Let's wait
The recent get-together at Huey's was very rewarding, and actually productive. Putting names with faces was one thing, but the maturity expressed (that perhaps one can criticize aspects of a church's direction without verbal assaults) was refreshing.
However, for those who have made a hobby of attacking Bellevue Baptist Church, that opinion does not appear to be infectious. A few moments ago, I visited the primary home of anti-Bellevue rhetoric, and saw that it's been ratcheted up--with not even a peep of admonition (so far) from the regulars.
But let's be patient.
Surely the notion that a church is "dead" because you don't like it will be countered by someone; surely the notion that a pastor you don't like is led by a demonic spirit will be rebuked at some point. Perhaps the Huey's lunch made me overly optimistic about the future of this dispute. The next day or two will tell the tale.
Occasionally, a Bellevue contrarian will realize that (gasp!) people outside the church body might be reading what is written. One day, they may realize that ignoring the Biblical model for conflict resolution can give people the notion that it's all right not to take anything else the Bible says too seriously. They might even realize that when their behavior is indistinguishable from worldly behavior, something is wrong. One day, they may understand that calls for others to be responsible ring hollow when one's own responsibility, or the collective responsibility of one's group, is suspect at best.
The clock is ticking, but let's be patient.
--Mike
577 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 577 Newer› Newest»Mike said...
And Karen, seeing as how it's hard to know who's actually a part of IDC in the first place (or if that little kaffeeklatch is even still in existence), how can you confirm that one or more of their group had no part in these shenanigans
Because I'm a part of it and I would know. By the way, if you've sent any emails to the info email, I haven't seen them (that was my contribution to IDC). If IDC asked David Coombs for the membership roles, why in the world would they do a letter anonymously? And you're right, IDC is on idle right now.
Jon,
I've never been anonymous so anyone who has something to say can say it to me personally.
I do not agree with the way the letter was mailed out and I hope to find out what purpose this person had in mind when mailing it out in this manner. I do know for a fact that it's not just choir members who have received it (confirmed via an email I received from a non-choir member that received the letter).
Word from the "evil" blog:
Seems deacons have received said letter.
karen
Some choir members have NOT received the letter, but yes, the deacons seem to be on the list as well.
Memphis, I agree, this is cowardice at it's best.
From the tone of the letter, it doesn't seem to be very, uh, well thought out- some bad grammar and run on sentences. It also seems that the "packaging" is fairly inconsistent as well.
Honestly, I don't think it really matters who sent it. If you care for your fellow Christians and want the best for them, this is not the way you do it.
Sorry, my other gmail account isn't letting me log in, so FYI this is BePatient.
And Karen, I think the accepted terminology is the "other" blog. ;)
jessica,
Just wanted to make sure you knew which blog I was talking about :)
See, people it can be done. Me and bepatient/jessica have differing opinions, but we nothing but nice to each other.
karen
Word verification: ozwaymi
"oh, sway me??"
pardon my grammar!
:)
Anonymity, any way you slice it is cowardice when using any forum to demean another person whom Christ died for. Be it internet or snail mail.
Jon L. Estes said...
Anonymity, any way you slice it is cowardice when using any forum to demean another person whom Christ died for. Be it internet or snail mail.
Anonymously or not, demeaning anyone isn't appropriate, ever. (Whether or not the person is one for whom Christ died.)
some bad grammar and run on sentences. It also seems that the "packaging" is fairly inconsistent as well.
I'm still trying to get my hands on a copy, and find out who all received it. So far, I've heard that deacons, choir members, and members of Joe Jernigan's class have gotten it.
I've also heard that the grammar is bad, but not Jim Haywood bad. He certainly has a unique style, and it'll be easy to rule him out once I read it.
jessica? bepatient?
How in the world can I ever keep the posts straight if everyone keeps changing their names?
The choir rolls are not left out for someone to just walk off with them after rehearsal or on Sundays. They are normally picked up and filed away before the end of rehearsal, although if one knows where to look, they're not hard to find. They're filed away, not locked up.
However, judging from the fact that my address was misspelled and I think I recall Karen posting that her mother's only had a first initial (mine had my whole name), I wonder if someone hastily scribbled names and addresses down?
how about
jarminius?
jessinius?
beminius?
I think I prefer the last one :)
Yooohoooo, Sol!
Yes, I got the anonymous letter. I started to toss it, then decided to hang onto it, just in case someone needed it for some reason. Mike, you said you had requested a copy ... I'll be glad to fax you mine if you like, or make a photocopy of it and snail it to you. Just lemme know!
Love to all,
Miriam (MJM)
(sounds a little like b minus)
Shoot, you don't need to steal the rolls or scribble them down. Just use a camera phone. Takes about a second, and with the flash off who'd know?
The camera phone thought had occurred to me also. It'd be a heck of a lot easier than scribbling, especially with so many names.
I hate to admit it, but trollminius is probably right. Both the choir and Joe's class spread the rolls out on a table for the members to sign, and it would be simple to snap a picture and get 50-75 names at a time. (I don't know if the deacons leave their rolls on a table or not at their monthly meeting.)
The only thing the 3 groups have in common is that they are large and it wouldn't be hard for someone outside the group to walk in before everyone got settled and steal the members' names, addressess, and phone numbers.
Oh well, if the price of postage stamps keeps going up I don't think we'll have to worry about this problem for very long.
I believe that the deacons addresses probably were taken from a *certain* website that posted them all for the world to see.
I believe that the deacons addresses probably were taken from a *certain* website that posted them all for the world to see
That reminds me of when I used to try to reason on the 'other' blog they used to ask if I was A CErtain blogger.
Someone very astute at Union said this: "The trouble with today's church is that we tend to run the church the same way as a business, or the same way we do politics, or both. And the Church is not a business, or political organization - it's an *organism* - the body of Christ. Political and business strategies don't work there."
I agree. I don't know what BBC looks like on the inside anymore - I am still out of town for the year.. It seems to my memory, though, that there was an atmosphere of business and politics at times in that church several years ago... Because I was one of the ones involved with it. Not to mention the good old boy network... It happens, I guess...
Maybe what we see now is a reflection in microcosm of the way the conservative resurgence occurred in the convention. From what I can gather, there were some vicious attacks by those now heading the SBC upon those who (for lack of a better term) have been defeated. They seem to have forgotten that even liberals can be Christians, and that they are not to be attacked as if they are vermin. All of this of course is ancient history - 1980's and early 90's stuff, but maybe it's just now working itself out on the church level.
It (the political attitude) is still making its way through the various aspects of convention life (e.g. I could not be a missionary with the IMB any more because of the private prayer languages thing).
Don't get me wrong: I don't think the resurgence *itself* was a bad thing: I just wonder if now we're paying for its problems... Maybe it's time for churches (Bellevue, and others) to take a new direction. Saddleback (Warren) in California doesn't bhy any means get everything right, but it does get one thing: Small groups are good for church. See, for example, Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington (Mark Driscoll is quite good)... Also see C.J. Mahaney's book Why Small Groups? ... They tried it once at BBC, and it failed - maybe it's time to try again?
In any case, I said a long time ago that I wanteed to distance myself from this whole thing, and I really do. This is my first time back in at least 3 months. And while my parents have left BBC, and I agree with their reasons, I do NOT stand with the people who bitterly attack everyone and everything at that church. I believe we (the people of the SBC) have had enough of bitter feuding for several lifetimes. I know I'm not qualified to speak for everyone in the SBC, but everyone I know here in Jackson (faculty, students, and churhc members) feels the same way. It's time to stop bickering, and be civil with whatever problems there are.
I sign myself:
A. Powell
ps: Who is NASS? I googled it and came up with National American Spine Society... Would someone please explain why there are so many abbreviations? It just makes the site seem sinister in purpose...
Arron, NASS is the administrator of the "other" blog. S/he posts there as "New BBC Open Forum." NASS comes from the name S/he had before taking over as administrator of the blog, "Not a Stepford Sheep."
It just makes the site seem sinister in purpose...
Shoot, he saw through us already! Well, he might as well know the rest of the story:
That oppressive feeling may be easily explained. Did you hear the rustle of wings? Or see a fleeting shadow cross your path? The swirling battle may be so much closer than we think…Some may even be feeling the claws on their backs and hot sulfuric breath on their necks…
And such...
Hey Arron,
I don't think I've seen you post on the 'other' blog, and I just wanted to make sure know it's there. It's URL is newbbcopenforum.blogspot.com. That's the blog that everyone's talking about these days, not this one (we're just here to buffet them).
Make sure you tell them that Arminius the Troll told you on The Bratton Report to stop by and visit. Oh, and don't forget to suggest that Bellevue needs to be more like Saddleback!
You might want to put your seatbelt on first, though.
But the SBC Armininians, and they are great in numbers, have inconsistently attached themselves to Eternal security while being semi-pelagian.
(We're so numerous they have to number us now!)
Think of it as joining the mafia. Once you're in, there's no way out (so I hear, of course).
Very good analogy, #5012!
Brothers #5012 and #502,
Have you forgotten rule #10,345?
"He who chooses salvation can also unchoose it?"
I'm going to have to report you to #12.
Charles, I've removed your most recent comment due to the lurid nature of some of your remarks within it. If you'd care to have another go at making your point without using those graphic remarks, by all means do so.
--Mike
Thanks Mike, I am not a big fan of censorship, but that comment was WAY over the line!
shoot, now I'm going to have to subscribe to cable tv again!
Mike,
I have a copy of the letter if you want me to fax it to you.
Keith,
Same offer.
karen
Thank you, Karen, but it turns out I was on the list myself.
Interesting that the addresses were evidently printed out, cut out, and taped to the envelopes, rather than being printed directly on them. Also interesting is that an automatic stapler was used (perhaps the stapling function on a heavy-duty copier), yet the last page had the "Comment" section poorly copied onto an existing page.
As I have opportunity, I'll read over this magnum opus, and respond with a separate article. On the off chance the author is reading this blog, I do have one initial response:
And you are...?
--Mike
Mike,
I'm glad you got a copy for yourself. I think it's someone who has a good intention, but it wasn't executed very well - unless total chaos was the objective. If that was it, it worked superbly. I've gotten emails from those who I would have assumed to have received it that didn't then you said you received a copy and would assume you removed your name from the choir log. If indeed choir addresses were used, you wouldn't have received one. Also, my mom's letter came addressed to her with her 1st initial only and last name - it's not listed that way on the choir roll.
Yes, I also observed that our copy was sent to "Mr and Mrs" (sic), when that's not how we're listed on the choir roll.
It is, however, how we were listed on the overall church roll, and how official church correspondances were addressed to us.
With the titles correctly written as "Mr. and Mrs.," however.
It was also postmarked August 20th, and we've been off the official church rolls for weeks before last Monday.
I'll make it a point to continue to wear my deerstalker cap while reading...
--Mike
Interesting - my mom's copy didn't mention my dad's name in any way. They are Mr. and Mrs. on the church rolls as well.
What is a deerstalker cap? And why do you have one readily available?
karen
So you mean some of these letters came in envelopes with the name and addresses taped on "ransom note" style? My address was printed on a regular label. Interesting. The plot thickens.
Also, Mike, consider that this could have been in the planning stages for a while and the addresses could have been obtained weeks or even months ago, while you were still on the roll.
As far as the "Mr. and Mrs." that's interesting also. Even though a Mr. and Mrs. may both be members of BBC, to the best of my knowledge, they are always listed separately on church rolls. The only time they are combined is in official church mailings, so that a husband and wife don't both get a "Light & Truth," for example. But as far as choir or Sunday School rolls, both names will be listed separately if they are both in choir or in the same class.
Charles, I've gathered that you (like my own self) are no "spring chicken." As such, you should easily understand that there are portions of that post which are prurient, therefore unacceptable.
Please make your point another way.
--Mike
What is so terrible about clergy abuse?
While a catholic priest has his victim on the floor in a wrestling position he commits a moral failure, explaining that "we are sinning and we will be forgiven, I have needs!"
The priest assumes that a confession will render him forgiven and the sacraments which he will serve represents the restored fellowship he has with Christ.
An ordained SBC ministers has a moral failure with an adolescent and reminds her of the love of God and grace of God. He will temporarily loose fellowship with God but a period of ascetic practice will bring restoration and restored communion with his God.
Both victims are seared and scared for life. Both will suffer through life searching for the communion of God.
Moral failure is not so much about passion as it is about power. Clergy unbecoming conduct is by these two accounts about theology! The moral failure apparently gets his power surge through talking to his victim. He taunts and delights in the pained and confused expressions and the clergy prides himself in his theology which is tearing the very soul of his victim. In unconscious defense for himself the victim's heart is cauterized against the words that he/she is hearing; forgiveness, love and grace.
Shamefully the clergymen will move on with his life sermonizing about forgiveness, love and grace. Later in years he will merely be astonished when his victims confront them with their crime and he will be amazed that they have not also moved on.
We don't know about the Bellevue incident yet but my speculation is that there will be a report of some theological explanation given to the son as he is making sexual contact.
I am being accused of being obsessed with 24/7 debating as though I derive pleasure in provoking those on the other blog.
Rather I am obsessed with the kind of arguments or reasoning that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God. They need to be exposed and cast down.
The kind of Armininianism that is unique to and prevalent in the SBC contributes to the shameful practice of sexual clergy abuse. I'm sure the Wesleyan Armininians, the Reformed Armininians and the Keswick Reformed (Armininians) to name a few have their sexual predators. (I'm equally convinced that there are also Calvinist predators)
But the SBC Armininians, and they are great in numbers, have inconsistently attached themselves to Eternal security while being semi-pelagian. They embrace partial ability (rather than total depravity) while believing in ES. Something I see as an impossibility.
For PW the part of his ability to hold on to his confession of Christ as his savior is not disturbed by his heinous criminal act.
His discipler helped him memorize scripture to deal with the part of him that is disturbed and he easily reports to his religious vocation undeterred in faithfulness. His fatal theological flaw was cauterized into his belief system.
This theological view not only destroys the predator but the victim and by extension all those who participate in the system. And then last and by far not least is the despite done to the message of the grace of God. God is greatly offended.
Karen,
I just read your post. I appreciate your offer, but I've obtained a copy from a young lady who's too afraid to sleep in her own apartment this weekend because she got the anonymous letter.
Overall, I wasn't especially impressed with what was written since it's just the same tired arguments as before. (Although at least it wasn't diluted to the point of nonsense with holy land trips, glasses of wine, and display cases.)
I did find it curious that the writer condemned Steve Gaines for seeking unity, while his/her ultimate goal is to bring unity through disunity. That makes no sense.
Also, Dr. Gaines is condemned for not reporting PW to the authorities, but the writer applauds those who had 'put it on the internet' as far back as August 2006. Since it was David Brown who finally reported it and not the bloggers, why no condemnation of them? That's a double standard.
Also, the letter begins with a lesson on scripture in context (which of course is a good lesson). The context of this lesson is so that SG can be beaten up for grabbing verses to support his own agenda. Later, the writer beats up SG once again for climbing the fence, and rejects the apology due to the 'mistake of the head' comment. In doing so, Proverbs 4:23 is quoted, "Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life." This is an improper use of the Proverb, since in its proper context it instructs us to guard what goes into the heart and has no direct application to 'evil' acts originating within it. Using a scripture out of context to prove a point while condemning another for doing the same? That's hypocrisy.
And although I don't know for sure if the same person who wrote the letter sent it out anonymously, whoever did is too frightened to go public, or else they know that their reputation is so weightless that they won't be taken seriously.
The letter doesn't come across as mean-spirited, so I don't believe JH wrote it. He doesn't seem to worry about making large groups of people mad with his vendetta, either, so he would have signed it.
However, in view of the hypocrisy, cowardice, and self righteousness contained in the letter, along with the transparent motivation to destroy Steve Gaines instead of correct him, the author has shown himself to be a double minded person.
Note from Captian Obvious:
1) If someone secretly records a conversation with you, that man is not your friend and does not wish you well.
2) If someone says that he loves you or otherwise flatters you while he is secretly recording your conversations, then that man is a liar and a hypocrite.
Mr. Sharpe, Emmerson, Saba, and Manning, please take note.
If someone says that he loves you or otherwise flatters you while he is secretly recording your conversations, then that man is a liar and a hypocrite.
Whoa, slow down here a second captain!
Are you implying that just because someone engages you in a stimulating and enjoyable conversation, and then uses a secret recording to ridicule you in front of all the whole world so that they'll gain popularity then their motives are less than pure?
Next thing you'll be saying negative things about Jim Haywood just because he wanted to video the 'touchdown whooping and hollering' one Sunday morning so that he could belittle the entire Bellevue congregation!
Hey, check this out from the other blog:
gmommy (who visits us from time to time) said...
you know your remarks will be twisted on the other blog while they are waiting for their leader to give his comments on whatever was mailed out
Okay, gmommy! Let me twist a comment around here:
It's too bad that the letter is anonymous. It's quite brilliant! Very focused and damning
I have this demonic urge to read that comment, which uses 'damning' in a religious context, and go ballistic. Since I'm getting impatient waiting for Number One to tell me what to think, I need another interpretation because it sounds to me like this person is saying that SG is about to be hurled into the abyss for preaching about unity during a time of conflict in the church he pastors.
What's the deal?
And what about this?
Folks sure do get stirred up when faced with a truth they don't like - especially when it requires them to take action or stand for what is right. Kind of kills that delusion of warm and fuzzy christianity -you know, the kind that provoked RELIGIOUS LEADERS to send the Lord Himself to a cruel cross?
So places like Bellevue are what sent Jesus to the cross? I'd certainly agree that our American churches were made possible by the grace of God that came through the cross, if I said that I'd be twisting piglet's words and we don't want to do that, do we?
Warm and fuzzy Christianity is wrong? Is cold and abrasive Christianity the way to go? (Guess I'll have to change blogs!)
I think it's time for a log in the eye check.
Sure does stink when you think people are spending their time (on a blog no less) taking everything you say out of context and twisting it around to fit your own purposes...
sigh.
One moment, please!
If we're handing out roles, I'm Captain Picard! Someone else can be Number One.
Now hang on while I finish my marching orders for you, my faithful officers and crew.
Ahem...
Attention all hands. As you know, we could outrun, or just ignore, the Klingon bloggers and letter-writers--but we must press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let's make sure history never forgets the name... The Bratton Report...
--Mike
P.S.: A laurel and hearty handshake if you know the referenced Next Gen episode--and as always, no fair Googling. Of course, it's even better if you know the referenced Scripture.
Arminius,
Email me, please. I'd like to settle a few things.
Bepatient said...
Sure does stink when you think people are spending their time (on a blog no less) taking everything you say out of context and twisting it around to fit your own purposes...
I agree. This is ridiculous. It reminds me of high school.
Gmommy,
I know you read the Bratton report, since you refer to it on the NBBCOF. You posted something a while back that honestly gave me the false hope that reconciliation was possible. It was something like this:
We can't change your mind about what has gone on at BBC or convince you that the wrong done has been minimized or mishandled.
I have people I care about who are still at BBC and we don't agree on everything, however they are respectful of my position about the entire PW ordeal (and hate that it affected my life personally) and I am respectful that they feel they are doing the right thing by supporting the leadership on whatever level they believe they should.
I hope I can speak with clarity and kindness when I say that I will never see the PW scandal/abuse/cover up as right or not a big deal. I don't think you are evil if you do. I can't be buddies with you because this is such a crucial issue for me but I don't think you are "unsaved" or of the devil or trash.
It's taken me time to get to this place...I am a very black and white person and I tell my friend I am going to learn to be medium some day!!!! But I will never be medium on that particular issue.
But as cakes and padroc and john the baptist have all said and I'm sure others....do we have to think and treat each other as if one side is evil.
Maybe we are all getting to a place where we can communicate our positions AND be more respectful.
As your posts since then have shown, there can be no middle ground for you. Although we've tried, you have not shown us respect. You continue to belittle us and treat us like 'trash'. Perhaps it would make you happy if an earthquake came and swallowed us whole tomorrow. Maybe you could even be on James Sundquist's radio show and tell the world how we all deserved to die for our godlessness. Would that give you closure and make you happy?
I think it's time for you to leave us alone. Pray for us. Thank God for the time you spent at our church. You spent 25 years at Bellevue, but since you have abandoned us in our time of need you have no reason at all to talk about us. Please leave us alone.
I wish you the very best at River Oaks, and I sincerely hope that in turn you wish us the best at Bellevue.
However, if you continue to talk about us as you have I can only assume that you are not following your own suggestion and that you want our church to fall.
Yes, we have problems, but we still love our church and our Lord and we completely believe that he is able to overcome the fiercest storms that come our way.
Please leave us alone.
Mike, what am I going to tell Steve- I told him he could be my leader? ;)
Let's make sure history never forgets the name... The Bratton Report...
Oh, that just makes my day!!
I admit, I went to savingbellevue.com and read the letter, and then I went and read the transcribed meeting with MS and RE, and it was eye opening! Forget the letter, read the interview.
If this is where they say Sg intimidated MS and RE, then I think I have a stuff bear that could do the same. I wonder if it was secretly recorded or if SG knew it was recorded?
I really found it almost comical and a waste of the preachers time.
Memphis
Instead of us all getting together to go bowling, how about we all watch "Walk the LIne" some night????
If watching a movie more than 3 times makes you some kind of freak, I am in big trouble. I saw Braveheart 5 times while it was still in initial release, and I won't go there about Raiders. In addition to which, there's this book I'm fond of; I've read it a number of times and it contains all sorts of objectionable behavior like: murder, adultery, bad language, people getting their head nailed to the ground with tent pegs, incest, rape, floggings, etc. In fact, I think I'll go read it right now -- it's time for my bedtime devotional. (However, a lifetime spent watching tens of thousands of hours of football is not unusual at all, right?)
Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, but when a person speaks untruths against another's character, it's "slander;" when that person writes them down,like in an email, it's "libel."
Mike said, "but we must press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."
Um, that'd be Phil. 3:14. However, I'd encourage all of us to give the entire chapter a good read ... many little nuggets there germane to our church and the current situation.
Capt. Bratton, what's my prize? Your Trekkies will have to come up with the other part of the reference ...
Memphis, I agree with you about the infamous transcript. What was their point? If they think they proved anything by posting it, I think perhaps this one decision on their part will backfire more grandly and more damagingly than any of their previous attempts. I found the Pastor to be accommodating, open, and a strong leader, all while he was obviously aware he was being blindsided and a net thrown over his head! And recorded in his own office!!
I also found it curious, after hearing the Pastor's clear, succinct, and direct responses to their questions over 15 months ago, that there was ever a need to take any of this conversation outside his office for any reason. Their agenda was clear from the beginning, or they would have never recorded this conversation, whether Pastor knew it was being recorded or not.
The anonymous letter that rehashes all the same old stuff, plus the timing of the posting of this transcript, make me renew my resolve to hold up Pastor Gaines' arms through prayer as BBC fights this battle. May the gates of hell not prevail against us.
(P.S. If y'all want to drop by the house, I've got "Walk the Line" TiVo'd. Of course, as God is my witness, I'd much rather be watching "Gone With the Wind" for about the 30th time ...)
Tim
What kind of book are you refering to and why would you fill your mind with such filth at bedtime?
You need to read some wholesome literature with purity, like maybe the Holy Bible, God's Word.
WatchingHISstory said...
Tim
What kind of book are you refering to and why would you fill your mind with such filth at bedtime?
You need to read some wholesome literature with purity, like maybe the Holy Bible, God's Word.
7:18 AM, August 26, 2007
Charles --
You need to let everyone know you're kidding, b/c someone may think you're serious.
--Tim
Tim you said,
"....there's this book I'm fond of; I've read it a number of times and it contains all sorts of objectionable behavior like: murder, adultery, bad language, people getting their head nailed to the ground with tent pegs, incest, rape, floggings, etc. In fact, I think I'll go read it right now -- it's time for my bedtime devotional."
Surely you wern't refering to the Bible were you!
You need to let everyone know you're kidding, b/c someone may think you're serious.
Actually your post was a great post and makes a good point.
I love Walk the Line and Gone with the Wind!
I would encourage anyone reading this that if your convictions are such that they are causing you to bring someone to tears who is simply trying to do their job- then perhaps you need to take a good hard look at where those "convictions" are coming from.
mjm...
Their agenda was clear from the beginning, or they would have never recorded this conversation, whether Pastor knew it was being recorded or not.
That's very true. Their purpose was to make the pastor look bad, not reconciliation. (I especially liked the part where Sharpe remarked about the knife, and how dangerous it was to keep one in the office.)
I have to question the integrity and confidence of men who feel the need to make hidden recordings instead of letting their personal testimony of what was said speak for itself. I could never respect a man who did that to me. I wish these men the best, but I'm glad they are not in influential places at Bellevue any longer.
Perhaps if they had entered that meeting in good faith, God might have been able to use them for something other than increasing the membership of other churches.
I think this line might be the very best part
MS – I know, trust is a two way street.
...says the man secretly recording your conversation....
Yesterday's Enterprise.
The reference to Klingons as the bad guys with Picard as Captain was the giveaway...
:)
"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."
Application?
RE - "Bryan Miller, in my opinion, is guilty of gossip. If you have nothing to do with the problem or the solution and you’re going around talking you’re murmuring, you’re gossiping, it’s my opinion Bryan Miller owes me an apology"
...says the man who is complaining about Bryan Miller to a 3rd party in reference to a conversation that he was not present at...
And BTW, the very gall of any of this bunch to get on a high horse about gossiping & murmuring is the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black that I've ever seen.
irony police:
And BTW, the very gall of any of this bunch to get on a high horse about gossiping & murmuring is the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black that I've ever seen.
How so? The NBBCOF's repeated statements that we're evil, satanic, and unsaved are documented for all the world to see. Most of the references are direct quotes from the regulars. There can be absolutely no doubt in any rational, informed mind that many intentional ugly insults have been deliberately hurled our way in a very un-Christlike manner, with no apologies or remorse at all.
Even Arminius the Troll has brought up some good points about them.
So how are we gossips? You'll have to back that up, friend. And is 'any of this bunch' a Christian term?
And BTW, are you a current member of Bellevue? If not, why don't you stop slurring us and go away? Surely other churches could use your time and efforts.
Well Sol,
I generally like your comments--you seem to be more measured and responsible in your speech than your christian peers at large; but listen, I saw Gmommy last night--as good and decent a person as I've ever met--and you need to lighten up or serve up some of that righteous indignation in your own backyard. "Leave us alone;" really? Leave you alone? Te he!
Dude, I wouldn't have even known this place existed unless I'd followed a tip from the evil NBBCOF that I was the subject of conversation here. I come to find it stated by Mike that my purpose was to split Bellevue--never been corrected--which is unfounded in my remarks and flatly ridiculous. As was the suggestion that I am associated with porn. (Yes, now someone, please preach to me why I shouldn't be anonymous?) Never once was the question pondered:
Is that slander or libel?
Most everyone else who posts here came by way of NBBCOF, either to commensurate with fellow Gaines-loyalists, to gripe about NBBCOF--as if you can accumulate enough gripes against these people to surpass the gravity of one single pedophile scandal-right--or folks compelled to defend their character and those of their friends.
Like I've said before, this blog would be a ghost town without the NBBCOF (how about that Celine Dion?) to heap upon.
What is becoming more humorous to me is the vastness of the blinders to the very immaturity and bitter invective that are condemned. And I'm still trying to penetrate Mike's logic of how it is excused on this blog--because he writes about other stuff?--yet damns the lot of the NBBCOF. I guess once you've made one leap of faith, then the sky's the limit.
I think it takes sincere faith to believe in Steve Gaines, after the mistake that he has made by coddling (or enter your pacifying signifier here) a pedophile for six months; and if not that, the partial investigations, obsfucations and convoluted face-saving measures in the aftermath.
I must believe that Gaines-loyalists hold to the position that the pastor was derilict in keeping with the awesome responsibility of his office. I assume that you'all accept that he has learned from this mistake and wish to move on.
However, if I did such a thing, I would lose my job, period. No excuses, no sanctified euphamisms and finger pointing at my accusers would save my job or reputation--as is only common sense. Forgiveness should never be the basis for refusing to seek accountability from individuals for their failures.
Gmommy is a nice person--she as well as a whole lot of other people, were handed a catastrophe-- not of their own doing, but of Pastor Gaines and the other half-dozen empty suits--and all you guys can do is count beans over at NBBCOF, as if they will assuage in any measure the severity of Gaines' offense.
A lot of people are angry; quite a few feel abandoned, victimized and emotionally raw; some speak impetuously--so if cherry-picking the depths of shock and despair please you, then what kind of christian are you to be so selectively self-righteous, given the company you keep?
Maybe, Sol, you can defend Mike's "movement" rationale, but short of that, "leave us alone" is merely one more irony wafting from this bizarro place.
Please chill out on Gmommy.
Well Jessica,
You've said that already and little else, so you to may stop propogating that item.
What I am saying, is that Gmommy has been affected directly by the mistakes of these irrespnsible men (is that what you are claiming?).
They are gone, dear--"christians" like you ran them off--so you'd like them to depart like obidient little school children. Sometimes dissent is appropriate, and Bellevue sweeping under a rug the failures of Gaines and others applies--so you don't get everything you want.
But you can go to your church in peace, knowing the accountability-troublemakers are largely gone.
Bully for you and your devotion to Gaines.
I wonder how MS and RE feel about the interview being transcribed now?
cakes,
All I know about gmommy is what she writes. If she is a nice person, her posts should reflect that. The one that I quoted got my hopes up very high that just maybe there was a chance for us to treat each other with dignity. She wrote it after the bridge collapse in Minnesota, and tragedies often give us a proper perspective on life. Unfortunately, that perspective soon passed and gmommy quickly went back to baiting us (and I say 'us' loosely).
Gmommy is a nice person--she as well as a whole lot of other people, were handed a catastrophe-- not of their own doing, but of Pastor Gaines and the other half-dozen empty suits--and all you guys can do is count beans over at NBBCOF, as if they will assuage in any measure the severity of Gaines' offense.
You're operating under a serious misconception, David. No one here is trying to minimize Dr. Gaines' mistakes by burying them in the wrongdoing of others. We want the 'invective' to stop so that others won't be able to!
We are not 'followers' of Steve Gaines. He has been placed as pastor of our church, and has made several serious blunders. Unfortunately, due to the sheer volume of false information and the absurdity of the overall tone of the blog, it is far too easy for him to completely dismiss any allegations against himself. If there were any measure of control or order, perhaps it would be possible for those of us who chose to stay and fight for the church to do something.
And what gives you the right to come here and claim that pain and suffering give you the right to say whatever you want in whatever way you see fit? Our faith doesn't condone that, and I'm sure yours doesn't either.
I had lunch today with a very interesting fellow who has a very sad story. He said I could share it if I wanted to.
His told me his name is John Mark (which I've seen him post as), but he is better known here as 'Arminius'. I was honestly expecting a very strange college kid, but the person I met was an older man in a wheelchair. He told me he lost the use of his legs when he and his family were hit by a drunk driver. His son died in the accident, his wife divorced him several years later, and he's lived alone ever since.
He told me that he struggles with depression and bipolar disorder, which is very apparent from his posts. He also told me that his anger led to many of his uglier posts, and he felt that he owed no one any apologies after all he had been through. Never mind that the people he's insulting are not the ones who hurt him.
I'm so thankful I didn't end up like him. I can't equate my life with his, because I wasn't injured when that drunk driver killed my own son, and my wife didn't leave me. But don't I have the right to be angry and bitter sometimes? Just because my hurt wasn't 'quite as bad' as his would I be a hypocrite if I took out my anger on others because my 'relative' pain was less than his?
No, I wouldn't. But I would be a hypocrite if I claimed to be a Christian and harbored anger and hatred inside me. It took a while for me to get here, but I hope that the man who forever changed my family's life is in heaven. I hope to see him someday and tell him that I forgave him.
Why is it that someone like David Brown has such an effective job, ministering to abuse victims? Why is it that Beth Moore, another victim of CSA, ministers so effectively to thousands and thousands of women? It's because, like me, they decided not let circumstances beyond their control ruin their lives. It's a choice, plain and simple.
Apparently, a lot of the victims on the NBBCOF aren't able to do that. They are evidently going to spend the rest of their lives church shopping, complaining about SG, and trying to get a reaction from over here.
Surely they can find something better to do with their lives?
Sol,
The blame game can go on ad infinitum--you focus on Gmom, someone else, SOTL, and yet another plucked offense will yield more vollies. I am an outsider, with several relevant contexts--to the SBC, child-sexual abuse, a spiritual body (albeit Buddhist) shattered by a sex scandal, an interest in protecting children and survivors, and otherwise, as a person who only seeks to stem the suffering of people who have been damaged by all this crap. Such is a function of my own faith.
I've seen my Sangha fall apart because some could certainly forgive (as it is part of the path) but good faith had been lost as a consequence. Those that remained devoted to the disgraced teacher attributed our relinquishing any trust in him and holding him accountable to the damage he caused as a lack of compassion or forgiveness.
The man in question had caused havoc in Buddhist communities all over the US, but certain proscriptions against speaking ill of a Lama in the teachings themselves stemed any proactive networking between them, so each were completely unaware that he caused the same chaos wherever he went. He arrogantly used religion-speak to justify and gloss-over the real gravity of his failure, and to condemn his detractors.
It became quite ugly, not because of the initial outrage, but because the lama escalated and compounded the damage by insisting upon loyalty, hiding the books, getting rid of those scrutinizing him. I know the drill like the back of my hand.
I know that when people, in good faith, invest themselves in what they believe to be in keeping with their deepest core spiritual values, and then some event wakes them up to the fact that it is a facade, that they have become expendable, if it seemingly serves the purpose of saving faces or careers, then folks are going to get angry and shoot off at the mouth from time to time. I certainly did--just like the two blogs.
What is different here is I don't really have a dog in this fight--it is not a question of either being loyal or face the alienation that comes with deciding that, in my heart, I cannot. My empathy is for the people I've met on both sides--I like many of you and that stems directly from face-to-face meetings that reveal dimensions of personality that are not transmuted on the blogs. Mike is a person that I thought was an arrogant blowhard, but meeting him reveals much about his heart and complexity that, as yet, I had not percieved before.
If you were to meet me, you'd like me. On the blogs, I obviously come off as a uppity pedant with a bloated vocabulary. So Gmom posts when something is driving her crazy and it shows. Don't make a mountain out of a moehill, and regarding Gaines, don't call a mountain a moehill. A blunder is running a stopsign--what Gaines did is a serious offense, punishable by law.
As I stated before, I do not condone shooting from the hip in emotion, but neither do I condone assinine logic, or embroidered justifications.
All three synoptic gospel writers were equally impressed with the apparent intensity of Chirst when he pull a young child to himself and said: "whoever would offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Pawl Williams would have been better off using a small worthless row boat, get a used cinder block and an old but strong rope, use an old paddle and row to the middle of Pickwick secure one end of the rope to the block and tie the other end around his neck (make sure the rope is short enough to carry him to the bottom)
Pitch the block overboard and usher himself into the presence of God's fiery indignation. Perhaps he might have found mercy.
Rather he sodomized his son and now
he bides his time awaiting without forgiveness a "certain fearful judgement and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."
This is a believers expectation.
No, Steve, He is not under the blood.
If you were to meet me, you'd like me. On the blogs, I obviously come off as a uppity pedant with a bloated vocabulary.
cakes, I don't dislike you now. I'm sure I would indeed like you if I met you in person, and in fact I believe that every person here would like 99% of the people who post on both blogs. So why is it that this is still going on? If I wanted to 'cherry pick' a few encouraging, positive comments and post them, could I find even a tiny percentage of those which are posted in anger?
I'm very ignorant of your faith, but on quick glance it seems to be very similar to my own. We do a lot of the same things, and as you have shown our congregations often suffer the same progressions of failure.
One of our best known passages is Matthew 5:14-16 (Jesus speaking), "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." You've probably got an equivalent text, and that instruction is not being followed.
If God can't be glorified in a positive way (and it's not happening), then at least he shouldn't be de-glorified in a negative way. For a long time I held out the hope that reconciliation was possible, but I've given up on that. Now I think separation is the only solution.
It's not God's way, but we should all just go our own separate ways. Most of the posts from the NBBCOF were brought here by Arminius (and me, previously), but that should be a thing of the past.
Once the emotions die down, we'll reach a point at Bellevue where we can 'evaluate' Steve Gaines as a pastor. But every day that he's busy shoring up his defenses delays that. In the meantime, new members are joining the church who don't know any pastor other than him, who are not skeptical of his abilities to lead the church. We are constantly losing ground.
Bellevue is not failing, not by a long shot. Anyone who says otherwise is wishing out loud. The current budget can easily be maintained by the current number of attendees on Sunday morning. And the longer this goes on, the more support the pastor gains.
For my part, I'm just tired of it.
gmommy,
My earlier post made you out to be very hard-hearted. I don't believe that's true at all. I was wrong for writing that, and I apologize for saying what I did.
Keith Solomon
Cakes said...
Well Sol,
I generally like your comments--you seem to be more measured and responsible in your speech than your christian peers at large; but listen, I saw Gmommy last night--as good and decent a person as I've ever met--and you need to lighten up or serve up some of that righteous indignation in your own backyard. "Leave us alone;" really? Leave you alone? Te he!
David, I have a friend who would radically disagree with your estimation--but more on that at another time. Next time you speak with her, perhaps you'd ask her to e-mail me?
Dude, I wouldn't have even known this place existed unless I'd followed a tip from the evil NBBCOF that I was the subject of conversation here. I come to find it stated by Mike that my purpose was to split Bellevue--never been corrected--which is unfounded in my remarks and flatly ridiculous.
You're going to have to do me a favor. Since I make it a point not to presume motive in others, and since I honestly, seriously don't recall making such a remark--and can't find one recorded--I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me exactly what I said, and exactly when and where I said it.
And while it's nice to hear kind words from you regarding my heart and complexity, you'll have to tell me how those weigh out against the disappointing, unkind and downright disingenuous words you've used just in this comment thread. There's a bit of a dichotomy going on, and I hope you will have the time to clear things up.
--Mike
Humility
After the worship service the pastor was on his knees at the front of the church, and he prayed out loud, “Lord, I am so unworthy; I am humble before you!”
He was soon joined by the music minister, who also prayed, “Lord, I am so unworthy; I am humble before you!”
Next the church janitor came and got on his knees next to them, and he, too, cried out, “Lord, I am so unworthy; I am humble before you!”
Then the pastor leaned over and whispered to the music minister, “Look who thinks he’s as humble as we are!”
Solomon,
I was referring to Emmerson, Sharp, and others of their ilk.
For them to be "casting the first stone" at someone they thought was "gossiping" was quite bold in my opinion.
joke totally off topic (unlike junkster)
Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House in
D.C.; one from New Jersey, another from Tennessee and the third, from
Florida. They go with a White House official to examine the fence.
The Florida contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring,
then works some figures with a pencil. "Well", he says, "I figure the job
will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit
for me."
The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says,
"I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100
profit for me."
The New Jersey contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the
White House official and whispers, "$2,700".
The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other
guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?" The New Jersey
contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy
from Tennessee to fix the fence."
"Done!" replies the government official. And that friends, is how it all
works!
irony police,
My bad!
Emerson and Sharpe are no longer a concern of Bellevue other than they are two family men who have done a lot for us in the past and we should be grateful for their past service and pray for them. It's just too bad that the notorious 'check in the spirit' led them to try to trick the pastor in this way. Perhaps they thought that since God honored Jacob's deceit they would receive the same blessing. Bad call.
Considering that he had these two clever men trying their best to fool him into saying things that would sound bad on tape, and that they had enlisted their wives to pray that they would succeed, I must admit that SG did pretty well. Not great, but not bad either.
Tragic (or dramatic) irony occurs when a character on stage or in a story is ignorant, but the audience watching knows his or her eventual fate, as in Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet.
As in Adrian Rogers' role in PW walking the halls of Bellevue and he not having a clue as to PW's spiritual state or his "moral failure" And then Steve Gaines' adopting the phrase "moral failure" and covering it up for 6 months.
Socratic irony takes place when someone (classically a teacher) pretends to be foolish or ignorant, to expose the ignorance of another (and the teaching-audience, but not the student-victim, realizes the teacher's plot).
As in me asking over and over how could a pedophile walk the halls of the "stately ship of the SBC" and remain undetected?
Cosmic irony is when a higher being or force interferes in a character's life, creating ironic settings.
What role does God play in this drama? I'm incline to believe that PW was allowed for a purpose or judgement for a reason we do not clearly see.
Some people might see Satan's role as destroyer, but I can't help but think of God as permiting Satan to operate in boundaries that He determines.
Sometimes it seems like spiritual droughts last forever, but let's never forget that God is always working and has a very special blessing planned for us.
I just read an email that has blessed me greatly. One of my human weaknesses is that I harbor grudges for a very long time, but this past weekend with God's help I let go of one I held for ages. That small submission on my part yielded a harvest.
The email was from 'Arminius', and this is part of it: (we gave each other the freedom to share)
Geez, Keith. You made it sound like you took me out back and beat me into submission. I’m still going to post anything I want to, but for now I won’t stir anything else up. We’ll see if you’re right or not...
You’re certainly not what I expected, not even close. I guess I've become pretty close-minded, if not bigoted. You should be in sales, because I completely swore off of church a long time ago.
I’ve been giving some thought to what you said, you know, about bitterness growing in isolation. It’s been a long time since I’ve really belonged anywhere. Bellevue is not for me. I know that for a fact, after reading that blog for so long. I want nothing to do with people like that anymore.
I looked into that little place Larry told me about, though. I think it sounds just oddball enough for me to check out one Sunday.
Arminius has not left the building, but I promise you’ll have quiet on the eastern front for now. I hope you like crow, because you’ll be eating it soon enough and I fully expect you to be man enough to admit you were totally wrong.
Arminius hasn't been to church with an open heart in nearly three decades, but I believe God has done something in his life. This was my response to him:
John Mark,
I'm no salesman, not at all. What you think was persuasion on my part was the work of the Holy Spirit. You might not realize it, but those people you've been corresponding with on the Bratton report (and the other blog) are real live people, Christian people. Mike, me, bepatient, maybejustmaybe, memphis, johnthebaptist: we're all on your side. Christian people pray for one another, and that's why you unexpectedly feel open to rejoining a fellowship of believers. What other reason could there be? People have prayed for you, friend. The Bible says that the prayers of a righteous man accomplish much, and if the prayers of others has affected you this much, how much more if you pray for yourself? I rejoice over your decision, and me and my family are committed to pray for you. Please, let's stay in touch.
Wow. I'm not sure it gets any better than that.
:-)
Bratton said:
David, I have a friend who would radically disagree with your estimation--but more on that at another time. Next time you speak with her, perhaps you'd ask her to e-mail me?
oc says:
David has a friend who would radically disagree with YOUR estimation, Bratton. That would be me. Now, David's friend, me, knows gmommy. Do you know her?
Why would you trust second hand information, and not give credence to first hand information, from two sources, Mr Reporter?
Good job Bratton. You have shown your intentions. And why would she email you?
Keep talking to your little friend. He's probably the one who clued you in on Dr Loney's sinister intent.
Just sayin'.
oc
oc says:
David has a friend who would radically disagree with YOUR estimation, Bratton. That would be me. Now, David's friend, me, knows gmommy. Do you know her?
Considering she hides behind a veil of anonymity while publishing some very un-grandmotherly things, that's the extent to which I know her.
Why would you trust second hand information, and not give credence to first hand information, from two sources, Mr Reporter?
There is, actually, a reporter's term for my lack of credence, known as "considering the source." I know someone who's had interaction with her that paints a less-than-flattering portrait of her. I know David, who cannot be considered an unbiased source because I doubt he's aware of the extent of her behavior. And I know you, whoever you are, and that your tendency for anonymous pugilism just might be obscuring your objectivity.
Just a wee bit.
Good job Bratton. You have shown your intentions.
Yes, I have--I've even written about them in great detail.
And why would she email you?
Because I'm a wonderful pen pal.
Keep talking to your little friend. He's probably the one who clued you in on Dr Loney's sinister intent.
Just sayin'.
Did I say his intent was "sinister"? He makes jokes about death threats, true, but I don't believe I labeled his remarks as "sinister."
Bilious? Yes.
Bitter? Yes.
But sinister? No, sorry.
--Mike
Bratton said:
Considering she hides behind a veil of anonymity while publishing some very un-grandmotherly things, that's the extent to which I know her.
oc says:
Yep. That's the extent you know. Very limited, yet you can make proclamations upon your great limitations? Less than genius.
Bratton says:
There is, actually, a reporter's term for my lack of credence, known as "considering the source." I know someone who's had interaction with her that paints a less-than-flattering portrait of her. I know David, who cannot be considered an unbiased source because I doubt he's aware of the extent of her behavior. And I know you, whoever you are, and that your tendency for anonymous pugilism just might be obscuring your objectivity.
Just a wee bit.
oc says:
wonderful. I can make up the same doo doo that you and your little buddy can. And pugilism? That's a laugh. Here you are, tough guy, trying to beat up on a woman. Hope you are feeling manly.
Bratton says concerning Dr Loney:
Did I say his intent was "sinister"? He makes jokes about death threats, true, but I don't believe I labeled his remarks as "sinister."
Bilious? Yes.
Bitter? Yes.
But sinister? No, sorry.
oc says:
You say sorry? You have no idea how sorry you are. Or how funny you are. About Dr Loney? Are you the only one in the world who doesn't understand him? If so, you are working hard at being stupid.
Quit taking yourself so seriously. No one else does.
Was Adrian Rogers against towbacckee and al kee hol?
Now they have spit toons on the poorches at Bellevue!
Sounds like we may have another fight brewing on out hands....oh wait, the one fight reported was never proven or even followed up on, so nevermind, no fight a brewin...
my bad
Memphis
Serious question here:
Does anyone know the if the interview with MS and RE came before or after MS went around saying he wanted a meeting with the preacher about the "dream" or whatever it was he was so adament about?
I ask because if this came after the meeting with RE and MS, then I totally understand why no one would meet with him.
oc said...
memphis said:
Sounds like we may have another fight brewing on out hands....oh wait, the one fight reported was never proven or even followed up on, so nevermind, no fight a brewin...
my bad
Memphis
oc says:
Yep, gangsta wannabe. You're
bad alright. You are a
Cheerleader.
Just sayin'.
oc.
12:03 AM, August 28, 2007
Oc, whoever you are, I believe we should attribute your crankiness to the lateness of the hour.
If we don't, then there would have to be a much more disappointing reason for your remarks.
--Mike
memphis,
according to the fount of reliable knowledge known as "intergritydoescount.com"[sic] the dream thing was the same month (June 2006)as the meeting. In their list of events the dream is listed first so maybe that means it happened first but they don't really say.
Also, if any of you IDC folks are out there- if you go to "integritydoescount.com" those copyrighted photos are still up.
Sorry, that should be May 2006, not June.
I ask about the timing because it sounds like he did have a chance to speak to the issues he had, but instead they blew it over a movie.
.....and let's all not resort to calling each other names.
Memphis
Speaking of name calling
You son of a biscuit eating bulldog..
Have you guys seen that Orbitz commercial?
Commercial
Jessica said....
Also, if any of you IDC folks are out there- if you go to "integritydoescount.com" those copyrighted photos are still up
JTB: There are not any "copyrighted" photos on that website. Pictures of Bellevue are available for download on their website and can be used as long as it is not sold or profitted from.
Please learn copywrite laws and applications before publishing incorrect informantion.
SG – Do you know why that is Mark? Because on the deacon body you do know for instance after you rotate off a year, unless something is really bad, you get an automatic invite back.
Note (From Jim Haywood.): Richard Emerson was a Deacon and since this meeting has not been invited back. He is still a Bellevue member.
Irony Police Responds:
Gee, I wonder what "really bad" thing poor Richard Emmerson could have done to merit him not get invited back?
Hmm, maybe secretly recording meetings with the pastor, and associate pastor?
Unless there is a genuine repentance, Richard Emmerson has no business in any leadership position in any church.
Mr/Mrs. Irony POlice,
Can you imagine what the response would be if it was learned that the Pastor was the one that secretly recorded conversations?
If the tables were turned, do you think people would give the same response about it being ok to record since it is legal if it was SG or Coombs doing the recordings???
Just askin
Arminius,
Gray Allison said one time that he'd like to take a machine gun to the nearest liquor store and shoot every single bottle of liquor on the shelves. I'd like to go with him when he does, but in the meantime I'm not going to hate and reject every single person who drinks.
Of course I'm frustrated and angry that drunk driving is ever made light of. I heard a 'funny' story on the radio this morning that made me sick, but I didn't swear off of listening to the radio.
Most people simply don't know the pain drunk drivers cause or how ubiqitous it is, and they simply cannot be held accountable for what they don't know.
If 'allofgrace' were in our place, he'd never use that argument, but since it's not personal to him he doesn't get it.
And as far as 'rod' and 'lin', well, that falls under turning the other cheek.
Keith
If the tables were turned, do you think people would give the same response about it being ok to record since it is legal if it was SG or Coombs doing the recordings???
memphis,
We can only speculate, but since an angry motion was made at the business meeting to turn the cameras off I stronly suspect there would be disapproval.
Maybe even a lynching.
JTB,
When asked to remove the BBC photos from the site, all the other pictures were removed except for those. So someone at IDC was concerned enough to remove the rest- why leave those?
Perhaps copyrighted was not the right word, but the fact is that if BBC asked them to remove them and they are all about integrity it seems that they would remove them ALL.
Memphis,
Indeed. In fact I recall accusations of "secret recordings" going on at Bellevue and how terrible that was.
Now we know that there were indeed secret recordings made, but they were not by the pastor, but by those seeking to remove him.
I do recall some level of outrage over the fact that telephone conversations at BBC may be recorded.
More irony...
A friend of mine went to vist Raid Saba many months ago about one of the first letters he had posted on "Saving Bellevue." One of the first things Mr. Saba did was give him the 3rd degree about whether or not he was secretly recording the conversation. Mr. Saba got rather heated about it until my friend finally emptied out all his pockets placing the contents of them on a table to prove he was not recording.
Frankly my friend was a bit shocked at the lack of trust. He didn't understand why one Christian would even think that his brother in Christ would stoop to something as underhanded as secretly recording a conversation.
Little did he know at the time that the reason for Mr. Saba's paranioa was because this tactic was already being used by those he had allied himself with.
True story.
Mr. Saba got rather heated about it until my friend finally emptied out all his pockets placing the contents of them on a table to prove he was not recording...
Little did he know at the time that the reason for Mr. Saba's paranioa was because this tactic was already being used by those he had allied himself with.
True story.
ip,
If you ever need to prove the story is true, you should contact Mr. Saba. He probably recorded the conversation.
He probably recorded the conversation.
and part 1 of that story will be posted soon, followed by part 2-6 at a later date.
This is from the other blog. I'm not posting it to stir up anger, but so that our 'captain' is made aware that he is being called to the carpet.
gmommy said...
I'm saying to Bratton to produce the evidence of this horrible sin you KNOW about me.
Whatever Bratton does...
he shows himself to be exactly what he so self righteously has accused everyone else of.
And the world sees just how THIS Christian treats others.
So please,
make up a lie or
expose my unforgivable sin...
you'll have to be really creative to come up with something immoral.
Arminius said...
This is from the other blog. I'm not posting it to stir up anger, but so that our 'captain' is made aware that he is being called to the carpet.
I appreciate the information.
Is the below quote the extent of the dialogue?
gmommy said...
I'm saying to Bratton to produce the evidence of this horrible sin you KNOW about me.
Whatever Bratton does...
he shows himself to be exactly what he so self righteously has accused everyone else of.
And the world sees just how THIS Christian treats others.
So please,
make up a lie or
expose my unforgivable sin...
you'll have to be really creative to come up with something immoral.
"Unforgivable sin"? Did I mention anything about sin, much less an unforgivable one?
Of course not.
Quoting myself thusly and like so, "Considering she hides behind a veil of anonymity while publishing some very un-grandmotherly things, that's the extent to which I know her" and "I know someone who's had interaction with her that paints a less-than-flattering portrait of her."
Does she publish things that ill befit someone who self-identifies as a grandmother? Yes, and I don't think that's really up for discussion. Has she had personal interaction with a friend of mine that doesn't cast her in a flattering light? Yes, and again it's something that doesn't require debate.
Yet where, in all that, does the reference to some horrible, unforgivable sin come up? Why, from the grandmother herself. Were I a Freudian, I would immediately characterize her response as a type of Freudian slip; were I a Shakespearean, I would reflexively quote from Hamlet and suggest that her comments are reminiscent of the line "the lady doth protest too much".
At the end of the day, however, my hope is that her response is merely evidence of Holy Spirit conviction in her life. God knows her behavior, and she knows her behavior, even when it's conducted behind a pseudonym. If she's characterizing it as sin, that's between Him and her.
--Mike
Mike,
This place gets more surreal by the day--dog the anonymous, then besmirch someones's character based upon an anonymous source--and not even spell out what doesn't "cast her in a flattering light." Not only does such a ephemeral basis for an attack not require debate, there is nothing substantial in that bit of chum to debate. It's timid and non-commital, but you still get in your dig.
So, what? You weren't intimating something truly egregious in Gmom's character--after I said she was a good and decent person. Let me guess, the unfavorable light is that she doesn't use a turn signal while driving; yet now she has gone and outed herself with a Freudian slip. Right. That is a contrivance, sir, and you ought to be ashamed.
My brother's barber's cousin has a friend who "casts you in an unfavorable light;" and futhermore, I am unanimous in that. Ha ha! Here's some merengue to go on top of that fluff of yours.
Can we go back to debating double standands, Celine Dion and the WWF--you said you'd offer more on that too?
Now you've got a woman in the crosshairs that was directly affected by the pedophile and his "counseling." Yeah, that's just like Jesus, eh.
Do you feel like a big man? Because this is simply disgusting and I urge you to please not burden this sweet woman anymore than she has been already--no matter what credence you place in your anonymous friend.
Tarzan say anonymity bad, yes?
Anonymity can be used to do lots of unfortunate things, yes. I'm glad we agree.
I know my source, and I know what went on. I don't have permission to get into the details, so I will not do so. But as I said, it seems there's some personal conviction going on, which is always a good thing.
Tell me, David, have you taken anyone to task in a similar way, ever, for suggesting (as one example) that an anti-Bellevue blogger was "physically assaulted by an 'upstanding, longtime member' of Bellevue Baptist Church"? We've been waiting three months, and we've seen nothing.
I appreciate your reticence to give more than a token chiding to your friends. But I would remind you of Proverbs 28:23, which says "He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue." Suggesting people might want to be more accountable and circumspect in what they publish--regardless of whether or not a past injury allegedly provides justification--is more friendly than laughing their attacks off.
--Mike
you all are so divisive while your arrogance causes you to think you are so above everyone else. i was a pastor for over 10+ years and because i was brainwashed by bbc and people like on this blog i am no longer a christian.
you can't say i was never saved b/c there is no obvious sin in my life. i did not leave my ministry because of my "sin" either.
people like each of you are the reason, along with the atrocities of the bible (that you don't learn in MABTS) are the reason why i realized it is all for naught.
thank you, o holy mr bratton, for your arrogance that leads hundreds away from what we thought to be true.
i speak for at least 40 that i know of who have seen this and have been shattered by it.
you evil man, may you see the truth someday.
Actually Mike,
I encouraged it on NBBCOF tonight and have many times past; but what I don't do is to make ridiculous equivalences between words on a blog and the truly dangerous actions of powerful men, as do you.
You've never offered a peep about the credibility of the Bellevue leadership since that servantile, kidd-glove chidding of Pastor Gaines so long ago. Oh, where is that meek tone when dealing with mere words, as opposed to actions of that guy and the other ministers who coddled a pedophile for 6 months? Defend the repercussions (like which ones?)upon the culpable, the phasing-out and confidentiality agreements of so many innocent staff members, the bullying of folks like Gmom and countless others, the parlaying of the PCIR as the be-all/ end-all resolution to the scandal--when in reality it merely limited itself to the actions of the pedophile, not his protectors; defend your assertion that there was only one victim--when victims of this kind of abuse are not likely to come forward for years (I know this personally)--when such an assertion is based more upon wishful thinking than statistical reality; defend the Coombs "congrgationally approved" ordination--when only the vote in the affirmative was offered--and upon the heels of leading an investigation that did all to shield Gaines; defend Gaines keeping his job and fat paycheck, when any other person in any other field would be seeking new employment for precisely the same offense; defend those sermons stitching scripture to suit his contrived purpose of villifying his detractors; defend that strawman argument that when folks use invective here or worse, dumb logic, that the Bratton Report is not held to the same scrutiny as NBBCOF because you mention a wrestler or Celine Dion from time-to-time (that one truly is pitiful).
Or, continue to gather beans and hope they restore the reputations of those discredited leaders. Harsh words on a blog won't touch these outrages, especially when most regulars here don't have much to offer but assinine equivalences and gushing, if unqualified, loyalty to a man that was incurious about a pedophile until a truthseeker outed him.
You won't, nor will any other Gaines-loyalist here, because you cannot even admit the gravity of the failure in the first place. If you could, then you would seek accoutability too. You only play one note, and it is as selective, one-sided and partial as the PCIR.
NBBCOF from 6:14pm:
Cakes said...
Whaaat's uuuuuuuuuup?
"Cakes here (thesaurus.com),"
"I find that Mike and the regulars on his blog, Billie and others, are obviously as injured as the refugees by the leadership fiasco, and their behavior a function of it--since willful blindness to the obvious and loyalty to a jack leg pastor are born of some kind of fear or suffering--and thus deserving of compassion."
"Let's please rachet it down on calling folks "fools" and the like, not infer that someone is gay (unless it is me--I get it all the time and used to it), and otherwise let the steaming pies they drop dry up undisturbed in the sun."
"Why escalate?"
Now, let me preempt any argument that the devil told me ahead of time that I'd need a good retort just hours later. We're not that close.
Johnny is great, Johnny is good. Let us thank him for our food! Amen
Is Johnny Hunt impressed with his exterme love of Jesus?
That sermonm last night was frenzied Armininiasm.
I grew up in Pentecostalism and so I know frenzied Arminiianism and he would be more than welcome in any Pentecostal church!
Are all SBC this cooperative?
Mike said:
"Tell me, David, have you taken anyone to task in a similar way, ever, for suggesting (as one example) that an anti-Bellevue blogger was "physically assaulted by an 'upstanding, longtime member' of Bellevue Baptist Church"? We've been waiting three months, and we've seen nothing."
Mike, where have you been? That situation was resolved by me taking the fall for that incident!
GBC people blamed me and told NASS and her crew and that was it, resolved. I have yet to hear from the police!
Charles Page
Collierville, Tennessee
PS: A GBC preacher told me he had no control over what his people do?
ihfc said...
i was a pastor for over 10+ years and because i was brainwashed by bbc and people like on this blog i am no longer a christian.
As I understand this statement, bbc brainwashed you out of your faith? And people like Sol? Remarkable.
people like each of you are the reason, along with the atrocities of the bible (that you don't learn in MABTS) are the reason why i realized it is all for naught.
Are you saying that MABTS doesn't teach the entire Bible? That's also remarkable.
you can't say i was never saved b/c there is no obvious sin in my life. i did not leave my ministry because of my "sin" either.
Some people are very good at concealing sin. I'm a little suspicious if someone seems TOO good.
you evil man
Nope, not suspicious anymore.
i hate fake christians said...
you all are so divisive while your arrogance causes you to think you are so above everyone else. i was a pastor for over 10+ years and because i was brainwashed by bbc and people like on this blog i am no longer a christian.
I'm sorry to hear that you're as upset as you apparently are. I'm not interested in getting into the impossibility of someone being able to claim the title of "ex-Christian" (though we can discuss it if you like), but I would like to know how you were brainwashed by Bellevue if you were a pastor--presumably at another church.
you can't say i was never saved b/c there is no obvious sin in my life. i did not leave my ministry because of my "sin" either.
Let me mull that over a bit... "There is no obvious sin in my life."
Wow. That's impressive.
Or does that mean that the sin in your life isn't obvious?
people like each of you are the reason, along with the atrocities of the bible (that you don't learn in MABTS) are the reason why i realized it is all for naught.
It's easier to blame other people for personal decisions, but I would encourage you to re-evaluate your statements.
thank you, o holy mr bratton, for your arrogance that leads hundreds away from what we thought to be true.
Wouldn't I be a powerful dude if such a statement could possibly be presumed to be true?
i speak for at least 40 that i know of who have seen this and have been shattered by it.
Tell all of them I'm just an e-mail away if they'd like to talk.
you evil man, may you see the truth someday.
Please read my profile--I saw the truth nearly forty years ago. And my e-mail offer goes for you, too.
--Mike
Cakes said...
NBBCOF from 6:14pm:
Cakes said...
Whaaat's uuuuuuuuuup?
"Cakes here (thesaurus.com),"
"I find that Mike and the regulars on his blog, Billie and others, are obviously as injured as the refugees by the leadership fiasco, and their behavior a function of it--since willful blindness to the obvious and loyalty to a jack leg pastor are born of some kind of fear or suffering--and thus deserving of compassion."
A more left-handed bit of deference I've never read, David.
That's supposed to encourage better behavior in your Forum friends?
Not exactly.
"Let's please rachet it down on calling folks "fools" and the like, not infer that someone is gay (unless it is me--I get it all the time and used to it), and otherwise let the steaming pies they drop dry up undisturbed in the sun."
That one doesn't even qualify as "timid," David. Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back for your supposed equanimity, all right?
"Why escalate?"
Why, indeed? They should just be more subtle about it, with references to "fear and suffering" and "steaming pies."
Yes, that's marvelous advice.
--Mike
"Tell me, David, have you taken anyone to task in a similar way, ever, for suggesting (as one example) that an anti-Bellevue blogger was "physically assaulted by an 'upstanding, longtime member' of Bellevue Baptist Church"? We've been waiting three months, and we've seen nothing."
Mike, be careful about bringing that up, some are very sensitive about this "incident"
Memphis
aka the gansta wanabe cheerleader
There's no way to say this without it sounding bad, but when has that ever stopped me?
pies, uh, I mean CAKES said...
"I find that Mike and the regulars on his blog, Billie and others, are obviously as injured as the refugees by the leadership fiasco, and their behavior a function of it--since willful blindness to the obvious and loyalty to a jack leg pastor are born of some kind of fear or suffering--and thus deserving of compassion."
"Let's please rachet it down on calling folks "fools" and the like, not infer that someone is gay (unless it is me--I get it all the time and used to it), and otherwise let the steaming pies they drop dry up undisturbed in the sun."
Is it possible cakes was sincerely trying to dissuade the diatribe, and was speaking to them in their own language?
Memphis
aka the gansta wanabe cheerleader
"Gangsta cheerleader."
What a wonderful oxymoron!
--Mike
Mike,
Regarding your alleged information about Gmommy, let me remind you that statements of fact are one thing and opinions are another; however, unsubstantiated insinuations attacking a person’s character and integrity are not to be put forth lightly – and most certainly not from one who professes to follow Christ.
Mike, I’m asking you to end this NOW by putting forth your facts, if you indeed have facts, or by stating your own opinion and labeling it as such. If you can do neither, then I suggest you point your accusatory keyboard in Gmommy’s direction and make a very PUBLIC apology to her.
To do anything less is to lump yourself into the same category as the guy who knows the inside scoop because he knows a guy whose cousin’s brother-in-law owned a Dairy Queen down the street from the barber shop where Elvis had his hair styled one Saturday afternoon in October of 1956.
I realize you may see patterns and pictures that other people cannot see, as did the visionary in “A Beautiful Mind,” and Mike, I hate to burst your bubble of self-importance, but Russell Crowe got that part – not you!
Mike, Gmommy has done nothing to you and she does not deserve this type of accusatory treatment. End it now!
Mary
Ladies and gentlemen, let me take a moment to apologize.
In the blizzard of pseudonyms, I have confused the identities of two Forum members who've engaged in despicable off-the-blog activities, thinking that one of them was the poster who identifies as "Gmommy" when she was not. While the activities in question are reported by an unimpeachable source, "Gmommy" was not one of the individuals involved.
Though her on-the-blog publications are loaded with regrettable statements, and while I make no apology for asking her to stop making hate-laden comments, I was wrong in suggesting I knew of any illicit off-the-blog activities on her part.
I was wrong, and "Gmommy," I apologize.
--Mike
Thanks, Mike!
Mary
Yes, thank you Mike! I wrote you an email, but your post here negates the need for your to reply - unless you REALLY want to! :)
karen
I think this post from Mary could serve as a wonderful "fill in the blank" anytime we need to post on the other blog:
Regarding your alleged information about___________, let me remind you that statements of fact are one thing and opinions are another; however, unsubstantiated insinuations attacking a person’s character and integrity are not to be put forth lightly – and most certainly not from one who professes to follow Christ.
__________, I’m asking you to end this NOW by putting forth your facts, if you indeed have facts, or by stating your own opinion and labeling it as such. If you can do neither, then I suggest you point your accusatory keyboard in ___________’s direction and make a very PUBLIC apology to _________.
To do anything less is to lump yourself into the same category as the guy who knows the inside scoop because he knows a guy whose cousin’s brother-in-law owned a Dairy Queen down the street from the barber shop where Elvis had his hair styled one Saturday afternoon in October of 1956.
I realize you may see patterns and pictures that other people cannot see, as did the visionary in “A Beautiful Mind,” and Mike, I hate to burst your bubble of self-importance, but Russell Crowe got that part – not you!
________, ___________ has done nothing to you and____________ does not deserve this type of accusatory treatment. End it now!
Mike Bratton apologized?!
Hail Mary!
Maybe there's a God after all--tehe!
lynn said on the other blog:
"Steve Gaines isn't a victim...he's the culprit."
SG inherited the mess he had at Bellevue. Paul Williams was at Bellevue for 34 years and was a pedophile for 17 years walking the halls when SG got there.
Though SG made big mistakes in handling the situation it is unfair to continuously dump on Steve. He inherited the mess!
WatchingHISstory said...
Though SG made big mistakes in handling the situation it is unfair to continuously dump on Steve. He inherited the mess!
If this is true, then why is it fair for you to so continually dump on AR? You have made it plain that the real "mess" you claim was left by AR was not PW, but was actually the impact of the message AR preached ... that PW was just a symptom of a much larger problem with AR's ministry, which you have termed "a gospel of self-determinism". (Yes, I really have been paying attention and getting your points! :) )
But who was AR's greatest doctrinal influence? Who were his theology and evangelism and preaching professors? And who were theirs?
Perhaps you should go back farther, and do some research on the teachings JA Broadus, JP Boyce, and B Manly, in comparison and contrast to those of LR Scarborough and EY Mullins, if you're really looking to place blame for the direction of the SBC.
And don't forget the larger influences in American evangelicalism and revivalism, like Charles Finney, Billy Sunday, and Billy Graham. Why be so unfair to AR when he was but one man in many, and a lesser known name (outside of the SBC), with lesser influences on American Christianity as a whole?
It seems to bother you that SG gets dumped on for what he inherited from AR ... aren't you doing the same to AR for what he inherited as well?
junkster
You left out John R Rice and Sword of the Lord publications.
The only chair that was shoved forward was for AR to sit in, you'll have to ask God why he only showed me AR!
The only chair that was shoved forward was for AR to sit in, you'll have to ask God why he only showed me AR!
Careful, that might be part of God's secret decretive will that we dare not presume to understand!
Charles, Junk made some good points and asked you a simple, direct question.
I'd appreciate it if you'd give him a direct answer.
--Mike
Yes
Junkster
I posted this on AOG's site, you might find it interesting.
"I go to our 8AM service and then the 9:15 fellowship class (CFBC) so I can come home and listen to SG's sermon on the internet.
This morning he preached on the gospel concerning Paul. As always his messages are clearly Armininian. However he said that the gospel must be pertinently using I Cor 9:22
That text says that we may have to change our language or method of communication but the same gospel is preached.
That got me to thinking and I dug into some of "Baptist and the Bible" by Bush and Nettles and reread where they said that E. Y. Mullins was more concerned with the results than with the process of inspiration. P. 297 "He was satisfied to ask only how the Bible meets the religious needs of men today." This man was responsible for the 1925 BF&M which was a departure from the New Hampshire confession, which itself was a departure from the Old Orthodoxy.
Leading up to 1963 there were cries of "widespread concern that Southern Baptist were becomming more liberal doctrinally." p. 388
They changed the wording from "wholly of Grace" to a salvation for the "whole man" with out hardly any discussion except about the word "church" p. 390
My gut level reaction is that when the SBC talks about conservatism and liberalism (even when it applies to the veracity of scripture) they mean evangelism and missions to the nations. The resurgence was a red herring for Church growth.
When SG preaches pertinence, consistent with the SBC he means the pragmatism of Mullins. Practical results over precise theory. p.297 In fact SG belittled the deep theological terms associated with preaching. Making it easy for the common people "like you and me" to understanding it.
AOG, it's not our understanding of it that saves us it is the imparting of the Holy Spirit that quickens the deep truth of God to the smartest man who otherwise would/could not understand it.
This thread of pragmatism weaves through SG and AR and is the mortar with which Bellevue is constructed.
Well, junkster, I guess he shut YOU up!!!
arminius
The secret things belong to the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Also, how unsearchable are his judgements and his ways past finding out!
Wow, now he shut ME up!!!!
Boy he's good!
arminius
John and Jeremy said to tell you hello. They both love the Lord and we all share our testimonies of Christ.
Sorry, Sol.
I'm a baaaaad boy.
Okay, seriously:
WHS...
Though SG made big mistakes in handling the situation it is unfair to continuously dump on Steve. He inherited the mess!
elsewhere,
This morning he preached on the gospel concerning Paul. As always his messages are clearly Armininian.
WHS,
What is your opinion of Steve Gaines? Are you a supporter or a detractor? You defend him because he can't be blamed a pedophile 'walked the halls' for 17 years, 6 months of which he knew about. And yet you dismiss his preaching because it's arminian.
Mary challenged Mike to produce his evidence against gmommy, which led him to examine it and realize a mistake he had made.
I challenge you to state your honest opinion of Steve Gaines. As far as your vision, I believe the OT says that the young men will see visions, and the old men will dream dreams. Based on what I know of you, you're the same age I am and I'm no young man.
Was it a dream you had, or a vision? And where in the Bible has God ever spoken in a 'demonic' voice?
I make no distinction for AR or SG.
I regard both the same Armininian.
In John 8 the Jews were pushing Jesus with insults. They were implying that his mother was a whore (pardon my language) and he was an illigitimate son v.41 While there is no direct implication they probally implied that his step-father married a whore.
They were themselves guilty of the very sins they accused his mother 8:3-11. They claimed to be sons of Abraham.
Christ response to them v 42-47 was not the sissy and feminized response of the traditional Jesus but a very coarse and scary voice that eliticed a response from the Jews that not only was he a Samaritan (born of fornication) but he had a devil.
We need this authoritarian bold voice to speak out against the destruction that Armininian preachers are doing to America today. Of coarse Jesus didn't have a devil but his voice was beastial and angry. He was angry but did not sin.
It was a vision as I was out walking my dog, Roscoe. That would make me a young man!
watching,
Your post from AOG's site contains some interesting points, and some conclusions unwarranted by facts. But it doesn't answer my question; it doesn't even come close. Neither did your reference to what you believe God has shown you.
The question is simple, and it is based on your own statements and logic. So I will condense and re-ask: If it is not fair to blame the "mess" of Bellevue's doctrinal foundations on SG, why is it fair to blame them on AR?
junkster
I make no distinction for AR or SG.
I regard both the same Armininian.
I don't know how many times I have to say it.
junkster said
But who was AR's greatest doctrinal influence? Who were his theology and evangelism and preaching professors? And who were theirs?
Sadly it should have been the Spirit of truth John 16:13 Rather it was the likes of CI Scofield. Dispensationalist
WatchingHISstory said...
junkster
I make no distinction for AR or SG.
I regard both the same Armininian.
I don't know how many times I have to say it.
It's ok, no big deal to me -- if you cannot or will not directly answer a simple and direct question, I see no reason for me to insist that you do. My questions aren't anything to lose sleep over.
(Unrelated word verification: mcmrt. As in the host of the Oscars saying, "I pity the fool!")
Idontlikefakechristians,
"you all are so divisive while your arrogance causes you to think you are so above everyone else. i was a pastor for over 10+ years and because i was brainwashed by bbc and people like on this blog i am no longer a christian.
you can't say i was never saved b/c there is no obvious sin in my life. i did not leave my ministry because of my "sin" either."
A pastor or in your case an ex-pastor should know enough of the WORD that you don't make the mistake you are making. Apparently you don't however. I suggest you read the following:
Heb 2:1-4
Heb 2:26-30
2 Peter 2:22
Prov 26:11
Luke 11:24-26
Luke 11:23
EZ 18:24, Chap 3 and 33
I am not one of those that will tell you that once you are saved, you are always saved. I won't tell you that you were just never saved either. You won't be the first disciple that turned back. Probably won't be the last. You may have been pruned for lack of fruit? (John 15:6) Anyway, you seem to be a pretty strong argument for my stance and a quick look at the above scripture should leave you with no doubt where you are and where you are headed. If you don't turn from your unrighteousness....
Having said that, Luke 11:23 is pretty clear. You are for the CHRIST or you are against Him. From your words above it appears that you are in fact, an anti-christ. You don't want to be there or go there.
But there is always hope. You can find it in EZ 18 and 33. If you will turn from your unrighteousness.......
AS to the atrocities in the Bible....Just who in the world are you to question God? By what authority?
Isaiah 29:9-16 seems particularly aplicable to you.
I suggest you read it and repent.
As to Mike being responsible for your failings, or BBC or anyone else you choose to blame, I suggest you read all the way through the book of Ezekiel. This book is all about personal responsibility.
The day we all stand before the judgement seat, there will be no excuses. And we will answer for our deeds. "Mike made me do it" will not be an excuse that will save you from the pit.
Please share this with your friends. Maybe some can be snatched out of the fire....
idontlikefakechristians,
More Here
Share this with your friends as well.
junkster,
I think I know what WHS means.
In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the distinction between creation and destruction. However, Debord suggests the use of the subdialectic paradigm of consensus to read sexual identity.
Lacan’s critique of cultural discourse holds that truth, ironically, has significance. Thus, if social realism holds, we have to choose between Baudrillardist hyperreality and textual deappropriation.
Any number of theories concerning not deconstruction, but neodeconstruction may be discovered. However, the premise of cultural discourse states that consciousness is meaningless, but only if Lyotard’s model of social realism is valid; if that is not the case, we can assume that art is used to entrench hierarchy.
The primary theme of the works of Joyce is the fatal flaw, and eventually the defining characteristic, of subcultural class. Therefore, many theories concerning cultural discourse exist.
All clear now?
junkster
So I will condense and re-ask: If it is not fair to blame the "mess" of Bellevue's doctrinal foundations on SG, why is it fair to blame them on AR?
First of all what is "fair"?
For me, God showed me his anger toward AR, so I just work backward from that premise.
Gaines did not lay the doctrinal foundation at Bellevue. I do not know Lee nor Pollard or any other previous pastor's theology.
I believe that AR departed from what ever they believed and established an evangelistic environment at the cost of what little orthodoxy was left at Bellevue. It was a departure that brought disgrace to the integrity of scripture, since he used that as a red herring to accomplishment church growth.
I would bet that Lee did not approve (would not) approve of the direction that AR took. Of coarse I have no factual basis to say that. Decorum would dictate that Lee would keep his opinions to himself.
Steve Gaines inherited this mess and he is suffering the consequences.
Steve Gaines inherited this mess and he is suffering the consequences.
The characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is not dematerialism, but subdematerialism. In a sense, if precapitalist patriarchial theory holds, we have to choose between the pretextual paradigm of narrative and posttextual feminism. The primary theme of von Junz’s analysis of Debordist image is the difference between class and society.
In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the distinction between ground and figure. Therefore, Sartre suggests the use of semantic materialism to deconstruct hierarchy. Marx uses the term ‘realism’ to denote not discourse as such, but subdiscourse.
Make sense?
Christ response to them v 42-47 was not the sissy and feminized response of the traditional Jesus but a very coarse and scary voice that eliticed a response from the Jews that not only was he a Samaritan (born of fornication) but he had a devil.
We need this authoritarian bold voice to speak out against the destruction that Armininian preachers are doing to America today. Of coarse Jesus didn't have a devil but his voice was beastial and angry. He was angry but did not sin.
It was a vision as I was out walking my dog, Roscoe. That would make me a young man!
Ah! It's all coming back to me now!
WHS SAID...
A year and a half ago I had an incredible experience with the Lord that drastically changed my life. Then last December I was walking my dog as my usual devotion time (quite time) with the Lord. And I know how you folks are about experiences (visions) but out of nowhere I had a vision of a chair being shoved in front of Adrian Rogers in heaven. A very angry God was telling AR to "sit here and watch the destruction of Bellevue." It left me breathless and asking God, "what is this about?"
Then about a month ago I was lying in bed and the awful truth of God's judgment hit me about Dr. Rogers and the way he treated that lady 5 or 6 years ago when she suddenly applauded and interrupted his sermon. He embrassassed her and God was very angry with him about that. This thought from God drove me to cry out over and over to God to kill me right there if that was the truth. What chance did anyone have if AR failed God that way and AR being the great man that he was. My wife thought that I was having a breakdown or had taken the wrong medicine.
I tried to get out of bed and walked to the foot of the bed and fell to the floor face down to the carpet. A demon-like angry voice came out of me and it was the voice of God expressing his anger to AR and that he had plans that night through that lady's clapping to send a great revival to Bellevue, the pedophile would have repented openly and the revival would have spread to all America. But AR stopped it that night to finish his sermon.
I do not have a bone to pick with AR, God does!
10:04 PM, May 13, 2007
W,
Come to think of it, I had that vision too. But in my case it's because I had a breakdown and took the wrong medicine...
People just need to take an objective look and read some of the stuff gmommy and rod have written and they will realize how pathetic things really are.
By the way, God doesn't have a bone to pick with Dr. Rogers. He's in Heaven now and that is a moot issue.
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not shouting "I'm clean livin'."
I'm whispering "I was lost,
Now I'm found and forgiven."
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I don't speak of this with pride.
I'm confessing that I stumble
And need Christ to be my guide.
When I say. "I am a Christian"
I'm not trying to be strong.
I'm professing that I'm weak
And need His strength to carry on.
When I say... "I! am a Christian" I'm not bragging of success.
I'm admitting I have failed
And need God to clean my mess.
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I'm not claiming to be perfect,
My flaws are far too visible
But, God believes I am worth it.
When I say... "I am a Christian"
I still feel the sting of pain.
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.
When I say... "I am a Christian" I'm not holier than thou,
I'm just a simple sinner
Who received God's good grace, somehow!
John Mark,
I've never written to you directly, but what you said about Rod was unnecessary and just ugly. Please post with care and class.
Thanks! :)
Karen
Jessica said...
I think this post from Mary could serve as a wonderful "fill in the blank" anytime we need to post on the other blog:
REPLY:
Not a good idea, Jessica. I read the other blog daily.
Words have meaning and if one cannot address a particular situation using a lexis and vocabulary of their own then perhaps they should refrain from doing so at all.
Mary
Cakes said...
Mike Bratton apologized?!
Hail Mary!
Maybe there's a God after all--tehe!
REPLY:
Oh there is, Cakes! There is! ;-)
We’re leavin’ the light on for ya’.
Mary
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.
karen,
Can I at least keep razzing WHS?
Maybe the reason that PW didn't confide in AR was he knew that the moment AR found out about him he wold have immediately fired him. (the popular view)
Another reason is that PW, who continued his crime against his son for 18 months, knew that it would be easy to conceal it from AR and he did it successfully for 17 years and would probally still be in charge of prayer at Bellevue if AR hadn't retired/died. (realistic view)
"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."
Reasonalble deduction--deductive reason requires qualifiers, and it is demonstrable that most of y'all don't do qualifiers--like say the above unfounded judgement.
One situation I've heard is that Dr. Rogers years ago rebuked a staff member before the church for an adulterous affair--this is a qualifier, children, and one that supports a position contrary to your assertion.
There are lots of resourses on the web to offer a primer on deductive logic, so there's no call to confuse reason with wishful thinking.
Bob Davis, the new CFO of Computer Associates, which recently suffered its own accounting scandal, says, "It is never a viable defense" for a CEO to claim ignorance of the workings of his own organization. The job of a CEO is to stay intimately involved with his company, a role that far too many CEOs are abandoning in order to become global, says Gregory Scott, CFO of Pacificare Health Systems. "Some CEOs start thinking that hanging out in Washington is more important than understanding what is happening with their businesses," as Lay did when he became involved with President George W. Bush's special task force on U.S. energy policy. "If you want to be a figurehead, you'd better drop the CEO title and take another. You can't distance yourself from your own company, turn it over to someone else, and then [take] the 'I didn't know' defense."
Adrian Rogers was busy with the conservative resurgence, "Love Worth Finding", SBC business, BF&M, 2000 SBC meeting, family life admendment, and closed door meetings with the 'Kingmakers"
He left daily Church business in the hands of associates and still took a lucrative salary along with honorariams for speaking engagements.
He distanced himself from people like PW who needed him and thoes loyal to him indulge in wishful thinking "he didn't know defense"
He should have known and a young boy suffered! The son of his associate.
cake
isn't this statement an example of an unfounded judgement?
"Reasonalble deduction--deductive reason requires qualifiers, and it is demonstrable that most of y'all don't do qualifiers--like say the above unfounded judgement."
Didn't I state an opinion and not a judgement? Do I have a right to an opinion without being called a child? Are you the only adult in this conversation?
Seem both of us as children need to research "deductive logic" as well as the children on the other blog.
Mike,
Your website is kind of like Sean Hannity's hotline where he lets people abuse him and say anything they want. Seems like a whole bunch from the anti-Bellevue sites come here just to taunt you.
Thanks for being so understanding and patient.
Cakes,
For the record, there were many staff and members involved in affairs and scandals over the years that were not brought before the church- they were quietly swept away.
The particular situation you are referring to happened was because that was the desire of the parties involved- to be brought before the church and repent openly. It was far from a common occurrence.
I don't place the blame on Dr. Rogers for those that were kept quiet, that is just the way it was always done.
jma:
Can I at least keep razzing WHS?
Arminius,
Your email address seems to have been deactivated.
I say this with all due respect, but 'razzing' is not a Christ-like behavior no matter who the subject is. Based on what Sol has shared, it seems that you're more open now to rejoining a local body of believers than before. But since you've been away for so long, it might take time for you to develop a desire to truly behave in a Christian manner.
It's often easier to act your way into feeling than to feel your way into acting. Even though you might want to treat other people badly, you know you shouldn't. Whether you feel like it or not, treat others with respect as Christ instructed us, and soon you'll really feel like doing it. WHS is a very good place to start.
The Bible says to throw off everything that hinders us, and to avoid any sin that entangles us so that we can run the race to victory. As Dr. Rogers used to say, God never commands us to do anything that is impossible. Any sin that overpowers us can be overcome through God's grace. Every temptation that plagues us has been faced by other men, and overcome through Christ.
People here care for you and are praying for you, and you owe it to them to sincerely make an effort. Don't let them down.
junkster said
""Transparency" is a good thing, and we can certainly use more of it in pastors. But when some use the word, they mean "more open in discussing or admitting or not trying to hide their own sins." I will leave it to others to say whether they think this is truly the case with SG. (what a cheap route to take, a coward's words!!!) But there can be a reason other than transparency for why some pastors have less to say publicly about their own sins than others ... it could be that they are just more mature in the faith, with less sins to be transparent about. Just a thought."
An anonymous poster of the "I love Rogers more than Gaines" fan club writes about tranparency!
Seems to me that Junkster thinks that Rogers was dangerously close to being perfect. Theologically that means that Rogers is close to being a Wesleyan Armininian.
Isaiah 64:6 "..all of our acts of roghteousness are like a garment for periods of menstruation; and we shall fade away like leafage."
Some roses are prettier than others but when they fade and die they all look the same.
just a few Charlesisms!
Charles,
In response to your question "what is 'fair'?" ... that was kinda my point in asking about the fairness of blaming SG vs. blaming AR. It was your use of the word "fair" that I was actually questioning.
Put as a more direct statement rather than a question, what I was saying was that you blame AR (because you believe that God does) and others blame SG (because they also believe that God does), so one is not more "fair" than the other. It is a matter of people speaking and acting upong their beliefs or convictions.
Just as some people are focused on the things they believe SG has done wrong, you are focused on things you believe AR did wrong. I'd like to believe that for the most part folks are not trying to be cynical and nasty, they (including you) are just trying to speak to things that they feel are not right. Some do it with more grace, some do it with more frustration or hostility (which I believe rises out of pain and fear). But I want to believe that, as Christians, most are acting out of conscience -- the desire to do right and point out wrong. Maybe I delude myself into thinking too highly of folks intentions.
Regarding your quote of what I wrote on NBBCOF about transparency ... I hadn't thought of it like that, but I suppose there was an implication that SG may have more sin in his life than AR. But since I can't know that one way or another, and do not wish to make an inappropriate insinuation, I will delete the post you quoted.
-----
Tom
(There, now I am only half way anonymous.)
Well,
I find the level of gullibility on this forum, the judgement, more and more humorous--and it hasn't waned even on the heels of a collsssal blog-boo-boo by Mike (does this mean another entry about Celine Dion or Catholics is in the works?).
Ok, a declarative sentence would be "An anonymous poster of the 'I love Rogers more than Gaines' fan club writes about tranparency!" This is the pretext, a judgement about not just Junkster's words, because I think I could qualify many instances where J. has clearly stated objectives and opinions to the contrary.
The above sentence presumes too much, and stitches its case by plucking this outrage or that one (by the way, recording a conversation cranks up your ire; yet the pastor's mistake and utter lack of accountability commensurate to the offence--"eh". If you can qualify real consequences, please do, If not, qualify why it is not important that Gaines is removed or censured), conveniently ignoring opinions and facts within J's considerable and varied contribution (here and NBBCOF) that might justify an alternative conclusion.
By starting from this premise, several things are tangentially implied. First, J. either doesn't really believe the points, valid or not, or he is diluding himself; he is really just motivated by his devotion to Dr. Rogers and a unreasonable distain for Gaines.
Two, the dismissal of people, like J., and their motives preempts the acknowledgement of said points, valid or not. It cracks me up the presumption that anyone who has doubts about Gaines as Pastor is motivated by unreasonable distain. If you answer the following question honestly, then you find the pretext is merely chum:
Is it possible that someone alienated from Bellevue--by the handling and aftermath of the Pedophile scandal--have any reasonble cause to doubt Gainse' fitness as Pastor? If your answer is no, then please qualify it (if you can).
About qualifiers--the following sentence contains one:
"Based upon the BBCPCIR (headed by Coombs), Gainse not only did nothing about the pedophile, he was incurious as to his duties and whereabouts."
The qualifier is the IR, and if the statement is true, then most reasonable folks, unless blinded by loyalty, could acknowledge it reasonable to think that Gaines has indicted himself by his own words and actions. If you think that Gaines could not have been so slack, and that the investigation and report, conducted by the current Bellevue leadership, must be in error. Then, then to what do you attribute your trust and loyalty?
Ha!
And don't drag the good name of Dr. Rogers--who is not here to defend his position--by implying that he too would have broke the law, potentially endangered children, and would have taken no action regarding the pedophile until outed--you know, just like Gaines. Balderdash. You dihonor him and yourself.
That tact is more desperate than some trying to turn this into a theological difference.
Charles,
Of those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and believed it was worth fighting for change in the SBC over, some were Calvinists and some were Arminian (using only those broad categories). The conservative resurgence was not about fostering a particular theology of salvation or methodology of evangelism.
There was, and still is, a broad spectrum of theological beliefs within the conservative camp, just as there is today (Patterson and Moehler being examples). The driving motivation of the resurgence was not related to soteriology or missiology, though perhaps those should have been more important considerations than they were.
In fact, the primary criticism lodged toward the conservatives by the so-called moderates in control of the convention at the time was that the conservatives were distracting from a focus on evangelism and missions. The moderates' mantra was "Why can't we all forget about these doctrinal differences and just all get along for the sake of spreading the gospel? Being Southern Baptist isn't about agreeing on the inerrancy of Scripture, it is about cooperating with each other in the spread of the gospel."
If the resurgence was a red hering or smoke screen for spreading Church Growth theology and practices, as you claim, it was a huge waste of effort, for that path would have been easier followed by working with the moderates than by working against them.
Charles,
One more thing ... in re-reading your post, I noticed what I had missed the first time; that you called me a coward. The insult doesn't bother me -- I can testify to being much worse than that. But I don't really understand why you would say it, in that context. My meaning was just that I do not know SG enough (and have not heard him preach enough) to judge whether he is transparent about his sins or shortcomings, so I would leave it to those who do know him to speak to that issue. I don't see how that is cowardice, so I'm thinking maybe you misunderstood my meaning. Just wanted to clarify that, in case anyone else misunderstood what I meant as well.
-----
Tom
Larry,
What, are you my keeper now?
WHS,
What does this garbage mean?
Some roses are prettier than others but when they fade and die they all look the same.
Dr. Rogers died almost 2 years ago, but people are still listening to what he said. You might want to pay attention to his style, since no one listens to you while you're still alive.
cakes sucked up to the NBBCOF by saying...
They've been taking that tact over at the Bratton Report--beginning from the premise that the truthseekers couldn't possibly have legitimate doubts regarding Gaines' fitness as a minister, or lack thereof--you are rather worshippers of Dr. Rogers and have an unreasonable distain for Padre. Then, it is argued that Dr, Roger would have behaved as Gaines.
Cakes, if you ever had it, you've lost it. You condemn us because we assign actions to the entire other blog based on one post, and yet you can't seem to get it through your boodhist head that WHS is an insane idiot who doesn't speak for anyone other than himself. Just because we're not scared of him here, and Mike hasn't decided to censor his very strange posts, that doesn't mean we all agree with him. Only a simpleton like you would think that.
"Duh, I read it on the Bratton report, therefore Bratton must condone it. Duh."
You're obviously unable to move past your own experience, and anyone who doesn't fall in line behind you is evil in your mind. You're not the measure of right and wrong in the world, so get over it.
Why don't you do us all a favor and go away? Motel 6 has a light on for you too.
Thank you in advance for your departure.
Cakes, if you are referring to my comment about Dr. Rogers handling of affairs and situations in the past when you say "by implying that he too would have broke the law," then you need to scurry back over to the other side and clarify that- I was simply referring to the incident that you referenced about his handling and clarifying that that was not the standard way things were handled. Not every offender was taken to task before the church.
I don't know what Dr. Rogers would have done in the situation- I think he would have handled it with tact and discretion though. I think it would have been handled quickly and decisively but I don't know that it would ever have been made public.
So if you are going to continue to report that we are saying Dr. Rogers would have done the same, it is now officially untrue.
"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."
That's the one Jessica--by saying Dr Rogers would harbor the pedophile, it is implicit that doing so is breaking the law. So, I never said anything about your comments.
So, sorry I interupted the theological discussion.
A response from cakes:
bepatient,
I'm much smarter that you, and a man besides. It scores points for me on the NBBCOF and makes me feel like a real man for once in my life to put people down over here, so you're just plain stupid. STUPID!!! Plus, I know a lot of big words, and I'm not scared to use them.
Also, I'm a victim so if you disagree with me you're heartless and cruel.
Now that I've put you in your place, I'll be expecting a full apology.
Yours truly,
cakes
Uh, I think I'm the only person on here who hasn't demanded an apology. I'm not offended--I like it here--I figure if I have been the subject of the Bratton Report, then certainly I may represent my own perspective directly too. Just how entitled do you think you are?
Don't ever feel the need to apologize to me--blurt out in anger, I'm a fan of sarcasm, talk at me, not to me. They're just words. And whatever you say is fine.
I used to get ticked off that I write all those pithy questions and you won't touch them, but repeatedly write what I would say; now I'm just flattered.
I've been a columnist for years, so I've got some skills (you proud of your skills?), and I just write from my own vocabulary and syntax as it is; not to offend or make anyone feel stupid.
Asking for people to qualify their presumptions is not the same as calling them stupid.
Asking people to do something besides count beans or declare people bad or ungodly in one way or another is not the same as calling them dumb.
Didn't mean to insinuate otherwise.
"A response from cakes:
bepatient,
I'm much smarter that you, and a man besides. It scores points for me on the NBBCOF and makes me feel like a real man for once in my life to put people down over here, so you're just plain stupid. STUPID!!! Plus, I know a lot of big words, and I'm not scared to use them.
Also, I'm a victim so if you disagree with me you're heartless and cruel.
Now that I've put you in your place, I'll be expecting a full apology.
Yours truly,
cakes"
Reading the above, sans the engagement of even one of my authentic posts, why would I ever think I'm smarter than Aramis. Is it a monologue or an invitation to sober exchange? Can you really back up that I've sought an apology from anyone? Y'all are the ones constantly getting your shorts in a bind, feeling hurt and demanding apologies.
I like it when folks show their true colors. You cannot touch my valid points, so you villify my character. Just another day at the Bratton Report.
I said, on NBBCOF, that saying Dr Rogers would have acted the same as Gaines is becoming common here--and I'm here enough to see the hypothosis rear its ugly head several times, and it seems to be a means to justify your beloved Pastor's apathy; and that, if it had been Rogers, then he would have gotten a pass from the folks who seek accountability and consequences, i.e. hypocrites.
I only brought it up only because that bowl of crap is now being served at NBBCOF. I haven't blamed Mike for the remark, and have repeatedly said I hold no one but the commentor resonsible for their words. Again, it is most of you guys who pluck and brand the offenses of individuals upon everyone at NBBCOF.
It is established that Gaines not taking action in response to the pedophile was against the law, thus it is implicit that in saying Rogers would have done likewise, that you are saying he would have broke the law too. It's not my job to take poor logic to its final conclusion.
This has been a fun and enlightening thread.
Kisses--muah!
Cakes,
I really was just trying to clarify- I must have missed that other post, I just didn't want my words misconstrued.
It's not my job to take poor logic to its final conclusion.
Just a hobby, I suppose.
if it had been Rogers, then he would have gotten a pass from the folks who seek accountability and consequences, i.e. hypocrites.
When the music style, the casual dress, the billboards, dinner at Ruth's Chris, Rick Warren, Jamie Parker's hair, the fill-in-the-blank sermons (whatever the heck those are), and the street sign are equally weighty concerns then it's hard to really believe that anyone over there gives a hoot about the scandal. Show me one full-time blogger over there who really liked SG before the scandal but changed their mind afterward and maybe I'll take it into consideration.
The only reason their mantra is 'consequences! consequences!' is because those consequences meet their own selfish desires. (As if all the world doesn't see through that.)
What is it the Bible says? Oh, yes: "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives"
The God of the Bible honors pure motives. He also PUNISHES (not ignores) impure ones.
It sure looks like Bellevue is on the road to recovery, while all the crying and whining over yonder is just getting worse and worse. Wonder why that is?
I'll keep asking the question, since your list above doesn't concern me in the least.
Based upon the findings of the BBCPCIR alone, might an individual alienated by the handling of the pedophile scandal and aftermath, come to a reasonable conclusion that Gaines is not fit to be Pastor?
I keep asking it, but you desperately need to believe it is about all that other crap--is self-deception also a sin? Is judging motives as it is regular done here a sin? Is it a sin to claim Dr. Rogers, who is not here to defend his honor, would have broken the law too, just like Gaines?
Aramis, are you even aware that you regularly engage in the very behavior you condemn over "yonder?"
I have a hard time understanding how people can write such hate-filled posts on the anti-Bellevue sites and then delude themselves into thinking they are so spiritual and discerning. I guess the saying is true, "they can't see the forest for the trees." Imagine what Bellevue would be like if these people spent as much time praying for Dr. Gaines and in making our church better as they do in writing their garbage.
Another thought. "Cakes" is a Buddhist (and that's his right) but the Bible clearly teaches that an unregenerate man cannot even begin to understand the things of the Spirit of God so why do people accept him as an authority on anything.
Just having a hard time understanding all of this junk.
Brady,
Because the matter of Gaines' 6 month ethical lapse is not a theological issue, it is a common-sense issue.
Otherwise, I have stated many contexts for being here. Now, attack my character, but tip toe around the arguments.
What is y'all hold againt NBBCOF?
mom4 once said about those who object to the NBBCOF:
they are our tormenters - sent by Satan to buffet us. They will get their due justice by the hand of God at the appointed time.
Bud, it don't get no worse than that. Can't speak for Brady, but I suspect things like that (or lesser things) are what he's upset about. That's not about Gaines, it's about US.
Would a principal be fired for saying something like that? Praying for a little divine retribution when he's having a bad day?
Oh, forgot to answer the question!
Yes. Newton's third law and such.
Cakes,
The Paul Williams issue is both theological and common-sense. Since neither one of us was in the meetings with him and Dr. Gaines we will have to trust his judgment on this issue.
I was not attacking your character at all. I was simply making a Biblical statement and that is that an unregenerate man (you) cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God.
Brady,
No it's not--that is saying that if I was a christian, then I could discern why Gaines' incuriosity regarding the pedophile isn't a big deal.
The sticking point is the one made by the BBCPC themselves (Gaines was not only derilict in his duties, he was incurious regarding the pedophiles duties and contact with others), and it is not a theological issue, escept for people here who are uncomfortable broaching the factual ones.
Neither is its legality a theological issue.
If you say, what does Cakes know about childhood sexual abuse, as he hasn't made a profession of faith in Jesus? My answer would be--what do you know about chocolate cake as you have never discerned the 4 noble truths?
One non-sequitur deserves another. It doesn't take a christian to see the obvious.
Apologies for being so busy in both the real world and elsewhere on the Internet. I have my first bits of responsibility at my church here in Birmingham, and we hosted our first dinner party last night. Between the two, any free time I might spend here was just about spoken for.
A few things:
1) Since this is (and I even hate to use the terminology) my blog, I must insist that the discussion, regardless of topic, be centered on ideas rather than individuals. I am far too lenient in allowing others to post presumptions of motive, and I'd hate to have to delete posts that make such presumptions, so please keep the discussion on an even keel.
2) David, Brady wasn't casting aspersions--he was correctly quoting the Bible.
3) John Mark, you're precisely right about that unfortunate quote. It isn't enough for the Forum regulars to engage in discussion--the core anti-Bellevue group (and this is not indicative of every single person who's ever made a comment there) favors the tactic of painting those who disagree with their contrarian behavior as actively serving Satan.
4) Far be it from me, David, to let a direct question go without a direct answer. Quoting you thusly and like so: "Based upon the findings of the BBCPCIR alone, might an individual alienated by the handling of the pedophile scandal and aftermath, come to a reasonable conclusion that Gaines is not fit to be Pastor?"
The answer is: No. Pastor Gaines was operating on a time line that was designed to minimize further injury to any member of the Williams family. His understanding was that the matter was settled within the family--and when he found out it wasn't, he acted.
And regarding an analogy you brought up at Huey's, David, I completely agree that if Principal Gaines had done what Pastor Gaines did, Principal Gaines would've (and should've) summarily lost his job. I've mulled it over more than once, and I recently came to understand the fatal flaw in your comparison. School principals do not have a responsibility to minister to a teacher who sexually assaulted his child--their sole responsibility is to the safety and well-being of their students.
Pastors, on the other hand, have the responsibility to minister to everybody; as I've said more than once, Steve Gaines had the God-ordained responsibility to minister to Paul Williams just as much as to any other member of the Williams family, including Paul's victimized son. (And if anyone's interested in disagreeing with that statement, tell me first why any church, anywhere, has a prison ministry.)
Being personally offended doesn't give anyone carte blanche to verbally Molotov Steve Gaines. Would Adrian Rogers have handled it differently? No one knows, since he isn't physically here to comment, and anyone who presumes to speak with lead-pipe certainty regarding what Pastor Rogers would have done might realize they're getting in the same arena that folks like John Edward, Democrat presidential contender John Edwards (two different people, oddly enough), and James Van Praagh work.
5) What to write about next? If I do write about what's going on at Bellevue, some folks will grumble about my pathological need to write about what's going on at Bellevue. If I write about something else that's caught my attention, some folks will grumble that I'm just hiding my pathological need to write about what's going on at Bellevue.
:)
--Mike
Great post Mike!
Let me try and put things in a way that we can all understand. What is happening at BBC is SPIRITUAL WARFARE and Satan is attacking on every hand. He has even succeeded in deluding people into thinking that Dr. Gaines is the enemy and/or a false teacher. This could not be further than the truth.
The saddest thing of all is that people who are causing all these problems are deluding themselving into thinking they are hyper-spiritual and discerning and noone else can know or discern the truth.
Again let me state without any doubts--a person who is not saved CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit of God. If you have a problem with that, take it up with God. That's what He wrote.....
Welcome back you your blog, Mike! :)
Mike Bratton said...
2) David, Brady wasn't casting aspersions--he was correctly quoting the Bible.
I have to disagree. Brady was actually questioning David's "authority on anything" (Brady's words) on the basis of David being a Buddhist. That is not an accurate use of the Bible's statements about spiritual discernment requiring regeneration. It is making a pretext of using Scripture to promote a statement unwarranted by Scripture.
3) John Mark, you're precisely right about that unfortunate quote. It isn't enough for the Forum regulars to engage in discussion--the core anti-Bellevue group (and this is not indicative of every single person who's ever made a comment there) favors the tactic of painting those who disagree with their contrarian behavior as actively serving Satan.
If you haven't noticed, there are those among the supporters of SG who have made the same statements about posters at NBBCOF.
4) Far be it from me, David, to let a direct question go without a direct answer. Quoting you thusly and like so: "Based upon the findings of the BBCPCIR alone, might an individual alienated by the handling of the pedophile scandal and aftermath, come to a reasonable conclusion that Gaines is not fit to be Pastor?"
The answer is: No.
Well, there's that. If that is your honest opinion, and I believe it is, and you are by no means open to reconsider it, as I believe you are, then what basis is there for further discussion on the matter?
But there is still the fact that people have come to that conclusion, which can only mean you do not believe their conclusion is reasonable. Must be good to have the be-all and end-all corner on the capacity to reason, eh? Because you believe there are mitigating factors, e.g.,
Pastor Gaines was operating on a time line that was designed to minimize further injury to any member of the Williams family. His understanding was that the matter was settled within the family--and when he found out it wasn't, he acted.
therefore you believe that yours is the only reasonable conclusion! My, how you flatter yourself!
First off, you state as fact things not publicly known to be the case. Where in the PCIR, or any other public source, is any of that stated? Do you know this because SG says so? Or because PW or his son say so? Hmmm...if only there were some forum for the church to have reasonable public discussions of public matters ... oh, wait, wouldn't that be called a business meeting?
And secondly, how could SG's thinking it was "settled" in the past absolve him of his legal and ethical responsibilities in the present? If that's the best you've got for answering "No" to David's question, perhaps your reasoning powers aren't as superior as you seem to think they are.
And regarding an analogy you brought up at Huey's, David, I completely agree that if Principal Gaines had done what Pastor Gaines did, Principal Gaines would've (and should've) summarily lost his job. I've mulled it over more than once, and I recently came to understand the fatal flaw in your comparison. School principals do not have a responsibility to minister to a teacher who sexually assaulted his child--their sole responsibility is to the safety and well-being of their students.
Pastors, on the other hand, have the responsibility to minister to everybody; as I've said more than once, Steve Gaines had the God-ordained responsibility to minister to Paul Williams just as much as to any other member of the Williams family, including Paul's victimized son.
Oh, what a crock of stuff! SG could not do the right thing by the victim and toward the congregation as a whole because there were the needs of the perpetrator to consider! That is patently absurd. If a man commits murder and then tells his pastor, say, 17 years later, does the pastor sit on the information because he thinks the murdered man's family has forgiven him and because the murder is a member of the congregation who needs ministering to, as well? Hardly. A pastor committed to integrity, obedience to Scripture, and to the laws of the land would seek to minister to all concerned in the proper ways, including persuading the perpetrator to immediately resign (or else be terminated), seek legal counsel, and turn himself in, and then the pastor would be there to provide moral and spiritual support to the murderer (assuming he was repentant and wanted it) throughout his trial and imprisonment.
(And if anyone's interested in disagreeing with that statement, tell me first why any church, anywhere, has a prison ministry.)
Prison ministries don’t exist primarily to serve the needs of church members who get thrown into jail, but to take the gospel to those there who do not already know Christ. Once those folks have become believers, the prison ministry of church seeks to disciple them as it would any other member, regardless of where they were domiciled. This has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about.
No, wrong again. How can you state an opinion blatantly at odds with Bellevue's own investigative points regarding the Pastors' tact--you know, headed by your own leader? The law doesn't allow indulgences or leniency for men of the cloth, as the Catholic church has discovered. But it's funny you'd call for it.
If your logic stands, why would the Pastor place a premium on protecting the well-being of the pedophile's family over anyone else or their families. No one knows precisely if this is a 17 year old sin--that is again, why the law requires one in knowledge of abuse to report it. The federal government has not placed ministers in charge of judging if a pedophile is reformed or not--and thank goodness for the fact.
If you, sans any exchange on what I have actually argued soberly, and rather wax, "why listen to him, he;s a buddhist?" then you have basically dismissed, not my arguments, but my person.
People use the Bible to beat up others all the time--no big whoop.
But don't say you're worried about evangelism and your wittness. Phooey.
Junk,
Thanks, as my response is discredited on the basis of being a Buddhist.
Now I know what christians mean when the claim grace upon grace.
If you haven't noticed, there are those among the supporters of SG who have made the same statements about posters at NBBCOF.
I think the key word is 'supporters of SG', not 'Bratton Bloggers'. You read more about how evil the NBBCOFers are on their home turf than here!
billie said...
Yes! many are refering to the blogsters, the savingbellevue website and the IDC as, "satan's organized crime against Dr. Steve Gaines" I agree with them.
Just for sanity's sake, no one here agrees with 'Billie'. NO ONE. No one has accused the 'others' of anything other than disobedience and horrendous behavior. And yet when soccer coaches are asked to sign a simple agreement either not to backbite or to step down as coach it's equated with signing a blood oath to the dark lord himself. Instead of saying it's unwise to give your credit history to your church, it's described as a pact with Beelzebub.
I think maybe everyone should take a step back and get their bearings. There is no greater offense against a committed child of God than to accuse them of Satan worship. Some theologians would say that attributing God's work to the devil is the unforgivable sin, but those accusations fly pretty quickly these days.
Let's do a quick inventory of who on the Bratton report has said that their counterparts are being controlled by Satan:
Bepatient - Never said it.
Memphis - Never said it.
Solomon - Never said it.
Mike - Never said it.
Maybejustmaybe - Never said it.
Tim Greer - Never said it.
Michelle Mann - Never said it.
Irony police - Never said it.
Arminius - Never said it, not even as a joke since some things shouldn't be joked about.
So every single instance of the implications of satanic control has originated on the NBBCOF, whether it's about them or us.
Maybe someone should suggest to NASS that she should devote a thread to 'why we should refrain from accusing Christians of being Satan.'
So, according to Mike, there is no basis by which a person invested in Bellevue--yet alienated by the pastor's 6 month lapse in judgement--might reasonably question his fitness as a minister.
That's too bad, because the acknowledgement that, factually and truthfully, people do have good reason to hold the Pastor accountable and to question his authority; and if one dictates otherwise, then debating the minutia is meritless.
That renders your blog a place only welcome to folks who will stand in a circle and congratulate one another.
And according to you, there's no basis for people to believe that mistakes were made and yet a capital offense did not occur to show their faces in public.
That makes the 'other place' only welcome to folks who congregate in a mob with torches, pitchforks, and clubs and throw stones at everyone outside of it.
Aramis,
Right on, dude--growl, snort and break wind, word-wise; you can always say something intelligent later, I'm sure.
Now, I haven't insulted your intelligence, tehe.
Lemme dig into my somewhat limited intelligence and ask what I feel is a reasonable question. (Actually, Athos and Porthos suggested I ask this...)
Why is SG unqualified to be the senior pastor? I'm not interested in hearing how a principal would be fired, because that's an imperfect analogy. I also don't want to be 'beat up' with the Bible, especially by someone who rejects it's truth.
Most people (let me reiterate), MOST people are aware that they are imperfect. SG admitted he made a mistake. He said that what he did was wrong. He said that he wanted to stay at Bellevue, and the congregation expressed it's support. I suspect they did it because they know that if they were damned for making a single mistake they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Mexico.
So go ahead, slam me with your 'coddling a pedophile' trump card one more time, but kindly add something a little more thought provoking. Because frankly, I think you're trying to knock him down because it makes you feel a little bigger yourself.
Post a Comment