Friday, November 02, 2007

When enough really is enough

For those of you who aren't geeks (like me), I wrote this past July of the small anti-Bellevue virulence reaching "critical mass."

In physics, the term is used to describe achieving a necessary amount of nuclear material for the purpose of sustaining a fission reaction. In argumentation and debate, the term can be used to describe the assembly of sufficient information to come to a reasonable conclusion in a given area. Since so many of the regular posters here at TBR (I love the smell of an official acronym, don't you?) are observers of the events surrounding Bellevue Baptist Church in recent months, my attention is periodically drawn back to those who self-identify as "truthseekers," but are in point of fact naysayers.

Is that all, however? After over a year of nay-saying, are those who still participate in the attacks against a Christian church, her pastor, and her staff still deserving of the benefit of the doubt? Or have they, finally, reached a "critical mass" of evidence and vended that benefit away?

The only available conclusions are these: As general rules, they've spent all the considerations extended to them, done nothing to seek reconciliation, and done everything to injure those with whom they disagree. I am no less convinced that God can do a work in their lives, but I am persuaded by the evidence that it is no longer (and probably hasn't been for awhile) legitimate differences of opinion that fuel the anti-Bellevue cadre, but wrong attitudes of the heart.

In a word, sin.

"Oh, you're gonna get it now, Mike! You're judging! Judging, judging, judging!"

My best Gomer Pyle impression aside, it is responsible to encourage people to re-evaluate their behavior. However, it becomes irresponsible to just encourage, and not challenge people with regard to their behavior. And with regard to judging, I've not suggested (nor will I) that Christians cannot sin, that sin invalidates our salvation, or that people who sin cannot be Christians.

The so-called "Saving Bellevue" site, still published by Jim Haywood, has as its latest indictment the fact that Bellevue hosts (gasp!) a Fall Festival as a safe, non-occult alternative to traditional Halloween parties and trick-or-treating. This is something Bellevue has done for a number of years, yet only now is it worthy of the "Saving Bellevue" scorn. Haywood writes in his National Enquirer-esque headline style, "Tonight Oct 31st 2007 Bellevue hosted a carnival. Thousands came and rode rides. It was in the parking lot and on the ball fields. I am not aware of the Gospel being presented." To be blunt, it's obvious that the reason Haywood wasn't "aware of the Gospel being presented" was because he was too busy surreptitiously photographing the setup on the church grounds. Think it's possible that the Gospel might have been demonstrated in the lives of those serving the children and parents who attended? Having been a part of Fall Festivals in years past, I know as fact that many people who attend don't otherwise visit Bellevue--which is quite the point. It's an opportunity to show that Christian deeds can match Christian verbiage.

But if Christian verbiage is the sticking point, there are a few things Haywood would've known had he bothered to check. My friend on the ground (and working one of the admissions tables) Daniel McCrosky tells me that among the crowd were a number of Bellevue members whose job was to actively share the Gospel as they had opportunity, as well as the presence of an EE table setup and the presence of Christian music, plus the very mechanism for getting a wristband, which required filling out a card with information that will be used for follow-up visitation at a later date. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was actively, unashamedly shared during the festivities--and will continue to be shared in the near future with many of the over 8,000 who attended.

Jim, part of your so-called "Mission Statement" reads thusly, and like so: "Our sincere desire is to honor Jesus Christ, Truth Himself, through an improved measure of accountability within His church." Sneaking around and taking photographs of children's rides on church grounds honors no one, and particularly not Christ. This is not the first time you've posted scurrilous photography and inaccurate, baseless accusations on your website, and I fear it won't be the last. I ask you to remove that nonsense from your site, along with the vapid suggestion that local mission projects are somehow an unworthy goal of the 2007 Love Offering.

The critical mass, Jim, illustrates that you use your site to do as much damage as you think you can, rather than to attempt to "save" much of anything. In the name of Christ, I call you to repent. Delete your files, Jim, and shutter your site permanently. It serves no useful purpose except to bring notoriety to yourself.

Enough's enough.

Oh, and speaking of Bellevue's Halloween alternative, Haywood's nonsense isn't the only ugly upshot of the festivities. What is, only as a joke, referred to as the BBC "Open Forum"--the home of the anti-Bellevue faithful--has begun to indulge an element of bigotry, not to mention an element of inanity, into the mix. The disingenuous remarks expressing outrage at a Fall Festival ("How CARNAL! To have a carnival!") when Bellevue has done just that for as long as I can remember is pathetic. But what really is a scorcher is the bigotry, both subtle and overt--and not just of the racial variety: Thusly, and like so:

"The other lady Said: 'I hope they can help the neighborhood deal with all those people they are bringing in on Halloween night!' I kind of bet those 2 aren't the only ones..."

"What next.....Entertainment for Adults......Bingo, Strip Bars, or maybe even Slot machines...Gee....We could make lots of money for Missions...."

"I wonder if the meth-addicted carnies that run the rides were a part of the package?!"

"When I looked at the pictures from the BBC 'campus' and saw the carnival activity, it was very depressing...for what I saw was something that was once so beautiful and holy destroyed to something so ugly, degrading, and demonic."

"If you think the dress code at BBC is in bad shape now, just wait till the inner city crowd arrives with the baggy pants, boom boxes and the $500.00 sneakers. Oh by the way, this same crowd will really help the offering. If BBC wants to retain this crowd, they will have to serve breakfast and lunch. Also, don't forget metal detectors at all the doors. Way to go BBC."

(Oh, and on another matter where the truth suffers at the "Open Forum" for the sake of the group, their moderator writes this, containing a lie: "Colleges and Universities already have this. It's called the 'Baptist Student Union.' I know it's at the U of M, because that's where I was saved 18 years ago. Perhaps the BSU would accept a financial donation from BBC, but they are already doing this job. Next?" This is either a result of ignorance or willful misrepresentation, but the statement regarding Bellevue's U of M ministry and BSU/BCM activities is a lie. As a former president of the University of Memphis Baptist Student Union, I can tell you that Bellevue had a separate college-campus ministry there way back into the 1980s. If the Love Offering wants to extend and/or expand that ministry, people involved with the BSU/BCM work can only cheer. Implying that Bellevue is horning in on some other organization's "turf" is untruthful.)

And to the Forum's anonymous moderator, I say what I said to Haywood: Enough's enough. You help no one, and you go out of your way to hurt a great many. I call on you, in the holy name of Christ, to repent of your sins regarding your "Forum" and its activities, and to shutter it permanently.

Because I love you, I have to say this: You and yours, along with Haywood and his, have allowed disagreement to fester and mutate. As it stands, you are indulging--dare I say "harboring"?--hate.

Enough is enough.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: One more example of hate, written by someone I thought was a friend:

"9/11/05 was Steve's 1st day in the pulpit - coincidence or providence?

"God leaves nothing to chance - if 9/11/01 is deemed as a bad day in Amercian history, there is no way 9/11/05 will not be viewed (if it's not already) as a bad day in Bellevue history."

Comparing Pastor Gaines' first sermon to a terrorist attack has to be one of the most hateful things I've read in this entire saga, and one of the most irresponsible things I've read in my entire life.

I am crushingly disappointed, and genuinely hurt. I've asked the author of that statement to recant, and warned that author numerous times over the past year that associating with those who hate will precipitate hate in you.

For the individual who wrote that: In Jesus' name, you must repent of such hatemongering.

Today.

Now.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD SOMETHING EVEN MORE DISGUSTING (IF POSSIBLE): This time it's Jim Haywood's turn to publish bile--from the mind of someone I used to respect, a man named Riad "Ray" Saba. Periodically, and for some unknown reason, Haywood lets Saba have a little column space on his vile "Saving Bellevue" site. There's a new article from Saba, innocuously titled "A Worthy Lesson to Learn," comparing Bellevue to Memphis' Temple of Deliverance Church, where G. E. Patterson preached until his death. The article purports to compare the status of Patterson's legacy at his church with Adrian Rogers' at Bellevue, and contains an astounding piece of hatred. Thusly, and like so:

"Many thoughts went through my mind as I considered and compared the situation of both these two wonderful churches. One thought blatantly stood out: One church honored her prophet; the other church killed her prophet! The result is certainly obvious!"

Don't pass that over: Bellevue Baptist Church "killed" Adrian Rogers.

Ray, that's a sick, demented thing to say--and Jim, that's a sick, demented thing to publish. You both must repent.

--Mike

576 comments:

1 – 200 of 576   Newer›   Newest»
WatchingHISstory said...

Mike,

I look forward to meeting you and talking and hope that will be soon. Regardless of the result of the Bratton Report's decision about me.

Face to face communication are different than blogging and I am becomming convinced that blogging is better. We will say things on the blog that we will not say to each other face to face. Our conversations are rounded off so as not to be confrontational and just plain nice.

Blogging is not for the thin skinned. The talk is jagged with sparp edges. The niceties of the English language are abandonded. JMO

However I would like to comment on your communication skills if you don't mind. Whenever I read a post from you I have a hard time determining what you actually mean. It seems that your theatrical skills hinder a plain 'ole' country boy from understanding you.

My self analysis is that when I post with my poor english skills people understand what I am saying, they just don't agree with it. They encounter a strong bias

My search of Wikepedia (what would we do without it) took me to this.
Thieves Cant, rogue literature of the Elizabethan era in England. It is refered to as peddlar's French, pelting speech.

I have had College professors who use it when they are bored and know that they are talking to students who are not interested. Many times a sentence ends with blab, blab, blab, blah.

Sometimes burnt out preachers will resort to it when they turn against the people they pastor.

The conversations on Kramer was of this sort.

Give me your feed back.

Charles

20+ Year Bellevue Member said...

Amen brother Mike. Amen.

It is heartbreaking.

I cried when I saw the mocking of a picture of a very holy moment (three young people united in prayer) being derided and cast in an unholy light.

Derrick Calcote said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Derrick Calcote said...

Mike,

Just as a matter of testimony here. When you registered as you came in, you got a wrist band. Members got one color, guests got another color.

This allowed the roving EE teams to effectively target the guests (thus those more likely to be witnessing opportunities.)

There were MANY professions of faith. I know of one person was blessed with the opportunity to lead 10 people to the Lord!

Let us praise our Lord for those who have been reached for Him during this event.

In His service and yours,

Derrick Calcote

Jessica said...

Faith Baptist (where many of those who have left attend) recently had a "community festival" that was almost the same deal- they had nametags instead of wristbands and there was no gospel presented to my knowledge. How is this considered a ministry but when BBC does virtually the same thing it is pagan?

I attended both events so anyone who tries to tell me they were not virtually identical is a liar.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jessica said...

Sin is all equal in the eyes of God.

If bad theology is what allowed this sin, shouldn't you be sin free since you know the "right" theology.

And you can leave any arguments about how horrific this sin was out of your response, because if we are going to say we are trying to understand the things of God we have to acknowledge the fact that God sees no difference in what PW did and what you do.

David said...

Jessica,

Sin is the same in God's eyes? I've heard that a lot, I'm not sure it's true.

Sin has the same effect: Separates us from God.

But note that when Paul speaks of sexual immorality he says "all other sins a man commits outside his body..." as if certain sins are actually worse.

I think we get the idea from Jesus saying that to "think" or "look" means we've already committed the sin in our heart.

Anyway, I'm thinking out loud. Not meaning to pick on you at all!

Jessica said...

Sin separates us from God. (and charles, don't hop on this- I am not referring to losing your salvation)

I agree with that statement, but I think it only reinforces that sin is the same in the eyes of God. For example, we are not a "little separated" when we tell a white lie and "fully separated" when we steal.

I believe that the Biblical emphasis on some sins over others is because the earthly consequences are so much more dire.

David said...

I understand where you're coming from. Is there a verse that says all sin is the same to God?

All sin has the consequence of eternal separation.

Is not part of hell the truth that we must bear the weight of our sin and pay out the penalty? Is J-Walking the same as rape in GOd's eyes? I fail to think that God views them exactly the same. Both are rebellion, both break the law, but are they the same?

Scripture says that if we break the law at one point, we break all of it; simply meaning that we become a "law breaker"... not meaning a theif becomes a murderer by stealing.

I'm still thinking about it. I just hear so often people say that and I'm not sure yet if all sin is the same. Interesting, isn't it?

I also prefer not to discuss this with Charles. No disrespect, Charles.

David said...

Okay, I think I can explain what I'm trying to say this way:

How can all sin be the "same" when some sin is warned to have a greater judgment. for instance, teachers sins are warned to be worse than those who sin without knowing.

Jessica said...

I think God has the power to separate those sins and see them for what they are.

I am not sure of an exact verse but my thinking is like this:

If God were to rank sins and we all struggle in different ways, doesn't that lead you down the path to thinking that those people whose sins are "worse" are ranked lower by God?

Just as it is hard to accept that God loves Hitler as much as Mother Theresa and Steve Gaines as much as Adrian Rogers and Jeffery Dahmer as much as me, it is hard to imagine that God views rape the same as J-Walking.

Jessica said...

I am not saying that they are all the same in the general sense, I don't want to be cavalier about dismissing sin.

When Jesus was on the cross and all the sins of mankind were separating him from God, I just don't think that only included rape and murder or whatever. I think it included white lies and lustful thoughts. If there had only been one man on the earth and Jesus had died just for that man- the sacrifice would have been the same even if that man's only sin had been a lie.

Jessica said...

also, I have to go to bed now. more tomorrow.

Memphis said...

Mike, Great piece and I agree with you. I am ashamed of some of the snob attitudes I have been reading on the blog.

I know that if the carnival had a bowling lane or two, then they would have loved the event!!!

David said...

So, if I understand Mike, the carnival is something that was happening during Dr. Rogers tenure?

Soon they'll complain there is a Christmas program, since we all know Christmas is just the cover-up of a Pagan holiday. Proves Dr. Gaines is a pagan.

Mike Bratton said...

A few things, Charles:

1) Next time I know I'll be in Memphis for a few days, I'll do my best to let you know. Perhaps we can have another Huey's luncheon.

2) I write the way I speak--in both form and substance. People like Derrick, who've known me for more than a few years, can vouch for the veracity of that statement.

3) According to Microsoft Word, what I wrote clocked in at roughly a tenth-grade level.

4) People who abandon "the niceties of the English language" are often those who forget they're writing to communicate with other real people.

5) Your self-analysis left out something. A significant amount of what you write, particularly with regard to the supposed superiority of Calvinism and the so-called "new revelation" you're supposed to be getting from God, is flatly unsupported by Scripture and, indeed, in contradiction of it. That's when people don't agree with you--when you don't agree with God.

6) Stay on topic. You'll notice a thing or two is missing from this thread already.

--Mike

John Mark said...

I know that if the carnival had a bowling lane or two, then they would have loved the event!!!

Oh no, Memphis! Bellevue = EVIL!!! If something happens at BBC, it's from the devil and must be properly complained about, according to the scriptural model. You know, do everything with arguing and complaining. Or is it don't do anything but argue and complain? Or argue and complain when anyone does anything? No wait, I think it was complain about everything and argue with everyone.

I guess I need to find that old dusty Bible of mine.

Mike Bratton said...

David said...
So, if I understand Mike, the carnival is something that was happening during Dr. Rogers tenure?


You understand me correctly.

I know--I'm pleasantly surprised, too. Heh heh...

And the Fall Festival, while more elaborate this year from what I gather, still has as its goals being a benefit to the church body and a blessing to the community, as well as being an opporunity to share Christ.

Soon they'll complain there is a Christmas program, since we all know Christmas is just the cover-up of a Pagan holiday. Proves Dr. Gaines is a pagan.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised.

You know, I wore a kilt in one of those Christmas programs. People in Scotland wear kilts. And Scotland is next to England. Stonehenge is in England. And Stonehenge is very popular with Druids and other pagan types.

See how it's all tied together?

--Mike

Hope Patterson said...

Karen said...
churchmouse,

9/11/05 was Steve's 1st day in the pulpit - coincidence or providence?

God leaves nothing to chance - if 9/11/01 is deemed as a bad day in Amercian history, there is no way 9/11/05 will not be viewed (if it's not already) as a bad day in Bellevue history.

karen

12:24 PM, November 02, 2007


I've watched these childish outbursts go on for what seems like ages. Most of the people who ever posted on the NBBCOF are just like children who've had their toys taken away. There's always such a pervasive sense of entitlement underlying most everything that's written.

Oh yes, 9/11/05 was a 'bad day'. It was a very 'bad day'. Yes, Bellevue hired a preacher that some people didn't like and they had to go to other churches. Oh, what an inconvenience to drive a few extra miles.

9/11/01 was a bad day, too. Not on the scope of a church hiring a pastor some didn't like - certainly not - but bad nonetheless. It was a day that people were butchered in mid-air as their flights were hijacked by terrorists. It was a day that jets flew into buildings and exploded into massive fireballs killing everyone on board. It was that day the earth stood still, as men and women on the upper floors of 1 and 2 WTC were faced with a decision somewhat more difficult than choosing which church to go to on Sunday - the choice of whether to be burned alive or to jump to a quick and easy death.

It was a day that people like me stood on Pier 1 in Hoboken and watched helplessly as the towers fell with the full knowledge that every WTC employee of a company like Cantor Fitzgerald, which was on the upper floors, perished in the flames.

Who gave anyone at Bellevue the right to equate their circumstances with the victims of 9/11? Have they so soon callously forgotten the victims, and the police and firemen who perished trying to save them? Don't these men and women deserve honor instead of derision?

Why are some people's memories so short?

I'm deeply hurt that anyone could minimize the anguish and suffering so many people are still trying to overcome. If anyone feels the need to villainize Steve Gaines, fine. More power to them.

But leave us out of it.

David said...

So nothing good can ever happen on 9/11 now. Strange, I've baptized on 9/11. Baptized guy getting ready to go fight over there. Also prayed with people to get saved.

Of course, I've also seen God do some miracles on Good Friday, and we know what happened that day.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...

Jessica

You seem to have a firm grasp of Total Depravity.

"And you can leave any arguments about how horrific this sin was out of your response, because if we are going to say we are trying to understand the things of God we have to acknowledge the fact that God sees no difference in what PW did and what you (we) do."

Total depravity dosen't mean that we are as evil as we can be but that PW just took it to a new low, maybe lower than Hitler!

WatchingHISstory said...

David
How do you know the message is the message the Holy Spirit wants you to preach tomorrow?

There are a myriad of sermons with a Biblical text but which is the one the Holy Spirit wants you to preach? How do you know that?

Charles

maybejustmaybe said...

Sin ... is it all the same to God? Is there a verse in the Bible to support this statement?

I don't know that there is a specific verse that says, "All sin is the same to God ..." -- but in reading Romans 6, it seems that Paul uses the term "sin" without further qualification or definition, leading one to believe that, as I have heard more than one preacher say in my lifetime, "Sin is sin is sin is sin." To GOD -- it's all the same, because it represents our defiant disobedience to God and His law (even that little white lie breaks one of the original 10 Mosaic laws), it demonstrates our lack of submission to His authority and others (jaywalking is against the law, and the Bible tells us we are to obey the laws that govern us - Romans 13), and it breaks our fellowship with God and the church, our unholiness separating us from a Holy God and His spotless bride (Ephesians 5). The OT law(s) and the attendant punishments they prescribed were part of God's plan to show us that we are incapable of keeping the law and exactly what punishment we deserved in breaking it -- and from that exhaustive, enumerative Levitical list, I think we have come to believe that some sin has more serious consequences than others. There's a difference between having to undergo ceremonial cleansing (Lev. 15) and being stoned to death (Lev. 20) -- therefore there must be a difference in the sins for which these punishments were given, right? I'm not sure -- I think that's man's interpretation, it's just the way we think. Once again, we try to put God's way of thinking in a box -- we can't understand God's economy, wherein jaywalking and rape are on the same level. But from a Scriptural standpoint, it seems that some things are always discussed in the most general of terms so that their application can be as universal or specific as it needs to be -- not just sin, but grace, love, mercy, and forgiveness. If "the wages of sin is death" is all that it says, then is God saying through Paul that the wages of jaywalking is death? Yes, because of what it represents. By the same token, "the gift of God is eternal life." To what degree? "Eternal is eternal is eternal." No further specification is required.

Hard to wrap our brains around, is it not?

maybejustmaybe said...

Mike said (by the way, welcome back, Cap'n) -

"And the Fall Festival, while more elaborate this year from what I gather, still has as its goals being a benefit to the church body and a blessing to the community, as well as being an opporunity to share Christ."

Just to substantiate the last part of your statement, Wednesday night I saw several fellow church members that I knew who were "wandering aimlessly" through the carnival crowd, seeming to have no job, no assignment next to a ride, a game, or a corn dog. When I would ask them what their job was, they would reply, "I'm here with EE." There must have been 20 different people who gave me that response. To those who scoff and think the gospel was not shared Wednesday night, I beg to differ. I didn't have a specific job at the carnival either, but during the brief time we were there, I assigned myself to the "prayer team," lifting up each of those EE folks -- and especially when I would see them approach someone who was wearing a "VIP" wristband (our visitors were the VIPs, church members were given plain orange bands). Sometimes they were simply offering to be helpful, give directions, or being friendly -- but more often than not, they were looking for opportunities to share Jesus.

There's more than one way to share the gospel with the lost. Praise God that we're discovering that at Bellevue.

Mike Bratton said...

WatchingHISstory said...
5) Your self-analysis left out something. A significant amount of what you write, particularly with regard to the supposed superiority of Calvinism and the so-called "new revelation" you're supposed to be getting from God, is flatly unsupported by Scripture and, indeed, in contradiction of it. That's when people don't agree with you--when you don't agree with God.

Of coarse you never claim to speak for God. wink wink wink


I hope that eye-flutter isn't a tic--I have a couple of those myself from time to time, and they're annoying.

When I preface remarks with things like "God told me in a dream," you might have a point. Referring you to the objective authority of the Word of God is hardly claiming to be His press secretary.

Were I you, I'd have paid much more attention to point six than to point five.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

MJM, those extended away missions are always interesting...

--Mike

David said...

Charles. . . "David How do you know the message is the message the Holy Spirit wants you to preach tomorrow?"

I don't get them in dreams, I promise you that.

I'm preaching through Colossians. So the text is easy to arrive at.

For special sermons, it is much harder. Spent half a week this week praying as I looked for the right text for a Verterins day sermon for wives whose husbands are deployed.

Charles. . . "There are a myriad of sermons with a Biblical text but which is the one the Holy Spirit wants you to preach? How do you know that?"

It's all God's word! It's all authority. A dream is not God's word. YOu can't compare having a dream of a vision to the very Scriptures.

I' getting weary of defending the Biblical act of preaching to a man who claims his visions carry the same weight as Scripture.

Charles, what makes you different from Joseph Smith? He had very convenient visions as well. They also contined new revelation. From these visions he also constructed new doctrine and claimed others were peaching a false Gospel. Kinda scary, huh.

WatchingHISstory said...

David
How do you know the message is the message the Holy Spirit wants you to preach tomorrow?

There are a myriad of sermons with a Biblical text but which is the one the Holy Spirit wants you to preach? How do you know that?

I have ministered to servicemen for 13 years in Turkey, Italy and Germany. They have a special place in my heart.

When I preached to them I had to know that the message was from the Holy Spirit not just because it was Veteran's Day.

How do you know?

Charles

maybejustmaybe said...

Charles,
If David preaches messages straight from God's Word, he has the promise that God's Word will not return void, that it will accomplish the purpose God intended. There is no promise associated with your visions, at least not one in Scripture. Therein lies the difference.

You're obviously baiting David, seeking a particular answer so you can go off on another tangent. Why can't you just make your point without having to lay a trap?

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...

Mike,

You said that you worked closely with production in AR's sermons on LWF. Can you tell me whether AR was similar to Charles Stanley and Zane Hodges on the subject of eternal security? Did they differ dramatically?

Stanley in his book, Eternal Security p.80, said quoting Hodges, "Satan can completely shipwreck a believer's faith but this in no way affects the believer's security" also "even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from his hand."

What is AR view of these statements?

Charles

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

Okay, to stop skirting Charles question:

Yes, The Holy Spirit leads in the process of sermon preparation. From text to outline. The difference in a sermon and a vision is the peacher is working with sometiung already revealed and his job is to make application.

What you are doing is first claiming NEW revelation and then making application.

Revelation: That Dr. Rogers was punished in heaven by God. You then (as the prophet) feel it is your right to tell us why Rogers was punished: Because he's not a true Calvinist.

And the Scripture comes in to this when you want to express you view of Calvinism. But Scripture isn't the starting place, your vision is. THe preacher STARTS with the text, you start with the vision.

WatchingHISstory said...

David

John 10:1-5 (King James Version)
1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

2But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

5And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

The sheep know the voice of the shepherd and they know when a stranger speaks. That is how I knew it was from God, however that answer will not please you.

WatchingHISstory said...

David, consider these ways you have of seeking the right sermon.

1.) It is my responsibility to know the needs of the flock at Palms, and I believe they need a message about what to do when their spouses are facing danger.

2.) I’m preaching through Colossians. My job is to draw OUT of the text, not read my ideas into the text.

3.) I don't get them in dreams, I promise you that. (you have ruled that out, has anyone ever got a sermon from a dream or vision?)

4.) For special sermons, it is much harder. Spent half a week this week praying as I looked for the right text for a Verterins day sermon for wives whose husbands are deployed. (every good preacher knows how to make an emotional appeal! That always disarms criticism.)

5.) Yes, The Holy Spirit leads in the process of sermon preparation. From text to outline. Finally you fell into the trap.

The same Holy Spirit leads the preacher and the prophet. The people who hear the preacher and the prophet have the responsibility to respond by testing the message with the Scriptures.

When we declare the Word of God it is not ours to make the hearer to respond to our liking but to just obey the Lord.

You are not under my control, I am under God's control.

Charles

David said...

Charles, “The same Holy Spirit leads the preacher and the prophet. The people who hear the preacher and the prophet have the responsibility to respond by testing the message with the Scriptures.”

Charles, the prophets have spoken! The Word of God has gone out, inspired and infallible. God put it in a Book. The preacher starts and works through the Scripture, while you independently claim to talk to God.

God’s final word has gone down. We don’t need your new revelations. On judgment day, Dr. Rogers will stand before God. Your having visions of judgment befalling him before that Great day. Your vision doesn’t hold water theologically. It is possible to have thoughts you attribute to God.

My question to you was: How do you know the vision was from God?
Answer #1: I talked to an SBC preacher, and he said he agreed it was from God.
Answer #2: How do you know a sermon is from God?
Come on, now, there is a lot evading coming from a man claiming to have heard the very voice of YHWH. I claim to read his word and apply what it says. You claim to have heard his voice speak to a man dead on this earth; I ask you simply: How do you know what came to you was from God? How did you test the spirits? Why should I believe you?

I believe the Apostles saw the risen Christ because they offered credible evidence for faith. You claim to be having visions (and applying theology from these visions), so I ask: What evidence that these visions are from God do you have?

David said...

Charles: "The sheep know the voice of the shepherd and they know when a stranger speaks. That is how I knew it was from God, however that answer will not please you."

So far you haven't heard the voice that's already written in Scripture (love, joy, peace...) so why would God give you new visions when you can't handle the Word already in print?

Cory said...

I attempted to post this on the other blog this afternoon. Not sure if I made the cut or not, because it hasn't been posted yet.

all2jesus said...
NASS said:
I believe the mystery of the BBC "lawn wolves" may be solved.

NASS, did you get permission from BBC to post photos of the new ministers on staff?

11:46 PM, November 02, 2007

My response: This is perhaps the most disgusting thing I have ever seen posted here. The half-hearted rebuke and apology should be embarrassing to anyone who calls themselves a Christian.

Why would someone say something like this about people whom they've never even met or been in contact with? If you ask me, this statement by all2Jesus borders on prosecutable slander.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Charles,

I do not think that saying a belief that Scripture is GOd's Word to us, that it is complete, inspired and infallable is really such a striking thing for a believer to say. I figured this out without Mr. Scofiled help, thank you very much.

Of course, I should have known... you have a label for people who believe the Scriptures. YOu have a label on everything! Earlier your label for me was "liberal". Now you'e upset that I stick to the Words of Scipture and not your fee wheeling visions.

Charles, can you answer the question: How do you know you vision was from God and not youself?

solomon said...

I drove all over the campus today, and for the life of me I couldn't find any wolves. Plenty of geese, though.

Hope, is that really you this time?

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Charles,

That's circular reasoning. You heard God, and you know it was God because you know him.

You are claiming a serious thing.

--1 Kings 13 tells the story of a prophet who believed a man who claimed to have had a vision fro God. God killed him for believing the false prophet.

--Deuteronomy warns us against men like you who come claiming to speak in the name of the Almighty, yet are empty of any solid evidence.

--Please See Ezek 13:1-9

"Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: 'Hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!" V.3-4

"Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. They say, "The LORD declares," when the LORD has not sent them; yet they expect their words to be fulfilled." V.6

"Have you not seen false visions and uttered lying divinations when you say, "The LORD declares," though I have not spoken? V.7

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

I must jump in. Our problem is that what you are espousing does not always line up with scripture. What God says to you, or me, in a whisper, a dream or a screaming loud voice will line up with scripture.

When this dos not happen, it is not from God.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mac said...

Keith, the wolves are definitely there. I saw two of them about 30 minutes ago. However, I think it's a stretch to say that they were Halloween decorations. First, compared to the size of the church campus, they are so small that you can barely see them. Secondly, all of the activities on Oct. 31 were on the other side of the church campus. What purpose would be served by placing "Halloween decorations" where nobody would see them anyway?

maybejustmaybe said...

What a shame you couldn't have asked Dr. Rogers what his views were when he could have answered for himself. And whatever the answer, what does it prove?

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Well, Charles, what you are saying does not line up with Scripture. So it makes us think maybe it wasn't God you heard.

WatchingHISstory said...

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 KJV

11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

You, your mind, your visions, your dreams are not Dr. Rogers judge.

We KNOW this: Dr. Rogers preached the Gospel faithfully. He bore good fruit. You are coming an announcing that despite the Gospel he preached, the fruit he bore, we should believe he was under God's judgment becaue he didn't preach YOUR version of the Gospel. Scary. Truly, scary. And to reinforce this view, you've had a vision.

I'll address the scriptural problems with your vision later.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Okay, Charles, here are the problems with your dream:

1. The vision is unsubstantiated by anything but your own feelings.
When asked how you know the vision came from God, your answer is simply: Well, you feel like it was from God.

2. What you are describing is unheard of in Scripture.
That God would judge a dead man before the judgment and let the living know about that judgment, I can’t think of that happening anywhere in the whole of the Bible.

3. What you are saying, Scripture actually warns us against.

In 1 Kings 13 a man says he has a word from the Lord. Because God’s man heeds his word without examination, the Godly man is struck dead by a lion. If I believe you without your offering any evidence I am just as foolish as that man.

Ezekiel 13 makes it clear that there are visions that do not come from God.

4. You are suggesting God I judging a church for its pastor.
This is where things get really strange, Charles. Your view would have us believe God blessed Bellevue while Dr. Rogers was alive. Then to punish Dr. Rogers, one he DIED... God decided to tear Bellevue up. I believe God’s rod of correction comes while we are still on earth. You have it completely backward! You ahve God’s rod of correction, his discipline, coming down after death.
Discipline happens on earth.
Judgment happens on judgment day.
And what you are describing is... well, not in the Bible.

5.Your vision is inconsistent with the Scriptures purpose for visions.

God doesn’t just give visions for our viewing interest. All the visions in some way advance the Gospel. But your vision in no way advances the Gospel, it just slams a preacher.

“The visions of your prophets were false and worthless; they did not expose your sin to ward off your captivity. The oracles they gave you were false and misleading.” Lam. 2:14

6. You have no method for discerning the spirits.
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” 1 John 4:1

The attitude that you know God’s voice just by hearing it doesn’t work, since “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” 2 Cor. 11:14

Typically we believe that we know something is from the Lord if it:
–Is consistent with Scripture.
–Confirmed by other Believers. Not everyone will agree, but there should be ome consistent agreement that this is a Word from the Lord.
–Is true to what we know about God.

I kept asking you how you knew you vision was from God, hoping you would lay out these criteria. However, you stuck solely to your happy feelings about the vision.

Just because the prophet feels good about his vision doesn’t prove to his hearers he is speaking God’s Word. How do we know you didn’t eat too much Toco Bell the night before? You claim to speak for God OUTSIDE the realm of Scripture, on what basis?

As for your citing Acts 5, which basically was a Jew telling the leaders to leave the Christian alone because if it was from God they couldn’t stop it... The Apostles were not claiming visions, they were preaching the risen Christ. There was Scriptural backing for what they were saying. The Scriptures don’t back you up, Charles.

Charles, you are doing the VERY THING we are warned to put to the test. You are claiming to speak for God on the authority of visions.

Okay, I’ve got to go prepare for homegroup. (Prepare my house... not the study).

solomon said...

For the life of me, I can't find the wolves! I told my wife about them, and she said she'd been seeing them for weeks!

Man, if they were real wolves I'd have been eaten alive by now.

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, you display the same hateful, condescending, disrespectful attitude my original article observes in Haywood and his associates, and in the anomymous Forumite host and his/her clique. I've given you more than one opportunity to display self-control in your postings, but you refuse.

Write what you want on your own blog, but when you stray from the topic here, it will disappear. Attempting to be polite hasn't worked with you, so I will in the future be punitive.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Hey Charles,

Do you believe in Santa? He was the subject of some of our home group discussion tonight (it was deep).

Jon,
What we couldn't figure out was the Easter Bunny. Why does a Bunny go around laying chicken eggs?

WatchingHISstory said...

WatchingHISstory said...
Addressed to the grandstand, those David is seeking applause from

1.) When have I said: "Well, I feel like it was from God."
I know the voice of the shepherd John 10:3-5 The same way that David knows which of the myriad of topics from the Biblical texts is the message the Holy Spirit wants for his people is the same way that God confirms a message. It is not guesswork nor assumption by the fleshly mind.

2.) David assumes he knows all that the Bible has to say on every subject. He is able to judge my vision based on what he "thinks"
None of us know every thing about the Bible. My postulation is that David does not understand what happens when a person leaves this deminsional existence and lifts up his eyes in eternity. The people in heaven are not dispensationalist any more. Time has no hold on them. Yet they are able to look back and yearn to see the wicked punished as well as to see their errors and wish for changes with their loved ones still on earth. But they are reminded that the wicked have their day comming and the futility of returning back to warn the inhabitants of the earth. The ones on earth won't believe even if one rose from the dead.

3.) I bet if I search the Bible I will find a corresponding argument for the 'godly' man who fails to heed the words of a prophet. He probally gets struck dead also.

4.) In this life , all true believers are disciplined for their sin. Those who do not respond properly may be taken home prematurely to face their master.
Moses experienced this; one sin meant the loss of an earthly fullfilment and when God escorted him to the place where God would bury him He had to wipe the tears of disappointment from Moses eyes.

5.) All that you are saying is false assumptions about me personally especially this one. So I know that Mike will be upset and perhaps delete this post but David opens the door for this one.
Dr Rogers removal from this earth and the destruction of that which has his fingerprints on will open the door for the gospel to go out to a large population of Memphis that would be repulsed by the snobbery of the old Bellevue as indicated by the NBBCOF crowd. Once house has been cleaned the gospel will go out in new and wonderful ways. You all know that David can't see that since he resides in California.

6.) See no. 1 Mike should say to you "David, you display the same hateful, condescending, disrespectful attitude my original article observes in Haywood and his associates, and in the anomymous Forumite (NBBCOF) host and his/her clique. I've given you more than one opportunity to display self-control in your postings, but you refuse."

7.) Gamaliel had good advise in principle. I have confided in many people and I have not met any mean spirited people such as I deal with on this post (especially SBC pastors) but some of the best advise from unbelievers who I talk to about Jesus have told me that in regards to the mean people on this post (so help me its true) "why should I waste my time throwing pearls before swine!" I recall that as best I can remember is in the Bible somewhere.

8.) Listen to me good common people of the grandstand (hold the applause) david again assumes he knows everything in the Bible: "The Scriptures don’t back you up, Charles."

9.) Thank you good people for hearing me out and giving me open minded consideration.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike said:
Charles, you display the same hateful, condescending, disrespectful attitude my original article observes in Haywood and his associates, and in the anomymous Forumite host and his/her clique.

So that I can discover the parameters of discussion please explain to me how my (above post)
allies me with the lowest of posters. Personally, I do not possess any of the qualities you mention to the degree you assume I display. This will be confirmed when we meet and I am hopping soon.

Also tell me how that David's response (before mine) to me was in keeping in the spirit of on topic kindness.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

hoping soon not as in hopping mad!

Jon L. Estes said...

David,

It was a science experiment gone bad. You should see the bunny's sister. She looks like a chicken who hops around all day leaving little pellets everywhere.

It is my understanding she is a southern California chick.

WatchingHISstory said...

In addition to sharing my vision with my pasor, I went to Bellevue to talk with any minister I could talk to in hopes of finally reaching SG

I encountered no animosity nor any indication from them that I had a vendetta against AR. There was no questioning me about the validity of visions only that a vision had to be supported by scripture, which we all seem to agree. The uniqueness of the vision never was brought up. Each conversation was well over an hour. I explaind that I was comming to them first as it would be hypocritical to go public without going to them. I was fervent beyond decorum and at times too loud to a fault.
Each session was closed with prayer and each one ask God to help them understand what message God had for them. Hardy handshakes and God's blessings closed the times together.

I talked with Larry Ray and Phil Newberry and the thing that stuck in my mind was the look in their face when I mentioned the part about AR sitting and watching the crumbling of Bellevue. It was not the look of anger toward me for saying it but the 'in you face' look of plain and obvious truth. They knew better than anyone how true it was!

I went to GBC and by 'coincidence' was sent to Rob Mullins as he was the 'staff of the day'.

The same with him as the others. Good meeting, firm handshakes. He knew my daughter, her husband and by extension the rest of my family by name! He only ask that I meet with him again as he had to process the information due to his closeness with AR. Specifically he acknowledged my fervency and that "his spirit bore witness with my spirit" He did not have problems with revelations, except that they must be confirmed by scripture. Our visit was good!

Now here is where it gets interesting. Office staff outside Rob's office overheard me getting loud and they feared for Rob's safety. They told some of the NBBCOF clique and the "gossip" (unfounded factual information)spread like wildfire.

When the Monday brawl with a Bellevue member (I assume with a dissenter) took place at a nearby restuarant I was the assumed assailant! The assumptions were made to Rob and my attempts to get back with him were stymied.
He finally called me at home and instructed me to never speak about this to him again. I was shocked and confused as to his abrupt turn-around.

Several weeks later two and two made four and I e-mailed Rob asking him for an explanation about the office incident. His reply was, "I have no control with what they do or say!" (Is there anyone out there who has office personel working for you)

I attempted several times to contack SG through his secretary and she reassusred me that I would be able to but he was in and out of town and hard to reach. Persistently I tried again only to be told extremely graciously that she was working on it and would call me. This occured over a period of three or more weeks.

Finally David Coombs called me at home and informed me that there was no way that I would be able to meet with SG, He said "is there anything you can say over the phone to him" I said, "I prefer a face to face meeting." Since he insisted it will not take place (I am convinced it had nothing to do with me but with SG's failing health and that he could not handle the added stress. JMO)
tell him over the phone so as quickly as possible I told David everything. In sincerity he ask me "what should we do?" I replied "that is a big question and can not be answered simply over the phone." I knew in my mind that I was not even remotely qualified to give him an answer. Suddenly I fell to my knees and said to David, "David, you and Steve Gaines must unpretensiously rely on the Holy Spirit to guide you. You cannot pretend to rely on the HOLY Spirit You have to be led by the Holy Spirit." I said that with fervency and tears running down my face knowing that it would probally be the only chance I could get. David acknowledged the wisdom of that and we said our goodbyes.

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

Now how does this tie into Calvinism? Simply this, the Calvinist knows that from the very beginning of our salvific experience there is a total reliance on the Holy Spirit.

Like the wind the Spirit is invisible and mysterious. He is efficacious and sovereign and not even an iota of human will has any part in what He does!

The Holy Spirit does not do a pre-new birth work. There is no endowment but that of regeneration.
All the supposed pre-birth work is post-new birth work. So that God gets all the glory. Amen! Amen! Amen! Blessed be the name of the Lord!

Any theology that resist this move in any way is too much resistance. And this resistance subseqently infects all other operations of the Spirit leading to glorification.

Charles

David said...

So basically, Charles, you were allowed to meet with more than three staff members about a vision you had. And in all three cases you were unable to control yourself and God loud. No surprise they didn’t let you see the pastor. If a guy came to Palms claiming visions, we wouldn’t be so tolerant.

You know, the stuff we teach our kids about being Christian: “Be nice” “love others” “don’t scream”... those basics of Christian living, seem to evade you. If you can’t display the simple acts of the Christian faith why would I believe God decided to entrust you with visions?

By the way, you have your basic facts wrong on Moses. God punished Moses on earth and rewarded him in heaven. You flipped it with Rogers: You have Rogers rewarded on earth and punished in heaven.

I find it hilarious when you address a “grandstand.” As if the planet logs in to see what Chalres Page and David have said! So many people are coming to read these posts, CNN and FOX are losing viewers.

Charles: “Dr Rogers removal from this earth and the destruction of that which has his fingerprints on will open the door for the gospel to go out to a large population of Memphis that would be repulsed by the snobbery of the old Bellevue as indicated by the NBBCOF crowd. Once house has been cleaned the gospel will go out in new and wonderful ways. You all know that David can't see that since he resides in California.”

Is it really for your to declare why Dr. Rogers went home? Are you aware that people on this earth get sick, and they die, and their home coming is a victory. You are attempting to turn a Godly mans life into a pawn for your agenda. And you do it now that he is dead. I don’t view Dr. Rogers death as judgment against him or Bellevue, and I believe you are wrong to make that assertion.

Dr. Rogers had already retired from Bellevue when he died. The church had a new pastor. Why do you think God called him home if he wasn’t even the leader of Bellevue at that time?

David said...

Jon,

"It is my understanding she is a southern California chick."

Oh dude, totally! She is. But I understand her cousin is a Southern Bell.

WatchingHISstory said...

David

Your assumptions are of a desperate and ridiculously unreasonably and unsound. I cannot continue playing games with you it is a waste of both of our times. I will not respond any more to yours nor Jon's statements. How either of you could possibly ever call yourselves ministers is beyond me.

I suppose that Mike thinks I am getting a taste of my own medicine and if I am it taste awfully nasty and putrid.

I will continue to the degree that Mike will let me and I will try to learn the parameters yet be true to my convictions respectively.

Noone seems to expect that of you both. Maybe that is one major reason the SBC is in such trouble.
The laity have thrown accountability to the wind and blindly follow the blind guides. (opps, that is a mean comment)

Charles

David said...

Gosh, that was mature, Charles Dude.

Instead of just not responding to my post, you have to send me a note after study hall to tell me you weren't talking to me anymore. I guess our date Saturday night is off, eh.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jon L. Estes said...

The only bells we have left down here in the south are preceded by the word "TACO"

Heading there for lunch, unless my motorcycle turns into MCDonald's first.

David said...

Ahhh, we preachers do eat well, don't we?

ezekiel said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike Bratton said...

Subjective conviction doesn't equate with subjective truth. If you're wondering, ezekiel, where you post went, I've seen enough good defenses of bad behavior recently to last me the rest of my natural life.

Saying Charles--or anyone else, for that matter--seems sincere, so we shouldn't be so hard on the guy just really doesn't cut it anymore. Jim Haywood is no doubt sincere, but he attacks people and publishes lies. The Forumite nucleus and their moderator may be sincere, but they injure and hate others by using bigotry, racism, and bile as their favorite form of communication.

And this website will not be a place where lies and hate can be justified, regardless of the grounds. Such behavior does not, by any stretch of the imagination, honor Christ.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

What do we all need to take away from this mess? Absolute reliance on the Holy Spirit.

It is already clear that we cannot bear the pure Word of God (We have never been able to agree together for centuries and never will) The only solution is the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised He would send back to us to lead us into truth and teach us all things.

The Holy Spirit does what no man can ever do. No effort of man will suffice unless we let the Holy Spirit have his way.

The Spirit is invisible, efficacious, mysterious and sovereign. He is in no way subject to our will.

Charles

ezekiel said...

Mike,

You and I agree. You may want to look at applying the same acid test for comments though, to all. There have been many posts that do just the same in the other direction.......

A good defense for bad behavior sort of says it all doesn't it? From day one.

All I was offering to David was a rebuttal to some of the arguements that he claims have no scriptural basis or precedence.

If we get to the point on your blog that we can't discuss scriptural basis for the arguements we make, is it really worth arguing in the first place?

Sorry I got your BP up. Twas not my intent.

solomon said...

Check out this exerpt from "A Prayer for Memphis, Tennessee" by Steve Gaines, which was distributed in the Bellevue Today Sunday. I must say, in my humble opionion, that in view of the bigotry and outrage that was blatantly displayed on the NBBCOF last week (by people who don't go to church there), the pastor certainly came out smelling like a rose.

Heavenly Father, I come to you today in the name of Jesus thanking you for placing me in Memphis, Tennessee...

Bring about racial reconciliation in Memphis. Remove every from of racism. May those who are black, Hispanic, Asian, white, or of other ethnic background, love those of other races. Where there is bitterness, hatred, and resentment, replace them with forgiveness, love, and respect. Please help me to value and respect every person as You value them, because You created each of them in Your image and each of them is an eternal soul for whom Christ died to save.

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike,
"I've seen enough good defenses of bad behavior recently to last me the rest of my natural life."

Isn't this an exaggeration? As the day draws nearer there will be worst behavior. We haven't seen the worst behavior yet. FBC and GBC as well as the other Churches that the dissenters spread to will see a cycle of troubles as these people hop from church to church.

Bellevue's troubles are far from over as they seek to rid themselves of the "truthseekers".

This situation will get worst before it gets better.

Exaggeration is the product of frustration. Exaggeration is the fertilizer that feeds dispair and defeat. Satan loves exaggeration!!

Exaggeration blows a situation up to the point that an unexistant problem exist. God can't deliver us from an unreal problem. There is not a faith big enough to overcome an unreal problem.

NBBCOF has created an unreal problem through deceit and lies. Fabricated facts destroy lives and Churches. Many have posted in hopes of helping them only to give up because it seems impossible to reason with them. They are dissenters and ban anyone who dissents against them. They are a closed unobjective forum. Their goal is destruction.

We really should be truthseekers.
But like Pilate in frustration said "what is truth?" You are not going to like this but truth is an unattainable entity, an impossibility.

Because of God's common grace man has sufficient truth to live responsible and civil. But not near enough to be godly.

One of the worst things for me to hear was the way AR would slap his Bible and say this is not my opinion but what thus says the Lord! He said it with eloquence and commanding authority. But it was just his interpretation of the scripture, nothing more, nothing less.

Now in heaven he can slap his 'KJV' Bible and say beyond our hearing this is the Word of God.

What I am trying to say is that you are on your way to closing down your forum going the way of NBBCOF, because I am not stopping my posting. You will have to moderate my comments eventually and then you will be no different than NASS.

You can set yourself up as King of this forum and determine what is truth and what is Christ-like behavior but you will have me to deal with.

AS long as I sense that what you label truth is nothing more than what AR said it was you will have me as a source of frustration, Promise!

If AR said a pickle had a soul then you are going to say it has a soul.

I am a bold, Spirit filled and evangelistic five-point Calvinist.

love, Charles

solomon said...

New BBC Open Forum said...
Oops! Looks like tonight's rerun of "Preacher Pads" and the article on Channel 24/30's website have been scrapped. Seems some of the black pastors featured in the story pitched a fit, and the station caved. You can still watch the video (for now) at the above-mentioned link.

8:14 PM, November 05, 2007


Well, you know how out of line 'they' can get. I'm just glad they didn't have to get the boom boxes out, or reach for their holsters...

David said...

Charles: “Because of God's common grace man has sufficient truth to live responsible and civil. But not near enough to be godly.”

We don't have enough truth to be godly? Is that what the Bible says? Let's look at the Bible:

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and GODLY lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” Titus 2:11-14

“train yourself to be godly” 1 tim. 4:7

This is not my opinion, thus says the Lord.

Charles, basic Christian doctrine teaches us that we are indwelt with the very presence of Truth. He lives in us. (And I wouldn’t be too quick to make Pontius Pilate my model.) We do know what truth is; or better said, we know who truth is.

It is amazing to me that Dr. Rogers, preaching from the Scriptures, is condemned by you for declaring of God’s word “thus says the Lord” while you yourself base your authority on a vision.

You declare: Thus says the Lord – concerning a vision. He was preaching from the very inspired text of Scripture.

WatchingHISstory said...

1 Timothy 4:6-10 (King James Version)
6If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

7But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

8For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

9This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.

10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially (particularily - "malista" - Strongs 3122) of those that believe. ATONEMENT LIMITED TO THE ELECT BELIEVERS

He is the savior of all men who believe.

David said...

Charles,

You said that by god’s grace we can have enough truth to live responsible and civil lives. “But not near enough to be godly.”

In other words, we don't have enough truth to really bring us to God. Just enough to make us good citizens. But the New Testament calls us not "civil" or "responsible" lives but to GODLINESS.

That’s not what the Bible says. It says we DO have enough truth to obtain godliness.

Are you checking this stuff you say by the Scriptures your posting? The Scripture you posted says exactly the OPPOSITE of what you said. ?

David said...

Statement:
"Because of God's common grace man has sufficient truth to live responsible and civil. BUT NOT NEAR ENOUGH TO BE GODLY."

Scripture cited:
"For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come."

Do you see the inconsistency?

Mike Bratton said...

ezekiel said...
Mike,

You and I agree. You may want to look at applying the same acid test for comments though, to all. There have been many posts that do just the same in the other direction.......


By all means, let me know if you think I need to do some more pruning. I don't see any others that contain personal disparagements, outright lies, or hate in any form. Then again, I sometimes read too fast, and miss a thing or two.

A good defense for bad behavior sort of says it all doesn't it? From day one.

Could you be more specific?

...

Sorry I got your BP up. Twas not my intent.


Oh, I understand that--and you didn't. I'm Mr. 120-over-80, at least according to that little machine at the pharmacy. ;)

WatchingHISstory said...

...

You are not going to like this but truth is an unattainable entity, an impossibility.


So Jesus defined Himself as an "unattainable entity, an impossibility"?

Hmm.

One of the worst things for me to hear was the way AR would slap his Bible and say this is not my opinion but what thus says the Lord! He said it with eloquence and commanding authority. But it was just his interpretation of the scripture, nothing more, nothing less.

Nonsense.

As Pastor Rogers used to say: Some folks say the Bible is a crutch--if so, then break both my legs.

His appeal, without fail, was to the external, objective authority of God's Word. By your own admission, Charles, you have made your appeal to what happened during a recent REM cycle. Not exactly the same quality of authority, don't you see?

What I am trying to say is that you are on your way to closing down your forum going the way of NBBCOF, because I am not stopping my posting. You will have to moderate my comments eventually and then you will be no different than NASS.

When I publish hate and lies, Charles, then you can make that comparison. When I endorse bigotry and racism by allowing them to flourish here, then you'll have a valid point.

This is a place where topics on the table can be discussed in a mannered, thoughtful way. It is not, as the Forum has become, a place where those holding bigoted, racist, and otherwise hate-mongering attitudes can gather and mutually admire one another's expressions of acrimony, and feel better about it by quoting from the Bible from time to time.

You are behaving as a provocateur, Charles--and I hate to tell you, but the tactic has hardly caught anyone by surprise. First, your playbook isn't that thick, dude--and second, it reads exactly like a couple of others I've already referenced.

You can set yourself up as King of this forum and determine what is truth and what is Christ-like behavior but you will have me to deal with.

Christ, actually, determined what was and wasn't to be classified as Christlike behavior.

And Charles, you might want to check the name on the site. It's my responsibility--not my divine right--to manage what is published here, whether or not I write it. That's why I want ezekiel to let me know if I'm missing something that should be removed from the comment thread.

As I've reminded you more than once, you have your own "kingdom" where you may publish lies about Adrian Rogers and misguided defenses about Calvinism to your heart's content. And if I write an article about Calvinism, or one specifically about Pastor Rogers, you'll be able to post pretty much anything you like, because you'll at least be on topic.

Oh, and before I forget: I don't ever, ever again want to read anything resembling that "you will have me to deal with" schoolyard junk. Such a remark is as hate-filled as anything Haywood, Nass, or their comrades has published.

And it's particularly amusing to see it made from a comfortable distance, tapped out on a computer keyboard. You were right about one thing, Charles--it's obvious you "say things on the blog" that you "will not say... face to face."

I still smile when I think about the last face-to-face conversation I had with Jim Haywood. I specifically asked him to moderate the tone of his site and cut out the attacks, just as I've asked him more than once via blog and e-mail (as recently as this past Saturday). By the end of our chat, he was suggesting to anyone who would listen that he and I ought to start up our own website together.

He's not exactly as strident in person as he is on the ol' computer screen, hmm? Nevertheless, we won't be collaborating any time soon.

AS long as I sense that what you label truth is nothing more than what AR said it was you will have me as a source of frustration, Promise!

Charles, where do you get the notion that you frustrate me? Wishful thinking, perhaps? I have the same love, compassion, and pity for you that I have for people such as Nass, Haywood, and their cohorts, including all those outside the Bellevue family who have injected themselves into the discussion.

It is revealing, though, to read that you consider your personal, subjective "sense" to be an accurate barometer, and that your goal is not communication, reconciliation, mutuality, or even understanding, but frustrating others. My original article applies very much to your mindset, Charles. Please read it again, if you haven't already.

If AR said a pickle had a soul then you are going to say it has a soul.

Aww. Labeling, Charles? Is that your summation?

You speak of the man as if you knew him, when clearly you did not. Charles, Adrian Pierce Rogers was my pastor, my boss, and my friend; and, as with many others, he was a mentor of sorts to me. He had a funny habit of actually trying to pick me up when he gave me a hug, even though I was half again his size and could bench-press him. Over the years I worked for him, he virtually always made it a point to stop by my studio and chat for a few moments--or at least stick his head in and say "Hello"--even when his schedule didn't really allow it. (And he treated every member of that staff with the same gentility.) He never passed any member of my family at church without at least a greeting. And he specifically encouraged me to use my God-given gifts in working to share Christ; the longest lunch I ever took while working for Pastor Rogers was when it was just the two of us talking about evangelism, theater, and pop culture, and things Bellevue could do to share the Gospel message in ways that would impact the community.

However, Pastor Rogers never led people to himself, but unfailingly pointed them to Christ. Pastor Rogers was a person of some renown, but he understood the import of the Scripture "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." If you feel the need to indict him because he understood that the God Who speaks of "the elect" is the same God Who says "whosoever will," knock yourself out. Just do it on your own blog.

Here, it's my house, and you're a guest. Please--behave accordingly.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
maybejustmaybe said...

Mike,

Any hint whether your call for repentance that leads this thread did or did not fall on receptive soil? Just curious.

David said...

Charles: “When you say: "thus saith the Lord" you carry a heavy responsibility.”

Maybe that’s why I’m so hard on you when you claim to have heard the very voice of Yahweh.

John Mark said...

Been Redeemed said...
mom4 said:
"Bad money decisions have been the ongoing legacy of the Gaines' Administration."

BAD decisions including money matters have been his legacy. If you look at his tenure, everything he has done has been done with a fleshly mindset. The man has NEVER once said he has prayed over ANY decision he has made, but that is obvious, isn’t it!

The money issues are just the tip of the iceburg at BBC.

11:14 AM, November 06, 2007


I still don't get it. Why is a man who claims offense at the alleged racism at Bellevue frequenting a forum that flaunts it? Doesn't he realize that he's one of the people SG is ministering to that the NBBCOF is up in arms about? Why does he keep hanging out over there?

I guess he's right! Wisdom really has vanished. Not from Bellevue, but from his own house.

Or maybe he just loves hatred more than equal rights.

solomon said...

So, are there any plans to take down the 'integrity does count' website? Since its mysterious, shadowy membership has apparently given up on the group effort, I think it would be sensible to pull it down.

They don't answer email anymore (never did, in fact), but I'm sure Jim Haywood is the person to contact about it. I noticed this line in one of their page sources, which is used by search engines such as google to list web sites:

< META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Integrity, Does, Count, Integrity Does Count, Bellevue Baptist Church, Church Leadership, Biblical Guidance For Church Laity, savingbellevue, " >

I can't imagine anyone in the world but JH wanting to be associated with that 'savingbellevue' eyesore. Maybe we should all send him an email. Or better yet, an audio recording.

David said...

You know, the problem with IDC and other groups that want to hold the church accountable: That's almost impossible from the outside. We hold each other accountable as we serve together. We see a problem, the members who identify that need address it. Just throwing stones from the outside doesn't bring any change.

I had lunch with a friend today who left our church for a while and then returned. He had invaluable insights as to how we can do better. But he could only really suggest change as part of the Body serving with us.

Jessica said...

Honestly, I don't know how or why people came to believe Bellevue was this perfect, idyllic place that it is made out to be. Church is all about what you put in and making the best of an imperfect situation. In all honesty, I think that if the theology is sound, Christians should be able to worship in any church. Obviously, there are always going to be things that appeal (or don't appeal) to different personalities but as Christians we should be more concerned with what we are doing than what a church is doing for us.

Been Redeemed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jessica said...

John Mark, you know you would always be safer assuming that the folks "over there" are women.

Don't make such mistakes in the future. They are not forgivable. ;)

Mike Bratton said...

Been Redeemed said...
john mark,
Who says I am a man? As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.


That's the funny thing about hiding behind pseudonyms and casting aspersions at others--people can only guess at the person behind the nonsense.

We do know, from your quoted writings, that you fancy yourself a telepath. How did you come to have such abilities, might I ask?

Oh, and welcome to this part of the Internet.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

maybejustmaybe said...
Mike,

Any hint whether your call for repentance that leads this thread did or did not fall on receptive soil? Just curious.


I haven't heard either way, as of yet.

--Mike

John Mark said...

BR,

At the risk of sounding sexist, I've never known an angry woman blogger who was willing to wait for time to prove her right. (bepatient with me, Jessica...)

Your posts have a continuous theme of 'just wait and everyone else will be proven wrong' about them. Not in a biblical way, such as 'God's truth will come to light, and my cause will be shown righteous as Psalm 37:6 describes'. It's more like watchinghisstory's method of making loud repeated assertions (over and over) until everyone agrees with you.

That, and the hunch that you're the same person who calls himself 'Don Lumley' and 'we' on the 'formerlybrainwashedbellevuer' blog leads me to believe you're a man. Granted it's an assumption, but it's more of an educated guess than flipping a coin.

Let me get this straight. You approve of the way minorities are being stereotyped over there? Do you share the outrage against Dr. Gaines because 'they' might get loose in the neighborhood now? Have you bought your official NBBCOF ankle holster to wear around Bellevue because there might be black people there?

I suppose I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I think that the prayer SG wrote should be required reading for you and all the others who see racism as acceptable (if not preferable).

John Mark said...

Oh, and by the way, been, I noticed you didn't say you had prayed before posting.


verification word: blward.

John Mark said...

One last question, been.

Do you share amazed's opinion that minorities aren't worth having in church because they can't add much to the offering plate?

I'll take your continued association with him as a yes.

David said...

Mike: That's the funny thing about hiding behind pseudonyms and casting aspersions at others--people can only guess at the person behind the nonsense.

Mike,

I totally agree. Long long ago on sites far far away (well, not that far) I posted using pseudonyms. However, you had an article expressing that words carry no weight if we don't put our reputation behind them. It certinly puts us on guard a little more concerning what we say.

ezekiel said...

Mike,

"By all means, let me know if you think I need to do some more pruning. I don't see any others that contain personal disparagements, outright lies, or hate in any form. Then again, I sometimes read too fast, and miss a thing or two."

The implication here if I read you correctly is that you "pruned" my comment because it contained disparagements, outright lies, or hate. Now that certainly was not the intent and certainly doesn't reflect my heart. I made it clear on the front end of my comment that I was not defending the "vision".

However, I was to an extent defending Charles as it seemed to me that David was using some....points...and saying that some things were not biblical when in fact...they were. I quoted scripture to back myself up as I always do. Yet you call it a good defense of bad behavior. Whatever. Your Blog. Your rules. But if you are going to accuse me of hate, lies and disparagements then prove it. Look in my heart. (am I wrong or did you just disparage me?) :)

My comment about other posts is simple. Look back over the past several days or what seems like weeks. Can you honestly say that there are no "other" disparaging comments? Can you honestly say that the whole mess didn't start with what was a good defense for bad behavior? No real need for an answer, I think I already know what you will say and I don't have the time to joust with you unless you want to talk Bible.

On another note, do you thump your chest or stick your chin out when you gloat about how dreadful and threatening you are when the Haywoods and others cower in your presence? You must take a lot of pride in being a very intimidating man....

Man, I love Memphis. Somebody just always has to play the race card. Not having grown up here with a lot of baggage, I am constantly amazed at how everything always boils down to race. A fight that I just refuse to fight. I think the problem is a lot deeper than that. Yes, it goes right back to the Bible. The ads, the fake smiles, the money....it all comes down to buying and selling just like it has for centuries. The question is, who is selling what and who is buying what. Also important is the agreed upon currency.....skin color has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The answer to the first appears to be the souls of men and I guess cash money is effective more often than not. The Bible says that will happen in the latter days as well. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

On a final note...I was chasing down some references this morning from 2 Sam and some how wound up in Isaiah 22 and the thought struck me that there are many nails these days....Isaiah 22:25.......There sure are a lot of vessels broke when the nail is removed.

John Mark said...

ezek said...
Man, I love Memphis. Somebody just always has to play the race card. Not having grown up here with a lot of baggage, I am constantly amazed at how everything always boils down to race. A fight that I just refuse to fight. I think the problem is a lot deeper than that. Yes, it goes right back to the Bible. The ads, the fake smiles, the money....it all comes down to buying and selling just like it has for centuries. The question is, who is selling what and who is buying what. Also important is the agreed upon currency.....skin color has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Well, according to 'amazed' the blacks aren't buying anything, because they're too poor. Therefore, they're not worth spending the time of day on. I'm sorry to see you agree with him.

solomon said...

John Mark,

I think you're letting 'them' get to you a little too much. 'Amazed' lists his age as 75, so he grew up in an age in which discrimination was the norm.

I don't think zeke is a racist, since we've had a few pleasant exchanges on the other blog.

Don't paint with too broad a brush.

KS

Hope Patterson said...

K Sol,

You've got mail.

Don't get too wrapped up in this mess. Racism was around before you were born, and it'll be around long after you're gone.

Teach your daughters how ugly it is, but don't spend precious time worrying about teaching others.

Peace,
Hope

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike you wrote:
"You speak of the man as if you knew him, when clearly you did not. Charles, Adrian Pierce Rogers was my pastor, my boss, and my friend; and, as with many others, he was a mentor of sorts to me." (you added a long paragraph to this statement regarding your association with him)

Is this a misrepresentation of me or an intentional representation?

I have stated over and over that I am not attacking the character rather the theology of Adrian Rogers. I have added that I have made no distinction between AR and SG's theology.

Yet you make it sound that I have something against him beyond his theology. He was all the good things you say and I couldn't agree more with you.

Instead of dealing with my thesis on its merits: i.e. AR is an Arminian, inconsistent Arminian and as such has contributed greatly to the mess at Bellevue. There is a connection to AR and PW's sin. These are unique charges, yet I have remained within the parameters of my thesis.

Whether you are resorting to ad Hominem or ad Populum attacks you are shifting the argumentt from the point being discussed. This adds to my persistence and lack of concern about being obnoxious.

It makes me believe that deep down you know that what I am saying is Biblical and that eventually this belief will resurrect itself in a great orthodox revival in the Church. I believe it is comming.

However you are saying, Charles is filled with hate and his behavior is unChrist-like; "And this website will not be a place where lies and hate can be justified, regardless of the grounds. Such behavior does not, by any stretch of the imagination, honor Christ."

You are saying, "don't stoop to debate with Charles he is a hate filled liar and not worthy of being taken seriously."

You are hiding behind the likes of David and Jon and anyone else who will follow your lead.

Where is your 'mother of all arguments' that will settle the argument for ever between A and C?

Or else you are just misrepresaenting me and not aware of the consequences. I would hope that is the case.

ezekiel said...

Solomon, thanks. I am not sure that john mark's comment met Mike's test for disparaging but it has to come close.....

When I first moved to Memphis, Schlenker was building the pyramid. I was shocked at how any conflict between anyone...ANY conflict always went immediately to race. It's not a bit better today if not worse. Problem is many have learned to use it to push buttons, manipulate and posture. Control outcomes and prevent honest debate. Is that what we see here? Have the preachers even learned it? We all know the story of the good samaritan. I just wonder if we lose credability when we ignore the needs of the people we eat with, and worship with while rushing out to find a wounded man on the road.

john mark,

Thats low even by your standards.........What about women, john mark? Reckon there are any of those out there struggling to support their kids and work a job after their husband left them? Reckon they could use the help? What about Hispanics, I know a lot of them that could use some help. You gonna leave them out too?

Maybe we could elect you as chair for the committe to poll the current membership for needy families, old folks that can't afford medicine, single moms and dads with children, folks without insurance that need help with hospital bills.....widows, orphans....

Tell you what, why don't you poll the deacons for hispanics and blacks and get back to us before we go getting all sentimental and stroking our own "feel good about ourselves" button while needs go unmet within our midst......Where does it say that the church in Acts sold their possessions and cared for the community? Was that before or after their members needs were met?

Even better than that, lets poll the deacons and find out how many minorities they employ and what they are paying them....You wanna really dig in and show that BBC loves Memphis, why don't you start with the membership first.....

john mark this sizes up as sheer, unadulterated manipulation. Someone is playing to your emotions along with a whole lot of other folks. I think it safe to say that there is no one on the other blog or anyone here that would not give you the shirt off their back if presented with the need. At least I would hope that is so.

It would be best, I think before you swallow the bait that you consider who benefits by this latest play the most. If you can convince yourself that it is needy people then more power to the whole mission. If however, you dig deep enough this is a master stroke, it pushes all the buttons, discredits any discenters immediately resulting in silence (who wants to stand up anywhere and argue against helping people) and fills the coffers with undesignated funds that only a few really know where goes.....

The real question... is it helping folks and showing compassion on a biblically based model or is it something more sinister like buying an emotion for a bunch of folks that on any other day won't shake dirt in a minorities direction. Love them but love them at arms length. Love them as long as it only costs money....

You tell us...is it really meeting needs or is it buying ans selling souls?

John Mark said...

ezekiel,

No one feels more discriminated against at Bellevue than me. If I were of a race other than white, I'd just go with a crowd of my own ethnicity and find a corner of the auditorium.

But it's not that easy. I'm stuck in a wheelchair, and BBC is not friendly to me at all. I haven't been in 15 years, but I know it hasn't changed. There are no power doors. The only 'handicapped' parking spots are football fields away from the auditiorium, and require routes over large curbs. And even if I'm able to make it into the sanctuary, I'd have to sit uncomfortably in the aisle since there's no room for wheelchairs in the pew. The aisles are sloped, too, so without chocks my wheelchair slowly rolls down to the front. Yes, there are helpful ushers to make it a little easier, but I really prefer to get by on my own.

On a typical Sunday, how many members in wheelchairs did you ever see at BBC? Or at Faith, for that matter? (Isn't that your new church?)

I think Steve Gaines is on the verge of changing that. Only time will tell, but I don't see any reason to condemn his efforts yet. And for him to be condemned for the simple desire to reach out to the less fortunate, well...

Can you say snob?

WATPBS said...

ezekiel said...

"Tell you what, why don't you poll the deacons for hispanics and blacks..."

FWIW,

While I'm not sure of a total off the top of my head, just a few weeks ago Bellevue ordained two more African-American deacons. One of whom has "dred-locks" halfway down his back. Both of whom are Godly men with the heart of a servant.

ezekiel said...

john mark,

There is a lot of discussion these days about the catch phrase "speaking the truth in love". Many say that we need to talk all nice and polite, if we see something that could help person but would possably offend him initially, just don't say it....Then there is the age old "say it tactfully" stuff.

Reading you over the months....I am not sure tact really works with you. If I read you correctly, you had rather be treated like and spoken to as a man. In that light I say the following.

If you want to continue to hide behind that wheel chair and let it rule your life, no one can force you to do otherwise. You can be bitter and angry about it till you die. (Heb 12:15)

Now I am not sure how you honor God with that but it is your problem, not mine. I don't owe you anything for that. I didn't cause it. I don't feel sorry for you either. What makes you and your challenges any different from the next guy? Do you know anyone dying of cancer? Do you know anyone that can't see? How about anyone that can't hear? Do they have braille stickers on the seats at BBC the last time you looked? You can be angry at God all you want and I along with all the rest of the people you will meet in your life time will never be able to change that.

The fact is that if you are saved and a member of "the" church you are part of the body. I don't know which part but does it really make any difference? Isn't that the one place where we are all equal? You have a gift to share and a function to perform. I don't remember anything in the Word about excuse slips for handicapped status..

I have seen folks there in wheel chairs, sitting uncomfortably in the isles. What now, do we have to tear out a pew or two, level the floor and put a handicapped parking spot next to it to get you to church?

Oh, but we are a proud lot....you want to do for yourself....sounds like you need one of those wheel chairs that runs on batteries. I know of a couple that drive theirs to walmart. Surely you could get to the auditorium (or is worship center) with one of those. BBC could cough up the funds for that, just look at the money they would save on the parking spot. If they won't I will. IF it will get you into a church.

Now that you mention it, just how many wheel chair bound persons do we need to dig up and haul in before you will be comfortable enough to grace us with your presence? I suggest you go to GBC if you have that big an issue with it. There is a *gasp* girl in one that sits on the front row of all places. Ever time I see her, she is all smiles and people run over each other getting to her to speak to her and touch her.

Now that you bring up Faith, there was one there last weekend as well. Pity me, I had to wait on her and her escort to get out of my way so I could get out of the sanctuary.....Oh I am still a member of BBC for several reasons. 1)I got hasty and joined BBC before I really knew the pastor. Won't make that mistake again.2)Can't afford to scede the moral high ground. As long as I am a member, I can speak my piece.

If you think Steve Gaines is going to change the way you view your handicap, or the way other people view your handicap, I am afraid you have a long wait ahead. Unless he is reading this blog. In that case...you owe me lunch if you get the parking spot and your own handicap seating....but then that will only change the way you view things right?

If you can see your way past your pity party.....you will see that you really need your church and the people in it. And they need you.

Tim Greer said...

Hi Mike

Great post. Have you ever noticed how tiresome and annoying some brothers/sisters become about their pet causes. Every conversation you have with them, no matter what about, always has to come back around to the thing they feel God-ordained to constantly harp about.

PAT: So, Mike, how about those Braves?
MIKE: They're doing well. When they won yesterday, I praised God in my prayer language.

(many days later)
PAT: Mike, have you seen my car keys?
MIKE: No, let's pray that you find them. I'll seek God in my prayer language and hope that you feel anointed by the Spirit to join in.

(still later)
PAT: How about some breakfast?
MIKE: No, I already ate, thanks. And I asked God to bless my food in my private prayer language.

Every conversation simply must make it back somehow to their Pet Issue. (and no, the name "Mike" wasn't a reference to Mr. Bratton). The tactic gets really old and through the incessant use of it, they lose the right to expect anyone to listen to them after a while. It can often be evidence of a shocking lack of balance in the person's walk with God.

later, bro
Tim

ezekiel said...

watbs,

Praise God.

David said...

Does anyone remember the “old” issues the gang was upset with? Let’s see:
--Dr. W. Treatment.
–Jumping a fence.
–No business meetings.
–Donna gains filming for lifeway.
–He doesn’t preach Wednesday night.
–He took a slap at the disgruntles while preaching at another church.

What did they say they wanted? Him to apologize. To repent.

Then he really messed things up... dog gone, he apologized!

Then they had to think of new accusations. Oh my, they wrote a payer guide! And golly, is that a Harvest festival? Are we reaching the inner city? What is the church coming to?

The constant dreaming of new accusations sends the clear message that there is no desire to reconcile and move forward. Only a desire to destroy Steve Gaines.

I am left wondering: How long will this go on?

Mike Bratton said...

ezekiel said...
Mike,

"By all means, let me know if you think I need to do some more pruning. I don't see any others that contain personal disparagements, outright lies, or hate in any form. Then again, I sometimes read too fast, and miss a thing or two."

The implication here if I read you correctly is that you "pruned" my comment because it contained disparagements, outright lies, or hate. Now that certainly was not the intent and certainly doesn't reflect my heart. I made it clear on the front end of my comment that I was not defending the "vision".


And I apologize for apparently being unclear. I was asking you to reference other posts you thought might be offensive, not implying that yours was egregiously so.

However, I was to an extent defending Charles as it seemed to me that David was using some....points...and saying that some things were not biblical when in fact...they were. I quoted scripture to back myself up as I always do. Yet you call it a good defense of bad behavior. Whatever. Your Blog. Your rules. But if you are going to accuse me of hate, lies and disparagements then prove it. Look in my heart. (am I wrong or did you just disparage me?) :)

Not wrong, just mistaken. But it's my fault for not having been clear.

My comment about other posts is simple. Look back over the past several days or what seems like weeks. Can you honestly say that there are no "other" disparaging comments? Can you honestly say that the whole mess didn't start with what was a good defense for bad behavior? No real need for an answer, I think I already know what you will say and I don't have the time to joust with you unless you want to talk Bible.

If you have specific observations, specific examples, I'd like to know what you've observed.

On another note, do you thump your chest or stick your chin out when you gloat about how dreadful and threatening you are when the Haywoods and others cower in your presence?

Ah, another telepath in our midst?

Let me check... No, I made absolutely no mention of my own self being a cause of Haywood's writing one way and speaking another. The observation was about him, and not about me.

You must take a lot of pride in being a very intimidating man....

This, on the other hand, is something my wife helps me with a great deal. I've worked through my teen years and through my entire adult life to keep from giving off an "intimidating" vibe; I'm not aware of it, but others are--my wife, in particular.

As for taking pride in it? You'd be wrong in your assumption.

Man, I love Memphis. Somebody just always has to play the race card. Not having grown up here with a lot of baggage, I am constantly amazed at how everything always boils down to race. A fight that I just refuse to fight. I think the problem is a lot deeper than that. Yes, it goes right back to the Bible. The ads, the fake smiles, the money....it all comes down to buying and selling just like it has for centuries. The question is, who is selling what and who is buying what. Also important is the agreed upon currency.....skin color has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You think? Read over some of the remarks I quoted in my original article, and tell me you don't see the racism in at least one of them.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Memphis said...

Last night while reading the other blog, I read something I could not believe, and when I tried to post about it, of course my comment did not make it past Nass. Here is the quote,

"I desire to return to Memphis, but my landlady ended up marrying my brother Phel, and he's renting my upstairs garage apartment to some nice Arabic guys while they get their pilot licenses..."

Now after someone the 9-11 attacks to the same 9-11 when Gaines starting preaching, I am amazed at how thoughtless and immature some can be. Was this really suppose to make people laugh? Ask the families of the 3000 people that died on 9-11 if that was funny.

I continue to be amazed at the one can say whatever the want as long as they are in a majority.

I could go on but it would just be an angry vent about this comment.

ezekiel said...

Mike,

Specific disparaging comments....look back over Davids responses to Charles. You may be able to spot some. Then maybe not.

Telepath....is that some sort of disparaging comment? :) John Mark....did Mike just accuse me of being some sort of "seer" or spiritist here?

Seriously...not really. Just a guy bout your size with the same problem you have. Ask my wife. And I know that guys like you and me can't even tell those stories (even if they be true) without looking like we are boasting of the very character that we claim not to have.

Racism is a nuclear word don't you think. The bomb that folks like to throw around when all else fails. The label that one paints on his adversary for lack of a better weapon.

Or better yet look at it as a tool. It can be used to divide, manipulate and pressure. A tool anyone can use. (Even a preacher) Case in point.....if I say that you are a racist if you won't adopt a minority baby and I say that in the right setting, at the right time in front of the apropriate people....would you feel pressure to adopt? What could you do to refute my charges if you didn't adopt?

Or better yet, if I wanted you to contribute more money to the offering plate and nothing else was working.....What position do I put you in if I suddenly develop the need and desire to fund minority missions in our city. To be exact, in the city schools. Do you feel pressure to contribute? How do you say no? The choices you have at that point are to give and go along or be labeled a racist. Right? And no self righteous christain could ever not fund anything for the "children" right?

Given the history of the tithing beating handed out regularly and the proven love and compassion from the pulpit (sarcasm), this recent push for community missions has all the appearances of this type of manipulation.

I hope I am wrong. But I don't think I am. And before folks start lining up calling me racist for my position, go back and look at who championed the $25,000 check to United Methodist. A cause I was for based soley on the people in that church and the people she serves. Human beings. I took a lot of flack for that. I wouldn't support that decision today based on the fact, apparently, that they support something that I detest. Abortion.

To add validity to my concern, and give you something to check into, take a look at the mission down town that BBC supports. When a well known deacon solicits pocket change to keep this ministry alive, claiming they are near deaths door, laying off people and may be close to closing....all while sitting on $30,000,000 it makes me wonder just how concerned the administration is about helping people. I guess it is hard to attract press to those types of needs though. And it is missing the "children"element.

Buying and selling. If you look close, You will see it. The $25,000 was an attempt to buy favor, I think. Play the race card early on. Take the heat off and make folks feel guilty, shame them from the pulpit. But it had a hidden land mine called abortion. I bear the scars as well.

Now this one is more carefully crafted. No abortion land mine. And the added guilt of including the kids..With this one, you are not only a racist if you don't support it...you hate children too.

larry said...

Concerning handicapped accessibility, Bellevue does have a small area on the balcony where wheelchairs may be stationed and not be in an aisle (or at least they used to). It's not much of one, but I've seen it used several times in the past by handicapped members.

Faith Baptist's current setup allows for room to be made as needed. I don't know what the new sanctuary will be like, but hopefully it will have something similar to the offset pews at Kirby Woods Baptist.

I agree that churches are a little behind the curve when it comes to providing full handicapped access, especially when places like Malco theaters go to such great lengths, but I also believe that in a church there will always be plenty of people around to help with any unmet needs.

David said...

I’ve been watching an interesting thing happen. Charles has a high view of Scripture. It is so high it actually loses all authority.

Charles said that Bible “cannot be scrutinized, though men have tried but without success.” He was upset that Dr. Rogers would cite a Scriptural truth and declare “thus says the Lord.” His view was that no one really knows what God’s word is, just what our “interpretation” of God’s word is. Thus we cant’ really know from the Bible what God has said. In fact, Charles said, “Now in heaven he can slap his 'KJV' Bible and say beyond our hearing this is the Word of God.” But wait, this gets better. He declared we should be “truthseekers” but that like Pilate in frustration said --what is truth?-- You are not going to like this but truth is an unattainable entity, an impossibility.”

This really comes together in a post in which Charles said, “It is already clear that we cannot bear the pure Word of God (We have never been able to agree together for centuries and never will) The only solution is the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised He would send back to us to lead us into truth and teach us all things.”

This is strange theology. The Scripture is seen as so far above us we can’t handle it. I believe the Holy Spirit resides in every believer from the time of Salvation. Because He lives in us, truth is not a mystery or an unattainable entity. We are not like Pilate at all. Pilate did not have the Spirit living in him.

The Spirit does teach us all things. Not through the reliance on visions, but through the solid Scriptures passed down to us from the prophets and the apostles.

Here’s the problem: If we decide we just can’t understand the Scriptures, they’re too messy, then we begin to rely on new sources of authority. So no longer is Dr. Rogers compared to the Word of God (because who can understand that...) He is now scrutinized by a vision. Because no one can argue with the vision, but there might be a different insight to the Scripture bending that takes place to condemn Dr. Rogers.

If you exalt the Scriptures beyond human comprehension then they have no real authority in our lives.

solomon said...

memphis,

If I were paranoid, I'd be suspicious about that comment about the arabs appearing so soon after Mike called out the 9/11 comparison. I might think someone was trying to reignite the 'blog wars' by pouring some fuel on the fire and seeing what happened.

If I were paranoid.

Been Redeemed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mark said...

been redeemed,

Quite the drama king, aren't we?

Memphis said...

Solomon, I do believe you are right on the money about restarting the blog wars. However after attempting to call that person out on the other blog numerous times, but not have any luck getting past the moderator over there, it really got frustrating. I must have tried at least three times to get a comment published trying to hold them accountable about that comment, and I never got the "approval" from NASS, while other comments laughong and going along with it did make it.

I guess I should not be surprised though. They really do not want to hear from anyone that disagrees with anything they are "just sayin"

Memphis

Been Redeemed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mark said...

br,

If that's the worst insult you can think of you really need to get out of the house more. Or at least watch more wrestling.

Hey, wait a minute! Victim mentality, no sense of humor - are you cakes???

Been Redeemed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jessica said...

BR,

We don't need any more doctors around here. Dr. Loney was about enough to drive some us right over the cliff....

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mark said...

Actually I am a doctor...I was hired by BBC to evaluate the personalities of the bloggers...

br,

Better men than you have tried to evaluate me and failed.

BYE:)

No need to shout, doc, I'm not deaf. Might want to get a second opinion, everyone.

David said...

Charles,

Would you please tell us what sermon Dr. Rogers preached "against Reformed Theology"? Not that he said something you might disagree with (you are not the standard for what Reformed theology is) but when did he actually "take on" Reformed theology? Which sermon was that?

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Mark said...

Wow, I've just got to brag on this preacher I heard about. He preached a really great message Sunday morning, straight out of the Bible. It really blessed most of the congregation.

After the sermon, though, one of the members approached him and disagreed with his interpretation of a passage. The preacher's response was, "Well, I think that's what it means, but who knows? I'm probably wrong. If your interpretation is different than mine, well, we're both probably right. It's all relative, you know. Whatever works for you is fine."

What a breath of fresh air! Especially after hearing preachers like Adrian Rogers and Steve Gaines get all bent out of shape when people say they're wrong. I mean, is interpretation of the Bible really worth arguing over?

John Mark said...

tim greer,

So you're saying that Steve Gaines is right about everything he does? And that Musharaf deserves full US support?!? And that the new Ford Explorer is an improvement over the old model? And that global warming is a myth? And that the Colts are a shoo in for the super bowl?

Typical!!!

Hope you have a nice day.

David said...

Charles,

I don't want to give James White my $3. I'm stingy. Which sermon did Dr. Rogers preach that his you so riled up? Come on. You're the one with the accusation. What exactly did he say? Where's the quote? What's the sermon? You can't have an accusation without an incident, can you?

When i preach out of Colossians and say that sexual immorality is wrong, that is the Bible... is that my intrepretation? No. Thus says YHWH! So it is possible, isn't it, for the preacher to stand firmly on the Word and be assured he's not just preaching his own views. it's not my view that sexual immorality is wrong, I'm getting it from the Bible. Thus when i apply it in the message, it has authority. Do we agree on that much, Charles?

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike Bratton said...

John Mark said...
Wow, I've just got to brag on this preacher I heard about. He preached a really great message Sunday morning, straight out of the Bible. It really blessed most of the congregation.

After the sermon, though, one of the members approached him and disagreed with his interpretation of a passage. The preacher's response was, "Well, I think that's what it means, but who knows? I'm probably wrong. If your interpretation is different than mine, well, we're both probably right. It's all relative, you know. Whatever works for you is fine."

What a breath of fresh air! Especially after hearing preachers like Adrian Rogers and Steve Gaines get all bent out of shape when people say they're wrong. I mean, is interpretation of the Bible really worth arguing over?


I can only hope that was a tongue-in-cheek post, but it's hardly "fresh air" to suggest that God's Word isn't objectively true, or that "whatever works for you" should replace fundamental exegesis. If Biblical principles were beyond our ability to comprehend, what a waste of fifteen hundred years to compile it!

If the Bible is "all relative," it is by definition untrustworthy. Tell that to that preacher and see what he says. That is, unless your story was an apocryphal one.

Been Redeemed said...
john mark,
As I read your posts about me, I can hardly contain my laughter. I am neither male nor white. I have been a BBC member since 1987 and I have NEVER been discriminated against there until now. The exact opposite is true. Dr Rogers AND his staff welcomed me and my family with open arms. Only now am I being slammed without shame or apology. I am treated like a "token" to be worn around the neck of Steve Gaines in order to prove that HE is THE MAN who KNOWS how to bring the races together. WHAT A JOKE!! He is the man from Jeremiah 23 - the shepherd who destroys and scatters the flock. You sir are parading yourself around as someone in the SG clique, only to actually appear as dumb as a bag of hammers...
Discernment!!! Discernment!!!
Discernment!!!
Steve Gaines makes me feel dirty with his drool all over me just because I am different...yech!


And you are...?

--Mike

Been Redeemed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Bratton said...

Been Redeemed said...
And you are...?

--Mike

a Steve Gaines token BLACK WOMAN


My apologies for being less than clear. Since you don't identify yourself by name, give any reference that is particularly specific, or provide even an e-mail address, you might understand my skepticism.

The fact that you associate with people who, by their own published writings, actively indulge racist and otherwise bigoted attitudes--as I noted in my original article--doesn't make your declarations of being a "token" or a member of an ethnic minority terribly believable.

Not supporting your identity with proof makes your claim to being a "token BLACK WOMAN" (sic) as viable as the notion that you might be a disgruntled, anti-Bellevue male Caucasian.

In truth, your penchant for personal disparagement makes you appear to be far more an assailant than a victim. That's the thing about pseudonyms--they make good hiding places from which to throw verbal bombs. You might want to step from behind your hiding place, whoever you are, if you're interested in substantive consideration of your charges.

--Mike

John Mark said...

If the Bible is "all relative," it is by definition untrustworthy. Tell that to that preacher and see what he says. That is, unless your story was an apocryphal one.

Actually, I was referring to Charles' preacher, who purportedly didn't defend his interpretation when Charles approached him. Sadly, that particular post has gone the way of the dinosour and the Edsel. :-(

Been Redeemed said...

Not willing to divulge my name is no reason to disparage me, I have hard facts to back up my claims; however, since I cannot convince John Mark that I am NOT a man without releasing my personal information (is John Mark REALLY John Mark?), I will delete my posts and let him assume what he will.
Ignorance is bliss to some.
Have a blessed day guys:)

John Mark said...

br,

I just don't understand men like you. If you have facts, you should come forward with them. If you can use anything at your disposal to correct a perceived wrong you have a responsibility to do so. How is it that can look down your nose at our ignorance, but won't illuminate us?

David said...

BR,
So you conclusion is if someone asks who you are, you declare in essence: How dare you ask my name! You're not interested in truth! I'm leaving.

Our name is the most basic thing we give people. My trash company knows my name. (: If we want to speak truth credibility only comes when we attach our name to our statements.

Notice that the N.T. itself carries authority because of the names attached to the letters. Epistles that were forged weren't allowed in because we don't know who wrote them, thus they carry no credibility.

Jon L. Estes said...

Come on guys, being transparent is only for those who are pastors, not those in the pew. Anonymity is good when you know you can do drive by verbal shootings and never have to answer for it. What is forgotten is someone knows who they are and they will stand with no secrets in His presence. The pot shots they take will require an answer then.

John Mark said...

Epistles that were forged weren't allowed in because we don't know who wrote them, thus they carry no credibility.

I suspect that "been's" credibility would be gone if his true identity were known.

David said...

Come on BR, we're inviting you into the fish bowl with us!

Charles has the guts to put his name with his thougths. And I commend him for it.

Courage. Did Joshua wear a mask when he marched around Jericho? Did Moses use a screen name?

Our convictions can cost us.

Come on in to the fish bowl, the waters warm.

Been Redeemed said...

Ya'll are funny, teeheehee....
Who wrote Hebrews?

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike Bratton said...

One thing baseball can teach you is this: When you know a curve ball is coming, just stay back and wait on it--don't over-commit.

Been Redeemed said...
Ya'll are funny, teeheehee....
Who wrote Hebrews?


Most likely the apostle Paul.

Now, let me ask you a couple of questions.

Do you presume to compare the unrepentant publishing of lies, attack speech, bigotry and racial disparagements to the inspired Word of God?

And do you realize that, over the past year, you're not the first person tossing verbal Molotovs from the tall grass who's asked such an inane question?

--Mike

John Mark said...

Been Redeemed said...
Ya'll are funny, teeheehee....
Who wrote Hebrews?

2:38 PM, November 08, 2007


Someone who was not anonymous to the original recipients.

That's not relevant to my point, though. I don't really care who you are, but if you're going to hurl accusations, you need to be more specific. (At least give us a few juicy tidbits to gossip about. The 'drooling' just doesn't cut it.)

Your disdain for SG apparently stems from his discriminatory behavior toward you. Discrimination takes many forms, I can tell you firsthand, but I'd have a hard time believing that anything he's done or said could be more racist than amazed's putdowns. Yet you have no apparent reservations of blogging alongside him.

Hence my skepticism. I think you just don't like Steve Gaines, and are claiming racism to get revenge. Just like the accusations others have made of stealing. And lying. And threats. And mysticism. And homosexuality. And money laundering. And etcetera.

Now be a man and prove me wrong.

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike said: " I can only hope that was a tongue-in-cheek post, but it's hardly "fresh air" to suggest that God's Word isn't objectively true, or that "whatever works for you" should replace fundamental exegesis. If Biblical principles were beyond our ability to comprehend, what a waste of fifteen hundred years to compile it!"

That distortion was of my post that was deleted. So I need to clarrify it.

1.) JM posted "After the sermon, though, one of the members (Charles) approached him (pastor) and disagreed with his interpretation of a passage. The preacher's response was, "Well, I think that's what it means", JM's insertion -but who knows? I'm probably wrong. If your interpretation is different than mine, well, we're both probably right. It's all relative, you know. Whatever works for you is fine.") This was a reckless addition of what was never said, meant to be cute and not true!

2.) My pastor shook my hand and said with confidence, Charles, that is my interpretation. What else should he have said?

3.) Any suggestion that concluded that fifteen hundred years was wasted and that the Bible is not objectively true is nonsense. And I'm not sure that JM never said that about me. At least I hope not.

4.) Our scholarly fundamental exegesis is not "excathedra" as many ministers would like the laity to think.

5.) The famine in American is not of the Word but the hearing of it.
If you have a word for a thing (i.e. proper exegesis) that dosen't mean that you have the thing itself. An unregenerate infidel can exegete the word. No man can "honor the Word properly in a worthy manner through fleshly acceptation"

We are not so evil that we can't give good gifts to our Children but we, regenerate, yet filthy rags, are not so godly as to properly bring honor to Holy Scripture. This is where I differ with some of my friends (I could be wrong) All, not just some, of our interpretations are to be open to scrutiny. When we say "it is written" our interpretation can not be allowed to cloud the objective Word.

6.) If Jesus Himself stayed on earth and opened to us fully the meaning of Scripture we could not bear it. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads us and teaches us the meaning of scripture. He grants that understanding through a supernatural birth in such a way that everyone has oppotunity to hear and understand. It is not an exclusive privilege "expodium" for a seminarian but for all. If the common man gets the Word in his hand and the Holy Spirit leads him he will be smarter than the loftiest pastor!

WatchingHISstory said...

"it's not my view that sexual immorality is wrong, I'm getting it from the Bible. Thus when i apply it in the message, it has authority."

Now there is a message that could have been preached at Bellevue about 19-20 years ago!

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jessica said...

Being credible can be achieved in two ways- standing on the credibility you have built for yourself (for example, your name and reputation) or by the credibility bestowed upon you by others.


If God deemed the writer of Hebrews to be credible, whether I know his name or not, I am banking on the fact that God is not going to screw that up.

BR, you have no one to vouch for you and you are not willing to stand on your own reputation.

Even when I posted under another name, I was always willing to share my name with anyone who asked.

Junkster said...

Mike Bratton said...
And do you realize that, over the past year, you're not the first person tossing verbal Molotovs from the tall grass who's asked such an inane question?

Gee, thanks, bro.

David said...

Ya'll are funny, teeheehee....
Who wrote Hebrews?

Um, I'm going with God.

In Galatians Paul makes a big deal of marking the letter. It was important that people know it was HIM writing. He was willing to stake his reputation on his convictions.

How about you? Do you believe the stuff you say enough to take the mask off? Are you authentic, or just a moving mouth?

Come on, the waters warm.

David said...

Charles, "Our scholarly fundamental exegesis is not "excathedra" as many ministers would like the laity to think."

I agree, to an extent. But can't we draw truth out of the Scripture? It doesn't need to be excathedra... it was already true when God wrote it the first time.

For instance: Do not commit adultry. If I say from the pulpit: Do not engage in sexual immorality, that's God's Word to us... am I wrong? Is that not God's Word?

PS, charles: I read a book by White about Calvinism. It was a debate (Think it was called "The Great Debate). He defended his position well against ... forgot who (Dave Hunt?).

WatchingHISstory said...

David

I was raised a Pentecostal and to the best of my recollection I can't think of a minister who ever equated his message to the authority of the Bible. We believed that the endument of the Holy Spirit's power for service was subsequent to conversion. There was an active participation of the individuals with the Holy Spirit. "Soul Competency"

Though I have left the Pentecostal denomination my views are still colored by my heritage.

So often AR would pronounce his interpretartion as authority on the inspired Word of God. It could not be disputed without one appearing to dispute the Bible. The critics were silenced by his "authority" and his celebrated status. No one tucks on superman's cape.

When he spends nearly an hour on a Sunday night disputing Calvinism then the congregation assumes that the Bible does not support any part of Calvinism.

You said: "For instance: Do not commit adultry. If I say from the pulpit: Do not engage in sexual immorality, that's God's Word to us... am I wrong? Is that not God's Word?"

You can say, "It is written, thou shalt not commit adultery." It is not your view.

You can't say with "authority" do not engage in sexual immorality. Someone will ask you if there are other acceptable positions beside the missionary. since you have spoken with authority you will have to convene a council and debate sexual positioning. You are soon back to Catholicism. We are already close enough to that already. IMO

Jesus demonstrated this when He read from the scroll of Isaiah. He found the place where it is written.... Then when he read he closed the Book and sat down. All eyes were on him. He gave the worthy acceptation of the true saying. "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."

He was showing us how to preach. The first thing is not scholarly fundamental exegesis but the Spirit of the Lord being upon us.

Christ Himself exalted "sola-scriptural" authority. There is no place for human interpretations alongside the Word.

That does not exclude preaching that has good sound advise and counseling mixed with a little fear of the Lord.

PS David, I appreciate the kindness displayed in your response. May I do the same.

David said...

Hey Charles,

Okay, we're into stuff that has me smiling!

"You can't say with "authority" do not engage in sexual immorality. Someone will ask you if there are other acceptable positions beside the missionary. since you have spoken with authority you will have to convene a council and debate sexual positioning. You are soon back to Catholicism. We are already close enough to that already. IMO"

I didn't know "positions" were what adultry was about! Are my wife and I going to hell? (:

I do get what you're saying: Our VIEWS should not be laid down as authority. But when we are simply applying the Scripture, that does carry authority. Authority God has rightly given the messenger. It is my job as pastor to declare to (in my case young Marines): Do not engage in sexual immorality. That is God's Word. Hold to that STandard.

Or, this week: Do not forsake assembling together. Resist the urge to hide as you endure a deployment. That is God's Word.

I also appreciate your kindness.

WatchingHISstory said...

David said,
"I didn't know "positions" were what adultry was about! Are my wife and I going to hell? (:"

Probally, get some counseling and maybe you will both be able to avoid hell! Seriously you really should have finished seminary, even a liberal one.(-: They would have taught you about adultery!

You mentioned Adultery then you mentioned Sexual immorality. The first is specific and the Word clearly condemns it. The latter is general and needs clarification.
Colossians help here as you aluded to earlier. Positions would be dealt with in the latter and you and your wife have worked thru these issues but don't take it for granted that every young couple has.

You can say with authority, "it is written, do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together..."

You said: "Okay, we're into stuff that has me smiling!"


Making anyone smile is not my goal.
When you smile your wicked deceitful heart (Jer 17:9) is engaged. If I displease you with my words your mind is first engaged then your deceitful heart reacts, and your fruit are manifested. My goal is to engage people's mind and possibly their spirit will embrace the truth.

Interestingly, the word "smile" is not mentioned at all in the KJV. The variations of laughter are listed.

Some cultures look on smiling as rude and indicative of deception.
Europeans smile very little and it is said that the French never smile. The smile was probally invented by an American, probally selling used cars.

Just thinking (:)

Charles

David said...

Charles,
I'm rolling my eyes. Is that in the bible?

solomon said...

jessica said...
BR, you have no one to vouch for you and you are not willing to stand on your own reputation.


I think in some cases it's fine to stay anonymous, but 'been redeemed' is not in one of them.

I have no problem at all with junkster (aka Tom) not revealing his full name, since he doesn't attempt to sully the reputations of others and tries to generate discussion.

If, however, the purpose of a post is an attempt to lower the reader's opinion of the target with alleged 'facts', I say that the accusation needs to have the weight the person's reputation behind it.

It's the coward's way to malign other people without exposing himself to repercussions. If you can't handle that, then you have no business opening your mouth.

I don't know why I keep looking at the other blog, but "gopher's" asinine post today exemplifies the yellow tactics of a cyber bully perfectly. Gopher claimed the right to accuse several staff members (by name) of hypocrisy because they are taking part in the 'Bellevue Loves Memphis' campaign but don't live in the city. Since gopher chooses to remain anonymous and not say where he/she lives, that post just makes me think less of the author. Since he/she fancies themself a burrowing rodent, they should perhaps crawl back into their hole and leave Bellevue alone unless they've got something intelligent and constructive to say.

And this doesn't count:

gopher said...
" oc said...

....... One that may have caused many souls to spend eternity in Hell."

You might want to be concerned with your own soul. Some around the center of this situation are comparing Bellevue to the wedding Jesus talked about in Matthew 22:1–14

oc said...

Getting a big kick out of some of you who are bragging about blogging in your own name. David is supposed to be a pastor and yet actually childishly attemps to goad 'been redeemed' into a warm water fish bowl. Interesting indeed. It reminds me of what the Lord said one time. Paraphrased, of course, "wish you were either cold or hot, but luke warm makes me puke." Not very discerning, was it, that you are inviting someone into your warm water world? And you are a pastor? Blog out your full name, if you are so proud of it. And should you start it now that I suggest it, I would ask why haven't you've done it before this and where do you pastor?
Where? Booger Holler Arkansas?(sorry Booger Holler, no insult intended ). You are a warm water dweller, aren't you?

Well, guess what? I'm anonymous, so I guess you would consider that cold, or hot. I don't know which. You judge. You are so good at that. But I'm not luke warm, puke warm. ( it is very easy to get my full name in my profile, by the way.) Mike Bratton, Jon Estes, and Charles Page may be considered 'hot' or maybe 'cold'. Because they are right out front with their names. But Jessica, John Mark, David. Those who are spouting off the most about 'your name is your reputation' and if you don't use your name then your posts don't carry any weight. Why don't you blog with your full names showing then? Why be lukewarm? You are the ones making fun of those who have a 'blog name'. Why are you showing only half of your names? Give us your addresses too, and your social security numbers. What about middle names and where do you work and how much do you make, and your mother in laws maiden name. I don't know for sure who you are without that information.


Now give it up, or shut up about it. No one needs to tell you what their name is in order to be respected.


OC.

John Mark said...

Actually, OC, if you check out the profiles you'll find out all you need to know.

I'm John Davidson, and I live just south of the border. I won't say exactly where, since I'm disabled and my only protection is my old coon dog.

David Squyres is pastor of Palms Baptist church in CA. You can download a few of his podcasts from his website if you'd like (I haven't done so yet.) Charles is very easy to locate (if you're so inclined). Derrick Calcote is a deacon at Bellevue, easy enough to find. Jessica doesn't attack people, so she doesn't need the weight of her reputation, but I think her history here shows her credibility.

I can tell you better than anyone that it's very easy to manipulate people using anonymous identities. I'm not making fun of people who don't show their names, just saying that if they make pathetically vague innuendos without any proof whatsoever and won't even vouch for themselves that I won't take them seriously. Calling someone a racist without describing one specific example lacks credibility.

And as far as being lukewarm (this isn't in the Bible) I think it's better to be lukewarm over spiritual things than red-hot over carnal ones.

Josh Manning (apparently quite popular among the contrarians) had quite a descriptive term for such behavior when her stopped allowing anonymous comments on his blog. He called it 'spiritual pornography' and called on everyone who took part in it to repent. That's a very nice description of it, too. Put on the mask, sin to your heart's content, and then resume your 'real' life. No harm done, right? Just like wearing a disguise down to your local strip joint, getting a few lap dances, and then going home to the wife and kids. No harm done, right? What no one knows won't hurt them.

Rubbish.

You were doing much better lately, OC. What happened? Why are you suddenly back on the warpath, and back to calling the pastor of Bellevue 'Stevie'?

David said...

OC,

If you want my last name, go to my website. What whining! "Well, yeah, you told us your name... but not your last name!"

Click on the link (this is complicated) and you'll find more than you probably want to know. (My last name, my wifes name, my kids names, their ages, what I preached for the last year and half... still interested?)

I was able to figure out who other bloggers where. Charles, John Mark, Jon, Jessica, Mike.

Blogging without giving your name is like verbal sniping. The sniper can stand in the shadows and pick people off without ever being identified. That's what's going happening on another site. They're messing up people's lives while they stand boldly in the shadows.

I wonder if on judgment day all those who are so proud they "stood for truth" will be rewarded when God calls their name "anonymous." Instead of shooting a spotlight on them, they'll dim the lights so they can sneak up there and get the reward. I find it funny all the talk on that site about standing for truth... while the lights are off!

The people that get shot at, none of them are unnamed, are they?

I'll tell you what, I won't bother you about your name if you'll shoot at unnamed targets.

OC: "I wish you were either cold or hot, but luke warm makes me puke." Not very discerning, was it, that you are inviting someone into your warm water world? And you are a pastor?"

The condition of the water does not indicate the fishes temp.

I didn't say "luke warm." I said WARM. In 29 Palms, we know what "warm" is. For "warm" not to be "warm" you have to include the word "luke" to it. "Luke" makes it no longer as "warm." But I didn't say "Luke Warm" I said "warm." And words mean things.

OC: "where do you pastor?
Where? Booger Holler Arkansas?"

I pastor a church in 29 palms, California. It's a Marine/Navy Church. However, if I did pastor Booger Hollar, Arkansas, I'd still thank God for his calling.

Seems like I remember people saying, "Nazereth! Can anything good come from Nazereth?"

And I also remember someone becoming angry when God commanded him to go to Ninevah and preach there. He kind of saw it as a "Booger Hollar" didn't he?

oc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Junkster said...

Sadly, Booger Hollow is no more (the Trading Post, that is). Chigger Hollow Trading Post has opened nearby, but it just doesn't have the same ring to it. Would be kinda like 19 Palms.

Mike Bratton said...

oc said...

...

Now give it up, or shut up about it. No one needs to tell you what their name is in order to be respected.


Splendid bit of obfuscation there, OC. Marvelous. Your whole post illustrates the problem quite vividly.

Problem is, the issue isn't one of "being respected." It's possible to have at least a modicum of respect for those who attach their names to their anti-Bellevue attacks; however, when people throw their rocks and hide their hands, how is it possible to gin up respect for that sort of despicable, immature behavior?

I take it you're not interesting in toning down the combative element of your published remarks? Because I know beyond the shadow of any doubt or peradventure that you wouldn't tell people to "give it up, or shut up" face-to-face.

Why, you won't even sign your name to such faux pugilism when you fire it off from the safety of your own anonymous keyboard, so how in the world do you expect to make anyone think there's any heft to what you have to say?

And by the way, the first person I ever recall "spouting off the most about 'your name is your reputation' and if you don't use your name then your posts don't carry any weight" did so from behind a pulpit, making reference to critical letters he received that would be unsigned--letters that summarily found their way into his circular file.

The person who made those observations was Adrian Rogers.

--Mike

oc said...

Mike,
Glad I showed up so you could have something to say on your own blog.
First off, I am not anti Bellevue. You are mistaken, again. And I was not obfuscating at all. Just calling out those of your disciples to go all out for you.
You ought to be thanking me. Even though they evidently aren't willing to fully follow your example.

Furthermore, you seem to be trying your best to inflame some kind of battle. You say ignorant things such as this:

"Because I know beyond the shadow of any doubt or peradventure that you wouldn't tell people to "give it up, or shut up" face-to-face."


When actually you have no idea. Keep talking. Lots of people think it's funny. :)

Mike Bratton said...

The latest exhibit (and yes, I'm up far too late):

oc said...
Mike,
Glad I showed up so you could have something to say on your own blog.
First off, I am not anti Bellevue.


Yes, actually, you are one of many who's demonstrated it for quite awhile now. Against Bellevue, working actively for its demise, and openly hostile to those who want to see positive, Christ-centered results out of a difficult time in the life of the church. That's your clique--and surely you know each other by more than pseudonyms.

You are mistaken, again. And I was not obfuscating at all. Just calling out those of your disciples to go all out for you.

I have disciples?

Disciples who need to be "called out," even?

I can't decide if your remarks are just baiting, or if there really is a sclerotic worldview behind them.

You ought to be thanking me. Even though they evidently aren't willing to fully follow your example.

As I've said more than once, the problem isn't anonymity in and of itself--the problem lies in those times when people such as yourself take advantage of anonymity to try and injure others.

Furthermore, you seem to be trying your best to inflame some kind of battle.

Not in the slightest. I'm trying my best to tell the hatemongers that it's time to close up shop. How can people engage in "some kind of battle" when they've got all that hate to monger?

You say ignorant things such as this:

"Because I know beyond the shadow of any doubt or peradventure that you wouldn't tell people to "give it up, or shut up" face-to-face."


You know, OC, I quoted a few ignorant things from the contrarian sites in my original article. Am I to take it you endorse the racist remarks about the "inner city crowd" and so forth? The bigoted remarks about "meth-addicted carnies" and such? The statements that have been demonstrated to be lies, yet have yet to be repented of or even retracted?

When actually you have no idea. Keep talking. Lots of people think it's funny. :)

And I know it's the truth. The only people who "think it's funny" are people who don't, as a rule, possesss the courage of their convictions--such as they are.

Thanks for the ill-conceived attempt at smack-talk, OC. As I mentioned earlier, it's obvious you're no longer interested in moderating your tone, and more's the pity. You have demonstrated afresh that it's past time for the Forum (along with the nonsense called "Saving Bellevue") to turn out the lights and take down the shingle.

--Mike

oc said...

Well since you said thank you for something, then you are welcome.

Awwww. Come on. It is pretty obvious that you are trying to make headlines in your blog by trying your hardest to make people believe the 'other' blog is promoting racism. You have sunk to a new low. Very sad.
And you are wrong about something else by the way. I don't represent the 'other' blog. I represent you. :)

So how is your shingle hanging now?

David said...

OC,
Try Sunday School this weekend, they teach you to be nice, share the toys, say nice things to people and stuff like that. I'm going, want to come with me?

David said...

Booger holler:
http://www.worldisround.com/articles/38911/index.html

I propose a field trip, dudes.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...

David,

RME Didn't your mother teach you that your eyes could get stuck in the back of your head?

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

"I'm John Davidson, and I live just south of the border. I won't say exactly where, since I'm disabled and my only protection is my old coon dog."

As I recall this is the same person who posted my Fedex manager's name and my coworker.

He has access to information and will use it against you. No wonder he doesn't post his address!!!

He is the reason people do post anonymously.

WatchingHISstory said...

Today is my b'day 61 YO!!!!

Charles Page

Jon L. Estes said...

On the other blog, there is a new blog entry by NASS which throws stones at a confessing sinner. It references a BP article which deals with Willow Creek, Hybels and what God is showing them about non discipleship and their willingness to say, We were wrong.

I submitted the following post to NASS but since I have been banned I doubt it will make their sideshow.

Your tone in your blog entry is no different than a sinner coming to the altar confessing their sins and stating they want to live life right and you sit back and say SINNER... SINNER. You were so wrong SINNER...

Instead of embracing their confession and giving a thanks to God for opening their eyes to truth, you unfold insults.

The article you linked was not about ugly truth (unless you can't see good for whatever reason). It was about confession of wrong and commitment to do right.

No wonder you can't see good in your pastor, you can't see good.


Lord help us if this is what we need to look out for from the sheep in His house.

Cory said...

OC said...
Awwww. Come on. It is pretty obvious that you are trying to make headlines in your blog by trying your hardest to make people believe the 'other' blog is promoting racism. You have sunk to a new low.

I say...
If the other blog is in reality not trying to promote racism, then PUBLICLY rebuke the ones who say things such as Mike quoted in his original article, and then encourage NASS to remove the posts. You see, no one believes the whole "we lovingly rebuke behind the scenes" stuff that I have been told goes on. If it really happened, then you wouldn't have those kinds of comments that denigrate people.

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

And what are attempting to do differently than what you accuse AR of doing?

You want everyone to believe that disagreeing with you is disagreeing with God.

I'll take AR, at least he backed up what he said with the word of scripture not some dream which is not harmonious with scripture.

WatchingHISstory said...

jon

So I'll assume that by your last post you are choosing between the lessor of two evils, mine being the worst.

That is a small step forward for me!

WatchingHISstory said...

jon

Though I passionately believe my views I have never equated my views with God's view. Rom 11:33

That is something AR did often from the pulpit.

You want everyone else to think that!

Charles

David said...

Come on Charles! You're whole "theory" is that GOD punished Dr. Rogers and brought terrible judgment on Bellevue because they did not hold your doctrinal position.

My birthday, too. (33)
Marine's birthday.
Most important, Sesame Streets birthday.

WatchingHISstory said...

David

Are you serious? Today is also your b'day? HAPPY BIRTHDAY 28 years ago I turned 33 and the significance was that I was the same age as Christ when he was crucified! I turned 33 the first year we were in Turkey. I dearly hope that your life will be as exciting as mine which it will as you serve Christ.

My vision is not my view but God's view. He was angry with AR, why, He didn't say. My views are compiled around my life's pattern of events. My views are not equated to God' views.

Your view is that my vision is not from God. That is your choice to make.

Charles

PS if my vision was about Richard Roberts would you be as opposed or less so?

David said...

Ooops, I'm 34!

My problem with your vision is I don't think it lines up with Scripture.

1. You have discipline taking place off the earth. Or judgment taking place before the judgment.

2. You have not previously demonstrated a "gift" for visions.

3. Usually the N.T. pattern for visions is related to salvation.

I do not thin, as you once hinted you thought I thought... that gifts ceased after the Apostles. I do believe in the spiritual gifts. However, I am not comfortable with the vision your described.

I would not be more enthusiastic if it were Richard Roberts. (now Joel Osteen...)

Happy Birthday, Charles.

WatchingHISstory said...

Yep. A generation of church brats. Raised on easy believing, no repentence, feel good churchism.
Spoiled brats with no gratefulness.
Yep, that Bellevue community is something else!

Charles

Jessica said...

OC,

For the record, you can also get my full name if you were that interested. If you click on my name you can easily determine my full name and see pictures of my daughter.

In this day and age I seriously debated about using my real name. There are about a million reason I can think of that a woman should not use her real name on the internet. But I do it anyway because I do think it is the right thing to do. Not because Mike tells me to.

That is the beauty of posting under my real name, anyone who knows me will tell you that I am not going to do ANYTHING just because someone tells me to. It matches up with who I am in real life.

WatchingHISstory said...

David said:
"1. You have discipline taking place off the earth. Or judgment taking place before the judgment."

The figure of speech: 'lifted up his eyes' is a common OT expression and particurlily interesting in Luke 16:23 which describes a man who along with all other people who have died is in hades, the place of the departed dead who await judgement.

He is not in hell yet nor can we just assume that he is going to hell. But he is experiencing a justice commensurate with the life he lived on earth. He calls Abraham father and likewise Abraham calls him son.

2. You have not previously demonstrated a "gift" for visions

And how do you know this?

3. Usually the N.T. pattern for visions is related to salvation.

Again God did not address the why of His anger. My opinion is that God's thoughts are uppermost on His salfivic plans so I would assume that AR was somewhat wrong of his theology of salvation. JMO

Again your comfort is not my goal and why should it be?

Charles

Junkster said...

Can someone give me some examples of this racism on the "other" blog that I've been reading about here? Mike quoted several things in his original article as examples of "bigotry, both subtle and overt--and not just of the racial variety". Where were the racial remarks?

David said...

Charles,

There is a detailed answer to your vision if you scroll WAY up. Has Scriptures and all. I'm not reposting the same post over and over and over as some are in the habit of doing.

It seems you elevate Scripture so high you then delcare that no man can be sure what God is really saying. But then you come with a vision and declare that the vision IS the Word of the Lord. See the problem? Your personal revelation takes priority over the Word.

David said...

Charles,

You said you didn't "see" anything. You only heard a chair pushed forward and a voice say: Sit and watch you beloved Bellevue destroyed.

If you did't see if, how do you know it was Dr. Rogers? Why not Dr. Lee?

WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 576   Newer› Newest»