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

575 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 575 of 575
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.
WatchingHISstory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
WatchingHISstory said...

Mike said:

"Your(God's) "counseling" is producing no results--at least not desirable ones, such as contrition, repentance, or even behavior modification."

God has told you this, I assume, or did you just say it (misquoted) yourself.

Why are you uncomfortable with my counselor. I checked His manual and he never mentioned a pastor, minister nor counselor just the Holy Spirit. John 16:12-15

When the Holy Spirit tells you something do you have to go to a pastor, minister or counselor to see if they approve of what He told you?

The Holy Soirit talks to me on a daily basis, should I have to go to a pastor every day? Trust me I go to my pastor quite often. We have discussed the PW incident. The strory is pornographic.

Charles

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

I was getting pictures for powerpoint when I came upon this on a KJV only website:

"All About The Christian's Clothes Are Different! There is a gender demarcation to be maintained between MALE and FEMALE clothing. Amen! This distinction is rooted in the creation. God made them “male and female created he them.”"

This is funny! They root that men and women should wear different clothes because we were created with a distinction. I think they would pass out if I emailed them and let them know we weren't created with Jeans and Dresses... we were great (gulp): naked! Yiks!

WatchingHISstory said...

1 Samuel 3 (New American Standard Bible)
1Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the LORD before Eli And word from the LORD was rare in those days, visions were infrequent

John Mark said...

...and Samuel was in no hurry to claim a visit from the LORD...

What a humble young man Samuel must have been!

Jon L. Estes said...

David,

At a young 47, I have two grandchildren. They are my joy. I and my wife are looking at ways to invest ourselves in them in ways we did not do with our own, due to time and financial restraints. Still have little time and resources but age has taught me how to make things go further.

Our two boys are 23 and 25. Both serve in the USCG. One is still single but has a great girl on his arm.

solomon said...

Well, it looks like Jim Haywood has finally turned on Adrian Rogers and Jim Whitmire. He's doing the 'draw your own conclusion' thing about the sponsor's tickets for the Singing Christmas Tree, which have been around for about as long as I've been at Bellevue.

Why does it always seem to come back to money with this person? If we took up a 'love offering' for him would he shut down his site?

WatchingHISstory said...

1 Samuel 2:25 (New American Standard Bible)
"If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?" But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the LORD desired to put them to death."

David Squyres said...

Solomon,

I am discouraged by the state of the church concerning money and wealth. We have mega church pastors who seem to only teach get rich quick schemes and self help.

However, with all the attacks savingbellevue does and even more so, a certain blog on Saddleback church, they never note the positive. Anyone notice how Dr. Warren is never caught in scandal involving money or sex? he doesn't take a salary, but gives it back to his church. He lives off book sales. Lives in the same house he raised his kids in. But this is never noted.

Jessica said...

I do think there is a careful line to walk with salaries and pastors. There are certainly people out there that are just in it to make some $$$, not to glorify the Lord.

But I have a few thought on the rest of those pastors who make a large salary:
It is not a financial burden on some churches to provide a large salary (it is a tiny percentage of our overall budget).
I feel that unburdening our pastor of financial burden and worry leaves his time and energies free to do the work the Lord as set for him (he shouldn't have to be worrying about the light bill if he wants to stay up late and write sermons).

I have heard people comment about the old days when the pastors had to just count on the "Lord to provide"... well, who says the Lord can't provide in the form of a decent salary?

David Squyres said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Bratton said...

WatchingHISstory said...
Mike said:

"Your(God's) "counseling" is producing no results--at least not desirable ones, such as contrition, repentance, or even behavior modification."

God has told you this, I assume, or did you just say it (misquoted) yourself.


You have written about horrifying, gut-wrenching, sickening sin in a lurid style which would no doubt make a pornographer envious.

And you've yet to repent of it.

Why are you uncomfortable with my counselor. I checked His manual and he never mentioned a pastor, minister nor counselor just the Holy Spirit. John 16:12-15

Then you're lying, since verse 14 says "He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." Your pornography, your cursing, and your attacks upon others cannot, at least with a straight face, be said to "glorify" the name of Jesus Christ. Did you receive your X-rated narratives from God, Charles? Were you led of the Holy Spirit to spew vile, filthy language from your mouth in my direction?

Obviously, no, you weren't. Your actions don't match up with your alibi. Which is why you need help.

When the Holy Spirit tells you something do you have to go to a pastor, minister or counselor to see if they approve of what He told you?

When God the Holy Spirit tells me something, it matches up to Biblical precedent, Charles.

The Holy Soirit talks to me on a daily basis, should I have to go to a pastor every day? Trust me I go to my pastor quite often. We have discussed the PW incident. The strory is pornographic.

And there are ways to discuss it that don't require the despicable, leering language you favor. There are ways to discuss any issue that don't require that "IN MY ANGER I HAVE CALLED YOU EVER (sic) FOUL NAME I CAN SAY SHORT OF BLASPHEMING THE NAME OF GOD".

It was thoughtful of you not to blaspheme, but impossible to rationally, Biblically justify your response. You are not contrite, you are certainly not repentant, and you have made no move whatsoever to modify your behavior. You even think that posting the same attack posts over and over again might somehow keep me from deleting them--over and over again.

You need less Lenny Bruce and Larry Flynt, and much more John Donne. And at least someone partnering with you in accountability.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike
"Did you receive your X-rated narratives from God, Charles? Were you led of the Holy Spirit to spew vile, filthy language from your mouth in my direction?"

Yes, and Mike you will not be able to tempt me to cast my confidence away from what God is showing me. I have an expectation of great recompence of reward from God!

You are comming to me with excellency of speech and enticing words of a man's wisdom. The very best that you have to offer me in the way of wisdom is restricted by you devotion and accountability to "a man" and not to the wisdom and power of God.

On the other hand my reliance is on God alone without any accountability on "a man". Mike, I am totally transparent and yet tremble, fear and am literally weak from speaking the words I say.

Mike you follow a prince of this world and if your prince knew what he knows now he would lead you to the power of God rather than the wisdom of men.

I've got to go to work. Have a good day.

Charles

John Mark said...

I have an expectation of great recompence of reward from God!

I'm confused...

Do we serve the Lord out of agape love, or hedonism?

David Squyres said...

John Mark,

Is it wrong to serve expecting reward?

I'm not sure serving knowing I will be rewarded means that I therefore am not serving out of love for Christ. (John Piper wrote a book on this called Desiring God. But I didn't finish it...)

It does seem that if someone wants reward they would resist claiming visions in the name of YHWH. Someone seeking reward doesn't fill themselves with rage. Someone seeking reward doesn't presume to detail openly their X-rated thoughts on child molestation.

Someone seeking reward would be careul how they discussed the harm brought to a minor. The Scripture says that it is better to have a large millstone hung around the neck and cast into the sea than to harm one of His little ones. Continuing the cycle of abuse by reimagining the events and posting them on the WORLD wide web doesn't seem like something someone might do to seek reward.

Those seeking reward invest their talents.

But I'm not talking about anyone here.

solomon said...

David,

I agree that there are pastors who are more businessmen than preachers. I see this as the inevitable result of 'selling' the church, but I think it will run its course and lose appeal. Maybe not in the next few years, but eventually. As we're seeing Willow Creek slowly realize, maturing Christians will eventually leave the shallows and go where they'll be fed. God will not leave committed Christians, albeit immature ones, in the wilderness.

I have a friend who at one time was a very successful consultant. One day he sold his company, bought a rundown church house in rural western Tennessee, and has been preaching ever since. He told me that he has enough money in the bank to keep going for another few years if he's lucky, but he's quite content where he is. Why aren't there stories like his on 'savingbellevue'? It might motivate people to start giving to churches that will never be able to grow, since the whole town already goes there. I don't think many people take his website seriously (and I hope Hal Kitchings soon addresses this area of contention in his church), but Jim Haywood should at least say one positive thing for a change.

About what Page has been writing on here, it's downright shameful. I've had to add TBR to my 'banned site' list to keep my girls from reading that filth. I just hope that man doesn't tell that stuff to his grandchildren.

I've always heard that if you study too much theology without having a right relationship with God that you'll become unbalanced, and I think we're seeing an example of that.

We're also seeing the insidious nature of pornography. Once it gets a foothold, it contaminates every aspect of a man's life. It seizes every thought a man has. Can you imagine how terrible it would be if you read your Bible and all you could think of is child abuse?

We all need to pray that this man breaks free from these satanic influences.

John Mark said...

Hmmmm....

Ya know, Sol, that's an interesting statement about Charles. He does seem to be getting more and more obsessed with that stuff.

I don't want to start throwing dirt around like on some other out-of-control blogs I've heard rumors about, but I think you might be onto something.

I stopped by his blog, and he has the most disgusting story on there I've seen on a Christian site, with the disclaimer "it's a link to a pastor abuse site" (it's not, it's a cut-n-paste). He seems to think that it's all right to promote filth if someone else does it first. (No one go there, please, just take my word for it. I wish I hadn't seen it.)

Pete Townsend (of The Who) became obsessed with researching child abuse, and before he what happened he was in jail with all kinds of twisted stuff on his computer.

I really have to wonder if that's what's happening right in front of us...

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

"The viewing public would be repulsed by such a lurid movie. However a good R rated movie could be made presenting the sexual escapdes without having to make-up stuff. Jessica has often hinted at this and I believe that she knows where of she speaks."

Could someone fill me in please?

WatchingHISstory said...

jm

That was awful wasn't it? (from "Rape of Faith" on the NBBCOF web site) Terrible things that were done by a Catholic priest to a young 14 YO boy, of coarse not as bad as what took place with an ordained associate at Bellevue. His own 10 YO son!!! Terrible isn't? Does it upset you that this happened?

Would it be better if we discuss women wearing pants to church or playing drums, Why should Charles keep bring up this?

Leave us alone Charles! We want to pretend something like this could never happen under the shepherding of Adrian Rogers. Tell us it isn't true, please!!

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

jessica said:
"I do still wonder if there is another "secret" Bellevue that I don't know about. Maybe that is the one they went to?'

"Bellevue has always been full of hypocrites and country-clubbers and people that were just plain mean and snotty. I still love it there though. It isn't perfect, but I don't really know why we have this illusion it should be."

"It really is fascinating to me."

3:03 PM, November 13, 2007

WatchingHISstory said...

solomon said:
About what Page has been writing on here, it's downright shameful. I've had to add TBR to my 'banned site' list to keep my girls from reading that filth. I just hope that man doesn't tell that stuff to his grandchildren.

I've always heard that if you study too much theology without having a right relationship with God that you'll become unbalanced, and I think we're seeing an example of that.

We're also seeing the insidious nature of pornography. Once it gets a foothold, it contaminates every aspect of a man's life. It seizes every thought a man has. Can you imagine how terrible it would be if you read your Bible and all you could think of is child abuse?

We all need to pray that this man breaks free from these satanic influences.

2:20 PM, November 17, 2007

You appear to be smarter than this post implies. You are close to making statements that are unjustly unfavorable and without just cause intending to expose me to public contempt. This is libel.

I'm not threatened by it but I am dissapointed in what you have posted as it is contradictory to the reasonable post you have previously made.

You sound like the posters on NBBCOF

Charles

solomon said...

Page, I'm telling you this for your own good. I've seen men whose families and lives have been shattered by pornography. You have got to quit putting that filth into your head.

Your obsession has nothing to do with what happened in our church. The pictures you can't get out of your head are not visions from God in any way. Ask any man walking about the first time he saw a picture of a woman in an adult magazine, and he could probably draw it from memory. It gets so burned into memory that a man could pick that one picture out of 10,000 photos.

The Bible doesn't tell us to flee from many things, but sexual immorality is one of them. Idolatry is the other. I pity those men for whom the two things have become one and the same.

Get off of that road, and I mean now. You need to stop reading that stuff. Stay away from 'helpful' websites that are oh so eager to 'inform' about abuse.

How much time are you spending reading those sites? A typical pornography addict spends less than an hour a week looking at porn, but every segment of his life is polluted.

Judge for yourself. When you first started blogging there was no mention of this filth. Even after 'the vision' there was none. Now it's all you can write about. If you've changed so much in a few months, what will you be like in a year? Will you still have a family? Will your children and grandchildren still respect you?

Don't fool yourself into thinking you're not susceptible to this addiction.

That's all I've got to say on the matter, the rest is up to you. At the heart of it, it's a choice. I hope you make the right one.

WatchingHISstory said...

sol

and it has not even entered into your mind that you could be wrong?

Your charges are very unChrist-like and are leagaly assuming I am guilty without just cause.

You display a familiarity with pornography yourself. I am a 61 YO man who was in the Army and have spent 13 years in Europe and have seen my share of filth to contaminate any mind so I am not innocent of charges but your implications imply addiction and behavior of a pervert and that I pose a threat to my grandchildren.

I ask you to rethink your statements and if you still think this you and I need to meet as you did with John Mark so that you will see that you are wrong.

Please don't let your statements harden into an immovable position.

Charles

Jessica said...

Maybe I am just dumb but I don't see how my comments about BBC have anything to do with rated r movies and pornography.

Charles, my point in those posts is this- Bellevue was never this holy perfect place that people make it out to be. Dr. Rogers had nothing to do with it. He was a wonderful preacher but by no means perfect. The congregation of Bellevue has always had all sorts of sin in it, some horrific and some just run-of-the-mill. By you argument you are letting these people (including PW)off the hook by basically saying that God made them do it as punishment not because they are responsible for their own sin.

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

jessica said: "Charles, my point in those posts is this- Bellevue was never this holy perfect place that people make it out to be. Dr. Rogers had nothing to do with it."

What a ridiculous statement. You are saying that there is a dualism where a very wonderful preacher pastored for 32 years and a parallel of imperfect people, some horrific and others run of the mill sinners (incl. PW) and the two parallels never met or intertwined. What a poor job of defending AR.

You defend AR by saying that he was very undetatched from the people or else he was so attached that he corrupted so many people.

I would personally avoid both parallells.

Charles

Jessica said...

No Charles-

You again are distorting what I am saying.

Dr. Rogers was a wonderful preacher, but he was not responsible for what people did with what he taught them.

You can proclaim the greatest truth from the highest mountain and some people will heed what you say, some will pretend to and some will turn and run the other way.

Every church is made up of sinners. To imply that Dr. Rogers had some control over how much or how little those in the congregation sinned is preposterous.

WatchingHISstory said...

Dr. Rogers was a wonderful preacher, but he was not responsible for what people did with what he taught them.

Think about that, Jessica, a pastor to a certain extent is responsible for what people do.
Like a coach he teaches basic concepts of the game but when they play his effectiveness is tested.

Maybe this is what is wrong with mega-churches. They are too big for the pastor to monitor how they are doing.

Anyway, didn't you read what I said, "I would personally avoid both parallells."

The pastor can't know everything but he has to make a very strong effort to know about as many of his people as he can.

Charles

John Mark said...

WHS,

I think it's more than clear that Jessica was referring to my tongue-in-cheek posts about some former members espousing that Bellevue was a perfect church before Dr. Gaines assumed the pastorate when she asked if there was a BBC she didn't know about.

Some unreasonable people seem to think that if a church is truly following God it will be without any sin whatsoever.

Based on her history of compassionate posts here (including those to you) I'm more than certain that she's a good enough mother than to ever expose her little girl to a church that she believed was full of villians. If she thought her little gal was at risk, she'd be the first one out the door.

Jess has a very good understanding of the church, that it isn't a perfect place at the end of the yellow brick road that God personally keeps completely free of all sin. It's the parent's job to protect the children, not the church's. I wish more Christians understood that.

I think you need to listen to Sol's advice.

Jessica said...

A husband is the leader of the family and a pastor is the leader of the church. Both are responsible for responsible leadership but not the behavior of those that they lead.

There are many Godly people at BBC, and there are many people living in sin. There are many many more who are somewhere in between.

Charles, I do actually see what you are saying, but you just can't dump it all at Dr. Roger's feet. Things are not that simple.

I believe in personal responsibility.

Jessica said...

JM,

Thanks :)

Mike Bratton said...

Remember, folks--words mean things.

WatchingHISstory said...
Mike
"Did you receive your X-rated narratives from God, Charles? Were you led of the Holy Spirit to spew vile, filthy language from your mouth in my direction?"

Yes, and Mike you will not be able to tempt me to cast my confidence away from what God is showing me.


Hebrews 10

35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. 36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

When what you're being shown doesn't coordinate with what God has already shown, Charles, there's a problem. Either Scripture is wrong, or you are--and I've yet to find in Scripture where God shows someone to spew curses or publish pornography.

I have an expectation of great recompence of reward from God!

Those who have such expectation are referred to in Hebrews 10 as, among other qualities, having boldness, as "provoking one another to good works," as "exhorting one another," and as having compassion.

Where do we see that in Charles? And I'm not asking hypothetically. Read some of your oilier posts to your wife, to others in your family, or to your pastor; ask them their opinions. If you won't listen to those of us here who love you and encourage repentance in you, perhaps you will listen to them.

You are comming to me with excellency of speech and enticing words of a man's wisdom.

And I can see the garden path you're strolling down. It won't be to your benefit. But let's be thorough. That statement of yours, lifted from 1 Corinthians 2:1, insinuates that I don't agree with the notion Paul mentions in the following verse, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

Why would Charles make such a libelous statement about a Christian such as myself? Stay tuned.

The very best that you have to offer me in the way of wisdom is restricted by you devotion and accountability to "a man" and not to the wisdom and power of God.

Note that you can't have been friends with Adrian Rogers without having engaged in some form of "Adrian worship."

But the best is yet to come.

"On the other hand my reliance is on God alone without any accountability on "a man".

Absolutely fascinating. Paul had people with whom he confided, as did Peter and John. Jesus Himself had many close friends; though He did not need counsel, He modeled a life that was anything but lived in isolation.

But Charles has no need for accountability, so he tells us. No need for checks and balances, no need for someone God might use in his life for his own good. Charles, you see, fancies himself an island.

Mike, I am totally transparent and yet tremble, fear and am literally weak from speaking the words I say."

How do you feel, then, when you unapologetically type out your pornography, or curse every curse you can think of, Charles?

Hold tight, folks--the best part is coming up.

Mike you follow a prince of this world and if your prince knew what he knows now he would lead you to the power of God rather than the wisdom of men.

To whom does Charles refer? Why, let's see what God has to say about it in Scripture--thusly, and like so (emphasis mine).

John 12:28-32 "Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

John 14:28-31 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence."

John 16:7-13 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

Jesus used the phrase "the prince of this world" three times, each time referring specifically to Satan. Charles has used it as blasphemy, suggesting that a blood-bought, twice-born, heaven-bound Christian such as myself actually serves Satan.

Don't miss that. It's worse than any lie published at Saving Bellevue, the Forum, or in any other anti-Bellevue locale. And that's not because it's aimed at me, hardly, but because it attributes the work of God to Satan.

Charles further blasphemes by suggesting Jesus was wrong in John 16 when He taught that the Holy Spirit would guide those of us who are Christians to truth. Charles, let's revisit something you said at the first of your disappointing missive. Here's my question to you:

"Did you receive your X-rated narratives from God, Charles? Were you led of the Holy Spirit to spew vile, filthy language from your mouth in my direction?"

For those following along, let's be crystal clear here. Charles published pornographic accounts of what he thinks happened in a nauseating series of assaults by a father against his own son. Charles also cursed someone with whom he disagrees (my own self) by using virtually every curse he can remember.

I asked him if God sent him that pornography, and if the Holy Spirit inspired him to curse me. His response?

Yes.

Words. Mean. Things.

And Sol, I read this from you: "About what Page has been writing on here, it's downright shameful. I've had to add TBR to my 'banned site' list to keep my girls from reading that filth. I just hope that man doesn't tell that stuff to his grandchildren."

I completely agree--that was a good move on your part. And I see you're curious, as I am, about whether or not Charles talks to his family members the same way he talks to, and at, us. I believe I've been patient enough. So, let's see if this site can get off your banned list.

Charles, you are not permanently banned from this site, as that is against my personal policy. However, here are some things I expect from you; they are non-negotiable.

1) Apologize for the filth you have printed here (including the pornography, the graphic sexual comments, the blasphemy, and the anti-Biblical judging of others' salvation),

2) Repent of those things openly and publicly, promising never to engage in them again, and

3) Take tangible steps to develop accountability partners, and to develop mechanisms in your life that will help you move away from your destructive, lurid tendencies and toward more Christ-honoring behavior. This will include e-mailing me contact information for the individual(s) helping you in your accountability so that I may indepently verify your efforts.

Unless and until you do all those things, each and every post you make here will be summarily deleted, regardless of content. The choice is yours. Please do not attempt to parade this response around as some sort of "Mike banned me" nonsense, as it is nothing of the sort.

You have taken advantage of the freedom of discussion here while showing no responsibility whatsoever for what you write, and constantly ignoring my requests to stop saying things here you know you wouldn't say in person.

If you want to keep posting here, you will do as I ask. If not, you have your own blog where you can do as you wish.

--Mike

Jon L. Estes said...

My name is all I have for first level credibility when entering discussions online.

As I was being banned from the other blog a man from the Memphis area (I don't know if it was the one who threatened or not) called my church asking for our chairman of deacons name and phone number. The church secretary would not give them this info.

Honest open disagreement with the anonymous crowd can lead them to strike out at you. The one thing I do have is the number and company (yes they used a company phone for a personal call to attack me, to work their wares and attempt to get me in trouble - if SG had done this can you imagine what he would have been called).

Those who hide behind anonymity are 1st rate cowards.

David Squyres said...

If a brother in Christ asks us to behave in a more Godly manner, should our response be: “I will not bow to the princes of this world” Well, I do not think Mike is the “prince of this world.” And I agree with his assessment that such statements blaspheme the One True God.

You say you will only submit to the “wisdom of God.” Great!

“But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.”

Note: Wisdom from God is PURE.
It is PEACE LOVING
it is CONSIDERATE
it is SUBMISSIVE
it is full of MERCY

As you endeavor to seek these virtues, I’ll be your chief cheerleader, brother. Go for it!

Lynn said...

Hey Watching,

Pardon me for being blunt here, but your twisting the scripture in such a way that well, your a very dangerous man.

I seriously recommend you seek some sort of inpatient mental health treatment somewhere such as Bolivar.

Its seriously in the your best interest.

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

Warning, some of my takes may not be politically correct. So if my take offends you...deal with it. I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours

3:18 PM, November 18, 2007

Yeah, well, at least I live in the real world.

David Squyres said...

Love Worth Finding ran "the root of bitterness." WOW, it was good. Adrian hit a home run.

David Squyres said...

Well, Charles, let's see if the Lord hands Israel over to the Philistiens tomorrow.

David Squyres said...

WHS: “How can my offending Mike (or Dr Rogers) be blasphemy? Where is scripture to prove that?”

“Then they secretly persuaded some men to say: We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy AGAINST MOSES and against God." Acts 6:11

David Squyres said...

"David "Samuel" said that tomorrow that Saul and his sons would be with him. Where was "Samuel"?Charles"

Samuel was telling Saul that he would be in the gave. he would die. The image was that of Samuel coming up from the grave.

The Text is NOT saying Samuel and Saul will enjoy the same eternal destiny. It is saying both will die. And Saul’s death was appointed for the next day.

I suggest you buy a good commentary. It seems you tear through verses without knowing really what they’re about. A lot of proof texting empty of healthy exposition. Robertsons “Word Pictures Of The New Testament” is good, as is the New American Commentary.

David Squyres said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveSpencer824 said...

Mike said: You have taken advantage of the freedom of discussion here while showing no responsibility whatsoever for what you write, and constantly ignoring my requests to stop saying things here you know you wouldn't say in person.

If you want to keep posting here, you will do as I ask. If not, you have your own blog where you can do as you wish.


Hear! Hear! Charles is much easier to ignore on his own blog.

I'm dealing with a similar issue on some discussion forums I help administer, I may appropriate a bit o' that under the doctrine of "fair use." That wouldn't violate your "intellectual rights," would it?

Oh heavens, don't let me start that debate again!!

Jford said...

as of about a month ago, I started skipping over any comments by 'watchinghisstory"...mkaes the blog alot nicer place

John Mark said...

Now, now. We shouldn't ignore Charles just because he's eccentric, offensive, and can't take a hint. Lot's of people who don't respect other people's opinions, can't carry on a meaningful conversation, and fly off the handle at the drop of a hat are really nice, lovable people.

Shoot, if you're that picky about who you talk to you'd have to ignore me too. Right? I said, isn't that right?

Hello?

Anybody?

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

View my new post at my website

It's a blog, not a website.

And no thanks. I've read enough rape descriptions on your blog already.

John Mark said...

It's really a shame that through this whole conflict these 'PDL' conspiracy nuts keep showing up and trying to brainwash people who are hurting just to promote their ministries, sell books, etc.

I think most of them have given up on the NBBCOF, but some people such as 'watchman' just won't stop.

He did have an interesting link about the Willow Creek statement:

watchman said...
Getting back to the thread topic..

Today Paul Proctor ( a solid watchman on the wall ...wrote this piece on the whole BILL HYBELS OOPSIE event.

WILLOW CREEK WASTELAND

9:55 AM, November 14, 2007


Watchman certainly gives high praise to Paul Proctor! He must think a lot of him!! A solid "watchman on the wall". He doesn't even heap praise like that on John McArthur.

I found a little bio on Paul:

Paul Proctor, a rural resident of the Volunteer state and seasoned veteran of the country music industry, retired from showbiz in the late 1990's to dedicate himself to addressing important social issues from a distinctly biblical perspective. As a freelance writer and regular columnist for NewsWithViews.com, he extols the wisdom and truths of scripture through commentary and insight on cultural trends and current events.

Paul may be reached at watchman@usa.com


And I thought I was full of myself!

John Mark said...

Here's some of Proctor's work, taken from an article about a pastor who was tragically killed in his own baptistry when the microphone was apparently connected to the wrong power source. Can you imagine how horrific it would be for a congregation to see their pastor elecrocuted? Thankfully, they had these consoling words from the watchman on the wall!

So why did Rev. Kyle Lake drop dead before hundreds of Emergent Church worshippers? That's the question that needs to be asked and answered because there are no accidents beneath the Throne of God; and judging from some of the Emergent blogs I've read, participants are sorely troubled and confused by this tragedy.

Some are having difficulty accepting the fact that God would allow someone they loved, believed in, trusted and followed to be taken from them in such a horrible and abrupt manner right before their very eyes, like a frat house spectacle Christian bashers might stage for a Halloween gag, leaving who knows how many traumatized for life.

Although they obviously miss their beloved pastor and his fanciful messages, the real tragedy here would be missing the message that God was sending; but then sometimes the hardest things in life to understand and accept are the obvious.

And please don't write me to say what a kind, wonderful, generous, loving and funny person Rev. Lake was because that's not a sufficient replacement for proclaiming the whole counsel of God; and I'm quite sure Ananias, Sapphira, Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus were all dearly loved and treasured by their friends, family and followers as well. There is only one true God, one true Gospel and One Name in all of Creation that saves; and that name is Jesus Christ!


Amen Paul! Feel the love ya'll!!

David Squyres said...

Charles: What the priest and pastor did was repulsive.

And what you are doing is repulsive.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

What is repulsive is the words you use to describe and visualize molestation. “Mounting” “sodomize”... etc is inappropriate in normal conversation. The tone of what you post has already been rightly discerned as pornographic. You're bordering on that again.

I told you I find it repulsive what was done to the minors. I also think it would be wrong for me to sit around and imagine it in my mind.

Again, please Charles, learn what the Scripture says when it tells us

"For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret." Eph. 5:12

solomon said...

John Mark,

Nice sleuthing there, Sherlock.

Not exactly an honest way to build your reputation, pretending you're a third party, bragging on yourself, and including your name among men who are legit.

I'll never forget my infamous showdown with 'watchman'. I had gotten this crazy idea that if we could snuff out the personal assaults, gossip, accusations, and flat out hate on the blogs and work together we might be able to address the concerns with SG in a biblical way.

Silly me. Watchman jumped right in and started throwing statements around such as churches can't work together, because if they do they're rebuilding the tower of Babel. I made the 'apostate' remark that if when people work together apart from God they can do anything (according to the scripture), then if they work together with God then who knows what we could do? After the incredible onslaught of animosity that followed, I gave up on unity. At least with unreasonable people like watchman.

I still have hope for the others.

John Mark said...

Mr. Solomon,

As an uninvolved 3rd party, I have no choice but to totally agree with your outstanding analysis of John Mark. I've found his posts to be insightful, his knowledge to be vast, and his thoughts to reach depths hitherto unknown. (Which is why I've chosen to use his logo on my posts.)

Did you catch him on 'Larry King Live' last week? I thought he did an admirable job debating Al Gore on environmental issues, and I wouldn't be surprised if Gore's Nobel Prize wasn't taken away and given to Mr. Davidson instead.

Overall, you should each be glad to have such a dynamic rennaisance man contributing to your blog, and I'm sure that you'll give his arguments much more weight now that a completely unknown entity has vouched for his credibility.

Keep up the diligence, Mr. John Mark. You're truly an inspiration to me and my peers, especially watchman.

Yours truly,
i.d.i.o.t.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

The request by the brother who runs this blog was that you repent. It would be good if you took care of that issue so you stood in a right state with him and all others so open/honest conversation.

David Squyres said...

The Shepherd: "Repent , for the kingdom of heaven is near."

larry said...

JMD,

That story about the pastor's death is disturbing. Shocking.

Would you email me, please?

Keith, you too, please.

LM

solomon said...

You've got mail, Larry.

Yes, it is disturbing, isn't it? How a man who professes to be Christian could delight in the death of a fellow believer? In such a horrific way? In front of hundreds of his sheep?

Especially when the Bible makes it so very clear that God himself takes no delight in the death of anyone, good or evil! That says it all, doesn't it? God doesn't glory in death, but Paul Proctor (watchman) does!!!

This 'watchman' is one very twisted pup, just like James Sundquist. He also lusts and hungers for the death of our Pastor. Bellevue, let's pray for our shepherd, particularly that God would shield Steve Gaines and his family from the imprecatory prayers of these twice-damned sons of the devil.

"The Lord is my helper, whom shall I fear? What can man do to me?"

David Squyres said...

Does anyone know if the pastor actually died? ??? Or is this Internet legend.

Thank goodness Mr. Gore gave us the internet!

larry said...

David,

That's a valid question. Since most mics operate on 12 volts, it's not possible for the conductors to carry enough current to electrocute a man even if they were accidently connected to a 220V dc source.

I haven't been to snopes.com yet, but I suspect the story of Kyle Lake's demise to be a gross fabrication.

solomon said...

According to this link from Christianity Today, the story is true.

Jessica said...

All accounts seem to verify he was standing in the baptismal and adjusted a microphone when he was electrocuted. This was according to several news accounts and with so many witnesses it seems likely these accounts are mostly accurate.

David Squyres said...

YIKES...

New Church Policy,
Associate Pastors do Baptisms.

John Mark said...

Whoa, there Sol. A little harsh, don't you think???

It's a true story. No one is quite clear on how it happened, but it's very clear that Paul Proctor believes God was responsible and he's thankful, especially for the multitude of mortified church members who were there to see it happen and see their 33 year old pastor die on Sunday morning.

Sick!

Is this really the kind of person the contrarians want fighting for Bellevue?

solomon said...

JM,

Harsh, maybe, but true.

I'm weary of people who claim to fly the banner of the Lord yet ally themselves with the forces of evil.

I think it's time for everyone to choose once and for all which side they're on so that we're very clear on where we stand. And I don't mean pro/anti Steve Gaines, I mean for God or against him. If anyone chooses to serve the devil, fine. Just admit it so that we know who's on the winning team.

"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

John Mark said...

sol said...

Bellevue, let's pray for our shepherd, particularly that God would shield Steve Gaines and his family from the imprecatory prayers of these twice-damned sons of the devil...

If anyone chooses to serve the devil, fine. Just admit it so that we know who's on the winning team...


Yikes! Keith, it sounds like you had the bad day to end all bad days!!!

Don't let me get on your bad side again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, I'm guessing that, in indulging your predilection to ignore the conditions I've placed upon your participation, you've missed the irony in your misbehavior.

I actually took a look at your blog, and since your newest post is titled with a lie, I didn't exactly pore over every word of it. You have conditions to your future participation here, conditions you regularly attempt to flaunt.

For those who participate here, a question: When does the tipping point occur between being someone who lies and being a liar?

--Mike

Jon L. Estes said...

As a participant, the answer to your question is...

immediately!

Miriam Wilmoth said...

As we say out here in Frayserland, Mike ... "It's done tipped."

I note this particular irony -- the spirit of your blog and the post for this thread ... juxtaposed against Charles' posts:

" ... that's a sick, demented thing to say--and ... that's a sick, demented thing to publish. You (both) must repent."

Compared to SB's postings, Charles has brought "sick and demented" into a new light. And as you have said so aptly and succinctly in your thread title,

"Enough is enough."

Thanks for polling the audience, Mike, and for caring enough to value the caliber of our spiritual experience here.

solomon said...

JM,

Well, it seems like most everyone's complaining about 'soft-soaping' sin, so why beat around the bush?

As far as lying goes, I believe one is all it takes to be legitimately called a liar. I could devise a few scenarios in which lying would be the prudent and maybe even the right thing to do, but when the objective is merely to elevate oneself or one's cause and to sully the reputation of another then the person is double minded and unreliable.

And I'm not aiming that at you, JM. I think you've cleaned up your act quite a bit over the last few months, and I sincerely hope that it's a sign of an ongoing inward change.

Keith

solomon said...

Lynn said...
Hey Watching,

Pardon me for being blunt here, but your twisting the scripture in such a way that well, your a very dangerous man.

I seriously recommend you seek some sort of inpatient mental health treatment somewhere such as Bolivar.

Its seriously in the your best interest.


I concur.

solomon said...

You would be better off driving back to Bellevue and see if the fake wolves are at the pond. Or make sure that women are not dressed in slacks at Church.

I don't believe I've ever addressed the issue of how women should dress at church, but as a father of 3 girls ages 15, 11, and 10 I'm sure this will be a regular issue of contention in my house. I haven't brought it up here, though.

Maybe Charles should visit an eye doctor too.

solomon said...

Just out of curiosity, Page, when did you turn on Dr. Gaines? You used to praise him as a 'redneck' preacher. You believed that had he been here at the time the abuse occured, his ESP would lead him to go to the home where abuse was occuring and catch the perpetrator in the act. Now you're using the 'itty bitty' statement about the fence as if he was talking about child abuse.

No one here is soft soaping abuse. Other than you, that is. Using it as a tool to bolster your arguments is twisted. And as you've been reading up on it you've fallen into the trap of pornography.

For your own good, you need to follow Mike's advice.

Or Lynn's.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

Your desire to fill yourself and others with anger is unGodly.

“For man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.” James 1:20

In fact, the Scripture says that our attitude is to be constant “thanksgiving.” Not anger! (Eph. 5:20)

--Is your anger Biblical? James 1:20.
--Is your continued posting of pornography Biblical? Eph. 5:12
--Is it right to post after Mike asked you to stop? Eph. 5:21

Worse, you lied about Mike on your own blog.

I think you should be careful about continuing to post descriptions of the molestation of a minor after you have been publically asked to stop. You’re getting carried away.

The things asked of you were reasonable: Apologize, repent, develop accountability.

I suggest: Go for it. Why not apologize and repent? What’s wrong with accountability? Prov. 27:17.

I'm rooting for you, Charles.

solomon said...

Here's my conclusion, Page. You don't care about anyone but yourself. You claim to care about one particular abuse victim, but that concern conspicuously works to your advantage as you argue the theology which has become your god.

David Brown is also a victim, and we've all seen how much respect you've shown him!

Cakes is a victim, but since he's not an inconsistent Arminian he's not worthy of your attention.

Karen is a victim too, of spousal abuse. What concern do you have for her?

John Mark is a victim of a drunk driver. Do you stay up at night weeping for him and the son he lost?

I think I see a pattern. I think everyone is a victim of SOMETHING. It's just that not everyone's injury plays into your hands. All you're doing as you continue to search for more and more graphic descriptions of abuse is driving yourself to ruin. It's not going to be a much longer drive, either.

I took the girls to see 'The Lion King' recently. I just loved the scene where Pumbaa the wart hog charged onto the stage and chased the vultures away from the unconscious Simba. He called it 'Bowling for Buzzards'.

I secretly wished that Pumbaa would come bowling into Cordova and chase away the buzzards like "watchman" and "libertyinchrist" who are circling our church and deceiving our friends.

Pumbaa also needs to chase a member of Collierville Baptist back where he belongs, too.

That's my conclusion.

solomon said...

And the end of the discussion.

SteveSpencer824 said...

Mike said: Unless and until you do all those things, each and every post you make here will be summarily deleted, regardless of content.

Mike, hey, love ya bro, but you're gonna seriously need to deputize some moderators in here to follow through with the above. Exodus 18:17-18

Beware a fanatic with time on his hands.

"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Sir Winston Churchill

John Mark said...

PUMBA RULES!!!!

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill

My freedom is not determined by Mike but by a greater force than any of us. A triune God who exerts himself for our salvation and daily living. He walks and talks with me and He tell me I am His own. I don't need man's accountability. The Holy Spirit leads in conviction of sin and repentance.

Thanks for the cheers, David.

Charles

7:03 PM, November 20, 2007

If a cop pulls you over for speeding....do you pull over?

David Squyres said...

I don't think Mr. Mills was discussing the nature of blogging. I believe he was discussing war. Which right now I nation is engaged in. while you engage in the most fruitless and perverse of conversation you declare that this is what you're willing to fight for?

if you want to fight for children's safety... do it. But just to spread more discriptions of a boys pain is perverse.

I agree with Solomon on this. You seem to pick and choose which abuse you're upset about.

Why not focus on what you're thankful for. And take the 3 steps mike outlined.

David Squyres said...

Charles,

Remember something about a logeye?

David Squyres said...

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Or in contemporary english:
How can you condemn a perverse sexual act of molestation when you yourself take such pleasure in the mental re-living of that act?

John Mark said...

pumBA! pumBA!!

fphttftpththjth!!!!

John Mark said...

So Charles, I just HAVE to ask, in view of Sol's posts (I think he's been eating meat again).

Are you serving God or Satan? And if you claim one side, do you condemn all others who you have set yourself against (i.e. the world) as serving your opponent?

Exactly who is your shepherd? And since you are so fanatically determined that we serve another shepherd if we don't profess that infants are condemend to hell while in their mother's wombs, does that mean we serve your shepherd's adversary?

Isn't it going to be lonely in heaven all by yourself?

Won't you miss us??? :-(

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

Mike

I don't take threats well. I will respond privately later, I have to go to work. I have posted your e-mail since you have threatened with exposure. Let everyone judge for themselves. I have forwarded it to my boss and my wife. (both my bosses)

Your e-mail: This came to my mind late this evening. I'd appreciate a private response to it, because I don't want to unduly embarrass you by publishing this on my blog; you embarrass yourself enough by publishing there without fulfilling the conditions I've placed on your continued participation. If you don't respond in a day or so, I'll presume you didn't read it and communicate this to you via the more public route of my blog.

I was just thinking.

The holiday season must be particularly difficult for the Williams family. We can hope that Paul has repented of his sin against his son, but that doesn't mean it still isn't a weak area for him. How difficult will it be for his family in the here-and-now? I mean, you can't exactly leave the grandkids alone with Grandpa Paul.

And as I was thinking about Paul, my mind was brought to Charles. In very large measure, what he does on the Internet must be an absolute secret to his wife, his grandchildren, to his family as a whole. He publishes things that would make his family weep, among them:

1) Lies that are effortlessly refuted,

2) Hyper-dogmatism that causes un-Christian judgements regarding the salvation of Christians, and

3) Hate-laden and pornographically-fixated posts he's be too ashamed (or should be, at least) to read out loud to anyone else.

As things stand, Charles, your family should be just as concerned about leaving your grandchildren alone with you as the Williams family must be regarding Paul. I'm certain that statement will make you angry--most things do--but I'm telling you this because I love you in Christ, and because you need help.

As fixated as you've been about the Williams fiasco, it's most assuredly not a good idea for you to be alone with children, even members of your own family. Please be careful in the days to come.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

I see then, Charles, that you seek to embarrass yourself.

Fine. I'll allow posts of your that directly refer to my e-mail--unless they fall into the pornographic/foul-mouthed/abusive category.

And I have to say I'm disappointed that you characterize loving concern (expressed privately) as a "threat," but I'm not surprised.

While you're in a mood to forward things, though, why don't you send them both all your four-letter-word posts and e-mails? And the ones where you tell lies about both those who are here to defend themselves and those who aren't? And the ones where you show a fixation with sexually-explicit dialogue?

You wouldn't want them to read only part of the story. Let them see your entire body of work--or at least representative samples.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike, was my deleted post to jm a lie or a truth too true to remain?

Was it a lie? Tell me the truth which is something you always do.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike,

They all know!

Charles

ps now I really have to go to work!!

Jessica said...

Just in case any of you are interested, my husband's best friend and his wife (one of my best friends) gave birth to their first baby last night! They have been struggling with infertility for 2 years and the month they got pregnant was the last month of treatment they could afford.

Baby Holden was delivered last night via C-Section weighing in at a whopping 11 pounds 5 ounces .

He came out looking like a 3 months old- his mommy is a labor and delivery nurse who said that in all her years of nursing she has never seen a baby that big.

His safe birth was a huge answer to prayer.

Dr. Bill Loney said...

I thought I was hungry, until I met a man who had no food.

I thought I was poor, until I met a man who had no money.

I thought I needed new shoes, until I met a man who had none.

and

I thought I was crazy, until
'WATCHINGHISSTORY' came on the scene.

I once dreamed I was drowning in a pool of Spam gelatin(I didn't want to wake up!)...care to offer any interpretations CP? And if you do, please keep the 'NAMBLA' anecdotes out of it.

Thank you Mr. Paige for wearing your psychosis on your sleeve.

William T. Loney, MD

John Mark said...

Now doc, let's not be too hasty with the diagnosis.

CP isn't crazy, he's just, uh, you know, kind of, um...

Well, he might SEEM crazy, but compared to oh, say...

Hmmm.

Well, okay. He's crazy.

Jessica said...

now now boys,

We don't need to go around labeling folks. Crazy is in the eye of the beholder.

If we have learned nothing from the NBBCOF, lets learn not to just write people off and call them names!

Lynn said...

If you want crazy, just look to Washington, DC where Congress is pushing very dangerous legislation through that would in effect destroy the sovereignty of the United States. Its a United Nations Treaty known as the Law of the Sea Treaty. In a nutshell, it gives away the mineral rights to our territorial waters to the UN.

Additionally, we have two Border Patrol agents sitting in a jail cell thanks to US Attorney Johnny Sutton. Agents Ramos and Compeon were sentenced to about 12 years in prison each for shooting a drug smuggler in the butt as the smuggler was crossing our border illegally. As it turns out, after the smuggler was given immunity by Sutton, he went and smuggled two more loads of marijuana into the United States. The prosecutors knew this, but had this information kept away from the jury. In other words, our government has sold us out and does not care about our security!!!.

John Mark said...

We don't need to go around labeling folks. Crazy is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, Jess, what I'm beholdin' ain't too promisin'!

I just dropped by your administrative pastor's page, and I see that he's claiming that Bellevue isn't going out of business on the latest budget report. What's up with that? I read on the good blog that they've almost depleted the reserves and are getting ready to fire people just so they can keep the lights on during the Christmas play, but Coombs story is different.

DC says that expenses to date are 180k over contributions, with the heavy end-of-year giving season coming up.

I don't understand! Only 180k in the hole? And that's with the 70k they spent to replace the sign (that number's from the NBBCOF) and the hundreds of thousands of dollars they spent on the carnival and the wolves! AND the 'millions' (from the blog) for the new TV ads!

I'm really confused... How could there be a discrepancy between what's on the blog and the facts?

David Squyres said...

Crazy is how excited my 7 year old daughter gets over Hannah Montana.

solomon said...

Crazy is how excited my 7 year old daughter gets over Hannah Montana.

Brother, I feel your pain!

John Mark said...

Now doc, let's not be too hasty with the diagnosis.

CP isn't crazy, he's just, uh, you know, kind of, um...

Well, he might SEEM crazy, but compared to oh, say...

Hmmm.

Well, okay. He's crazy.

John Mark said...

from the NBBCOF:
sickofthelies said...
This Thanksgiving, I am thankful that God has allowed me to see the truth.

Let's don't forget to pray for our brothers and sisters who are still being led astray. Pray that they will receive the discernment to tell the difference between a wolf and a sheep.

7:23 PM, November 21, 2007


I think we should all say a special prayer for those who are in such hopeless bondage to hatred. I spent the greater part of my life in those chains, and I can tell you that there is nothing more terrible.

They're so quick to brag about their wonderful new churches, but reveal their addiction when they disclose that they'll never be happy as long as Bellevue stands.

I don't understand this power that the memory of a former BBC seems to have over so many former members, but I sure hope they're able to remove their shackles and get on with their lives someday.

Bellevue doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and if it's existence is a hindrance to a person's happiness then they won't be happy. Ever.

John Mark said...

Now doc, let's not be too hasty with the diagnosis.

CP isn't crazy, he's just, uh, you know, kind of, um...

Well, he might SEEM crazy, but compared to oh, say...

Hmmm.

Well, okay. He's crazy.

solomon said...

All,

Just wanted to take the chance to wish everyone a great turkey day. This has been a very strange year, but I've made a lot of new friends I probably wouldn't have met otherwise.

I've never been through a church fight before, and I've definitely done my part to make it worse.

Even so, I've been encouraged time and again by the uplifting words I've received over and over on the blog. I've only met a few of the folks here, but I'm looking forward to continuing to worship alongside of you at Bellevue, and hopefully to get to know some of you a little better in the future.

CC (Mrs. S) won't post on the blogs, but she's also thankful for the kind words and prayers that my family has been blessed with.

I'll be out of touch for a while, but I'll be thinking of all of you during the holidays.

Blessings,
Keith Solomon

David Squyres said...

I think we're all a tad crazy. Makes life more interesting. Every now and then you meet a totally normal person, only to discover how boring normal is.

I stand with CP in the crazy house. But I choose not the angry room with red walls. I prefer to hang out in the kitchen. Ahhhh, the kitchen...

Jessica said...

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Mike Bratton said...

I pray that everyone has a marvelous Thanksgiving time--not just today, but in the days to come.

When we pause to consider how God has blessed us, we are often reminded how unworthy we are in and of ourselves to receive those blessings. God blesses us because He is good.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

Do you believe that Paul Williams a professing Christian can be carnal, not bear fruit and be currently saved?

WatchingHISstory said...

Mike, Can you elaborate what you mean in this statement so that I can understand? Or else if someone can explain it to me, I would appreciate it. Provide some examples.

You responded to me: "2) Hyper-dogmatism that causes un-Christian judgements regarding the salvation of Christians."

Thanks, Charles

David Squyres said...

7:29,
Mike, Can you elaborate what you mean in this statement so that I can understand? Or else if someone can explain it to me, I would appreciate it. Provide some examples.
"2) Hyper-dogmatism that causes un-Christian judgements regarding the salvation of Christians."

7:09,
"Do you believe that Paul Williams a professing Christian can be carnal, not bear fruit and be currently saved?"

Mike Bratton said...

David, that was a succinct response.

What he said, Charles.

--Mike

WatchingHISstory said...

dogmatism
[From Greek dogma: belief, opinion, tenet, doctrine, decree.]

(general) An approach to ideas that emphasizes rigid adherence to doctrine over rational and enlightened inquiry. The opposite approach is probably best characterized as rationalism (in the sense of devotion to clear reasoning and independent thinking) or, perhaps, eclecticism.

Apparently you can't use 'hyper' with dogmaticism. It is like saying absolute sovereign.

".... causes un-Christian judgements regarding the salvation of Christians."

Let me phrase it for you: "an irrational and dark rigid adherence to Christian doctrine causes barbarous and uncivilized judgments regarding the deliverance from the power and effects of the sins of sinners." (Christians)

With due respect couldn't this be said of Paul Williams' close association with Dr. Rogers. PW didn't get much help toward deliverance from AR.

Charles

Lynn said...

Charles said:


"Let me phrase it for you: "an irrational and dark rigid adherence to Christian doctrine causes barbarous and uncivilized judgments regarding the deliverance from the power and effects of the sins of sinners." (Christians)"

Lynn's Response:

Look in the mirror and you'll see an example.

WatchingHISstory said...

lynn

I don't live by illusions. When I look in a mirror I see the outward reflection of an old man decaying everyday. A sinner without pretense.

What do you see? ...in your mirror? You seem certain as to what I see in my mirror. Am I allowed to make assertions as to what you see?

Do you hold to illusions of seeing a godly man, sanctified and holy?

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

Warning, some of my takes may not be politically correct. So if my take offends you...deal with it. I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

"Do you believe that Paul Williams a professing Christian can be carnal, not bear fruit and be currently saved?"

Someone give me an opinion befor Mike deletes me this evening.

Charles

WatchingHISstory said...

offline

John Mark said...

Warning, some of my takes may not be politically correct. So if my take offends you...deal with it. I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours.

Now doc, let's not be too hasty with the diagnosis.

CP isn't crazy, he's just, uh, you know, kind of, um...

Well, he might SEEM crazy, but compared to oh, say...

Hmmm.

Well, okay. He's crazy.

John Mark said...

Ezekiel,

I know you read the dark side every now and then. I've been following your prolonged dialogue with astounded (I wish his name wasn't so much like that crabby old 'amazed').

This line of reasoning bothers me:

Convince people that once they are saved, nothing they do can prevent them from entering Heaven. Enter the whole “once saved always saved” mantra.

Churches are not in the business of deliberately causing people to sin. I agree with your statement about pressure for the congregation to give, but there's a visible gain for that, specifically more money coming in. What does a church gain by tricking people into sinning? You're casting them in the role of Satan. (The "woe" cuts both ways, both to those who call evil good, AND those who call good evil.)

I think that in general, if a pastor pushes for the congregation to give to the church, it's because he sincerely believes that God wants the church to thrive. I don't accept that every pastor who preaches tithing is trying to deprive his flock of God's blessing because he's secretly serving Satan.

Riches were considered a sign of God's favor in the OT times. That's why there was so much confusion when Jesus stated that it was hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. The very people who were believed to have been most favored by God were cast as most unlikely to enter heaven. The lesson was not that riches keep people out of heaven, it's that we CAN NOT know who is truly saved by observation. We don't see what God sees.

If a person is saved, what are they saved from? If they are saved from condemnation, but they stand condemned at some future time, were they ever saved at all? To say a person is saved from God's wrath, only to still suffer God's wrath makes no sense to me. It's like saying we won't have to read anymore of WHS' nonsense, and still be inundated with it every day. Were we ever really saved from it? (Oh PLEASE save us from it!!!!!)

The OT and NT definitions of salvation are very different, in case you've never noticed. In the OT the salvation was from earthly calamity. In the NT it's from eternal condemnation. In the OT the righteous were saved from suffering. In the NT, Jesus said that his follower WILL suffer.

If you're saved from condemnation, you're saved from condemnation. If you're not, you're not. But if you are, it's not because of anything you've done. Certainly not by following the law.

Many people try to save themselves by traveling down the broad road of legalism, but I believe they'll eventually realize that only the narrow way of grace leads to salvation.

Steve Gaines is not trying to rob people of God's blessing, nor does he have a hidden agenda to get his congregation 'hooked on sin'. That's just plain nonsense.

I think you're sincerely seeking answers, ez, and I suspect that eventually, after facing many trials and difficulties, you'll find them.

David Squyres said...

"I'm entitled to my opinion" is what I encounter in the youth group. What we convey from the pulpit is that NONE of us are entitled to our opinion. We submit to the Word of God.

Mike Bratton said...

You don't need opinions, Charles, and you certainly aren't entitled to hold wrong ones--such as the notion that God inspires, or even sanctions, your obscenity and pornography.

The Bible says nothing can separate those of us who are God's children from Him. That permanent, salvific relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ should provoke us to good works; however, all too often we sin anyway. The good news (literally) is that while sin mars our fellowship with God, it doesn't sever the relationship.

And yes, that includes Paul Williams. Just as it includes you, and as it includes me. If we were His people, we still are. And if we are His people, we always will be.

You imply that Williams must not be a Christian, and that indeed may be the case. However, that judgement is God's alone, and not yours to make. I don't think you'd appreciate having the same measure used on you that you desire to use on Williams, since it wouldn't reflect well on you.

In more ways than one.

--Mike

David Squyres said...

As we mature, Charles, we learn that our opinions don't matter. Only the Scripture does. The immature in teh church say: "I'm entitled to my opinion." While the mature say: I want to be formed by Scripture.

What makes a sermon different from a speech is that it is founded not on the pastors opinion but on Scripture.

David Squyres said...

Charles: "So when you stand in the pulpit the succession of ordination from the apostles grants you the validity of infallibility to speak "excathedra" and no one can question you with their opinions."

I never said anything about the succession of apostles or infallibility. Are you hearing voices again?

What I am saying is that the attitude that we are entitled to our opinion instead of being transformed by Christ is immature; worldly.

John Mark said...

I'll bet the youth really cheer for their pope when he speaks.

And I'll bet the kids and grandkids really cheer for their big dope when he posts.

(Just my constitutionally guaranteed opinion)

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, it's humorous that you spend more time on my blog than on your own. Just an observation...

However, I guess you don't spend enough time here to comprehend some basics, such as the inadequacy of both Calvinism and Arminianism. If you want to define yourself as some "born again Calvinist," you go right ahead and do so. But to attempt to label me as a "born again Arminian" when you know I'm not Arminian in the first place is either a lack of attention on your part or a attempt to publish a lie. I'm a Christian, neither Arminian nor Calvinist--since both systems are skewed, favoring some portions of Scripture over others.

Now that I've spelled it out for you, don't publish that nonsense again. I think you've just about exhausted your reprieve to respond publicly to my private e-mail.

David got it right. You indulge your opinions, Charles, and lash out at people who illustrate the inadequacies of those opinions to you. And that's no opinion.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

And now that I've glanced at your latest screed, Charles, you're right back where you were before. To remind you, I quote myself thusly and like so:

Charles, you are not permanently banned from this site, as that is against my personal policy. However, here are some things I expect from you; they are non-negotiable.

1) Apologize for the filth you have printed here (including the pornography, the graphic sexual comments, the blasphemy, and the anti-Biblical judging of others' salvation),

2) Repent of those things openly and publicly, promising never to engage in them again, and

3) Take tangible steps to develop accountability partners, and to develop mechanisms in your life that will help you move away from your destructive, lurid tendencies and toward more Christ-honoring behavior. This will include e-mailing me contact information for the individual(s) helping you in your accountability so that I may independently verify your efforts.

Unless and until you do all those things, each and every post you make here will be summarily deleted, regardless of content. The choice is yours. Please do not attempt to parade this response around as some sort of "Mike banned me" nonsense, as it is nothing of the sort.

You have taken advantage of the freedom of discussion here while showing no responsibility whatsoever for what you write, and constantly ignoring my requests to stop saying things here you know you wouldn't say in person.

If you want to keep posting here, you will do as I ask. If not, you have your own blog where you can do as you wish.


Why are we back to square one? Because Charles violated Point 1 again. He wants people to think that Pastor Rogers wasn't a Trinitarian.

If you've been to Sunday School more than once, you probably know that it is physically impossible to be a Christian without belief in the Trinity. Other areas of doctrine and theology might be up for discussion, but the Trinity isn't. If someone isn't Trinitarian, that someone isn't a Christian.

It is disgusting, Charles, to read your clueless allegation that Adrian Rogers was not a Christian. God have mercy on you for your judgemental spirit.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

WatchingHISstory said...
Mike

I said that AR was a Pseudo Trinitarian with hints of unitarianism likeness in his methods. I never implied that he was not a Christian.


First off, what in my last post--or the previous ones--was unclear? You have three prerequisites for participating here. Until you follow them, you may not participate.

And your attempt to lie about what you wrote is nauseating, frankly. Why would a Christian employ anti-Christian "methods," hmm? In your own disgusting words, you imagine Pastor Rogers positioning himself as "Father and Spirit saying 'come to Jesus'."

I honestly don't know what your problem is, but attacking Christians who've already passed on to Heaven isn't going to help you one single bit.

You said that I said he was not a Christian. You can say anything and atribute it to me. Don't make it so.

Quite right. The facts about what you have said "make it so," and the facts are as they've already been stated. A "Pseudo Trinitarian" cannot be a Christian, not by any stretch of a theological imagination. You allege that Adrian Rogers was a "Pseudo Trinitarian," which leaves only the option that he wasn't a Christian.

More non-Christian judgementalism from you, Charles, and more things of which you really, really need to repent.

--Mike

John Mark said...

You know, I'm really unhappy. Why is it that Paul 'watchman' Proctor (the mighty self-proclaimed watchman on the wall) posts his junk on the NBBCOF but not here?

Don't we deserve to hear over and over again how evil Rick Warren is? And how he's in league with Satan? And etcetera, etcetera? And then after all that, to hear it all over again?

Or don't we fit the criteria for watchman and his ilk?

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.


Who was it who noticed that the NBBCOF was mostly angry women? (Other than watchman, that is...)

David Squyres said...

John Mark,

that's funny! I guess we are not deamed worthy of his rantings.

People do enjoy blasting Rick Warren. I've had the joy of attending Saddleback from time to time and have been truly blessed by Dr. Warren's ministry. I think we all could learn that we don't hav eto agree with EVERYTHING someone does to thank God for the work the Lord is doing in their life.

Strange to me to hear people accuse Saddleback and Warren as being soft on sin. Actually, Rick says some stuff that make my eyebrows go up. Heard him speak on sexual purity and the fear of God. But some seem to think that if a preacher ever speaks about God's love as well as his anger they have abandonded the faith.

John Mark said...

For you out-of-towners, the local paper had a front page article about Bellevue missions today.

I couldn't help but notice among the hateful arguments from the readers that NBBCOF regular 'nathanb' posted the following:

nathanb said...
Posted by nathanbellevue on November 25, 2007 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is the most self serving article I've ever seen a church get published. It's not only pridefully about Donna Gaines and Steve Gaines, but it is factually wrong in many areas that make Gaines and company (the new bellevue) look better than it is. I'm surprised no picture of the "beauty queen in her tiara" was published. What's up with the comment on Donna's hairdo? What does that have to do with Christ?

Bellevue Bapist is nowhere near the second largest Southern Baptist Church any longer. On a good Sunday they have 6,000 in attendance. Their budget is not 22 million but 23.5 million which is down from 26 million the year before.

The church is not spending 5.5 million on missions any longer. What once was a great church is now a tool being used by Steve Gaines and his wife to further their careers with more prideful deception.

Bellevue has been working in other areas of India for 7 years, long before Donna Gaines arrived on the scene.

The Commercial Appeal has stooped to a new low.


Really, what can you say about someone who goes to the unsaved people in the marketplace to denounce his church? Even the pretense that it's a Christian website doesn't apply here.

I guess the CA's advertisements for strip joints, planned parenthood, and homosexual bars don't seem as low to nathanb as sharing Jesus.

I think that's the worst thing I've heard yet!

John Mark said...

If anyone else has any comments for 'nathanb' about his desire to make the church look bad to the unsaved world, I'm sure he'd love to hear from you:

nathanbellevue@gmail.com

Lynn said...

My biggest problem with the article, besides the irony of Donna Gaines discussing idol worship while they describe her as a beauty queen is that the article paints an erronous picture of people in India. Because of outsourcing, I have to deal with their culture on a daily basis in my job. The Indians that I have come across happen to be very intelligent and smart. I'm not saying that everyone over there is like that, but I am saying that the CA's article makes it appear as most of the people in India is that.

Miriam Wilmoth said...

I thought these two posts were "interesting" -- sure made it sound like this particular poster and "nathanb" think an awfully lot alike, doesn't it?

First this one:

MOM4 said...
gmommy said....
"
The 30,000 was a misprint wasn't it?????"

Maybe that was dollars - the 30K that it took Donna to go to India...:)

12:30 PM, November 25, 2007


If I'm remembering correctly, this lie was propagated on NBBCOF for quite a while several months ago with absolutely no proof other than mom4's claim "knew it for a fact from a reliable source" -- then it was summarily dropped without further ado.

Then this, just a short while later:

MOM4 said...
gmommy,
I think it is a very interesting article and actually not very flattering of BBC. You know that Dr Rogers' son has also been to India to train pastors there, but there was not a mention in the CA about it. I guess the approach and purpose was different.
One more thing I noted, BBC has ALWAYS given millions to missions. I cannot understand the current need to dismantle the home base to send the same set of "missionaries" (granted Donna Gaines is a newbie, but the rest are the same faces that always have gone on international mission trips - the wealthy contributors that can afford to pay their own way). No one mentions those who went to New Orleans to clean and assist the needy there, but, those are the ones that couldn't afford expensive trips to foreign countries, they are the folks that took their only vacation time and rode buses for hours to sleep on the concrete outdoors without bathroom facilities or even mosquito netting - also at their own expense.
There is nothing new under the sun....

1:08 PM, November 25, 2007


At least her last sentence gives us the first common ground I think we've ever found ... there really is nothing new under the sun, is there? Especially when it comes to distorting and misrepresenting the truth.

In case mom4 doesn't know since she's no longer attending BBC, the church pays all expenses for those who go on Gulf Coast disaster relief/mission trips.

The irony of Jeremiah 20:11b was not lost on me this morning. It says, " ... their dishonor will never be forgotten." It's talking about those who persecute the church -- and it's a particularly bitter pill when said persecution comes in the form of blatant falsehoods, forever immortalized on the worldwide web.

Nope, nothing new.

solomon said...

Whatever a person's thoughts about missions, or about the Indian people, the simple truth is that the gospel was shared in today's paper. Whatever mechanism God chose is not ours to criticize. Balaam openly received rebuke from his own donkey and his eyes were opened because he listened.

A person's reaction to the gospel says much about them. We know from scripture that the gospel is offensive to the worldly mind. What are we supposed to conclude about anyone who shows outrage about the article? That they have a good solid relationship with God?

Something's not right there.

solomon said...

MOM4 said...
nbbcof,
I had heard that as well, but since the "books" are sealed from the membership, we will never know who paid for it, will we?
Although I do personally know 2 people who went on disaster relief trips with BBC and they paid their own way except for what the Red Cross paid for, which was food and supplies. Of course, there were some BBC buses that were used, but I understand that the Red Cross underwrote that fuel expense as well.
During the evacuation, BBC opened the gym for refugees from the disaster and it was staffed with volunteers, but for those workers who went to NO and elsewhere, I know of no one who went for free as some have claimed on that "other" blog:)

9:02 PM, November 25, 2007


mom4,
I've found that the 'claims' made here are generally statements of fact, unlike the flat out lies that are told on the NBBCOF.

I've been on 2 disaster relief trips to the Gulf Coast. The church provided a roof for us to stay under free of charge, and our meals were provided by other churches from Tennessee. The only expense was the gas to get down there, and the church reimbursed us.

That's the truth of the matter, and it's not open for debate. Why are you saying otherwise?

If your friends didn't turn in their gas receipts it's not Bellevue's fault they weren't paid back.

Please do more research before you pass on more false information. Or better yet, since you're not a Bellevue member anymore, leave us alone. I'm sure Faith or wherever you're going has a need for more church gossip in their midst, so you should stay in your own backyard.

If you rejoin Bellevue we'll be happy to listen to you as much as we did before, but until you do quit talking about us.

Jford said...

You know, I can find something to complain about if I try hard enough.

The reason I do not follow the other blog anymore is because the other day sitting in the service, something was said and I told my wife, "that will be on the blog", which totally took me out my worship, because I was thinking of the trash they comment on.I started thinking that there would be someone there at that service that would report on the blog what I told to my wife. So then I sit there looking aorund wondering who, as I passed people in the halls I wondered who it was going to be.

Then i realized that I will only get something out of "church" if I put something into "church". Now I know this is a really simplistic approach to things, but it is what it is.

So I pray for the ones who still come to BBC to sit there and pick things apart and to look for issues to make into mountains.

Memphis

John Mark said...

Hey, I don't want to be accused of spreading gossip, but I heard something unbelievable today!

I ran into a guy who went to school with a girl who's cousin grew up with a friend of someone who had a dream about the West Jackson church. Anyway, one of the deacons of the church has a friend who knows the third cousin of a woman who married a guy who went to Soutwestern Baptist seminary (Steve Gaines' school). One of the graduates has a friend who grew up with a guy who used to bag groceries for SG's mother back in the 70s. This guy knows some people who lived in Alabama for a while, and they said that Steve Gaines is just no good!

Can you believe it? I didn't at first, but with so many witnesses how can it not be true!

I guess that changes everything!

ezekiel said...

John Mark,

"This line of reasoning bothers me:

Convince people that once they are saved, nothing they do can prevent them from entering Heaven. Enter the whole “once saved always saved” mantra.

Churches are not in the business of deliberately causing people to sin. I agree with your statement about pressure for the congregation to give, but there's a visible gain for that, specifically more money coming in. What does a church gain by tricking people into sinning? You're casting them in the role of Satan. (The "woe" cuts both ways, both to those who call evil good, AND those who call good evil.)"

I certainly didn't mean to imply that churches are in the business of deliberately causing people to sin. Sorry you took it that way. What worries me is that the "once saved always saved" statement has been so misused and abused that it has resulted in many people claiming salvation and not even understanding the basis of the statement. No evidence of regeneration, no avoidance of sin....just living the way they used to, but now "saved" because the preacher told them so.... maybe unintentional on the part of the church but a failure none the less.

I think that in general, if a pastor pushes for the congregation to give to the church, it's because he sincerely believes that God wants the church to thrive. I don't accept that every pastor who preaches tithing is trying to deprive his flock of God's blessing because he's secretly serving Satan.

Again, sorry that I implied something that I didn't intend to. It would take a pretty stupid man to stand in the pulpit and intentionally serve satan. Having said that, deception seems to be a primary tool of his. The overriding theme that I get when reading the OT prophets and the NT seems to be a religious system gone amuck. Insisting on legalism and failing to worship God. Emphasis on churches, places of worship, people and positions of authority, abuse of authority and so on. A lot like what we see happening on a grand scale all across the Christian world today. I don't think the pharisees and scribes really had any evil intention either.......but a huge mistake was made none the less....are we repeating that history?

It is my concern that deception and failure of leadership is leading us as Christians down the same road. I am pretty sure of it. Israel was doing a pretty good job of practicing religion.....and we see where that got them.


If you're saved from condemnation, you're saved from condemnation. If you're not, you're not. But if you are, it's not because of anything you've done. Certainly not by following the law.

I agree totally. My point here was that we as christians are judged every day and disciplined as a result of that judgement. The father son language in the bible is there for a reason. A father judges his son's actions every day and dispenses reward or a rod of correction to mould him into the son he thinks he should be. Today, we seem to claim the blessings in one's life as being from God, a reward for good behavior. At the same time blaming any adversity or affliction on satan....rather than accepting the possibility that the affliction or adversity just might be the rod of correction in the hand of a loving God.

Many people try to save themselves by traveling down the broad road of legalism, but I believe they'll eventually realize that only the narrow way of grace leads to salvation.

I couldn't agree more. The point that I have been making is that the religion we seem to be practicing is full of our own brand of legalism. Salvation seems to be presented as something that happens by a process of legal steps, performed in a church in front of a bunch of folks. Once the proper steps are performed....salvation.

Israel had the sacrificial system, levitical law and church membership. We have the sacrificial system, service/sacrifice (based on mans interpretation or his demands that may or may not be part of the original levitical law **tithing***) and church membership. Not a lot of difference........

So what we end up with is some people trying to work their way in, some thinking that all they have to do is join a church and they have their "ticket" or "insurance". And a whole lot of folks without a clue, thinking that going to church regularly and living a moral life will get them their "ticket".

Add to this folks desire to have someone else do the "work" for them. Israel wanted Moses to "be" their relationship with God. Today we want the preacher to "be" our relationship with God. Don't believe me? Just ask around next Sunday morning and find out how many people you know have read the bible through. Folks flowing through the doors and putting money in the plate (sacrifice/offerings) and asking the preacher to play Moses for them. Teach them the word.....spoon feed them.


Steve Gaines wasn't a direct target. As you can see from the above post, I am thinking in a much broader sense. There is probably plenty of blame to go around. There was in Israel and Jerusalem......

Bottom line is that we need to refocus our attention on the WORD. Work on and encourage a personal relationship with the WORD that results in salvation, regeneration, sanctification. Sinning less and less as the power of the Holy Spirit moves us to be disciples of Jesus.

Way too much time, effort and money spent on buildings, programs, and our own brand of legalism. Too little time on living out "worship me with all your heart, mind, body and soul" and "loving your neighbor as yourself". Things we just automatically do if we have the right relationship with Jesus. Abiding in Him and Him abiding in us.

I just know someone is going to jump up here and say that you don't have to read the bible to be saved. You are right.....but my response to that is if you are saved, Christ has given you a new heart and the Holy Spirit is in you. Don't you think that He hates sin today as much as He used to? If He is in fact in you, don't you think you should hate sin as much as He does? Don't you think you would hunger and thirst...even pant for a more intimate relationship with the WORD? How do you expect Him to cleanse and make you a spotless perfect bride...by washing you with the word....if you don't read Him or know Him? Or obey Him? How can you obey Him if you don't know Him?

John Mark, I appreciate your tone and your questions......I hope I have addressed them without giving the impression that I wish to provoke angry responses or solicit huge drawn out battles of wits or knowledge. I don't have any...wit or knowledge. And I am sort of tired of quoting scripture to defend my conclusions/statements. I can.....but most if not all would be better off getting it straight from the source.....the WORD. That seems to be downright offensive to some anyway....

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

Isn't it wonderful to know that no feeble effort on my part to save myself can corrupt the providential plan of God for my salvation....no work of righteousness.

God has decided to follow me, no turning back, no turning back.

Charles

7:18 AM, November 26, 2007

Uh....shouldn't it be the other way around? That you follow HIM not God following you? How did He decide to follow you instead? That seems to be a bit blasphemous and definitely completely unbiblical.

Jessica said...

Memphis,

It's funny because my husband and I have had that exact same conversation.

David Squyres said...

I agree with Lynn,

We follow Christ. he doesn't follow us. Something is fundamentally backward in the thinking God follows us!

"When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice." John 10:4

"And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:27

Jon L. Estes said...

From the other blog...

Lin said...

gmommy,

Right on! I found that when we are truly saved we love what God loves and hate what God hates.


From the hateful tone of the submitted entries and the strict agree with us or be banned attitude, the people over there must believe God really, I mean really hates Steve Gaines.

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

"WatchingHISstory said...

lynn said: "Uh....shouldn't it be the other way around? That you follow HIM not God following you? How did He decide to follow you instead? That seems to be a bit blasphemous and definitely completely unbiblical."

Uh...that would be true if the Bible supported Arminianism!"

------

Watching, what version of the bible are you reading?

I do not claim to be a theologian, but I am a thinker, and I'm pretty sure from reading my bible without interpretations, that we are to follow God. For God to follow us would mean we are higher than God is which is not true at all.

And this isn't a Calvinist/Arminian issue either. This is a Biblical Fact.

David Squyres said...

“They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb” Revelation 14:4

Notice, our being “purchased” (saved) has nothing to do with God FOLLOWING us. The Scripture puts God in the place of leader, man in the place of following.

Miriam Wilmoth said...

I do believe "contrary" is the most appropriate word choice.

solomon said...

I have a nomination for the 'dumbest blogger on the web'.

fogmachine said...
Way to go Bellevue!

By publishing the name of Pastor Edgar Sathuluri, according to your article he had to run for his life because of his Christian witness.

Since the World Wide Web is available in India, you have endangered Pastor Edgar Sathuluri's life.

For all on this blog, please pray for Pastor Edgar's personal safety as Bellevue has endangered his life while promoting Donna and Steve Gaines.

As a Believer, I can't believe Bellevue would be this insensitive to the work going on in India and the precious lives of the Indian people.

1:45 PM, November 26, 2007


This is one of the problems with blogs. "Fogmachine" takes his name from the 'hazer' that the youth use on Wednesday nights (the fogmachine is the device that's been used in the Passion Play since the 90s). Since he's been exposed to this machine, 'fog' is most likely a disgruntled member of the youth department, a teenager.

Fog has no clue what he's talking about, like many teenagers. This attempt to make Bellevue look bad is just another childish outburst (as usual). The pastor in question is not hidden in India, and his life has been threatened several times in the past because of his boldness. He's a courageous man of God, and he doesn't hide behind psuedonyms for protection. He puts his life in danger and he depends on God to protect him. In no way does he depend on the cover of darkness to preserve his life.

Cowardly anonymous bloggers have no right to even mention his name. He's far, far above petty grumblers who run home to their computers in their back rooms at the end of the day and post in secrecy and perceived safety.

Nass, if word gets back to you, you really need to start filtering your posts for idiocy. These inane idiots like fog, rod, and watchman who come on simply to rant and rave whenever they've got a bee in their bonnet add nothing and subtract much. In fact, since OC cut back on his posts there's hardly any dialogue at all anymore. If you ever had any kind of fellowship, it's floundering.

Maybe it's time to pull the plug?

solomon said...

imaresistor said...
Fogmachine...

This is truly pathetic! We need to be in prayer for these people...

Ima

9:33 PM, November 26, 2007


Pathetic? Oh brother! Healer, heal thyself!

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

Some of us don't see Him behind us because He is in front of us leading and we are following.

Do you think Jesus knew what He was saying when he said... Follow Me...? I do.

Let me encourage you to do as the Lord asks. Charles, will you follow Jesus? Bearing your cross and all.

Not all of us struggle with bearing our cross while following Jesus. We do it gladly. Can you share with us why this is so tough for you?

WatchingHISstory said...

jon

Have you heard the angry voice of God?

Charles

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

Do you care to answer my questions or avoid them?

David Squyres said...

David
Can't you see us with upraised hands and singing our cute little worship song "I have decided to follow Jesus" and the Holy Spirit is behind us dragging "our" cross which He wants us to bear. We are so caught up in rhythmic music and corporate worship that we don't see Him behind us. Charles

Charles,

I cited scripture, not songs. However, I have no problem singing "I have decided to follow Jesus." Sorry that gets you in a fresh stir.

Since you choose not to honor Mikes request and do the 3 things he laid out, your posts soon get deleted and I look like I'm talking to myself. then who looks crazy? (:

Why don't you look up the word "follow" in your Bible. See how many times God follows us and how many times we are called to follow God. Just check your Bible, not your song book.

Charles, will you follow Jesus?

John Mark said...

Churchmouse said...
fogmachine said:

The CA reporter was on the trip, invited by the Gaines to promote Donna.

churchmouse says:

HEY MIKE FLEMING! It smells like your favorite "morning publication" has stepped in something gross -- again.

HEY CA: Stop! Check your shoes -- hurry up!!

churchmouse note to self: That wasn't really appropriate. I probably need to delete that.

1:19 PM, November 27, 2007


Now that needs to be immortalized.

CM, I'm sure the feeling is more than mutual.

John Mark said...

solomon said...
"Fogmachine" takes his name from the 'hazer' that the youth use on Wednesday nights (the fogmachine is the device that's been used in the Passion Play since the 90s). Since he's been exposed to this machine, 'fog' is most likely a disgruntled member of the youth department, a teenager.


Interesting deduction, but I've got my own theory about foggy. He started posting right when rod almond started ranting and raving like a lunatic (seriously) about the youth service you guys apparently have on Wednesdays, including the fog machine. He has the same crabby, gripe-about-everything and say-nothing-good-under-pain-of-death style of posting as rod, so I suspect it's the same person. Not a kid, just a grouch.

In an unrelated issue, I read that the original Sesame Street episodes are being frowned upon because Oscar the Grouch's obvious depression was left untreated. Parents beware!

John Mark said...

Why is there never a pie around when you need one?

Lynn said...

Watching,

Show me where in Scripture does God or Jesus ever follow man? To my knowledge, there isn't any scripture backing that up.

Lynn said...

WatchingHISstory said...

sick said on the other blog: "Donna sure didn't look too worried about it when they got a shot of all the cavities in her mouth, she was grinning away, having a grand time."

Eventually I was going to post about the deplorable singing by Joyce Rogers from the Pulpit to her beloved husband.

It did seem to be an awful thing for me to say and I will say more later but "sick" has relieved me of any inhibition about saying anything.

Charles

6:20 PM, November 27, 2007

That has to be the most deplorable post you have ever done. Thats low, even for you Charles.

Jessica said...

Charles,

I know Mike will delete it, but that is a terrible thing to say about Joyce. People (esp. Christians) should not be degrading to people in that way. We shouldn't be talking about the way Joyce sings or how Donna looks. Find me the scripture to back up where we should judge for outward appearance. As Christians we should view everyone as "off limits" for this treatment.

Don't stoop down to this type of behavior.

John Mark said...

One sings: "I have decided to follow Jesus" the other sings: "I once was lost but now am found"

One group says the Bible supports their view and the other group says the Bible supports their view.

Well, they both can't be right.


Sorry, WHS, but both are right. God doesn't follow men like a lackey, but he is a rear guard to the righteous.

And as far as saying bad things about the pastors' wives, unless you're jealous because the pastor's wife is so much prettier than you are (spiritually as well as physically), you shouldn't say anything derogatory. SOTL is truly a very unattractive person, but that's her choice. God said that he set either blessing or curse before his people, and SOTL has chosen the curse.

It's not our place to criticize her for choosing to be ugly, though. I've never met her, but based on her venomous posts she's quite the opposite of Donna.

I saw on Faith's website that the whole Haake family joined that church, but she's obviously unable to let go.

I feel sorry for her.

Jessica said...

I guess that is why I am confused, but in what I saw, she wasn't singing "from the pulpit". No matter where she would stand on the stage, the wooden furniture isn't magical- preaching isn't preaching just because you stand behind a piece of furniture. And singing to her husband was simply that. It was never meant to be anything- if you knew anything of Joyce's character and humility you would see that.

Jessica said...

I do not read or post on the other blog, so no I will not be speaking to Stephanie about it.

John Mark said...

It's not an issue of Joyce's character and humility; it is what is considered appropriate.

Speaking of which, I think Mike has asked you to stop posting here until you have taken steps to recover from your addictions.

Why won't you comply? Are your chains too strong?

Jford said...

Watchinghisstory says he is "unafraid of what people think "........

Really?

Really????

Jessica said...

really.

Jford said...

Whatecer happened to IDC?

anyone know??

David Squyres said...

Charles, "oops, that is not politically correct. I'm just dogmatically judgemental, oh well."

I don't care if you're olitically correct. Try for Biblically correct.

Simple fact, Charles: God doesn't follow man.

Charles, will you follow Jesus? Or do you presume to actually lead the Lord?

David Squyres said...

What's amazing is the comments about pastors wives on the other blog actually make it through moderation.

Didn't SOL throw a gigantic tantrum about a year ago when "ACE" was revealed? It was amazing to see people hiding behind masks taking such joy in their detective work to attack a young man.

John Mark said...

Didn't SOL throw a gigantic tantrum about a year ago when "ACE" was revealed?

No bigger than usual.

John Mark said...

Oh, and SOL is 'sickofthelies', not Solomon.

You don't want him going off on you!!!

Jon L. Estes said...

Charles,

You stated... ...and sheep never wander nor stray. They never scatter and go their own way. They just return back to the fold when they decide!

In this case, as you point out, God may be following you to bring you back to the fold. He wants you to quit going your way and go His.

Your point is well taken. As for me I am following Him, in the fold, not going my own way.

Thanks for letting us understand what you meant.

Now I ask again... Will you follow Jesus? Come back to the fold and quit going your way?

You won't regret it and your bitterness, confusion and loneliness will be made right.

solomon said...

Memphis said...
Whatecer happened to IDC?

anyone know??

10:45 PM, November 27, 2007


Memphis,

The same thing happened to IDC that happened to Bellevue (on a smaller scale), only IDC wasn't able to recover.

Some of the original problems that surfaced at Bellevue were trumped up, but some were very legitimate. IDC was formed by two groups of people, some who wanted resolution, and some who wanted vengeance and control. Naturally, when these two groups started spending time together they realized they were not working toward the same goal. It's just not possible to build up and tear down at the same time.

Eventually, those with the hope of reconciliation started talking with Bellevue leadership, and I guess some still are.

The others just kept making a lot of noise and spreading rumors. Jim Haywood's "Alliance for Church Transparency" was the reorganization of IDC's 'militant wing' (which was Haywood). He threatened lawsuits and did a lot of other saber-rattling, but in the long run he's contented himself with finding fault with Bellevue on his savingbellevue site. We're just going to have to learn to live with it, I suppose. I've found it's really quite easy to ignore.

Long story short, IDC is defunct, and the website is a lasting tribute to the truth of our Lord's words on the mount:

But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Jon L. Estes said...

I did it again...

I commented to Charles, knowing his post would be rightly removed. Now it looks like David spoke of... I am talking to myself.

Thanks Mike for doing what you did, it was the right thing to do. For the rest of us it would be best if Charles posts and prior top Mike removing them (unless Charles does what Mike asks) that we not give comment. There is enough to comment about without beating the horse Charles rides to death, over and over again.

Let's now find some healthy 2 way or better conversation.

John Mark said...

Speaking of 2 way conversation (hard to imagine any other kind), why is it that folks on the good blog respond to any of Paul 'watchman' Proctor's posts? He won't even acknowledge their existence, much less dialogue with them. He's just advertising himself. (Make sure to check out the link he posted to his latest article.)

What kind of egomaniac peddles his own articles under a psuedonym anyway?

For my money, I'll take WHS over watchman any day. Why anyone with any common sense at all would cut all ties with friends just because they remain at BBC and waste their precious time listening to what someone who cares absolutely nothing about them say is beyond me.

Mike Bratton said...

Charles, you have three things on your list--apologies, repentance, and counseling. You have more and more for which you must apologize and repent with each day you refuse to seek effective counseling. And since you have a glaring pile of sin for which you refuse to repent, I strongly advise you not to partake of the Lord's Supper until you have remedied that situation, by whatever means is Biblically appropriate.

Keith, the desire for reconciliation among brothers and sisters in Christ is a very powerful thing. It should not surprise us, though with the hatred that precipitated so easily among so many in the past year it's understandable that amiability can still catch us flat-footed.

And with regard to the newspaper article, folks, it was one story in the series "Memphis & The World." Does anyone honestly think all the other stories in the series were just a cover to write a story that wasn't even overwhelmingly pro-Bellevue?

--Mike

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 575 of 575   Newer› Newest»