Sunday, October 15, 2006

For everyone's edification

Here's another comment that warrants response in a post, rather than in a comment thread:

I am the anonymous writer who requested that the label anti-Bellevue not be continued.

Pleasure to meet you.

Please don’t take the time to educate me on the English language as I am fairly proficient in this area. You may be a great voice person but I do have a functioning knowledge of our language.

I'm quite flattered, actually. And I'd love to return the compliment, but I know so little about you. However, I don't recall questioning your knowledge of English...

Just for your edification ‘anti’ is a term meaning ‘against or opposed to something’ therefore your use of anti-Bellevue would mean that someone is against or opposed to Bellevue.

You, however, feel free to question mine?

For the record, though, I completely agree with your observation. "Anti" does, indeed, mean "against or opposed to something." Which is why the term is employed (and not just by my own self, mind you) with reference to those associated with the so-called "Saving Bellevue" group.

And that is not the case.

But of course it is. It became the case the day set up shop, and was only accentuated when some affiliated with it began to give interviews to the local media.

Additionally Dr. Rogers’s comments were in the context of a pastor’s style of preaching and leadership. I don’t think anyone who sat under Dr. Rogers believes that he would have approved with the methods being used to stifle and intimidate fellow members.

As I've written more than once, it's the anti-Bellevue cadre that stifles dissenting opinion on their website and blogs (refusing as a rule to print such opinions), pins pejoratives such as "coward" or "Mafia" on those who disagree, and attacks individuals instead of discussing ideas.

Someone, please, show us all a single, documented, factual example of a senior staff member at Bellevue Baptist Church putting the screws to a Bellevue member.

And to save someone the effort: Secondhand information, or information that's your anonymous word against someone else's, doesn't meet the criteria.

My last point to you Mike is that you seem to demean people who don’t post their names.

As I've said before, I'm not sanguine about antagonistic remarks made by people from the shadows of anonymity. This is one of the primary problems with the "Saving Bellevue" group: With the exception of a few, they conduct their unfortunate activity without signing their names.

Some of us may not be in a situation whereby we can post our names due to our position within the church.

If you value your "position within the church" so much that you are unwilling to sign your names to what you write--particularly when it's in opposition to something you believe to be wrong, I really don't know what to tell you.

Except to suggest you might want to re-evaluate your positions, both on this "saving Bellevue" business and within the church.

I recall Dr. Roger’s (sic) asking if a man was in search of the truth or just searching to fortify his stated position. Mike, I ask you directly “Are you seeking the truth or just looking to support the stand which you have taken?”.

And I'll answer directly: Seeking the truth.

I expect to meet this week with a friend and brother in Christ who disagrees with my viewpoint on this issue. If he presents me with facts that change my viewpoint, I will not hesitate to say so. However, I didn't come to my present position via emotion, opinion, half-truth, rumor, or esteem for another individual, but by facts.

And one incontrovertible fact is that the conduct and content at has been divisive, personality-driven, and a vigorous violation of the Biblical template.

Way back when, there was the concept in U.S. politics of the "loyal opposition." Were you an elected federal official who disagreed with the President? By all means, disagree with him--even work to unseat him in the next election. But never, never denigrate him to the United States' enemies, or otherwise work to undermine the country's status in the eyes of the world.

Is this the first time a congregant's disagreed with a pastor? Of course not. Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly common to run "attack ads" against one's pastor, campaigning against him publicly.

And that only serves to undermine the church's status in the eyes of the world.



Anonymous said...

I'll bet you and you significant other have some very intelligent conversations and fights. Are you Bi Polar?

Aaron King said...

It is sad that we Christians spend our time attacking each other and bickering while people, whom God loves dearly, are living their lives without the love of our Savior, and dying without His love as well.

In Christ

Aaron King (psalm 25:4-5)

Mike Bratton said...

Aaron, have a chat with Mr./Ms. 8:36 p.m. Anonymous there, if you would.

And just FYI, I'm not bi-polar, I'm North-Polar: I enjoy cold weather, and wish that every day was Christmas.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for taking the time to expound upon my previous comments. Just for the record I do not associate myself with the faction. But I know that it presents you with a red herring to chase. I am just a person who has found the methodology of how our leadership has handled this situation extremely disappointing. History would reveal to us that Richard Nixon didn’t lose the respect of the American people because of the break-in at the Watergate complex but due to the cover-up which followed. I’ve stated previously that it’s not the “what” of the circumstances but the “how” our church leadership has dealt with this circumstance that is a concern.

John Crockett said it best in the Commercial Appeal when he stated "If there's a good side to this, I'd say that people aren't arguing about theology or morality. This is about policy and procedure and we can fix that." I believe that as members of the church that we can disagree without placing labels, taking condescending tones, or demeaning from the pulpit those of which we disagree. To paraphrase a quote from Dr. Rogers “it doesn’t matter what you or I think to be the truth, the truth is still the truth”.
My personal position is that more hostility is coming from the camp supporting Dr. Gaines leadership in this matter; seemingly without question. I don’t think that either side has done anything which is glorifying to our Lord. The sermon tonight made a point that with sin in our life we are an ineffective witness for our Lord. Certainly we should agree that our public situation has made Bellevue church an ineffective witness sharing the love of Jesus. Especially when we are not showing love for one another, which was Jesus’ commandment for all of us…..even the ones you portray in negative light by calling them anti-Bellevue….brother against brother….we should all be ashamed.

Anonymous said...

You undermine otherwise good points by your stubborn insistence on using the anti-Bellevue label. Many have called on you to stop using it, so you fully realize it is antagonistic. In what possible way is the continued use of that label Christ-honoring? Also, the continued bad behavior of one party does not give license for misbehvior by an opposing party. That is a nonsequitur.

Mike Bratton said...

A few things:

1) There is no sin in calling a spade a gardening implement. When people work to the detriment of a church under the auspices of "saving" it, there is nothing wrong in identifying them as working in opposition to that church--being "anti" the church in question.

2) There is no such thing as a "negative" light. Light may strike an object with an unusual wavelength, at an unflattering angle, or with an uncomfortable intensity (and I just surprised myself with the Baptist-sermon alliteration there), but there is no such thing as negative light. The "negative" of light is the absence of light--darkness. I'm doing nothing "against" any brother, thanks; shining a light on inappropriate behavior in the hope it will change is anything but unloving. What would truly be unloving is to let such behaviors go unquestioned.

3) I've been waiting for the Watergate analogies to pop up. Let me congratulate you on being the first, Mr./Ms. 9:48 p.m Anonymous, to employ one.

4) Which is wrong: Labeling improper behavior as improper, or calling people with whom you disagree "the Mafia"?


Arron said...

i totally agree with the last thing you said... I should have read that before I posted. I don't know whether or not it changes my opinion about the rest, but it's true...
-Arron again...

josh tucker said...

I have question to pose to the ubiquitous group of undecideds. How should Steve Gaines or the administration have handled the matter differently or to your liking?

For the record, in the grand scheme of things, I suppose I actually fall in this category, but I've seen no reason to go after Gaines nor even believe that he's acted suspiciously or from a guilty perspective. I have decided this; Mark Sharpe and Co. have yet to bring anything before the administration, deacons, or the church body worthy of forcing Steve Gaines to hold a business meeting, fact finding session, or moderated debate.

Let me put it another way, since the how is apparently turning into something more important than the what. How should the administration have dealt differently with Mark Sharpe?

Bear in mind two major considerations: 1) the pervasive need to keep the issue within the church (e.g., out of the public sphere); and 2) the lack of demonstrable evidence by Mark Sharpe to support his claims.

How should Steve Gaines deal with unproven allegations of impropriety? Should he respond to every single unproven or unfounded concern regarding Bellevue's finances with an opening of the books if Pastor Gaines sets a precedent with Sharpe?

Are the actions of Pastor Gaines, the administration, and the deacon leadership not consistent with the aforementioned considerations?

While it is unfortunate that some of the communications coming from the deacons and Bro. Phil are coming across as overly hostile, keep in mind that these are individuals acting individually and not as a part of some nebulous whole known as the Administration.

Nevertheless, a large number of declared undecideds are concerned with the manner in which the administration has acted, and, from what I can tell/read, give enough serious weight to Mark Sharpe's allegations that they want Steve Gaines to "open the books", so to speak.

Why should this be?

If individuals are not overly concerned with the what of the circumstances, what is spurring the need for action? Mark Sharpe is all about the what of the circumstances, so why are his allegations being given serious consideration? Mark Sharpe's apparently spurious accusations are prompting a lot of the how in this matter, and this is now the central focus?

Let me ask another question, aside from the fence jumping incident, what has Steve Gaines or anyone else in the administration or deacon leadership done for people to to even think they have behaved unbiblically or even sinned with regard to the handling of the situation with Mark Sharpe?

If you can't say that any of the abovementioned parties have systematically sinned or behaved unbiblically etc., why the cause for concern?

If you do believe this, what specifically are you thinking of?

I believe a lot of the concern with the how delves into areas of personal opinion with regard to conflict management and church roles, and, more importantly, a widespread lack of trust with regard to Steve Gaines.

Instead of asking for evidence on the part of the accuser, we have calls for truth finding. Why? I suspect that for a large number of you, if you are one of those concerned with the how of the circumstances, this has caused your trust of Steve Gaines to be lessened, if it was there in the first place.

I would like to ask one final question. Even if you are concerned, disturbed, or even offended by the how of the circumstances, why is this reason enough to call for a truth finding meeting? Is the reason that there are calls for action there a lack of trust on some level -- a lack of trust in the deacon financial committe, the church's financial office, or the pastorate?

While it is true that there would be some measure of closure or resolve in this matter if Bellevue held a fact finding meeting, I do not believe this to be a wise decision, for several reasons I've outlined before involving primarily issues of confidentiality, security, and precedent.

In closing, I find it interesting that those in Mark Sharpe's camp and a large number of the undecideds are willing to either take Mark at his word or, at least, decide to follow up on his allegations while Steve Gaines' word does not seem to carry the same weight. It seems that the possibility that Mark just might be mistaken is being overlooked, and his allegations are being taken at face value without requiring evidence to back up his claims.

I am not saying that I know with 100% certainty that Mark Sharpe is incorrect because I'm not privy to Bellevue's financials, but without evidence, no one should be supporting what is now turning into his own personal crusade against Steve Gaines.

I have yet to find anyone who is able to provide a compelling reason to give Mark Sharpe's allegations the time of day without resorting to statements of (at the core of their viewpoint) -- "I believe the word of Mark Sharpe" or "I'm gravely concerned with the how of the circumstances", or some amalgam of the two.

Mike Bratton said...

For the anonymous individual who thought it would be a good idea to post the Gremillions' e-mail address: It isn't.

Throwing rocks and hiding one's hand is a bad habit, regardless of the target. And subjecting the Gremillions to the same potential for abuse to which has exposed the Bellevue deacon body is poor form.


Anonymous said...


What did you say to Our Pastor about calling a Man Hezbolah? Or do you only attack people of choice? Can you please give us the short version this time.

Mike Bratton said...

"The short version"?

I'm 6'4" tall--I don't have a "short version" of anything!

And I know this is hard to believe, but I'm not exactly in constant contact with Pastor Gaines. We've conversed once in the Fellowship Hall, and once when I was in a makeup chair. (No jokes.)

Can you, whoever you are, substantiate that "a Man" was called "Hezbollah" on anything other than the word of "a Man"?

And can you, whoever you are, substantiate that I "attack" people of any given viewpoint?


Anonymous said...

On 10/24 when the one sided information was delivered Steve Gaines did not deny this as he denied evrything else and made little of breaking the law. In Gods book not telling the whole truth is a lie or admission. I know you will try to twist this for your agenda but you just need to get with God and not on one side or another. The Holy Spirit will allow you to read between the lines when you are doing Gods will.

Mike Bratton said...

"On 10/24 when the one sided information was delivered Steve Gaines did not deny this as he denied evrything else and made little of breaking the law."

You know, you have a point!

And I also noticed that Pastor Gaines "did not deny" beating his lovely wife Donna to a bloody pulp every night--so it must be true, right?

"In Gods book not telling the whole truth is a lie or admission. I know you will try to twist this for your agenda"

Here's my agenda for today:

-Finish reading a book

-Write paper on aforementioned book

-Bring my children home from school

-Feed them dinner and spend quality time with them

"Twisting" isn't on the agenda for today, nor is it ever. But highlighting the flaws in spurious arguments such as the ones you've advanced, whoever you are, is a different matter. Since it doesn't take long to shine a little light through the holes in such arguments, there's no need to schedule them on my "agenda."

"but you just need to get with God and not on one side or another."

I'm glad you agree with me. I quote myself thusly, and like so: "Honestly, there are no legitimate 'sides' to this business. The idea is that those of us who are Christians are, or should be, on the Lord's side; if we have disputes, then someone (or everyone) involved is out of alignment with God's will for that situation."

It's refreshing to see a point of agreement, isn't it?

"The Holy Spirit will allow you to read between the lines when you are doing Gods will."

To be precise, that's "God's will," singular. And you're correct--He will, and He does.


Anonymous said...


It looks like your blog is upsetting some people. Check out

I think they have referenced you.

rick said...

I've tried to carefully read Mark Sharpe's reasons for asking Pastor Gaines to resign on the saving bellevue site. (Let me say parenthetically that I respect Mark Sharpe and believe him to be a godly man). However, based on what I have read, I see no reason to ask the Pastor to resign.

His reasons as best as I can tell are the following:

1. Dr. Gaines insulted Adrian Rogers when he said he wanted to teach Bellevue to be a praying church with Dr. Rogers in the front row.

2. Dr. Gaines does not preach on Wednesday nights, and Mark thinks this is a foundational requirement for a pastor to do.

3. Dr. Gaines had a dream about a Bellevue member, but denies he had that dream.

4. Dr. Gaines climbed a fence, trespassing in Mark Shapre's neighborhood, and has not apologized to or asked forgiveness from Mark Sharpe.

5. Dr. Gaines used a Bellevue credit card for his personal use, which he denies, and the accounting department at Bellevue will not produce receipts that prove otherwise.

Unless I missed something, which is very possible, I believe these are all the reasons Mark has asked the pastor to resign.

The only thing obvious on this list is the trespasing incident. But Mark said he would have opened the gate for the Pastor had he been there. If one of his relatives climbed over the fence,would he accuse them of trespassing? I digress.

Nevertheless,In my view, I don't think those are sufficient ground for asking for a Pastor's resignation.

The only change I can see the Dr. Gaines has made at Bellevue is that he doesn't sit on the platform.
And I've been a member for over 30 years.

I will admit, Dr. Gaines does not handle situations with the same elegance as Dr. Rogers was able to do. But how can we compare anyone to Dr. Rogers, who I believe was the greatest preacher of his generation.

Anonymous said...

Your arrogance is stunning. Every single word you type seethes with the venom of the Pharisees.

Main Entry: meg·a·lo·ma·nia
Pronunciation: "me-g&-lO-'mA-nE-&, -ny&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

Maybe you should go find your mirror instead of judging everyone else. I realize it is pointless to post on your site because your perspective is so warped by your own self-righteousness and self-deceit. You clearly think you are the only one in the right; you do not care what anyone who disagrees has to say; and any disinterested observer would immediately see that the verbal sparring you take such pride in is the real reason you do this--not any quest for the truth. Your diatribe on "negative light" is a perfect example. There absolutely is such a thing as negative light. Light has three distinct aspects:
- an electrical effect
- a magnetic effect
- gravity
If a light wave has its magnetic effect clockwise to the electrical effect then it is a negative light. But really, that's not even the point. The point is that you take a figure of speech someone uses and turn it into an excuse to hear yourself "speak" (again, since you seem to have a hard time with figurative speech, I am not referring to speech in the literal sense) through your blog.

Mat 6:16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
Mat 6:18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

Maybe you need to get out of the light. God doesn't need your help, as much as you would like to think He does.

Mike Bratton said...

Let me check, Mr./Ms. 9:55 p.m. Anonymous...

Personal attack? Check.

Issue-free? Check.

Throwing rocks from the shadows? Check.

Posting things you'd never say in public? Check.

Thank you for the object lesson, whoever you are.


carolsupporter said...


Don't respond to the 9:55 comment , let it go and drop this Blog . Too much pain and heartache. Things are going to be OK

carolsupporter said...

That was pretty good self control , now let it go. This has got to stop somewhere. Your true brothers and sisters still love you , God loves you and delights in restraint

Take Care Brother

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your self control Mike, and for demonstrating
Proverbs 10:19

"When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tonque is wise"

Anonymous said...


You don't respond to anything. Christ used sarcasm throughout his ministry to make his points. You are the one who makes snide comments (like the negative light) and then doesn't have the guts to admit you are ever wrong. You simply post your face on a website, belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you and then get defensive when someone calls you on it. To use your own words, "There is no sin in calling a spade a gardening implement." It is not a sin to help others see that your motives are not pure, since you spend the vast majority of your time coming up with cute phrases to subtly insult people who post on your site. You and others like you believe that criticism (you call it a personal attack--I call it calling a spade what it is) is a de facto sin. I am not afraid to challenge you because I know you will simply respond to this with some other non-responsive drivel that doesn't answer any question but will prove my point that you have no interest in the truth.

Carol, with all due respect, Mike simply cannot stop. He simply does not have the ability to do so. Please tell me that after reading all the demeaning posts he has written on his site that you realize that by now.

Mike Bratton said...

Mr./Ms. 11:15 p.m. Anonymous, whoever you are, would you mind signing your name to your post?

And leaving an e-mail address?

And quoting what you consider to be a "demeaning post"?

Thanks in advance.


rick said...

There really are some issues out there that I wouldn't mind seeing discussed.

For example:

1. Should a pastor's salary be kept confidential? Why or Why not?

2. Who should decide what a pastor makes in terms of compensation?

3. Some have suggested a pastor be put "on trial" for alleged wrongdoing. Is this a good idea?

4. If a christian doesn't agree with some things going on at their church, should they withhold the tithe?

etc. etc.

ilovebbc said...

In answer to Rick's 11:52 10/16 post:

1. Yes, a pastor's salary, along with the entire church staff's salries, should be kept confidential from one another and the church membership. It creates a better work environment for the entire church staff if exact staff member salaries are not known - any staff member from top to bottom. We never knew what Dr. Rogers made. Why do we need to know what Brother Steve makes? These are our spiritual authorities. If we still don't trust them after months of accusations but no proof being shown by the accusers, we need to go to another church. I can't imagine that any pastor in America would show his paycheck or W2 to anyone just because some former/current employee claims he's making an exhorbitant amount.

2. The same methods that governed establishing salaries while Dr. Rogers was pastor are being used now. It worked then - it's working now. Why should things change? Could it be that whomever on the church staff who "squealed" the confidential info that Brother Steve makes 500K had misinformation or was looking at wrong numbers, looking at a figure that's not actually his annual salary - perhpas his salary plus relocation package or something else? Maybe they saw 300K and thought it was 500K.

3. If the pastor had done something illegal, it could be handled through legal means but Mr. Sharpe hasn't chosen to pursue that route. He's chosen to have this endless public trial of men who've already admitted the fence climbing was a mistake. Unless Mr. Sharpe has absolute documentation of wrongdoing, it should have never gone this far just on the basis of "what if", "I think you might have done this so prove to us that you didn't". If he's got hard proof of anything, he had ample time/opportunity to present it before involving the entire church body. If he couldn't arrange a meeting with anyone, he could have mailed copoies of receipts, expense reports, paycheck stubs - whatever - to Chuck Taylor or all the deacons for that matter. If all he's got is allegations, it should have never come this far.

Speaking of expense reports, folks, surely you don't think that Dr. Rogers and his wife and the Sorrells and other staff members and their wives didn't take guest speakers out to nice restaurants for a meal as guests of our church. We never knew the amounts of those expense reports, church credit card purchases, why do we need to know it now? The church employee who is passing that info on to others should be fired.

4. I think if a Christian doesn't agree with some things going on at church and it gets to the point where you consider withholding the tithe, it's time to find another church.

Please don't argue my opinions. Just post your own.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
rick said...

Any comments on the lastest statement from the SavingBellevue website?
That statement seems to be totally taken out of context, and a misrepresentation of what Pastor Gaines meant.

john 16:33 said...

i pretty much agree with rick on the 4 questions.

ilovebbc said...

Anonymous at 10:36 a.m. responds to my answers to Rick's questions by telling the entire free world what Jamie and Brother Steve make. I was just stating my opinions to the questions Rick posed in his earlier post. I didn't ask or want to know anybody's salary. I merely said that whatever they make, I think it should be kept confidential. I never knew what Dr. Rogers made - I don't need to know now. Anonymous responds by telling me what they make and saying "drop it". That's what is so frustrating about attempting to post anything on any of these blogs. Nobody seems interested in having a civil discussion without being rude and insulting. It's very sad to see that Christians can't disagree without being so mean-spirited toward one another. I'm not referring to being mean-spirited toward me. I'm referring about mean-spirited toward Jamie and Brother Steve. Anonymous could have just replied that he thinks there salaries should be known. If anonymous knows what they make, it's very wrong to make the figures known without their permission.

Mike Bratton said...

No doubt the Anonymous Accountant (now that would be an interesting superhero to see in the comics, don't you agree?) is not giving accurate salary figures; had I thought so, I would have nixed the post.


Anonymous said...

Hi Mike,

You may be correct about the Anonymous Accountant's figures, but how do you know?

Because none of us knows for sure what the pastor and music leader earn, instead of tossing around those figures as truth, or discounting them as false, perhaps there needs to be a discussion on the appropriate level of pastor and music leader pay.

One question I ponder is if there is adequate justification for a senior pastor to earn several hundred percent more than other similarly educated and experienced ministers on staff. Again, I don't know that is the case in our church, but I believe it is.

Mike Bratton said...

Excellent observation regarding the bandying about of hypothetical salary figures.

I have toasted the comment.

And it could be that salaries are determined not just by education and experience, but by responsibility.


carolsupporter said...


I think it does not matter what they make , God looks at how we spend what we make. That is who you are accoutable to for the figures

Anonymous said...

I think it does not matter what they make , God looks at how we spend what we make. That is who you are accoutable to for the figures carolsupporter posted

Actually it does matter what they make, they are accountable to the membership that tithe. I am sure that if you found out that the average staff member received one million dollars per year you'd have another opinion on this. No they don't receive a million dollar but the point is that everyone needs accountability from others not just from God.

rick said...

Are they accountable to the membership, or rather to just God himself? Or are you saying both? Remember Jesus said the local church is HIS church, and Saul of Taursus was persecuting "HIM"

rick said...

Just another question for discussion, if anyone cares to discuss:

5. Under what circumstances should a believer "go public" when he/she has learned of an alleged wrongdoing in a church?

rick said...

Salaries should be determined by education, experience, responsibility,
and also, realistically, ability, right?

Anonymous said...

Entry Word: Demeaning
Function: adjective
Text: intended to make a person or thing seem of little importance or value

So, Mike, what exactly was the purpose of your (incorrect) diatribe on "negative light", if it wasn't to demean the author? I have collected a number of your comments with the intention of putting them into the proper context and pointing out the many instances of your arrogance. It isn't a personal attack, but a reality of who you are ("Only with a real sadness can such a viewpoint be identified not as a desire to save Bellevue, but as anti-Bellevue. Pardon me for getting personal, but I'm sick of seeing it." Oh, sorry, didn't mean to point out a personal attack of your own. I guess the shoe only fits a 6'4" "nothing short about it" foot.)

Seriously, Mike, you still never responded to anyting I posted, anonymous or not. You seem to have no problem responding to grammatical or spelling about responding to someone's anonymous responses without being so selective about which anonymous posters you deem worthy to respond to?

Wait, another profound quote worth mentioning: "As a Christian, I have a guiding principle for any type of performance I do. It's found in Ephesians 4:29, and it reads like this: "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."

"In a nutshell, I make it a point not to do anything on the air that doesn't, in some way, lift up the person watching or listening. If that sounds odd to you, we probably won't work well together; however, if that's the way you work, we should talk."

Wow! I feel so edified by all the gracious comments you have posted on your blog. Praise the Lord!

By the way, I have sent you my email address to you directly at your gmail account.

You are welcome in advance.

Anonymous said...



(1) Allegations (and you did use the word "alleged") are worth about the as much as intentions... nothing.

(2) 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 is an excellent passage on going public with grievances.


Anonymous said...

On several blogs, it has been said that since the "what" (the "ends") is so minor, that the "how" (the "means") is irrelevant.

That is situational ethics.

Mike Bratton said...

No, that would not exactly fall into that category. Were situational ethics being employed in the example you cite, the what (ends) would justify the how (means).

Do you agree there's a difference?


Anonymous said...


God bless you. Peace be with you. You are very creative in your responses and I expect to me out classed when you respond to me. I surrender ahead of time and will not respond in kind to anything you throw at me. I am here defenesless and ready to accept any criticism you make of me whether I agree with it or not. This is Your blog, and I will not be a bad anonymous guest here.

Yes, I stand corrected (4:29 pm) on the 5:09pm application of ends and means.

But bear with me on the situation ethics line.

Are situation ethics an error of the heart or of the mind? What Would Adrian Say?

Now, the climbing over the fence was a means to an end of reconciliation.

If the fence climbing stood by itself in isolation, then it would be an error of the mind.

But in fact it was a means to an end of reconciliation. It was not an isolated incident.

It was part of situation ethics.


But everyone is mad about the "how" of the cover up. Let's examine that.

The cover up, if it stood alone, could be dismissed as much ado over nothing. But the cover up does NOT stand alone. It is a means to an end: making the pastor, pastorate, and church have the best possible public image.

Again: situation ethics.

What was the answer to the first question? Is situation ethics a mistake of the mind or of the heart?

Respectfully submitted to my brother in Christ from an admirer.