373 thoughts on “(Abandoned) Standards”

    1. I don’t know about you, but I’m feeling pretty outraged right now. An X-rated post on a family-friendly website like this? No excuses, Darrell! I for one will never visit SFL again due to this monstrosity.
      ๐Ÿ˜›

      1. Dear fundy pastor:

        This is certain: this gal’s life is changing big time!

        Guilt Ridden posted below that Mrs. Jack Hyles is now attending a Southern Baptist Church. How telling!

        Christian Socialist

        1. Beverly Hyles grew up in First Baptist Church Dallas… W.A. Criswell pastored that church for many decades. Jack Hyles attended a Southern Baptist Bible college and I believe was a Southern Baptist pastor for a short period.

          As soon as Jack Hyles died, Beverly Hyles moved back to Dallas and started attending her own church. It says a lot about what she thought of his standards.

  1. Really????? I absolutely revile schaap ……but leave his wife alone. You posting a picture in her worst time if life is a scumbag move. She has been emotionally abused and abandoned by her father and husband. Leave her alone. Some jokes and crowing are not worth it.

    1. Calm down, Mark. Yes, she is a victim and deserves our sympathy. However, she is also one of the biggest hypocrites in christendom and deserves to be exposed as such. This is no different than people who made fun of Tammy Faye Bakker’s extravagent lifestyle after her husband’s scandals came to light.

    2. I’m not sure what to think of Cindy. On the one hand, her dirtbag hubby cheated on her and humiliated her in a very public way. On the other hand, she’s been right there with him, helping him shovel the crap that he’s been spreading. Brainwashed dupe? Willing perpetuator of and participant in the lifestyle of power and relative ease? Crying into her pillow every night? Her writings and speeches have helped keep women in perpetual bondage to the sickness of IFBdom, soI don’t know if this is a chickens-coming-home-to-roost thing or not. Dunno.

      1. I think Deacon’s Son nailed it: She is one of the biggest hypocrites in Christendom.
        Where was she when Jack Schaap was spewing all that venom about open-toed-shoes and other such nonsense? Cheering him on from the first pew, that’s where.

        1. It could be that women such as Cindy believe that they must appear supportive to their husbands regardless of their own beliefs.

          I find it very interesting that, after Jack Hyles’ rants against the SBC, his widow is now attending one.

        2. Guilt Ridden, I think you are right, but I think that is the essence of fundie pastor-wife hypocricy. Lots of IFB pastors retire into SBC churches. My former pastor is one of them.

      2. Give me a break. Cindy Schaap was raised by one of the most manipulative men in Christendom. She has spent her life bowing first to one god of FBCH and then to the other. In her own words, she was “groomed” by her father to become the first lady of FBCH.

        I don’t understand those of you who blame the wife. She didn’t rape a child. Her perverted husband did.
        Blame Schaap, the perpetrator, not his family who really were dragged into something filthy and detestable by his criminal actions.

        1. Polecat, you probably know my opinion of her father, Jack Hyles.

          But at some point one has to be an adult and take responsibility for one’s own actions. And she has been as active as anyone in promoting FBCH’s wicked heresies.

          There was plenty wrong with both the FBCH empire and the Schaap family before Jack Schaap ever dallied with that young girl. Yes, he wronged her (and pretty much everyone else). But she had her own part in it all.

        2. That is, Cindy Schaap had her own part in it. Re-reading that last sentence, I’m not sure the referent of “she” was clear.

        3. @ Big Gary who said, “But at some point one has to be an adult and take responsibility for oneโ€™s own actions.”

          Maybe so, but she may not even realize she can make her own choices.

          If she grew up neglected or abused, she is probably codependent. Codependents don’t realize they can make their own decisions, they typically rely on others too much, have a deep fear or being abandoned, are afraid of confrontation, standing up to people, saying no, believe their needs are not important, etc.

          She would need to see a therapist for weeks or do a lot of reading about codependency to be set free, realize who she is, to learn that she doesn’t have to put up with abuse, that she doesn’t need a husband to rely on, that she can leave him, doesn’t have to put up with abuse, etc.

      3. KindofBored,

        It has always bother me that Cindy sent her own Mother packing and it should have been a clear sign something was terribly wrong when Schaap did not care for the widowed.

        V.

      4. Cindy Schaap is a big girl.

        Her sister Linda chose to get out and paid the price to do so. Cindy chose to stay inside where it was safe. Not only that, but from reports she joined in the fun– running people down over failure to keep silly rules and cheering on the men who did.

        Often times getting slapped in the face is the only thing that will get one’s attention.

        She is a big girl. If she can’t handle some very minor and valid criticism, then she needs to grow up and start acting her age.

        My guess is she has a lot more serious things on her mind than what some random people on the internet think about her toe cleavage.

        1. Funny how so many here have used “spiritual” abuse as excuses for their stupid/abusive choices with their own kids (yeah, I’ve read how people have beaten their kids, expected total blind obedience, and shipped them off to abusive IFB schools), but real abuse? You know, the kind the LAW recognizes, such as emotional, physical and sexual abuse, well, damn, we can’t use that as an excuse for making self-protective choices. Nope. Because the only kind of “abuse” anyone cares about on this site is the “spiritual” kind.

          As someone who WAS abused — and not the milquetoast spiritual kind but the real kind that leaves you battered, bruised and scarred for life — I can vouch for the fact that EVERYTHING you do, every CHOICE you make, is geared towards self-preservation.

          Damn her all you want, but I’d put money on that woman being in self-preservation mode. Call it selfish, and I’ll call you ignorant. Be thankful for your ignorance. I wish I was.

        2. @PP as someone who was severely verbally and emotionally abused, I don’t believe in downplaying anyone who says they’ve been abused, including spiritually. That being said, all abuse, including the kind you experienced, should be taken seriously, and those who go through it need to be shown compassion and understanding.

        3. Elijah said, “Cindy Schaap is a big girl.
          Her sister Linda chose to get out and paid the price to do so. Cindy chose to stay inside where it was safe.”

          Please see my post to Big Gary above.

          If Cindy S. is codependent, she may be a “big girl” in chronological, actual age but emotionally more like a little girl.

          She might be too afraid to leave her husband, afraid to live alone, etc. She might feel trapped in the marriage.

          So she didn’t so much choose to stay with the guy from a healthy mindset, but because she feels she doesn’t have a choice (if I’m right about her being codependent). If so, she deserves sympathy, not condemnation.

        4. Yuck. I hate going back and reading things where I was clearly not in a good place. I apologize to anyone I hurt with my harsh words here. They were really uncalled for. Abuse is abuse is abuse.

      1. I thought the same thing. Here is Schaap on trial for statutory rape with his hypocrisy exposed, and out comes his family wearing something he’s ranted about in regard to sexual purity.

        1. I suspect Schaap, like many fundies, was projecting his own fetishes upon his sheeple. Everything is sexualized when the Charismatic Leader sexualizes everything. (I think I just discovered the Ultimate Fundy Tautology…)

      2. I agree with Eric.

        I understood the post to be a comment about the preacher husband’s hypocrisy or weird sexualization of every aspect of a woman, a woman’s body, or a woman’s wardrobe (or poking fun at all that). I didn’t take it as a swipe against the wife at all.

    3. At first I wasn’t sure what to think. But then Darrell updated the post with the audio from Schaap’s rant against open-toe shoes. I realized that any sympathy I had for him went right out the window listneing to that.
      Regarding the picture of his wife, is this her finally out of his man-made bondage of standards or is it hypocrisy. That I do not know.

  2. At my Christian school, we were allowed to wear open-toed shoes for a while, then suddenly the rule changed. I think I was in 8th grade? But no one in my class knew the ruled had changed – there’d been no notice, no nothing. So for our Christian Soldier’s Club day (once a month, we all had to dress in white buttoned-down shirts and navy pants (or skirts for the girls)) – all of the girls in my class wore open-toed shoes. And our principal was FURIOUS. All I remember is him telling us not to wiggle our sexy toes at the audience, and our entire class collapsed into a fit of laughter.

    Honestly, if toe cleavage makes you stumble…you might need to get out more, or at the very least re-evaluate your life.

    1. That’s the essence of totalitarianism! The rules may change, and you may be held accountable; all without notice. That way, you can never be sure if you’ve broken a rule or not, and the authorities have you in complete fear.

    2. If “toe cleavage” causes you to stumble, you need to get professional help, and possibly be institutionalized lest you jump some innocent person on the street. A person like that certainly doesn’t need to be in ministry, God forbid the pastor of a church.

        1. These days, probably a pair of comfortable work-weight jeans, good walking shoes/boots, a plaid work shirt over a T-shirt, the kind of all-weather jacket that has a hood that zips or snaps on, and for sunny weather a beat-up chicano-style cowboy hat. Blue-collar traveling clothes.

        2. LOL, I want to see the typical “Jesus portrait” except wearing the silly fundy-approved clothes ๐Ÿ˜†

    3. DANG! What is it with Fundies and foot/shoe fetishes!? I had my own run-in with foot fetishist who was ex-fundy-in-name-only when I was still Southern Baptist. Even after I threw the little creep into a wall, he didn’t leave me alone. He wasn’t the only one, just the most blatant about it. I guess since everything else is covered up, they have to get their rocks off on something. Yeesh… ๐Ÿ™„

        1. There’s an extra hand to the left of Cindy, too. Where her legs are is a good question. I think the person is walking, and each leg is behind another person. Best guess, anyway.

    1. Bill Gothard says that earrings mean that you are the slave to another man. That is why they are okay for married women because they are the slaves of their husbands. And maybe they are okay for daughters because they are the slaves of their fathers. But, if a man has an earring it means he is gay because he is the slave of another man.

        1. Bracelets are okay because they draw attention to your “countenance” (which is not the same as your face, apparently). Ankle bracelets are not okay because they are “eye traps.”

          (Not sure what the pronouncement is on morality of the ankle bracelet that Jack Schaap will be wearing when he is released.)

          Bill Gothard is like the grand ayatollah of fundies: his rules and regulations are too strict even for most IFB pew-warmers.

        2. I seem to recall Lindsay Lohan saying it was hard to coordinate outfits with her house-arrest monitoring bracelet, but then again, I could have made that up.

  3. I am offended by her leather jacket. I have been told that wearing too much leather is a sin, but this shameless hussy parades into FEDERAL COURT dressed like the trashbag girlfriend of a biker.

  4. Hearing yesterday confirms the allegations that someone else took the girl across state lines to meet with Schaap. Wonder if we will ever see a prosecution arising out of that. I doubt it.

    It really bothers me that those who aid and abet sexual criminals in committing their crimes rarely face accountability themselves.

    Think about it: what this means is that there is someone, presumably still at first baptist hammond, who thought this was all okay and helped Jack Schaap accomplish his crimes.

      1. If by “sheltered” you mean “not following every detail of this sordid mess”, then I’m absolutely guilty… who was it (since you imply it is common knowledge)?

      2. No one said it was a secret. We said that it was CREEPY to know that the person who did this has not been held accountable by the authorities.

        I know that for fundies, when two words (like “secret” and “creepy”) sound the same, there is generally an assumption that they mean the same thing. However, that is incorrect in this case. “Secret” has a Latin origin. “Creepy” has an Old English origin.

        As for you, your previous posts suggest that you have a great deal of knowledge about Schaap’s criminal behavior. (Either that or you are just posturing.) Shame on you and and anyone else who is keeping creepy secrets from coming to light.

        1. His secretary took the girl across state lines to meet Schaap. Rumour has it she was offered immunity for cooperating with police.

          And, yes, she should have been charged with something, even if it was a lesser offence.

    1. Absolutely. We featured it on SFL at one point but the video may have been lost in the DMCA takedown warn.

      He was screaming about how women who get married in his church are going to follow his rules for dress code and made an extended point about closed-toe shoes.

      1. Dear Darrell:

        LOL!

        Or WHAT — you’ll UNmarry us? Revoke my membership? What if I keep coming, Jack? What if I keep calling you an idiot every time you ARE one? Are you going to ban me from the campus? How will THAT look — telling sinners that they can’t come to church?

        What’ll you do if I decide to come to church with bear elbows? Are you going to throw a tantrum?

        What if several dozen women sit in the front pew, stand up in your ‘sermon’ and bear our naked elbows for God and the whole world to see?

        Tell me what you’re going to do, Jack! I wanna know! I wanna know! I wanna know! I wanna know!

        Christian Socialist

        1. Schaap was talking about what a bride wears during the wedding. His policy was that he got to specify what the bride, and the whole wedding party, wore during any wedding in his church.

          A more suspicious person than I might have thought that his intensity of interest in this subject was a tad unhealthy. ๐Ÿ˜

      2. I would take a picture of naked toes and tape it to the top of a closed-toe shoe. I would also take a picture of a naked heel and tape it to the back of the shoe. Then I could be responsible for the rule of no pictures of toes or heels on shoes.

        Yes, I’m that difficult.

      1. Best part was “NO NO NO NO NONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!”

        Well, that and the incredible hypocrisy of “this is not your house, this is God’s house”. YES. PRECISELY. Which is why you have NO place, Mr. Schaap, to dictate YOUR opinions on others.

        (on a side note, I just realized I’ve been mispronouncing his name this whole while! I thought it was “shap”, not “skap”!)

    2. I wondered that as well, and am glad Darrell posted the audio (although I’m not going to listen to it). The whole time I was there (in the early 2000’s) open toed shoes weren’t against the rules, although I rarely wore them because 1. They look dumb with pantyhose and 2. It’s always freezing up there.

        1. Yes — well, back when you had your picture on your avatar I figured out who you were, and, yes, I knew you and your wife back in college. I’ve even clicked over to your blog and found some cool stuff there. Glad to see you’re doing well and have (hopefully) found some peace. If you’re on the forum, I’ll send you a PM to tell you who I am.

        1. It’s okay templewoman, you probably don’t know what an oompa-loompa is, since you probably have STANDARDS against watching filthy Hollywood Illuminati movies like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

          Your ignorance is very impressive to God, I am sure.

        2. hahaha, I have long left IFB churches with their standards behind….but I don’t get what’s remarkable about a tanned face

        3. Good for you! Nonetheless, you have seemed more than a bit defensive regarding the situation with Schaap. Sorry my comment was a bit rude.

          As for the tanning, many fundies teach that tanning and other cosmetic embellishments are a sin. Others go to the extreme (like the young lady in the photograph) of making themselves up to the point of looking unnatural. It’s part and parcel of the imbalance that characterizes most fundies’ daily lives.

  5. So was this their way of telling Jack he couldn’t tell them what to wear anymore? Or is it another example of double standards of the chosen ones?

    And who wears open-toe shoes with a turtle neck? Gah!

  6. What to do, What to do? How does one keep up the lifestyle which one has become accustomed to when the cash cow suddenly dies? When the money flow is suddenly cut off what is “Plan B?”

    1. I was wondering the same thing, Don. My thought is that if they are able to keep up their lifestyle even with hubs in prison, that suggests they have quite a bit of money socked away somewhere. (I am predicting that their lifestyle will not change at all.) That should raise eyebrows and lots of questions.

      1. Ahhh, but it’s a “right” hand so if it is behind the guy is a creepy l-o-n-g right arm. Even the guy’s arm could not reach over that far. and there are no feet… boy the optical illusions in these fundie pictures are spooky. ๐Ÿ˜‰ :mrgreen:

    1. Ok, this is beginning to geve me the willies: In the upper righthand corner, the refelection of the trees, is it just me or does that look like a refelection of Nosferatu? ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

  7. I wonder if the “chin scratch” is a way to show that she’s still wearing her wedding ring? I can’t imagine the disillusionment I’d be feeling if I was this family!
    It would disgust me to no end to think of my dad (or husband) standing there
    pleading to those acts BUT it should have disgusted them when they
    heard his sermons, read his books, saw his “shaft” video, etc.
    I’m on the side of betting the lifestyle won’t change a bit also. There will prob
    be churches taking up love offerings this weekend for her!

  8. Even though Schaap and his family don’t seem to be Calvinists AT ALL, his wife and daughter seem to be considering themselves as part of the “elect” here. Meaning that since they’re not only saved, but holy, then they can wear whatever shoes they please. Rules, or at least the most draconian ones, are for the people in the pews instead of the pulpit/pulpit row.

  9. Could someone who knows the Hyles-Schaap tribe better than I do supply a quick run-down of who the people are that are pictured here? I know Cindy, and I assume that’s her daughter, but that’s all I know.

    1. According to some posters on the Do Right Hyles-Anderson group the people are as follows:
      Tom and Alana Lemmen, Cindy, Ken Schaap, Jaclynn (Schaap Weber) and Todd Weber

    1. Funny how in one YouTube Video he blasted the kids who went to Hammond Baptist and HAC and called it a “Christian Prison” and then threatened to beat them up for calling his schools a prison. Well he’ll be sharing a jail cell with TBN personality Steve Gahller.

      1. Few people look good in mugshots. The lighting and background isn’t good. The photographer isn’t a professional photographer or even an amatuer one. Perhaps he wore makeup but I wouldn’t assume he did.

  10. I can’t understand the ranting against open toed shoes. I agree with Dani – if toe cleavage makes you stumble, you need to get out more, or reevaluate your life.

  11. so Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived. David was a man after God’s own heart. But Jack Schaap – well, may God turn him over to Stufffundieslike, so there may be justice on the planet.

        1. With this wisecrack, I suddenly have my suspicions about the gender of temple”woman”. Could there be a man on the other side of this IP address? ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

    1. @templewoman: I guess I don’t get your point. Solomon and David sinned, and their sins are known from generation to generation for all time because God has recorded their sins in His word. Jack Schaap will be forgotten in a generation or two; there is just a big noise at this moment in time. But David and Solomon have their shame recorded and read and discussed ever since it occurred.

      There has been far too much covering up of sin among IFB churches. Let us honor God and repudiate Jack Schaap because of his sins.

    2. I am going to piggyback off of what guilt-ridden had to say:

      Templewoman has suggested in a number of posts that any discussion of Jack Schaap’s misdeeds is gossip and bitterness. Well, if that is the case, then I guess the BIBLE’s discussion of David’s sexual sin is gossip and bitterness as well. Again, God and His Word is implicitly blasphemed when measured by the standard of fundie self-righteousness.

      (I am not really sure what poor old Solomon has to do with any of this. What was his sexual sin exactly?)

      1. I have never used the word bitterness, it’s been used against me too many times. Whatever you do with my comments, don’t label them into pre-conceived ideas.
        I have never said Jack Schaap cannot be discussed. All I’m saying is that I had the privilege of God showing me what and who I really am, and there’s not much left to be said after that. Whatever you call Jack Schaap, put my name right next to his, please.

        1. and I have left fundy-ism, btw. but I guess it’s possible to keep thinking even after leaving IFB churches. They aren’t totally wrong, and I am not totally right. I’m sure you know where you fit in there.

        2. That misses the point. You seem to be saying that “we are all sinners” and that God sees us all equally (which is a debatable point, but that’s another issue for another day) as if that compels the conclusion that we shouldn’t be overly-critical of Mr. Schaap.

          The ONE group that Jesus consistently called out for harsh criticism throughout his ministry was the Pharisees. Jack Schaap was nothing more or less than a modern day Pharisee. I think harsh criticism of him is quite appropriate and not at all unchristlike.

        3. One of the disservices done in some IFB churches (not all, and maybe in churches other than IFB) is the false notion that all sin is equal. We are all sinners, true, and all sin is against God (true, but not exclusively against God). The point of the Bible is that we are all sinners, not that all our sin is equal. The only equality we have before God is “in Jesus Christ” — no matter our past, we all are adopted children of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. We have His righteousness applied to us, and we all stand equal in that.

          But the Bible tells us that God is keeping records of the lost, and that they are doomed to be judged out of those things written in the books. Why keep records at all if all sin is equal?

          You who read this may be as bad of a sinner as I who write this, but the point of the Bible is that we are both sinners.

          By the grace of God, I have never cheated on my wife nor molested any children. Does this make me a better person than Schaap? Perhaps, as the world sees it, but I am still a sinner before God, and come short of His righteousness. The Bible says it is “not wise” to compare ourselves among ourselves. (I also believe it to be true that there is no telling what any Christian could do, given the proper temptation.)

    3. I’d point out that God called him a man after His own heart BEFORE he cheated and murdered a woman’s husband. Clearly, his sin was not after God’s own heart. And he was a political ruler, not a minister. And God didn’t want his position to be created to begin with.
      In other words, your nonsense comparison with David is invalid in light of the scripture you probably don’t believe in.

      1. Acts 13:22 And when he had removed him, he raised up to them David to be their king; to whom also he gave their testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, which shall fulfill all my will.

    4. David’s family was a mess after his sin. One of his sons raped one of his daughters. A son instigated a rebellion against him and ended up dead.

      As for Solomon, concubinage is a form of marriage so it’s not exactly fornication or adultery. He did end up building pagan temples and God split his kingdom in half after he died.

      So not exactly like folks get by with the sins they commit. But I guess maybe that’s your point. I just don’t understand why you put David in the same class as Schaap.

    5. David destroyed his family through his adultery and murder. Schaap may have destroyed his church.

      I suppose it’s a valid comparison.

      But I doubt Schaap was ever a man after God’s own heart.

  12. They all seem pretty sober and contemplative, and it makes me think that they did not know beforehand that they would be walking out of the courthouse without him. It’s so sad.

    1. She may have pulled out the open-toe shoes, but she can’t seem to let go of the milky-white hose…maybe there’s a FBC formula to determine whether toes can show so long as the hose obscure them enough.

      I posted this obviously as a joking comment, but my stomach suddenly tightened with the fear that it could be true…

  13. Thanks for posting the rant on shoes & other
    things that God doesn’t say much about other than be modest! I was listening to this with my 2 year old & she started laughing when he went on his no no no no no no spiel. She’s now running around saying it. I keep looking out for “she bears” to come get her for making fun of a preacher turned felon! I wonder if I can make that into a ringtone? ๐Ÿ˜†

  14. all right, I’ll make this my last post for the day (I promise). I came hear because at one point I bought into the IFB way of Christianity, AND IT DIDN’T WORK AND I HAD TO FACE THAT. It’s probably safe to assume that is why most people are on here. Now, just because I never stood behind a podium and screeched and screamed at people doesn’t mean I did not preach it when I bought into it. For example, I sent little booklets to my stepdaughter and niece, from Grace Baptist/Gaylord, called “Stay In The Castle” if I remember correctly, so in my own way preaching to those girls about purity. I had bought it all – hook, line, and sinker. Today I stand against the lies of the IFB churches. BUT, since I once was caught up in it, and now I’m not any more, I just think maybe others might go the same route. I would like to think it possible that Jack Schaap would come to see this as a breaking point in his life. I am convinced, that if he showed up here, confessing a change of mind, he would be welcomed, if not considered a trophy. All I’m suggesting is, drop the rock. Don’t we all like to praise Corrie Ten Boom for her ability to forgive? Well, I was born and raised in Germany, where 6 million Jews where killed, just because. Corrie was able to forgive. Her sister died due to the German’s treatment, but she forgave. We call her a hero. I have family members that are still in an IFB church. Why not take a stand against the teachings, and give the humans just a little bit of slack. If I would have been raised in this country in this kind of church, Lord have mercy, I don’t know where the fuck I would be with all this. God is not going to come after anybody who steps away from this and lets God be God. I’m not saying buddy up with Jack Schaap, but you won’t be doing wrong by just leaving it alone. We all bought into this at one point. Human nature. I’m thinking we all did our preaching in one way or another. Hell, you can give a tract to someone and feel righteous about yourself (“boy, they really need to come to church”). I am sorry I I annoy you, I have Asperger’s, and being diplomatic is not my calling. Think Sheldon Cooper without the education. Schaap was wrong. You want me to make you a list of all I did when I bought into this crap that was wrong? I sent my son to the Anchor Home in Iowa for a year. I was part of a Baptist addiction group, from where I was never able to officially encourage people to go to CR or AA meetings. I participated in forcing my stepson into staying at Camp Tracey near Jacksonville, Florida. I couldn’t live up to my own standards, started to secretly take drugs and alcohol (at least I thought at the time it was secretly, haha), became hateful towards family members, and went to explore the dark side.
    If I can’t make my point, I apologize, maybe I’m just not good at explaining where I’m coming from. Make all the derisive comments you would like. God has used this thing with Schaap already in my son’s life, a little light is beginning to shine into the darkness I dragged him into. Maybe there’ light at the end of the tunnel for the Schaaps. Maybe I’m a complete idot. Forget maybe. I guess I am. I guess, I still believe God can come through. Have a nice weekend, y’all. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to annoy anyone.

    1. Thanks for being so open about your journey. I do think that “forgiveness” is not quite the issue here. Instead, it’s a lot more about public condemnation of a bad act.

      To borrow your Corrie Ten Boom analogy, yes Ms. Ten Boom forgave her Nazi captors, but I doubt very much that she had kind words for Hitler. And even though she forgave, she made very sure that her story was told in her many books and speeches.

      I think for many of us former fundies (and maybe you don’t feel this way personally, and that’s okay), public condemnation of the bad acts of leaders in our former church is one way for us to experience a sense of release from our past identification with a religious movement that we are now heartily ashamed of.

    2. Thanks for sharing.

      I would kind of echo Deacon’s Son. Forgiveness isn’t the issue here. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t owe Schaap forgiveness because he never harmed me. It’s been ten years since I attended an IFB church.

      My experience with this an a couple other IFB “survivor” websites tells me there’s an enormous amount of good that comes from just being able to talk about things. There’s healing in just being able to hear from others that they see the same problems you do.

      There IS hypocrisy or at least irony in preaching against open toed shoes and then your wife wearing them in court. Nothing wrong with her wearing them and pointing it out isn’t even directly an attack on her. He’s the one who preached it.

      1. There is also irony in preaching against television and at the same time using it. That is also a hypocrisy. This is why I cannot in all good faith listen to Jimmy Swaggart or his son, Donnie. If they are so dead set against the medium being immoral, then I strongly believe that they should quit their television ministries.

    3. templewoman – just wanted to say that I see you spent your time in the ifb under John Jenkins. I heard him preach too many times for my liking. He really is a legend in his own mind.
      And thanks for sharing your story.

    4. Thanks for sharing. And to be entirely honest, I was pretty messed up for years (well, maybe one or two) after leaving fundystan. But on the other hand, I think the reason most of us are pretty angry with the whole situation is that fundamentalism keeps cranking out ungodly men who lord it over professing believers and then fall into this kind of perversion.

  15. Now we just need a real live photo of Jack Schaap in an orange jump suit and our Friday will be complete. Seriously, my heart breaks for Mrs Schaap. Even though I believe that Jack is a scum and needs put in prison for life, If he repents, God forgives him, and his wife seems to have forgiven him. I feel sorry for her. Her life must be a living hell right now, and us making fun of her shoes, while funny in a Darrell sort of way, probably isn’t what I would consider kind or loving. Go ahead, mock me and ridicule me.

    1. Bob, Bob, you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. We have chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from us.

      That “thing” is the truth. Yes, sometimes the truth is unconfortable or difficult to process, but it’s still the truth. Making a public example of a fallen public figure is sometimes necessary to serve as a warning and example to ourselves and others.

      I have felt throughout this whole thing that the same conservative Christians bleating that Jack Schaap should not be so publically exposed were the same ones who were ravenously demanding Bill Clinton’s head on a platter for very similar (and, in fact, less reprehensible) misconduct back in the 1990s. The same principle applies: we hold those in leadership to a higher standard, including when they fail.

      1. Deacon’s son, mock Schaap all you want, but I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that Cindy was involved in his crimes and immorality. So why do you think you are within your rights to make a public example of her? Are you one of those who holds the wife responsible when the husband is a perverted dirtbag?

        1. I respectfully disagree that she is guiltless in this situation. She has been a participant in the Hyles-Schaap machine her entire life. Maybe not always a willing participant, but at some point you expect that an adult will show personal responsibility. As I noted in a comment earlier today, I see this as no different than the comments that were directed at Tammy Faye Bakker after her husband’s scandal broke. Yes, he was solely responsible for his own bad acts, but as the scandal emerged, Ms. Bakker’s own bad acts also began to come to light as well. I think that we have all expected, and now are beginning to see, the cracks in the “perfect Mrs. Schaap” image that Cindy so carefully cultivated for so long.

        2. I stand by my opinion. The woman was almost definitely emotionally abused (and probably her entire life), she was quite likely sexually abused (not a stretch given her comments about being groomed and Schaap’s own words and perverse actions), and she may have even been physically abused, either in her childhood or now. Certainly we are all responsible for our own actions, but when one has been victimized and oppressed one’s entire life (not just her married life but her ENTIRE life), then one often does not have the strength or maturity to stand one’s ground. One simply goes along with the flow in order to keep the peace.

          I won’t judge her, and I won’t mock her until and unless evidence proves she was directly involved in his abusive actions.

        3. PP, you may be right. I understand where you are coming from better than you know. However, I also feel very strongly that when you are in Cindy’s shoes (no pun intended), you reach a point where you have to make a choice between the security of a comfortable lifestyle (at least from a financial/material viewpoint) versus the risk of breaking free from the cycle of abuse.

          I had to make that choice when it came to my own wealthy but abusive fundie family. Yes, it was a risk, and yes, the costs were profound, but I GOT OUT! I suffered financially (still do) and suffered tremendous personal humiliation as well as a lot of hurt and strife. But it was the right thing to do and I did it. That is why I am not particularly sympathetic to Mrs. Schaap. Yes, she was victimized, but she also made CHOICES that put her in that position. When you look at what her sister did, I think you can see that there was an alternative pathway available to her, even if it was hard. I myself have a sister that I see making very similar bad choices, and it is NOT because she is so “abused” that she can’t break free. She has admitted to me before that it is because she cares too much about what other people think of her. She saw what happened to me and she didn’t want that for herself.

          So, again, you may be right. But her “involvement” in his abusive actions is a matter of degree. Trust me when I say that somone can be both the victim of abuse and also an accomplice in abuse at the same time. I feel sorry for her, but I don’t think that absolves her of responsiblity for her bad choices.

        4. Persniclety I agree. Deacon’s Son, you are obviously ignorant to what it is like to be in an abusive relationship. I cannot imagine Cindy Schaap living with him all these years.

        5. Bob, I don’t have firsthand experience of an “abusive relationship” like the one I think you are referring to, at least in the spousal context. (I do, however, have experience of that kind of abuse in the parent-child context.) However, I am skeptical that Mrs. Schaap was the victim of that kind of abuse. Instead, she was the victim of cult-like religious abuse, which is something that I am VERY familiar with in my own life and in my family. The difference between the two is quite significant.

          The victim of domestic violence and/or spousal abuse sometimes genuinely does not have a choice to get out. But, unless one is locked inside the gates of Jonestown being forced to drink kool-aid at gunpoint or something similar, a victim of a religiously-abusive cult always has a choice to get out. Sure, there is shame and pain and suffering (that is part of what makes it a cult in the first place), but that is a small price to pay in exchange for freedom and truth. Again, I refer you to Mrs. Schaap’s sister as an example of someone who got out even though she suffered for it. To imply that there was no escape simply does not match up with the facts.

          Also, the other problem with Mrs. Schaap is that she was not merely a silent victim of her husband’s outrageous behavior. She endorsed and supported him while enjoying the rewards that her position brought to her. She promoted religious abuse of others. I have heard no evidence that she ever spoke out in dissent regarding any of her father’s or husband’s misconduct, bad actions, bad theology, or anything else. That was wrong and she deserves to be held accountable for that. Does she deserve to go to prison like her husband? Certainly not. But does she deserve to take part in the general shame that is once-again associated with the Hyles-Schaap clan? I believe the answer is yes.

      2. Deacon’s Son, I speak as a woman born and raised in an IFB family and born and raised in an extremely abusive family. I myself got out as soon as I could. But I can’t imagine judging another woman based on her inability to get out. She isn’t me, and I’m not her, and I have no idea what the circumstances of her life were or are. Just because one Hyles sister escaped, just because you escaped, just because I escaped, doesn’t mean that all can or will.

        And like it or not, a male’s experience in the IFB is a far cry from a female’s experience in the IFB. As women, we are taught that we are dirty, we are bad, we are weak, we are helpless, we are *worthless* without a man. We are taught that our whole reason for being is to serve our husbands, and we are taught to submit in every way, and that God will forgive us if our husband has led us astray because we were obeying and submitting, which is what we are supposed to do. The IFB might not be good for men, but it’s hell for women.

        Sometimes one’s thirst for justice must be tempered heavily with mercy. I prefer to err on the side of mercy.

        1. You are probably right, PP. Maybe I am erring too strongly on the side of justice. It’s just that I am not so sure that Mrs. Schaap got into this mess because she was abused into it and had no choice. I know that is a potential explanation for her behavior (and maybe it is a correct one) but I remain skeptical based on my own experience.

          My own mother came into the IFB from outside and enthusiatically embraced its horrid view of women (and everything else). No one forced or abused her into that belief system. She came willingly and dragged the rest of us (including my father) along with her. Many of my siblings were profoundly corrupted by her views. I was myself, for a time. Fortunately for me and my wife, I abandoned those views of women BEFORE I got married.

          I have spoken very candidly to many of my siblings and they know that they would suffer just like I did for leaving. However, none of them say that they are in the IFB movement because they are abused or forced or because they are afraid to suffer. They acknowledge that they could make other choices but they have decided not to do so because it is EASY to go with the flow and do what my parents want. Some of my sisters now actively promote the same harmful views as my mother.

          All I am saying is that while there are plenty of fundie woman who are beaten into submission (and I have known several in the churches that I grew up in, trust me), there are also fundie women like those in my family who are making a very conscious and willing choice to embrace the IFB cult. Many women in the fundie world who conform to the ideal gender stereotype by choice are rewarded immensely and really do not suffer much (outside of the internal suffering that I am sure comes from all the conformity). Being an IFB mega-church pastor’s wife has its perks as well as its costs. I am not denying that Cindy has suffered and been victimized. I am truly sorry for her in that respect. But I also feel that she is suffering in part for her bad choices and her promotion of the very teaching that has now turned against her.

        2. Dear Persnickety Polecat:

          This is a pipe dream, but I do wish that wives and girls would stage a ‘Day of Protest’ by refusing to attend church some Sunday morning. Mother’s Day comes to mind. It may never happen, but it most assuredly is well deserved!

          Christian Socialist

    2. “Don’t kick a man when he is down,” used to be a common statement regarding acceptable conduct. I think that should be applied to Mrs. Schaap. Has she taught things that were wrong? Yes. Has she done things that were wrong? Yes.
      Pointing out inconsistencies between teaching and practice is one thing. Open ridicule is another.

  16. I actually feel sorry for Cindy. She has been controlled, brain washed and abused her whole life. I wonder how many years she has gone to bed and wished she wasn’t trapped in this mess. Her father was abusive and I would bet a $ 100.00 bucks her Jack was too. In her life as the daughter of the Baptist “pope” she may have never had the tools to get out. I once worked for another famous Fundamentalist and the hold they had on people was amazing. Anyway, for now I will cut her some slack.

  17. No defense for JS. However to be fair to his wife. In the clip he said “open toe shoes on the platform.” To me that is silly, but he never said open toed shoes were a sin or that you could not wear ’em to church. So the courtroom is different I guess. ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. BTW, I’m not making fun of Cindy. I am, however, mocking the intensity and passion with which most IFBers treat their rules about clothes. If only that kind of fervor would have been directed at Christ Himself! (And of course there’s the ever-present irony of churches ranting about shoes, hose, etc. while pastors, Christian school principals, and others are being sexually immoral.)

        1. It goes back to the way women are viewed in the IFB: We are filthy and prone to making men stumble. We must be swathed head-to-toe in yards of fabric, and if men are tempted by us, it’s our fault, not theirs. If we are raped, it’s our fault, not theirs. If we are abused, it is our fault not theirs.

          There is no honor or respect for women in the IFB.

    1. Uh, I think making that distinction only makes it worse. It illustrates the folly of the doctors of the law in fundamentalism – always ready to excuse behavior in their pets that they attack in those they oppress in their own church or the evil libruls in those other churches.

      “Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: โ€œโ€˜These people honor me with their lips,but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain;their teachings are merely human rules.โ€™” Matthew 15:6b

      1. Again I think the rule is silly. However I can understand certain dress standards for church leaders, on platform ect. Example: I wear short often. However If I was representing the church singing, teaching, ect I would not wear the same cloths I wear playing basketball.

  18. Listened to the audio clip again. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO – gives me hbgbs. “That’s what the pastor would like…” Guess that’s what that underage girl said to him… ๐Ÿ˜ณ

  19. I was an IFBer from the time I was 17 until I was 36 – and I don’t think I ever heard that wearing open-toed shoes was a sin. Huh.

    Slacks were a sin. Pajamas were a sin. I think V-necks were a sin, as were tank-tops. Definitely shorts. And bathing suits – especially since “mixed bathing” was sinful. But open-toed shoes? I guess he missed that one.

    1. I think someone put it best earlier today when they said that the number of things a preacher preached against clothing-wise had a lot to do with how perverted that preacher’s mind was.

        1. The last I can remember about the sinfulness of buttonfly trousers is that they came from Gap, and were thus simultaneously Gaywear and Womenswear.

          ‘Bless God, pants are Men’s Apparel!
          Except for them faggot skinny jeans some of you nancyboys go prancing about in! Them’s women’s Apparel! Amen?’

          and then Greg went and banged his head on a cinder block.

        2. Doesn’t the military use button flies for battle uniforms (whatever they call the old BDUs)? Of course, doesn’t the IFB dislike the military too?

        3. I had a pair of button-fly pants. I think they were from the Gap. My sister gave them as a Christmas present. I think I even took them to Fundy U (obviously didn’t wear them around campus except to work). Never occurred to me it could be a sin or a sign of homosexuality.

          All I can remember is that it took forever to get ready to use a urinal. But I liked them because there was zero chance of getting my junk caught in a zipper. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

        4. The button-fly jeans were sinful because they “attracted attention.” Never mind that most of them had a flap over the buttons.

  20. Growing up in FBC, I recall several times either Hyles or Schaap in sermons telling the story of, when Jack Hyles would come home from a “preaching trip”, a teenage Cindy would snuggle up to him and whisper “Did you set any preacher boys on fire for God on this trip, Daddy?” This is almost verbatim (as best as I can remember, and I dare anyone to contradict me on this). Make of this what you will…

    1. Here’s what I make of it:
      The fact that Hyles told that story was further evidence of something already very evident, that Hyles was an egomaniac.

      Whether or not it actually happened is a whole other question. I suspect not, but who am I to say?

    2. I remember reading that story a few times. And he made a big deal about whether she was “cuddling” versus “snuggling”. I forget which was supposed to be good and which bad. I always wondered why it was okay for the Hyles/Schaap people to be praising this kind of father-daughter behavior when I was told not to sit in Daddy’s lap anymore because I was “too old”.

  21. Hey, if a putrid movie would be made of this sick and demented tool, who would play the protagonist? What female actress would play the role of the tragic enabler? Can you imagine if this movie was played concurrently with a Kirk Cameron movie in the same movie complex. This is all so delicious if it were not so horrible. No wonder fewer (and fewer) people want anything to do with any “God” let alone the God of the Fundies.

  22. Dear Darrell:

    So, the Sunday he ought to have proclaimed Godโ€™s promises in Christ, he was screeching this instead! Had no one the wit at First Baptist to see this maniacal behavior for what it was? That is truly frightening.

    Iโ€™ve saved that mp3 and may upload it to my cell as a ring tone. I think Iโ€™d like to keep that handy should I be accosted by door-knockers about the state of my immortal soul.

    Christian Socialist

    1. And thus the outcry must continue: these people are claiming to preach the Gospel but instead they have replaced the glorious good news with picky personal preferences about shoes, music, clothes, etc. I can just imagine Paul responding to this. He ranted against one church: “O foolish Galations!” and want on to say this,

      “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

      Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all…You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

      You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. ..I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (from Gal. 5)

  23. “I suppose that once youโ€™ve started sleeping with minors it damages the credibility of your rants against toe cleavage.”

    How do you know it happened in that order? Isn’t it more likely (according to IFB logic) that seeing one of his women’s toes peeping out of her shoe drove him to start propositioning high school sophomores?

  24. WHAT is “wrong” with open toe shoes????? In Fundyland I can get their screwed up reasons for not wanting above the knee skirts, sleeveless shirts or low cut tops. But, open toe shoes????? โ“ ๐Ÿ™„

    1. I don’t know. I was raised in the fundy of fundies, but I have no idea what the open-toe shoe thing is about. It must go along with the “bobbed hair” thing. I’m guessing some preacher with a foot fetish decided the path to hell is marched in open-toe shoes, or something like that.

    2. After the new rule about shoes came down from the pulpit, there was a small discussion about it in a female-only class. The reason given was that the crack between the toes looks like the crack between the breasts and a man’s mind will automatically go there.
      What is sad to me is that I was actually there for the toe cleavage sermon, and it didn’t register to me that anything at all was wrong with that line of thinking.

      1. Maybe it’s just me. But if I see a well-endowed woman with open-toed shoes, I doubt I would even notice her shoes, even if she was wearing a nun’s habit.

      2. Now I am deeply and thoroughly perpelexed. Men have toes as well as women… Are *they* allowed to wear flipflops or will that also lead to impure thoughts about breasts and if so, whose (not their own, presumably)?

        (That noise you just heard was my brain exploding from the cognitive dissonance.)

      3. Wow! I’ve never heard the toe/breast cleavage comparison. Now, what should we do about the finger cleavage? I’d better go put on my mittens right now! ๐Ÿ˜ฎ ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

    3. Fundyberry Shortcake,

      The reason I personally don’t care for open toed shoes is, suppose I need to get a good kick in. Don’t get me wrong, I have several pairs but that is what I always think when I have them on, lol.

      V. ๐Ÿ™‚

  25. I have a serious question that relates to this topic.

    My IFB experiences are different from many of yours. I wasn’t raised IFB. I was raised in a Christian home – my parents believed in the true fundamentals of the faith, but how those truths played out in our lives was quite a bit different than what I read here.

    I, for whatever reason, chose the IFB path when I was 17. I left at 36. And I recognize the cult-like qualities of the IFB movement. Some would even say it isn’t “cult-like” but a true cult.

    I understand adult responsibility and accountability, as some of you have said. But I’m thinking out loud and wondering. Since my “degree” is from MBC (think Tom Malone), I have no training in psychology and the like…

    So my question is:

    Can Cindy be held responsible for any of this? Since she was raised by a “cult leader” and then married to the heir to the throne, is there a psychological reason that she is so brainwashed that she cannot be held accountable for her adult decisions?

    1. Unless you believe that she is legally insane (which basically means grossly incapable of distinguishing right from wrong), I say she is accountable.

      That doesn’t mean I want to punish her, but I do want her to change, and to stop perpetuating the system. Others here, who have been more abused by Fundamentalism than I ever was, may want to comment on what it takes to break free.

      1. Even with my sensible background, breaking free was hard – so I would think it would be harder for those steeped in this belief system from childhood.

        When we left, the pastor & music director took me alone into the pastor’s office (not with my husband – without him). They basically told me that I should stay at their church because it was right and that I would be the catalyst to bring my husband and children back to the one true and godly way.

        (Hmmm…what happened to all that teaching about wives submitting to they husbands?)

        I felt bullied and frightened.

    2. Of course she should be held accountable! Had she been servicing her husband, the head of her household, as a proper helpmeet would have been, he would NEVER have raped a teenager! She is the one who should be going to jail not him.

      tic.

      1. “Of course she should be held accountable! Had she been servicing her husband, the head of her household, as a proper helpmeet would have been, he would NEVER have raped a teenager! She is the one who should be going to jail not him.”

        tic.

        Persnickety Polecat,

        *Ugh*, made my belly hurt just reading it!

        V.

    3. I believe she should be held accountable for her own sins, not her husbands. Jack Schaap raping a teenage girl is on him completely.

      What Cindy should be held accountable for is the years of spiritual abuse she herself doled out on other people, and the terrible theology that she espoused that brought many women into bondage and continues keeps them there today. I realize that she is a victim of abuse, but that does not give her a free pass for abusing others. She is experiencing a great personal tragedy right now, but those she has abused (and continues to abuse) are still suffering. I’m not suggesting that we pile on and start a huge discussion of all her bad theology right now, but to pretend like she’s an innocent lamb in all things because she had a personal tragedy is wrong.

      1. Well said, Mandy. Nobody’s saying that Cindy Schaap is responsible for Jack Schaap’s actions.
        What I’m saying is that she IS responsible for her own actions.

        Lots of criminals, probably most of them, come from backgrounds of abuse and/or deprivation. That doesn’t mean we should overlook their stealing, assaulting people, etc.
        No, I’m not calling Mrs. Schaap a criminal. I’m just making an analogy. A tragic past helps explain why people do wrong in the present, but it doesn’t justify doing wrong in the present.

        1. Let’s stop pretending like abuse victims are necessarily abusers. It’s a bullshit lie that only serves to hurt those who have already been hurt. http://www.centrefortherapy.ca/Mythsofabuse

          Secondarily — she now needs to be punished for her bad theology? Some of you have absolutely jumped the shark. So she espoused idiotic beliefs. So what? Are we not all capable of thinking for ourselves? Is it really that easy to confuse people with “bad theology”?

          If she helped cover up physical, emotional or sexual abuse or abused anyone physically, emotionally or sexually, then I’d be leading the charge in calling for her head on a platter — and if YOU or anyone else has proof or knowledge of her doing so, then you need to contact law enforcement ASAP and stop sitting on this knowledge. But I think it’s utterly asinine to be screaming for her punishment because she promoted a false doctrine. There are THOUSANDS if not millions of people promoting a false doctrine. That’s why God tells us to follow HIM, not men.

        2. No one here is “screaming for her punishment because she promoted a false doctrine”, the point is that she STOP PROMOTING false doctrines because she has shown no sign that she plans on stopping her spread of false doctrines. God does indeed hold people who follow false doctrines responsible, but He also holds people who TEACH those false doctrines responsible. No one is suggesting she be arrested (she did nothing illegal, as far as I know), we’re just not giving her a pass because of her past.

          “When someone demonstrates that Cindy Schaap has physically, emotionally or sexually abused someone else, then she absolutely needs to be held accountable.” Spiritual abuse may not be a prosecutable offense, but it is still abuse. And I don’t hold anyone blameless who teaches other women that it is their duty before God to stay with their husbands even if they are being abused by him.

          “Letโ€™s stop pretending like abuse victims are necessarily abusers.” No one said they were. Cindy is an adult, has a fully functioning brain, and the free will that God gave her. Those who become abusers (whether they were abused or not) do so by their own choice only, not because their past somehow compels them to.

        3. @Mandy, I never said anywhere she should get a “free pass” for anything. If she has committed actual abuse, then she needs to be held accountable. I’m pretty sure God will hold her accountable for her false doctrine, and I don’t think he needs your/our help.

          Secondarily, I’m really struggling with the idea of bad preaching equaling abuse. Yes, I know some of you really had difficulty getting out, and there was isolation and emotional manipulation. But from my own viewpoint, it was your choice to attend that church and continue to sit under that preaching. Most abuse victims have no choice — they are born into abuse or they marry someone who is abusive without knowing that person’s tendencies. From my viewpoint, if a church treats me like crap or tries to control me, I’m out — I’m not a child, and I’m not bound by marriage vows or financial constraints. I realized last night I need to work to understand it more, and I’m sorry I’m not being more understanding and gracious on the topic. I can only tell you that this is something I’m going to work on.

        4. I agree that not all bad preaching/bad theology is automatically abuse, but spiritual abuse still exists, and it is still abuse. The teaching that most disturbs me from Cindy Schaap was that wives should never question their husbands, and never even think about leaving them no matter how bad things get. Even if you are being abused, you are to continue to be โ€œsubmissiveโ€ by simply doing what you are told no matter the risk to your safety. Clearly a much harder situation to get out of then just a church that one attends a few times a week. And I do realize that some responsibility also lies with the woman who has chosen to believe the bad theology (either deliberately or by neglecting to study the Bible for herself), but she is still teaching it.

          And, to be clear, when I say โ€œheld accountableโ€, Iโ€™m not calling for her to be arrested. Iโ€™m also not saying that we or any other group of people should go and punish her, or take vengeance. I just want her to stop teaching her false theology. I want her to admit that it is wrong and harmful in as public a fashion as she promoted it in the first place. The thing is, Iโ€™m just not willing to overlook everything she (apparently) continues to teach because of her current personal tragedy, the latter of which I freely admit she had absolutely no guilt in.

        5. “It was your choice to attend that church and continue to sit under that preaching. Most abuse victims have no choice โ€” they are born into abuse or they marry someone who is abusive without knowing that personโ€™s tendencies.”

          But a lot of church members think they have no choice either. They were born into the IFB, raised in IFB churches and schools with pastors screaming at them for as long as they can remember. All their friends and family attend their church or one of like faith and practice. To break away from that can be as difficult as leaving a bad marriage, with the additional pressure of thinking one might be going to hell if one leaves the church.

          I’ve got to agree with this that Mandy said: “I just want her to stop teaching her false theology. I want her to admit that it is wrong and harmful in as public a fashion as she promoted it in the first place…Iโ€™m just not willing to overlook everything she (apparently) continues to teach because of her current personal tragedy, the latter of which I freely admit she had absolutely no guilt in.”

      2. Jack Hyles’ dad was alcoholic and abusive to his mother. He seemed to be somewhat enmeshed with his mother. Jack Hyles was abused.

        Don’t see anyone offering him sympathy and excusing his behavior.

        I’ll give college kids or even twenty five year olds a pass on a lot of stuff. However, once a person is past age thirty it is time for them to own their behavior, regardless of how they learned it. One of the worst things churches do is enable misbehavior.

        1. That’s because Jack Hyles was abusive. There is NO excuse for abuse. When someone demonstrates that Cindy Schaap has physically, emotionally or sexually abused someone else, then she absolutely needs to be held accountable.

        2. Persnickety Polecat:

          I already said that I don’t consider Cindy Schaap a criminal, and that I don’t want her to be punished in any way, but that I do want her to stop perpetuating and helping promote an evil system of false teachings.

          I don’t think anyone else said anything different than that (for example, no one mentioned any prosecution or criminal penalties for her– I don’t even know what she could be charged with, legally speaking).

          If you can’t read that thought and understand it, it won’t help to repeat it a few more times.

        3. So, Big Gary, when everyone keeps saying she needs to be held accountable — what does that mean? Are you all going to start hunting down EVERYone who preaches a false doctrine and demanding they answer to you and/or God? Good luck with that. But I’m pretty sure God has his own back and doesn’t need your help.

          Your insults on my intelligence aren’t exactly the best debate tactic, btw. As long as it makes you feel better about yourself, however, that’s all that really matters, right?

        4. Nope, I can’t make anyone change. The only person I can change is myself. And I know that nobody, but nobody, answers to me about anything. How they answer to God is between them and God– God has not appointed me as a mediator between other people and God.

          That doesn’t mean I can’t say what’s true about other people, though. And I can hope they will change.

          In case I haven’t made this clear, I don’t think Cindy Schaap has any culpability, morally or otherwise, for her husband’s misdeeds. But she I don’t give her a pass for what she herself has done. That’s all.

          The only person who said she is guilty in any way of Jack Schaap’s sexual misdeeds was you, Persnickety. But I think you meant it sardonically.

          No, I don’t think you’re unintelligent. I think you are sort of refusing to see the argument that is being made here. You keep constructing distorted versions of that argument in your responses.

        5. No, BG, I said it TONGUE IN CHEEK, which I stated quite clearly in the very same comment. If you chose to believe I was being serious in spite of my quite clearly saying I was not, well, I’m not the one misreading things.

        6. Oh, is that what you meant by “tic.”?

          I guess that clearly means “tongue in cheek” to you. To me, it meant that thinking about this whole thing was causing you to have a tic, which would be understandable in this situation.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic

          Anyhow, you might want to look up “sardonically” in the dictionary. It means I think you weren’t being serious.

      3. People are laughing at her wearing open toed shoes.

        That’s it. That’s the alleged offense here. Laughing at her for wearing shoes that her husband has preached against.

        I seriously doubt she’s reading SFL. If she is, and she can’t take someone laughing at her open toed shoes, then she is way too sensitive.

Leave a Reply

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