those who defy the sacred laws on sexuality. Those are laws that you, the MOG alone, are free to disregard! How dare any layman, laywoman, commoner, ignoramus, lout, pig, etc. try to take from you what is Yours and Yours alone!

          After all, Rules are for the little people. The Rulers have a high and lonely destiny! (cough! choke!)

          As for pedophiles, we need to remember our genetic heritage. Considerably less than a hundred years ago, children were still marrying each other (and adults) as young as the age of 12. It has only been recently that laws on the books have been updated to reflect society’s modern expectations.

          Mary, the Mother of our Lord, was probably only about 14 when she bore Jesus. That was a common age for girls to be wives and first-time mothers.

          I am not excusing molesters. But it is worth noting that societal change in the last century has been vaster than most any of us can imagine. The idea that children of 12 are nonsexual beings is a modern myth — promoted by an odd coalition between liberal reformers seeking to protect young people from exploitation and fundamentalist religion seeking an new field of innocence to “sow the seed” in.

          Again, this is not to justify crimes. It is to put the talk of “pedophilia” into a valid historical context. Joseph would have been considered a pedophile today.

        2. A hell of a lot of horrible things were done in the past that we do not do today. In places where 14 year olds are married today, they often suffer terrible medical conditions because of their rapes, and pregnancies that their bodies are not ready for.

          Trying to say that marrying off 14 year old children is fine because we used to do it is about as illogical as you can get.

        3. Oh, I agree. I never said it was fine, did I?

          But we need to understand the why of some of these things in order to make policies make more sense. Right now, because we hold conflicting views about children, we have some irrational laws that have wound up labeling 17 or 18 year olds as pedophiles for life — because of a few month’s discrepancy in the laws regarding what was allowed and what was not.

          I would not want my daughter to marry. But my daughter is in that age where her hormones and her interests could be manipulated. I am not going to pretend she doesn’t face those issues. Nor am I going to pretend that adults will not find young people attractive in that way. It may be “natural,” but the only way to guard against it is to act with knowledge.

          When cultures are in flux, as ours is, there are lots of areas of conflict between what was once acceptable and what is now acceptable.

          Shoot, we even have people in the South who *still* justify slavery. A recent poll suggested that over 30% of the adults in Mississippi today would have favored the Confederacy.

          My point was not to justify pedophilia, nor to suggest that 14 year olds should marry. My point was that change in attitudes and understandings come slower than outward cultural changes. Perhaps I did not make myself clear.

          Still, that topic is so sensitive that just speaking about it can set the blood to boiling, cause loss of rationality and make a person feel that someone who doesn’t seethe hatred immediately upon introduction of the topic may somehow be an offender. Dangerous ground.

        4. Dear rtgmath:

          You wrote:

          ‘those are laws that you, the MOG alone, are free to disregard! How dare any layman, laywoman, commoner, ignoramus, lout, pig, etc. try to take from you what is Yours and Yours alone!’

          I reply:

          You have captured perfectly the spirit of Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas. They were priests to YHWH at Shiloh [1Sa 1:3]. Yet ‘the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know YHWH’ [1Sa 2:12].

          As 1 Sa 2 says, they violated the laws of sacrifice and kept the best for themselves. If resistance was offered, they took it by force. They showed contempt for the sacrifices [1Sa 2:13-17].

          Moreover, Eli’s sons also exploited their priestly position to press the women who served at the entry way into the tent of meeting [1Sa 2:22].

          Some scribe thought it worthy to note Eli’s very weak opposition: it runs in the order of ‘boys, boys — what’s this I’m hearing …’ [1Sa 2:23-25].

          Most telling are these words: ‘But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for YHWH desired to put them to death‘ [1Sa 2:25].

          As I see it, such are the words that ought to be taken to those pastors and churches where such things happen. They stand to be confronted with their spiritual solidarity with Hophni and Phinehas.

          Offenders must be confronted with their wrongdoing and in the spirit of Mt 18:15, believers must be prepared to do so publicly.

          Of course it goes without saying — yet most assuredly needs to be said — that where the civil code is violated, the authorities must be involved.

          The story of Eli’s house could not be more applicable to the epidemic of abuse which now plagues us. I wonder if it occurs to people that so long as God’s people refuse to stand for what is right in their own churches, God will not bless those churches.

          Christian Socialist

        5. It is my understanding that, properly, pedophilia only refers to sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. So most of those 12-year-old girls would face statutory rape, but not by a true pedophile (still just as horrific for them, for sure!). Pre-pubescence is pretty generally recognized, now and historically (I think!), to be a non-sexual stage of life. So the issue of so many pedophiles is partly that we overuse the term.

          As for the 12-year-olds getting married, I won’t argue it was ever a good thing, but neither is waiting until past 30 as so many do today. (Full disclosure – I am past 30 and never married.) The extended adolescence we consider normal now is certainly a new thing, historically. I think people used to grow up faster/earlier in the past (possibly due to trauma and/or necessity). But I’m past both my bedtime and my knowledge, so I’ll quit now 🙂

        6. We focus too much on an arbitrary legal line– 18 years. The law has to draw a line somewhere and 18 seems to work. But it’s just odd that, if a 22 year old sleeps with a 17 yr, 11 month old girl that he’s branded a pedophile. But if the same girl at 18 yr, 1 month went to work in a strip club and gave “private dances” to 50 year old men in the backroom, she’d be exercising her sexual liberty.

          The greater principle here is taking advantage of people. If a 21 year old marries a 16 year old, he’s not necessarily taking advantage of her. Maybe he’s actually providing for her and the relationship is more healthy than, say a 60 year old keeping around a 19 year old trophy girlfriend.

          When someone who is supposed to be a safe figure, a role model is the one doing the predation it gets even worse. That’s what so particularly horrifying about church sex abuse cases.

        7. +1 EC. The law can never create righteousness, it can only restrain evil. And since people mature at different rates, sexual laws in particular are limited. While these laws certainly do more good than harm, we need also to build the character into our lives and communities that make the appeal to such laws a rare and shocking thing.

        8. Slightly off-topic:

          Janet, you raise an interesting point about marital ages. And here is where I get to demonstrate, once again, that everything I know I’ve learned from my children:

          My older son told me about something called the Hajnal Line. I had never heard of it before. Apparently it’s a line drawn by a scholarly dude named John Hajnal, supposedly separating Europe into two regions: one characterized by relatively late marriages and more egalitarian relations between the sexes; and the other characterized by early marriages (mostly arranged) and more authoritarian norms.

          When my son told me about this, it made sense of a fascinating book I had read years earlier: The World We Have Lost, about rural life in pre-industrial England (17th c., right on the brink of industrialization). Surprisingly, according to this book, most 17th-century English couples married in their mid-20s or thereabouts — i.e., after the young man had established himself as a farmer or hired hand or whatever. According to my son, this is in keeping with the fact that England is on the “later marriage/more egalitarian” side of the Hajnal Line.

          More info. As rgtmath noted, these customs are culturally conditioned, and, even today, they vary from region to region:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

        9. LOL that was in reply to Paul Best, about David. Looks rather odd coming after a discussion about marriage ages….

      3. I believe in restoration. But that does not imply that a pulpit perv should be restored to the pulpit upon repentance. If a pulpit Bap has been restored, he can get an honest job. He needs to be kept far away from the pulpit and any position of trust.

  13. Hmmm…. I googled Jimmy Swaggart, and found that there were at least two occasions when he “fell” (or jumped) 1988 and 1991. It appears that he has kept his nose (and other parts) clean since then, though……

  14. I will never forget sitting in Tennessee Temple University and having to listen to David Gibbs Jr talk about how we needed to stand behind Terri Schievo (or however you spell her name) because he had set in her hospital room and watched her follow balloons around the room and look into his eyes as he said she’d be okay.
    Only after the autopsy did we find out that she was blind because of her condition and those stories were lies.
    People like that only hurt their side’s cause. Bearing false witness does no good for people who actually have evidence to defend the right to life. I decided then that I would rather pay an unbelieving lawyer with some integrity than free load off a “Christian” who would lie.

    1. Even if the stories weren’t lies, does anyone really want the state to decide who lives and dies? The prevailing law (not sure now) was that the spouse has this right. I would never want to see this changed, even if it were abused by one dirt-bag. The whole thing was an absurd cocktail of progressive social statism wearing the lipstick of neo-conservatism.

    2. One lesson that the Terri Schievo fiasco taught us that we should all take positive steps to ensure that our families never have to endure what her husband and other experienced. As a result of that case, thousands of us (including me) completed living wills which specifically spelled out what our wishes are when we become to sick to communicate the level of care that we want. I urge everyone to download the 7 Wishes Checklist (or similar documents) so that you do not have to experience what Terri and her husband endured.

    3. Nonetheless, the whole idea of “persistent vegetative state” has been credibly challenged by more up-to-date science. What was done to Terri Schiavo was nothing less than murder.

      I hope and pray that you never have to endure the kind of death she endured. The starvation was not even the worst part. The thirst and dehydration were sheer protracted torture.

      I would not wish that death on a dog. No, not even one supposedly (conveniently!) in a “persistent vegetative state.”

      1. The practice of withdrawing food and drink in order to bring about death was based on medical literature that claimed death by dehydration was probably not painful. The literature began to change, not long after the Schiavo case, and the experts now say death by thirst is very painful (something which could have been determined simply by reading the survivor accounts of those trapped in the ocean or desert without drinking water). Most DNR orders allow for comfort measures, such as sips of water, to be given to somebody, even if they have refused resuscitation and life support measures.

      2. “I hope and pray that you never have to endure the kind of death she endured.”

        Your statement (quoted above) is the only part of your post with which I agree. And I will not have to endure that “kind of death” because my written wishes to family and doctors will ensure that no misguided individual will keep me alive for weeks after I have entered a vegetative state (which, by the way, autopsies proved beyond any shadow of a doubt). These artificial means of keeping a person alive is only a recent phenomenen with the invention of new medical technology. For most of humans time on this earth, people died at home under the watchful eye of those who really loved them. Indefinitely sustaining life by machines is the cruelest treatment, and no compassionate person would ever want their loved ones to experience that. I stood at the bedside of my older brother in a hospice room and watched as he took his last breath. As far as I could tell, he was experiencing no pain.

        1. I would also add that calling Teri Scheivo’s death “murder” is incorrect on technical, legal, moral, and factual grounds. Undesirable? Perhaps. Murder? Not if words mean things.

  15. I have a video somewhere of David Gibbs, the father, speaking at First Baptist of Hammond, where he spoke openly of Jack Schaap’s sin with the 16 yr old, and not denying it or playing it down any. Wonder why he’s doing that now with the Bill Winninger case. My own personal opinion, for what it’s worth, is that only ladies who are moms themselves should serve as bus captains. No male bus captains. Men, except maybe as drivers, need to stay off the buses, just like they need to stay out of nurseries and young childrens’ classes/ministries. Sadly, the bus routes in many cases exist more to serve the ambitions of young men merely using them as a stepping stone to the pastorate.

        1. Keeping up with the teachers arrested for carrying on with their students … lately there have been about ten women teachers arrested for every one male teacher arrested!

          Some years back, women teachers were never suspected as being interested in SYTs. Men were the automatic suspects in molestation. But now …

        2. Yeah, it’s a lot more common for female teachers to be arrested for this stuff than for male teachers.

          Part of it is cultural conditioning. If a 16 year old sleeps with a hot 28 year old teacher, then he’s a frickin’ stud. Neither society– or the teacher– really see it as victimizing him. It’s more like doing him a favor.

        3. A few years ago there was a very prominant female Cristian politicion who was interviewed on television, and she said that Homosexuality was an abomination. A few weeks later the news broke that, for the last five years, she had been having an affair with a youndg man who was not much more than a third her age and may have been 15 when it started. all the publicty was damaging for the politician but didn’t seem to do the young man any harm. it did however seriously damage the cause of Christianity. I suppose the moral of the sory if those who live in glass houses should keep their underwear on.

    1. You might want to add some nuances to that position so that you don’t find my 90 person church creepy when you find me helping my wife in the nursery or our 3-5 year old ss class.
      I learned all about being above suspicion at BJ about how to behave around the opposite gender. Then I followed 3rd’s advice about finding a small church to work in and realized all that was a luxury that small churches don’t necessarily have. Yeah, it’s a potentially bad situation for me to give a ride to a teen girl. If my other option is to tell her “no you can’t come because I don’t want people to think i may have exploited you and you might sometime in the future unjustly accuse me of the same”, I’m going to take my chances.

      1. As a member of an equally small church, I feel your pain. Our staffing policy is based on materials provided by our insurance company, which has been insuring ministries exclusively for over 100 years. Some of the standard operating procedures that they insist on (might not even insure you if you have no plans toward compliance):
        1) Always two people, not related, working with kids.
        2) Never in a room alone with a kid.
        3) No males in the nursery.
        4) All rooms used for Sunday School to have large windows.

        I think these are quite reasonable risk mitigation procedures. We are still working toward some of them, but the most important thing to me is to provide an environment that does as much as possible to keep kids safe!

        1. “No males in the nursery”. Thank God for that rule, I don’t mind picking cheerios out of snot bubbles but having to change a smashed diaper is another thing. We “teach” the 4 year old class and I love it…my wife says I like it because my maturity is about that level.

        2. Dr. F.
          Our children attended an event at our new church recently. Formerly well experienced in the chaos of “pack the house” chaotic, desperate for workers ministries, I hung around a while to see if everything was under control. (Okay, maybe I was hovering a bit since one child learns differently and new situations can cause issues). I wasn’t there a few minutes before I had a worker that I didn’t know come at me (quite firmly) with an application to work in children’s ministry/background check and letting me know that once that process was complete I could apply to help in children’s ministry. I was pleased and definitely not used to it. They took such good care of our kids. They had a blast and everything was under control and high quality. I felt my kiddos were loved on and their preciousness was taken seriously. They have learned.

        3. No males in the nursery? Why ever not?

          It’s not like the female workers are wetnurses. Men can sling bottles, pat backs, rock in a chair, change diapers, and play peek-a-boo, too.

      2. I understand your position Joshua, but you’re setting yourself and your church up for failure. The principles Dr, Fundystan mentions are extremely sound and shouldn’t be ignored. Jesus doesn’t desire our hubris, he demands our humility.

        1. Well I am happy to report that because our church became a relief for that girl from her wretched home life, even though she moved and put her faith on the back burner, when she ended up with two babies and no husband, she came back to us and at that point the wonderful woman the Lord found for me was able to have a ministry to this girl – without which, she might have killed her unborn child.
          Was it a bad situation? Yes. Do I regret it? No. Would I do it again? Thank God I have a wife now.

        2. I’m glad you had a good experience despite your naïveté Joshua. God often chooses to protect the ignorant. Now that you know better, please don’t think you’ll continue to be rewarded for encouraging others to act foolishly.

  16. In the late 1990’s, a study for “Religiosity and Child Sexual Abuse: A Risk Factor Assessment” determined that the more conservative and literal the doctrine, the higher the risk of child sexual abuse. This is no surprise, since those who end up being accused of sexual abuse have a giant meat-shield of believers who will swear up and down that it’s not true. Case in point: The video posted.

    High-five to the Holy Spirit for doing its job.

  17. I was a bus worker for many years who believed these people were men of God. I was in high school when this scandal hit. Winiger’s book was sold in our church bookstore. We really thought we were helping save souls by getting kids on a bus lured with candy and gold fish. We thought that if we could get them to pray the sinner’s prayer as young as possible we could save them before they became more hardened as adults. Although we fully expected the majority of these kids to fall off the church wagon and join gangs, get into trouble, get pregnant as teenagers etc… at least if they prayed the prayer as a child they would get into heaven someday. The bus ministry also served as a way to prove your dedication to the ministry and be noticed by the pastoral staff so one may earn a coveted position on staff or at least have the pastor’s favor.

    1. This is the truly insidious part of Hyles’ (and others like him) teaching this “if you only say these magic words, you’re going to heaven” – they are messing around with someone’s eternity, as a deacon once said.

      Children just blindly say a prayer; and then everyone points to the prayer as evidence that they are saved. They have no relationship with Jesus Christ; they do not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within… but they say “I’ve done that” and either decide that “it didn’t work for me”, or “it’s all false” or else they remain in a church miserable, because they cannot do everything the leaders teach.

      This is the true tragedy of the “Want to go to heaven? Say this prayer” kind of hucksterism that passes for “soul-winning” in so many IFB churches.

      1. I was never involved in my previous church’s bus ministry, just door-to-door soulwinning. And what you said is that part that hurts now. Tag ’em and bag ’em, that’s all it is. Makes me so so sad.

  18. These fundy made men are so obviously gangsters that it is sickening that people would follow them blindly.

    My reply to Gibbs (Dr. Hyles’ version of Tom Hagen) “Now you listen to me, you smooth-talking son-of-a-bitch, let me lay it on the line for you and your boss, whoever he is! This pedophile of a pastor is going to pay! I don’t care how many dago guinea wop greaseball goombahs come out of the woodwork!”

  19. Dear SFL Reader:

    1] Brokenhearted at the baptist_church/cult idea, he immediately explains rigorously they proselytize [5:55ff.] sacrificing money, time, labor, etc. How unlike cults that is! That doesn’t make your local Baptist church a cult; but it does question whether our friend would recognize it if it was.

    2] If your concern is to vindicate ministry, you name the allegations and deal with them with all propriety. You so in order that … well … evil won’t triumph. However this event appears to train people so that they can better control the narrative when folk back home raise questions about ‘the ruckus.’ It seems to me that the allegations and the ministries are separate issues. But you’d never know that from this.

    3] What is love? What is compassion? Is it bussing in ‘underprivileged’ children to tell them that Jesus loves them, or is it to move YOUR family into underprivileged areas, to have them as your friends, to school your children at schools in underprivileged communities, to stand by them in their struggle for justice, to speak for the underprivileged and to become underprivileged? In other words, what is the meaning of the incarnation?

    I suspect that this may be too much fundamentalism for them.

    Christian Socialist

  20. “3] What is love? What is compassion? Is it bussing in ‘underprivileged’ children to tell them that Jesus loves them, or is it to move YOUR family into underprivileged areas, to have them as your friends, to school your children at schools in underprivileged communities, to stand by them in their struggle for justice, to speak for the underprivileged and to become underprivileged? In other words, what is the meaning of the incarnation?”

    BRILLIANT!
    That makes all the difference. Nobody wants to live in the slums to reach the slums, they want to stay in their safe nice neighborhoods and bring the slums to themselves on their terms and for a temporary visit and return them home so they can enjoy their comfy Christian existence.

    1. I ended up buying a place in the poorest section of town. (We don’t have slums.) Not because I was on a mission, but because I’m poor! I’d rather live out in the nice section by the river. But my accidental ministry has turned out to be loving on, feeding, and generally parenting the unsupervised kids in the neighborhood. I can’t say I chose this ministry, but it’s kind of fun. I visit a food bank on occasion to feed them all. I make them all pitch in on chores, and work off anything expensive they break. And I don’t say much about Jesus. Should I be handing out tracts, or having them repeat the sinners’ prayer?

      1. No tracts or sinner’s prayer. Those kids are already loved and accepted, and thank you for showing them that TiceyKaye. You seriously are doing one hundred times God’s work as any blowhard in a suit telling people they are going to hell. Good for you. Those kids are lucky to have you in their neighborhood 🙂

        1. I have to say though, at one point, my then 5 year old son announced to his little buddy that he was Going to Hell because he didn’t know Jesus. I suggested that perhaps it would be better to teach his friend about Jesus instead!

        2. Yes indeed. Come and find a Friend, not a Judge or an Enemy. Come find One Who wants to Help, not hurt.

          I read an atheist’s summation of the “Gospel”‘s usual presentation that went something like this:

          God loved you so much that He sent His Son to die a Cruel and Undeserved death in your place, so that if you don’t believe in His Boundless Love He will Torture You for Eternity.

          So, other than a “Fire Escape,” what motivation does someone have to believe in Jesus? This seems to me the worst possible motivation.

      2. Dear TieceyKaye:

        When we walk with the poor, we find ourselves walking in the presence of Christ, who was poor and who walked with the poor.

        Also, thank you for being Jesus Christ to the children in your locality.

        Christian Socialist

  21. Sounds like the same kind of stuff the Catholics went through with their priests who abused boys. Sorry to offend anyone, but as for me, I’m more comfortable with women who are moms themselves working with children. (Or perhaps a married couple).

    1. I’m more comfortable with 2 or more people working with kids, in full sight of one another at all times. Also with in-depth background checks. And regular discussions of why we avoid any chance for abuse to happen:
      1. because it would obviously do great damage to a child, and
      2. because a hint or accusation of abuse would ruin a teacher’s/leader’s reputation.
      The leaders I supervise are all licensed teachers in their weekday jobs. It makes it easier.

      1. The Boy Scouts has a very strict youth protection policy. Adults and children are NEVER alone one on one. There are always two adult leaders in every situation. No exceptions. If you must talk to a child alone you still must be sight of other adults (across the room…on the other side of the camp…wherever. Someone must be able to SEE you.)

        1. Yes. Even at school when we need to counsel or tutor a child one-on-one, we prop our doors open and sit where we can be seen by the many people passing by. It’s just common sense.

  22. Not surprised to see Hyles & Gibbs defendind Winniger.
    Love hearing Hyles take shots at his critics and Gibbs sticks up for him as well.

    Also, once Schaap went to jail, Gibbs also defended Shcaap in a subtle way.

    Since Gibbs went to bat for Hyles, Winniger, and even Schaap, how how comes Schaap’s other buddies (Trieber/Brown/Huston) come to bat for Schaap like Gibbs did.

  23. Ugh, that was horrible to watch, especially in light of the recent Gibbs ‘investigation’ of the allegations against Gothard. But it is helpful to have this documented proof of the hypocrisy. In order to root out these predators, the past must be unearthed and re-examined.

    1. Is Gibbs in trouble? I’ve read that Zachary from West Coast/Lancaster Baptist is in hot water. What’s the deal on Gibbs?

      Also interesting relating to this video is Jim Vineyard’s church is slowly denigrating as half of the church/staff have quit because Jim and his son the pastor (Tom) refuse to listen to allegations of child abuse

      sick!

      1. Recently, at recoveringgrace.org there were allegations of sexual harassment by Gothard against young teenage girls in the IBLP training centres. At least 34 women have come forward, some with accusations of molestation. Gothard resigned from leadership and an investigation into the allegations was begun. However, it was Gibbs, who has close ties to IBLP, who did the investigation. So, it was no surprise when the IBLP board released a statement, saying that while Gothard had been inappropriate, he had not done anything criminally wrong. All the loopholes were used, and while Gothard has not been reinstated to IBLP, the board’s letter left it wide open for him to do so in the future.

        1. And you can always trust the defense lawyer to conduct and honest and thorough investigation.

    1. This so-called “stacymcanderson” is a HE, concerning which I have no doubt. I believe he has been called out and no longer wishes to be exposed. He is an Mog!

      Perhaps he has come back as another someone or something else or another. Trolls seem to operate in this way.

      B.R.O.

      1. Or Norway, where my relatives get an amazing education, their health is cared for, they are cared for both young and old, and one does not see homeless people. Yet their are extremely prosperous private businesses and people make money!

        Open a textbook and learn something please, Fundy4Life. (Not an A-Beka book, either. I mean a real textbook.) Russia has become a free market oligarchy. They were “communist” and there is a large difference.

        1. Lol don’t think it hasn’t crossed my mind. A lot less religious fundamentalists and very few RWNJs there.

      2. Da! But you, fundy4life, are welcome, too!

        Ve have elections! Ve have strong leader. Ve all have Church that tell State what it want, and ve do it, just like you Amerikan Kristians do in USA! If gain money and power, you can tell others what to believe. You can tell others what to do. Just like in USA. Just like in Baptist Churches! Just like in politiks.

        Amerikan Kristians much like old Communist Party. Party line, Party rules. Welcome!

  24. In hindsight, the combination of pastor and lawyer seems to cause all kinds of ethical conflicts, conflicts of interest.

    I totally understand that accused criminals should get the best possible representation. While it results in a lot of criminals getting off, it keeps the system honest. If the police & prosecutors didn’t know they had to prove their case in open court, there would be no end to false charges. See also: fundy college discipline committees.

    However, the combination of defense attorney & evangelist is just a super-evil combination. If it’s your job to defend criminals, it shouldn’t also be your job to preach morality. Such a huge, huge conflict of interest.

    1. Ditto, if it was just a typical criminal defense attorney that we all think of as sleazy often, I wouldn’t be that bothered by the CLA/Gibbs’. The way the fuse it into an attack on God/the church by all the world that only wants to put child predators in prison is infuriating & immoral, IMO.

  25. When making these accusations you need to be sure they have basis in fact. Being Falsely accused can have horendous consequenses.I know someone who was falsely accused. He was a teacher. He was also a Christian. one of his pupils, a young girl who had a vendetta against Christians accused him of molesting her, and bribed/bullied one of her friends to back her up. As a result my friend lost his job and suffered all the fallout that comes with such an accusation. The girls’s friend eventuall confessed that it was all a lie. The “Victim” actually *had* been abused – by her uncle, who was a “Christian”. My friend was exonerated, but never did get his job back. There are still whispers about whether or not he was really innocent.

      1. It is difficult to gauge tone in written communication, so I am not sure if you are being sarcastic, but if you are serious I would suggest that your comparison is perhaps disproportionate. The Salem witch trials were real trials in which actual people were killed, sometimes in horrendous manner (like the 70+ old man who was crushed under a pile of stones for ‘practicing divination’). And of course, they were no real trial in any sense. These kinds of things simply aren’t happening today.

        1. My impression of the post was comparing false accusations of one era to false accusations now. People accused others of witchcraft so they wouldn’t be prosecuted for the crime themselves.

        2. Oh, I don’t know.

          Prison is often a death sentence. Getting convicted for something you didn’t do, being accused of horrendous crimes for which you are innocent essentially takes away your life. It is as bad – or worse – than kidnapping. You essentially become a slave. You have no life of your own, and your life becomes a living hell.

          There is good reason why people who have been bereft of all hope think about suicide.

          And yes, these things do happen today. Maybe not witches. Maybe not burning at the stake or thumbscrews or legally recognized torture. But much of it is torture nonetheless. The individual, his worth, his life, his existence is rendered without meaning except as someone to be hounded and persecuted.

  26. Although my friend was exonerated in that is innocence was proven, the Rumor Mill can be a juggarnaut that noboby can stop. Mud like that sticks forever and cannot be washed off. However, when multiple accusations are made, as have been, in the cases mentioned in this blog, then that *definitely* merits some serious investigation.

    1. Sex crimes, like any other crime, have something like a 2% false accusation rate.

      Honestly, I’d rather be falsely accused & have my reputation dragged through the mud than have a sex abuse victim go unbelieved.

      1. 2-8% are found false in a court of law. Presumably, prosecutors only being the strongest cases. A lot of false accusations will never make it to trial. Jurisdictions that rigorously investigate all allegations have found something like 25-40% are false.

        Even so, most victims never come forward. They’re either embarrassed or afraid they will not be believed.

        The practice of dropping allegations unless they’re slam dunk cases does nobody any justice. Victims feel its pointless to come forward. The falsely accused are never vindicated.

        1. Something about 2% are false didn’t sound right. Thanks for posting this. 25-40% false sounds more realistic.

          It is a shame that false accusations happen, and the true victims are afraid to come forward.

          No easy solutions.

        2. Most criminal cases involving sex abuse allegations never go to trial. Normally prosecutors won’t prosecute a case unless they feel they can get a guilty verdict.

          I had a case in 1998 that still bothers me. An 18 month old girl was molested. Strong physical evidence/damage. Suspects were her grandfather and two identical twin uncles. Case came forward too late for DNA evidence, but even so the twins would’ve had identical DNA.

          I gave the three a lie detector test. Grandfather blew it out of the water but he wouldn’t confess. No prosecution. One of the twin brothers (they were adults) committed suicide.

          Nonetheless, that baby was (and still is) a victim of a brutal sadistic crime.

        3. Yes. Police and prosecutor screen out the accusations that are unprovable or likely to be false. The problem with this is that false accusers are never punished. So sick people can make accusations and get by with it. The accused’s reputation is ruined either way. And worse, it discourages true victims from coming forward. Those are the ones most likely to be ashamed and afraid, and the ones most in need of help.

          The 25-40% figure only applies to police reports. It’s likely that 2/3 or more of women who respond to surveys saying they sexually assaulted never report it out of fear. I presume the great majority of those 2/3 are telling the truth. That needs to be taken into consideration.

          Fact is most, rape and sex assault victims never see justice.

          And, less important, but still serious: most of the accused are never formally exonerated.

        4. Let me revise and extend my remarks:

          The *falsely* accused never get exonerated. Unfortunately, police forces and prosecutor’s offices are overloaded and cannot fully investigate all rape claims. So, it’s very rare for a false accuser of any sort to be charged. Ultimately, this corrupts the entire process, discouraging true victims.

        5. Elijah, the police agencies I have served have always had the policy to do the complete sexual assault investigation & report and forward it to the DA for screening, i.e., a prosecution decision. The DA is normally the final authority.

  27. This is a prime example of one of the core problems with the IFB. Instead of finding the real problem–(the sex abusers and lack of accountability)-they create these distractions as the problem–“our bus ministries are being attacked”. They just keep creating and building up these false images of themselves, never to let God actually work out his grace and forgiveness in and among them.
    But that is the gospel of works–you must build and protect these false religious selves to look spiritual without the heart changes that are necessary to actually be spiritual.

      1. If the accusation of abuse is false, then the person who made the false accusation certainly can wonder about the motivations for the attack. Whether the attack is a result of a bitter spirit or not is open to question. A false accusation is an attempt to harm someone through the legal system, and needs to be regarded as seriously as a physical assault.

        On the other hand, if the accusation of abuse is true, it really doesn’t matter whether the attack was motivated by a bitter spirit or not. The truth needs to be told. The person who did the harm needs to be held accountable. Telling a victim that they shouldn’t have a bitter spirit is to deny the harm that was done to them. It justifies the actions of their attacker.

        1. Right on rtgmath! The presence or lack of bitterness is meaningless to the accusation. Veracity is what matters and the ensuing consequences for whichever party was in the wrong. Whether the accuser is bitter or not is a red herring/distraction.

      2. Any time someone points out the emperor has no clothes, I find they use this tactic–cry persecution, create another problem to be the distraction, blame the victim….

      3. My Friend’s innocence was proven, but his life was essentially destroyed. He is still living with the consequences of a bitter girl’s deliberate lies
        And I am still angry about it

  28. Having listened to this again, and reading Darrell’s comment… how does he know that Gibbs and Hyles knew about this all along? Couldn’t Wininger have just been lying to them?

    Maybe their error was just being too willing to completely believe what the man said.

    In some cases (Bob Gray, FL), there is proof (tape recordings) that Metzer (sp?) was aware of what Bob Gray had done, and yet sent him off as a missionary to Germany, claiming that he had no ministry-disqualifying sin.

  29. I can’t help but wonder at their bravery, really. I mean, I wouldn’t want to defend someone here on earth who Jesus said is better off with a millstone around their necks thrown into the sea. I just can’t imagine that Jesus is very understanding.

    And there are times we have to stand back and let people suffer real consequences for their sins. Like Moses and the people of Israel watching Korah and the other complainers receive their punishment.

    I remember being terrorized by preachers who used “be sure your sins will find you out” as a stick with which to beat us kids into confessing our secret sins.

    If these Pharisees would quit seeing themselves as a higher class than the plebes they preach at, they wouldn’t be so shocked when they are judged and found guilty!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.