Condolences and joy... and disappointment
This morning, it was announced that Rev. Jerry Falwell has passed away. As I heard and read the media reports surrounding his passing, they reminded me of anecdotes Pastor Rogers used to share about Rev. Falwell, and how those stories gave depth and substance to a Christian who was too often pilloried by the secular press (both liberal/mainstream and conservative) for having the temerity to suggest that those of us who are Christians in the United States are actually allowed to express political opinions and preferences.
Both Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church will now pass into a difficult period, mourning the loss of such a charismatic leader as they remember his work to spread the Gospel and influence the culture. The brothers and sisters in Christ of Liberty and Thomas Road are in need of our prayers; please remember them, and pray that God the Holy Spirit will comfort their hearts, reminding them that Rev. Falwell is even now face-to-face with our Lord. As you read this, he is experiencing a joy that all of us who name the name of Christ will one day know... and probably getting pointers from Pastor Rogers on the fine points of kicking up gold dust on the streets of Heaven.
--Mike
EDITED TO ADD SOMETHING THAT HIT ME SQUARELY IN THE FACE: Perhaps I'm more optimistic than I should be, but I am shocked to read what is being written regarding the homegoing of Rev. Falwell. Clearinghouses for the venom are here and here; see what you think about what is being said--and see if the style of rhetoric rings any bells.
190 comments:
Some people are just sick, huh Mike?
Because I'm not as well read as you, could you tell me where this comes from - who are you saying the rhetoric sounds like?
Thanks!
karen
Oh, Karen, you are so silly ...
Methinks we know just what little coner of cyberspace Mr. Bratton has in mind ...
Two "yes" votes.
Thanks.
--Mike
Make it 3.
Mike,
Did you have to follow up the lovely things you wrote about Rev Falwell with a swipe at NBBCOF?
As much as you go on about how hateful NASS' blog is, that link posted, along with your comment was below the belt. And don't tell me that's not what you intended to do. I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid.
Pot meet Kettle.
amy,
as the NBBCOFers so frequently mention, something is not wrong to say, or mean, or inappropriate... so long as it is true or presumed to be true.
I vote yes as well- so just call it a taste of their own medicine.
Amy said...
Mike,
Did you have to follow up the lovely things you wrote about Rev Falwell with a swipe at NBBCOF?
No, I didn't have to. I was prompted to.
As much as you go on about how hateful NASS' blog is,
Do I go on? Well, my apologies--my wife's good about giving me a nudge in the ribs when I go on in a face-to-face group setting. However, she hasn't give me "the nudge" about my online observations.
Yet. :)
that link posted, along with your comment was below the belt.
In what way? Nass and your Forum friends have historically attempted to mischaracterize me as a liar and a bully, among other bits of I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I nonsense, but I'm operating "below the belt"?
No, ma'am.
Why is it bad to pray they just might be convicted about how much their invective resembles that used by anti-Christians against Rev. Falwell?
Or is it all right to call Pastor Gaines a "head demon," but not to call Rev. Falwell a "son of Satan"?
And don't tell me that's not what you intended to do. I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid.
I wouldn't suggest you're either.
Pot meet Kettle.
No sale, Amy. When I make it a habit to attack people rather than discuss viewpoint, you can make that reference again, and with validity.
But while we're talking, could I get your vote? Do you, or do you not, notice any similarities between the Closed Forum talking points regarding Pastor Gaines and the verbiage coming from non-Christians about Rev. Falwell?
Here, let me help. Tell me which of the following quotes are from non-Christians regarding Jerry Falwell, and which are from the Closed Forum regarding Steve Gaines. Ready? (And no fair Googling!)
1) A conscious charlatan and bully and fraud
2) A man of unbearable hate
3) The only time he preaches is when he is on TV or the radio
4) He's prepared his flock to usher in the Antichrist
5) He has to face the totality of his evil
6) He's an abusive criminal
7) He's a cult leader
And isn't it disappointing that the comparisons between the Closed Forum and sites like Democratic Underground and The Huffington Post can even be made?
--Mike
Mike,
I am guessing all the comments that you listed were from NBBCOF Blog. Am I right?
NNBCOF is a blog with a lot wounded people who haven't been treated with a lot of respect by Steve Gaines and Co. They also have been mocked and taunted by Steve supporters as well.
That being said, I also believe there have been many times posters on NBBCOF have been mean, and inappropriate, to folks who don't agree with them. That isn't right either. But, there is a lot of support and love and it is a healing place for some.
Why you don't get my vote is there is a big difference between the two blogs. . The only thing this Falwell did to justify their comments was take a moral stance. On the anti J.F blog- and I only looked at the first page-no one had been treated unfairly by J.F, they probably never even had an encounter of any kind with him. Steve Gaines’ actions have hurt a lot of people on NASS’ blog, and shamed BBC- even if the IDC time line isn't 100% correct.
So, I will admit people have spoken out to sharply and wound up hurting other Christians who disagreed with them, and didn’t deserve it. That's not right, but it's also not what defines the whole blog.
Amy said...
Mike,
I am guessing all the comments that you listed were from NBBCOF Blog. Am I right?
No, and I won't leave you (or anyone else) in suspense. Quotes 1, 2, 5, and 6 are from sites such as Democratic Underground and The Huffington Post, and were made regarding the late Rev. Falwell.
Sobering that you couldn't tell the difference, isn't it?
NNBCOF is a blog with a lot wounded people who haven't been treated with a lot of respect by Steve Gaines and Co. They also have been mocked and taunted by Steve supporters as well.
So wounding, mockery and taunts are sufficient justification to call Pastor Gaines the "head demon" and such?
What about when members of the Closed Forum are the perpetrators of the wounding, the mockery, and the taunts? Is their bad behavior justification for what's supposedly been sent their way?
That being said, I also believe there have been many times posters on NBBCOF have been mean, and inappropriate, to folks who don't agree with them. That isn't right either. But, there is a lot of support and love and it is a healing place for some.
Are you suggesting that instances of support, love and healing are justification for disproportionate amounts of, well, meanness and inappropriateness?
Are you suggesting that just because you enjoy one another's company (anonymous or otherwise) that it's fine and well to wage attacks on those who aren't part of the group?
Why you don't get my vote is there is a big difference between the two blogs. . The only thing this Falwell did to justify their comments was take a moral stance. On the anti J.F blog- and I only looked at the first page-no one had been treated unfairly by J.F, they probably never even had an encounter of any kind with him. Steve Gaines’ actions have hurt a lot of people on NASS’ blog, and shamed BBC- even if the IDC time line isn't 100% correct.
Then I would encourage you, Amy, to look deeper than one page. There are all sorts of imagined wrongs attributed to the late Rev. Falwell by those who wish to justify their sins. Let me quote thusly, and like so:
--Falwell pumped "anti-Semitic innuendoes into American politics, along with his friends [Pat] Robertson and [Billy] Graham."
--Over his long career as a vile televangelist building an empire of bigotry from the donations of poor people, Falwell has supported South African apartheid, called AIDS an invention of Jesus to punish gays, attacked Martin Luther King and U.S. civil rights, and blamed 9/11 on feminists and homosexuals.
--I wouldn’t ordinarily speak ill of the dead so soon after death. But Jerry Fallwell was happy to blame gays and women for 9/11 within days of the attack, so I’m feeling little compunction on this. The world is better off without Jerry Falwell. He was a hatemonger and a bigot, the symbol of an era that will soon be passed. Fifty years from now he’ll be remembered as a Father Coughlin–a hateful, spiteful man too focused on the motes in his brothers’ eyes to see the redwood in his own.
There's your "unfair treatment."
So, I will admit people have spoken out to sharply and wound up hurting other Christians who disagreed with them, and didn’t deserve it. That's not right, but it's also not what defines the whole blog.
Thank you.
My point exactly.
So can you explain, Amy, why the bile and the venom and the gossip and the lies and the death wishes are not only tolerated there, but celebrated?
--Mike
Mike,
I never said people are justified to verbally attack others. I was just pointing out the differences between the two blogs.
I didn't look past page one on the anti-Falwell blog because it was all hate filled, and I don't want to read that. I wasn't defending the words on the anti- Falwell blog, and I wouldn't defend any inappropriate behavior anywhere else.
People are responsible for their own words. Re-read my post- I don't justify their behavior at all- just trying to explain where all this passion and anger may be coming from.
The irony of Bratton's pique with NBBCOF, is that this blog's very existence seemingly has no purpose beyond the scrutiny of that forum.
The breakdown of Bellevue in the aftermath of poor and downright foolish behavior by leadership is a devastating circumstance for the congregation, no matter which side of the chasm they're on. Open forums prove that some people are as incapable in expressing themselves with clarity as others are in keeping emotions in check. That truth is as real here as it is over at NASS's, even if Bratton won't admit it.
No, I won't seek to disavow every foolish thing uttered by a fellow blogger, nor will I disqualify cogent content and other benefits derived from these forums. Doing so is tantamount to shucking the whole Bratton Report because a Buddhist posts regularly here.
I would not taint you with my beliefs, but I let my arguments speak for themselves. Yet I am generally only worthy of ad hominem (but not from you, Bratton). The beauty is, even so, the words stand, wise or not; and sidestepping commutes likewise. Let's not be afraid of words--debate is still the most civil form of conflict resolution.
To bad leadership didn't anticipate the need--or outright opposed it--thus keeping it within Bellevue's walls. But that they didn't is not surprising.
In any open forum, people must be responsible for their own words, but when it comes to folks who won't, don't be so quick to throw out the baby with the bath water.
David,
Even in high school debate, opponents are not allowed to denigrate each other on a personal basis. Their sparring must maintain at least some semblance of simple civility and they must stick to the topic, or the question; otherwise, there is no point in registering for the match.
Many years ago, my debate partner and I, who were a force to be reckoned with in these here parts, thought we were "mighty funny" when we would set up for competitive rounds with our briefcases, textbooks, and file drawers of references, our huge artpads which we used for flow sheets to follow arguments, and then topped off the display with a picture of a huge orangutan with the caption, "When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you." All it would have taken is one weak round and one astute judge with acid in his pen to make us stop ... but we were legendary and we had an audience, so we kept on for nearly an entire year of competition.
Am I proud of that? No. I hope I've grown up since then.
The issues jointly addressed by this blog and the "other" one are important issues for our church. But they do get clouded when things get personal, or when the bullies take the pulpit against someone who disagrees with them. And the fact that most (not you, Karen, or a few others) do so under the "protection" of anonymity seems not to bring out the best in them.
Ah, 'tis the nature of modern debate and blogging.
Also, I must beg to differ with you about the existence of Mike's blog. After all, we've addressed lots of issues over here, not the least of which is the procuring of car tags in Alabama and who is the greatest singer of all time (and I don't mean Celine Dion).
You're not talking about Celine Dion? It must be Barry Manilow then, right?
Cary,
Barry Manilow would probably be in the running for one of my favorite songwriters of the '70s-'80s, but best singer? Uh ... no.
Although I did go see him years ago at the Coliseum and sat in the cheap seats with a cast on a broken leg. Going up wasn't so bad, but coming down scared the wheezles out of me. So I suppose he is a good enough singer that he was worth risking my life when I young and foolish.
Miriam
"Also, I must beg to differ with you about the existence of Mike's blog. After all, we've addressed lots of issues over here, not the least of which is the procuring of car tags in Alabama and who is the greatest singer of all time..."
Oh, pity this weak counter.
Lovecakes, long time! I read your post here and over at NBBCOF. I detect a change in tone!! I think I am in agreement with both posts. What's amazing is I think I understand both. It would be great if you posted your post from The Other Side over here for discussion...about the "struggle for the soul of the Southern Baptist creed" and the "didactic approach to FAITH". You are on to something there man.
One question....what is "PD, NA, CP, ADHD, AT&T, STP,"? I recognize a few but not sure they make sense to me.
How are you by the way?
No Bugsii, I still think you folks over here are full of crap, but pretty nice for the most part.
That was a joke, hey!
Apologies for not responding sooner, folks...
lovecakes said...
...
The irony of Bratton's pique with NBBCOF, is that this blog's very existence seemingly has no purpose beyond the scrutiny of that forum.
"Pique" is hardly the word to use in describing my concerns for the people who populate the hypocritically-named "Open Forum," "Saving Bellevue," and "Integrity Does Count" sites. I'm not angry or outraged; because I love them, I am concerned that they do damage to themselves through the attitudes they indulge and disseminate.
I write about what I want to write about, actually. If this blog is the only way to effectively communicate my concerns for their spiritual health, then I will use it. As my daughter observed to me last night, "If you didn't love me, you wouldn't care what I did--right, Daddy?"
To bad leadership didn't anticipate the need--or outright opposed it--thus keeping it within Bellevue's walls. But that they didn't is not surprising.
This may shock you, but over the years of being a regular part of Bellevue, I've had more than a few objections about things that have gone on there. Because it is un-Biblical, it wouldn't have crossed my mind to publish my objections, particularly when it's so simple (even at a church of Bellevue's size) to voice my objections to the person or people who could do something about it.
Often, they were resolved satisfactorily--but sometimes, they were not. Was that my cue to crank up anti-Bellevue websites, give television and newspaper interviews, and otherwise do my dead-level best to defame the people who dared to disagree with me?
Of course not. Such responses are unbecoming to those of us who are Christians.
maybejustmaybe said...
...
The issues jointly addressed by this blog and the "other" one are important issues for our church. But they do get clouded when things get personal, or when the bullies take the pulpit against someone who disagrees with them. And the fact that most (not you, Karen, or a few others) do so under the "protection" of anonymity seems not to bring out the best in them.
Anonymity is not always a bad thing.
Using anonymity to try and hurt people you disagree with is, always, a bad thing.
Also, I must beg to differ with you about the existence of Mike's blog. After all, we've addressed lots of issues over here, not the least of which is the procuring of car tags in Alabama and who is the greatest singer of all time (and I don't mean Celine Dion).
Actually, I have my car tags--and when I went back with the original "parchment," they were very helpful; I even got the special "God Bless America" tag.
You'd be surprised how highly I rank Celine Dion (and Barry Manilow)--in the top ten, but below folks like Lisa Parker and Dale Shipley. Elvis, however, is far and away the best singer in the modern era.
lovecakes said...
That was a joke, hey!
Which we will attribute to the lateness of the hour in which you made it. :)
And would you do me the favor of changing your accompanying photo? I hate to ask, but...
--Mike
Sorry Bratton,
You understand, this is not the only circle on the internets that I tip-toe through, so the Nazi Ghoul pertains to another segment of the community that thinks I'm a tool of Satan, i.e. an art critic.
Anyways, I'll change it, but lighten up, hey. You'll probably hate the icon that replaces it anyway.
Thank you for your thoughtful and measured reply. However, the fundamental flaw of your comparison is one of gravity and scope:
"Often, they were resolved satisfactorily--but sometimes, they were not. Was that my cue to crank up anti-Bellevue websites, give television and newspaper interviews, and otherwise do my dead-level best to defame the people who dared to disagree with me?"
Y'all love inserting that general purpose "disagree with," instead of stating the disagreement specifically--that the sex scandal has not been handled openly and honestly; that there has been no accountability commensurate to the gravity of the mistakes (awe, did padre apologize after he got caught? I'm shocked.) by a bunch of overpaid suits.
That, it seems, is y'alls irreconcilable difference--you guys don't really appreciate the gravity of this situation, its broader context with other churches, other denominations, faiths, the message sent by this tact by the leadership--directed obviously towards circling the wagons and eliminating dissent more than honest-to-God reconciliation--to survivors of childhood sexual abuse. What about your beloved witness you Christians always crow about?
This is not one individual's gripe against another as in your comparison. It is an issue foisted upon the entire congregation by the bad choices of a few that should know better, and expecting that there would be no acknowledgement between individuals deeply invested in Bellevue is ridiculous. If the leadership saw fit to ignore such a vacuum, then they (nor you)cannot rightly belly-ache about what fills it.
Both NBBCOF and this, the anti-NBBCOF, as well as Saving Bellevue and IDC are such outlets.
lovecakes said...
Sorry Bratton,
You understand, this is not the only circle on the internets that I tip-toe through, so the Nazi Ghoul pertains to another segment of the community that thinks I'm a tool of Satan, i.e. an art critic.
I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but "art critic" must be one of the more groovy jobs in the world.
And I'm glad to see you went the self-portrait route instead. :)
Thank you for your thoughtful and measured reply. However, the fundamental flaw of your comparison is one of gravity and scope:
"Often, they were resolved satisfactorily--but sometimes, they were not. Was that my cue to crank up anti-Bellevue websites, give television and newspaper interviews, and otherwise do my dead-level best to defame the people who dared to disagree with me?"
Y'all love inserting that general purpose "disagree with," instead of stating the disagreement specifically--that the sex scandal has not been handled openly and honestly; that there has been no accountability commensurate to the gravity of the mistakes (awe, did padre apologize after he got caught? I'm shocked.) by a bunch of overpaid suits.
All right, let's discuss it specifically. Again.
Seventeen years ago, a member of the ministerial staff raped his son over a period of roughly eighteen months. Quoting myself thusly and like so, "A crime has been committed, and innocent people have been injured in ways I simply cannot comprehend. If you use this crime as a jumping-off point to make specious accusations against anyone in leadership at Bellevue, you run the risk of being known as an opportunist, someone who is inured to the pain of others, yet glad to use it as another weapon in your arsenal."
It's ridiculous that it even has to be parsed, but Mr. Williams didn't (as far as we know) physically assault or abuse anyone outside his own family, and wasn't (as far as we know) physically assaulting or abusing anyone in the present day.
Did I approve of the way it was handled when events at church were coming to light? No, not entirely. Again, quoting myself thusly and like so: "We've seen a gaggle of Communication Committee meetings that produce precious little communication and much more in the way of hard feelings, meetings hosted by staff and lay leadership as prone to dismiss or demean questions, in too many cases, as they were to address them head-on. We've seen pronouncements from the pulpit by various individuals that do not stand up to close examination. And now we've seen, unfortunately, felonious activity that does not (from the available evidence) appear to have been addressed swiftly and decisively."
There was no "harboring a pedophile," to borrow that lurid and inaccurate phrase. From all I've been able to gather, Pastor Gaines was working to minister to Mr. Williams; had events played out without the glare of Klieg lights, Mr. Williams would no doubt have been removed from ministry.
And before anyone forgets, those of us who are Christians have a responsibility to minister to perpetrators as well as to victims; before someone disagrees, first define for me just what it is that a prison ministry does.
Had I been in Pastor Gaines' position, would I have allowed Mr. Williams to remain on staff after I found out what had happened? I don't believe so, but then again, none of us was in Pastor Gaines' place at that time, so it is only speculative to say what we would or would not have done.
That, it seems, is y'alls irreconcilable difference--you guys don't really appreciate the gravity of this situation, its broader context with other churches, other denominations, faiths, the message sent by this tact by the leadership--directed obviously towards circling the wagons and eliminating dissent more than honest-to-God reconciliation--to survivors of childhood sexual abuse. What about your beloved witness you Christians always crow about?
To "crow" indicates bragging, and I've never met a fellow Christian of any significant degree of maturity who "crowed" about his or her witness.
There is no broader context beyond this: A minister committed a crime, hid it, and his sin (as Scripture says) eventually found him out. It's neither the first nor the last time, unfortunately, that such things have happened.
Many, if not most, of the anti-Bellevue group have become "professionals" in the art of nay-saying; reconciliation would endanger their profession, and cause them to be "out of a job," so to speak, so please don't presume to insist that it's solely Bellevue's fault that the contrarians aren't satisfied.
Some folks have a vested interest in a lack of reconciliation.
They own failure.
This is not one individual's gripe against another as in your comparison. It is an issue foisted upon the entire congregation by the bad choices of a few that should know better, and expecting that there would be no acknowledgement between individuals deeply invested in Bellevue is ridiculous. If the leadership saw fit to ignore such a vacuum, then they (nor you)cannot rightly belly-ache about what fills it.
Let me correct you again. I'm not, nor have I ever been, "belly-aching" about much of anything surrounding what's been transpiring at Bellevue.
Also--since I didn't get into the nature of my "gripes," you have no idea whether or not they were against one individual, a small cluster of folks, a large cluster of folks, or the church as a whole. Attempting to extrapolate when you don't have sufficient information to do so is never a good idea.
Both NBBCOF and this, the anti-NBBCOF, as well as Saving Bellevue and IDC are such outlets.
No, sorry, but playing semantics is beneath you. Were I "anti-Closed Forum," or "anti-Saving Bellevue," or "anti-Integrity Does Count," I'd say that those were apostate groups.
I'd say their members were all non-Christians.
I'd say that anyone who followed their lead was a Nazi.
Or a robot, or a drone, or had "drunk the Kool-Aid."
Or I'd say they were demons, following the directives of Satan.
Since I don't for a picosecond believe any of that, I never would say it. Since I want the best for everyone associated with those groups, I pray for them, encourage them when they do right things, and warn them when they do wrong things.
Perhaps you should ask them why they say all those things, repeatedly, about people who don't agree with them?
--Mike
lovecakes said ...
That, it seems, is y'alls irreconcilable difference--you guys don't really appreciate the gravity of this situation, its broader context with other churches, other denominations, faiths, the message sent by this tact by the leadership--directed obviously towards circling the wagons and eliminating dissent more than honest-to-God reconciliation--to survivors of childhood sexual abuse. What about your beloved witness you Christians always crow about?
This is not one individual's gripe against another as in your comparison. It is an issue foisted upon the entire congregation by the bad choices of a few that should know better, and expecting that there would be no acknowledgement between individuals deeply invested in Bellevue is ridiculous. If the leadership saw fit to ignore such a vacuum, then they (nor you)cannot rightly belly-ache about what fills it.
Wow, amazing insight for a Boo-dist! But seriously, that is so very well said. The correctness of your assessment is all the more evident after reading Mr. Bratton's reply, which picked at certain phrases but didn't address the meat of what you said.
If the leadership saw fit to ignore such a vacuum, then they (nor you)cannot rightly belly-ache about what fills it.
As stated (provided 'belly-ache' means disagree with), I don't believe this is a Christian statement. The apostle Paul instructed the Phillipians to 'do everything without arguing or complaining', and they were enduring a far worse situation than we are.
Cakes is exactly right about what happened at Bellevue, but what followed was not an appropriated Christian response in any way, shape, or form. There is always a right way and a wrong way to do things. Jesus didn't complain as he carried the cross along the Via Dolorosa, and he didn't argue that since Pilate freed Barrabas, the Roman governor didn't have the authority to crucify him.
Of course, such a statement would quickly be condemned on the NBBCOF as "so you're saying we should do everything Gaines says! Therefore we reject you and everything you say!" That's not what I'm saying, and I'd encourage anyone who reads my statement that way to study the book of Phillipians.
As far as not addressing the meat of the issue, don't get me started. Here we have a pastor who climbs fences after dark, utters questionable statement from the pulpit, calls godly men like Shell Berry and Ray Saba 'Sanballat and Tobias', and refuses to handle a sex scandal. So how should we tackle this problem? Of course! "It's all Rick Warren's fault! It's the PD, Emergent, Seeker-friendly, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah etc...
"The SBC is in decline! That explains everything perfectly!!!
"He said the fence was itty-bitty! He said the fence was itty-bitty! I heard him, well, actually I didn't, but I heard that he said the fence was itty-bitty!"
GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it too much to ask that we stay focused on the issues? PLEASE?????
I don't know who Lin/Lindon/Lydia/Esther/Dorcas/etc is, or imaresistor, don, or watchman either. But I do know that they have done an admirable job of distracting the NBBCOF from the real question of our pastor's integrity and onto conspiracy theory. I must conclude that they are huge fans of Steve Gaines, possibly members of BBC leadership. It was brilliant to divert the attention from his mistakes and onto all that, um, stuff.
Absolutely brilliant.
Brother Cakes,
Ditto what Junk said about your post.
Mike saidThere was no "harboring a pedophile," to borrow that lurid and inaccurate phrase. From all I've been able to gather, Pastor Gaines was working to minister to Mr. Williams; had events played out without the glare of Klieg lights, Mr. Williams would no doubt have been removed from ministry.
Mike,
Please share with us what facts you have gathered that lead you to believe that Steve Gaines was ministering to Paul Williams? Gaines admitted in the report released by BBC he wasn’t even sure of P.W duties and responsibilities. He wasn’t even sure Biblically what to do, much less motivated to find out. With out “the glare of Klieg lights” PW would still have a job at BBC.
If Steve Gaines (and the two other staff members that knew- and should be fired as well, IMO) weren’t harboring a pedophile, then whatwould you call it? They knew he raped a child, and kept his secret. Raping a child=pedophile. Haboring=sheltering.
There is a reason for all behavior (psych. 101). I have wonder what Steve Gaines’ reason was for sweeping that under the rug.
I also meant to respond to this:
none of us was in Pastor Gaines' place at that time, so it is only speculative to say what we would or would not have done.
I know what I would have done-fired him on the spot. I wouldn’t take a risk with any child. The second PW molested his son that boy’s childhood was over. It makes me sick to think of the nights that child laid in his own bed, scared to death. The outsides didn’t match the insides in that household and I can’t imagine how a child survives that kind of abuse and trauma.
Now before you start in on “ministering to perps”, you can minister to an un-employed perp just as easily. Probably the best way to minister to PW would be to explain your Biblical obligations in obedience to God’s word and fire him. I would have prayed and made myself available to help in any way I could to help his family heal going forward. I would have even thrown in paying for a professional help.
I would have called an attorney and found out what the law is as far as reporting a confession of a sexual crime against a child who was now an adult.
That’s what I would have done- because I like to sleep nights.
"The correctness of your assessment is all the more evident after reading Mr. Bratton's reply, which picked at certain phrases but didn't address the meat of what you said."
That's Bratton's way.
Here's a question...
Regarding the behavior of some of those who post on the NBBCOF: right or wrong? Justified or unjustified?
According to our Bible, what offenses give us license to sin? What offenses are so great that they excuse us from obeying God's word?
If SG 'harbored' a pedophile, does that mean we have permission to work alongside the devil? Or should we let our light shine before me, so that they will see and glorify God in heaven?
Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Sin is not free. In my limited understanding, that includes the sins we commit today. Our transgressions in 2007 add to his suffering in 33 A.D.
I ask again: what excuse do we have to sin?
"harboring a pedophile" is a very inaccurate term- to someone who doesn't know the full story it implies that SG knew he was CURRENTLY involved in the molestation of a child and did nothing about it.
Does that make it better? no.
But it does make that phrase inflammatory- I hear them so often talking about not following your emotions and only going to the scriptures, but we have to balance that. You can't have it both ways- they are relying on an emotional response to the horrors of sexual abuse to persuade others over to their way of thinking.
Each situation is different, and I think for SG the motivator in his decision to stay quiet was that the victim was old enough to make the reporting decision for himself. And the best way to keep the privacy for this family was to allow PW to continue for the time being until things calmed down and then allow him to resign later when it would not come under such intense scrutiny. This is just my opinion but I am basing it in some situations I have faced in my own life.
I worked at a school for years and three times we dealt with suspected abuse. Once was plain and simple, and there was clear cut, immediate danger to the child and it was reported within hours of being brought to our attention. The second time was pretty clear but no one was sure what to do because it was not a typical situation (we knew the mother was picking up her child under the influence). The third time was more like a case of those little hairs on the back of your neck tingling when a child does something or says something or a parent behaves in a certain way.
You just never really know if you will have enough confidence in your intuition to potentially ruin someone's life. Everyone thinks it is a no-brainer until they are there in the moment.
Poor folks.
Slur 'em when you don't agree with 'em, rather than, oh, say, engage in discussion? Is that really what it comes down to?
Or could someone be bothered to ask a follow-up question? What "meat" am I not discussing that needs to be discussed?
--Mike
P.S.: I have noticed that the question-mark key on every computer keyboard I've owned seems to wear unusually quickly. Wonder why that is?
Good post, Solomon. I'll admit, I once called someone a pathetic crybaby on the Closed Forum. I thought it was justified because I have been called Satan's right-hand man, among many other hateful things. Compared to a demon, a crybaby is nothing, right?
Well, not really. It was wrong on my part and I now realize it. I was thinking like a 5-year old when I called them crybabies. And I think that's the same mentality that many of the posters have there now. They feel wronged so they think it's fine to wrong others in return...which is...well, wrong.
Mike,
Slur 'em when you don't agree with 'em, rather than, oh, say, engage in discussion?
Mike,
I asked you a question above and didn't get a response. Here it is:
Please share with us what facts you have gathered that lead you to believe that Steve Gaines was ministering to Paul Williams?
Discuss.
Be Patient,
I agree I didn't know what the legal obligations are of reporting a crime committed against a child who is now an adult. And, Gaines may have assumed the counselor working with the family had done so.
You just never really know if you will have enough confidence in your intuition to potentially ruin someone's life.
I do know from working as an ER nurse you are obligated to call Child Protective Services anytime you believed a child was at risk i.e broken femur on an infant, intoxicated parent with child, child says he broke his arm falling off swing and has bruises up and down sides of his torso as well, etc...Child services does a confidential investigation, they don't take any corrective action based on your concerns, but on their findings.
However, in SG's case there were no allegations- it was presented as a fact by the person who admitted sexually violating his child.
I hear them so often talking about not following your emotions and only going to the scriptures, but we have to balance that. You can't have it both ways- they are relying on an emotional response to the horrors of sexual abuse to persuade others over to their way of thinking.
I think you can have it both ways. Nobody is replacing, or adding to, Scripture with emotional responses. It makes me sad that “their way of thinking”- a pastor that let a confessed pedophile continue in a leadership position in the church without consequences – has to be justified, and that if the Word of God isn’t convicting people, maybe they don’t understand the gravity of what PW did, or that Steve Gaines didn’t seem to concerned about the welfare of BBC’s children. This is a sin that is covered by the blood when confessed and repented. However, it still has consequences.
Night,Night.
Check out my profile and go to my blog for my views. (some of my views are rejected by NBBCOF)
My belief in total depravity moves me to see Adrian Rogers and Steve Gaines without one being esteemed over the other. Up close we see them as different individuals with different personalities. One with smooth edges and the other jagged . God does not see them as we see them. They are both equally, sinners saved by grace. Both have filthy rags for righteousness in God's sight. Neither fame nor adulation we may heap on each will not affect the way Christ evaluates them. So I don't esteem one over the other.
My personal observation and reasonable deduction is that given the same circumstances Dr. Rogers would have done the same thing as Dr. Gaines with concealing the pedophile for the six months. Dr. Rogers would have donated the $25,000 to to the downtown church. Only difference is that no one would have raised an issue with Dr. Rogers and with Dr. Gaines everyone seems to be looking for sin.
Amy,
I think you hit the nail on the head when you started the list of automatic injuries that require you to call. It takes no thought- you just pick up the phone and call.
But there are areas where it is harder, like I said, the kind of situations where you just get a little voice inside even though it is hard to pinpoint what it is that makes you uncomfortable. That is a hard situation, and you really do not know how you would react until you are there.
I think had PW come and said 'I am molesting my son every night' there would have been not one moment of hesitation on the part of SG or anyone else- he would have picked up that phone before he did anything else.
But seeing as the victim was an adult, who previously had confidence in this man not to repeat his actions and was clearly capable of reporting this if he chose that path, I can see where one might hesitate, esp. if you are interested in maintaining the privacy of the victim.
I have more to say about the whole "feelings and emotions" thing- but it boils down to either or- you can't say ignore your feelings and base things solely on scripture and then turn around and rely on your feelings (or the feelings of others) when it suits you. I think emotion has a place in us, I am not the one who said we should never ever rely on them or listen to them.
and Watching,
I do think that using Dr. Rogers as a measuring stick for Steve Gaines is a dangerous path and unbiblical.
I won't say I think they would have made the same decisions, but I do think that people would be quick to justify one and condemn the other if they were to take the same actions.
bepatient said:
"I do think that using Dr. Rogers as a measuring stick for Steve Gaines is a dangerous path and unbiblical."
I know that the measuring stick for Steve Gaines and Adrian Rogers says that the best of our righteousness is as filthy rags in God's sight.
Mike Bratton said...
Slur 'em when you don't agree with 'em, rather than, oh, say, engage in discussion? Is that really what it comes down to?
I'm not sure if you are meaning to indicate you felt you were slurred by my statement to Lovecakes, but it sounds that way from the context. If you felt slurred, I apoligize...certainly wasn't my intent. I was remarking on your response and how it seemed to miss the main point of Lovecakes post while responding to selected peripheral phrases. I don't see how my expressing that opinion constitutes any sort of personal denigration. Maybe you were talking about someone else's remarks when you said "slur"; if so, nevermind this paragraph.
Or could someone be bothered to ask a follow-up question? What "meat" am I not discussing that needs to be discussed?
I have considered going back and parsing Lovecakes statement and your response to show where you missed responding to his main point. But I don't think it would do any good to go into great detail; so rather than muddy the waters in that way, I will try to summarize what I took him to say and what I took your response to say.
Lovecakes says, "The PW issue is bigger than just his sin and keeping it secret ... what he did and, even more, how it was handled impacts many individuals, the congregation, other churches, other faiths."
Bratton says, "Nuh huh, it was just one dude who sinned and eventually got caught."
The former was an eloquent and well argued statement of the importance of the situation, the latter was a dismissal of that statement without counter argument or reasoned consideration of the main point. Mike, perhaps you chose not to debate the issue but instead just register your disagreement. If so, that's fine ... but, as I said, it wasn't dealing with the "meat".
All righty, then.
I'm not being specific enough? Cool. Then here are some specifics no anti-Bellevuer addresses:
1) Mr. Williams' crime, while heinous, was not systemic, according to the best available information. He wasn't part of a secret child-rapist group at Bellevue or in the Southern Baptist Convention, he never assaulted anyone outside his own family, and he never assaulted anyone by using the auspices of his position at church.
It is sickening that it is necessary to qualify Mr. Williams' obscenity, but the fact that it was limited in scope is something that gets ground beneath the wheels when the anti-Bellevue movement is looking for traction.
2) Mr. Williams' crime was in the past tense. As far as anyone knows, he was not an active pedophile, so the phrase "harboring a pedophile" is as accurate as describing anyone in a church body by his or her most egregious sin.
I believe that Mr. Williams was being ministered to (and moved out of ministry) because that's what I've been told by people whose words carry far more weight than do people who work anonymously.
3) In no way can it be considered "elegant" to magnify a bad situation beyond its reach in the service of an antagonistic movement. It is opportunistic, but it is not elegant.
4) Observing how God esteems both Pastor Rogers and Pastor Gaines is accurate, to a degree. As both men have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, both men are viewed by God not through the lens of self-righteousness, but through the righteousness of Christ.
And not to engage in self-aggrandizement, but rather to provide context, I knew Adrian Rogers reasonably well--as a pastor, as a boss, and as a friend. Would he have handled the Williams situation and the First United Methodist situation in the same way Pastor Gaines did? I believe it's entirely possible, but it is ultimately a moot point.
5) The "in other words" debate tactic is rarely profitable, since it is generally used to mischaracterize rather than to synopsize. If you're trying to get to the essence of a debate position, editorializing does nothing to facilitate your effort.
And I haven't said "Nuh huh" since I was a young boy, some 80 or 90 years ago. :)
--Mike
Be Patient,
My post from last night (written when I was very sleepy) didn't articulate my point very well. I think we agree on Steve Gaines and the legal issue of reporting PW's crime. I do think SG was wrong in not firing PW immediately, however.
What I really confused myself on when I re-read my post was what I said about feelings and scripture. Feelings and actions should be measured against God’s word. I have to really go into the Word when I am conflicted because I can make myself feel like what I want is God’s will. Rationalizing and denying are my two biggest powers! However, God’s word never changes, regardless of how I feel, or can spin a situation. That being said, Biblically, the way Steve Gaines handled PW was wrong. I am sure SG loved PW and felt like he wasn’t a threat to children anymore. However, SG wasn’t obedient to God’s word re: characteristics of a pastor, rebuking another believer, etc…
In this case angry feelings are justified, because God’s word wasn’t obeyed.
Much better, Mike! Not that I agree with all you said, but it gives more to work with if I decide to respond. Or maybe Lovecakes will do so ... he'd do a better job than me.
5) The "in other words" debate tactic is rarely profitable, since it is generally used to mischaracterize rather than to synopsize. If you're trying to get to the essence of a debate position, editorializing does nothing to facilitate your effort.
I have no idea what you said. It rewminds me of the sermons preached by Rogers and Gaines against Calvinism. "Mischaracterizations"
Were you a lawyer for Rogers?
Amy said...
In this case angry feelings are justified, because God’s word wasn’t obeyed.
Amy,
This is something I struggle with a lot, and I'd appreciate your thoughts. The scripture says that anger is not forbidden, but to be slow to anger.
Is anger always an appropriate response when God's word is disobeyed? Should it be the first response if it is appropriate? And even if it is justified (that is, God gives a green light to get mad) is it preferable?
I see plenty of examples of outrage in the Bible when God was disobeyed, but there are also examples of mourning, fasting, weeping, and confessing the sins of others.
Anger is unquestionably an attribute of God, but I often wonder why so many Christians strive to attain and demonstrate this attribute over others.
WatchingHISstory said...
5) The "in other words" debate tactic is rarely profitable, since it is generally used to mischaracterize rather than to synopsize. If you're trying to get to the essence of a debate position, editorializing does nothing to facilitate your effort.
I have no idea what you said. It rewminds me of the sermons preached by Rogers and Gaines against Calvinism. "Mischaracterizations"
Were you a lawyer for Rogers?
No, a producer--but my family always suggested I'd make a good attorney...
Let me go over what I said, and see if I can do a better job of making my point. Quoting myself thusly, and like so:
The "in other words" debate tactic is rarely profitable,
There is a tactic in argumentation and debate referred to by the nickname of the "in other words" tactic. It is a way of taking someone else's assertions and presuming to distill them, yet restating them in an unflattering (or inaccurate) way.
since it is generally used to mischaracterize rather than to synopsize.
Generally, but not always. If you're looking to understand what someone else has said, restating what you think you heard (or read) can help move the discussion along with clarity and focus.
If you're trying to get to the essence of a debate position, editorializing does nothing to facilitate your effort.
Talking with people is always better than talking at them.
With regard to Calvinism, it is as incomplete as Arminianism.
And thanks for the compliment. I hope my clarification helped.
--Mike
solomon said...
Amy said...
In this case angry feelings are justified, because God’s word wasn’t obeyed.
Amy,
This is something I struggle with a lot, and I'd appreciate your thoughts. The scripture says that anger is not forbidden, but to be slow to anger.
Is anger always an appropriate response when God's word is disobeyed? Should it be the first response if it is appropriate? And even if it is justified (that is, God gives a green light to get mad) is it preferable?
I see plenty of examples of outrage in the Bible when God was disobeyed, but there are also examples of mourning, fasting, weeping, and confessing the sins of others.
Anger is unquestionably an attribute of God, but I often wonder why so many Christians strive to attain and demonstrate this attribute over others.
The Scriptural commendation is to be angry, yet not commit sin as a result. Those who presume to hold legitimate anger against Pastor Gaines have, as a rule, not demonstrated that skill.
Unfortunately.
--Mike
By the way, I didn't know a picture was floating around of me that was taken when the lights were out.
:)
--Mike
Solomon,
Sol saidAnger is unquestionably an attribute of God, but I often wonder why so many Christians strive to attain and demonstrate this attribute over others.
First, let me preface, being angry doesn’t give you the right to take it out on others. (That’s for you Mike!).
I think the reason people are angry over the PW situation, as well as the other grievances toward leadership, is they feel helpless. They are hurt by the condescending, arrogant, and cavalier manner in which Steve Gaines Co. leads BBC. It’s hard to forgive people, when those people don’t feel they need to be forgiven. It’s also hard to replace anger with a different attribute when you feel powerless to change a situation that is breaking your heart.
I truly hope that meeting in July is an effort towards accountability and transparency and some changes are made before it is to late for that wonderful church, and before Satan changes anger into chronic bitterness.
Mike Bratton said: "I hope my clarification helped."
Not a bit!
I'm not that smart. I am not a communicator. I just say what I think JMO
Steve Gaines inherited the awful mess Adrian Rogers left him.
While AR wasn't perfect, all the "mess" can't be dumped on him any more than SG. Take a church that has a solid history of "keeping thing quiet" and providing info on a "need to know" basis and add in a guy who is new to his job and tends to shoot from the hip (not to mention a whole lot of people who are sensitive and hurt over losing their pastor)and you have a recipe for chaos.....
You can't dump it in the lap of any one man.
On a side note, I have noticed something about the music...
Now perhaps some would blame in on the fact that many who didn't care for the blended service (or Jamie or whatever) have left but when SG breaks out into sporadic hymns and ask us to sing along, I look around and there are usually only a handful of people who seem to know enough to sing along. I am a traditional hymn kind of girl and sometimes I am racking my brain just to recall the first verse of some of the hymns he pulls out.
SG is like a walking hymnal which makes all the PD hysteria even more bewildering.
bp,
I've noticed that about the hymns as well. Every time SG breaks out the Martin and sings at any meeting whatsoever, it's always old hymns straight out of the old Baptist hymnal (NOT the celebration hymnal, either).
Do you think he was sincere when he said (since the old hymns are his preference) that we should sing the 'praise choruses' so that we could worship in the same service as our children?
sol,
I do believe he was sincere.
And I don't mind the praise choruses too much- but honestly, I would rather we just sing the same songs the kids are singing. I think the little kids would be thrilled for everyone to sing 'Jesus loves me' and bring it to their level. And teenagers generally like the praise choruses so I do think they have a role to play in worship.
Corporate worship is just that- corporate. I do want a worship service that we can all enjoy (and that includes all of us that love the old stuff). If SG keeps pulling out those old hymns to sing along to, I will be happy to read the words off the screen to some song I have never heard before.
And hopefully, people will start learning the words to those old hymns if he keeps it up long enough and I will start to love some of those songs off the screen!
Amy said...
Solomon,
Sol saidAnger is unquestionably an attribute of God, but I often wonder why so many Christians strive to attain and demonstrate this attribute over others.
First, let me preface, being angry doesn’t give you the right to take it out on others. (That’s for you Mike!).
Gracias, Amy!
WatchingHISstory said...
Mike Bratton said: "I hope my clarification helped."
Not a bit!
I'm not that smart.
If I may suggest, try cutting and pasting what I wrote to Microsoft Word, then set your spell-check options to include readability statistics. Run what I wrote through Word's spell-check, and pay particular attention to the Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level statistic.
I'm confident that you're smarter than you let on. :)
I am not a communicator. I just say what I think JMO
Opinions are tenuous currency. And when you use them, you should make sure you label them as such, particularly when they're not very supportable...
Steve Gaines inherited the awful mess Adrian Rogers left him.
...such as that statement.
Pastor Rogers did not leave Pastor Gaines an "awful mess," he left him a tailored suit. For better or worse, Bellevue was tailored over the years to the unique, God-given characteristics of Adrian Rogers. It will take time for that same situation to be similarly tailored to the unique, God-given characteristics of Steve Gaines.
--Mike
Be Patient and Sol,
I have an opinion about the music based on my own experience, and I know you both are anxious to hear it!
Sol said Do you think he was sincere when he said (since the old hymns are his preference) that we should sing the 'praise choruses' so that we could worship in the same service as our children?
Do the kids have a different service?
I love the old hymns, they are very comforting to me since I grew up singing out of the Baptist Hymnal. We go to the contemporary service at GBC. The music was great when they started it (around 9 yrs ago), but then it got too loud (and I grew up on Led Zeppelin!) and more like a concert. By then, everyone was happy in SS, so we just stayed, and sometimes would stay out in the foyer and visit until the music was almost over. It was an adjustment to me to read words from the screen. It reminded me of singing at Shakey's Pizza when I was a kid and following the bouncing ball (anyone else that old? No, well O.K). Plus, I have always loved the choir.
Anyway, my 14 year old daughter and I went to her friend's Grandmother's funeral a while back. It was at the funeral home, so there weren't hymnals. We sang a few standards: Just as I am, Because He Lives, etc... And my daughter said, "How do you know the words to all these songs?" That made me really sad she didn't know them. IMO these songs are timeless. Our music has really toned down quite a bit in the contemporary service, it is beautiful and worshipful- stuff everyone can sing along with. They are going to blend the two services as our choir grows and I think that is a great approach.
"The electric guitar is Satan's harp!" (quote from my grandmother, circa 1978)
AMY!
I LOVED SHAKEY'S PIZZA!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, does that bring back the memories.
Anyway, Bellevue doesn't have 2 different worship services per se, although the youth have their own gathering. When SG came, he said he was moving us from 'traditional' to 'blended' worship, but we already were singing the 'praise choruses' before that. Really the only difference was that the drums got louder and the praise team moved to a more prominent position on the platform (and that actually happened before SG came, curiously). We don't have any electric guitars, and to be honest I'd prefer that it stay that way.
I have mixed feelings about not singing from the hymnals. There's no question that people sing louder when they are looking up at the screen, but I much prefer to sing from the music.
I heard about the music getting louder at GBC way back when. That was part of the 'transitioning' strategy, clearly. However, I honestly don't see that at Bellevue. I see lots of other issues, but not that.
Shakey's was the best!
We went to the one just north of Summer Avenue--they had a great jukebox, if my failing memory serves, and the pizza was better than anything you can buy today.
Speaking of electric guitars, one of the churches we've been visiting down here has a penchant for the wailing electric guitar solo in the middle of the special music.
And it's pretty cool--because it's done in a worshipful manner.
--Mike
I remember that Shakey's. It was right by the Market Basket. I think the building is still there.
My family lived in Parkway Village, so we went to the one on Perkins near the expressway (that was before American Way was there). Seriously, you can't get pizza that good any more. :-(
I'd like to hear the wailing guitar, btw.
Sol, I know what you mean about the hymnals but I do think it is easier for the masses to read it off the screen. I truly think anyone who thinks that we headed into a contemporary service is just imagining things- SGs passion is clearly for the old-timey and Jamie is not really a rock and roll guy so I don't think that is a very valid concern.
I can take or leave the praise team, they don't really bother me but I wouldn't cry if they weren't there either. I think sometimes people in the congregation think they are "off the hook" for singing along when the praise team is singing.
I do think the style of the music should fit the "style" of the church and I think right now it does a pretty decent job of balancing it.
BBC has always been very buttoned up and traditional and that does not appeal to a huge segment of the population- I think the "feel" of the church is like everyone took a deep breath and relaxed a little. Our traditional roots are still there in plain sight but people are letting their hair down just a little.
Hey big brother...about Shakey's - I don't remember going to the one near Summer, I just remember going to the Shakey's that was where the Mall of Memphis was. I believe I had my 10th birthday there. Did I invite you? :-)
When I was little we went to Pizza Inn on Saturday nights and then years later once my husband and I were married we found out that his family was at the same Pizza Inn on Saturday nights...
My mom remembers going to Shakey's every Wednesday night after church when she was a kid. She loved that place!
solomon,
I knew I liked you - my husband grew up in Parkway Village too so I have a penchant for "thugs"! :)
Mike, Did you get my emails? I called Derrick directly and got my answer.
karen
As for pizza preference, I'm a Raleigh girl so it Waldo Pepper's every Friday after football games!
And I worked at Morrow's Nut House (keep your comments to yourself - it was a candy store!) in the Mall of Murder, I mean Memphis when I was a jr. in high school.
karen
Shakey's ... yeah!!!
As for singing from the screen versus singing from hymnals ... not only do most of us sing louder when singing from the screen (because our voices are directed upward instead of down toward the book), but there seems to be less of a disconnect between the words and the worshipper. If you watch closely when the cameras pan the crowd during the song service, it seems to me that 1) most everyone is usually singing (this was not always true when we all used hymnals, and it is true for all the different types of music we sing -- traditional or contemporary, young and not-so-young worshippers alike), and 2) the expressions on their faces as they sing reflect the truths expressed in the words coming from their lips. Not that these actions are required for true worship -- but I see more smiles, more eyes closed, and in general more of an overall expression of a connection with the Lord while singing. I know I feel it ... does anyone else?
So here's an idea ... the hymnals are still in the pew racks, and I would think it would be fairly easy to either announce hymn numbers verbally or publish them in the order of service in the bulletin for those who have that preference. I wonder if there could also be a supplement published, perhaps in a loose-leaf notebook-style, containing the praise and worship songs that are not in the hymnal. The church could make a subscription available through the music office or the bookstore and new hymns could be sent to subscribers as they are added to our "collection," if you will. I don't know if this would be covered under our church's current licensing arrangements, but if not, it might be easily added. Then those who wish to sing from a printed copy could bring theirs with them to services. This would need to include music as well as lyrics to serve the purpose. I can see that this would be of benefit to those like Keith who like to sing from a book as well as those who might be mildly visually impaired and cannot see the screen (I've heard this comment made from some older folks, as well as from some who sit near the back or in the balcony). It might also help children who are just learning some of these songs.
What do you all think? Do you think this is a worthwhile idea to pass along to Jamie? Just storming off the top of my brain, and that can get dangerous sometimes ...
michelle mann said...
Hey big brother...about Shakey's - I don't remember going to the one near Summer, I just remember going to the Shakey's that was where the Mall of Memphis was. I believe I had my 10th birthday there. Did I invite you? :-)
Shakey's near Summer (was it on Old Summer?) was when you were a tot, and before you were born. I'm thinking I was at that birthday party, right?
solomon said...
I remember that Shakey's. It was right by the Market Basket. I think the building is still there.
My family lived in Parkway Village, so we went to the one on Perkins near the expressway (that was before American Way was there). Seriously, you can't get pizza that good any more. :-(
I'd like to hear the wailing guitar, btw.
We lived not too far from the first Shakey's, then moved across 240 from Parkway Village.
And anytime you're in Birmingham, we can all go visit that church.
Karen said...
solomon,
I knew I liked you - my husband grew up in Parkway Village too so I have a penchant for "thugs"! :)
Mike, Did you get my emails? I called Derrick directly and got my answer.
Got two from you yesterday, but nothing today so far.
Direct communcation is always a good thing. Tell your other friends. :)
--Mike
Mike said...
I'm thinking I was at that birthday party, right?
Amy asks: But did you bring a birthday present to her party?
maybejustmaybe said...
...
What do you all think? Do you think this is a worthwhile idea to pass along to Jamie? Just storming off the top of my brain, and that can get dangerous sometimes ...
I've already passed it along.
Thanks.
--Mike
Amy said...
Mike said...
I'm thinking I was at that birthday party, right?
Amy asks: But did you bring a birthday present to her party?
My presence was the present for my adoring little sister!
Ahem...
--Mike
MJM,
I think something like that would be a great idea, even if it was just individual pages they sold (perhaps in packets) that fit into a three ring binder (perhaps like the one for the notes?) They may not be able to charge for them- I don't know how all that works, but I do think they should be free to all the seniors or those with impaired vision.
For the record-
My Shakeys was in New Orleans, on the West Bank, by Westwood theater on Terrytown Parkway!
Also, I don't mind singing looking at the screen, it was just kind of weird at first. Plus, if I don't know the song, it helps to see the music so you won't embarrass your self and sign the notes wrong. I sing loudly and badly!
Also are any of you anxiously awaiting Wednesday so you can see Lost? It is like Christmas is coming I am so excited!
But also a little sad because then I will have to wait until Feb. 2008 for it to come back!
Karen,
Did you like the marriage seminar?
"Shakey's near Summer (was it on Old Summer?) It was adjacent to the Market Basket, a little east of old summer. I think it is a cantina now.
amy,
To be honest, I didn't. I was uncomfortable with the "seeker sensitive" comments made by the guy with Gary Smalley. I did get a free book though - it's the one from the infomercial that I watched as a teenager. We didn't attend on Saturday. We just didn't get anything out of it - except the book and an autograph.
karen
You're all wrong....the only Shakey's that existed was at Poplar and Bellvedere in Midtown. Next to the first Taco Bell I ever experienced. I remember hanging out with friends(bunch of punks) at Shakey's and eating burritos in the parking lot. It was kind of like the first food court atmosphere...Steak and Eggs(or whatever that place was called) on one corner, Peter Pan's Market and Joe's Liquor store on a corner, Shakey's and Taco Bell side by side on another corner. There was a topless club down one of the side streets that used to kind of freak us out(very dark) even as heathens. I lived 2 blocks from that whole setup and it was the place to be on Friday/Saturday night. Man, those were the days. I'm pretty sure we're the reason Shakey's closed down.
Now, what were we talking about....oh yeah, Bellevue and hymns. Sorry
Cantina...best real Mexican restaurant in Memphis.
Is it lunchtime yet?
My mistake....not Cantina....Taqueiria is the best.
I do prefer hymns and contemporary songs in worship.
Best Hamburgers in Memphis...
My vote goes to D'Bos. Yum Yum!!
Mike said:
"Pastor Rogers did not leave Pastor Gaines an "awful mess," he left him a tailored suit. For better or worse, Bellevue was tailored over the years to the unique, God-given characteristics of Adrian Rogers. It will take time for that same situation to be similarly tailored to the unique, God-given characteristics of Steve Gaines."
I was talking to a well-known SBC pastor about Bellevue's situation and my illustration to him which he liked very much was that Dr. Rogers built a delicate and ornate china shop.
Dr. Rogers could navigate through it with ease and sophistication and not distrub anything however Dr. Gaines is a bull in that china shop and whatever he does, right or wrong, china gets broken every where.
Hopefully this illustration does not exalt one above the other.
Your illustration however points out a possible weakness in Bellevue. It should not be tailored to the characteristics of Rogers nor Gaines but to the tailored garments of Christ's righteousness. Christ should be exalted above Gaines or Rogers. Christ is the one building His Church.
You said: Opinions are tenuous currency. And when you use them, you should make sure you label them as such, particularly when they're not very supportable...
WHS said: Steve Gaines inherited the awful mess Adrian Rogers left him.
...such as that statement.
My opinions about Rogers are from heaven and not my own. Check out my source.
Karen,
Yeah, all that purpose driven stuff
in the handouts put me off, however, I tried to have an open mind, because my experience with PDC was especially rotten, and they weren't there to talk about church changes.
What I didn't like was how they kept pimpimg all the books. Everyone in the Smalley family: wife,children, inlaws - even the 10 year old grandson, had published books that were for sale in the foyer! and I got tired of hearing about that.
We stayed for about an hour Saturday, then left.
Analogies always have breaking points. Obviously, I was referring to the pastoral responsibilities at Bellevue, as was your highly-regarded friend.
And yes, it is your opinion that Bellevue's current overall status is that of an "awful mess." The Biblical fact is that all things work together for good to those who love God, who are the called according to His purpose. The Biblical fact is that what human beings may intend for evil, God intends for good. The Biblical fact is that for of Him, and to Him, and through Him are all things, to Whom be the glory forever.
Amen. :)
--Mike
Mike
Is there a possibility the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, is trying to tell us something that is contradictory to what we may believe the Bible is saying?
Are we so sure we understand the Bible that whatever the Holy Spirit is telling us has to be in agreement with what we interpret the Bible to be saying?
WHS...in what way is the Holy Spirit contradicting what WE think the Bible says???
bug
I'm just asking a general question?
Yes or no
Mike said...
The Biblical fact is that what human beings may intend for evil, God intends for good. The Biblical fact is that for of Him, and to Him, and through Him are all things, to Whom be the glory forever.
Mike,
That's just about the best thing I've seen anyone say on your blog.
Amen and amen!
Whatever Sol,
You know finding out Mike loved Celine Dion was the best thing you have ever seen on this blog....
YES...an individual can interpret and misundertand scripture and the Holy Spirit can show that person that their understanding is wrong.
If I perceive the Holy Spirit is showing me something that contradicts what I think I understand scripture to say, then I must go back to God, the Word, with the Holy Spirit and ask for understanding...which I would say would be the goal of the Holy Spirit doing that.
As a matter of fact you reminded me of an interesting story. Read Acts 10:9-43. Peter had no idea what the dream about animals meant, the Spirit told him to GO, he went and the Spirit revealed to him his error in calling any man "common or unclean" when he arrived at Cornelius' house.
"You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
Peter was learning the new covenant!
I don't think the Holy Spirit would call us to act immediately on something we genuinely see as contradictory to scripture. "for whatever is not from faith is sin". Romans 14:23
bugsii
I have been pondering Acts 10 for the last several months. Cornelius's household included women who did not understand the Jew's caution against women speaking out, especially while a man is speaking.
Knowing how men are basically insensitive when it comes to spontaniety, when the Holy Ghost fell on all of them it had to have been a women to have first responded. She spoke and then others followed and Peter's wonderful sermon was divinely interupted. It was a ten verse sermon cut short by a woman.
When God moves he chooses to use the weaker elements, those that seem feeble and those we think are less honorable.
We are not told that a woman spoke first but the one who fell that day speaks to us today and could the Holy Spirit be telling me something?
WatchingHISstory said...
Mike
Is there a possibility the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, is trying to tell us something that is contradictory to what we may believe the Bible is saying?
Are we so sure we understand the Bible that whatever the Holy Spirit is telling us has to be in agreement with what we interpret the Bible to be saying?
A word from God never is at odds with the written Word of God.
And God the Holy Spirit should be directing a Christian's examination of the Bible in the first place.
"What we may believe the Bible is saying" or "what we interpret the Bible to be saying" are methodologies which have no place in real, substantive Bible study. Predilections and opinions have no place in handling God's Word.
Knowing how men are basically insensitive when it comes to spontaniety, when the Holy Ghost fell on all of them it had to have been a women to have first responded.
Neither do stereotypical extrapolations.
solomon said...
Mike said...
The Biblical fact is that what human beings may intend for evil, God intends for good. The Biblical fact is that for of Him, and to Him, and through Him are all things, to Whom be the glory forever.
Mike,
That's just about the best thing I've seen anyone say on your blog.
Amen and amen!
Much obliged, and I praise God for your kind words.
bepatient said...
Whatever Sol,
You know finding out Mike loved Celine Dion was the best thing you have ever seen on this blog....
When you're 6'4" and happily married to a wonderful woman, as I am, you can voice your opinion on things like that.
--Mike
WHS...
Paragraph 1 and 2 - Your opinion
Paragraph 3 - not always(ex: Paul)
Paragraph 4 - YES
What do you think the Holy Spirit is telling you?
If you would like, you can email me so that we don't fill Mike's blog with dots and tittles. Email is in my profile.
Mike
"What we may believe the Bible is saying" or "what we interpret the Bible to be saying" are methodologies which have no place in real, substantive Bible study. Predilections and opinions have no place in handling God's Word.
A word from God never is at odds with the written Word of God.
And God the Holy Spirit should be directing a Christian's examination of the Bible in the first place.
What is God the Holy Spirit saying to us in this verse?
1 Corinthians 13:10 (King James Version)
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
WatchingHISstory said...
Mike
"What we may believe the Bible is saying" or "what we interpret the Bible to be saying" are methodologies which have no place in real, substantive Bible study. Predilections and opinions have no place in handling God's Word.
A word from God never is at odds with the written Word of God.
And God the Holy Spirit should be directing a Christian's examination of the Bible in the first place.
What is God the Holy Spirit saying to us in this verse?
1 Corinthians 13:10 (King James Version)
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Probably not a lot, if you're looking at one verse in and of itself. God did not, in giving us Scripture, give us individual verses attached to one another with bobby pins and baling wire. Scripture verses reside in context, and must be handled with their context in mind.
Now if you want to talk about 1 Corinthians 13 as a whole, for example, that's a different matter entirely.
--Mike
What is God the Holy spirit saying to us in the context in which this verse resides?
bugsii
Paragraph 1 and 2 - my opinions
Paragraph 3 - always(ex: Paul)
Paragraph 4 - YES
WatchingHISstory said...
What is God the Holy spirit saying to us in the context in which this verse resides?
That we are incomplete in this life.
Why do you ask?
--Mike
Mike
I was trying to trick you but you would not fall for it. Most people think that this verse supports the view that the cannonization of scripture is the perfection that has come and we are not in need of the prophets of I Cor. 14:29,30. That view is methodologies which have no place in real, substantive Bible study. Predilections and opinions have no place in handling God's Word.
You have seen the light of the error of dispensationalism and I thought that you would have taken the bait.
I underestimated you.
Question:
Did the whole attacj thing ever really happen?
I have not heard any confirmation or denial thatiot happened?
Memphis,
I've been looking into this very carefully. Obviously, since I've been a critic of the pastor's mistakes (although a supporter of his ministry) I'm concerned for my family's safety if there is so much anger that someone might have actually been attacked.
This is what I know. Don Lumley said that after the attack the 'SCPD' was alerted, and that an ambulance was called. Assuming that by SCPD he meant the Sheriff's departent instead of the Memphis Police, then the assault must have happened outside of the Memphis city limits and not on church property. The 'other blog' mentioned that it might have happened at a restaurant.
A friend of mine is a paramedic, and I asked him if there was an ambulance dispatched to the Appling Rd./64 area (which is technically still outside the city). He couldn't find a record of a call to that area on Tuesday. That doesn't mean there wasn't a call, just that there wasn't a record of one.
Long story short, at present the story is still hearsay.
Keith
WatchingHISstory said...
Mike
I was trying to trick you but you would not fall for it. Most people think that this verse supports the view that the cannonization of scripture is the perfection that has come and we are not in need of the prophets of I Cor. 14:29,30.
Then I am out of touch, since I wasn't aware it was used by anyone in such a way.
I underestimated you.
And I appreciate your candor, but I must ask that in the future you be more straightforward in any discussion you'd like to have. Attempting to trick those with whom you chat is generally unproductive.
solomon said...
Memphis,
I've been looking into this very carefully. Obviously, since I've been a critic of the pastor's mistakes (although a supporter of his ministry) I'm concerned for my family's safety if there is so much anger that someone might have actually been attacked.
This is what I know. Don Lumley said that after the attack the 'SCPD' was alerted, and that an ambulance was called. Assuming that by SCPD he meant the Sheriff's departent instead of the Memphis Police, then the assault must have happened outside of the Memphis city limits and not on church property. The 'other blog' mentioned that it might have happened at a restaurant.
A friend of mine is a paramedic, and I asked him if there was an ambulance dispatched to the Appling Rd./64 area (which is technically still outside the city). He couldn't find a record of a call to that area on Tuesday. That doesn't mean there wasn't a call, just that there wasn't a record of one.
Long story short, at present the story is still hearsay.
A rumor was circulated about the alleged assailant--it was a lie.
The only "fact" submitted so far regarding the supposed attack was that it is said to have occurred at 1:36 in the afternoon.
If there are more facts, why have they not been publicized? So far, we have only gossip, rumors, and lies. And I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I'm getting tired of that being pretty much all the Closed Forum/Savaging Bellevue/Integrity Does Count, But Only For Other People nexus has to offer.
Either put up, folks, or hush.
--Mike
Thanks for the reply, and let me apologize for my typing skills.
I am starting to belive that the attack did not happen as well and if it did, it was pretty much dropped altogether on the other blog, which is quite amazing in its own self. I do not know Don Lumley and and I presume he is real, but not many I have talked to seem to know him.
Mike & Memphis,
I'm inclined to agree that the event described is dubious if for no other reason than Jim Haywood would have been all over it. Along with the complete lack of evidence I can't accept it as factual. I'm guessing that someone got yelled at somewhere and the story dramaticized (if that's a word).
What I've been wondering is, if it was a complete fabrication what kind of person would do something like that? This was not an attack on SG, it was aimed squarely at Bellevue Baptist Church.
Sol, I believe that is/was an attempt at getting the "two sides" going at each other once again.
I saddens me if this is true, but I am starting to belive that is the case.
After visiting 'over there' this morning, I think you're right, memphis. It seems to have been a rousing success.
Things had actually cooled off over the last few weeks, in my opinion. I won't even grace the current 'topic' of 'discussion' with an opinion.
It does seem ... odd ... that the events have not been verified after such a huge announcement. And that nothing has hit the media about this ... not one word.
Mike
"Then I am out of touch, since I wasn't aware it was used by anyone in such a way."
Are you kidding me? It is a view taken out of the Scofield reference Bible footnotes on page- 1224 1909 Edition
You appreciate my candor and I appreciate your lectures! Seems we have a basis for communication. I think you would like me if we met in real life.
I still can't help but wonder what would make someone attack a church. Anger at God, maybe? Surely if he was angry with specific men he wouldn't take it out on Bellevue.
I also wonder about the trolls over there who intentionally stir up trouble. Not so much the instigators, but the fact that so many Christians are so eager to follow them into the sins of gossip and slander.
I am so distressed over their behavior. They are so quick to harp on the sins of SG, using that as a cover for their own transgressions. The other day I was told that since Phil Newberry had allegedly lied that it was okay to lie about him in return.
I've been studying the role of sacrifice in the OT, and I saw a verse that really frightened me.
Numbers 15:
22 " 'Now if you unintentionally fail to keep any of these commands the LORD gave Moses-
23 any of the LORD's commands to you through him, from the day the LORD gave them and continuing through the generations to come-
24 and if this is done unintentionally without the community being aware of it, then the whole community is to offer a young bull for a burnt offering as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, along with its prescribed grain offering and drink offering, and a male goat for a sin offering.
25 The priest is to make atonement for the whole Israelite community, and they will be forgiven, for it was not intentional and they have brought to the LORD for their wrong an offering made by fire and a sin offering.
26 The whole Israelite community and the aliens living among them will be forgiven, because all the people were involved in the unintentional wrong.
27 " 'But if just one person sins unintentionally, he must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering.
28 The priest is to make atonement before the LORD for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven.
29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien.
Notice that the atoning sacrifices are to be made for sins committed unintentionally.
Now look at this:
30 " 'But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native-born or alien, blasphemes the LORD, and that person must be cut off from his people.
31 Because he has despised the LORD's word and broken his commands, that person must surely be cut off; his guilt remains on him.' "
That scares me. Apparently there wasn't a sacrifice that could atone for intentional sin. The sin remained on the sinner, and he must be cut off from God's people. Only by sheer grace could he be spared. Scary.
solomon
Could it be that it is God who is angry with Bellevue?
Just thinking.
watching,
I honestly don't think that what is happening is a sign that God is angry at Bellevue. We're living in a fallen world, and sometimes bad things happen because of sin. My hope is not for this world, but the next one.
If things were perfect here, would there be any reason for Christ to return?
One thing I am sure of, though, is that God is very angry at the sin of many members of Bellevue (which shamefully includes myself) during the last few months. The situation at our church has truly brought shame to the name of Christ, and multiplied his suffering at Calvary.
The way of a sinner is always marked with blood. Sin is never free. Jesus gave himself to pay the price so that we won't have to. We've certainly done a lot to run up his bill lately, haven't we?
Trying to be straightforward: It is my belief that the problems at Bellevue are mostly Adrian Rogers fault. He left the "situation" for Steve Gaines.
Scripture and theology aside there is a truth from the people that I talk to every day and they almost all understand that Bellevue's greatness was built on too much of Dr. Rogers' personality.
Consensus gentium is a poor criteria for truth, however when a consensus of outsiders see the obvious they are not surprised at the crisis that Belevue is in.
When the insiders hear someone suggest that Dr. Rogers left the "situation" for Steve Gaines, they resort to "argumentum ad hominem".
On the other blog (NBBCOF) I am labeled satanic or insane and need help as they continue their daily dumping on Steve Gaines. I am banned from posting there.
Ok Get ready to ban me on this blog but they are saying on the NBBCOF that SG has NPD (or at least letting someone post such an idea)
May I suggest that possibly AR had this deeply hidden disorder that would allow such a situation so that the failure of Bellevue would ultimately point to his own indispendability. The NPD person has a self destruct button as his last grand exit.
As they say, what is good for Gaines is good for Rogers.
There is a massive problem of egos that gets in the way of Christ's exaltation.
Watching,
I agree that people were drawn to Adrian Rogers' preaching. Why wouldn't they be?
I'm sure that some of those people were not growing Christians, too.
However, I don't agree that this situation was his 'fault' or that he created a 'mess'. He used his God-given talents to the best of his God-directed abilities.
The mess is not his fault, but the fault of everyone who spreads rumors, lies, and slander.
Even more so, it's the fault of everyone who see those lies for what they are and does not speak up.
IMO
Solomon
"The mess is not his fault, but the fault of everyone who spreads rumors, lies, and slander.
Even more so, it's the fault of everyone who see those lies for what they are and does not speak up."
Aren't these very people proud of their being "discipled" by AR. Is their behavior a reflection of something that was instilled in them?
Also where does the pedophile fit into your source of the mess?
Where does the fact that there is a very large Church that has not been congregationally led through periodic business meetings fit into your understanding of the mess?
Isn't there something so obvious that no one will even allow a discussion?
Who has blinded us?
watching,
As I said before, we are a fallen people. If our former pastor were the greatest evangelical preacher of all time, he would still be pastoring fallen men and women.
What is happening at Bellevue is not as much a result of what has happened in the past, but an indication of our current spiritual condition.
Solomon
And our current spiritual condition has no connection to the to the past?
"The mess is not his fault, but the fault of everyone who spreads rumors, lies, and slander."
Then why do you find it so shameful that fallen people spread rumors, lies and slander. What else would you expect from them?
alphasenior said...(NBBCOF)
Generally most church conflict is caused by carnality, selfishness and ambition (1 Cor 3:3)., Combine these sinful behaviors with an antagonist or two and you can have serious conflict problems as we have discussed earlier. Add selfish ambition to these characteristic in the Senior Pastor and spiritual abuse can be meted out in sinful, and destructive ways. But there is one unbearable situation that unfortunately occurs too often within the church, that I wish to discuss: That of a pastor with a personality disorder shepherding, (or pretending to shepherd) the church body. Generally individuals that manifest serious personality disorders such as schizophrenia, paranoid, borderline, etc are not stable enough to survive in leadership positions. But due to the nature of the pastorate and the way in which pastors are called and dismissed, there is one personality that somehow manages to survive in the pastorate—that of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Generally it takes a long time before this devious individual is identified for who and what he really is, and some of the most gifted are able to survive for years in one location. Many though will have short tenures. Depending on the size of the congregation and the perceptiveness of the leadership it may take 6 months to a couple of years before the problem is clearly perceived—that the pastor is devoid of spiritual depth, personal character, and really could care less about the welfare of the sheep. If the destructive characteristics are not identified and the narcissist is allowed to minister long range serious problems will manifest. The NPD pastors can be very abusive and destructive to the church, and wreak havoc in the personal lives of those closest to them—particularly staff and leadership.
Solomon, was this person "discipled" by AR and is this a result of fallen people?
It is totally disgraceful!!
Watching, I also do not agree that Ar is to be blamed for the problems today. I also am proud to have sat under his teachings for a short time.
Sol, you said, "the fact that so many Christians are so eager to follow them into the sins of gossip and slander.
I am so distressed over their behavior. They are so quick to harp on the sins of SG, using that as a cover for their own transgressions."
I was reading this book the other day and ran across two quotes that stuck out to me.
Attitude and the spirit in which we communicate are as important as the words we say.
Charles Stanley
I firmly believe a great many prayers are not answered because we are not willing to forgive someone.
D.L. Moody
memphis,
That is so true. You really can catch more flies with honey that vinegar, but what really counts is that God cares about what's on the inside (1 Samuel 16:7).
watching,
I agree that what was said is disgraceful. (If your were to look back far enough on the blog, you'd see a statement that Dr. Gaines is an insane steroid addict. Nauseating, isn't it?)
I don't know if alphasenior sat under Dr. Rogers or not, but he is responsible for his own behavior just like I am responsible for mine.
Jesus discipled Judas, but was betrayed by the disciple. However, that was not an indication of the quality of his teaching. It was a choice Judas made, and it was a choice that came at a high price.
Solomon
Didn't Judas' actions, through his own decision, also serve a purpose already determined by Scripture and known to Christ beforehand.
Couldn't the pedophile, through his own volition, sodomize his son and yet there be a purpose for him being there seventeen years ago?
What was going on seventeen years ago?
The difference between Christ and AR is that AR was too busy with his own self-determined agenda to
pay attention to plans that God may have had.
The mess at Bellevue today requires us to do some very deep introspection beyond the silly nonsense that NBBCOF is indulging in.
I'm telling you from my Spirit that God is indeed angry with the
situation at Bellevue and the Churches of America.
Judgement has fallen and the worst is yet to come. Pastors are giving account before God for the sins to the little and insignificant people in the Churches. God has no little and insignificant people.
Neither Pastor Rogers nor Pastor Gaines deserve the armchair-psychiatrist classification of narcissist. Having had the opportunity to get to know both men, the evidence simply isn't there to support such a specious "diagnosis." On the other hand, both men have displayed a sacrificial love of Christ, and a desire to share His Gospel above all else.
Again, such label-placing commentary strays from dialogue regarding issues and stumbles into the area of disparagements regarding people.
--Mike
And to suggest that Adrian Rogers operated with a "self-determined agenda" is to show precious little knowledge about the man and his service to God.
What, from your perspective, could possibly lead you to such a flawed conclusion?
--Mike
You know both men personally and I am trying to get an appointment to meet SG.
I know the God who knows both men intimately.
I don't owe you an explanation because you have already determined that my conclusions are flawed. That is the kind of determination those at NBBCOF make.
WatchingHISstory said...
You know both men personally and I am trying to get an appointment to meet SG.
So, you'd think my observations might have some sway with you, hmm? :)
I know the God who knows both men intimately.
As do I, and as I have for several decades now. What does that have to do with mislabeling someone as a narcissist?
I don't owe you an explanation because you have already determined that my conclusions are flawed. That is the kind of determination those at NBBCOF make.
No, they either mock, slur, or run away from ideas that conflict with their own. On the other hand, I'm asking you how you developed your ideas, and letting you know that available facts clash with your ideas--that's called "debate."
There's a huge difference.
--Mike
Watching,
Perhaps you could share with us specifically what led you to your beliefs about AR?
bepatient & solomon,
Would you both please email me? Thanks!
Karen
Karen- you are emailed.
from the NBBCOF...
junk99mail said...
Lin said...
He looks like a reverse Bratton. Is that what it is?????
That's cuz I am the anti-Bratton! Opposite in every way ... I have no talent, I am intelligent, and I am a generally nice guy!
:)
1:00 AM, May 26, 2007
I am so thankful for you Mike, you speak the truth with integrity!
I have attempted to post on the IDC blog and have been blasted for saying that I love Bellevue and I love Brother Steve. I have read for months the IDC bloggers ideas and have at times tried to show them compassion only to learn that they are very happy in their wrong attitudes. They are obviously filled with hate (a form of murder) and can not understand that they are just as guilty as a, "sex offender" in the eyes of God.
Brother Steve has been treated so unfairly by those people and I notice one by one they have shown up on this blog site. Karen seems to be one of the ring leaders who can not see beyond what happened in her childhood.
They get mad over the truth; they can dish out their accusations but if anyone tries to talk to them they tell NASS to rib up his trolling motor and he deletes the truth from the site.
Thank you for allowing those who stand beside our Pastor a voice to say we love our church and wish those who stand in opposition to our leadership to just leave and find another place where they can sit and pout.
bepatient,
What's your point?
David Brown said...
Dear Watching: Let me correct myself. A few weeks ago I said you were an idiot. And that got posted all over Mike Bratton's blog with delight to some there.Well they are going to have a field day with this one then.
Let me make the correction. You are an insane idiot. How dare you to suggest that it was God's wrath that myself or any other victims were abused. It is good you are not standing in front of me right now. How dare you.
As I said before it is very clear to me why you are not a pastor. I just regret you use this blog to spew your twisted theology.
Mr. Page you are in need of serious help. Please get it but stop with your insane idiotic explanations as to pehophilia which you know not one thing about.
David Brown
David said:"
Let me make the correction. You are an insane idiot. How dare you to suggest that it was God's wrath that myself or any other victims were abused. It is good you are not standing in front of me right now. How dare you."
Is there an implied threat hidden here?
WatchingHISstory said...
David Brown said...
Let me make the correction. You are an insane idiot. How dare you to suggest that it was God's wrath that myself or any other victims were abused. It is good you are not standing in front of me right now. How dare you.
What purpose do you hope to serve by re-posting that on this blog? Fullfillment of Proverbs 26:20, and Proverbs 6:16-19, perhaps?
Is there an implied threat hidden here?
Didn't sound very hidden to me, but also didn't sound like a threat. A threat would be, "If you are ever in front of me..." etc.
Mail,
"That's cuz I am the anti-Bratton! Opposite in every way ...
I have no talent, Would imply that Mike IS talented
I am intelligent, would imply that mike is NOT intelligent
and I am a generally nice guy! would imply that mike is generally NOT a nice guy.
I feel quite confident this did not require any explanation and that is why I did not post any.
bepatient,
Did you catch the little
:)
at the end?
Generally that is taken to mean "I am joking, please don't take me seriously."
And if you were reading that blog and this one, and the the context of my post, I suspect you knew that, and are just trying to stir up trouble and discord ... just as you used to whem posting on NBBCOF. But if you are genuinely offended on Bratton's behalf, I will post a retraction.
Don't post anything on my account.
It just seems like everyone over there forgets that the blog doesn't exist in a bubble- do you think that every person that read it know what a ;) means? Or would even notice if there were just scanning?
I guess if Ace had put a smiley after the "crybaby" comment it would have been fine?
bepatient,
Too late, I took care of it. I left your name out of it.
If Ace had given any indication, at the time of the post or later, that he was not serious, the response and fallout might have been much different, don't ya think?
What I don't understand ... and junk, maybe you can help with this ... is the double standard on the other blog.
Examples: Post after post on the current thread about how "mean" and "uncaring" everyone at BBC is these days (as opposed to the good ol' days of Dr. R, of course, when all was glorious) ... then continued digs by one poster after another about "sad viola music" from "ACErtain blogger." Sooo ... it's okay to direct nonstop invective, derision, and belittling comments to a young man (and yes, usually with the total absence of smiley faces, if you've noticed) ... but it's a sign that the Holy Spirit has left the building if you go to church and ignore someone who's in need of attention. Not saying I defend unfriendliness -- but I have not found BBC to be unfriendly or cliquish. Granted, I'm not in the youth or singles area -- but the way some of the adults talk, nobody talks to anybody anywhere in the church anymore. That is simply not true. I'm wondering if a lot of this new "atmosphere" has taken place since all this trouble started -- and folks who are choosing to remain happily at BBC (all of us immature, unspiritual church members -- and in some cases, borderline Christians, apparently -- who don't know the Bible at all) simply don't know what to say to some of these folks. I know at times I don't.
Another example. It's okay to post total rumor about a big brouhaha that supposedly happened between two church members ... and go several days without posting ONE FACT to back up that rumor ... but then to leave the thread up in its entirety, continue to defend its presence for all the world to see, continue to claim "we know but we ain't telling" when asked for truth regarding the story ... but it was NOT okay for Dr. Gaines to handle the PW issue with any sensitivity for the privacy of the individuals involved?
It's okay to call someone an "insane idiot" -- but it's not okay to post a mere dissenting opinion without being attacked by the regular posters and told, "You've already stolen our church, must you steal this one little corner of the internet, too?"
Is this double-standard truly just the human condition? Or has the continued misguided overanalysis of the issues, compounded with a total seeming lack of understanding of grace and forgiveness, just made the double-standard seem so much graver an offense?
powerGmommy said...
It took me more years than I can remember to get a picture in my mind of Jesus crying over me while I was being hurt by the child molestor that altered my life and indirectly,my precious children's life.
Charles Page needs to be locked up in a mental institution.
What if he acts on some of his demonic visions. Why are we powerless to stop this crazy person?
What about the other victims reading this???
It often takes many painful years to understand we are precious to the Father who created us.
This man is demonic.
NASS....do we allow devils on this blog????
maybe
Your comment is a breath of fresh air, people like you do really exist! Are there others like you?
God bless you and JESUS IS LORD!
Please everyone listen to yesterday's sermon by our pastor here in Collierville. It is an incridible relevant message for us all. It will not be posted till Tuesday but PLEASEW PLEASE listen to it.
http://www.fbccoll.org/series.htm
Isn't this arragant? These people have arrived!!
imaresistor said...
Standby...it would probably be a good move for you to listen to what this group of people can tell YOU about Rick Warren, instead of YOU trying to tell us. This group has either been 'among the wolves shot by him' or has done intensive study on him and can tell you the hard facts about RW that have been verified. None of us are really interested in hearing an uninformed person telling us how great Rick Warren is. Having said this, let me tell you this is nothing personal against you. Absolutely NOTHING! We have heard all this before and we all know there isn't an ounce of truth in it. You are beating a dead horse. Why don't you try some dialogue with us on a different subject?
oc said...
Bystander,
I have noticed that you have a problem with those who don't take 'proper' words and tone. Among others, you specify me. OK. Yes, I can be rather abrasive at times. Obnoxious even. And I have had to delete my own comments, realizing that I am in the wrong. But I also see that you do not care to put comments in their context. I will ask you to read Watching's posts (if they aren't already deleted) in order to get a context to my 'offensive' comments.
WHS said: You are so 'offensive',
where were you when I waited for you and 'sick of the truth' at Bellevue. You were a counselor and could have easily handled me.
I waited over one hour and fifteen minutes and neither of you showed up.
"And lastly, I just have to say it, and me being 'obnoxious' and all, that Jesus was and is no sissy. Gentle and mild? Ok. But in the face of sin? The toughest there ever was. Just sayin.
oc."
oc, I doubt that you have a clue about the anger Jesus has for modern day American Christianity,
I will set up a time to meet with you again but my charge will be $100 per hour cash up front and $100 every hour there after.
My first vist would have been free.
I'm sure you understand the need to charge.
Mike, sorry to post on your blog but they have baned me and no one will go to my blog. They do read your blog.
piggie
Won't He hold us responsible for our actions or the lack thereof? After all, we are His hands and feet. Jesus was the hardest on the religious crowd - who knew the truth but distorted it and twisted it to suit their own ends.
You encountered someone like that and they had him baned. You are also sick of the truth.
I truly do not wish this to turn into the "war of the blogs" so I don't want to copy and paste the original comment from NBBCOF because this really isn't about that particular comment... but just something it said that got me thinking....
How do we draw the line on which sins are "private" and which ones are "public"? The example used was about tithing and how no one should check your tithe because if you sin (in that way) it should be between you and God. But certainly no one I know thinks that across the board- I believe there are situations where we are called to rebuke other Christians.
I mean, if a deacon was out drinking and carousing every weekend we wouldn't say "well, it is between him and God"- but if he is not tithing we aren't at liberty to say anything?
It seems in all other circumstances we go by the "tangibles" in deciding if someone can hold a position- like marital status for example.
So what is it about tithing that is the divider line? Is it just because of who is checking? Because it is money?
Because that doesn't make any sense to me....
maybejustmaybe said...
What I don't understand ... and junk, maybe you can help with this ... is the double standard on the other blog.
I don't think I can answer your questions. I understand your frustration, as I understand theirs. Maybe it's like getting a group of Democrats and Republicans together. Each side sees themselves and those who agree with them as educated, intelligent, reasonable, and having the moral high ground, and sees the other side as being less informed, stupid, irrational, and immoral. Perhaps it's just the nature of conflict.
I know it is frustrating to see believers behaving badly toward other believers, and making public remarks that they shouldn't. And I understand the desire to step in and correct that sort of thing, and how one can feel justified in doing so. Though I tend to view things in optimistic and idealistic terms, when it comes to human behavior, I am learning to be more of a realist. As such, what I have observed is that no one seems to respond well when they are rebuked or rebuffed by a stranger or someone are not certain cares about or sympathizes with them. Many of the folks who have been banned and bad-mouthed on NBBCOF have done just that -- stopped in to criticize and correct people who are already hurting for various reasons. That doesn't justify anyone's inappropriate remarks, but it helps me understand how things have evolved to the current state.
Junk -- thanks for a very thoughtful and wise response. You're right ... a lot of it is pure frustration, on both sides of the issues, and a sense of, "I know 'we're' right."
I posed this dilemma months ago, but don't think we ever got anywhere with it: Is it possible that both sides could be right, at least in part? If that is true, then the next logical assumption is that both sides are also wrong in part. Or have we so polarized ourselves that it must be "either/or?" I can't make myself even entertain the thought that the other side (how I dislike that term!) is completely without Christ, without discernment, immature in their understanding of Scripture, or blinded by Satan. And yet comments of that ilk are made constantly by them toward those of us who stay at BBC. Is it really speaking from emotion and frustration, or is it a sense of spiritual superiority that has ended up totally pitting us against one another? It reminds me of remarks we should never make in marital arguments: "You never ..." "You always ..." and the big "D" (divorce) word. It seems there are some bloggers who feel nothing short of a congregational divorce is the answer. Do you agree? Can we ever resolve the current situation with such absolutes in our disagreements with one another? I know there are those who question my whole understanding of reconciliation in the Lord -- but it seems like the reality of reconciliation is going to be impossible to accomplish as long as we continue this behavior.
I think there are people on both sides of the issues who long, more than anything, for healing.
But where is the middle ground, or is there such a thing?
BePatient,
I know one thing that bothers me about the tithing arguments is that some givers seem to hold onto the idea that it is "their money." Maybe that's where part of the level of discomfort is coming from. Yet, the Bible says the tithe "is the Lord's." I don't understand the decision to withhold tithes in protest, nor do I understand keeping my membership in a church with a storehouse to which I could not cheerfully give. I've read the arguments, and I understand that many believe our tithes and offerings do not HAVE to go to the local church ... but I don't see it that way.
Do you think this could be part of it?
imaresistor said...
Standby...it would probably be a good move for you to listen to what this group of people can tell YOU about Rick Warren
I'll preface my remarks by saying I'm a little lost in who exactly is arguing what (I can't tell the players without a scorecard), but I'm convinced I'm missing something. Some people seem to be convinced that Bro. Steve is intent on leadin BBC down the Purpose Driven yellow brick road. Someone help me remember, who was in charge when the entire church read "The Purpose Driven Life" in small groups a few years ago? It sure wasn't Steve Gaines.
And to "maybejustmaybe," I like your post about middle ground. There seems to be a lot of the attitude "I'm right, and if you weren't blind, stupid or evil, you'd agree with me!" Not a very effective argument, and even less a basis for reconciliation, or even closure. Even worse that there are some on both "sides" who will be certain that I must be referring to the others! Fortunately, those will be the ones who think I'm blind, stupid or evil! :^)
Just wanted to mention that today was one of the most beautiful days EVER!
MJM, I agree with you 5:18Am post, and believe it is something that needed to be pointed out to all bloggers.
If I quote Scriptures to the IDC bloggers they falsely accuse me of selecting self serving verses. If Pastor Steve teaches from selected verses they falsely accuse him of preaching self serving sermons.
If I do not use Scripture when I communicate they accuse me of being ignorant of God's Word.
1.They claim Brother Steve lacks integrity because he speaks lies.
2.They claim Brother Steve abused his credit card and the church administration declares that they are telling a lie, that Brother Steve's credit card was 100% correct.
3.They say Brother Steve protected a child sex offender; the investigation revealed that Brother Steve was led to believed the, "moral failure" had been dealt with 17 years ago.
4. They say Brother Steve trespassed; we say M S trespassed by making threats to carry church matters to the media in an attempt for personal gain. (Black Mail) Brother Steve along with other men attempted to stop the man from carrying out his threat and M S just used the situation to cause harm to our pastor.
5. They say that Brother Steve intentionally ousted J W to bring in J P. We say that J W and the entire church expected J P to come and replace J W in the music ministry. It is customary with most all Pastors. Dr. Rogers brought J W and P W with him from Florida.
6. They say that Bellevue needs a strong leader, but when Pastor Steve makes a strong stand they say he is being a bully.
NOTE: This list could go on and on with the, "They say and the We say"
what I wish for the readers to understand is what, "They say" is distorted and presented as the truth on the IDC blog site. They will not permit our voice to be heard and this is a form of brain washing which is what they claim that our Pastor is doing. DO YOU GET THE PICTURE?
Bratton is allowing them to post on this site but we are not allowed to post on their site.
What do they fear? Could it be that they are the ones doing a great cover up instead of the staff of Bellevue?
Some of the most rude and hateful comments come from their post. I have been blasted by many of them and even threatened by D. Brown who is an activist against abuse.
I hope and pray that there will be those who read this post and realize that there is a lot of truth in what I am saying. THOSE WHO ARE IN CONTROL OF THAT BLOG SITE DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY FALSELY ACCUSE BROTHER STEVE OF DOING: THEY SELECT SELF SERVING POSTINGS AND BLOCK OUT ALL OTHERS. THEY HAVE DEDICATED THEMSELVES TO DESTROY ONE OF THE GREATEST YOUNG PASTORS WE HAVE IN OUR COUNTRY! AND ANYONE ELSE WHO SPEAKS OUT THE TRUTH.
WHAT DOES GOD'S WORD HAVE TO SAY ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DO WHAT THEY ARE DOING? MOST OF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER AND IF YOU DO NOT, GO TO THE WORD OF GOD AND HE WILL TELL YOU.
I guess no one remembers me coming to their defense on NBBCOF considering you let "seekhiswill" blast me over here and no one defended me. This lady has been nothing but nasty to me in every way (Ms. Tapp - I still have your emails if you want me to back up this statement). KEEP MY NAME OUT OF YOUR POSTS - YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MY ABUSE. BECAUSE YOU SAID MY ABUSE HAPPENED IN MY CHILDHOOD, YOU HAVE LIED AND SLANDERED MY PARENTS AND I WON'T STAND FOR THAT. MY EX HUSBAND ABUSED ME, YOU CRAZY LADY AND IF HAVE BEEN READING MY POSTS ENOUGH TO GET THAT, YOU WOULDN'T BE OVER HERE LYING!!
Now that being said, LEAVE ME ALONE AND DON'T USE MY NAME TO FURTHER YOUR DEMONIC AGENDA!
KAREN
watching,
This is a issue of which you have no business interfereing. Ms. Tapp has slandered my parents and I ain't putting up with it. Please don't concern yourself.
I've been nothing but nice to you over on the NBBCOF blog and I'm not interested in starting a conversation with you right now. My post was specifically for Ms. Tapp and no one else. Thank you for your concern, but I can handle this.
karen
Karen
sorry if you thought that I was interfering with your business.
I was addressing the general tone of the NBBCOF blog.
However as Nass would say you need to take it to a back alley and not on a blog.
watching,
Sorry I sound so mad today. I'm not usually like that, so I apologize. Ms. Tapp had gotten me riled up and now she's lying about what she said. So again, no offense to you! :)
And I haven't been in a back alley brawl since 1988! :)
karen
Karen
With tears in my eyes I am praying for you and your Dr appt today
my last back alley brawl was in 1963.. It was disgraceful though I won!
lynn said:
How else do you explain Gaines allowing a CHILD MOLESTER to not only stay on staff, but give him a pay raise to boot?
According to Luke 12:47-48 Gaines and Rogers both are accountable to God for the pedophile. Steve is getting his stripes now in abundance and Rogers is getting his of stripes up there. Steve has the Lord's will and Rogers didn't have discernment for the Lord's will.
Watching,
I fail to see your logic. In all likelyhood Dr. Rogers was never made aware of it. If he did, it would have been taken care of IMMEDIATELY. Not hide it like Gaines did. If my memory serves me correctly, it was only after the victim started speaking out to Gaines that Gaines handled it.
Might wanna get over your beef with Dr. Rogers watching. Better yet, seek psychological help which you need desperately.
lynn
In all likelyhood Rogers was made aware of it by the Holy Spirit but he failed to discern it.
I'm using 'likelyhood' in the same manner as you. My logic makes more sense.
And why didn't the 'adult vicim' confide in Rogers? Why did he wait on Gaines?
Have you ever been abused before watching? Thats the one thing I seriously doubt you even understand.
It can take years and years for a victim to get to the point where they are comfortable to come forward. Instead of focusing on someone who cannot defend himself, why not focus on something else.
lynn
You seem to make my case that the victim could not come to Rogers but could come to Gaines.
This does not have as much to do with the victim as to the approachability of Gaines.
Please folks let me set a few statements straight:
The IDC bloggers are actually bloggers who use the IDC organized anti Gaines site to blog of their versions of what is wrong with BBC.
Karen aka Karebear has been a long time, very often postwoman on the IDC, "information center" for those who desire to oust Pastor Gaines. Prior to this she posted on the Jim Haywood and Josh Mannings, "savingbellevue" site.
Karebear wrote several post stating that she had suffered from past abuse. Karebear wrote to my personal email address sharing her testimony with me regarding her past abuse. Karebear did NOT say that she was abused as a very young child, however, considering the conversations we had regarding the PW scandal and the, "coverup" I did believe that she had been molested as a child. Karen has< "hit the roof" on the other site stating that I have insulted she and her parents. If Karen aka Karebear who posted on "Savingbellevue" will recall I shared my testimony of past abuse with her and just in case she perceived that it was from one of my parents; let me make it clear that I also had parents who were great. Why did Karen assume that I was implying that her abuse may have been from her parents?
I had compassion for Karen aka Karebear but I did not agree with her accusations toward Pastor Gaines or hold to her twisted views of holding him responsible for what happen between two other people over 17 years ago or for the way he handled the information which he was given by the offender.
Karen of the ADC (organized anti Gaines blog) has thrown out some ugly, name calling remarks and has on a number of occassions along with some of her friends attacked my integrity and sanity because I disagree with them.
I have stated and will continue to say that the IDC (organized anti Gaines) blog site is a place where only those who desire to brain wash people against Dr. Gaines are allowed to speak. The former people of the savingbellvue site just moved locations and yes Karebear is a well known frequent blogger.
I don't have to go there to know what they think about me as long I support BBC and Dr. Gaines they hate me and will stop at nothing to vent, "their views"
FYI,
The NBBCOF Blog is NOT, I repeat NOT affiliated with the IDC. I think this makes the millionth time someone's pointed that out.
Ms. Tapp, please stop - you're making a fool of yourself with every lie you tell.
In my emails to Ms. Tapp, I shared about my ex husband, but I never posted anything on savingbellevue.com. Please cut and paste from savingbellevue.com where I have shared anything.
Excuse my crude use of language, but Ms. Tapp, let's not turn this into a "pissing contest". You are wrong in what you wrote and you're wrong in your explanation. Just face facts, you have no idea what you're talking about as far as I am concerned. The gal who posted on savingbellevue was "Beth" - the same one from Wendi Thomas' column. Here's an email sent to her on Dec. 23rd regarding my ex's abuse. I flat stated that I was abused by an ex husband - where does she get that it happened when I was a child?
From: Karen Marshall (karebear11068@hotmail.com)
Sent:Sat 12/23/06 12:04 AM
To: sendthelight50@aol.com
You know nothing about the power of an abuser, do you Mrs. Tapp??? I do - 1st hand and I have the scars to prove it. Do you know how many times I was emotionally, physically and sexually abused by my ex-husband in a 2 week period?? I don't care if Dr. Gaines knew about the molestation for 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 minutes! HE SHOULD HAVE REPORTED IT! He has been a pastor long enough to know that you REPORT ABUSE - ALLEGED (which is not the case here) AND ADMITTED!! If he didn't know to report the abuse then he is inept at being our pastor. I'm sure they teach that type of thing over at Mid-America.
Do you know how many children Paul Williams could have abused in 2 weeks? No you don't so don't even guess - just let that sink in for a minute. I pray to God you are never subjected to the level of abuse of a predator such as Paul Williams because if you are, you would wish it were Satan instead of a man. I can't get my mind around a man who looks at his son, his own flesh and blood and thinks about what pleasure he could get from the vile things wrought upon his child.
maybejustmaybe said...
I posed this dilemma months ago, but don't think we ever got anywhere with it: Is it possible that both sides could be right, at least in part? If that is true, then the next logical assumption is that both sides are also wrong in part. Or have we so polarized ourselves that it must be "either/or?"
I once heard of an old Puritan preacher sho said to his wife, "They are all wrong, my dear...all of them but me and thee. And thou art a little wrong."
In my view not only is it possible that both sides could be partly right and partly wrong, it is quite likely--a certainty, actually. For even the truth can be mishandled if it ends up being used as a weapon against a fellow believer, rather than as a means to encourage one another to Christlike behavior and attitudes.
I can't make myself even entertain the thought that the other side (how I dislike that term!) is completely without Christ, without discernment, immature in their understanding of Scripture, or blinded by Satan. And yet comments of that ilk are made constantly by them toward those of us who stay at BBC. Is it really speaking from emotion and frustration, or is it a sense of spiritual superiority that has ended up totally pitting us against one another?
There is doubtless a great deal of emotion involved, but along with that is the reality that for many it is just easier to see things in black and white. It comforts people to think they know with certainty what is right and that they are on the side of right. Shades of gray and ambiguity cause many to doubt and struggle. Genuine spiritual maturity is comfortable with the typically uncomfortable position of saying "I don't know" and with admitting that some issues are complicated and multi-faceted.
It reminds me of remarks we should never make in marital arguments: "You never ..." "You always ..." and the big "D" (divorce) word. It seems there are some bloggers who feel nothing short of a congregational divorce is the answer. Do you agree? Can we ever resolve the current situation with such absolutes in our disagreements with one another?
I know there are those who question my whole understanding of reconciliation in the Lord -- but it seems like the reality of reconciliation is going to be impossible to accomplish as long as we continue this behavior.
I think there are people on both sides of the issues who long, more than anything, for healing.
But where is the middle ground, or is there such a thing?
Some positions are mutually exclusive, without room for middle ground. There are those who believe that nothing is acceptable short of getting Steve Gaines and possibly all current lay leadership at BBC. When one is convinced of something like that, and that it is the only morally correct and acceptable answer, anything less is going to be viewed as compromise. To them reconciliation can only come about if Steve Gaines leaves.
But even so, God can and does bring healing and restoration and reconciliation even in the most difficult and seemingly hopeless of situations. He delights in doing that, because it demonstrates His ability and strength in our weakness and inability.
watching so stupidly said :
According to Luke 12:47-48 Gaines and Rogers both are accountable to God for the pedophile. Steve is getting his stripes now in abundance and Rogers is getting his of stripes up there. Steve has the Lord's will and Rogers didn't have discernment for the Lord's will.
Reply: You have to be the most arrogantly ignorant person I have ever seen. You have now put yourself on the same level as God & pronounced false judgement on Dr. Rogers. You mis-apply this scripture for your own pleasure. you blaspheme God by your continuing attempt to mis-applying scripture for your own pleasure & lame arguments. You take one of God's most faithful servants and drag him in the mud of your hate and stupidity.
PW & everyone else has said that Dr. Rogers did not know anything about PW.
You say that Dr. Rogers didn't have discernment for the Lord's will??? How arrogant & stupid can you be??? I can say for sure that the Holy Spirit in me verified that Dr. Rogers was an Holy Spirit filled man of God. My spirit also tells me that you are of Satan by your misuse of God's Word.
Steve brought on the wrath of God's people by his open, rebellous sin. Maybe some of it get's a little much but men of God are to held to a higher standard.
You are not even a member of BBC & while you are free to talk about things, you really are sticking your nose in our family business.
You absolutely do not have ANY decernment for God's will. You are misguided, ignorate, arrogant, and evil.
I mean that in the kindest possible way.
and I can't spell very well ...for some reason.
In gentleness and humility I write:
"As Jesus and His disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed Him. Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!" The crowd rebuked them and told them to be quiet, but they shouted all the more, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!"
Karen, in all honesty, and in gentleness of spirit I want to remind you that it was you who called me out by name and I responded to your call and it was you who got my attention. (mink coat) I am not one in the crowd who tells anyone who is seeking His will to shut up and go away. I do believe that you desire to follow Jesus and not man. I do not follow any man but I am encouraged to discover that some men are following Jesus Christ. I am blessed to be married to one of them and I know this because I see the evidence in his life. He is not perfect and he makes some poor decisions from time to time, but overall I know his heart is to do those things that please God. I, also, know Brother Steve and I know that he desires to walk close to Jesus and I am blessed and encouraged by his determination to listen to the Lord instead of the crowd who tells him that he is not following Jesus.
With gentleness and true humility I want to encourage you to listen closely to Jesus Christ. Jesus is leading believers to the spiritual Jerusalem and preparing us for the New Jerusalem where He will return (the same place He left from) If anyone tells you to focus somewhere else (on the flaws and faults of people) they are misleading you. Return to the verses of Scripture (Matt. 20) notice where Jesus was coming from and where He was leading the crowd. Ask yourself what was Jesus telling this crowd all along the way that they could not understand? If they had understood what they were heading into was necessary in order to get to where Jesus wanted them to go they would not have abandoned Him. Some understood later on, such as Peter and they became the early church founders.
Remember I am speaking in humility and gentleness of spirit with this statement: I believe with all of my heart that God has given us a Pastor who loves Jesus and he knows where Jesus is leading him, the same as I and my husband. If we did not believe this we would not be in BBC. If the Holy Spirit shows us something contrary we will be among the first to walk on. Some bloggers expound on common errors of judgement that all people make but the Holy Spirit shows us the Spirit moving the heart of our Pastor toward the same place He is leading us.
I harbor no hard feelings toward you or any of those who focus on the man Steve Gaines instead of the servant Pastor Steve. Don't focus on any MAN he will let you down, focus on Jesus and be thankful that there are some men who shares your focus. I read this site often and over and over again I see the focus is on a man and as one looking in it is obvious that the intent is get rid of the man. I understand what you are saying and what you are doing but be careful and do not destroy the heart of that man and his zest to Pastor a crowd. We agree that we need godly men to pastor but let us encourage and not discourage them.
I really hope and pray that you get to read this before it is deleted.
12:10 PM, May 30, 2007
pdude said:
"I can say for sure that the Holy Spirit in me verified that Dr. Rogers was an Holy Spirit filled man of God. My spirit also tells me that you are of Satan by your misuse of God's Word."
Do you think that the knowledge of God's will begins and ends with you. It doesn't begin or end with either of us.
The Bible says that while someone is prophesying, someone else receives a message or idea from the Lord, the one who is speaking should stop. In this way all who have the gift of prophecy can speak, one after the other, and everyone will learn and be encouraged and helped. Remember that a person who has a message from God has the power to stop himself or wait his turn.
Your post doesn't fit the Godly decorum that produces order or harmony.
I'm simply saying that I heard from heaven and God told Dr. Rogers to "sit here and watch the destruction of Bellevue." Dr. Rogers is sitting there and watching His Bellevue being destroyed and his wife, family and friends suffering the consequences. His eyes are filled with tears which eventually will be wiped from his face by God himself.
Does this mean that I am on the same level as God? No, no more than you who said that the Holy Spirit verified your truth. In civility we are heard and judged by those around us.
If outsiders listen to you they will assume that we are all mad.
Did you learn you ministry communication skills from Dr. Rogers or did you start talking like this since Steve Gaines came.
You said, "Steve brought on the wrath of God's people by his open, rebellous sin." Doesn't vengence belong to God?
Paul said, "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
watching said :
Do you think that the knowledge of God's will begins and ends with you. It doesn't begin or end with either of us.
Reply: Another example of your ignorance of scripture. Where did you read that I think that the knowledge of God will begins with me? I was responding to you ignorant comments.
Watching said:
The Bible says that while someone is prophesying, someone else receives a message or idea from the Lord, the one who is speaking should stop. In this way all who have the gift of prophecy can speak, one after the other, and everyone will learn and be encouraged and helped. Remember that a person who has a message from God has the power to stop himself or wait his turn.
Reply:
What has this out of context biblical principal have to do with anything that was discussed? You were not prophesizing. You were spouting a bunch of nonsense. No one here is EVER edified by anything you say!
watching said:
Your post doesn't fit the Godly decorum that produces order or harmony.
Reply: Do you want us to go back & look at all your posts? What does that mean anyway? Do you even know? No posts produce order or harmony. Posts can't do anything of themselves.
watching said:
I'm simply saying that I heard from heaven and God told Dr. Rogers to "sit here and watch the destruction of Bellevue." Dr. Rogers is sitting there and watching His Bellevue being destroyed and his wife, family and friends suffering the consequences. His eyes are filled with tears which eventually will be wiped from his face by God himself.
Does this mean that I am on the same level as God? No, no more than you who said that the Holy Spirit verified your truth. In civility we are heard and judged by those around us.
If outsiders listen to you they will assume that we are all mad.
Reply:
Anyone who reads the first part will know you are ignorant. You heard from God about Dr. Rogers?
Do you understand that God isn't having Dr. Rogers just sit there like a 2 year old and just look at the mess going on? Your biblical reference to back that idea up is???
Ever heard of the biblical concept of worshipping Jesus? Do you think that God is angry at Dr. Rogers? Do you think God is punishing Dr. Rogers by what is happening at BBC? You are so wrong! Dr. Rogers doesn't care about BBC now. He is with Jesus, worshipping Him...which his whole ministry was based on. That is one unscriptural dream you had. Is this the same dream where God appeared as a snake with a voice like a demon? Did a red flag pop up?
The work of the Holy Spirit in the believer does bear witness of what is true & what is false. Dr. Rogers true. You false...or at least extremely misguided.
If oursiders did read this, they would know that I am mad because I am. You blaspheme God by misapplying His Word, take His servant and spread lies about him, you act all holy but are any but that.
Watching said:
Did you learn you ministry communication skills from Dr. Rogers or did you start talking like this since Steve Gaines came.
Reply: I guess if I had a model for ministry communication skills it would be Steve! He showed me how to talk tough! How to berate sheep. I just can't get the lying down though. Maybe you can help me with that since you are so good at it.(see your previous posts for examples galore!)
My words are sharp granted but I am very frustrated & angry at your outlandish claims about Dr Rogers & the Word of God.
Watching said:
You said, "Steve brought on the wrath of God's people by his open, rebellous sin." Doesn't vengence belong to God?
Reply: God will bring vengence in due season. That doesn't mean that we are to let ungodly leaders walk all over people. Nor should we look the other way when sin is running rampant. There are consequences to sin. We are called to test the spirits, to see if they are true. Steve is not true. You are not either.
Watching said:
Paul said, "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Is this your lifes verse? You live by it very well. This a another prime example of you blaspheming God by taking His Word & using it for your own pleasure/benefit. It is one thing to use scripture to edify, instruct, back up your position but this was an obvious attack towards me.
Watching, you spout stuff that is not biblical and then try to defend it as God spoke it to you. We try to tell you that it doesn't line up with scripture but you won't listen. You misapply scripture all the time. Do you understand why we might get a little upset with you?
For seventeen years he walked the halls of Bellevue. He was a minister, prayer leader, counselor, teacher and sodomizer.
Who was in charge at Bellevue? God or Satan?
Will God, who cannot allow sin in any form, stand idly by while a pedophile does his distruction?
Didn't Bellevue have a leader to defend them from their foes? Isn't there some form of mockery taking place here? This must make the world rejoice that such a thing could happen to Bellevue!
Bellevue is being mocked, but by whom? The world? Satan? God?
Look and be amazed! You have to be astounded at what is taking place.
Seventeen years he walked freely and within months of Pastor Gaines' leadership he was made known.
Isn't there some sort of large and plain speech that anyone can read and understand. Is not the message billboard size? While rushing by at a glance at the sign you understand so quickly what it means.
Yet no one dares speak the truth.
The end of false religions is at hand. There is no room for self-determination. Church is not a big buisness and this buisness will not last for ever!
WatchingHISstory said...
For seventeen years he walked the halls of Bellevue. He was a minister, prayer leader, counselor, teacher and sodomizer.
Who was in charge at Bellevue? God or Satan?
Will God, who cannot allow sin in any form, stand idly by while a pedophile does his distruction?
Didn't Bellevue have a leader to defend them from their foes? Isn't there some form of mockery taking place here? This must make the world rejoice that such a thing could happen to Bellevue!
Bellevue is being mocked, but by whom? The world? Satan? God?
Look and be amazed! You have to be astounded at what is taking place.
Seventeen years he walked freely and within months of Pastor Gaines' leadership he was made known.
Isn't there some sort of large and plain speech that anyone can read and understand. Is not the message billboard size? While rushing by at a glance at the sign you understand so quickly what it means.
Yet no one dares speak the truth.
The end of false religions is at hand. There is no room for self-determination. Church is not a big buisness and this buisness will not last for ever!
5:36 AM, June 01, 2007
Reply: What you are reading in to the situation amazes me. While I can see what you are saying, I must disagree. Bellevue got to the size it WAS because of preaching of the Word of God by holy, Godly men. Souls were being saved, lives restored, needs were being met in Christ. Thousands upon thousands came. Where do you put thousands of people? In buildings. To meet the need, we had to build. God blessed Bellevue. You mock that fact.
YOU SAY: Will God, who cannot allow sin in any form, stand idly by while a pedophile does his distruction?
I would say yes...sin is everywhere and God sees it. He hasn't wiped out the human population yet has He? Sinners are sinning every minute of every day and yet God is patient for each one to repent & receive Jesus as their Savior. Or did you miss that in your Bible???
The church isn't immuned from sin. It is made up of sinners. God's judgement may appear slow or not comming but know this fact...it WILL happen, ON TIME..HIS TIME.
The ONLY reason Steve knew about the PW was because of PW's son coming to Steve. Why didn't the Holy Spirit speak to Steve about PW when he came there? Is he not decerning enough?? Steve must have quinched the spirit. He does that a lot now days.
Why didn't you know??? You say you are so close to God...you have failed to decern so you are the just as guilty!!!
It seems you and Satan are mocking Bellevue. You are taking so much pleasure in what is happening to BBC. God is allowing Bellevue to be cleansed. Make no mistake about it....just because thousands have chosen to leave, that doesn't mean the one who have stayed are correct. That is between them and God. We have a problem with Steves open sin & lack of good judgement.
You speak no truth. You never have. I am not sure you are able.
What if a pedophile walks the halls of FBC Collierville? What other sin will be the cause of the destruction of FBC Collierville? Using your illogic, will God tear that church down too. It is considered a mega church though not on the scale of Bellevue. How well do you know the staff? How well do you know the deacons? SS teachers? You don't know and to say that anyone absolutely should know is wrong. If they are Gods men, God will deal with them. Members are to make sure that they follow scripture.
While it would be wonderful if every believer was so in tune with the Holy Spirit that He isn't quinched, I am afraid that isn't always the case. We all could be more decerning.
Not everyone sees God as black snakes with voices like a demons as you do. How big a billboard do you need to see that message???
If you would have listened to Dr. Rogers, he has said many times from the pulpit that there were a lot of backslidding christians in BBC. He understood that not everyone was a faithful follower as they should be. He also said that many at BBC and all other churches would be left behind if the rapture happened.
If you would read your bible, you would see that there too.
You say there is no room for self determination...I agree. That is another problem we have with Steve.
Church isn't a business,which is another issue we have with the leadership. The church is Jesus' bride & He can do what He will with it.
Make no mistake about it..Jesus is coming for His bride.
WHS said: You are so 'offensive',
where were you when I waited for you and 'sick of the truth' at Bellevue. You were a counselor and could have easily handled me.
I waited over one hour and fifteen minutes and neither of you showed up.
OC REPLIES: What are you really saying? Be careful. Count it a blessing that I didn't show. Yes, I could easily handle you. But not because I'm a counselor. There are other reasons.
WHS says,
oc, I doubt that you have a clue about the anger Jesus has for modern day American Christianity,
I will set up a time to meet with you again but my charge will be $100 per hour cash up front and $100 every hour there after.
My first vist would have been free.
I'm sure you understand the need to charge.
oc REPLIES: No, I really don't understand why you want to charge me, unless you have no insurance.
And by the way, what do you think is the real reason you were banned from the 'closed forum', which Mikey likes to call it? Could it be you are a wack job? Guess you are welcomed here, as long as you hate the other blog. But keep being you, they will get sick of you here too.
oc replies:
Yes, I could have handled you. I am sure of that. It's not because I'm a counselor. But I am involved with the justice system. Both you and I should be glad I didn't show. For different reasons.
Obviously your elevator dosen't go to the top floor. Do you reread your blogs? You just abused your connection to judicial authority.
Having said that you should be afraid to meet me. You just knocked yourself out.
Watching.
I have no idea what you are talking about. And neither do you.
You need to know that justice is a little different in Mississippi. And as far as elevators go, you don't even have a full flight of stairs.
oc,
for the record, the only people engaging watchinghisstory anymore are the people from the "closed forum". If you wanted him gone, I don't understand why you would come here and argue with him?
My belief in total depravity moves me to see Adrian Rogers and Steve Gaines without one being esteemed over the other. Up close we see them as different individuals with different personalities. One with smooth edges and the other jagged . God does not see them as we see them. They are both equally, sinners saved by grace. Both have filthy rags for righteousness in God's sight. Neither fame nor adulation we may heap on each will not affect the way Christ evaluates them. So I don't esteem one over the other.
My personal observation and reasonable deduction is that given the same circumstances Dr. Rogers would have done the same thing as Dr. Gaines with concealing the pedophile for the six months. Dr. Rogers would have donated the $25,000 to to the downtown church. Only difference is that no one would have raised an issue with Dr. Rogers and with Dr. Gaines everyone seems to be looking for sin.
pdude said
"Reply: I guess if I had a model for ministry communication skills it would be Steve! He showed me how to talk tough! How to berate sheep."
I am amazed that you are turning away so fast from the way Dr Rogers taught you to communicate.
Was this a radical and sudden change? Dr Gaines has so easily influenced you and now you talk tough! You call people stupid, ignorant and liars. You never did this while Dr Rogers was your pastor did you? Of coarse not!
Have I called anyone stupid, ignorant or a liar. Have I associated you or anyone with the devil?
You said: Do you understand that God isn't having Dr. Rogers just sit there like a 2 year old and just look at the mess going on?
What is your verse to support that?
Don't you know that according to I Cor 3:12 everyone will stand before God and give an account for what he has done on earth to determine what kind of material we have bulit with. The fire will test our works and the wood hay and stuble will burn and the right materials will remain. If we have built with the wrong materials we will suffer great loss yet we will be saved. AR is watching that testing take place even now.
bepatient said,
oc,
for the record, the only people engaging watchinghisstory anymore are the people from the "closed forum". If you wanted him gone, I don't understand why you would come here and argue with him?
oc says: bepatient, you are so right. I admit I am wrong and I repent. I come here to see what the so called 'closed forum' haters have to say, making sure I have all angles to the problems. And I have learned. And I have learned alot. But then I see a punk trying to call me out, behind my back, and I admit I got a bit 'fleshly'.
So, bepatient, thankyou for calling me on this. It reminded me that some battles aren't worth fighting. And it's not fair that some don't have the weapons to do so. You will get tired of him pretty quick. Don't send him back to us.
oc.
watching said...Oh nevermind...I like everyone else am through with this nutcase. He knows nothing about what Dr. Rogers would or wouldn't do.
Watching....I, like all others, wash my hands of you.
May God have mercy on you.
This has been fascinating reading--although a comment page this size was difficult to handle on my cellphone!
I appreciate the Closed Forum regulars' contributions, though. You have substantiated my observation regarding your group in far more detail than I used.
Talk about your "yes" votes...
--Mike
Mike said:
There was no "harboring a pedophile," to borrow that lurid and inaccurate phrase. From all I've been able to gather, Pastor Gaines was working to minister to Mr. Williams; had events played out without the glare of Klieg lights, Mr. Williams would no doubt have been removed from ministry.
And before anyone forgets, those of us who are Christians have a responsibility to minister to perpetrators as well as to victims; before someone disagrees, first define for me just what it is that a prison ministry does.
Had I been in Pastor Gaines' position, would I have allowed Mr. Williams to remain on staff after I found out what had happened? I don't believe so, but then again, none of us was in Pastor Gaines' place at that time, so it is only speculative to say what we would or would not have done.
bepatient said...
"harboring a pedophile" is a very inaccurate term- to someone who doesn't know the full story it implies that SG knew he was CURRENTLY involved in the molestation of a child and did nothing about it.
Does that make it better? no.
But it does make that phrase inflammatory- I hear them so often talking about not following your emotions and only going to the scriptures, but we have to balance that. You can't have it both ways- they are relying on an emotional response to the horrors of sexual abuse to persuade others over to their way of thinking.
Each situation is different, and I think for SG the motivator in his decision to stay quiet was that the victim was old enough to make the reporting decision for himself. And the best way to keep the privacy for this family was to allow PW to continue for the time being until things calmed down and then allow him to resign later when it would not come under such intense scrutiny. This is just my opinion but I am basing it in some situations I have faced in my own life.
link from NBBCOF:
"He would be very affectionate toward her and then suddenly very belittling. She describes his personality as very controlling; blame must always be assigned. Rather than be emotionally and romantically intimate, and thus vulnerable, with her, David would rather be in charge. "It's no fun to live with that," she says. "At least now there's a reason for it."
bepatient said (repeat)
I hear them so often talking about not following your emotions and only going to the scriptures, but we have to balance that. You can't have it both ways- they are relying on an emotional response to the horrors of sexual abuse to persuade others over to their way of thinking.
David said: (to WatchingHisStory)
"Let me make the correction. You are an insane idiot. How dare you to suggest that it was God's wrath that myself or any other victims were abused. It is good you are not standing in front of me right now. How dare you."
When I read "Rape of Faith" and saw the interview on chanel 3, it broke my heart for David's pain and the fact that we were discussing a topic that he said I did not know what I was talking about. I had not been a victim such as he. I thought to myself, "I should withdraw and be silent."
But no, while I am not a victim, in David's words, "this is not about religion but about sexual abuse."
This is about religion. You can't allow your victimization to influence your religious views.
David still want to take charge and when my views are at odds with his views then he unleashes his fury against me as "insane idiot".
As I had said before a cycle of abuse is not easily broken.
Sexual abuse victims, left to their own devices would create an idolatrous God who conforms to 'their' corrupted view of man. A God of Love who loves the victims and hates the perpetrators as well as anyone who disagrees with their views.
The Bible says that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all . . .there is no respector of persons with God . .Is he the God of the victims only? No he is also the God of the perpertrator, yes of the perpetrator also.
Both need forgiveness. The perpetrator for his evil acts and the victim for his resulting actions toward others. He has to be forgiven for his lack of affection, belittling, controling, intolerance and invulnerablity.
Christ died on the cross that all might be forgiven but he also bore stripes that we might be healed. He says to the perpetrators and victims. "thy sins are forgiven now take up your bed and walk"
When SG announced that the sin of the pedophile is under the blood, how can we disagree?
The victims want more for him than forgiveness of sin they want vengence. Christ says: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that you might be children of your Father which is in heaven."
God bless David in his pursuit of alarming the population of Sexual abuse, especially in churches.
Let the law prosecute any offenders of sexual abuse to the extent that the law allows.
But let us live the life of the perfect law of liberty that changes the hearts of man and makes us citizens of another world.
We must, particularly as Christians, resist the urge to identify ourselves by our devastations.
Because of Christ, we are not conquered--we are more than conquerors. We are His people, His joint-heirs, His friends.
Past injuries can distract us from the reality of life in Christ, particularly when we indulge those injuries. (And before anyone cranks up the acrimony, I speak not out of accusation, but from experience.) While past pain can rightly spur us to work to save others similar pain, that pain cannot become a focal point, lest we run the risk of making it into a perverse idol of sorts.
And when that happens, the word "victim" becomes not just a title, but a bludgeon. It becomes carte blanche for attacking those deemed unsympathetic to the cause, for absolving oneself of responsibility for one's acts.
Don't you know what happened to me??
"Jesus saved me" is the only good way to answer that question, and "Christian" is the only worthwhile label. We are not, we must not be, branded by the past; rather, we must be known for the hope we have in God.
Hebrews 2
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. 13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
--Mike
powergmommy said on NBBCOF: (I'm not allowed to post the truth there)
PLEASE show me the scripture where it says that Jesus was crucified because He didn't live up to people's expectations.....
new theology for dummies...
NOT the Bible.
I found it! Scofield Reference Bible p. 1011: "The new message of Jesus. The rejected King now turns from the rejecting nation and offers not the kingdom, but rest and service to such in the nation as are conscious of need."
Matt. 11:28
This is not new theology but old theology for 'dummies' not the Bible!
hwblu said:
I also want to say this in regard to the many harsh remarks made toward Gaines: When he came to BBC all people had very high expectations of him. He could not live up to the demands people were placing upon him. Has it occured to any of you that Jesus was crucified because He did not meet his followers expectations.
hwblu's statement is consitent with conservative dispensational theology helt by such greats as Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Barnhouse, Talbot, Larkin, Peters, Rogers and Gaines.
Anyone on this blog (NBBCOF) would be foolish to disagree with him.
hwblu said:
"Has it occured to any of you that Jesus was crucified because He did not meet his followers expectations."
This is the conclusion of Scofield Reference Bible and Albert Schweitzer's, "The Quest of the Historical Jesus". Scofield was a conservative 'scholar' and held to the postponed evasion of the relevance of the Sermon on the Mount to a future age and Schweitzer was a liberal scholar who held to the interim evasion of the sermon's relevance.
Both believed the pelagian idea that the cross was an afterthought in the mind of Christ.
So hwblu has a good hold on his conservative theology. Now why would NBBCOF be so upset about that? They don't know their own theology! Who has blinded them?
Why don't you ever hear the Lord's Prayer quoted on a regular basis in Baptist churches? It is because it has no real relevance to them today but will have relevance in a future age.
WatchingHisStory said:
"Both believed the pelagian idea that the cross was an afterthought in the mind of Christ."
What does this do to the Scriptural truth that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world?
What does this do to the Scriptural truth that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world?
ans. nothing
They both seem to ignor this truth
Actually there was a cross in eternity before one appeared in time. Calvary was an event decreed before the foundation of the world.
Post a Comment