Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Where Rage Has Lease: Lessons From Chris Benoit

"Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil."

Ephesians 4:26-27


Chris Benoit gave place to the devil.

For reasons that may remain unknown, WWE wrestler Benoit (and you couldn't pay me enough money to do him the fundamental courtesy of referring to him as "Mr. Benoit") chose to turn himself into a monster. In 2003, Benoit's wife Nancy filed a restraining order against him (later rescinded), fearing for her family's safety--and, evidently, rightly so. In 2003, their son Daniel was a toddler.

Fast forward to 2007, when their son Daniel was a 7-year-old with needle tracks in his arms from what were most likely injections designed to increase his height and weight. There's been no evidence that Daniel was abnormally slight, or otherwise dealing with medical problems, just evidence that his monster of a father wanted to bulk him up, even as his monster of a father bulked himself up through chemistry. But I digress.

This past Friday, Benoit strangled his wife to death. Then he made a few phone calls.

This past Saturday (or early Sunday), Benoit smothered his son to death. Then he sent a few text messages.

Some time after that, the coward Benoit killed himself.

Rage does not always equate with volcanic emotional displays--sometimes rage can be intensified by a slow burn, a simmer, cooking under pressure over time. Benoit was slow and methodical in murdering his family. From the evidence released so far, the coward was not acting in wild-eyed fury but in a slower, more measured pace.

Do we blame steroids? No, we do not; whether or not they were a contributing factor, they were not an excuse.

Do we blame "professional" wrestling? No, we do not; however, the blithe, egocentric behavior of Vince McMahon and other pro-wrestling personalities in the wake of Benoit's murders and suicide (lionizing the man even as the evidence available at the time suggested Benoit was the perpetrator) has earned any WWE, ECW, or other wrestling presentation a ban from my home. Over the years, as televised wrestling has become more brutal and bizarre, it was less and less frequently a judicious choice, but now it is gone.

We blame the culprit--Benoit. Not for being a wrestler, nor for taking performance enhancers, but for giving place to the devil. We blame Benoit for not making the choice to spare his wife and his daughter; if you are foolish enough to end the life God has graciously given you, that's one thing, but allowing your mindset to bleed onto your family is another matter entirely.

Benoit indulged his wrath through more than one sundown. As a result, his surviving family members (including two other children) must deal with the reverberations from his evil acts, from his sins.

"Hey, you're finally judging somebody, Mike! Way to go!" Not in the slightest. Did Benoit have a saving relationship with Christ, then suffer some sort of breakdown? Though I have never seen evidence to suggest that, ultimately I have no idea--and unlike so many who are eager to pronounce the Benoit is "rotting" in Hell right now, we should all pray that somehow, some way, such is not the case. Judging his actions is another matter entirely, however, since they are the components of a cautionary tale, vividly demonstrating the dangers of allowing rage, hatred, bitterness, or any other sinful mindset to ferment in one's own life.

As I write this, my son is patting my arm, watching me write and asking questions about why the words are moving around on the computer screen. There is no power on this earth or elsewhere that could cause me to do harm to my son, my daughter, or my wife. Not because I'm such a paragon of virtue, but because Jesus is my Lord. In the lives of those of us who are Christians, we have the conviction of the Holy Spirit to guide us in understanding when we give Satan a beachhead from which to exert undue influence in our lives; apart from God's protection, there is no defense from that influence becoming a pervasive one. (Keep in mind that in Ephesians 4, the apostle Paul--through the leadership and inspiration of the Holy Spirit--was addressing fellow Christians, not the lost.)

As Christians, we should be grateful to God that we have a refuge in Him from evil influences. Let us have the humility to run to Him in our times of need, and the discernment to know when we are under attack from the enemy.

Ephesians 4 finishes out this way, in verses 28 through 32:

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Reports are surfacing that Benoit used a variant of his signature submission "finishing move" to kill Daniel, his son; the name of the move is the "Crippler Crossface."

Again, I urge you to ban broadcasts of so-called professional wrestling, and anything else having to do with what has turned into this barbarism of "sports entertainment," from your home.

101 comments:

bugsii said...

I haven't paid attention to the details being talked about in this case. But the overall message I get from eavesdropping in on the media coverage is "wrestling suffered a loss". It appears that Mcmahon and wrestling are doing PR for the fans. Mcmahon on the Today Show said that everything is speculation right now. Well, once they finally tell us it was indeed a murder-suicide, will they change their PR? Will they quit acting like Benoit was the victim because he was such a great guy and great technical wrestler?

How can anyone in that arena be looked up to as a great person when their job is to glorify a fake soap opera story line where people beat the stew out of each other, pride and strength rule the day, the women are have naked? Austin 3:16 says: I just whooped your Xss!"?

It's like strippers that raise money for breast cancer, "preachers" raking in the cash on tv, beer companies telling us to drink responsibly, cigarette companies warning us about cancer, casino's offering help for gambling addictions. It's just a confusing message.

It is the snare of the world. The success of professional wrestling is one great example of Satan's grip on America.

solomon said...

bepatient said...
Solomon,

If you are out there please please please tell me you are not the guy driving around Memphis with vanity plates that say "Solomon"...(.....)

It will just destroy the image of you I have in my mind!


bepatient,

Don't worry, it's not me. Your image of me can stay intact.

Although...

Memphis said...

Mike, I remember watching the WWE in college every Monday Night, we actually had several friends over to watch the "sports-opera", and yes we knew it was all setup but those guys were still tremendous athletes to pull off some of the moves at that size.

As I grew older and started having children myself, I saw the way they reacted to it when they saw about 10 minutes of the fighting, which was the last 10 minutes they ever saw!

It is sad that he struck out against his wife and child, and I can never imagine being in that type of situation, but this is America. The one place where we take pride in being bigger, stronger and faster than our rivals! We strive for dominance, especially in the sports world. I am also very competitive, almost to the fact that I do not want to play if we are not keeping score!

This is something I have tried not to emphasize in my childrens life as they are in their first years of t-ball and other sports. There is more to life than crowds chanting your name becuase of your athletic ability.

Karen said...

Mike,

Benoit's child had a form of autism which may account for the needle marks. Who knows - this case is so far fetched and mixed up.

I admit to going to my share of Monday Night 'Rassling here in Memphis over the years and I always watched it on Saturday mornings. 25 years ago! The fact is that wrestling entertainment is just that - entertainment. Easily influenced people can take anything to an extreme and make it a bad thing.

If you'll got to tmz.com (not one of my favorities, but it's where the pictures are!) and look for the pictures of wrestlers who have died of the past years, you'll see the influence of bad living (whether that means steroids I don't know, but a whole lot of them died of heart attacks!), drug and alcohol abuse or outside forces on these people.

It's a sad day when the 2 headlines on national news are Paris Hilton getting out of jail and some wrestler killing himself and his family. Sad!

bugsii said...

I remember going to Monday Night wrestling for the first time when I was 14 and it scared the wrestle out of me...the fans not the wrestlers. On tv it was not obvious to me that it was fake. Ringside...it was obvious.

On a lighter note:

Sister EncarnaciĆ³n on wrestling -"It's a sin".

Nacho "If God gave me this desire to wrestle, why am I such a stinky warrior?".

Mike Bratton said...

In the interest of full disclosure, let me tell you a couple of things about myself:

1) If you look at the video footage of the Jerry Lawler/Andy Kaufman match (where the Piledriver Mr. Lawler performed on Mr. Kaufman led to Mr. Kaufman leaving the Mid-South Coliseum on a stretcher as a result of a supposed neck injury), I'm second-row ringside, wearing a light-colored sweater. You can see me jumping up in approval as the Piledriver is being executed.

2) Several years ago, I participated in a fundraiser at the Old Daisy, one which pitted my Froggy 94 comrades and myself against personalities from 92.9, the former WMFS. It was a wrestling fundraiser--and I was the dominant force in the match. :)

3) If you doubt me, there's video footage of that match, also. My children love it.

--Mike

Cakes said...

You still look like a wrastler, bro.

Good thing you didn't land on your head.

I think steriods fried his brain--reports today said they raided the doctors office where he had been getting testosterone shots. Steriods are the likely culprit for his lack.

Also, the news today says that someone added the passing of Benoit's wife in his bio on Wikipedia, prior to her body being found.

I'm built like a southern ploughboy too; so if you ever come back to Memphis, come on by for some friendly backyard wrastling. But I must wear my luce libre mask.

Karen said...

Mike,

Even thought Lawler has said the whole Andy Kaufman thing was a total set up, I am friends with Marilu Henner (from "Taxi" that Andy and she were stars of). I asked her about 6 six years ago what the whole Andy/Wrestling thing was about and she said Andy was very serious about that match and that Andy never said it was a put on. Also, she said he'd wear wrestling tights under his regular clothes in L.A. sometimes which really creeped her out.

Ok, well, I'm off to do some video research on old wresting footage - I've gotta see it Mike!

Been kicking any footballs lately? ;)

karen

bepatient said...

Here is my full exposure to wrestling.

My aunt's best friend is Paula Lawler, Jerry's ex-wife. A few years about they were on TV one Saturday morning as part of Jerry's crew or posse or gang or whatever they call it. I was so embarrassed for her.

I don't watch wrestling or NASCAR or boxing. But to be fair, I don't really care for sports in general. But those are at the bottom of my list.

I saw that McMahon guy on the Today show today and all I could think was that he was scrambling to make sure they didn't get sued for not properly testing for steroids. It is a sad day when instead of expressing sadness for lost lives he is just playing cover-up.

I don't know the whole story, but either way that man's attitude was not inspiring any confidence in me.

Also, I know it was a repeat and most of you are men, but there was a story on Oprah the other day about children in Haiti being held has slaves. Many of them do not even have names or birthday (well, obviously they have one but you know what I mean). There is no record of these children at all. It was the saddest story and it made me even more disgusted with Paris Hilton whining about her few days in jail.

bepatient said...

Sol,

I am so thankful to hear it is not you!

Maybe we could start a rumor that it was Steve Gaines and see where that ends up...

Mike Bratton said...

Cakes said...
You still look like a wrastler, bro.


That is high praise. :)

I think steriods fried his brain--reports today said they raided the doctors office where he had been getting testosterone shots.

We'll find out for certain after the toxicology report comes out. Nevertheless, he did what he did to himself voluntarily.

Steriods are the likely culprit for his lack.

I'm sure you would agree that most people who have such a lack don't go on killing sprees.

Also, the news today says that someone added the passing of Benoit's wife in his bio on Wikipedia, prior to her body being found.

I'm still waiting to see what the investigation into that will reveal.

I'm built like a southern ploughboy too; so if you ever come back to Memphis, come on by for some friendly backyard wrastling. But I must wear my luce libre mask.

By all means--if I can use my entrance music.

Karen said...
Mike,

Even thought Lawler has said the whole Andy Kaufman thing was a total set up, I am friends with Marilu Henner (from "Taxi" that Andy and she were stars of). I asked her about 6 six years ago what the whole Andy/Wrestling thing was about and she said Andy was very serious about that match and that Andy never said it was a put on. Also, she said he'd wear wrestling tights under his regular clothes in L.A. sometimes which really creeped her out.


All right, now it's your turn to pull a fast one? Or are you being serious? How do you know Marilu Henner?

--Mike

Karen said...

Mike,

I really do know Marilu Henner! When I was living in San Diego, I heard her on the radio and started participating in her online class "Total Health Makeover". (marilu.com) Then I met a few girls in the San Diego area and we became good friends - we went to see Marilu in "Annie, Get Your Gun" in LA and we met her for the fist time. Then a few months later, those participating in the online classes all got together in Palm Springs for a spa weekend with Marilu. She's the coolest! Now, I'm not a bosom buddy or anything, but she sent me a new autographed book when mine was lost in a car accident/flood (don't ask!) and I still send her emails from time to time.

BePatient,

Wasn't that Oprah episode on the "fishing children" just heartbreaking? I can't imagine doing that kind of work as an adult let alone a little kid. I'm glad Oprah is bringing that issue to light.

Mike Bratton said...

Well, that's cool, Karen. Please ask Marilu to send an e-mail in my direction--I've always thought she had a wonderful sense of comedic timing.

--Mike

solomon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bepatient said...

Karen, that was the second time I have seen that episode and it was no less sad the second time around. I was so proud of the government for trying to step in and do something to help those fishermen and those trying to educate them.

Memphis said...

Mike, I just read on MSNBC that Benoit killed his son by using a form of the Crippler Crosface move. This is jaw dropping amazing to me. He had to be out of his mind in order to man handle a 7 year old they way he did.

bugsii said...

Benoit's doctor charged

"(Dr.)Astin prescribed testosterone for Benoit, a longtime friend, in the past but has not said what, if any, medications he prescribed when Benoit visited his office June 22, the day authorities believe Benoit killed his wife."

Hopefully this will grow roots into the rest of the wrestling world.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/07/02/wrestler.folow.ap/index.html

Karen said...

This is starting to sound like Dr. Nicopolous and Elvis Presley, huh?

bepatient said...

From an article about Chris Benoit:

DEA spokesman Rusty Payne said ``it's ridiculous for anyone to think we could have known that anything like that could have happened.''

I know that doesn't make a lot of sense on it's own, I just wanted everyone to note that the DEA spokesman was named "Rusty Payne". Poor guy.

solomon said...

You know, I'm starting to feel forgotten. Of the 5 headlines on the 'savingbellevue' front page, only one is actually about Bellevue.

It's good to know that Jim isn't biased about dragging churches through the mud for all the world to see.

bepatient said...

yeah, I have noticed that as well Solomon. So now he is just banking on all those hits from the BBC folks to spread info about GBC. Perhaps he should see if the old saveGBC site is available?

bepatient said...

I guess this is my answer:

"Final Note: # (2) There is a large number of Bellevue members that has moved their membership to GBC and a large group of Bellevue members including Bellevue's former First Lady regularly attend Germantown Baptist Church. including Dr. Michael Spradlin as intrim pastor at GBC for about eight months and Dr. Jim Whitmire leading the music. Several of GBC's newest staff members are from Bellevue.

When people call me to ask for this removal of this link and information, they say it has nothing to do with Bellevue. Well it does, also we as Christians are taught to stand for truth and integrity. I suppose these people think integrity and truth only applies outside the church."


There is also a link that says "don't like the truth!" and when you click on it you are redirected to the Kool Aid website.

Mike Bratton said...

Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in...

Heh heh heh...

--Mike

solomon said...

From "savingbellevue"...

It seems that the members of Germantown Baptist Church should apologize to their former pastor, Sam Shaw. His integrity, from what we know, was superior in comparison.


This is the kind of statement that absolutely blows my mind. After all that GBC has been through, for JH to slam each and every member of the church just because his concerns don't take priority is downright shameful.

I'm guessing that his blanket statement doesn't apply to the BBCers who have joined since Shaw resigned.

Be careful, GBC. You've got a wolf in the fold.

bugsii said...

I would like to know why Richard Emerson and Mark Dougharty's recorded conversation weren't posted in their entirety on "Saving..."? Richard doesn't really say much in the clips posted which makes me wonder what the full context was. Mark's voice seems to sound passionate and concerned about the welfare of the church. Richard Emerson sounds arrogant, proud and even snickers a couple of times.

bepatient said...

Sol,

Bless your heart- at least you tried.

I know exactly what you mean- I guess all the Hispanics are going to hell for calling "sin"... "pecado" (I hope that is the right word, I just used some online translator seeing as I don't speak Spanish)

solomon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
solomon said...

Thanks bepatient. This is yet another example of what a villain I am. Or, "false teacher" and "of the devil" to quote the NBBCOF.

I looked 'sin' up in the dictionary, and it was defined in terms of other words. I guess Webster is 'of the devil' too. I suspected as much in high school.

At least this 'discussion' was "church-related". Not 'sophomoric' like most of my exchanges. It was a most interesting exchange, too:

EXTRA! EXTRA!
KEITH SOLOMON GIVES GREEN LIGHT TO SIN!!!

solomon said...
Has God ordained miracles to occur through the use of the word? Does it contain special power? Will a rebellious Christian repent if called a sinner but remain in rebellion if called a 'moral failure'?

"Hamartia" simply means missing the mark, and I could just as accurately say that I sinned when I didn't take down a buck during hunting season. A basketball player sins when he misses a 3-pointer, and I sin if I miss the waste basket with a wadded up piece of paper.

It's a word that's steeped in church tradition and legalism, but Christians saved by grace who enjoy the freedom that Jesus bought for us aren't really hung up on that.

oc says:

'Sin' put Jesus on the cross. I guess you missing a buck or missing a 3 pointer is what my Lord died over? Help me someone, because I'm about to go off.

solomon said...
Granted that the original Hebrew was a powerful word (negligence, rebellion, guilt, error), does the English translation convey equally strong meaning?

I don't consider this a hill worth dying on.

oc said...
Solomon said:
A 'moral failure' will send the unsaved to hell just as much as 'sin'.

oc says:
Interesting. Moral failure is not a sin? I didn't know that. And there's a reason I didn't know that. It's because it's not true.

imaresistor said...

Bottom line of this post is:

"Beware of false teachers who teach you that a sin is a mistake! "

And for The Messanger? It is of Satan himself!!!

Okay folks...let us get back on the right page here! Beware of false teachers!

allofgrace said...
If the use of the word "sin" doesn't matter, then why not use it? Obviously it matters to those who would rather use "mistake" or some other word...the argument is sophomoric at best. And why would they not use the word "sin"?...because people generally know what that word means. "Mistake" implies some mitigating circumstance..."sin" leaves no excuse. If one sins that makes him a sinner...if one makes a mistake...well...he's only "human"...not really THAT bad...yes, words mean things. A dumbed down religion in which sinners aren't really all that bad, doesn't really need a savior does it?...I mean why all that blood and agony for a bunch of mistakes and mistakers? All they need is a good therapist to talk them out of the guilt.

New BBC Open Forum said...
Even the Catholics grasp the difference between "sin" and "a mistake" early on. See the second grade cirriculum here.

(Forgive me, I just couldn't resist ending it there.)

Junkster said...

I was wondering just how long this thread could go on without turning to savingbelleve or NBBCOF. 8 days ... time for a new thread?

Mike Bratton said...

Junkster said...
I was wondering just how long this thread could go on without turning to savingbelleve or NBBCOF. 8 days ... time for a new thread?


One of the reasons people who post here tend to reference those unfortunate groups is because of the shabby way they're treated by representatives of those groups.

As I've said more than once, there are much more interesting things for me to write about than the Closed Forum, Savaging Bellevue, and the like; however, as I mentioned in this thread, "Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in" with the unsophisticated way they deal with people who dare to disagree with them.

I'll work on an idea for a new thread--matter of fact, I had a fine idea for one suggested to me just yesterday. Thanks for your input.

--Mike

solomon said...

I was wondering just how long this thread could go on without turning to savingbelleve or NBBCOF. 8 days ... time for a new thread?

I'd be a lot happier to talk to the NBBCOF than about them, but it seems like every time I try to make a point over there I cause an outrage.

My ideas aren't even dissenting, either.

Memphis said...

Funny thing to me about the NBBCOF blog is the way they chop up Brother Steves sermons BEFORE he has even preached it.

solomon said...

Before or after, they've already made up their minds. Nothing can change their opinions.

What can you do with people? I just follow the Lord's command to love them and pray for them.

The ball's in His court.

Junkster said...

Memphis said...
Funny thing to me about the NBBCOF blog is the way they chop up Brother Steves sermons BEFORE he has even preached it.

He just makes it so easy! :)

Mike Bratton said...

Were I Pastor Gaines (if he's even aware of what the tiny band of bitterness-mongers says about his messages), I'd borrow (with appropriate permission) notes from a vintage sermon from Pastor Rogers and construct a message from them.

--Mike

Junkster said...

Mike Bratton said...
Were I Pastor Gaines (if he's even aware of what the tiny band of bitterness-mongers says about his messages), I'd borrow (with appropriate permission) notes from a vintage sermon from Pastor Rogers and construct a message from them.

As long as we're saying what we'd do ... were I him, I'd:
(1) Stop the fill in the blanks approach
(2) Start preaching more expository, contextual messages and fewer topical, textual ones
(3) Be ashamed of myself for my inept mishandling of my pastoral responsibilities since becoming pastor at BBC and resign.

Just sayin' ...

Junkster said...

Oh, wait ... if I did the last one I wouldn't have to worry about the first two. So forget 1 & 2.

Mike Bratton said...

Junkster said...
Oh, wait ... if I did the last one I wouldn't have to worry about the first two. So forget 1 & 2.


Then by all means, go do better.

Bring whatever line of work you're in to a deafening, screeching halt and begin pastoring a church. Contrary to popular opinion, you don't need a seminary degree--particularly to pastor a smaller congregation.

Since you have pastoring wired, it should be no problem for you to properly handle each and every situation that arises, and each and every individual who thinks he (or she) could do a better job than what you're doing.

A couple of suggestions, though:

1) When a member of your congregation behaves in a way that is either clearly un-Biblical or that doesn't meet with your church's (or your) doctrinal standards, resist the urge to post your opinion of that member on the Internet.

2) Don't try to pastor behind a pseudonym. Throwing bombs from the bushes as a member of the laity is one thing, but using the same tactic as a pastor really won't go over well. While it's extraordinarily simple to snipe at others while one's identity is hidden, it's virtually impossible to minister to anyone from the same posture.

Visit the Southern Baptist Convention's website for pastoring opportunities--I even have their site linked on the main page.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

Is it a sin or a mistake that I keep asking why the son could not approach AR about his father?

Is it just a coincidence that he did approach SG within months of AR's death?

Dosen't it seem that AR had a celebrated aura about him that SG does not have? And that maybe the reason he was approachable?

Charles Page
Collierville

Junkster said...

Mike Bratton said...
Then by all means, go do better.

You first!

Junkster said...

WatchingHISstory said...
Is it a sin or a mistake that I keep asking why the son could not approach AR about his father?

Just plain old fashioned ignorance.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WatchingHISstory said...

Just plain old fashioned ignorance.

and that comment comes from one of Nass' accepted bloggers!!

Actually the only ignorant question is the one you didn't ask.

That alone put me several tiers above Nass' approved bloggers.

WatchingHISstory said...

junk

about your earlier comment:

so you interpret Acts 5 so as to protect AR from my accusations, Is that an objective reading of the Word.

How did Peter know that they were not lying to man but to God? Maybe GOD told him! The supernatural was natural for the early Church and should come natural for us, but we prefer the natural over the supernatural not a theological choice but a comfort choice. The supernatural interferes with our lives. That is why you interpret Acts 5 subjectively. It can say what you want it to say.

just saying.

Mike Bratton said...

Junkster said...
Mike Bratton said...
Then by all means, go do better.

You first!


Thanks for the non-response.

Disappointing, yet informative.

WatchingHISstory said...
Is it a sin or a mistake that I keep asking why the son could not approach AR about his father?

Is it just a coincidence that he did approach SG within months of AR's death?

Dosen't it seem that AR had a celebrated aura about him that SG does not have? And that maybe the reason he was approachable?


Charles, I believe you actually may have a point here. Over the years of working for Pastor Rogers, I heard from scores of Bellevue people how they wouldn't feel right "bothering" their own pastor about this matter or that.

Pastor Rogers did nothing to cultivate that perception, but it existed nevertheless.

How did Peter know that they were not lying to man but to God? Maybe GOD told him! The supernatural was natural for the early Church and should come natural for us, but we prefer the natural over the supernatural not a theological choice but a comfort choice.

Just a thought, but God has an infinitely wide-ranging repertoire. Because God revealed particular information to Peter in a particular way does not mean that God is bound to behave in precisely that same manner in similar, subsequent instances.

--Mike

Junkster said...

Mike Bratton said...
Thanks for the non-response.
Disappointing, yet informative.


Are you one who can glean information from a lack thereof? Perhaps your abilities are even more amazing than we thought!

Actually, I say "you first" because you were the one who first said what you would do if you were SG, and I followed suit. So if I should become a pastor for having an opinion about what SG should do, so should you. Right?

But if what you were looking for was a more robust response ... here it is ... I never said I could handle every situation well, I said that if I'd mishandled some things as badly as SG has, I'd be ashamed and resign. I have actually been in the situation of badly mishandling a situation (and that is being kind to myself to put it that way) and I did resign over it, so I am not speaking in the hypothetical.

Junkster said...

Mike Bratton said...
Just a thought, but God has an infinitely wide-ranging repertoire. Because God revealed particular information to Peter in a particular way does not mean that God is bound to behave in precisely that same manner in similar, subsequent instances.

Mike, you are correct. The point I made (elsewhere) that brought this discussion out was that the text of Acts 5 does not say (does not even hint or imply) how Peter came to know that Ananias and Sapphira had lied. Peter could have gained the knowledge supernaturally or naturally. Therefore using the text as a proof text for God supernaturally revealing secret sin is subjective eisegesis.

Memphis said...

Junkster said...
Memphis said...
Funny thing to me about the NBBCOF blog is the way they chop up Brother Steves sermons BEFORE he has even preached it.

He just makes it so easy! :)

Memphis asks:

How so? I would like to know how he makes it easy to chop up his sermon before he preaches it by posting his outline on the web?

Junkster said...

Memphis said...
How so? I would like to know how he makes it easy to chop up his sermon before he preaches it by posting his outline on the web?

I was mostly trying to be funny. Most of the time I wouldn't be able to give a sermon critique based on just an outline. (I'm not a fan of the fill-in-the-blank approach for sermons, but that's just a personal preference.) But in the case of the Acts 5 outline, as I commented on the "other" blog, a sermon on "The Danger of Greed" from that passage distorts the basic sense of the text.

Memphis said...

OK, I happen to like the fill in the blank outlines.

Do you still attend services at BBC or do you listen to them elsewhere?

Junkster said...

I was last a member of Bellevue in 1999. I heard SG preach as a guest back in those days, and thought he was a good preacher. But I have not heard him since he came as Bellevue's pastor.

My current pastor does fill in the blanks, too.

Memphis said...

Oh, I thought you were a member or a recent member at least.

solomon said...

I wonder if 'the oc' is in the house?

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike Bratton said...
"Just a thought, but God has an infinitely wide-ranging repertoire. Because God revealed particular information to Peter in a particular way does not mean that God is bound to behave in precisely that same manner in similar, subsequent instances."

Junkster said:
"Mike, you are correct." (and watching agrees with Mike)) "The point I made (elsewhere) that brought this discussion out was that the text of Acts 5 does not say (does not even hint or imply) how Peter came to know that Ananias and Sapphira had lied. Peter could have gained the knowledge supernaturally or naturally. Therefore using the text as a proof text for God supernaturally revealing secret sin is subjective eisegesis."

junkster said: "Just plain old fashioned ignorance."

Was Peter speaking for God (naturally-'just his opinion') or was God speaking to Peter (supernaturally- 'revelation') about the liars.

I'm sure a simple audit of deeds would reveal the lie but for Peter to take it upon himself to speak for God would be very presumptous. They lied to men but the deadly sin was lying to God.

According to you, Peter and the others beat Ananias to death and later did the same to his wife.

Of coarse not! Ananias fell dead at Peter's feet. God killed him! And coincidentially when his wife came before Peter with the same lie Peter told her that she would also die in the same manner as her husband.

Is this "subjective eisegesis"?

Actually your attempts to protect AR from my conclusions forces you into "subjective eisegesis".

Or maybe you don't believe in the supernatural at all!

Charles Page

Mike Bratton said...

Mr. Page, I would appreciate fewer undue extrapolations, fewer "according to you" inaccuracies, and more measured conversation.

And let me say this as politely as I can once again: Your continued references to Pastor Rogers are off the mark. I have yet to fathom what axe you have to grind with him, but long-distance accusations regarding someone I don't believe you knew aren't terribly productive. He needed no "protection" from such commentary during his lifetime, and certainly needs none now.

Seasoning one's conversation with salt is always a good idea; dumping it in by the cupful isn't.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike

"Charles, I believe you actually may have a point here. Over the years of working for Pastor Rogers, I heard from scores of Bellevue people how they wouldn't feel right "bothering" their own pastor about this matter or that."

That doesn't bother you that so many people could not approach such a great man, their pastor, about their small problems.

How many of these small problems massed into large "out of control" problems? Eternity will reveal it!

These people were forced to go to subordinates such as PW, less qualified counselors, men envious of AR.

You say you would have taken a bullet for AR. Dosen't that cloud your opinions. Isn't there something to be seen in my "long-distance accusations" other than I have an axe to grind.

"undue extrapolations, fewer "according to you" inaccuracies, and more measured conversation." These words just sound like a smart person started posting on NBBCOF! (closed forum)

Dr Rogers knew PW for well over 30 years as a ministerial associate and PW's son kept a criminal secret from AR, rather than tarnish Bellevue's image. This doesn't bother you?

My "inacurate" opinion is that there is a lot to be discovered about Bellevue's situation and my life's pursuit is to discover it.

Mike, I may be the one taking a bullet for my beliefs.

by the cup,

Charles

johnthebaptist said...

Mike Bratton said...
Were I Pastor Gaines (if he's even aware of what the tiny band of bitterness-mongers says about his messages), I'd borrow (with appropriate permission) notes from a vintage sermon from Pastor Rogers and construct a message from them.

--Mike

Reply: That is why you shouldn't be a Pastor. You don't preach for spite or to appease the listeners. You seek God's message and preach His message. I don't think it would be wise to use another mans outline. Makes a preacher lazy.
That is part of the problem with preachers today. Too lazy to do the praying and studying themselves. They preach other mans sermons.

Just goes to show you that you need to stick to whatever you do for a living and leave the preaching to God's men.

WatchingHISstory said...

Deacon David Walker said:

I ASKED DR. RODGERS AT ONE OUR OUR DEACONS MEETINGS WAS HE GOING TO BE PART OF THE PULPIT COMMITTEE,HE SAID NO BUT I WILL MAKE SURE THEY GET THE RIGHT PRESON. AND HE ALSO
SAID "THAT THERE WILL BE SOME ROGER PEOPLE THAT WONT LIKE THE CHANGE AND LEAVE.AND THE CURCH WILL BE BETTER OFF WITH OUT THEM.

bepatient said...

Charles,

While I do agree with you that AR was considered "unreachable" by many in the congregation, it wasn't by his own doing. If anything, it was the sin of some in his congregation lifting him up into a lofty position in their mind.

You seem so confident in your beliefs, but you are constantly begging us to agree with you.

solomon said...

jonthebaptist,

I was with you until the last paragraph.

I think that was uncalled for. Preachers aren't the only men who are 'God's' men.

Mike Bratton said...

johnthebaptist said...
Mike Bratton said...
Were I Pastor Gaines (if he's even aware of what the tiny band of bitterness-mongers says about his messages), I'd borrow (with appropriate permission) notes from a vintage sermon from Pastor Rogers and construct a message from them.

--Mike

Reply: That is why you shouldn't be a Pastor.


No, John, I shouldn't be a pastor because God has called me to serve Him in other ways.

You don't preach for spite or to appease the listeners.

Context, John, context. It would be humorous to see the same people who vivisect Pastor Gaines' messages on a regular basis break out the blades on something that originated with Pastor Rogers. The only position I know of in the overall Bellevue discussion that deals in spite is the position that is fully invested in Bellevue's failure--you know, the anti-Bellevue brigade?

You seek God's message and preach His message.

Which is something I know Pastor Rogers did. And to the best of my knowledge, it's something Pastor Gaines does, but you see how a slice of his audience chooses to thank him for it.

I don't think it would be wise to use another mans outline. Makes a preacher lazy.

Couldn't agree more, and I've never preached a sermon using anyone's outline but my own.

That is part of the problem with preachers today. Too lazy to do the praying and studying themselves. They preach other mans sermons.

I don't believe it applies at Bellevue, but you make a good point.

Just goes to show you that you need to stick to whatever you do for a living and leave the preaching to God's men.

Thanks, John, but as a Christian, I'm one of God's men, too.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

WatchingHISstory said...

That doesn't bother you that so many people could not approach such a great man, their pastor, about their small problems.


Oh, it's bothered me for a long time, but "could not" is inappropriate terminology. "Would not" is what you're looking for. I talked with him at length over the years about matters large and small, from God's leading in my life, to picking a doctor, to matters of doctrine and theology, to telling one another really bad jokes.

And I'm neither a mover nor a shaker.

Hey, before he became ill, we were discussing a good time to have Pastor Rogers and his wife over for dinner. This business of approachability was something generally pinned on him, not something that was part of his character. My children loved to hug on him--you can't get much more approachable than that.

How many of these small problems massed into large "out of control" problems? Eternity will reveal it!

Let me see if I understand your statement prior to Eternity: Other people's sins, difficulties, problems, shortcomings, etc. are not the faults of the people who have them, but their pastor's fault?

These people were forced to go to subordinates such as PW, less qualified counselors, men envious of AR.

You paint with a broad brush, and you really must stop it. To presume envy in others is very poor form.

You say you would have taken a bullet for AR. Dosen't that cloud your opinions.

Hardly--it shows that I had (and have) the highest respect for him, but it doesn't mean I've unplugged my cerebrum in order to have that respect.

Absence of evidence and the exaltation of subjectivity, however, can cloud an opinion quite nicely.

Isn't there something to be seen in my "long-distance accusations" other than I have an axe to grind.

You'll have to tell me.

"undue extrapolations, fewer "according to you" inaccuracies, and more measured conversation." These words just sound like a smart person started posting on NBBCOF! (closed forum)

I'd like to see the same things from you as from the Closed Forum regulars, to be frank.

Dr Rogers knew PW for well over 30 years as a ministerial associate and PW's son kept a criminal secret from AR, rather than tarnish Bellevue's image. This doesn't bother you?

People hide abuse on a regular basis; please explain how it's Adrian Rogers' fault someone else "kept a criminal secret" from him.

My "inacurate" opinion is that there is a lot to be discovered about Bellevue's situation and my life's pursuit is to discover it.

Then you're not only wasting your life, but being disobedient to God. For those of us who are Christians, our life's pursuit must be--not "should be," but must be--to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ as we have opportunity.

Mike, I may be the one taking a bullet for my beliefs.

Oh, I believe Christian persecution in the West is going to increase in the years to come, and I'm guessing that's what you meant by "for my beliefs."

However, if you mean to reference your notion that "there is a lot to be discovered about Bellevue's situation," the implication would be that you feel someone associated with Bellevue might shoot you, and such an implication is disgusting and obscene.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike

1.) change it to "Would not"
2.) a pastor's availability can be a great factor. Obviously not for everyone.
3.) Before the Bellevue situation I would have agreed with you, However my brush strokes are getting broader!
4.) Timming seems to be an unavoidable factor in this situation.
5.) AT 60 years of age I am sharing at a rate greater than I have ever dreamed and I was a minister for 25 years serving in Turkey, Italy and Germany. Now I load cargo in containers for Fed EX. Life couldn't be better for me!!! However being obedient to God is our main goal and it is never a waste of time.
6.) Persecution will increase in the west! so true
7.) I detect a little of "I'm ok but you are not ok" in your remark. Your taking a bullet for AR would be honorable but my taking a bullet from someone from Bellevue would be obscene and disgusting. Refer to no. 3

WatchingHISstory said...

bepatient

I'd like to think that I am pleading rather than begging.

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike

haven't your opinions of Bellevue changed a bit?

"When people writing anonymously think it would be a great thing if you were dead, Junk, please tell me why the "level of harm" isn't sufficient. And before you respond, please don't say anything along the lines of "Because they're Bellevue folks, you know they're nice!" That's what I used to think about Paul Williams, and I was as surprised as anyone to find out just how wrong my opinion of him was."

WatchingHISstory said...

David Walker said, quoting AR:

"THAT THERE WILL BE SOME ROGER PEOPLE THAT WONT LIKE THE CHANGE AND LEAVE.AND THE CURCH WILL BE BETTER OFF WITH OUT THEM."

Would Dr Rogers have been refering to the NBBCOF crowd?

Memphis said...

Solomon, I noticed you and OC may no be agreeing on stuff accrding to the two blogs...everything cool?

Amazed said...

Mike,

Greetings from a friend.

Here is something that really confuses me. Last Sunday night we had the Lord's Supper. Pastor Gaines preached what I thought to be an outstanding message out of Acts 5. The mood was somewhat somber as he taught due to the weight of the text, but it seemed like a very God honoring message that called us all to examine our own hearts and confess our own sins. I could just sense God the Holy Spirit moving among us.

I've noted that those on the "Closed" forum had started to pillory the message even before it was preached, and have continued to lambaste it afterwards.

Having been in that service, I can't imagine how any child of God could not have been blessed, convicted, and called to greater holiness before our Lord.

How is it that some just don't have ears to hear?

Memphis said...

Amazed, I was always taught that you only got out of church what you put into it.

So my parents always made sure to teach us that we went to church in the right frame of mind, not to sleepy from being out the night before, we didn't read other books in church, but we listened to the preacher. By being in the right frame of mind, we could then open our ears to hear what the Lord was wanting us to get from the sermon.

I believe the problem with the ones you talk about is that they do not want to hear anything SG has to say, they only look at what they can pick apart. Now I am not a Bible scholar, and I am sure that some of this has lead to more intense Bible study from a few, but to verbally belittle everything says alot to me about those who do.

I wonder if a thread on the blog over there was ever entitled "Say something Good about Sg or BBC", I imagine you would hear crickets.

JMHO
Memphis

Junkster said...

Amazed said...
Having been in that service, I can't imagine how any child of God could not have been blessed, convicted, and called to greater holiness before our Lord.

This speaks to the amazing ability of our wonderful God to speak His truth to us via imperfect vessels communicating His Word imperfectly. His Word is powerful whenever read or spoken, even if the sermon outline or emphasis is not necessarily the point of the text and even if the messenger is seriously flawed. Thanks for the reminder.

How is it that some just don't have ears to hear?

How indeed?

KNAB said...

I respect your belief in God, but I don't believe a metaphysical explanation is required here: Chris Benoit was delusional from years of steroid usage combined with a megalomaniacal personality. What he did to his wife and child was sick and appears demonic, but we can only speculate what was going on with Chris at the time of his rampage and where his soul will be going in any afterlife. Take care and best regards. Kyle
(http://pointvcounterpoint.blogspot.com)

bepatient said...

Memphis said

I wonder if a thread on the blog over there was ever entitled "Say something Good about Sg or BBC", I imagine you would hear crickets.

I posed that question a while back and the only response I received was something along the lines of 'I like the way he plays guitar and he does a good Johnny Cash impression'

Amazed said...

I would submit that every message that has ever been preached, save those preached by our Lord himself has been preached by an imperfect messenger.

One of the things that added meaning to the message was that the messenger wasn't pretending to be perfect.

solomon said...

amazed said...
How is it that some just don't have ears to hear?

junkster said...
How indeed?


How indeed, indeed?

bugsii said...

Amazed, I am no longer attending Bellevue but was at that service with friends and was in awe of the Holy Spirit that night. Then, to come online and see on the other blog one person trash the message and another that didn't even attend trash it amazes me. All because it came out of the mouth of Steve Gaines. For that I was called melodramatic. It's like they were trying to get the usual drum beat going.

Let's say that SG is the evil, hateful person they say he is. Does that negate the truth he spoke? The message was not a misuse of the text in Acts 5 especially in light of the Lord's Supper. One blogger speculated that he was trying to scare people into tithing. As I type this I wonder if their sin is blasphemy in trying misrepresent what the Holy Spirit was accomplishing in that service and account it as evil? Is that too harsh or biblical(Matthew 12:31-32)?

Amazed said...

Bugsii,

Glad you had a chance to be there for that service.

I suspect that most of the criticism of that service comes from those not in attendance.

The Holy Spirit was unmistakably at work. For one to be there and no sense His presence would speak to having a very hardened heart towards the things of God. Perhaps a root of bitterness is hindering.

Arminius the Troll said...

Boy! I'm out of pocket for a while and miss all the fun!!

Shoot, everyone knows that A&S were just pathological liars. They had absolutely no reason for what they did other than sheer fun.

Anyone who says they had a reason, when the Bible is silent on the issue, is clearly evil, a liar, and has ulterior motives.

Besides, if it's about greed I might have to examine my own life and I don't want to.

solomon said...

Arminius the Troll said...

Shoot, everyone knows that A&S were just pathological liars.


Oh brother...

Get thee waaaaaaaaaaay behind me, Satan!

Junkster said...

Amazed said...
I would submit that every message that has ever been preached, save those preached by our Lord himself has been preached by an imperfect messenger.

Of course. Some are just more imperfect than others. He has spoken through more than one jackass over the centuries. Regardless, God is good to meet us where we are.

Junkster said...

Memphis said...
I wonder if a thread on the blog over there was ever entitled "Say something Good about Sg or BBC", I imagine you would hear crickets.

Yes, much like the sound over at faithinbellevue.com. Perhaps even the supporters of SG have little good to say.

Junkster said...

bugsii said...
Amazed, I am no longer attending Bellevue but was at that service with friends and was in awe of the Holy Spirit that night. Then, to come online and see on the other blog one person trash the message and another that didn't even attend trash it amazes me.

Perspective. What I saw (and participated in) on TOB (my new acronym for "The Other Blog") was a straightforward and honest discussion of the misuse of a scriptural text.

All because it came out of the mouth of Steve Gaines.

That may have been the motive of some. For me, I wouldn't care who it was ... SG, AR, Billy Graham, John MacArthur, or the Pope ... I would still say that it is wrong to base an entire sermon on a concept (greed) that is not in the text supposedly being preached.

The message was not a misuse of the text in Acts 5 especially in light of the Lord's Supper.

Yes, it was a misuse of the text, and the Lord's Supper has nothing to do with that. The text says nothing about greed, and gives not even a hint of the motives of A&S for keeping back a portion of the money received by the sale of the property. (Just as it provides no information about how Peter came to know that they had lied about it.) Their motives for keeping some of the money are irrelevant to the message of the text, and keeping some of the money is not what they were judged for. The sermon was about something other than the passage, but purported to be about the passage. That is by definition a misuse of the text.

I appreciate that you felt blessed and moved by the service, and that God was able to communicate truth to you ... but it was in spite of the emphasis of the sermon. He's a big God like that.

Junkster said...

Arminius the Troll said...
Shoot, everyone knows that A&S were just pathological liars. They had absolutely no reason for what they did other than sheer fun.

Anyone who says they had a reason, when the Bible is silent on the issue, is clearly evil, a liar, and has ulterior motives.


Or ... maybe anyone who claims to know the reason is just missing the point of the text, demonstrating poor hermenuetical skills, and engaging in idle speculation by focusing on what God didn't say rather than what He did.

bugsii said...

Junkster, I guess it's a matter of literal translation for you and not how does this apply to your life. I get the literal part...just don't lie to the Holy Spirit. We shouldn't be concerned about anything that starts us on this path...just don't lie to the Holy Spirit. So A&S were probably decent Christians with a desire to please God, sold their property and then things went crazy and they decided to lie to the Holy Spirit and hold a little back. That is a possibility I guess but in my life I believe it would have started with a little greed, fear and for sure pride(marching down to give my Love Offering comes to mind).

To me, it is like discussing the life of a person that died of a heart attack. The person had high blood pressure, sedentary lifestyle(blogging too much), ate like a pig. In order to keep others from following that type of lifestyle I would not say "listen, whatever you do don't die of a heart attack. good luck!". Instead, I would talk to them about avoiding the things known to possibly lead to a heart attack.

I want to consider all reasonable possibilities in avoiding sin and it's consequences.

Or ... maybe anyone who claims to know the reason is just missing the point of the text, demonstrating poor hermenuetical skills, and engaging in idle speculation by focusing on what God didn't say rather than what He did.

Point of the text? Points. Idle speculation...God doesn't want us to use our brain AND listen to the Holy Spirit while reading the Bible? Did Judas get mad at Mary because he was a thief or because he was greedy? Did Judas take the thirty pieces because he just wanted to betray Jesus or because he was greedy? Why didn't he just betray him? Nevermind. Woke my daughter up pounding on the keyboard. Night all.

Memphis said...

Memphis said...
I wonder if a thread on the blog over there was ever entitled "Say something Good about Sg or BBC", I imagine you would hear crickets.

Junk said
Yes, much like the sound over at faithinbellevue.com. Perhaps even the supporters of SG have little good to say.


That site was not about Steve Gaines, but was setup for people to tell their memories of BBC and Pastor Rogers. Make fun of the site if you want, but we were trying to keep some semblence of peace and good memories.

Arminius the Troll said...

Check this out from the NBBCCF:
Thanks Nass! for the time and talent you give to provide a forum NOT TO DEBATE....
but to point the weak,lost,and wounded to the narrow way, to the Holiness of God,to repentance of SIN!


HAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA! Is that a riot or what?!?!?!?!?!?!?

That's their whole, entire, complete problem in a nutshell right there. No debate. No concessions. Closed minds. My way or the highway.

Not to mention treating people who disagree like dirt.

bugsii said...

Read this morning and thought of you Junkster:
Psalm 102:3 "Because of the sound of my groaning my bones cling to my skin".
Using your method of hermeneutics, what can I gain from this text? Is that just some powerful groaning or is something wrong with the Psalmist?

I learned that you read the bible literally meaning you read it like any other text. If it's poetry, you read it with the poetic mindset, if it's history you read it with a historical mindset.

Like in reading the newspaper, if the report says the "the thief took the cash register", I'm not going to spend two hours trying to figure out why a thief would want a cash register. He want the CASH. I can figure that out.

To my knowledge Steve Gaines didn't say the only thing to glean from this text is greed. Like you are saying the only thing to glean is lying to the Holy Spirit.

Junkster said...

Memphis said...
That site was not about Steve Gaines, but was setup for people to tell their memories of BBC and Pastor Rogers. Make fun of the site if you want, but we were trying to keep some semblence of peace and good memories.

From faithinbellevue.com:
"This is a website to show our support for Bellevue Baptist Church. Here you can show your support for Dr. Steve Gaines and our great church and share with others how Bellevue has positively influenced your life and family. Together we can show the world how Bellevue has changed lives and is answering prayers."

Not about Steve Gaines? Memories of Dr. Rogers? Sorry, but that's not what the text says! :)

As far as making fun of something, how is my remark any different than yours?

Junkster said...

bugsii said...
We shouldn't be concerned about anything that starts us on this path...just don't lie to the Holy Spirit. So A&S were probably decent Christians with a desire to please God, sold their property and then things went crazy and they decided to lie to the Holy Spirit and hold a little back. That is a possibility I guess but in my life I believe it would have started with a little greed, fear and for sure pride(marching down to give my Love Offering comes to mind).

You are doing the same thing with my remarks that SG did with the text of Acts 5 -- making assumptions and inferences not warranted by what was said. I never said there was nothing else to to learn but "don't lie to the Spirit" (in fact, I said there was much to learn). I did say that the text does not mention greed, and that since we have no way from the text to know the motives of A&S, it is inappropriate (and an example of poor scriptural interpretation) to use that text to try to teach about greed, its consequences, etc. It is taking an assumption not made in the text, and not even related to the primary point of the text, and building a sermon based on that assumption, rather than on the text itself.

To me, it is like discussing the life of a person that died of a heart attack. The person had high blood pressure, sedentary lifestyle(blogging too much), ate like a pig. In order to keep others from following that type of lifestyle I would not say "listen, whatever you do don't die of a heart attack. good luck!". Instead, I would talk to them about avoiding the things known to possibly lead to a heart attack.

Using your illustration ... suppose a doctor encounters a person having a heart attack. The doctor later uses that experience to teach his students about the symptoms and treament for heart attacks. Later, one of the students speaks in a medical conference and says that his teacher told him that the reason for the man's heart attack was "high blood pressure, sedentary lifestyle (blogging too much), ate like a pig." The second doctor would be misrepresenting what he was taught. It could also be appropriate for him to speak on the causes of heart attacks, but to do so based on what he learned about the symptoms and treatment of one would be wrong. For all he knows, the cause of the man's heart attack was due to something other than the factors mentioned (diabetes, for example).

As you indicated in your folow up post, God's Word is to be approached literally, like any other text. The difference is that, being divine, there are many levels of truth and many applications to be made, because His Word is living and active. But it never means what it never meant, and it never says what it never said.

Please understand that my criticisms are not arising from some dislike of SG or some prior bias against him. It is about an aproach to scriptural interpretation. I suspect that my points would be more readily accepted if I were talking about sermon delivered by a preacher folks didn't like.

Mike Bratton said...

Arminius the Troll said...
Check this out from the NBBCCF:
Thanks Nass! for the time and talent you give to provide a forum NOT TO DEBATE....
but to point the weak,lost,and wounded to the narrow way, to the Holiness of God,to repentance of SIN!

HAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA! Is that a riot or what?!?!?!?!?!?!?

That's their whole, entire, complete problem in a nutshell right there. No debate. No concessions. Closed minds. My way or the highway.

Not to mention treating people who disagree like dirt.


Don't forget the disdain for healing and commonality.

Thus, the name "Closed Forum."

--Mike

johnthebaptist said...

Mike Bratton said...
Arminius the Troll said...
Check this out from the NBBCCF:
Thanks Nass! for the time and talent you give to provide a forum NOT TO DEBATE....
but to point the weak,lost,and wounded to the narrow way, to the Holiness of God,to repentance of SIN!

HAAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA! Is that a riot or what?!?!?!?!?!?!?

That's their whole, entire, complete problem in a nutshell right there. No debate. No concessions. Closed minds. My way or the highway.

Not to mention treating people who disagree like dirt.

Don't forget the disdain for healing and commonality.

Thus, the name "Closed Forum."


Reply: Whew boy, I see this blog is SO much better. Please! This is just sad.

Mike Bratton said...

johnthebaptist said...

Reply: Whew boy, I see this blog is SO much better. Please! This is just sad.


John, I write about a lot of different things--but people who visit here keep coming back to one thing: the fact that the anti-Bellevue denizens of the Closed Forum, Savaging Bellevue, and Integrity Does Count (But Only For Others) work very hard to see that there's no healing, no unity, and no victory in Christ.

Find on this blog where someone has suggested, without being contested by myself or by any other poster, that the anti-Bellevuers are Nazis.

Or cultists.

Or non-Christians.

Or demons.

Find where anyone here has suggested their little cliques are apostate, as they allege Bellevue is.

Find where anyone here has made blackmail threats, or death threats, against any of their group, as members of their group have.

Those are some of the lyrics to the theme song of the Closed Forum and its like-minded sites. (Those repeated verbal assaults, and worse, are archived on this site for your research and illumination, if you'd like to examine the gory details.)

Nevertheless, I love them with the love of Christ, and regularly pray that they will repent of the gossip, divisiveness, bitterness, and hatred that will ultimately only harm them.

Having the facts in the future can help you from coming to such erroneous and unsupportable conclusions as you have in this case.

--Mike

johnthebaptist said...

mike said....

Having the facts in the future can help you from coming to such erroneous and unsupportable conclusions as you have in this case.

Reply: I have the facts brother.Far more than you give me credit for. I just think you don't realize how much you sound like what you are describing about them. That is the sad part.

I am aware of everything you described, for I have been here from the beginning but you are not without a log in your own eye at times my friend. Your critical attitude and name calling doesn't come across with the love of Christ.

I will give you credit in the fact that you do talk about other things.

WatchingHISstory said...

memphis said:

"While I do agree with you that AR was considered "unreachable" by many in the congregation, it wasn't by his own doing. If anything, it was the sin of some in his congregation lifting him up into a lofty position in their mind."

Is this a "sin" or just a mistake of the mind? As a sin could it be held against these people for creating a realm of "unreachableness" that hindered a young man from going to his pastor for help? ...or for that reason all others who felt unable to confide in their pastor.

I cannot agree that it was not of AR's doing? He possibly unconsciously allowed it to take place. JMO

see Luke 12:46-48 "...and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Mike Bratton said...

johnthebaptist said...
mike said....

Having the facts in the future can help you from coming to such erroneous and unsupportable conclusions as you have in this case.

Reply: I have the facts brother.Far more than you give me credit for. I just think you don't realize how much you sound like what you are describing about them. That is the sad part.


Specifics, please.

In lieu of them, let me say this: There is a real temptation to "sound like them," to fight fire with fire, so to speak, but I cannot.

I am aware of everything you described, for I have been here from the beginning but you are not without a log in your own eye at times my friend. Your critical attitude and name calling doesn't come across with the love of Christ.

Again, specifics would be great. I asked you to find statements comparable to the coin of the anti-Bellevue realm; so far, you've produced nothing but subjective generalities.

I will give you credit in the fact that you do talk about other things.

Much obliged.

--Mike

bugsii said...

Junkster said... I never said there was nothing else to to learn but "don't lie to the Spirit" (in fact, I said there was much to learn). I did say that the text does not mention greed, and that since we have no way from the text to know the motives of A&S, it is inappropriate (and an example of poor scriptural interpretation) to use that text to try to teach about greed, its consequences, etc. It is taking an assumption not made in the text, and not even related to the primary point of the text, and building a sermon based on that assumption, rather than on the text itself.

I think our disagreement lies in this statement somewhere. I'm trying to understand it. I understand but I don't understand(I'm not double-minded I promise). If I read the verses on A&S and the Spirit leads me to the greed in my own heart or how pride might cause me to lie to the Holy Spirit, are you saying that is a lesson that could only taught by the Holy Spirit and not any man because it's not in the text?

Maybe one of the reasons I saw no problem with the message is that the Holy Spirit used to convict me of my own selfish motives as I approached the Lord's supper. I will see if that sermon is available online and reevaluate it in light of what we've been discussing.

I also apologize if my comments seemed to be protecting Steve Gaines. My concern was for the work of the Holy Spirit as yours is for the use of His Word.

Mike Bratton said...

My concern was for the work of the Holy Spirit as yours is for the use of His Word.

Folks, please keep in mind that the two are not mutually exclusive, and can never be mutually exclusive.

God does not work at cross purposes with Himself.

Ever.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike

You are a very confident and informed person well aware of Bellevue's history.

We all know there are great differences in AR's and SG's style, behavior and personalities, What are the theological differences between them?

On the "closed forum" SG is a preacher, preaching false doctrine. They seem to be so sure of this.

Mike Bratton said...

WatchingHISstory said...
Mike

You are a very confident and informed person well aware of Bellevue's history.


Much obliged.

We all know there are great differences in AR's and SG's style, behavior and personalities, What are the theological differences between them?

None--at least none I've encountered as of yet.

On the "closed forum" SG is a preacher, preaching false doctrine. They seem to be so sure of this.

To be blunt, they are lying.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

memphis said:

"While I do agree with you that AR was considered "unreachable" by many in the congregation, it wasn't by his own doing. If anything, it was the sin of some in his congregation lifting him up into a lofty position in their mind."

Is this a "sin" or just a mistake of the mind? As a sin could it be held against these people for creating an an aura or realm of "unreachableness" that hindered a young man from going to his pastor for help? ...or for that reason all others who felt unable to confide in their pastor.

I cannot agree that it was not of AR's doing? He possibly unconsciously allowed it to take place. JMO

see Luke 12:46-48 "...and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

WatchingHISstory said...

I wonder if we haven't misunderstood Matt 28:19.
Through a hierarchal relationship we "disciple the nations" creating a dependence on men rather than Christ.

Discipleship guarantees that once error is introduced into "Biblical" indoctrination it will grow at an exponential rate.

Christ himself said if I stay here and "disciple" you you will not be able to bear it. The Holy Spirit makes disciples and we facilitate (proclaim) the Word with thoes who have a born again foundation.

WatchingHISstory said...

lin at NBBCOF gave the answer to the confusion of Matt 28:19 about discipleship.

Lin said...
1 John 2 (NASB)

26These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to **deceive you.

27As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

29If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.

Please prayerfully read all of 1 John (which would be awesome to see taught more but you can see why it is not taught in context more...)

But note these verses. All who are in Him are anointed..vs. 27.

Notice verse 29...it uses the word 'practice' righteouness..denoting a 'lifestyle.

thanks lin