Talk:Jack Hyles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutralty.

The information contained in this article reflects the obvious bias of a Hyles' supporter. There were accusations of misconduct againt Mr Hyles and this information should be included in the article.

Response to above: The people who are familiar with this man and his ministry know that it is a false-accusation dreamed up by a small group of people who are bent on destroying the public image of a good man with whom they happen to disagree theologically. They are such a small minority, but they are extremely vocal and active on the Internet, (including Wikipedia). Their methodology includes making false sexual accusations against people they dislike, posting it all over the Internet until people start believing the lie - there is no accountability for this type of action, it seems. When someone at First Baptist Church started logging changes in the history of this page along with IP addresses for future legal action, in part, I understand their frustration.

"Rebuttal: I am intimatly familiar with this man and his organization and there are issues to be dealt with. First Baptist Church, or their lawyers, do not frighten me in that I have done nothing illegal. I am not leveling specific accusations, merely saying that pretending these don't exist makes it appear as though his followers have something to hide. Deal with them and refute them openly."

Response to above: You said, "I am not leveling specific accusations". Well then, I recommend you do not simply repeat something you heard someone else say. Third-hand information from obviously biased sources does not make for an accurate Wiki entry. For any popular figure, there is always someone who will come out of the wordwork and "claim" that the person in question did something wrong. That does not make it true or factual. Wiki is about facts, not hearsay.

I think you may overestimate Mr. Hyles populartity. Outside of fundamental Baptists circle his name is barely known. Anyway, I have not made or repeated a single accusation, only posed the question of why the topic is off limits. You are no more in a position to prove the events untrue than I am to prove them true, so why not present the details and let people decide for themselves.

Response to above: Using your reasoning, I could go to the Wiki page on Mother Teresa or another such prominent person and post a ton of information about how's she had a secret life as a prostitute, provide a few web sources and voila - it's a fact (at least on Wikipedia). That's bogus, and that kind of Wiki entry is what will send Wiki into the toilet. Stupidity and malacious attacks which have no basis in DOCUMENTED fact should not be included here.

Do you actually have the nerve to compare Jack Hyles to Mother Teresa?!?! Mother Teresa's life was life in complete selflessness, while Mr Hyles spent his whole life USING the name of God to feather his own nest. Go ahead, worship your false messiah but one day even the mighthy Jack Hyles will bend a knee before God and I would not want to be him on that day.

Response to above: I believe the above paragraph provides revealing evidence that your position comes from a viewpoint of personal hatred and bias against Jack Hyles, not from the "neutral viewpoint" that a solid Wikipedia entry demands.

I will be the first to tell you of my disdain for Jack Hyles, he was a man who demanded loyalty to himself above God, that makes him an Anti-Christ according to the Bible. His message was one of hatred and intolerance, he subverted family values and preached false doctrine openly from the pulpit. He covered up for the sins of his inner circle, including his son. He used intimidation and threats to further his agenda in the Hammond/Gary area. He was a wicked man, a snake oil salesman who preyed on people for nothing more than financial gain. Make your threats of legal action, do your worst. However, I am sure the Hyles camp does not want to deal with these issues in open court, because it would not be a Hyles bought and paid for court, it would be very public.

Legal threats

Again I've had to remove thinly-veiled legal threat from this talk page. This is an unacceptable violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you find inaccuracies, remove them, or complain on this talk page. But anyone who attempts to intimidate other users with legal threats will be immediately and permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Those who believe they can post false sexual accusations that cause his surviving family grief and emotional suffering may find out that they indeed have "freedom of speech", but it may come to them at the cost of a costly lawsuit. Freedom of speech in the law ends when that speech is malicious in nature, causing harm to others, regardless of "Wikipedia policy". Let me also add that there is a reason Wikipedia tracks IP addresses, date/time of edits, etc. - it is for accountability purposes and the information is public knowledge that can be used at a future date by anyone for any legal purpose. If Jack Hyles' family or First Baptist Church wants to sue, legally speaking, all they have to do is prove that these people actually posted false accusations. Then the burden of proof is on the posters to prove that their statements are true. Welcome to the world of litigation - it really doesn't matter who is right, a well-funded and well-lawyered offended party can still sue you into oblivion - regardless of the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.78.122.229 (talk • contribs) .

Intimidation

By threatening to have people permanantly removed you too are violating the threat policy. As for Hyles and his accusations, pretending nothing happened is not a valid defense. Why not address the issue outright and state any facts you may have to support it.

--- Answer to Finlay McWalter: Considering what has happened on Wikipedia lately, legal action is indeed possible. One man, Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) lost his job as a result of posting false and unproven accusations on Wikipedia, and another class action lawsuit is pending; so if anyone thinks legal action can't or won't happen, all you need to do is read the news. Bottom line is that regardless of any Wikipedia policy, that policy is not above the law, which allows for defamation-of-character lawsuits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.78.113.17 (talk • contribs) .

Challenge

If, as you say, Mr Hyles is above reproach, then why do you fear posting ALL of his story here. The bias of this article is obvious, it is fluff and contains only the "facts" that have been approved by Hyles' followers. There a pages of information relating to this "ministry" and it's past and current leaders that should be made known so that people can decide for themselves what is true. There is no mention of the scandals and accusations that have been made about Hyles and his Higher ups for the past 3 decades, as if none of it ever happened. Why does the truth scare you?

Reponse to above: I did not say he was "above reproach", nor did I indicate that. If you believe the article to be "fluff" simply because it does not conform to your biased anti-Hyles mindset, I suggest that you step back and look at the whole picture. Why should there be mention of so-called "scandals" when in fact, those pages on the web that list such "scandals" amount to less than 1 percent of the over 37,000 Internet pages listed by Google that concern Jack Hyles? Do a Google on "Jack Hyles", add up the numbers and you'll see what I mean. The vast majority of information about Jack Hyles supports the view of the current (as of 12-16-05) version of the Jack Hyles Wiki article. A few contentious loud mouths do not an accurate Wiki make.

I guess using this approach we can assume that UFOs, Santa Claus, and Government conspiracies surrounding Area 51 area all valid as well, since there are more pages in favor of them then there are opposed to them. The bottom line is that Hyles was a garden variety dirty old man, and his reputation has been white washed by his blinded cult followers. The Hyles crowd is not capable of intelligent debate on the issue, rather choosing intimidation and insults (see above) to protect the false messiah from the truth. I pity you. Feel free to threaten me with legal action if you like, but this is America and my right to free speech is assured by the constitution.

Response to above: Again, the above paragraph provides revealing evidence that your position comes from a viewpoint of personal hatred and bias against Jack Hyles and his followers, not from the "neutral viewpoint" that a solid Wikipedia entry demands. Name-calling, calling independent Baptists 'cultists', and insulting people's intelligence because they do not agree with you does not help your case.

The issue is this: should this Wiki entry include a bunch of sexual and/or general misconduct accusations against Jack Hyles, even though there is absolutely NO solid evidence of such behavior, NO legal evidence suggesting Jack Hyles violated any sort of legal or moral laws, NO person on the face of the earth can prove these accusations (if there was proof, he would have been successfully sued or convicted of a crime a long time ago), AND considering that these accusations come from a very small group of people who have an admitted hatred of most of what Jack Hyles stood for, with one such man even stating that he will not rest until 'Jack Hyles and his church are destroyed'. Yeah, that sounds a great deal like a "neutral viewpoint" - right!

I've reviewed the history of the postings to this entry and I cannot find an explicit accusation that Jack Hyles engaged in an adulterous affair with his secretary. What is stated is that one of his deacons made a public accusation of an affair. In fact, the entry even states that Hyles denied the charge. It is historical fact that the accusation was made and that there were repercussions from the accusation. The accusation tarnished Hyles' reputation among many within the fundamentalist movement of Christianity. Charges that these statements are libelous are just plain silly. I believe that the deacon who made the charge even published a book about it. Please cite the lawsuit decided against him and we'll consider retracting the stated facts. --Awcga 18:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to above: Sorry, your idea of "historical fact" doesn't cut it. A handful of spurious web pages and a book written by a raving lunatic who blamed Hyles for his own wife divorcing him does not make something "historical fact", and therefore any attempt to deface this Wikipedia entry will be met with reversions to the correct historical version. We simply should not and cannot allow Wiki entries to be used as a sounding board for character assassinations and defaming material which have no basis in fact whatsoever. The accusations did indeed occur, however they were proven to be false, distorted and malicious in nature. Go ahead and do what you wish, but remember that there are consequences to our actions.

My friend, the tone of your response borders on hysteria. The person you call a "raving lunatic" was a deacon in Hyles' own church. This was not an accusation made by an un-interested, third party with no basis of credibility. Hyles did deny the charge, but no one can say it was "proven to be false". Each person must decide what they believe the truth to be based on the facts and evidence at hand. While it may distress and trouble you deeply, the accusation had an impact on the ministry of Hyles and FBC. As to your threats - you are clearly in violation of the wiki no legal threats policy and I find them laughable. --Awcga 14:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I truly doubt you are indeed "my friend", but nonetheless, in fact, it was proven, in court, that the charges brought by Mr. Nischik (the deacon) were false. It's documented fact in court records in the courthouse of Lake County, Indiana. I guess you know better than the judge who had all the evidence in front of him, since you're above any sort of law or requirement to supply valid documentation for the accusations, except for a handful of hate-filled web sites. The false and malicious nature of the accusations are documented, legal facts that cannot be disputed by historical revisionists

I'm sorry, but a settlement of divorce that did not go to trial does not qualify as the final say that was "proven in court". Depositions were taken but it did not go to trial. Are you that ignorant of the law that you believe a divorce settlement results in one side being declared the winner (those on the side of truth) and the other side as the loser (the "haters" who tell no truth)? As with any dispute - the truth usually lies in the middle. It is up to the individual to decide what they believe the truth to be based on the facts and evidence at hand. The position of most in this discussion is that the facts of the accusations and fallout should be included in the article - no "historical revision". You on the other hand seek to censor those facts because they clash with your evident reverence (bias) of the man. --Awcga 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Further Clarification of my point. I did not call Independent Baptists "Cultist", only the people who blindly follow the man, Jack Hyles, instead of God himself. Any organization that demands unquestioned loyalty to an individual is a cult (A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian leader.)(American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed). However, my point remains that this article about Mr Hyles reflects the bias of his followers, and your attempts to strongarm anyone who attempts to tell this whole story are not in line with "Neutral Viewpoint" you claim is necessary. There is no mention on the Nischik family, of the book that contains these allegations "The Wizard of God" or any of the controversy surrounding Hyles son, his ministries, the numerous followers of theirs that have been convicted in courts of law for child molestation and abuse. Hyles held to beliefs that cannot be found in any version of the bible, let alone his precious KJV. However what can be found in the Bible is this: Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel (KJV). Show me in the bible where Chirstians are called to be loyal to a man without question, even the apostles questioned Christ about his ministry and his motivations. Questions I might add that he gladly answered.

Answer to above: Again, more proof that you are not following the neutral point of view required for Wiki. Go ahead and do what you wish, but remember that there are consequences to our actions.

Do you ever get tired of making empty threats? By removing my entries without cause, you are violating my civil rights and my constitutionally assured right to free speech. In addition, you are violating Wikipedia policy by threatening me with "consequences".

Now that's almost funny... Don't you realize that you have no right to free speech on Wikipedia? It is a privately-owned, glorified, multiple-user blog that is editable by anyone with an IP address and some free time; it's not the local town square. You have no rights, period. Wikipedia could delete every post you ever made and you have no recourse whatsoever - it's their web site. But this does not protect either Wikipedia or you or I from lawsuits now, does it, "friend"?

No one is above the law.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.78.107.200 (talk • contribs) .

Solutions

In an attempt to satisfy both sides on these issues, I have created a separate Wiki entry named the Jack Hyles Controversy Wiki. I have also modified the "Controversy" section here to provide for a link to this new Wiki. The new wiki has suggested sections, please feel free to add to these sections as needed, keeping in mind that all Wikipedia entries must conform to the Neutral Point of View. This will hopefully remove some of the heated arguments concerning this page, while still acknowledging that the accusations exist, and provide another venue for those who wish to post addional information concerning those accusations. --Teeja 17:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Outstanting Thank You!!!

Note to Daniel Case: Daniel, we're trying to conform to Wikipedia policy here. If a merger is done, a Wiki-war will surely occur, due to the heated nature of these issues. This is a solution which both sides see as an adequate solution. Please allow it to work. I believe this separation of the Jack Hyles wiki from the Jack Hyles Controversy wiki was brought about by a consensus opinion and a desire to retain the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks. --Teeja 18:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the above also. If the text of this Jack Hyles wiki is 90 percent anti-Hyles, the pro-Hyles people will edit it out. If there is nothing here about the controversy at all, the anti-Hyles people will edit it out. It seems to me that this is a good solution, retaining the integrity, spirit and intent of the Wikipedia founders.

Also, Daniel, according to the POV fork article, "As Wikipedia articles grow, they often need to be segmented, or branched, into manageable parts. This is an accepted premise for forking an article, and the nature of that split more often depends upon consensus — e.g. a "Criticism of" article may be justified if there is enough (or going to be enough) material to justify a separate article..." Seems to me that there is enough information to warrant such a fork from the main Jack Hyles wiki.

~~ Since a consensus of opinion has been reached regarding controversies on this Wiki, the best solution is to leave the current "Controversies" section 'as-is' with a brief noting of controversies, including a link to the Jack Hyles Controversy Wiki. Details surrounding that controversy, including opinions from both sides of the argument should be posted on the Jack Hyles Controversy Wiki, not in this article. Failure to comply with this agreement may result in another Wiki-war, which neither side welcomes.~~

I think this is a good solution. However, the controversy page needs some serious cleanup with a defense of Jack Hyles added to balance it out. Mr. Smart —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.78.107.200 (talk • contribs) .

Consensus Solution Reached (POV fork)

A Consensus of Opinion has been reached with regard to the handling of controversies surrounding Jack Hyles. A seperate, but related Wiki entry named "Jack Hyles Controversy" has been created, where all controversies can be documented and expanded upon, (pro and con). The "Controversy" section here on the Jack Hyles Wiki has been modified to provide a reference and introduction to controversies, with a link to the new Jack Hyles Controversy Wiki for those seeking additional information. This small "Controversy" section on the Jack Hyles Wiki should not be substantially altered or expanded to include more on controversies; such expansions should instead be taken to the Jack Hyles Controversy Wiki. Likewise, links to external web sites that promote one side or the other of a particular controversy should be listed on the new Jack Hyles Controversy Wiki, rather than on this Wiki. The new wiki has suggested sections; please feel free to add to these sections as needed, keeping in mind that all Wikipedia entries must conform to the Neutral Point of View.

This solution is consistant with Wiki guidelines on article forking (POV fork) which states, "As Wikipedia articles grow, they often need to be segmented, or branched, into manageable parts. This is an accepted premise for forking an article, and the nature of that split more often depends upon consensus — e.g. a "Criticism of" article may be justified if there is enough (or going to be enough) material to justify a separate article..." This consensus solution will hopefully remove some of the heated arguments concerning this page, while still acknowledging that the accusations exist, and provide another venue for those who wish to post addional information concerning those accusations. --Teeja 04:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a solution nor acceptable. You took that quote out of context. Wikipedia allows for content forks in cases which the article is large. This, on the other hand, is a POV to remove material off the main article page. That is why a party put an AfD page on the page and why the majority want the page merged [1]. Either the criticism is up to Wikipedia quality and belongs with the article or not.Arbustoo 20:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice:

Please refrain from editing this wiki to include unproven and hateful "sexual accusations" against Jack Hyles. Wiki is not a tool for the advancement of personal feelings - it is a FACT-based tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.73.81.178 (talk • contribs) .

Prior to editing the Jack Hyles Wiki, please read through this Talk Page, note the discussion and read the Section at the bottom entitled "Consensus Solution Reached" which includes an explaination of how the new Jack Hyles Controversy Wiki will provide a solution to the following problems.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teeja (talk • contribs) .

Clean up this article

This article neads major reorganization. Why isn't there some basic bio-info about his early life at previous churches and his childhood? Leave the highly opinionated stuff for the other page. Also this article isn't a forum to debate. Debate in the talk section, but quit vandalizing the article to try and make a point. You degrade the value of this article by this constant nonsense. Try to keep the the sentences written in a NPOV. Not doing so just angers your opponents. Start your own web page if you want to rant about a particular Hyles issue.

70.224.173.6 his latest edit neads some revision. Also, there are many spelling errors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.73.81.178 (talk • contribs) .

Source

Thank you for sourcing the claim 68.78.99.7. --Isotope23 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

POV and deletion

I stumbled across this and the school article a few days ago and noticed a deliberate attempt to remove criticism rather than improve the article. If you are in a party that has removed said information please discuss it on this page because your actions are considered vandalism. Explain why you want the items removed, provide sources to argue your point, explain what is incorrect, ect. We will come to a consensus (probably an adminstrator will decide) and if your criticism is accepted the section will be removed. If not, it will stay. Arbustoo 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is that these "controversies" were basically an attack by two men who had a personal axe to grind against Jack Hyles. They have literally dedicated a major part of their lives to degrading this man's ministry and to a great degree have succeeded in twisting facts and magnifying their own false charges so much so that the two entries on Jack Hyles and Hyles-Anderson College are now simply an advertisement for their grievances. It's not that anyone is trying to "whitewash" the criticim; rather, it's that the criticism needs to be in its proper proportion and perspective, when compared to the overall ministry of Jack Hyles and the college. When there are literally thousands upon thousands of people who have been helped by Jack Hyles, and when you contrast that with this small handful of attackers, it does not seem right that the majority of words on these Wiki entries deal with their anti-Hyles grievances. Those who have tried to "write for the enemy" have seen all their work wiped out by vandals who insist that their minority viewpoint take center seat to a more reasoned and NPV writing style on the subject. I'm not confident that this can be resolved. For the most part, the anti-Hyles editors have three things going for them that will ensure that these Wiki entries remain an advertisement for their grievances - 1) they seem to have a great amount of free time, 2) they are filled with a great desire to see this man's ministry degraded and impuned at any cost, and 3) they themselves (or their friends) have the power to ban from Wikipedia IP address of those with whom they disagree, making their opponents out to be "vandals" when the opposite is true. --68.252.176.158 16:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the Associated Press, Chicago-Sun Times, and the New York Times twisting the facts as well?

• "Christian fundamentalist organization accused Hyles of misdeeds and bad theology." (Chicago Sun-Times June 2, 1993)
• "Detroit-area TV station said alleged child molestations at a suburban church there appeared to be part of a pattern among "churches that follow the teachings and philosophy" of Hyles, First Baptist and its related Hyles-Anderson College of Crown Point, Ind." (Chicago Sun-Times June 2, 1993)
• "Rev. Joseph Combs and his wife, Evangeline Lopez Combs, were convicted last month of taking Esther from an Indiana orphanage when she was a baby, never adopting her and treating her as the family's servant...That babysitter and another one testified that they suspected Esther was mistreated but didn't want to contradict Combs, who had been their Bible professor at Hyles Anderson College." (The Associated Press, April 7, 2000).

Why shouldn't this stuff be included, George? Arbustoo 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Let me say as the person making the newspaper articles available, that I do not believe abuse by Combs should be included in an article about Hyles unless there is very strong proof that Hyles knew of or in some way condoned Combs' actions. The Combs story is not appropriate to the Hyles-Anderson college page because of the allegations of the first babysitter that he had been her prof (any prof could go bad) but it is relevant because of the second babysitter (not quoted by Arbustoo) that she complained to the college president (see below). I am troubled by the TV stations deciding that the cases were connected. Coincidence and association may look like causes but are not necessarily causes. Thatcher131 21:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we are finding that the argument of some Hyles defenders that this article is "simply an advertisement for their (Hyles' opponents) grievances" is false. While some issues may not have caught the national press this is not simly a case making things up to attack someone. If he or his church was accused and found guilty or innocent it should be in the article. Arbustoo 00:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• But we should (I believe) be very careful to weed out "guilt by association." To justifiably include someone else's wrongdoing in the college or personal article, there needs to be a "nexus" (in legal terms) linking the wrongdoer to the subject of the article. Therefore in my opinion, based on my research so far,

David Hyles does not belong in Jack's article. Belongs in the college article if and only if it can be sourced to something besides a partisan web site that he assaulted children while on staff. The allegations about his personal life, however sad, do not belong in either the college or Jack's article even if verified.

Combs belongs in the college article because of the testimony of the second babysitter. No nexus with Jack.

Ballenger could go in an article about the church, not the college. Should be in Jack's article if and only if the claim that he called the conviction "null and void" can be proved by a nonpartisan source.

Other alleged wrongdoing by alleged former students of the college should be confined to the college article, and tread lightly at that. Even if Hyles style of ministry attracts a "certain type" of person to the college, that doesn't make him responsible for individual wrongdoing unless you can show by verified independent source that he condoned, encouraged, or covered it up.

In short, facts=good; guilt by association=bad. In my opinion. Thatcher131 00:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your recommendations, except the son. A short (one sentence) mention of his son should be addressed. Since the son is not notable enough for his own article there should be a brief mention that Jack had children (include names) and a mention of the children's education/vocation/criminal allegations. Example: The article on George H.W. Bush includes his son, George W. Bush and mentions W.'s position. Arbustoo 01:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, I agree with your suggestions. What the anti-Hyles editors have done is take these few public events, and labeled Mr. Hyles and his college as the offending party under "guilt by association". As one example of their unethical attacks, they claim that Hyles said "Ballenger's conviction is null-and-void in the eyes of God" - but HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT-- this was something that was quite simply created out of thin air by his attackers and it's been repeated by them so that now, it's here in this Wiki entry. There are multiple examples of this type of completely unsubstantiated and undocumented methodologies that have been used by the anti-Hyles editors. This does not contribute towards a valid or reliable Wiki entry and this type of abuse will only degrade Wikipedia in the long run. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.252.176.158 (talk • contribs) .

So now you admit "these few public events" did happen. Why did you choose to COMPLETELY remove the controversy instead of cleaning it up? Arbustoo 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, the public events I was writing of were the conviction of Ballenger - that was fact. The anti-Hyles editors have taken that conviction, added their own false quote, thereby making Hyles look like he approved child molestation. That's just unethical. You lost me when you said I "completely remove[d] the controversy" - I never did anything of the sort. --68.73.80.116 03:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You wiped the page clean here[2]. Arbustoo 03:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, have no idea what you're talking about. I never did such a thing. Just because someone with a similar IP address wiped the page, I guess that makes me guilty, same way you're making Hyles out to be guity due to "guilt by association". Par for the course, Arbustoo. --68.73.80.116 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone with a similiar IP, similiar knowledge about the article, having the same interest/bias and all within a day. Arbustoo 04:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, writing-style specialists have said that, given a large enough sample of an author's writing, one could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular subset of text was written by a particular person; sort of like a "writing-style fingerprint". For those familiar with your writing style and your DIRECT PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT with this issue, it doesn't take much of a genius to see that YOU are one of the two men of whom I spoke in my previous paragraph, and that you are NOT at all an "uninterested" and "unbiased" party, who is "simply trying to help make this Wiki entry conform to Wikipedia standards". Go ahead and edit out these comments - it will just prove my point that it is you who are trying hide the facts. --68.252.176.158 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are paranoid and dellusional. (1) Where have I EVER removed anyone's comments, but my own (2) how am I "directly invovled" (3) Why won't you sign (4) who are the Wikipedia collaborators that block people's IPs? Arbustoo 03:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... now that is interesting. On the first point, I never said you did remove anyone's comments; I simply that if you do, it would prove my point. Second, I know EXACTLY what your personal involvement is, but also knowing what legal entanglements can occur to me if I publicly name you, so I choose to remain anonymous, which is my right. Third, you are just as "anonymous" as I am, otherwise, why don't you sign with your real name? Fourth, to find this out, all you need to do is research for yourself the editing history of the wikis in question. Enough said. --68.73.80.116 03:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(1)So why accuse someone of something that has never done? (2) I have no clue what you are talking about. (3) No sir, your IP keeps changing and you have already been banned for your behavior. (4) Deal with the article and stop attributing motives to those people who you think you know. Arbustoo 04:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have no clue as to what you're talking about with regard to IP changes. I have not been banned from anything due to any misbehavior on Wikipedia. I suggest you simply come clean and admit your personal involvement with these Hyles issues. That's all - just come clean. --68.73.80.116 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition- I see now that my IP address did change today. But that is probably because I'm using my dial-up account and before I used my DSL account. But I still did not delete pages on the date you cited, nor on any date. I have no idea who did that. --68.73.80.116 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• It would be very helpful if the user posting from the 68.73.xx.xx block of IP addresses would register for a user name, log in, and sign comments with 4 tilde marks, creating a signature. This would help others in the discussion to be confident that we know who we are talking to, and would help to avoid suggestions that you are acting in bad faith. It would also avoid confusion in the event your ISP shifts your IP address again. Thank you. Thatcher131 05:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

DONE... let it heretoforth be known that I (68.73.xx.xx) is now known as "UserFromIP68". --UserFromIP68 14:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, User 68*** I have no clue in what you talking about, but your paranoia and accusations have made me a lot more interested in this. Take note from my contributions to the sources. Arbustoo 08:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, your attitude is obviously not one of "reasonableness and "editorial neutrality"; as evidence, I submit your quote above; in your anger, you threaten to add more of your questionable sources to this Wiki as retribution for my questioning the NPV of this article and your involvement. That's okay, because neutral heads will prevail eventually, and most will see that indeed, you have far more than a passing interest in these issues. --68.73.80.116 14:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Since I have access to the Lexis/Nexis database of news articles, I decided to look to see if I could find documented sources in the news media, not agenda-driven web sites. This is a general sample. It seems that there are three abuse cases linked to Hyles-Anderson college (Ballenger, Overand and Combs). And it also looks like WJBK went on a crusade. Are two abuse cases enough to set a pattern? I don't know. How many students and professors from the Yale history department have a history of abuse?

Please note these articles are copyright and should not be included in the main article except as fair use exerpts. I consider the importance of having the facts to justify posting the articles on the talk page, but I could be wrong about that as well.

My personal opinion is that doctrinal disputes do not belong here; the abuse is worthy of inclusion but care should be used in describing the allegations. Three people does not necessarily make a pattern, even if a TV station says it does. Be careful.

If you want me to look up other specific charges to see if they can be verified in the mainstream news media, please leave a note on my talk page. Thatcher131 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• By request of Arbustoo I looked for info on the Ballenger and David Hyles accusations. I can confirm that Ballenger was sentenced for child abuse committed in Sunday School (see below) but I can not find out anything else. The details of the arrest and trial were apparently not carried in a "major" paper as defined by Lexis/Nexis for inclusion in their database in 1993-1995. Also, since he was sentenced in 1993 and jailed in 1996, it is reasonable to conclude the case was under appeal and he lost although that is also not in the database. I can not find anything on David Hyles and Brent Stevens. I can't tell how long ago or where it allegedy happened--again, it may be a case of not making it into Lexis/Nexis, rather than not happening at all, I simply can't confirm it from Lexis/Nexis. Thatcher131 22:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This may be Ballenger's appeal. If it is, it is too old to be online. Someone will have to go to the court or a law library and look it up.

Ballenger v. State, 45A03-9312-CR-419, COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, 662 N.E.2d 1009; 1996 Ind. App. LEXIS 385, March 22, 1996

Thatcher131 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ballenger's conviction was upheld on appeal in a 4-0 memorandum opinion. A memorandum opinion is more informal than a full written opinion and therefore is not published in full, so there is nothing further I can do. Someone would have to go down and browse the local newspapers. Thatcher131 05:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times June 2, 1993

Copyright 1993 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc. Chicago Sun-Times June 2, 1993, WEDNESDAY , LATE SPORTS FINAL SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 5

LENGTH: 494 words HEADLINE: Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out BYLINE: Daniel J. Lehmann

BODY: The latest chapter in the career of a controversial fundamentalist pastor from Hammond, Ind., erupted Tuesday with the minister branding as "ridiculous assumptions and malicious lies" news reports linking him to a nationwide pattern of sexual molestations and abuse.

The Rev. Jack Hyles of First Baptist Church told 1,300 supporters at Rosemont's Hyatt Regency O'Hare that the reports were really an attempt to end Sunday school "bus ministries" operated by his church and others like it.

Hyles has been a target of occasional criticism during his nearly 34 years at the helm of the independent First Baptist, regarded as the nation's largest church, based on worship attendance. The Hammond church attracts as many as 20,000 worshippers each Sunday.

Most allegations have been aimed at his aggressive Sunday school program - also considered the nation's largest - which uses 150 to 225 buses to round up thousands of children from the streets of Chicago and nearby urban areas.

Four years ago, a Christian fundamentalist organization accused Hyles of misdeeds and bad theology. And in March, a deacon at First Baptist, A.V. Ballenger, was found guilty of one count of child molestation dating from 1991.

Then in early May, a Detroit-area TV station said alleged child molestations at a suburban church there appeared to be part of a pattern among "churches that follow the teachings and philosophy" of Hyles, First Baptist and its related Hyles-Anderson College of Crown Point, Ind.

Titled "Preying From the Pulpit," the series said it found seven U.S. churches - all with ties to Hyles, it said - involved in sex scandals. It also said some ex-members described Hyles as a "cult leader" who along with "his followers (engages) in mind control, abuse and torture of children, degradation of women and retaliation against those who question his teachings."

On Tuesday, the Lake County (Ind.) prosecutor's office said it did not have any current cases involving Hyles or the church, and the Hammond Police Department confirmed a statement of last month that "there is no investigation" of the church or Hyles.

Hyles disputed the latest reports point by point in a speech to Midwest ministers and businessmen, brought together by COMPASSION - Churches Organized & Mobilized for Preservation and Safety for Sunday Schools in Our Nation.

Hyles said he didn't know most of the people or congregations named in the TV reports. Those said to have attended Hyles-Anderson College didn't, he said.

Hyles pledged to defend and expand First Baptist's bus program.

He also plans more ads similar to the one in Tuesday's Chicago Sun-Times, which was signed by several hundred supporters.

The ad "is simply stating what support is there already," said Cindy Lail, 32, an attorney from Cedar Lake, Ind., who signed it. "It's making it known that this is a legitimate place and we are a legitimate people." Thatcher131 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Eyewitness News; WJBK; Detroit, February 15-16, 1995 6:00pm; ET

On Feb 15, eyewitness news ran the following (Lexis/Nexis transcript)

Baptist minister confessing his sins tonight. Rev. Russell Overand of Cedar Lake, Indiana has admitted to police that he sexually assaulted two young girls over a two year period. Overla has ties to Fundamentalist Baptist Preacher Jack Hyles. Reported on Hyles several years ago in report Preying From The Pulpit. Overla received his training at the HYLES ANDERSON COLLEGE in Indiana. Hyles has appeared at a number of Detroit area churches over the years.

On Feb 16 the news ran this correction

Last night during a report on Primetime about Reverend Russell Overand who confessed to molesting three girls, they showed a picture of the Reverand Jack Hyles who was not accused of the crime.

The Associated Press, July 6, 1984, Friday, AM cycle

These materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The Associated Press

Blind Man Says Church Bans Him, After He Gets Guide Dog

A man blind since birth says he's been told he cannot attend his church with a guide dog he acquired in February.

Donald Baker, 19, said he has attended First Baptist Church of Hammond for four years, but was told by the church's pastor that he could not attend services with his dog Casey because it "would disturb others."

The pastor, the Rev. Jack Hyles, was unavailable for comment Thursday, said an associate pastor, the Rev. Keith McKinney. He confirmed Baker no longer attends First Baptist but said he could make no official comment.

"Dr. Hyles has an official statement but it is not available now. It will be mailed to you," McKinney told a reporter.

Baker obtained the trained mixed breed retriever in February, and after a month of training with the dog in Rochester, Mich., returned to Hammond.

"I had attended Sunday school and services every Sunday when I used a cane. But the first week I attended with Casey, the ushers, on Dr. Hyles' orders, told me to leave," Baker said. "They said I could use the dog for Sunday school, but not in the regular church services.

"I wasn't trying to be defiant, but I kept returning because I was baptized there and I wanted to serve the Lord. They took Casey from me and kept him in another room. Casey just whimpered, and I guess really made a commotion because we are almost inseparable.

"They told me I could keep Casey with me if I stayed in the fellowship room. I did that once, but found the services were on the public address system, and I was the only one in the room.

"I don't feel like I'm attending church services when I'm the only one there and have to listen to a public address system," Baker said.

He said that two weeks ago he was told he also could not attend Sunday school with Casey.

"Casey wouldn't hurt anyone. He loves me, I love him and we really need each other. He would just sit at my feet," Baker said.

Last Sunday Baker attended the Church of Christ at Griffith, about 12 miles from his Hammond home.

"I called the pastor, Tom Hickey, and he told me Casey and I would be welcomed at services. In fact, he drove to my house and took me to church. We really felt accepted," Baker said.

Hickey, who uses no title in the Church of Christ, Thursday confirmed he had picked up Baker and his dog.

"I would pick up anybody that needed a ride to church. He told me about his dog at the other church, but I feel that is their decision and not for me to discuss," said Hickey.

"Donald and his dog are quite welcome here," Hickey said. "The dog poses no problem." Thatcher131 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times, July 25, 1985, Thursday, Late City Final Edition

Copyright 1985 The New York Times Company

SECTION: Section A; Page 12, Column 1; National Desk

BAPTIST PASTOR'S ACTIONS SPLIT MAINE COMMUNITY

BYLINE: By MATTHEW L. WALD, Special to the New York Times DATELINE: LEE, Me., July 24 When worshipers kneel to pray in the white clapboard Lee Baptist Church, hard by the high school and across from the general store at the center of this tiny town, the state police and sheriff's deputies cruise back and forth outside and sometimes stop passing cars. The pastor prays for peace and for arrests.

At a prayer service on Sunday night, from 3 to 10 men, depending on who is doing the telling, engaged in a pitched battle with the pastor, the Rev. Daniel Dunphy, and members of his fundamentalist congregation. Mr. Dunphy maintains that the outsiders arrived with chains and pipes to assault the congregation and wreck the church. Mr. Dunphy was still pressing a handkerchief to a cut lip Tuesday and showing off a scar on the top of his head.

One of the men involved, John W. Crooker, says he went to the church with a brother and a nephew, all unarmed, to rescue his 16-year-old daughter from the church. He did not know the four men who walked in behind him, he said.

Two men were arrested today in connection with the incident, The Associated Press reported. The two, Paul Brown, 40 years old, and Merle Knowlton, 39, were each charged with one count of aggravated assault. The authorities said they were continuing the investigation. As a prayer service was under way tonight, five shots were apparently fired outside the church. Sheriff Edward Reynolds of Penobscot County told the A.P. that the shots had not been aimed at the church but were more of a distraction.

Brainwashing Is Charged

Mr. Crooker and his wife, Madeline, said that Mr. Dunphy had brainwashed two of their daughters.

The 16-year-old daughter, Sheila Crooker, has been living with church members since May 29, when Mr. Dunphy took her out of a foster home in Hudson, Me., where her parents had placed her to keep her away from Mr. Dunphy. He faces charges of assault and criminal trespass, both misdemeanors, in that incident.

Another daughter, Rebecca, 17, was also in foster care but was granted legal independence from her parents by a court, and immediately married a church member.

The matter, a domestic dispute that appears to have grown from teen-age rebellion and marital troubles, has now involved the church, the police and most of the town.

Lee, 60 miles northeast of Bangor, has 700 people, two general stores, two churches, one restaurant, a post office, a historical museum and a grange hall. It seems an unlikely place for such a confrontation. Until a few years ago the Baptist Church was the only one in town, and it was attended by Roman Catholics and Protestants of other denominations. It was a live-and-let-live atmosphere, said Barbara Potts, the town clerk.

But a feud has been brewing for months between Mr. Dunphy on one side and what he calls this sinful town on the other.

It's a nice place for everybody to enjoy their sin, without being bothered, said Mr. Dunphy, who became the Baptist minister here three years ago.

Many members of the congregation, both within Lee and in neighboring towns from which they are brought in church buses, support their pastor, but nonmembers seem to have reached a consensus.

If it had been one of my daughters, he would not be alive today, said Alice Pickering, the tax collector.

Frank Moors, a truck driver who had stopped at the Quonset hut that doubles as a municipal garage and town office, said, If it had been my daughter, I'd have done it right the first time.

If he took one of my kids, said Dean Knights, a carpenter from nearby Lincoln, who was shopping in the general store, I'd waste him.

Dunphy Status Questioned

Even some church members question the events. I don't think this is the right minister for here, Kenneth McGraw said sadly. Mr. McGraw, 76 years old, has been a member of the church for more than 25 years.

Elsewhere, such a dispute might pit neighbors against one another, but in the small isolated communities of this region, where residents speak of having moved to town only 20 years ago and families trace their roots back generations, the conflict has left brothers and sisters not speaking to one another, sometimes within the same household.

Mr. Dunphy, 34, a native of Island Falls, Me., and a graduate of Hyles Anderson College, a Baptist institution in Crown Point, Ind., believes that he is unpopular because of the position I take against sin.

I'm against pornography, rock and roll, living with people without being married, illicit sex, dope, you name it, he said.

He held a bonfire at the church's Lee Christian School, which he heads, to burn record albums and a stereo set. He preaches against women wearing pants and men and women swimming together.

Women are supposed to keep their bodies pure, and save themselves for their husbands, Sheila Crooker said in a brief interview before a prayer meeting Tuesday night.

A 16-year-old Roman Catholic, Sheilaga Dameron, said that Catholics used to attend the Baptist church and sing in the choir but that he made it quite clear who is wanted and who is not wanted.

Mr. Dunphy said his church was Baptist, not Catholic, but he said that he had not barred Catholics.

Another Protestant Church

The town's other church, the Christian Missionary Alliance, is also Protestant.

Hartley Stevens, a Baptist church member who was in the melee on Sunday night and whose son Mark married Rebecca Crooker, favors Mr. Dunphy. It's been probably 50 years since we've had a good fundamentalist preacher, he said. People haven't had anyone tell them their sins.

The conflict with the Crookers, which Sheriff Reynolds called a Hatfield-McCoy feud, has changed the town's atmosphere. It was a horror show, he said of the Sunday incident. There were a lot of youngsters in the church. You can imagine the terror they must have felt. Thatcher131 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Associated Press, April 7, 2000

These materials may not be republished without the express written consent of The Associated Press April 7, 2000, Friday, AM cycle

HEADLINE: Experts say Combs child abuse case unusual

BYLINE: By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer DATELINE: BLOUNTVILLE, Tenn.

BODY: Esther Combs was not unlike many unwanted children who fall through the cracks of an overburdened social services system. But experts say her tenure of torture - nearly 20 years - was unusual. The 410 scars she accumulated from curling iron burns, baseball bat beatings and other abuse went undetected because she was in the care of a minister and his wife, who used a cloak of religion and home schooling to isolate her. "Many abused children are invisible to the system until they reach school age, but with home schooling, she had no exposure to teachers," said Kevin Kirkpatrick, spokesman for Prevent Child Abuse America, a Chicago-based nonprofit organization. Rev. Joseph Combs and his wife, Evangeline Lopez Combs, were convicted last month of taking Esther from an Indiana orphanage when she was a baby, never adopting her and treating her as the family's servant. Combs also had sex with the girl. When sentenced on April 25, Combs faces 144 years in prison; Mrs. Combs, 73 years. Meanwhile, the 22-year-old Esther is trying to start a new life, free to go to school, free to dress and speak the way she chooses - free.

--- There are some 1 million confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect in the United States annually, Kirpatrick said, and tens of thousands more go unreported. Many are abused by their parents, or extended family. Others, like Esther, are abused by adoptive or foster parents. Last year, a Utah woman was imprisoned for the death of her two adopted daughters, ages 3 and 6. The youngest died of head injuries after she was pushed down stairs. The older girl was starved to death in a filthy locked basement. Both were regularly burned and beaten. The woman's two biological sons were not abused.

The Combses also spared their four biological children and an adopted son from abuse. The Combses told Esther she wasn't as smart as their other children and said her purpose in life was as their servant. When she didn't finish her chores in time, they called her rebellious and punished her. Esther did what she was told, wanting the Combses to love her. Esther - who had no friends, couldn't read or write and was not allowed to watch television - had no way of knowing a normal life. "Esther lived as a broken person, devastated by physical, verbal, psychological and sexual abuse without any other family ... and deprived of self-worth," prosecutor Barry Staubus said. "She was utterly dependent on the Combses."

--- During the first few years of their marriage, the Combses tried to conceive but couldn't. They decided in 1977 to adopt a son and the next year wanted a little girl. They visited the Baptist Children's Home in Valparaiso, Ind., and chose a 4-month-old girl whom they named Esther. Within seven months, they signed an adoption agreement, but later decided against it because the Combses claim the home requested 10 percent of their income as a fee. However, they never returned Esther.

Dawn Loftis, office manager at the Baptist Children's Home, said the agency never asked the Combses for money. She said the home sent letters to the Combses in 1980, 1984 and 1994 asking for a record of Esther's adoption. The last letter was returned unopened, indicating the Combses had moved. It's unclear what, if anything, the children's home did after that. Loftis acknowledged there were no records showing the children's home or a court ever demanded Esther's return.

--- Esther's earliest memory is being thrown down the stairs in her high chair. When she was 3 or 4, her hands were burned after Mrs. Combs made her retrieve a spoon she accidentally dropped in a pot of oatmeal. When she was a teen-ager, Combs once wrapped a rope around her neck and draped her over his back until she passed out.

Another time, when the other children told on her for jumping on the bed, Mrs. Combs threw Esther against the wall, knocking out her two front teeth. Mrs. Combs then placed the teeth back in her bloody mouth, where they remained but were crooked and oddly spaced. In 1986, Combs moved his family to Florida to start a church. Esther says the abuse continued and she was often raped. She says she was forced to cook and clean for the family and care for the Combses' two youngest children. She was rarely allowed to attend home-schooling sessions.

She says when a babysitter taught her how to write her name, the Combses beat her. They said Jesus didn't learn to read and write until he was 12, so Esther shouldn't either. That babysitter and another one testified that they suspected Esther was mistreated but didn't want to contradict Combs, who had been their Bible professor at Hyles Anderson College in Crown Point, Ind. The other babysitter reported her suspicions to the college president, but apparently nothing was done, she said. ---

The Combses left Florida and traveled as evangelists for more than a year before moving to Bristol, where Combs became pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in 1989. Esther says that's when the abuse worsened, and the couple would quote Bible verses while punishing her. Mrs. Combs often pulled out chunks of Esther's flesh with pliers. Another time Mrs. Combs threw a shoe at Esther's eye and then stitched her brow with a needle and thread. "She called them her marks of the beast," Esther testified. For eight years the family lived in the gym building and never let church members visit. Esther's only contact with the outside world was with church members twice a week.

Some in the congregation noticed Esther sometimes had black eyes, scars or her arm in a sling. But when told Esther was clumsy and fell a lot, they believed Combs. After all, he was a man of God, they said. Esther ran away twice, once to a gas station and another time down the street, where she was picked up by a passing motorist and taken to a children's shelter. But both times she never told police she'd been abused and was returned to the Combses, who beat her severely for running away. ---

Esther decided the best way to end the abuse was to end her life. In February 1997, she guzzled a cup of antifreeze while at home. The Combses called 911 and she was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where doctors found layers of scar tissue on her body and fractures that had not healed properly. Police were curious why Esther had no birth certificate, no Social Security number, no school or medical records. Still afraid, Esther denied being abused and returned to live with the Combses. But detectives remained suspicious.

Seven months later, police filed a petition for guardianship for Esther, who was 19. Even though she was an adult, authorities believed she couldn't function as one because she had been so isolated. Rather than go to court to accept the guardianship, Esther went to live with Combs brother's family in Georgia at his urging. That move proved to be the one that finally ended her years of abuse. --- Combs' sister-in-law, Susan Combs, testified that when Esther arrived, she was frail. She had trouble with the simplest of tasks, like making change or reading a menu. She said Esther was oblivious to popular culture and had never heard of Elvis Presley. But Esther slowly blossomed with her newfound freedom - going to the mall with her cousins, dressing how she wanted, watching television - and finally opened up about her years of abuse.

In February 1998, four months after Esther had been away from the only parents she'd ever known, she called Bristol police and told them how she got her scars and who was responsible. She also filed lawsuits against the children's home and the Combses. "A transformation takes place when she gets out from under that family," Staubus said. "Esther is apart ... and begins to see and feel and know freedom. "Finally, Esther speaks." Thatcher131 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

South Bend Tribune (Indiana) August 30, 1996, Friday, INDIANA (Ballenger)

Copyright 1996 South Bend Tribune Corporation

Ex-deacon to begin term in molestation CROWN POINT, Ind. (AP) - A former Hammond Baptist Church deacon will go to prison next week to begin serving a five-year sentence for child molesting.

A. V. Ballenger, 60, of Hammond agreed to surrender Wednesday at the Reception-Diagnostic Center in Plainfield.

Normally, convicts go to the Lake County Jail and await transportation to prison by police. Lake Superior Court Judge Richard Conroy said it was an unusual, but not unprecedented arrangement.

It will end a case that drew national attention during a 1993 trial, pitting the church against the state criminal justice system.

A Lake Superior Court jury convicted Ballenger in 1993 of fondling a young girl during a 1991 Sunday school class. She was 7 at the time.

The allegations rocked the church and led to the ostracism of the victim's family and church members who went to police with the accusations. Thatcher131 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A "mentally disabled church member" raped repeatedly over a six-year period (Christianity Today Magazine, by Lee Elder December 8, 1997)

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1997/december8/7te63a.html

"Baptist Megachurch Faces Sex Suit by Lee Elder

December 8, 1997

A leading independent Baptist pastor and his church have been sued for negligence in connection with alleged sexual assaults on a mentally disabled church member over a six-year period.

Jack Hyles, pastor for 38 years of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, and the church were named defendants in a civil suit filed October 2. The suit alleges that a 42-year-old Chicago woman, who attended the First Baptist Sunday school from 1991 to 1996, was raped and battered multiple times during that period.

One of the lawyers who filed the suit, Vernon Petri, says Hyles is a defendant because he failed to protect the woman. "Controls have to be set to be sure things are conducted appropriately," Petri says. At present, there are no criminal charges pending." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arbustoo (talk • contribs) .

A.V. Ballenger: Null and Void

Deacon A.V. Ballenger was convicted of fondling a 7-year-old girl in Sunday school class and sentenced to 8 years in prison. A.V. Ballenger, a deacon and bus route driver at Hyles' First Baptist Church Hammond, was convicted in March of 1993 (and sentenced in July of 1993 to five years in jail) of molesting a seven year old girl. (This crime occurred in a Sunday School room of the church! Incredibly, after conviction, but prior to sentencing, Ballenger was allowed to resume his FBCH bus route!) The highlight of the sentencing hearing was the testimony of three young women. Each was molested by Ballenger when she was a child, and in each case, before age seven. Jack Hyles, who testified in Ballenger's behalf, defiantly declared the outcome of the trial null and void, claiming that the courts had no jurisdiction in this matter. Hyles told the girl's parents, "Deacon Ballenger just likes little girls."[3] [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arbustoo (talk • contribs) .

• This is the sort of sourcing I find unhelpful. Two highly partisan web sites. Even if Hyles said the decision was "null and void," that is probably an extreme view of the idea of separation of church and state and the idea that secular laws don't apply. I'll bet that was what the appeal was based on, and why it took 2-1/2 years to resolve. Churches of a certain mindset seem to want to insist that they are above secular laws. There is a congregation in my town that insists it doesn't have to follow zoning regulations or the building code regarding an addition they put up.

If that is what Hyles was referring to (and the appeals case would be very clear on it if someone can look it up) then it is really unfair to imply that he was condoning abuse by the statement. However, it may be verifiable and noteworthy that while Ballenger was out on bond awaiting the outcome of the appeal, he was allowed to resume a position at the church involving contact with children. That is the sort of thing that could be explained as a factual event without making possibly unwarranted assumptions about what Hyles meant in his alleged statement about "null and void". In fact, you could take "null and void" out of the article altogether and explain factually that while Ballenger was out on bond, he continued to drive a school bus for the church. Say no more. A simple statement of fact. Readers are smart, they'll draw the inference without having it shoved under their noses. Thatcher131 05:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyles: "He Just Likes Little Girls"

Thank you for encouraging me to do more research into this. This is posted for reference. Arbustoo 08:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Church leaders sued in sex-abuse case; Chicago Tribune: Oct 16, 1991. pg. 3

• • The lawsuit, filed in Lake Circuit Court, seeks $1 million in damages.
  • Named in the suit are the Rev. Jack Hyles and A.V. Ballenger, a deacon and Sunday school teacher. Ballenger, 54, pleaded innocent to a molestation charge in August and is free on bond.
  • The suit, filed last week, claims the minister told the child's parents that Ballenger "just liked little girls," and, "You don't have a case." Ballenger is accused of fondling the girl on June 2, police said. A church worker reportedly witnessed the act and removed the girl from the room, police said.

Esther Combs faces the woman she called mother and asks: 'Why?'

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/combs/ester_evan.htm Esther Combs faces the woman she called mother and asks: 'Why?' by BECKY CAMPBELL

BLOUNTVILLE — A young woman subjected to a lifetime of abuse and enslavement got her chance Tuesday to ask the only mother she’s ever known why she hurt her.

Formerly known as Esther Combs, the 22-year-old woman who goes by a name she chose for herself looked directly at Evangeline Combs before the woman was sentenced for kidnapping and child abuse and delivered a tearful testimony of how the abuse she suffered damaged her.

Evangeline Combs and her husband, former Bristol preacher Joe Combs, were tried and convicted in March for concealing their oldest daughter while never completing an adoption process, and abusing her.

"I just wanted to tell you how much you hurt me because I don’t think you fully understand how much damage you have really done to me, or that it really matters to you. But I have to say this to you face to face," Esther Combs said.

"You really hurt me. You made me feel like I wasn’t anything. Like I didn’t even exist. You took my childhood away. You took my self-respect, my confidence, innocence, joy and trust away from me." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arbustoo (talk • contribs) .

Combs' Case Unusual By ANGELA K. BROWN Associated Press Writer April 9, 2000

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/combs/abuse_case.htm BLOUNTVILLE, Tenn. (AP) Esther Combs was not unlike many unwanted children who fall through the cracks of an overburdened social services system.

But experts say her tenure of torture nearly 20 years was unusual. The 410 scars she accumulated from curling iron burns, baseball bat beatings and other abuse went undetected because she was in the care of a minister and his wife, who used a cloak of religion and home schooling to isolate her.

"Many abused children are invisible to the system until they reach school age, but with home schooling, she had no exposure to teachers," said Kevin Kirkpatrick, spokesman for Prevent Child Abuse America, a Chicago-based nonprofit organization.

Rev. Joseph Combs and his wife, Evangeline Lopez Combs, were convicted last month of taking Esther from an Indiana orphanage when she was a baby, never adopting her and treating her as the family's servant. Combs also had sex with the girl. When sentenced on April 25, Combs faces 144 years in prison; Mrs. Combs, 73 years.

Jack Hyles, runs his church in an authoritarian, almost "cultist," manner.

• This article cites the Robert Summer article that is posted on the page right now, giving creedence on Summer's article's inclusion. Arbustoo 08:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

FUNDAMENTALISTS' HOUSE DISPLAYING WIDENING CRACKS Ed Briggs. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Jul 22, 1989. pg. A-9

Battle lines were drawn in the fundamentalist camp by the May publication of an 11-page expose in the neofundamentalist newspaper, Biblical Evangelist. The furor that developed shows how sour fundamentalist relations have turned, especially among independent Baptists.

The article charges that a leading militant, Jack Hyles, runs his church in an authoritarian, almost "cultist," manner.

Like Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C., Mr. Hyles' mammoth First Baptist Church in Hammond, Ind., Hyles-Anderson College and his yearly Pastors' School are centers for militant pastors. The church claims to have the largest Sunday school in the world.

The article cites more than 100 allegations against Hyles -- all of which he denies. The charges range from his praying to his deceased mother to allowing an "epidemic" of divorces at his church and school.

While the expose, written by editor Robert Sumner, focuses on Mr. Hyles, it also criticizes the militant newspaper, Sword of the Lord, for allowing a staff member's divorce and remarriage.

Funds? No Records? 1989

Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says Hisley, Michael. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: May 28, 1989. pg. 2C3

The Reverend Jack Hyles, a Hammond IL fundamentalist, is facing charges of anti-biblical teachings, financial mismanagement and marital affairs. Hyles contends that he has given "hundreds of thousands" of dollars to needy friends over many years but has kept no records of the transactions. Former associate Victor Nischik has accused Hyles of having an affair with his former wife Jennie. Hyles denies all charges against him.

Adultry

Pastor Denies Adultery, 2 Other Charges Hirsley, Michael. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: May 25, 1989. pg. 11

Reverend Jack Hyles, who has been a pastor of the fundamentalist First Baptist Church of Hammond, denies allegations of adultery, financial mismanagement and anti-biblical teaching. He has been charged on these three counts by former deacon Victor Nischik.

King James

• Hyles, during his latter years, took several extreme positions that were outside of the mainstream of orthodox fundamentalism declaring the King James Version the only valid translation of Scripture,...

The King-James-Only Movement is not an uncommon belief among very conservative fundamentalists, to the best of my knowledge. I don't think we should label it as "extreme". -Will Beback 21:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The note that it is "extreme" should be removed and an explanation about its links to broader fundamentalists belief added. Arbustoo 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I split the difference by calling it an "increasingly extreme" stance, by removing the assertion that it is out of the mainstream of Fundamentalism, and by adding a link to the King-James-Only Movement. -Will Beback 02:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense, Will. "increasingly extreme" is hardly writing in NPV. One man's "extreme" is another man's "normal". What we're trying to do is tone this heated argument down, and labeling his views as "increasingly extreme" or even "extreme" only heats things up. We're supposed to be editing for factual accuracy, not personal opinion. --68.252.176.158 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to improve it. -Will Beback 20:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)