The Bratton Report

On hiatus

2010-03-12T07:00:00.003-06:00

The demands of real life have, for weeks now, put the blogging world on the back burner. On a really low burn, even. If you're a Facebook friend with me, you probably know the narrative.

But I'll be picking the posting pace back up soon, Lord willing. Stay strong, effendi.

--Mike

Obama is now impeachable.

2009-11-15T00:47:00.004-06:00

I will explore this in depth in my next article, but here's the crux of the matter: Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow terrorists in a U.S. court of law, rather than dealing with them through military channels as enemy combatants, is giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States of America.

In case that phrase, "aid and comfort," didn't ring a bell, that's a definition of treason. Since the Obama Administration has directed this travesty, the blame lies not only with Attorney General Eric Holder, but primarily with President Barack Obama. And Obama's treason is more than sufficient reason to impeach him.

Let's see if it happens. We can only hope--and pray.

More soon.

--Mike

The Florida premiere of High School "Tolerance"

2009-09-18T10:39:00.005-05:00

Imagine you're a parent, if you aren't one already. Let's say your teenage child comes home from school and cracks open the latest reading assignment--for the enriched class, mind you. After grinding away at the new novel, your child slaps the book closed, drops it like it's radioactive, and says you might want to take a look at the "gross pages" in this book, one which is required reading, mind you.

After perusing the passage in question, and agreeing with your child about the aforementioned grossness, what would you do? Scratch your head, say it's required reading, and then return to whipping up some dinner? Or do you tell your child that just because you get an assignment, it doesn't mean you have to do it against your will and your beliefs?

Such was the puzzlement facing Rafael and Mindy Mercado. Their daughter, Mari, brought home the Haruki Murakami novel The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. This isn't a book for teenagers, or for anyone with high literary standards; it has a disjointed plot, characters with whom one cannot connect, and episodes of lubricious exhibitionism. However, it's won some awards, so there are plenty of people who will automatically assume it's wonderful reading, even for younger readers. For them, it's inappropriate, mind you.

My observations are not focused upon the Pasco County, Florida school system, which correctly decided to give young Miss Mercado something else to read, but on those who feel it's their civic duty to respond (without standing behind their responses, mind you) by attacking the Mercado family's very moral request.

This brings me to why I've been saying "mind you" so annoyingly much in this little missive. Much of the attacks (as is typical of much Internet-comment bile, if not most) were unsigned, toss-it-from-the-bushes nonsense. They attacked the student and her parents, rather than taking the time to focus on the issues raised. According to them, this student and her family are: Pathetic, sad, uninformed, spoiled, immature, closed-minded, and hypocritical (because they read the Bible, which is supposed to be "[f]ull of child abuse, kidnapping, murder, psychological and physical torture and incest"). And those are just some of the highlights. These were comments made without the use of developed minds; comments made with only the input of quivering, gelatinous emotions. Use your minds, people, particularly when you insist yours are so very well-developed.

But I digress.

As you might know, such brickbat-hurling is endlessly fascinating to me. So, I had to respond--and if the pattern holds, some of those brickbats will come flying in this direction. Which is, also, endlessly fascinating. My response to them, quoted thusly and like so:

Interesting to see so many hate-mongers coming out (or, generally, hiding behind first-name-only signatures and pseudonyms) to attack a young lady whose life has a solid moral foundation.

The "tolerant class" preaches capital-t Tolerance morning, noon, and night--as long as they're not required to be tolerant of those who disagree with them. Of course, nowadays "tolerance" is popularly defined by such people as "live your own life, but don't even make me think I'm not making a perfect choice with my life." You might have noticed that Miss Mercado and her father didn't try to inflict their beliefs upon the entire program, but rather asked for (and received) an alternate assignment. Unfortunately, the request suggested that students who read the book in question shouldn't have done so. And we can't have that, can we?

Freedom, boys and girls, carries with it responsibility. Miss Mercado, rather than mindlessly following the status quo, acted responsibly; some, mindlessly, attacked her for it.

Because of her moral foundation, this episode won't be the last time she'll weather such knee-jerk opposition--and that is probably the best lesson she'll learn this semester.

--Mike

Is Obama "God's partner"?

2009-08-20T12:25:00.004-05:00

(Linda Stelter/Birmingham News)

Yesterday, American dictator Barack Obama had a conference call with a group of roughly 1000 Jewish religious leaders, during which he made an astounding statement--one that was astounding, in its narcissism, even for the new dictator Obama.

In addressing the rabbis on health care, Obama the Usurper was quoted by Rabbi Jack Moline as saying this (I quote thusly, and like so): "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."

Let that sink in for a moment. "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."

Keep in mind that ol' Barry thinks it's a fine idea to kill developing children--even via the barbarism of partial-birth abortion. Remember that Barry believes the "bitter" cling to "guns and religion," can't find a church with which to affiliate, spent decades listening to the rants of a cult preacher of ethnocentric liberation theology, and couldn't be bothered with the National Day of Prayer.

Oh, and be certain to remember that Barry is a faux Christian. He uses the faith as a prop, opining that there are "many paths" to a right relationship with God, discounting Jesus' own pronouncement that "no man comes to the Father but by Me." And now, Barry is trying to use others' beliefs as a prop, attempting to convince Jewish rabbis (all of whom should read Obama the riot act for his anti-Israel, pro-terrorism attitude toward the Middle East) that they should get on board with Obama's desire to nationalize health care.

This same Obama--the Lightworker, the Usurper, the first American dictator--believes himself to be "God's partner" in "matters of life and death." "But he said 'we,' Mike!" Now, last I checked, the word "we" means "you and me." Do you believe yourself to be God's equal? No? Then that "we" is actually "I," correct? Indeed, you might have heard of the Royal We, as in "We are not amused." That's what Barry was saying: We are not amused that you haven't rolled over and accepted rampaging socialism, so we must remind you that we are God's partners in matters of life and death, and we must be accorded the accompanying deference.

Those of us who are Christians are described in many ways. We are children of God, joint-heirs with Christ, servants, and such. We are not characterized as God's "partners," ever. God has no partners; He has followers, but He does not share the limelight, the responsibility, or the throne with anyone else.

One thing to consider, though--these words were spoken, not printed initially. Perhaps Obama was referring to another being? Should we take his words as being "we are god's partners in matters of life and death"?

Or (and this would make more sense, knowing Obama's narcissism and the advancement of the Obama cult of personality) "we are gods, partners in matters of life and death"?

Ah, if we had some audio. But however you parse it, Barry's perspective is a new low.

--Mike

A Sgt. Crowley monologue from the upcoming movie "My Beer With Barry."

2009-08-01T21:44:00.004-05:00

(AP photo/Alex Brandon)

(No, there really isn't a movie in the works with that title, but a man can dream, can't he?)

"With all due respect, Barry, here's the thing... Oh, did that bother you, me not calling you Mister President and all? That get under your thin skin, so that's why you're eyeballing me? Yeah, well, I'm not big on even giving lip service to people who lie their way into the Presidency, then turn around and make a power grab that would make Hugo Chavez blush. But I digress...

"See, Barry, here's the thing... You're an idiot. You've never worn a uniform, either military or law enforcement, yet you have the sand to call my fellow officers and me stupid? You can't even pay your parking tickets, jerk. The only reason I'm here at this juvenile P.R. stunt of yours is so that I could tell you to your face that out of a class of 44 people who've been able to say they were President of this country, you're the worst. You're the only one who flat lied his way into office, you're setting yourself up as a dictator, and if you keep pushing, one way or another you're gonna get thrown out on your oversized ear. Oh, sensitive about that, too?

"You better remember this, Barry. The only thing you can do right now, with all those telephoto lenses trained on us, is smile and nod. You can't frown, can't look down your nose at me, can't even say anything that lip readers could pick up on. People aren't watching me, they're watching how a bigot like you has to backpedal when the racism jumps out of his mouth. And if you mess with me and mine, those FOX News types you hate so much are gonna come down on your so hard that the rest of the press will have to say something, too. You keep your bigoted nose out of Cambridge, Barry. Think that plumber gave you fits? With all due respect, Barry, you ain't seen nothin' yet..."

--Mike

It's the National Day of Prayer. Shhh!

2009-05-06T12:20:00.002-05:00

FOX News is reporting that President Barack Obama has chosen not to hold any public events commemorating the National Day of Prayer, which will be observed tomorrow.

This should not be surprising, coming as it does from a non-Christian dictator.

However, there is some unsurprising "outrage"--at the outrage surrounding the announcement. Some of this will wind up in the Comments section of the above-referenced FOX News online article, but I hope you understand this: It is not "judging" to understand that Barack Obama is not a Christian.

He has made it clear by his own remarks, including what he said in 2004 to Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times. Quoting Obama thusly, and like so: "I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people."

In a nutshell, not only is that a non-Christian belief, Obama's is an anti-Christian belief. For those not familiar with a foundational truth of the Christian faith, Jesus made this declaration about Himself, quoted in John 14:6, where He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Belief in "many paths" says that Jesus was a liar. Since He was not, the only available option is that Obama is a flat-our liar for claiming to be a Christian while holding an anti-Christian belief.

Consequently, it should not be surprising to find that Obama will be "privately" observing the National Day of Prayer, which is to say he won't be personally observing it at all.

And Welton Gaddy's comments supporting Obama carry precisely no weight. As an Air American radio host and president of the oxymoronically-named Interfaith Alliance, Gaddy preaches syncretism over and above the Christian Gospel message. However, when he says that "Shirley Dobson's Task Force is not the spiritual judge of the president's personal or official actions," he is correct; God is Obama's ultimate and only Judge in all things, and He has already made it clear in Scripture that Obama's "many paths" nonsense is anti-Christian. That's something Gaddy should take under advisement.

Folks, no one's "judging" Barack Obama by saying he isn't a Christian. All we're doing is taking him at his word.

And taking God at His.

--Mike

Accountability can be uncomfortable, for some

2009-04-13T22:30:00.001-05:00

Late last week, an individual named Thomas A. Rich was pulled, unwillingly, from the tall grass into the sunshine.

He didn't take it well.

Rich, as noted here, has invested a great deal of time and effort since mid-2007 in attacking First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, and specifically her pastor, Mac Brunson.

To read Rich's side of things, he had "concerns." Were they justified? From what I know of the situation, some were very justified--so much that there might actually be a conflict within that church, one in need of resolution.

But where could a group of Christians go to find a template for conflict resolution within their church?

Here's an idea--why not try the Bible?

Nah, that wasn't for Rich. See, the Bible says that disagreements within a church are just that--disagreements within a church, and not for public consumption. As a matter of fact, with regard to FBC Jacksonville, another blogger who violated the Biblical template actually (gasp!) shuttered that blog. But Rich was determined to hide in the tall grass. In his own words, "I preferred to blog anonymously so as not to draw attention to myself, or make the discussion about me personally." With regard to Rich's success in that area, I quote the noted philosopher Ben Linus, who poignantly asked, "And how did that work out for everyone?"

Rich appeals to law when it suits him, insisting he has a Constitutional right to blog anonymously; the bottom line is this: He does, indeed, have one. The only problem is that when Rich makes his appeal a Constitutional one, he is preferring it to a Biblical appeal. Why? Simple--because the Bible speaks clearly against taking church issues outside the church, and speaks clearly for voicing one's concerns face-to-face.

As these events were happening in Florida, a great friend of mine told me of what was happening in my hometown of Memphis, with regard to fellow travelers of Rich's whose target is my long-time home church, Bellevue Baptist. My friend told me that while the anti-Bellevue propaganda has lost all but a sliver of its audience, a number of those who agitated at Bellevue have migrated from that church, only to descend upon another marvelous Memphis-area church, Germantown Baptist, and are agitating against that church's pastor.

Since some of those are no doubt caught up in what can only be called the oxymoronically-named "New BBC Open Forum," I reluctantly paid a visit there to see if their output was still set to "Bile."

Unfortunately, it is.

With the FBC Jacksonville blog in mind, I sent them this post. Since it was rejected (not surprisingly) there, I'll publish it here, in the hope that some of their participants will take it under advisement.

...

I will be marvelously surprised if you publish this--nevertheless, I want you to at least read it for yourself. Whoever you are.

Many of us have prayed for you for years; it is disappointing, frankly, to hear of this most recent response to some much-needed accountability for people such as your own selves, the "anti" folks who inhabit church pews.

If you really, honestly, seriously need Biblical instruction as to why there were Bible-based problems with the so-called "Watchdog" (and of you and your little kaffeeklatsch of anonymous nay-sayers), visit 2 Samuel 12. Then, let us know how Nathan used a pseudonym when he honestly wanted to confront David with his sin.

After you digest that bit of Scripture, move to the main course. The Biblical template for conflict resolution hinges on the testimony of witnesses, face to face, rather than whispers from the shadows (unless you think it'll raise your standing to attack fellow church members in public, in which case you'll sign your name to pretty much anything, regardless of its veracity).

And in case it escapes you, Jesus Himself articulated that template in Matthew 18. First, talk with the person individually; then, take someone with you; then, address the church as a whole.

Both Testaments reinforce the standard of face-to-face delivery of accusations and/or concerns. You and yours have treated that Biblical mandate as so much fertilizer--and yet you're (gasp!) shocked when someone else who uses your tactic actually has to come out from the shadows?

It is unfortunate that your collective mindset is stunted and immature. You do wrong, then wail to the heavens when there's a possibility you might be held accountable for treating God's Word with utter, habitual contempt.

Indeed, there has been no development or maturity in your anti-Bellevue dialectic; looking back, I warned you and yours of the problems with indulging your anger nearly two and a half years ago. You folks let this be a place where hate, character assaults, and even death threats were not only unchallenged, but indulged--and yet you seem surprised to find that such things have consequences. You have demonstrated the underlying truth of the quote I presented to you way back then, a quote from one of my favorite philosophers.

Quoting him thusly, and like so: "I think, when one has been angry for a very long time, one gets used to it. Then it becomes comfortable, like old leather. And finally, it is so familiar one can't remember feeling any other way. But in the long run, we are the ones who are damaged by that kind of behavior. We are. Not them."

You became comfortable in your sin. When it appeared you might be held accountable for it, you were apoplectic; your comfort had been disturbed. The only people you've damaged by your actions are your own selves.

Whoever you are.

--Mike

Obama forces GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign... Here Comes The Regime...

2009-03-29T22:52:00.001-05:00

A few years ago, I can remember being mocked by more than a few liberals for referring to Hugo Chavez as a "dictator in training." Turns out that such a call wasn't off-base, after all.

In case there were any people who doubted that the Lightworker had unseemly aspirations for both himself and the United States, today's little bombshell put us well past any point of reasonable doubt.

Barack Obama is a dictator in training.

He already has people moving to abolish the 22nd Amendment.

He freely admitted, as a candidate, that he was interested in the forced redistribution of wealth.

He already has plans to establish "universal voluntary public service" and/or (depending upon which euphemism you prefer) a "civilian national security force."

He is nationalizing the banks in which we keep our money, and is nationalizing the care we use for our health.

And now, he is able to suggest to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company that he ought to resign, and what happens?

He resigns.

"Effective immediately."

When Rick Wagoner should've asked Obama what branch of the Armed Forces he planned to bring with him to make Wagoner get out.

If you don't have a Tea Party near you in which to participate on April 15th, or thereabouts, start one yourself. The country has seen enough of President Barack Obama, and it's time he followed Rick Wagoner's lead.

Effective immediately.

--Mike

"What do you like about the church?"

2009-03-21T12:27:00.002-05:00

Watch this.

After you watch it, do what you know you ought to do.

--Mike

A word from my daughter.

2009-03-05T08:43:00.002-06:00

Awhile back, my little girl felt like writing about an experience she'd had, one that taught her an important lesson. Let me share it with you, thusly and like so.

I broke my arm a few weeks ago. But my dad didn't believe me because I wasn't always truthful to my word. I was playing basketball. We were playing 3 on 3. And I was about to grab the ball, but instead I fell and popped my arm on the floor. I went to school as regular the next day. I went to the school nurse during class and she wanted me to get it X-rayed. When Dr. Wolf was finished with the X-ray he came into my room and said "It's a small fracture." I was freaked out. I almost screamed. They took me into a room where they wrapped my arm in a soft gauze. Then they put some thing on me that immobilized my arm. Then they wrapped my arm in two ace bandages. I went to the doctor's office the next week and they unwrapped my arm and said it was doing fine. Sometimes the doctor might be wrong. Jesus is never wrong. Jesus will sometimes let the devil attack us, to see how we react. But Jesus never makes mistakes.

--Mike

Hey, I'm famous.

2009-02-17T18:14:00.003-06:00

I'm prayerfully hoping my career prospects take an upward swing with the publication of this interview at the radio trade website AllAccess.com. Just click the "Job Market" section and there I am, "On The Beach."

And I'd appreciate your prayers in that area, as well.

--Mike

100-0

2009-01-27T15:13:00.002-06:00

In my reading, I enjoy perusing local newspapers' websites, particularly on stories of national interest. When I took a look at what the Dallas Morning News had to say about the now-infamous 100-0 final score of a recent game between The Covenant School of Dallas and Dallas Academy, it was fascinating reading--particularly the comments after the article. So fascinating, in fact, that I had to respond.

It is a real eye-opener to see that, even in other parts of the country, a large number of people see nothing wrong with a group of young girls embarrassing a group of other young girls at the behest of their coach, a fellow named Micah Grimes. Thankfully, he's now the former girls' basketball coach at The Covenant School, but he has his supporters. And they act in ways which are, unfortunately, quite predictable. Personal attacks, avoidance of the issues... If you're a long-time reader of this blog, you've seen the conduct documented in other discussions. But I thought I'd share some of what's going on in Dallas, as well of more of my observations on the subject matter. What follows is the text of my most recent post to the dallasnews.com website.

Thought I'd check back in with Dallas, and look at the cross section of remarks:

"Mike Bratton you are what is wrong with America today. what is with the "hive" mentality in this nation??? when did it become uncool to do your best and WIN?"

You, whoever you are, miss the point. Winning is fun. Embarrassing the other team just because you can is immoral. There's a difference.

(Oh, and for the record, one of the things that really is wrong with this country is the proliferation of people who say bellicose, outlandish things from the comfort of anonymity. As a former pastor of mine used to observe, if you can't sign your remarks, they aren't worth anything.)

"Lets just leave Iraq and Afghanistan.. the other team can't compete with us.. if we had this mentality in WWII we would not have won!!!"

Addressed this previously, but it bears repeating: This wasn't a war. It was a girls' basketball game. War analogies don't work here.

"you have to experience defeat and failure to grow as a person. not everyone deserves a trophy.. not everyone wins in life.."

The girls who were on the losing end of this game seem to be handling it well, from what we're told. If you had read closely, my concern is for the girls who won. They've been taught to step on the necks of their competition, not just to be their best.

Kicking your opponents while they're down isn't found anywhere in Scripture.

"Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins according to what is taught by Covenant. By His example, we learn so much. What would they be teaching if someone stepped in and altered the course of His Divine Will because he had 'had enough?'"

Wow, talk about an irrational response. It's not enough to compare a girls' basketball game to a war--now someone wants to compare a girls' basketball game to Jesus' sacrificial death at Calvary?

"What if they had held the ball the entire second half? Would that be showing Christian compassion, or would the coach still have lost his job due to the fact that the other team still didn't get to shoot the ball."

What was "ridiculous" was allowing (or coaching?) your players to shoot threes in the second half of a stone-cold blowout. Grimes could've easily talked with the opposing coach at halftime, and either called the game or found some other equitable solution.

"BostonGuy, how funny that you know what that entire USA thinks. The discussion on Sports Illustrated's 'For the Record' would completely disagree with you...sports fans around the nation disagree with you."

While I am familiar with the notion of "the wisdom of crowds," the issue here is one of morality--and "the morality of crowds" is something rarely worth following.

But you keep right on hurling those "big" brickbats from the tall grass, there, TexN. All you're doing is proving my point.

"As a young sibling of a very talented and athletic brother, I lost most of my competitions with him, but it made me strong and tougher."

Did your brother step on your neck after he beat you?

"I asked all the induviduals who thought some compassion should have been shown a question... and that was 'what should they have done?' but nobody has answered that question. I'm not here to argue or sound stupid, I am just curious to know what others think should have been done, so that I can look it up in my book and see if it is considered cheating by my standards."

Then let me answer it again. Grimes, had he not been evidently myopic, could have spoken to the opposing coach at halftime and come to an equitable resolution for both teams.

And to be honest, your subjective standards aren't really part of the issue. Objective issues of right and wrong, of immorality and morality, of integrity and dishonor--those are the issues on the table.

Grimes said, "I will walk away with my integrity."

In a word: Bull.

Grimes left it on the court when he taught his players that people were less important than padded stats.

--Mike

Going on the record

2009-01-09T12:35:00.002-06:00

I'm going to tell you something.

Something that might shock you.

Believe it or not, I'm carrying around a few extra pounds.

And as of yesterday, I began my latest attempt to do something about it.

This time around, I'm going the doctor-supervised route, which makes sense for me. The injection and supplement regimen, plus the weekly check-in, look to be a way to seriously address this issue, which has steadily, sneakily worsened over the past two decades. For those who know me well, that's roughly the time I got into the very sedentary business of radio.

We have a new basketball hoop, which will give me the goal (pardon the pun) of getting back to slam-dunking. I still have friends who are in a permanent state of disbelief about that, but in my lithe, über-athletic youth and early adulthood, my elevation was very good. Just like my kung fu. But I digress. By my next birthday, I expect to be able to elevate well enough to at least pull off a one-handed slam. Hey, it's a... target.

To be serious for a moment: There comes, I believe, a tipping point for people in addressing issues such as weight loss. Mine was a recent one, weeks ago, when I began to develop, for lack of a better term, a "perception" about myself. Now, while tall is fine, I've been big-and-tall for quite awhile, to my embarrassment. Recently, it became more than just embarrassing; I began to develop the sense that I was wearing one of those "fat suits" popularized by folks like Tyra Banks on her television show, and by Mike Myers in his "Austin Powers" movies with the character of Fat... well, I can't really say his name, but the character coined one of my favorite phrases, "Get in mah belly!"

So far, today, I've had a granola bar and a banana. Two hundred and sixty-five total calories taken in today. And I'm not hungry. It's an encouraging start.

I'll keep you posted on my progress.

--Mike

Think I might get in trouble with this one?

2008-12-26T15:56:00.002-06:00

In case you haven't noticed, the Obama/Biden transition team is using www.change.gov as their "official" Internet presence, after bum-rushing a milquetoast bureaucracy with the request. I asked them to stop:

Please cease and desist the use of the .gov Internet domain immediately. Since there is no "Office of the President-Elect" in the governmental hierarchy of the United States, such misrepresentation as your camp is engaged in is disingenuous. You insult the work of legitimate governmental entities with your presumption.

As an indication of maturity, please us a .com, .org, .info, or other generally acceptable domain. It is a deception to identify anything having to do with the Obama administration as "governmental" before his inauguration.

If you'd like to pass along a similar sentiment, well, you know where to find Barry and Joe.

--Mike

Here is grace.

2008-12-10T11:32:00.002-06:00

People who've followed this blog for awhile know that I've aimed it at some awfully graceless attitudes from time to time--with most of those attitudes being held by people who profess to be fellow Christians. But when there is the chance to point at something which is literally "graceful," it is worth reading.

The above link, to Michelle Malkin's column referencing the story of Dong Yun Yoon, holds him up as an example of patriotism. Her praise, however, is far too faint; it is not mere patriotism in action, but grace. I have no way of knowing whether or not Mr. Yoon is a professing Christian, but his example is compelling, whether as a brother in the faith or as a real-life Samaritan whose actions should convict us all.

--Mike

Rest easy, John Mark

2008-11-23T22:46:00.002-06:00

Earlier this evening (as in just a couple of minutes ago), I found out that one of the folks who have contributed to this corner of the Internet had passed away. Fellow blogger Keith Solomon has written an eloquent article about this gentleman, who participated here primarily under the sobriquet of "John Mark."

It is awkward to consider his passing, since we never had the opportunity to meet in person; however, his change in demeanor was a blessing to see. Even at this moment he is completely healed, and experiencing by sight the presence of God which we only know by faith.

Please read Keith's article.

--Mike

Wonk, wonk, wonk.

2008-11-14T12:58:00.001-06:00

Here's the deal.

Having a wonk as President isn't a good idea. Apparently, as if it's a rule of some game, being a wonk means trading off something--like a moral grounding.

The last wonk we had was Bill Clinton, and I think the White House cleaning crew is still trying to get some stains out of the Oval Office carpeting. He may have been able to rattle off the names of all manner of foreign dignitaries (and pronounce their names correctly), but Clinton's moral compass was long ago smashed into tiny little pieces.

While President Bush hasn't exactly been everything a conservative could've hoped for, he wasn't a wonk. His morality has been solid, and though people may disagree with his conclusions, it cannot be argued that he has arrived at them without a strong moral influence on his decision-making process.

Now, the nation is back to a wonk--two, if you include Biden. Oh, yes, Obama can rattle off all sorts of foreign-policy goodies, even though he's only spent hours more in Iraq than Gov. Palin. People like Jon Meacham of Newsweek can perhaps get Chris-esque tingles at the mention of the Lightworker, but even before the election we understood that Obama has no moral rudder.

At the end of the day, the Office of the Presidency is one where decisions must be made. Good decisions are made by people with good moral character.

With the announcement of planned executive orders from Obama to allow the harvesting of yet-to-be-born children for experimentation, as well as the prohibition of crude-oil exploration, we see that the bad decisions from the latest Wonk-In-Chief have already begun.

--Mike

"Dear Mr. Obama": An eloquent case for McCain

2008-10-31T11:22:00.001-05:00

Couldn't have said it better.

--Mike

Letter from 2012 in Obama's America

2008-10-30T08:55:00.003-05:00

This morning, I came across an interesting news article, regarding Dr. James Dobson's political action group, Focus On The Family Action. It has published a "letter from the future," written from the viewpoint of an individual Christian living in the year 2012.

Read it here.

It is, I fear, more than a bit accurate. If you share that perspective, voting for anyone other than John McCain and Sarah Palin is a remarkably bad idea. And if you don't share that perspective, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

--Mike

Fred Thompson is one optimistic guy.

2008-10-24T18:04:00.001-05:00

Take a few minutes and watch this.

--Mike

More from the Obama cult's Music Department

2008-10-21T16:19:00.005-05:00

I found this earlier today at BeliefNet.com, and after picking my jaw up off the floor, though it was worth letting you know about it.

Familiar with the song "Lord Prepare Me To Be A Sanctuary"? Here we have someone who's done a little lyric surgery, changing "Lord" to "Love." And love for whom, you might ask? Why, the Lightworker himself, Barack Obama.

God forbid that enough of Obama's cult followers vote on Tuesday, November 4th to see him become the next President. As I've observed before, and as Joe Biden has promised, an Obama Presidency will be loaded with trouble.

--Mike

Obama's cult of personality now has a Children's Music department

2008-10-01T08:44:00.007-05:00

This is, in a word, disturbing. As is the newest addition to this article--scroll down so you don't miss it.

Particularly if you're a parent.

(EDITED TO ADD: Here's the video in question.)

(Hat tip to Nikki Shepherd.)

Obama supporters are now enlisting children to sing the praises of their Dear Leader. (And I don't use the term lightly.) They have a lovely, innocuous statement on the home page of SingForChange.com--let's examine it together. Quoting thusly, and like so (in italics):

Sing for Change chronicles a recent Sunday afternoon, when 22 children, ages 5-12, gathered

All on their own, of course. In matching t-shirts. In front of an Obama backdrop. Even the synchronized hand motions were the children's idea. And they just happened to get together in the presence of (as is mentioned elsewhere on their site) "three High Definition cameras (Panasonic HVX250’s)" and an "RED camera set up on a SteadiCam." It's not exactly Andy Hardy putting on a show in a barn, is it?

to sing original songs

Let's pull over and park there for a few minutes.

"Original songs?" If you've ever worked around a children's choir of any sort, you know that "original songs" have to be rehearsed. A lot.

Here. Examine the lyrics. The first song was allegedly penned by a 9-year-old:

WE’RE GONNA CHANGE THE WORLD
Music and lyrics by Lily Campbell

We’re gonna spread happiness
We’re gonna spread freedom
Obama’s gonna change it
Obama’s gonna lead ‘em

We’re gonna change it
And rearrange it
We’re gonna change the world.

SING FOR CHANGE
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Now’s the moment, lift each voice to sing
Sing with all your heart!
For our children, for our families,
Nations all joined as one.
Sing for joy and sing abundant peace,
Courage, justice, hope!
Sing together, hold each precious hand,
Lifting each other up;
Sing for vision, sing for unity,
Lifting our hearts to Sing!

YES WE CAN
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Yes we can
Lift each other up
In peace, in love, in hope
Change! Change!

For the record, Kathy Sawada is the "choir director" in the aforementioned video, and (surprise!) an Obama supporter. But let's continue...

in the belief that their singing would lift up our communities for the coming election. Light, hope, courage and love shine through these non-voting children who believe that their very best contribution to the Obama campaign is to sing.

A 5-year-old wants to sing for the Obama campaign? Really? Now, a 12-year-old responding to Obama propaganda is one thing, but are we seriously supposed to believe that the youngest members of the Dear Leader Singers independently voiced a desire to sing so that Obama might get elected?

To be involved in a cult of personality is one of the least rational things I can imagine. I've seen people who do this with this entire Obama nonsense, and I've seen them up close, too, in other venues. Such misplaced worship is, indeed, disturbing.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Want another example of Obama Youth, particularly since the previously referenced Sing For Change video has mysteriously disappeared? Here you go:

Feeling very 21st Century today

2008-09-26T09:15:00.002-05:00

One of my great laments in this so-called "modern age" has been the lack of personal jet packs. I have been so saddened by the absence of such devices that, as you may remember, I've taken it personally.

But no more. Watch this:

I should be more hopeful.

--Mike

The Vote: Pragmatism, Principle, or Petulance?

2008-08-27T11:00:00.002-05:00

On Tuesday, November 4th, there will be an election for the American Presidency--and, more importantly, for the future of the nation itself.

Looking back on recent history, it is obvious that we as a nation survived the Clinton administration, and are surviving the administration of George W. Bush. With the dark times of the Clinton era and the vacillations of the GWB era as reference points, I believe that the United States would've survived a Kerry administration. Or a Dukakis administration. Or even (and these are frightening words to type) a Gore administration.

I do not believe that the United States of America will survive a Barack Obama administration. That is to say, survive an Obama administration as a representative republic guided by the United States Constitution.

Barack Obama is that most dangerous of individuals--a dilettante. Some time at a pseudo-Christian church and, suddenly, he's a theologian. A trip to Europe, and he's a foreign policy expert. Less than six months' actual experience in the U.S. Senate, and he's Presidential.

An Obama administration, it is clear, would attack fundamental Constitutional rights, as his recent Second Amendment comments made clear. With his selection of renowned plagiarist (stealing from RFK and Kinnock), bigot (remember "clean" and "articulate"?), and comedian Joe Biden as running mate, Obama has shown that "Change we can believe in" starts with suggesting a denizen of the seamier portions of the Beltway would make a dandy Vice-President.

(Yes, I referred to Joe Biden as a "comedian." Don't you remember his favorite joke about Rudy Giuliani? "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence--a noun, and a verb, and 9/11. I mean, there's nothing else." Bah-dum-bump. Get it? Terrorist attacks are punch lines to Biden.)

Obama has developed, and is developing, a cult of personality. In the literal, technical sense. Problem is, apart from a TelePrompTer, he doesn't have much personality, or terribly much to say. The nation cannot afford the devastation that will come from giving Barack Obama real political power.

But what of John McCain? As a Christian, I am stopped short by a man who declares he's a Christian, yet specifically insists he is not "born again." Even some non-Christians are familiar with Christ's own words in John 3:7, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." No option there. While George W. Bush has erased any theological sophistication we might have hoped for him by suggesting that Islam is a viable religion, McCain has gone a step further. He is as guilty of cherry-picking the Bible as is Barack Obama.

Now, I understand that there were many "Christian" moments during McCain's imprisonment in a North Vietnamese P.O.W. camp, but here's the question. If they were transcendent examples of personal faith in Jesus Christ, rather than episodes that were exclusively emotional, would McCain not adhere to the teachings of Christ as revealed in Scripture?

McCain attends a Baptist church, yet refused to be baptized by immersion. He considers Islam "honorable." He generally avoids discussing personal faith in Christ, defaulting to mentions of a "higher power" rather than specifically mentioning Christ or Christianity.

One of the motivating factors in George W. Bush's election, and re-election, was the notion that Christians could vote for a fellow Christian to serve in the office of President. As with the miserable administration of Jimmy Carter, we have seen that candidates' professions of faith in Christ have failed to consistently translate into solid leadership. But in the 2008 election, neither of the two major-party candidates gives any tangible evidence of being a Bible-believing, Christ-honoring, twice-born child of God.

So how should we vote?

There are three popular answers. First, there is the notion of "pragmatism"--that we vote for the "lesser of the two evils." Or, more properly, we vote for the major-party candidate whose victory would prevent the less desirable major-party candidate from being elected. Second, there is the notion of "principle"--that we vote for a candidate regardless of that candidate's chances of being elected; this notion opens up the potential of casting votes for individuals such as Bob Barr and Ralph Nader. And third, there is what I call (and which works for alliterative purposes) the notion of "petulance"--that we refuse to vote for any candidate who fails to meet a remarkably high standard for the office of the Presidency.

For a good while, I have considered that the third option might be the best; after much prayer, thought, and research, I have concluded that the third option is, indeed, petulance. Books are being written that, at face value, suggest that refusing to vote in this election is a reasoned, supposedly Biblical stand. It is the civic equivalent of holding one's breath until one's face turns blue; it mistakenly presumes that there can be, or will be, a "perfect" candidate.

It has been widely proclaimed that a vote for John McCain will dilute the Republican Party, and that those who might normally vote Republican should abstain, in the hopes that the party can regroup for the 2012 election. Unfortunately, this is a partisan line of thinking, one as bad as the standard Democrat mindset of "party over country." Realistically, the Republican Party was diluted in 2000 with so-called "compassionate conservatism," in 1996 with "owing" a nomination to an unelectable candidate, and even in 1990 with the abandonment of a no-new-taxes vow. The Republican Party was heavily damaged long before John McCain backed into the nomination, and it is hubris to think that abstention from voting will translate into persuasion of the G.O.P. power structure.

Considering a principled vote is not, on its face, a bad idea. That is, until you consider what principle is actually at play. If the goal is influence, then the principle of influencing a vote requires a vote for a presidential candidate with a realistic chance to win an election--providing that candidate doesn't have destroying the country as a chief end. When a principled vote becomes a Quixotic one, then it is ultimately wasted.

So what are we left with? Pragmatism? Well, it isn't as though we're left with it, since we never strayed from it in the first place. Votes, as a matter of course, are exercises in pragmatism. We vote on things every day, though perhaps not generally with the import of a vote for President. But we do vote, on everything from clothing choices to commuting routes to what we'll have for lunch. Rarely, if ever, is there a perfect choice in any vote; it is pretense to suggest otherwise. When we vote, we make the best available choice from a given field of possibilities. Why should the vote for President be viewed any differently?

The most succinct expression of this line of thought is from radio commentator, author, and cultural activist Janet Folger. With regard to voting for the lesser of two evils, I quote her thusly and like so, "Until Jesus Christ's name appears on the ballot, that's exactly what we do in every vote."

Please, when Tuesday, November 4th arrives, do not be petulant. Please do not believe yourself to be voting on principle by wasting your vote's influence. Take the time to make the best choice from the available field.

The best available choice is John McCain.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: The addition, on the morning of August 29th, of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate was, simply, brilliant. It makes voting for McCain a much, much easier prospect.

On "canceling a soul"

2008-07-08T09:00:00.000-05:00

I've recently encountered the online work of Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor who also blogs about issues of faith, family, and culture. After reading an article of his addressing legal and moral aspects of abortion, I submitted a response that was (I know, not surprisingly) rather involved. At Dr. Throckmorton's suggestion, I am re-posting my response here for discussion, and as a way to recommend his site to you. Quoting thusly, and like so:

It is interesting to read the scattered, specious, insubstantial opinions of people who haven’t taken the time to consider the consequences of indulging abortion-on-demand. Before addressing the behavior of Mr. Harrison’s (not “Dr. Harrison,” since he forfeited the use of that title after killing his first child), let’s review some of the boilerplate previously advanced, shall we?

1) Okay, I just find this law a little creepy. It isn’t as though women who choose to have an abortion don’t know why they there are there. It seems like a way to shame or scare people off from having abortions - rather than just giving them medical advice. And in what sense is a fetus whole or separate anyway.

I didn’t realize someone had to be “whole or separate” to be human; apparently, conjoined twins don’t make the grade. Do you understand that the developing child has a separate brainwave pattern, a separate heartbeat, and can even have a separate blood type from his or her mother?

And some of the best medical advice one can give a pregnant woman is “Don’t kill your child.”

2) Of course most people know that the images associated with abortion aren’t pretty.

Neither are images associated with lots of medical procedures.

Let’s just park there for a moment.

Abortion is not a medical procedure. It can be hidden behind abortionists’ phraseology, but at the end of the day, what negative medical condition does it address, treat, or relieve? Unless you’re of a mind to define pregnancy as an illness or other deleterious medical condition, the only available answer is “Why, none, Mike.”

I think most people would freak if they actually saw the images associated with open heart surgery - but we don’t expose people to that. In short there is no reason to be blatant with the imagery *unless* someone wants to push an anti-abortion agenda.

Abortionists lie to the women whose children they kill. Forcing them to tell the truth–and isn’t it fascinating that they must be forced to do so?–is only asking them to be held to the same standard actual, legitimate physicians must attain. To use your example, would you tolerate it if a heart surgeon working on a family member–or on you–lied about the goal of a surgical procedure?

Somehow, I doubt it.

3) What percentage of abortions does this procedure represent?

A remarkably small percentage, thanks for asking. But partial-birth abortion is but one tool in the abortionist’s kit. Are you familiar with the standard procedures used in the vast majority of abortions, or do you need details?

And given that the original Roe v. Wade decision does give States authority to regulate 3rd trimester abortions, wouldn’t that indicate there was some sort of necessity for this procedure?

Most state legislatures have been flummoxed by Roe v Wade and every other pro-abortion ruling since. But I thought you were the one who wanted to note how very, very rare third-trimester abortions were in the first place?

As for the law in question, I think it is just as bad as a law that said doctors have to tell their patients that “God thinks abortion is bad” or “If you vote for a Democrat, innocent children will die.” All of these statements (including the one in question) are based on philosophical or political beliefs not medicine. Medical science does NOT define when life begins (nor do I believe it should). It does define when life ends, but that is more of a legal definition (i.e. when can a doctor legally stop trying to revive or treat a patient).

It doesn’t take “medical science” to develop a definition for the beginning of human life, not when common sense is such a handy aid.

Would you say that a developing child eight months past conception is a living human being? Most folks would say “yes.”

How about seven months? Six? Five? From what I’ve heard and read, children only 22 weeks post-conception have survived premature delivery, which pushes things back to the five-month area.

So how about four months? Are you interested in saying that a child who’s a human being at five months’ gestation wasn’t a human being at four? Or at three? If we keep dialing back, developing children have a discernable heartbeat at roughly three weeks’ gestation, and discernable brainwave patterns at six weeks.

Even before this time, from the moment of conception, the developing human being is just that–developing, and with unique, and uniquely human, genetic information. Common sense will tell you that life begins at conception, if you’ll just employ it.

4) Perhaps we should get into a discussion about what abortion was like BEFORE it was legalized - would images of coathangers and the loss of the life of not only the child but the mother be better?

Ah, one of the best red herrings of them all. But read your own words: You define abortion as “the loss of the life of… the child”. Please ask yourself why you’re limiting your own argument to the choice between one death or two, when you could be considering scenarios where no one dies!

I see abortion as one of those necessary evils.

What other “evils” are “necessary”? I’ve never encountered even one, so I’d appreciate hearing why any sort of out-and-out evil is ever necessary.

I don’t agree with it, I stand opposed to it, but I will not force my particular belief onto someone else by voting for legislation that tries to make it illegal.

Then you are actively engaged in cognitive dissonance. If you say you believe a thing to be wrong, but you refuse to enter the arena of ideas and contend for the advancement of what you say you believe, you do not have a belief, but rather a lukewarm opinion that brings you comfort.

I think there needs to be limits to its use and that we should use eduction (sic) as one of our best weapons to lessen its occurrence. I do not, however agree that the world would be “better” if it weren’t legalized.

Millions of children have been murdered by people pretending to be doctors. It has been facilitated by politicians and judges with no substantive morality, and pursued by women (and the men who aid them) who range from the brainwashed to the hedonist. How is the world a better place by indulging the slaughter of fifty million children in the United States alone?

Bill Clinton, for all his faults, had a great quote that I use often: “Abortion ought to be safe, legal and RARE”.

“Faults”? Bill Clinton is a diabolical individual; you would do well to never consider anything he says to be “great.” But what inspires you to think his quote is even something he believed? What did William Jefferson Blythe Clinton ever do to make abortion-on-demand more rare? Anything?

Here’s an even better quote for your mantelpiece: “We must champion the innocent and the defenseless; there is no one more innocent, more vulnerable, than the child yet to be born.”

Now as for Mr. Harrison (and I use the “Mr.” loosely), it is evident from his statements that the psychological strain of killing approximately 20,000 children has taken its toll. If he frequents a church that at all preaches the Christian Gospel, he cannot help but be aware of (even if he will not admit it) the ramifications of willfully, freely violating God’s own standards by murdering child after child over the years, much less the ramifications of rejecting the call of God to repentance and faith in Christ.

While those of us who are Christians should pray for his salvation, we must not allow ourselves to be surprised when a man who indiscriminately takes life makes statements that are non sequiturs.

Dr. Throckmorton, you are being generous in your statements considering what Harrison has said. He will not entertain the notion that one of the 20,000 he has killed could have been anything other than an anguished, tortured human being with no chance of redemption; were he to do so, he would face being personally convicted of the crimes against God and humanity he has enthusiastically committed.

–Mike

Obama and Christianity, part 2

2008-06-01T20:18:00.003-05:00

I'm flattered... ahem... that Joseph Farah of World Net Daily reads my blog, since he's written an editorial that echoes the conclusion inescapably reached in my previous article with regard to Barack Obama's counterfeit Christianity. It quotes an interview with Obama from a few years back in the Chicago Sun-Times; in case you don't have time to follow the link, here is the crucial section, thusly and like so:

"So, I have a deep faith," Obama continues. "I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

"That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived."

It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God.

Obama is a flat-out liar. It has never been the "Christian tradition" that there are "many paths to the same place." The exclusivity of Jesus Christ was demonstrated throughout thousands of years of history, and illustrated in the Bible--literally from Genesis through Revelation.

It may be simply that he is so immature and naïve that he has been incapable of questioning the anti-Christian scum that Jeremiah Wright has been pumping into him for the past two decades. (Obama's recent statement that he has severed his relationship with the cultic, deceitfully-named Trinity United Church of Christ changes absolutely nothing about his twenty-year affiliation with them.) Or, it may be that Obama consciously chooses to deceive others. Either way, he may be the single least-qualified individual ever to run for the Presidency of the United States of America. And that's including the other two leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, neither of whom have any business setting up camp in the Oval Office.

I'd really like you to read both the WND piece and the source material from the Sun-Times; if you need another reason, here's another tidbit from the confused mouth of Obama, thusly and like so:

"The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they're going to hell."

Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell.

But he's not sure if he'll be going to heaven, either.

"I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die," he says. "When I tuck in my daughters at night, and I feel like I've been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they're kind people and that they're honest people, and they're curious people, that's a little piece of heaven."

Barack Obama uses Christianity as a prop. Such behavior cannot be rewarded.

--Mike

Obama, Wright, and the cultic church they have in common

2008-05-01T23:08:00.009-05:00

(New information added 5/3/08.)

Yes, you read me correctly--and I don't headline this lightheartedly. Don't believe me? See if you can tell what words I've changed in the following quote. Thusly, and like so:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a Caucasian people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent Europe, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the prosperous time of being slaveowners, the good old days of segregation, and the joyous years of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously enjoy privilege as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.

What sort of Aryan nonsense would that be, right? It's not exactly Aryan, but a subtle expression of the anti-Christian belief system known as Liberation Theology. The tweaked quote above came straight from what (at this writing) is still Barack Obama's home church and Jeremiah Wright's senior pastorate, the Trinity United Church of Christ on West 95th Street in Chicago. If you think I'm stretching to qualify that "church" as practicing Liberation Theology, I refer you to Wright's own "talking points" (the church's term) on that subject. Among them:

The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.

Black liberation theology defines Africans and African Americans as subjects – not the objects which colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined “others” as.

To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else. African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.

Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.

(The above reference to the "Diaspora" does not refer to the scattering of the Jewish people after their Babylonian exile, as the word is generally used. It has been co-opted by black liberation theology proponents to refer to the period when sub-Saharan Africans were sold into slavery--often by other Africans. To say that referring to this wretched period in time as a "scattering" is an understatement.)

Liberation theology of any stripe is non-Christian. It seeks to enthrone ethnicity or political persuasion in the center of an individual's life, rather than seeing God have that place. When people practice liberation theology, they do so in place of practicing Christianity.

Still not convinced? Here's something else from Trinity's own site; I'll make comments where appropriate.

We believe in you, O God, Eternal Spirit, God of our Savior Jesus Christ and our God, and to your deeds we testify:

Note that, in this little declaration, there will be not one mention of God the Father. "Trinity" Church? Hardly.

You call the worlds into being, create persons in your own image,and set before each one the ways of life and death. You seek in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin. You judge people and nations by your righteous will declared through prophets and apostles. In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth,

Perhaps you can help me here. While I in no way disagree that Jesus Christ is fully man, He is also fully God. Is that mentioned in the quoted epistle?

our crucified and risen Savior, you have come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to yourself. You bestow upon us your Holy Spirit,

Not getting anything here about "God the Holy Spirit," something you think you'd get from a Trinitarian church.

creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races. You call us into your church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be your servants in the service of others, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil,to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory. You promise to all who trust you forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, your presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in your realm which has no end. Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto you. Amen.

"Your realm." Heaven? Nirvana? Wrigley Field? And note how "justice and peace" get worked into the equation. Never mind that we find grace, not justice, in Christ; never mind that as things are, we are told there will be no peace in this world.

Trinity also hosts a "Center for African Biblical Studies." Whether you wear a dashiki or a bed sheet, advocating race while appealing to the Bible never, ever works. Scripture reminds us that, in Christ, there is no "Jew" or "Greek"--by extrapolation, no "Black" or "White" or "Hispanic" or "Asian" or "Native."

Here, let's look as a few of their "ministries." As a side note, Jesus is mentioned once directly on the Ministries page, and only three times by reference to "Christ," "our Lord," and the "Son (of God)." They list 59 "ministries" on that page. A few tidbits:

AFRICA MINISTRY - promotes, educates and advocates issues concerning Africans in Africa and the Diaspora. Opportunities shall be provided for education, travel, fellowship, economic development, missionary work, financial support, and health education

FINE ARTS & LITERARY GUILD - informs the church family about artistic and cultural events focusing on African and African American heritage.

CARIBBEAN CONNECTION - This ministry is our Afrocentric congregation's attempt to educate our North American members about the many aspects of the Caribbean culture. These aspects include the cuisine, the peoples, the countries, the customs, and the religion of our Lord as practiced in the various Caribbean places.

INTONJANE - Swahili for "Coming into Womanhood" is a formal Rites of Passage program for young women, ages 8-18 years old. The program involves each participant in inspiring Christian, cultural and social awareness exercises.

ISUTHU - Swahili for "Coming into Manhood" is a formal Rites of Passage program for young men, ages 8-18 years old. The program involves each participant in inspiring Christian, cultural and social awareness exercises.

KUJICHAGULIA - The 2nd principle of the Nguzo Saba, meaning "Self-Determination;" provides resources, networking and hands-on assistance to persons who are physically, mentally, and/or emotionally challenged.

SINGLES COMMUNITY MINISTRY - addresses unique issues facing single Christian adults.

Never Married
Divorced
Widowed
Single Parent
Same Gender Loving (emphasis mine)
Upcoming Events

Tangeni Adult Dance Ministry

Ministry Purpose/Objectives
The purpose of this ministry shall be to praise God in dance. In keeping with the church’s motto of being “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian,” we recognize that praise and worship in dance is both an expression of our heritage and an acknowledgement of our faith. Tangeni, as led by the spirit, shall provide fellowship and nurturing to its members through devotion during rehearsals, seminars, retreats and other related activities. Tangeni provides an opportunity for its members to enhance and use their spiritual gifts in order that we may minister unto the church universal and the community at large

YOGA MINISTRY - helps participants maintain physical, mental and spiritual fitness.

I love that last one--"yoga ministry" being an oxymoron, whether you're focusing on a cultic church or on a Christian church that's just confused on that particular issue. And how, exactly, does a church address the euphemistically-named "same-gender loving" other than to say "it's a sin"? Seems like that would be one short session.

And if the phrase "Nguzo Saba" rings a bell, that's because it refers to the seven principles of Kwanzaa. That made-out-of-wholecloth "holiday" was, of course, invented by a fellow named Ron Karenga in the late 1960s. Karenga, for the record, is a Marxist. For the record, his one-time "United Slaves" organization was responsible for the deaths of two members of the Black Panthers. For the record, Karenga served several years in prison for assaulting and torturing (yes, that's "torturing") two women who were members of his "United Slaves" organization.

Trinity United Church of Christ, located on West 95th Street in Chicago, Illinois, is not rooted in Christianity. It is a liberation-theology-spouting, ethnocentric pseudo-church preaching a synthetic gospel grounded in divisiveness and hate. A lot of people, apparently, are comfortable with that--or else, so spiritually immature that they're unable to distinguish the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (the Son of God and God the Son, by the way) from the false gospel of ethnic preference and socialism.

Wright ran a false church, as we can see and read by what passes as "sermons" from his pulpit. And Barack Obama has affiliated with that church for two decades.

How are those of us who are Christians to vote? Do we vote for Hillary Clinton, who's never been guilty of taking the Christian faith very seriously? Or do we vote for John McCain, who's not that troubled by homosexual "marriages," who made McCain-Feingold into a mine field for Christian churches, and who insists he's a Christian but will tell you point-blank that he's never been born again? Or do we vote for Barack Obama, who sat for twenty years, shining the pine of a pew in a "church" where hatred had free rein?

To quote the King of Siam, "What a puzzlement."

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: On April 28, 2008, Wright spoke to the National Press Club, and answered questions posed to him. Lest there be any doubt Wright preaches another gospel, his own words included the fundamentals of liberation theology--and something even more damning. In case you don't follow the link, I'll post a notable exchange here, thusly and like so:

MODERATOR: Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me.” Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?

WRIGHT: Jesus also said, “Other sheep have I who are not of this fold.”

Not exactly a straight answer, but an interesting little torture of Scripture, that. So Wright believes Islam--an anti-Christian religion that denies the deity of Jesus Christ--is a viable way to salvation, a way that makes Muslims Jesus' "other sheep"? Such belief is impossible without believing that Calvary was the debacle of the ages, and that God is a bumbling idiot.

Not through sinful judgment, but by Wright's own words are the conclusions inescapable ones: He does not--cannot, by his own statements--have a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ, and we should pray for his salvation, because Wright is not--and cannot be, by his own statements--a Christian.

Which puts us back to Obama, who has publicly declared himself to be a Christian. The above-referenced question asked of Wright must be asked of Obama, publicly and clearly. And for all his posturing and rumbling, Obama's answer will no doubt be as disgusting as Wright's.

For those still checking in, I'm concerned about something

2008-04-23T21:00:00.003-05:00

(With something resembling a regular schedule again, I will be rebooting the festivities here as much as possible.)

Here's something fresh off the wire services: Paul Verhoeven, the director of motion pictures such as RoboCop, Starship Troopers, and Basic Instinct, has taken up a new career goal. No longer content to be a purveyor of secular filth, he has an anti-Christian slant to his latest effort--not surprising, since he fell in with the oxymoronically-named "Jesus Seminar" crowd years back.

The latest effort from Verhoeven is a out-of-thin-air "realistic portrait" of Jesus. Never mind the eyewitness accounts we have of Jesus' earthly life and ministry, because Verhoeven wants to suggest in this not-a-biography that Jesus "may have" been sired by a Roman soldier/rapist, and that someone other than Judas Iscariot "may have" betrayed Him.

The Catholic League's Bill Donohue considers Verhoeven's screed "laughable," but I respectfully disagree with Mr. Donohue. There's another "-able" that's far, far more appropriate for this situation, particularly since Verhoeven is setting himself up as an authority figure on the subject--as a teacher, if you will. I consider it appropriate to quote thusly and like so...

2 Peter 2

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not

Not "laughable," Mr. Donohue. "Damnable." As in the Greek apoleia, "the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell."

If you happen by this corner of the Internet, Paul, it's the responsibility of those of us who are Christians to tell you that your current path leads to eternal separation from God in a very real place called Hell. You can write your way into Hell, but you cannot write your way out. It matters not that you refer to yourself as a Catholic, because your actions are those of someone who hates Jesus Christ. I encourage you to repent (if it's not too late for you to do so) because, unlike Muslims who would call for your head if you so much as drew a cartoon of Mohammed, Christians want the best for even those who attack Christ as you have.

--Mike

New year, new rule

2008-01-14T18:43:00.000-06:00

Since there are some who simply will not take a hint, comments here are now (and will be for the foreseeable future) moderated. This will slow the discussion to a crawl, but will allow me to prevent that which is neither edifying nor topic-specific from appearing in the Comments sections.

--Mike

A bit of site housekeeping

2007-12-16T14:36:00.000-06:00

Folks, I'm going to give you one heads-up, and one heads-up only.

The notion here is to deal with issues, and not with personalities--unless, obviously, a personality makes himself (or herself) an issue.

Whether it's an obvious bit of nonsense like calling someone a "moonbat" or a "sissy," or more subtly-phrased disparagements, there will be no more of them. At least, not here.

I've been tolerant, but as is often the case, my tolerance has been taken for granted. Talk about events and ideas, not about people, or your comments, too, will be eligible to join the "Remove Forever" club.

--Mike

If you don't have a catchphrase, let me suggest one

2007-11-28T13:35:00.000-06:00

"Live for nothing, or die for something. Your call."

As a Christian, such a statement has a very specific connotation to me, but it's certainly a conversation-starter at the very least. You might have to Google the source (other than the Biblical overtones, obviously), and when you find it, you'll know one movie you might want to go see in January.

--Mike

When enough really is enough

2007-11-02T14:04:00.000-05:00

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

Yes, I'm still around

2007-10-25T16:51:00.000-05:00

I've been investing my time in many other places, and as I have oppportunity, I'll share with you. By all means, keep the discussion going; I'll be along presently.

--Mike

Condolences to my friends in Memphis

2007-10-05T10:32:00.000-05:00

I read this morning that Willie Herenton was re-elected for a fifth term as Memphis mayor. Only bad things can come from that, and I'm sorry to see it happened. Before moving from the area, we refused to live inside the Memphis city limits, in great part because of the lack of positive leadership from Willie Herenton. Had Herenton had but one strong contender, rather than two, he would not be mayor today. (Of course, had a recount been requested by Dick Hackett in 1991, Herenton probably wouldn't have been mayor in the first place.) A runoff provision is looking better and better for Memphis mayor's races of the future.

And if Herenton or any of his supporters are reading this, I'd like to pass a message along to him: Winning an election with a plurality isn't necessarily an expression of God's favor; as a matter of fact, it might be an example of God's punishment that the city is reaping divisive, pugilistic "leadership" as a result of unwise voting decisions.

He quoted Proverbs 12:2 in his acceptance speech, but only part of it. The verse in its entirety: "A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn."

--Mike

Words Mean Things II: Peeling Back The Curtain

2007-10-04T10:14:00.000-05:00

In response to my previous article, I've gotten several e-mails that ask, in different ways, the same thoughtful questions: Aren't actions more important than words? Aren't words just so much insubstantial fluff until they're supported by behavior?

Well, that depends on the words--and how they're used.

Words spoken, published, or otherwise disseminated thoughtlessly, in the heat of a given moment, can serve as snapshots of their author's mind at a given moment, but not much more than that. However, words that are planned, calculated, and repeated in an organized manner by (even loosely) organized individuals are much more substantial, being far more revelatory, and must be taken much more seriously.

Let's take, as an example, something that I frankly expected to get far more press coverage than it has. Recently, U.S. Senators Harry Reid and Tom Harkin used the Senate floor (and its insulation against debate) to launch planned, calculated, and organized attacks against a private citizen--not against another legislator or government official, mind you, but against someone who's never run for elected office, much less been either elected or appointed to one. Reid and Harkin (and you know, if you've followed this blog for any length of time, what it means when I refuse to refer to a man even as "Mr.") told lies about this private citizen from the floor of the United States Senate, slung insults at him from the floor of the United States Senate, and used the floor of the United States Senate to insist that this private citizen made "unpatriotic remarks."

Problem is, the private citizen in question is Rush Limbaugh, and Mr. Limbaugh didn't say what Reid, Harkin, and their fellow Democrats would like people to think he said. The Senators and other high-profile Democrats had all sorts of opportunity to get the facts of the matter straight, but that would've meant forgoing their move to personally attack someone who has made their professional lives uncomfortable for many years. And rather than get it straight, they chose to (in the words of former boxing referee Mills Lane) "git it on!" Democrats make it a way of life to do things to help their party in lieu of helping the country as a whole, so these unfounded verbal attacks against Mr. Limbaugh should come as no surprise.

So, yes, their words do mean a great deal. The Democrats' words, repeated ad infinitum, demonstrate more clearly than any Republican or otherwise-conservative response just how dangerous the Democrat Party is. Yet there are well-meaning but misguided people who just don't get it: witness Barack Obama's recent hand-holding stint with Rick Warren, Tony Campolo's infatuation with the Democrat Party as a whole, and... well, I can't consider Jimmy Carter "well-meaning," so let's move forward.

Over time, and with organized repetition, words become powerful tools. They are meaningful, even when that meaning gets twisted; both Lenin and Goebbels understood how to torque language into useful shapes, how to use the power of the lie. Whatever the scale, words that are repeatedly employed reveal the character of their employer.

In the episode of Rush Limbaugh vs. the Senate Democrats, Mr. Limbaugh has been very careful over the years to indicate that, on issues of war and national security, he doesn't question the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees, but rather their particular choices on particular issues. Well, Rush (since I'm certain you're a regular reader, I hope you don't mind if I call you by your first name... heh heh...), the time has passed for being overly generous; when faced with a critical mass of evidence, there's no shame in admitting an inexorable conclusion.

And in the larger case to which this issue speaks, the conclusion is painful, but obvious: The Democrat Party in the United States is anti-American. It is interested in the consolidation of is own power base to the exclusion of the health and prosperity both of the country and its general population. It is invested in the failure of the United States military, and of traditional American institutions. Yes, theirs is a myopic worldview, but the evidence of it is overwhelming.

And it is no crime--indeed, only right and proper--to identify a spade as a gardening implement.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: If you think the attacks on Mr. Limbaugh aren't coordinated to at least some degree, get this latest bit of nonsense: Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democrat presidential contender John "The Breck Girl" Edwards, is now insisting Mr. Limbaugh's draft deferment wasn't legitimate--while, in the same breath, perpetuating the Democrat talking-point of a lie regarding Mr. Limbaugh's statements about our armed forces. As with Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Edwards couple has produced a critical mass of statements that can only lead people to believe they're far more interested in personal political power than with the good of the country.

Words Mean Things

2007-09-13T12:25:00.000-05:00

A year or so ago, I wanted to leave a response on a blog. Some people were making foolish statements about the pastor of the church I attended at the time, and I wanted to articulate a perspective that wasn't based in emotionalism. In attempting to post my response, I had to register to do so; part of the registration process was the opportunity to establish my own blog.

Now, I had prayed about doing just such a thing since blogging became a significant part of the Internet, though it had never been at the top of my proverbial list. This struck me as not merely a formality, but an opportunity God was presenting to me. And as you can see, I took it.

Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to write about politics, pop culture, denominationalism, and more (yes, Celine Dion is in there). But between those who are aficionados of this blog and those who attack it, I've been drawn--even after being away for nearly six months--to writing about events at my long-time home church, Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis. More specifically, this blog has served as a way to respond to the increasingly shrill, fact-free, and emotion-laden words being indiscriminately lobbed at Bellevue like so many verbal Molotovs by otherwise well-meaning people.

You can post your favorite term for discussion, but let's start with the biggest Bellevue-buster bomb of all, the phrase "harboring a pedophile." Pretty damning phraseology, hmm? I mean, when should we expect Chris Hansen of Dateline NBC to visit Bellevue's offices?

Turn the phrase around. Let's say Pastor Smith is harboring Mr. Jones, who is (read along using your best movie-trailer-announcer voice) on the run, accused of a crime he didn't commit! In harboring Mr. Jones, Pastor Smith demonstrates a number of things about himself, including these:

1) He thinks Mr. Jones should not have to face the law.

2) He thinks Mr. Jones should be free to live his life as he has before.

3) He wants to help Mr. Jones maintain his freedom--and his lifestyle.

Quite a step out for Pastor Smith, wouldn't you agree? But let's say that Pastor Smith actually knows that Mr. Jones is a criminal, someone who is avoiding justice. In this scenario, "harboring" Mr. Jones means Pastor Smith wants Mr. Jones to be free to maintain his criminal lifestyle. Harboring Mr. Jones, if my faulty memory serves, actually makes Pastor Smith an accessory after the fact to Mr. Jones' crimes.

With regard to the Williams case at Bellevue, make no mistake that the use of the term "harboring a pedophile" are words thought to be an unstoppable weapon against Steve Gaines. Unfortunately, those words are a deception.

Mr. Williams, while admitting to despicably harming his son over the course of a year and a half, has never been remotely linked to assaulting another human being, particularly a child in the care of Bellevue. After the time frame in which he assaulted his son, Mr. Williams has never been linked to any form of child abuse at all, anywhere.

The loaded question has often been posed "Would you let him babysit your children?", and of course I would not--nor do I think that Mr. Williams should ever been alone in the company of children. Is that because I believe him to be an active, unrepentant pedophile? Not in the slightest; I also believe that recovering alcoholics shouldn't go to places where alcohol is served, and that recovering Democrats shouldn't visit the Daily Kos, listen to Air America, or watch CNN (except for Glenn Beck, but that's a different article).

Pastor Gaines didn't have any evidence to believe Mr. Williams was an active threat to any child, and certainly didn't desire to facilitate Mr. Williams' past behavior. If the anti-Bellevue club has a favorite branding iron, it would have to be the "harboring a pedophile" label. Too bad, for them, that it's a misrepresentation.

I'm blessed to see that The Bratton Report (I'm telling you, I just might have to have t-shirts made up!) has become a place where people of varying opinions with regard to Bellevue can, in the absence of any other legitimate place to do so, voice those opinions. Sometimes they're substantive, and sometimes they're so much Swiss cheese, but you can publish them--although you should be prepared to back them up.

"Why do you let him (or her) say that, Mike?" If I didn't, I'd be guilty of the same filtering I dislike in other sites. And in the words of the philosopher Montgomery Scott, "After all, we're big enough to take a few insults! Aren't we?"

Words mean things. They can communicate information about a subject, and about their author. (Often, that latter communication is unintentional, yet no less informative.) Words should be used precisely, and responsibly. When you're here, at least, please do so.

Or when you're anywhere, for that matter.

--Mike

Let's wait

2007-08-10T15:06:00.000-05:00

The recent get-together at Huey's was very rewarding, and actually productive. Putting names with faces was one thing, but the maturity expressed (that perhaps one can criticize aspects of a church's direction without verbal assaults) was refreshing.

However, for those who have made a hobby of attacking Bellevue Baptist Church, that opinion does not appear to be infectious. A few moments ago, I visited the primary home of anti-Bellevue rhetoric, and saw that it's been ratcheted up--with not even a peep of admonition (so far) from the regulars.

But let's be patient.

Surely the notion that a church is "dead" because you don't like it will be countered by someone; surely the notion that a pastor you don't like is led by a demonic spirit will be rebuked at some point. Perhaps the Huey's lunch made me overly optimistic about the future of this dispute. The next day or two will tell the tale.

Occasionally, a Bellevue contrarian will realize that (gasp!) people outside the church body might be reading what is written. One day, they may realize that ignoring the Biblical model for conflict resolution can give people the notion that it's all right not to take anything else the Bible says too seriously. They might even realize that when their behavior is indistinguishable from worldly behavior, something is wrong. One day, they may understand that calls for others to be responsible ring hollow when one's own responsibility, or the collective responsibility of one's group, is suspect at best.

The clock is ticking, but let's be patient.

--Mike

You are cordially invited

2007-07-29T22:50:00.001-05:00

Since I'm going to be in Memphis later this week, I thought it might be a good idea to get together with some of my fellow bloggerati (my favorite new word, by the way). If you're reading this and are or will be in the Memphis area this Thursday, the cordial invitation to lunch extends to you. A couple of copious commentators have committed to convene, and I'd like you to join us.

All right--I'm sorry about all that alliteration. It's a weakness.

Anyway, we'll be getting together at Huey's on Germantown Parkway this Thursday, August 2nd, at around 11:30 a.m. Personally, I tend to take my time at lunch, so if you can't get there until noon, I probably won't have gotten around to ordering yet.

See you Thursday.

--Mike

Critical Mass

2007-07-19T19:54:00.000-05:00

(Apologies for anyone who thought there was a pun in the title related to Pope Benedict...)

From time to time, I'm prompted to review the activities of what goes on at the curiously-named "New BBC Open Forum." When considering the group's activities, there are some facts worth remembering: It isn't new, it isn't in existence for the benefit of Bellevue Baptist Church, and the actions of its leadership and membership show it to be the polar opposite of an open forum. Consequently, the name seems odd to a number of people who stumble across it--sometimes because I link to it, sometimes because they've Googled it up, and sometimes because it's recommended to them by others who enjoy rabble-rousing as a pastime.

To be clear, I love their members with the love of Christ and I pray for them regularly, just as their major targets (the leadership of Bellevue Baptist Church) do. However, as with any emotion-driven group, the Closed Forum (as they have been more accurately labeled) has allowed any legitimate concern they had in the past year to ferment, pungently overpowering any hope for productive, constructive discourse by allowing bitterness to become their main product.

I keep a link to their blog for purposes of balance, so that anyone wanting to learn more about the recent problems at Bellevue can have another viewpoint, such as it is. But with the recent buckets of bile being tossed around their site, I may have to reconsider it. I've quoted their antagonism in previous articles, but some of it has reached new depths. Consider these few examples, quoted thusly and like so:

(These first few are from an individual who self-identifies as a grandmother)

I don't know whether you are evil or mentally ill and don't care.

Either way, you are a disgrace.
No wonder you defend SG and other FALSE TEACHERS.

...

Thanks for showing us exactly what a false teacher looks and sounds like.....your arrogance is right up there with gaines....
go kiss the mirror and get your fix.

In Texas, people like you make nice fish bait.

(Note the obtuse death wish there. Does (or did) one of your grandmothers speak that way? But I digress. This next one's from the, um, "moderator.")

You only illustrate with each succeeding comment just how ignorant you are, and it provides comic relief for the blog, so I have no reason not to publish them.

(Moderation, indeed! And hold onto your funny bones for this last one...)

I was just doing a little brainstorming(hold the sarcasm, smart alecs), and I penned down a possible compilation of my presidential deacon staff.

OC- head of security
AOG, Eke.- bible stuff and whatnot
SOTL- public relations
Nass- valet parking
Gmom- catering
Socwork- social work
Junk- puns and jokey phone messages
Lin- death threat laison
concerned- watercooler talk coordinator
mom4- leisure suit picker outer
cakes- long word letter writer

More positions will come available as I make them up, so send me your resumes...(all positions pending the signing of a Loney loyalty/confidentiality oath)

Yes, a group whose members love to toss out death threats and death wishes gets a hearty laugh out of it, too! Ain't bitterness grand?

Ahem... If you, for some reason, wanted to read more, my apologies. I really don't have the stomach for much of the hatred in the Closed Forum these days, just as I have little tolerance for Savaging Bellevue's front-page link to the story of a small, independent church in Michigan exercising church discipline on an elderly member of its congregation. The problem is that Savaging Bellevue used one of its Enquirer-esque headlines with no mention of that church's location, affiliation, or anything else that would dissuade a casual visitor from thinking the story happened at Bellevue.

It would be great to communicate my concerns privately, but they've long since shuttered themselves in--it's been awhile since any e-mail of mine to anyone with the Closed Forum or Savaging, er, "Saving" Bellevue, or Integrity Does Count (But Only For Others) was deemed worthy of a response. Actually, it's been over a month since the last responses, and longer than that since any of the contrarian "leadership" deigned to respond.

Now, I understand that this article will likely be greeted with something other then genuine thoughtfulness by those in the center of those aforementioned contrarian groups. But I'm the sort of optimist who believes, as a Christian, that God will mediate and reconcile any dispute within the body of Christ if we will just let Him! In recent days, I've read remarks from people in the anti-Bellevue camp who seem to be under conviction that their comrades may be going about things the wrong way; reading and ruminating upon some of the very same types of remarks I've quoted above made those people rethink how they do what they do, and even if they should do it at all.

So don't tell me there isn't any hope for them, because there is. And I'm all about hope, because Jesus is all about hope.

--Mike

Pope Benedict's fallability

2007-07-11T15:57:00.000-05:00

I'll let you read the original press release for yourself.

Done? Good.

Did you notice anything that made, well, no sense at all? Any fundamental problems that glow in the dark? Any extra-Biblical qualifications for the presumed exclusivity of the Catholic denomination of Christianity?

This mini-article is more a of a starting point for discussion--so, if you're of a mind to do so, let's discuss.

--Mike

Where Rage Has Lease: Lessons From Chris Benoit

2007-06-27T10:12:00.000-05:00

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

Ephesians 4:26-27

Chris Benoit gave place to the devil.

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

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

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

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

Some time after that, the coward Benoit killed himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Mike

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

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

A word to the unwise

2007-06-16T11:39:00.000-05:00

If you've read much of anything I've written online over the past ten months or so, you have gathered that one of the most frustrating things I can think of is when people engage in gossip, rumor-mongering and attempted character assassination whilst hiding in the tall grass of anonymity (as opposed to the tall grass at Oakmont, site of this year's U.S. Open).

This morning The Drudge Report (no relation) linked to a Reuters story regarding a precedent-setting lawsuit filed against people who used online anonymity to spread vicious threats, including "career-damaging rumors" and threats to do harm, against other people. The alleged--ahem--perpetrators were, surprisingly or not, regulars at a site designed for law school students.

As I read the piece, I could not help but think of the misguided few who regularly, and unfortunately, dispense anti-Bellevue bile. If you are one of that bitter minority who makes online attacks your weapon of choice, whether or not you sign them, the Reuters article should be sobering reading.

It is one thing to behave in such a way when one has a professed affinity for the law. When one has a professed affinity for God's grace, however, such behavior is even more out of place.

--Mike

Consider this, part 2

2007-06-11T15:17:00.000-05:00

As I've reminded you previously, Islam is a totalitarian worldview. For some insights into that, this New York Times article makes for interesting reading.

--Mike

P.S.: Forgive me for not being here so much, please. I have a lot on my plate these days, but I will be back in the regular swing of things soon.

Consider this when reading the news

2007-05-25T08:48:00.000-05:00

Islam is not a religion.

It is a worldview with totalitarian domination as its goal, and with the forced subjugation of those who disagree with it as its by-product. If you do not adhere to Islam, you are dar al-Harb, potential victims of an Islamic war to force you into dar al-Islam, an all-encompassing Islamic rule.

Some adherents are more strident about it than others, but that is the essense of Islam--totalitarianism. Please keep that in mind as you peruse the news.

--Mike

Condolences and joy... and disappointment

2007-05-15T13:41:00.000-05:00

This morning, it was announced that Rev. Jerry Falwell has passed away. As I heard and read the media reports surrounding his passing, they reminded me of anecdotes Pastor Rogers used to share about Rev. Falwell, and how those stories gave depth and substance to a Christian who was too often pilloried by the secular press (both liberal/mainstream and conservative) for having the temerity to suggest that those of us who are Christians in the United States are actually allowed to express political opinions and preferences.

Both Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church will now pass into a difficult period, mourning the loss of such a charismatic leader as they remember his work to spread the Gospel and influence the culture. The brothers and sisters in Christ of Liberty and Thomas Road are in need of our prayers; please remember them, and pray that God the Holy Spirit will comfort their hearts, reminding them that Rev. Falwell is even now face-to-face with our Lord. As you read this, he is experiencing a joy that all of us who name the name of Christ will one day know... and probably getting pointers from Pastor Rogers on the fine points of kicking up gold dust on the streets of Heaven.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD SOMETHING THAT HIT ME SQUARELY IN THE FACE: Perhaps I'm more optimistic than I should be, but I am shocked to read what is being written regarding the homegoing of Rev. Falwell. Clearinghouses for the venom are here and here; see what you think about what is being said--and see if the style of rhetoric rings any bells.

A contaminated timeline

2007-05-10T13:15:00.000-05:00

For those who believe belonging to a church is a license to publicly bash it (and for those who do so even without belonging to the church in question), I bring forth for you consideration some prescient observations from Keith Solomon, someone who has, for awhile now, been part of the discussion regarding events at Bellevue Baptist Church. I quote him thusly, and like so:

I've seen a lot of bloggers telling people to refer to the 'Integrity Does Count' timeline for an accurate account of the events surrounding Bellevue. They speak as if it's completely true without any bias or spin whatsoever.

I don't expect whoever wrote it to be perfect, but I do expect a humility and desire to be as accurate as possible, even when admitting to error. That's true in everything, but especially when dealing with the body of Christ.

One of the events that is listed in December 2006 is a party our singles had:
December 2006
Career and Singles celebrate the New Year with a “Black and White Hollywood Night” party. The “Hollywood Parties” originated at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church.

To be honest, I don't see anything wrong with the party even if the theme did originate at Saddleback. However, it did not and saying that it did is a deliberate falsification that should be removed if the timeline is to have any credibility with me. To deliberately ignore the facts because you think you can get away with it is the worst kind of deception in my book.

This is where they got the idea that the parties started at Saddleback. There isn't a year listed, but Friday, February 10 would make it 2006.

Here is a flyer from the singles department from 2002. Under 'Special Thanks' you'll see mention of a 'Hollywood New Year's' party. Since this was 4 years before the Saddleback party, I don't see how the theme could have originated there based on the Saddleback link.

So is this a big deal? I think so. First, everyone who has printed this off and handed it out has been passing around a lie. Is it a big lie? Well, the party was evidently a big enough deal to make the timeline in the first place. Before handing it out in the future, everyone should mark that line out. I think anyone who has already handed out the timeline should contact everyone who received it and tell them that there is at least one mistake on it, too.

Second, it clearly speaks about the men who created the timeline. This image was sent (by someone else) to IDC in March, but there was never an answer or any action taken whatsoever. Men of integrity would instantly remove anything questionable (or clearly wrong), but the event remains.

Third, why are we arguing about parties anyway? Would Steve Gaines' behavior be more acceptable if the party hadn't taken place?

I just can't help but wonder how many other events have been doctored up. If they'll ignore one mistake, why not more? The sad part is that it's so unnecessary. There's more than enough dirt for them to use without resorting to fiction.

I see a lot of irony in the name 'Integrity Does Count'. I believe it does, and that God honors it's presence. I'm not a professional fruit inspector, but I haven't seen much evidence that God is working through IDC.

The NBBCOF puts a lot of importance on fruitfulness. Is IDC sinking or swimming? There sure has been a lot of dissention among the ranks.

Maybe they should create a list of their accomplishments thus far so that we can judge for ourselves whether or not we should support their efforts.

Until then, I'll keep Proverbs 11:3 in mind.
The integrity of the upright will guide them,
But the crookedness of the treacherous will destroy them.

One additional observation, if I might: Who, exactly, makes up (pun intended) "Integrity Does Count"? Demanding accountability from others while hiding in the shadows starts off as being humorously ironic; however, it soon devolves into common hypocrisy.

Don't let that happen to you.

--Mike

The parable of the fuzzy scroll

2007-05-02T07:54:00.000-05:00

There was a man who was blessed by God with a wonderful family; one day the Lord prompted the man and his family to move to a far country, full of elephants and tigers and blazers (although having a school nickname inspired by Chevy doesn't make much sense, personally--but I digress).

As this family pitched its tent by an emerald lake, the man and his wife began to do the things which would allow them to abide in this new land lawfully. One of the most important rules of the new land was the Rule of the Tag. Each wagon in the land must carry the Tag--but not the Tag of their former land, no; even though driving with a Tag from the former land caused other wagon drivers to cut them slack when veering suddenly to get to the right exit and generally elicited a friendly, you-ain't-from-around-here wave from the natives, the family's wagons must now be identified with the new land.

So, it fell to the man to journey into the Land of the Bureaucrats, where the precious Tags are found. He had carefully assembled the parchments and scrolls which would prove him worthy to receive a Tag and allay the instinctive suspicions of the Bureaucrats. In doing so, the man had gotten a copy of the most valuable of scrolls--the parchment kept by his Banker in a land thousands of miles away, the scroll that declared to all that the man would one day own his wagon outright.

With great satisfaction, the man waited to speak to one of the Bureaucrats; when it was his time, he carefully laid out all his scrolls and parchments before the Bureaucrat's squinting eyes. After a long, contemplative silence, the Bureaucrat peered up at the man and declared "This one is fuzzy--begone!"

Yet the man did not move. The scroll his Banker had sent him was a copy of the real scroll, and the journey over the thousands of miles had caused it to blur. Yet the man could read the important parts of the scroll, so he beseeched the Bureaucrat to reconsider. "Your Banker has failed you, and you cannot have the Tag of our land until all your scrolls please my eye. Now, many others wish to make their entreaties of me, so please step aside if you must cry out to your Banker. So let it be written, so let it be done."

As the steam rolled from the man's ears, he raised a loud cry to his Banker; over the long distance, the calm, restful voice of his Banker filled his ear, dissipating the steam. "My friend, we knew you were moving to that new land, and we knew the trials you would face, so we are sending the original scroll to your tent by the emerald lake. Even the most impassive Bureaucrat cannot help but be moved by its beauty and clarity; just be patient, and your wagon will have its Tag."

The man was frustrated that he could not have another copy, until he realized that he would enjoy a few days longer the courtesy extended to those who drive a wagon with a foreign Tag, and then be able to stride boldly before the Bureaucrat after his crisp, original scroll arrived. As he left the Land of the Bureaucrats, the man took each wave from the natives as more precious, and hoped the waves would continue after his new Tag made him blend in more closely with them.

--Mike

For your viewing and listening pleasure

2007-04-26T14:42:00.000-05:00

Folks, I don't watch American Idol. At all. Ever. But last night, they did something impressive, and paired up two great singers (one of them is my all-time favorite, and you can guess which one) for a landmark duet.

Please, go watch it. Right now. Here. It's good stuff.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Yes, yes, copyright issues have been raised, and that link is no longer active. However, the more fascinating thing is how the Elvis/Celine duet was produced in the first place. If you're interested, there's analysis here.

And I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but the copyright wasn't exercised until recently. I leave the broken link as testament to the fact that it was available, until the holder of the copyright exercised it--as is their right, something that seems to elude some people. As someone with more than a passing interest in both radio and television production, however, the how'd-they-do-that link holds more interest.

Warning: Obscene Language

2007-04-24T07:23:00.000-05:00

After reading this observation from the previous thread (quoted thusly, and like so)...

bepatient said...
I try to steer clear of the Closed forum but occasionally I pop in to see what is going on and I skimmed through and saw a comment that SG is the "head demon".

...I went for a stroll through the Forum linked in the list to your right, the one innocuously named the "New BBC Open Forum", but which is more accurately known as the "Closed Forum" for its lack of hospitality toward those who do not line up with the anti-Bellevue sentiments fermenting there. (I would have preferred to make these observations in an e-mail, but it's been a long time since the Forum moderator deigned to respond to one.) Don't take my word for what goes on there, though--here are some recent examples, beginning with the aforementioned "head demon" reference.

Hmm?

Oh, yes. Quoted thusly, and like so:

The demons have been loosed on BBC, with the head demon, SG, directing them.

Matt 18 only works with believers who have actual fruit. It does not work with people who are deceptive...professing christians with no fruit.

I described what is happened at BBC as "voodoo".

Are any of you Christians? You certainly are not showing the fruit of a believer!

The leadership at BBC has many similiarities as the brutes in Jonestown. Matter of fact, many of the members at BBC have decided to stick their brains in their pockets and allow SG and his band of thugs to do their thinking for them, just like the people in Jonestown.

The Antichrist should put BBC on his list to visit right off the bat. SG has prepared his flock to usher in the antichrist. No doubt they will give him a standing ovation, if they haven't already.

Have these remarks been deleted? Have those who posted them been reproved?

No, and no. There are occasional calls for a calmer tone, but they (obviously) go unheeded. Keep in mind that repeated calls for a more civil discourse do get reprimanded, but denying the salvation of professing Christians, comparing Bellevue to a non-Christian cult, and insisting the Antichrist will feel very much at home among the "demons" there are the coin of their bitter realm. Their remarks are not only untouched, but encouraged.

Nevertheless, and just as with the so-called "Saving Bellevue" site, I leave a link to the Closed Forum in the list to your right. But be warned--the Forum is a place loaded with obscenities and filth. Strap on your hip waders before you enter, and take a long, hot shower after you depart.

It doesn't have to be that way, though. Once again, I beg those who participate in the Forum, in the name of Jesus, to repent of their mindset and their actions. They do nothing to heal, and do much to harm.

--Mike

Your point is not well taken

2007-04-19T07:07:00.000-05:00

The National Enquirer-esque headlines are a regular feature of the deceptively-named "Saving Bellevue" website, and one of the more recent ones continues the tradition. I quote thusly, and like so (yet without the large font): "Parliamentarian and Pastor Barry McCarty's church in Texas, Valley View Christian Church split in 2004. The off shoot (sic) is Cornerstone Christian Church He (sic) was the Parliamentarian for our March 25th Business Meeting."

Get it? See, Dr. McCarty had a church split under his watch. So, he must be part of an effort to make Bellevue split, right? Why, of course!

Well, no.

With regard to the so-called "split," it wasn't much of one. Dr. McCarty became Valley View's new pastor, about 150 people flared off to follow Valley View's old pastor preach at a Dallas hotel, and Valley View was just left decimated--with only 1200 people left to attend their church. Granted, an 11% drop in membership is nothing to sneeze at, and none of us is privy to just what level of acrimony was present during those members' departures, but according to the National Enqui... um, sorry, the so-called "Saving Bellevue" reference, no one needs to know anything else about Barry McCarty other than that his church split.

A couple of things to consider here:

1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't at least one group in the past splintered away from Bellevue to form its own church? I have yet to read a condemnation of Ramsey Pollard on the so-called "Saving Bellevue" site for presumably mishandling his pastoral duties to the point that members broke away to start what is now known as Second Baptist Church in Memphis. To be clear, I don't know that Pastor Pollard ever necessarily mishandled his pastoral duties--my point is that "Saving Bellevue" should either be consistent, or remove their latest attempt at gossip-mongering.

2) Dr. McCarty has been the Southern Baptist Convention's parliamentarian since 1986. If you'd like to read an extensive article on the man, Baptist Press has one here.

3) Since you probably didn't follow that link, here's a sample from it. As you read it, see if anything sounds familiar about it--quoting thusly, and like so:

Preparing for his first convention, 1986 in Atlanta, McCarty studied what had happened the year before in Dallas. He said that while some of the points of order offered were well-intentioned, they stymied the convention’s deliberative process to the point he suspected that some messengers were raising the points to “confuse and frustrate the chair.”

“The thing I remember most about the convention in Atlanta was that they threw everything at us, including the kitchen sink,” McCarty recalled. “It was pretty obvious to me that people who were opposed to the president had found that in the point of order they had a way to harass the chair.”

McCarty said he gave Stanley a legitimate way to dispatch such points in quick fashion: “I recall one thing I had taught Dr. Stanley that became his favorite expression: ‘Your point of order is not well taken.’ But when someone raised a legitimate point of order, we took immediate corrective action,” said McCarty, who noted the 1986 Convention had an unusually large number, between 60-70, points-of-order raised.

4) Dr. McCarty was a personal friend of Pastor Rogers'; in addition to serving as SBC President in 1979, Pastor Rogers served as SBC President in 1986 and 1987 with Dr. McCarty as parliamentarian. As he noted in the recent business meeting (and as is obliquely referenced in the aforementioned Baptist Press article), Dr. McCarty treasured his friendship with Pastor Rogers. Perhaps some in attendance missed that reference?

Now you know more than "Saving Bellevue" evidently wanted you to know about Barry McCarty, the incredibly well-qualified parliamentarian who served Bellevue during the March 25th business meeting. Why do you think that none of this information made it onto that site?

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Apparently, there's nothing that the so-called "Saving Bellevue" folks won't bootleg. I see today that they made a very poor recording of Mark Dougharty today, which continues a trend of surreptitiously recording people and events. Why? From whence comes their compulsion to keep unapologetically breaking these types of laws over, and over, and over, and over again? I mean, I half-expect to see bootleg copies of 300 and Meet The Robinsons for sale on their site!

Just when I was looking forward to writing about something else...

2007-04-17T07:33:00.000-05:00

An anti-Bellevue blog is closing.

No, not that one. Or that one. Something previously titled "Bellevue Baptist Church - OUR (sic) True Story," now re-titled as "From Bellevue Baptist Church to the World...." evidently intends to shutter its publishing.

And I'm sad to see it go.

The author (or authors) of that blog missed (or ignored) the point of my interaction with them, as you'll see in their most recent article. Normally, I would've responded on that blog, but for whatever reason I "may not comment with this account," according to Blogger.

You Finally Win

You hypocrites and brood of vipers, you win. How 'bout a round of applause, no?

Let's keep in mind that "brood of vipers," in particular, was a phrase Jesus employed when speaking to those opposed to Him and His mission. It's informative to the rest of what "Don" has to say.

After receiving a record setting amount of email, most which were completely absent of anything Christian, and after the way other bloggers who have been kind to our cause have been treated, we are pulling this blog down - mostly for legality's sake. Can't elaborate on that now, though.

But when you are able to elaborate, by all means feel free to use this venue to do so.

All day we collectively received calls from "minister friends" and from "concerned people" whose choice phrases cause those of us contacted to believe solely otherwise. No matter what Steve Gaines says, harassment is never a good thing on any level, and bullying never wins out in the end.

So you don't think that your choice to single out two Bellevue staff members and call them racists, then reference the alleged "countless deacons and bible fellowship teachers and lay leaders who make awful racist remarks on the ball fields, out fishing, and in public" was a good one after all? Because your anonymous remarks were just what you claim to detest--they were harassment, and they were bullying in nature.

Congratulations, Mr. Mike Bratton! How happy you must be now that you get your way, since you are so vehemently against anyone who wishes to pose their opinion.

Now you've moved from harassment and bullying to outright lies.

You DEMAND that they tell their names or that they show their faces or you paint them out to be liars and evildoers.

Where? When I wrote this to you? Quoting myself thusly, and like so:

"Either put the weight of your reputation(s) behind your accusations, or refrain from making them."

And like so:

"Your 'reputations' are of precisely zero consequence until you publish your names with your accusations. Is that elementary point so very elusive?"

And like so:

"As a friend of mine once reminded me, if someone won't sign his or her name to his or her complaint, that complaint is worthless."

I never suggested that your charges against Bellevue staff were necessarily "lies" or that you were anything resembling "evildoers." I asked you to sign your name to your complaints. Now, the things you've said regarding me were absolutely lies, and I encourage you in the name of Jesus to apologize for them and repent of them. But I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt. Since you post no e-mail address, and since I cannot post to your blog, I have no option but to correct your misstatements here.

While you win the battle by us pulling this momentary blog down, you have proven a point that is about to be made known to the entire world ........

Let me ask a question I've asked for months now: Where is the Biblical precedent for broadcasting the presumed private sin of another to the world at large?

And you definitely will get to see our faces in the very near future. See, what you have always failed to realize and what you clearly cannot see because of your ego that is in the way (and let me say this not just to Mr. Bratton; this I speak to all of the pro-Gaines crowd who use the bully pulpit for their own promotion and personal gain) is that SHEEP ARE HURTING AND SHEEP ARE DYING AND THEY PERISH FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND YOU HAVE IGNORED THEM FOR THE LAST TIME. (And yes, there are those close to the pastor who are gaining personally from their "squashing" of these sites and comments, but more on that at a later date.)

Interesting. We're getting into "threat" territory now.

You have allowed them to lay bleeding by the wayside, by beating those who simply look for answers. You attempt to destroy those who question things that are clearly not Scriptural and you attempt to make them a laughing stock before your peers. You continue to beat them and blast them into a faux submission, and only when you stand before the Lord - only then will you see the thousands who now lie broken and stranded in the path.

You want control, not restoration. You want power, not fellowship. And it sure seems like for the time being, you have it ...

One hundred eighty degrees incorrect. Those whom you and yours attack mercilessly are people, from my experience, who desire fellowship and healing. They are far from perfect, as they would be quick to admit, but their orientation is one of openness and commonality.

So I implore you, have your fun for now. I promise you, and this is the very sad part, that it will be short lived. We went to the people who were at fault, and we were rejected - wouldn't even listen. We then took a group of godly people to confer about the problems, and still nothing. We tried to take it to the church - and were promised our day - yet still, nothing. And I want to say that how anyone can say that the opposing viewpoint had a chance at all of being heard at the "business meeting" is completely out of their mind. Period.

Since we don't know who you are, there is no way to objectively validate your statements. Did you go to the people at fault? Who knows--you're anonymous.

And again, the contrarians had their opportunity, and fumbled it. Just as you have.

So, now we will take it to the people. All the "facts" you accuse us of not having, all the things you say aren't real hidden behind a blog screen name, and all the things I am absolutely certain that you all have ignored because you liked your position ... all is going to be made known. And you are going to realize that you have been very, very wrong.

If so, I'll be the first to admit it.

Too many threats have been levied against too many people, too many "rights violations" have been incurred by too many innocent bystanders, and too many federal laws have been either bent and/or broken by the current leadership - and finally, there are those who are listening. The most sad thing is that the "church" is the one who chose to ignore it's own in this matter... now the matter is being taken up in the only place where people will listen, and act.

And you can control no one's behavior but your own. To date, you, whoever you are, haven't exactly acquitted yourself with élan.

Thank you to every one who listened, who prayed and is praying, and who has never been afraid to speak up. May God bless and keep you as you continue to stand for what is right.

Please keep us in your prayers and keep your eyes open. This is all we can say for now.

No matter what anyone may think, we all trust and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord.

I haven't seen anyone question your salvation--though that is a favorite tactic of those who share your viewpoint. Why, you even opened your article by doing just that.

Sincerely,

Don

I had hoped that "Don," and whoever else was working with him in publishing, would understand the responsibility required in making the accusations found in that blog--namely, to sign one's name to one's charges. And more than just a first name, obviously. For reasons known only to "Don" and his presumed colleagues, this responsibility has not registered.

And I'm sad to see that.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Thankfully, we seem to have a sort of apology for the previously-quoted remarks. You can read it here.

What is a "real man"?

2007-04-10T11:08:00.000-05:00

A little distance is a wonderful thing.

Having been caught up in the joys of both serving in the Memphis Passion Play and of moving to a new home in a new city, I have been blessedly distant from both the childishness that currently permeates the Closed Forum and the disregard for law that is the calling card of "Saving Bellevue." My prayer is that I will be able to address other areas of interest (which I expect to do soon), but I would be remiss were I to neglect observing how both anti-Bellevue groups are operating these days, in one more effort to encourage them to repent of their behavior.

First, the nonsense ironically known as "Saving Bellevue" has pushed the boundaries of the ridiculous to new depths. Last week, I sent them an e-mail; since I've yet to receive a response (which is, unfortunately, typical), perhaps sharing its contents with you might encourage a response. This is the text of my April 7 e-mail, quoted thusly and like so:

I would've written sooner, but we've just now finished the move to Birmingham. As I try to catch up, what do I find at your site? Why, bootlegged IMAG video of the business meeting. Care to explain why a group such as yours--a group so very, very interested in "integrity" and "accountability"--seems willing to break the law with regard to copyright infringement on a regular basis?

You folks really have to stop this. I'm concerned about you, and about your circle of associates. In the name of Jesus, I ask you to put aside your bitterness, because it is blinding you to the wrongs you are committing; you and yours have long since become known only for what you are against, and not at all for what you are for. Consider that Easter Sunday would be a good time to renounce your old behavior and put your efforts toward constructive work for the cause of Christ. At the very least, I encourage you to attend whatever church you'll attend tomorrow without carrying a video camera.

Appropriately, the videos they bootlegged off Bellevue's IMAG system have been removed by YouTube, but the response of "Saving Bellevue" is telling. Rather than taking responsibility for their own illicit behavior--and while displaying a continued, disturbing predilection for unrepentently breaking the law where copyright issues are concerned--their sole response is "This is censorship."

No, this was violating YouTube's Terms Of Service. And breaking the law.

Integrity counts? When--only when it's someone else's?

Secondly, the clique ironically known as an Open Forum has taken to baiting the men of Bellevue who don't buy into their bitterness by insisting they aren't "real men." A few make the assertion, and the rest affirm it. Obviously, such immature, schoolyard taunts have been the coin of the Forum realm for awhile now, but rather than dismissing the taunt, I felt led to address it.

At the Closed Forum, one finds that a "real man" is someone who thinks destroying a church is a good idea. According to the observations and rah-rahs of their few-but-proud (apologies to the U.S. Marine Corps), real men "are not afraid to stand up and speak out. They put their names on the line to protect the church and preserve the truth."

Interesting that the majority of the men who participate in the anti-Bellevue movement do so behind pseudonyms--except for the few who'll provide both their first and last names to television producers.

(The same observation applies to the "Saving Bellevue"/"Integrity Does Count" hybrid. One can only find out the IDC membership after joining--for a fee, of course. So, according to the Closed Forum, IDC is anything but "manly.")

And how have anti-Bellevue sympathizers "protected" or "preserved" much of anything? We've seen them, as a group, fumble every chance to maturely speak to the issues that are supposed to drive them; equate their brothers in Christ with Fascists, the Mafia, and Satanists; and make un-Biblical pronouncements regarding who is--or is not--a Christian. What we haven't seen is concern for the church body as a whole or the meekness, the strength under Christ's control, that would allow them to speak up about an issue without defaming others.

Real men, and real women, are up to that task. So, what do you say, IDC-ers and Forum-ites? Will the discourse of the playground be your only legacy, or can you leave the taunts, bitterness and antagonism behind you?

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: For those few who make up what's left of the Closed Forum "regulars," thanks for stopping by and browsing. From what I read, your collective seems either unwilling or unable to take up the challenge and put the playground mentality in the rear-view mirror. It's at once telling and heartbreaking.

Programming notes

2007-03-29T11:20:00.000-05:00

1) For the next several days, my presence here will be infrequent at best, as our moving process has begun. Apologies in advance if I don't respond or post much until some time next week.

2) The Memphis Passion Play will be at Bellevue from Friday, March 30th to Wednesday, April 4th. Make plans now to attend!

--Mike

Post-game analysis

2007-03-26T08:48:00.000-05:00

Bill Buckner.

Chris Webber.

Jean Van de Velde.

These three athletes have one thing in common: Each had the opportunity to achieve, yet wasted that opportunity in memorable fashion. (And as I'm not a fan of the word "choke," I will refrain from using it in the balance of this article. Let's put you--or me--in their situations, and see if you--or I--could have done better.)

For Mr. Buckner, an otherwise tremendous baseball career was forever asterisked by his role in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, when he allowed a ground ball from Mookie Wilson to trickle between his legs. Mr. Buckner's error gave Mr. Wilson's New York Mets the win and forced Game 7, which the Mets won.

Mr. Webber, a standout collegiate and professional basketball player, made one of the most colossal mental errors in the history of basketball: calling a timeout in the waning moments of his Michigan squad's 1993 NCAA championship game against North Carolina. Had Michigan had any timeouts remaining, it would've been a good idea; since they did not, the resulting technical foul gave North Carolina the ball and the championship.

And then there is the case of Mr. Van de Velde. While I saw all these events live, on television, this is the one that is most vivid in my mind. Perhaps it is because there's no Red Sox bullpen to blame, or because a moment's distraction in a basketball game is something I can relate to. Perhaps because I enjoy golf so much, or perhaps because it happened nearly in slow-motion. In any event...

At the 1999 British Open, Mr. Van de Velde went to the 18th hole with a commanding lead. All he had to do was nudge the ball down the fairway, and he would have won his first major championship; but, like a hacker on a driving-range tee, he pulled his driver from his bag. Seven shots later, after finding the rough, the sand, the grandstands, and the water, Mr. Van de Velde ended his round in a three-way tie for the lead--and lost the ensuing playoff to the dumbstruck Paul Lawrie.

Now what does all that prologue have to do with yesterday's business meeting at Bellevue?

It's simple: The Bellevue contrarians pulled a Buckner, to use the vernacular. They Webbered their opportunity. They Van de Velded.

They seriously, seriously Van de Velded.

From what I understand, the contrarian game plan for the business meeting was not followed, whatever it was supposed to be. And from what I knew, the contrarian group's performance didn't catch anyone in Bellevue leadership by surprise.

A motion to keep the television cameras from "scanning" the congregation? A motion for a secret ballot? Please. It's one thing to hide behind pseudonyms while posting anti-Bellevue epithets on the Internet, but wanting the luxury of hiding during a church business meeting is absurd. What was next? A motion to allow contrarians to address the congregation from behind a curtain? While scrambling their voices? If you don't have the courage of your convictions when you have the opportunity to (literally) stand up and be counted, I would encourage you to reevaluate just whether you hold a conviction--or a grudge.

Which reminds me of a suggestion for the next business meeting: If my failing memory serves, people speaking at a microphone are supposed to identify themselves. This did not happen yesterday, and should not happen in the future. (And I understand that the meeting was adjourned with a motion on the floor, but adjourned to when? If the next business meeting won't be within the next ninety days, it's a moot point as I understand it, but some clarification would do wonders.)

There were actually (gasp!) some good things presented, such as a call to codify conflict-of-interest procedures in committee selection, but those measured proposals were in the minority, particularly when it comes to the recipient of the First Annual Van de Velde Award.

And the winner? The action that equated to pulling a driver from the bag when only a long iron was needed? To going for the green instead of chipping out of the rough? To firing an approach shot into the water?

This year's winner was the absurd, well-nigh-antagonistic notion of trying to force the congregation to vote on two disparate matters with one vote, particularly since the Bellevue leadership offered to have both measures considered separately. A quarterly business meeting just like what we had yesterday? Fine, let's talk about it, and vote on it. A resolution against sexual immorality? My, but that's a novel concept--is there anyone at Bellevue Baptist Church who thinks it's a bad idea to be against sexual sin, much less sin of any type? Obviously, no.

Attempting to force Bellevue into quarterly business meetings by the "two-pronged" approach, attaching it to a motion no member would consider opposing, was too clever by half. It precipitated a quick end to the business meeting, and squelched the single opportunity the contrarians had to legitimately speak to the membership.

In short, you folks blew it.

Over and over again.

(A note to Josh Manning, since you don't make an e-mail address available: You insulted everyone who had anything to do with yesterday's meeting with the aw-shucks comment "I wish I had shaved this morning, but I had zero intention of speaking when I left the house this morning." You made sure you were in Memphis for the business meeting, and you just happened to have a prepared motion with you, but you had no intention of speaking? Nonsense. That disparity flushed any credibility you might have had.)

And what's the rest of the talk in the anti-Bellevue locker room? Why, let's check some more highlights:

"Mr. Angel.... I hope you are reading this! Do you understand how hard it is going to be to sit in that bema seat when you get to heaven? Answer for your decisions! I know Joyce Rogers would like to hear your 'real' explanation for calling to adjourn the meeting! I guess you guys were beginning to feel the heat! I wouldn't want to be you, that has to answer for all those your turned away from the truth yesterday dear sir!"

"they will never give you the tools needed to reach the 3,000 Bellevue members. But, I am sure the media would."

"It reminds me of the jews lining up and going to the slaughter in Germany..a real tragedy!!"

"I am praying that God will remove SG by whatever means necessary if the members will not do so as they ought."

Does that last one sound like a veiled wish (with rather a "Malcolm X" flavor to it) for Steve Gaines' death? It's not the only one. Here's one with a different flavor--this one wielding the Bible as a baseball bat:

"I hope all of you see the parallel between Steve Gaines and company of false prophets saying good things are happening to BBC and Hananiah's false prophesy that good things were going to happen to Israel. Here is the account:

...

"[17] So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month."

Let's have a couple more glittering highlights:

"We love you, CW and JM. We RESPECT both of you for your love for The LORD Jesus and for your love for The Word and for your love for His Church. It is for this love, however, that both of you meet the conditions of a wolf, his hirelings, and his lukewarm and compromising audience for hatred and punishment at BBC (and also by a handful that blog here). After all, the one they serve (satan himself) hates both of you, is burning in jealousy towards you".

"You REALLY dislike Josh. And it is obvious why. He has done nothing but rip the veil from the putrid decay that has begun to eat away at our church and you want it to stay covered."

"AS YOU SAW with your own eyes, MANY of the members of Bellevue are 100% behind Brother Steve and the leadership and are thrilled with the direction Bellevue is going. REPLY: Yes, there were TOO MANY, members that were affirmative for leadership & SG. If you were honest with yourself and others you would admit that the vast majority of the membership is clueless as to the many "issues" surrounding leadership & SG. They were voting blindly and clueless, voting without knowledge is dangerous."

"Once we were 'one in the bonds of love'. Now we are 'one in the bonds of love only if you agree with me and show blind faith in leadership'."

"And this Sunday, important business is cut-off by Miller after -- yeah -- 45 minutes, after more than an hour of "Celebration" filibuster."

To recap the post-game anti-Bellevue chatter:

Church is a "filibuster."

Most in the Bellevue membership are idiots.

The business meeting was the equivalent of the Holocaust.

Neither the pastor nor anyone in Bellevue leadership can possibly be a Christian, because the pastor and church leadership all serve Satan.

If the church doesn't do as the contrarians wish, Pastor Gaines should die.

Obscene. Is it any wonder what precipitated the "anti-Bellevue" label for that group?

To the folks in that group: I love you all with the love of Christ, and challenge you out of compassion. For months I have pleaded with you to stop attempting to bludgeon those with whom you disagree. I was confident the day would come when you would have the chance to air those of your objections that are legitimate, and your negativity and hate-mongering would only work at cross purposes with the presentation of any serious concerns. I was hoping you'd take the opportunity given to you to voice your concerns in a measured, responsible way. You didn't. Instead, you've chosen to further antagonize those who aren't in lockstep agreement with you.

This has to stop. You injure yourselves with your behavior, and contribute nothing to the distribution of the Gospel. If you have concerns about Bellevue, lay them at Jesus' feet as you would any other concerns, and leave them there. Is God deaf to the petitions of His children? Will He not move as He sees fit for our benefit and for His glory?

The Easter season is a time when the unsaved are more open to the message of Christ than they might be otherwise. Please, I beg you: Take the energy you invest in negativity and contention, and reinvest it in the only thing that has eternal consequences--sharing the love of Jesus as He gives you the chance.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD (AS IF THIS ARTICLE WASN'T LONG ENOUGH): I see that the Closed Forum is open enough to continue to allow more obscenity, in the form of another post that lusts for the death of Pastor Gaines. I'll be interested in seeing whether or not that post (along with the others) are condemned and eliminated, or even complained about, or if there's even a mild objection.

Carnations for a friend

2007-03-19T17:37:00.000-05:00

A little over a year ago, my family lost a friend.

He was the kind of friend you tell stories about, smiling and laughing as one gentle anecdote tumbles into another. He was the kind of friend you watch, and learn from even when he isn't trying to teach you anything. He was the kind of person who challenges you, even telling you things you don't want to hear so that you can be a better friend to others.

It was a sudden thing when he passed, and every friend he had found a different way to mourn. Some are still mourning today. You never know whose thoughts are where, though. My eight-year-old daughter, out of her own sweet spirit, asked if she could place some flowers on his grave; quietly, I agreed, and today the beautiful floral arrangement on our friend's grave has, slipped into one side of the vase, the addition of three yellow carnations.

As we walked away from the gravesite, my daughter matter-of-factly said she looked forward to seeing him again, and that she knew our friend was happy in Heaven. If it's possible, though, this afternoon he was just a little bit happier.

--Mike

Redeemed

2007-03-12T11:59:00.000-05:00

There are some who suggest that there are certain sins from which one cannot be healed--some, even, who are ostensibly members of Bellevue. For them, and for everyone else, this article should be of interest.

--Mike

With one hand tied

2007-03-09T12:30:00.000-06:00

(Note: Please don't miss the "Edited To Add" at the end of this post.)

As those of us who are members of Bellevue Baptist Church look forward to a congregational meeting Sunday morning, March 25th, the unfortunate shrillness of the anti-Bellevue opposition has increased. They're louder, all right, but they're still not saying much that's substantial--and the things of substance they do say get drowned out by the noises surrounding their favorite sport, attempted character assassination.

That's what separates the anti-Bellevue types from those, concerned by some recent events in Bellevue's leadership, who want to see issues addressed yet seem able to air their concerns without insisting Pastor Gaines isn't really a Christian, but a willing servant of Satan. The latter group desires comity, reconciliation, and healing; the former group desires power, and the only way available to them is to tear down Bellevue as much as possible, and restructure it in a way that benefits them.

After months of attempting to dissuade a cluster of these people away from their bitter, slanderous remarks, I've been asked not to address them any more. Oddly, their moderator (as well as other participants) seems to miss the irony of a site supposedly dedicated to "comment and exchange ideas in a respectful, Christian spirit" limiting comment, censoring ideas, and encouraging disrespect to any who would dare disagree with the prevailing mindset. Here are some of my most recent submissions, so you can see just what terrible, terrible things I wrote:

Post One:

Truth Rules said...
Mike,

I have been following your posts for quit some time. I must say that you state your opinions in a such a way that your opponents are unable to refute most of your facts. But I've noticed that rather than refute facts with a counter argument they change the direction of the debate. That seems to be problematic for anyone searching for truth. Keep up the good work. There are many of us who enjoy your posts.

I appreciate your kind words. And I'm glad you have also noticed that instead of answering simple questions or engaging in discussion, some find it easier to just lie about me, and lie about what I say. I asked a boatload of questions, and I don't recall seeing one person among the "regulars" attempt to continue the discussion.

No one can point to a personal attack that's ever come from my direction, yet we read nonsense about how I allegedly "don't want to discuss anything in a civil (or civilized) manner" when the people tossing those same allegations can't even brook an opposing viewpoint without throwing bombs.

You "regulars" will have an opportunity, from what I gather, to speak up in public. I seriously doubt you'll behave then as you do now--but who knows? As I've said several times now, we have serious concerns at Bellevue which require serious and sober discussion and debate. If you're not up to the task, there's no shame in admitting it; however, believing that the bile and invective that flows so freely from the keyboards of the "regulars" is either serious or sober is self-deception. You folks still have a couple of weeks to compose yourselves, but if this is it, there's a problem.

"Why do you even bother with those people, Mike?" When a day goes by without that question, I'm surprised--but when I'm asked, the answer is a simple one: Because I love "those people," and I believe you have legitimate questions, legitimate concerns, and legitimate pain.

The way you're doing things now doesn't help you. All I do is try to get you to realize that.

Truth Rules said...
Brady, thank you for posting. I made my first post on this blog today as well. I usually post on some other blogs but have read this one for months. It is hard to understand how these who profess Christ's love in their hearts can be so anger with anyone who says anything positive about our church.

There are a number of "regulars" here who have, sadly, a vested interest in Bellevue's implosion. Some are angry, some are bitter, some are wounded, and all have reasons to ask questions. Those reasons, however, do not--cannot--justify the months and months of personal attacks against those with whom you disagree in both Bellevue's leadership and laity.

And if memory serves, I've read some remarks about whether or not I ever object to Bellevue's leadership as strenuously as I do to the behavior here. To be blunt, I don't have to--they don't threaten me, attack me, or circumvent my questions.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress. :)

--Mike

Post Two:

New BBC Open Forum said...
memphis,

"Banned" is such an ugly word, but as long as he's just trying to keep things stirred up, you could say that. Mike hasn't always done that,

Mike doesn't do it at all, actually. (Grr... I hate it when I refer to myself in the third person.) Again, why is asking questions such a terrible thing?

so let's not go so far as to say it's permanent, just that he needs to stop heaping pain and derision on the people who post here. Tim just summed it up well in his last comment. Not everything that's said here has to be confronted.

You must be joking.

Read back at what's been sent my way for having the temerity to ask questions. Then, tell me with a straight face that you're not playing favorites with your "regulars."

And what makes anyone think he or she has the right to come here just to disrupt? I don't post on the Bratton Blog because I have nothing to say there. Actually, I could have thought of several things back when I read it regularly, but I didn't because it would have just been argumentative, and the moderator probably wouldn't have let it through anyway.

Presumption, ma'am. The only things I blow off are things with obscene or otherwise offensive language.

Or if he did, he'd have tried to pick it apart like a day-old Thanksgiving turkey carcass.

Then don't serve up day-old Thanksgiving turkey. :)

I don't need that here, and I don't need to go anywhere else for it. But if that's all Mike wants to do, he should [go].

So, let me understand. You and yours want a place where you can post anything you like, of any length and on any topic, without people disagreeing with you?

Then here's a tip: Rename this place. As has been otherwise noted, people who aren't members of Bellevue are as much a part of your core group as people who are, so the idea that this is a "BBC Forum" is out. And as for it being "Open," well, that doesn't match up with your desire for exclusivity, does it?

--Mike

We are confronted with a problem that's all too common in modern society: The need for sober-minded people to address wrong behavior with "one hand tied behind our backs," so to speak. When one of the little "Open Forum" clique questions the salvation of someone with whom they disagree, it would be simple to suggest that the people making such spurious remarks might want to make sure of their own salvation before they question others' relationship with Christ. It would be simple, but it would be wrong.

No one but God can see into the spirit of a person; no one but God can make the call so many Forum denizens make with ease. But ask those folks to stop, and they'll make you their next target. The same pattern holds with any of their behaviors, such as gossip, misuse of Scripture, the aforementioned character assassination attempts, even the refusal to sign their names to their attacks. It is a problem the Bellevue administration has been faced with, and on a smaller scale, it is a problem I've had to address for a number of months.

Oddly enough, it's an answer to prayer to find I've been relieved of the opportunity to speak the truth in love on that particular site, though I understand that what I write here won't miss their sight. Bitterness is such a pervasive element of that cadre's existence that it will be a welcome respite to not wade in it on a regular basis. Now, there is the temptation to take a cue from the "Open Forum" regulars and post there under a pseudonym, but it is a temptation that is easily dismissed. Speaking your mind while claiming your statements will be a crucial part of Bellevue's healing, while tossing bombs from the bushes is the tactic of those who wish only harm on Bellevue and her congregation.

Consequently, those of us who address the anti-Bellevue folks do so at a disadvantage from the start. That is, depending on how you define "disadvantage." We may not have as many options available, but that's all right, because (to coin a phrase) it's not about us.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: In perusing the Formerly-Open Forum, I came across this unfortunate, yet typical post. Quoting thusly and like so:

I spent the last few minutes looking for the last post I read from Mike Bratton. It is in response to Former Pastors respectful written, heartfelt concerns he addressed to BBC administration.

If I may ask, "A former pastor," why are you a former pastor, rather than a current pastor?

--Mike

9:30 AM, March 05, 2007

You and I have respectfully disagreed with each other, and that's how it should be done.
Mike's post above was just an example of how he treated many people on this blog- he got personal and ugly if he didn't agree with what someone said.

The technical term for such a response is "grasping at straws." Had "Amy," the individual who refers to my question as "personal and ugly" actually asked me why I asked the question, she would've learned something. One of my oldest and best friends is a man who is also a "former pastor." I wanted to know what circumstances had transpired in that poster's life to bring him to the place where he was today, since I'm sympathetic to the things that brought my friend to be in that same category.

But in the toxic environment of the Formerly-Open Forum, any question posed by the "enemy" is automatically hostile, and any action of an "ally" is either applauded or excused.

Lengthy, ponder-worthy question

2007-03-01T22:44:00.000-06:00

If your group's said to be all about integrity, yet it commits copyright violation after copyright violation (even after the copyright holder says "Um, would you mind not violating our copyright?"), then what's your group really all about?

--Mike

With a banjo on my knee

2007-02-27T22:25:00.000-06:00

That's my whimsical response to the question "Are y'all still going to Alabama?" Indeed we are, and with alacrity.

My family and I will relocate to the Birmingham metro before mid-April, and rather than waiting until the night before the moving vans pull up, I wanted to impose upon you now. If you are one of those in the Birmingham area who frequent TBR (sounds official, doesn't it?), we need your help. Even if you're not there now, but know about the area, we could use your input as well. While my wife is more familiar with the area than I am, neither of us knows nearly enough about, for lack of a better term, "the best of Birmingham."

Is Hoover High School all it's cracked up to be? Where do you get good barbeque? What are some good Southern Baptist churches to visit, and how do they celebrate Easter and Christmas? (For the record, we've had friends recommend Gardendale's First Baptist--which we've visited, really enjoyed, and plan to visit again--along with Brook Hills, Hunter Street, and Valleydale.) Where's a good dry cleaner? Know any good babysitters? What's the best grocery store chain? How much more fun are Birmingham's golf courses than those in Memphis? Does anyone down there really use the abbreviation "B'ham"? Auburn, Alabama, or UAB? Oh, yes, and this one... Do you folks really still refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression," or is someone just yanking my chain?

As you can tell, we're loaded down with questions--most of which I haven't listed, and probably don't even know to ask. Whether you'd like to respond in the Comments section or via e-mail, please respond. We're making our final house-hunting trip very soon, so Moving Day can come at virtually any time the Lord sees fit to orchestrate, and He's already made it clear we'll be there by Tax Day.

One other matter, of a very personal nature: I need a gig down there; freelancing's been interesting, but I could do without it. Networking has, to date, been slow yet productive; if you're connected to anyone in radio broadcasting or commercial production work, that's been my bread-and-butter since 1989, and I'd appreciate an opportunity to hook up. Or if you know anyone who could use a snarky blogger to do some writing, just let me know. Additionally, I act, teach Christian theater, and write plays; if you know of a Southern Baptist church (perhaps even one of the ones I listed earlier) that could keep me busy in those areas, I'd be obliged.

Cast a broad net, so the saying goes.

The broth for the "Bratton family stew" has been percolating for awhile, and it's now at a rolling, noisy boil. If you can toss some ingredients into the pot, to make the stew a bit more tasty--

Sorry. That analogy got away from me. Let's try that again.

We're ready for the next chapter in our lives, and if you can pass along any suggestions to make the transition easier, we would appreciate it.

--Mike

Break glass in case of deletion

2007-02-20T09:21:00.000-06:00

It's gotten downright funny.

A representative from the group oxymoronically named "Integrity Does Count" (You down with IDC?) made some statements last night regarding the mysterious nature of their organization. My response on the oxymoronically-named "Open Forum" lasted only a matter of minutes. Thankfully, I didn't un-learn the previously-learned lesson, so here's the post in question, which addresses a key point in the way the IDC sub-group does its business:

Mike Bratton said...
Tim said...
bepatient,

There is no fear involved in the Board of IDC. There is a matter of effectiveness and right now they may have more effect anonymously.

Because, of course, non-profit organizations do some of their best work from the shadows?

Could you explain the rationale there, Tim?

Since when has releasing names become an issue in your eyes. The church has a legal responsibility to do so and gain your support in refusing to do so.

Actually, the church has no legal, or moral, responsibility to release much of anything to a group whose raison d'etre is to work at cross purposes with the church. Or was Mr. Coombs' response not factual?

IDC has no legal or other responsibility to you and you take issue with them because of it.

You do, on the other hand, have a moral responsibility to let those you disagree with know your identities.

Imagine the scene. It's a clear, beautiful July day in Philadelphia, the year is 1776, and the Colonies are moving to assert themselves. John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, strides up to the Declaration of Independence and with a bold stroke, signs it thusly and like so:

"Anonymous."

Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? I mean, centuries later, who'd want to do business with the Anonymous Life Insurance Company?

This is actually far beyond a double standard.

No, actually, it's right-smack-dab in double-standard territory.

Releasing names for one is a legal requirement

You and yours had your collective hat handed to you on that one, didn't you? Why, then, do you still pursue it?

and the other is to satisfy your curiousity.

If you were smuggling Bibles to China, I could understand the need for a certain level of secrecy.

Wait--you're not smuggling Bibles to China, are you?

There is a moral responsibility to identify one's self to those with whom one disagrees. The propensity to avoid doing so, combined with the convenient dismissal of inconvenient facts, is increasingly eroding the base upon which the IDC and Mostly Closed Forum claim to operate; when that base is gone, it cannot be reclaimed.

And folks, it's just about gone.

--Mike

As I suspected

2007-02-16T13:32:00.000-06:00

Our friends at what used to be legitimately known as an "Open Forum" have taken up an interesting... well, for lack of a better word, tactic. When someone such as my own self asks them to be a little less incendiary in their behavior, the remarks just get (poof!) removed. Well, I might be slow on the uptake sometimes, but not today. Normally, there's no need to make copies of what one posts on an "Open Forum," but I've taken up the habit. Let me pull back the curtain and show you the horrible, horrible things I had to say--parental guidance suggested, and such. For ease of comprehension, the remarks of other posters are italicized. I quote thusly, and like so:

Trollcakes said...
Sorry to repost this comment from the last thread, but Bratton still hasn't replied to the following response to his assigning equivalence to anonymity on BBC Open Forum and the lack of transparency and accountability by the church leadership.

Since I've done nothing of the sort, your comment doesn't exactly compute.

I won't hold my breath that he'll answer.

Thankfully, God gave us an autonomic reflex that keeps us from holding our breaths to the point of damage.

I find it ironic that the "personal responsibity" crowd now fall into the pit (or uncharted waters) of moral relativism and situational ethics.

I find it fascinating that that's all you have.

"Bratton, why do you harp on these peoples anonymity so much?

Because it's wrong.

A "reporter" should know that anonymity is as old as the age, and has been employed for many purposes--yet usually to veil the identity of one whom would otherwise feel coerced, badgered and subject to backlash by the wealthy, powerful or simply the impetuous--haha(not naming names).

Since I actually (gasp!) was a newspaper reporter for a brief while (thankfully, it didn't take), you might be surprised to know I'm familiar with the use of unnamed sources. Unnamed sources, however, have never had free rein to spew bile about people with whom they have a disagreement.

Nobody here wants a bevy of deacons, dressed like morticians, jumping their (little) fence for a smattering of spontaneous "fellowship."

My Sunday School... er, Bible Fellowship teacher nicely summed up the incident to which your friend and your own self continue to refer. I can't quote him precisely, but the thought went along this line: "Personally, I'd be flattered to know that my pastor loved me enough to hop my fence and come to my door if he knew there was a problem between us."

You don't think people here have any call to fear some downward pressure from the big guns at BBC, eh?

No.

Not in the slightest.

No, I cannot really think of anybody who ever experienced a negative consequence to their life stemming from the expression of dissent to the leadership of Bellevue."

Can you?

Should I wait for another Nazi or Mafia allusion? Or even a specific example?

Oh, and before I forget, I did notice something to which I wanted to respond:

New BBC Open Forum said...
mike bratton wrote:

"Just for the record, a number of you "regulars" here agree that God hates David Coombs, Larry Ray, Phil Weatherwax, Steve Marcum, Mark Dougharty, Steve Tucker, and Steve Gaines"

How stupid do you think we are? To quote someone from days gone by, don't put words in my mouth.

Then when no one refutes a poster who equates something God hates with a particular individual, what conclusion should a reader come away with--both from the original post, and from the lack of outrage and/or censorship?

"Why can't you simply discuss something or just present your views without trying to pick a fight with everyone here?"

Nass, if you can find a single instance of where I have tried to "pick a fight" with anyone around here, please let me know.

There are serious issues at Bellevue that need addressing by sober, serious-minded people. When people who want to be involved in the discussion behave, as you and yours do, in a way that cannot be mistaken as being either sober or serious-minded, why is it so horrible to encourage you to reconsider your own behavior?

Either cut the c*** (there, I didn't censor it this time) (However, I did.) or I will delete your comments. It's up to you.

Will you be punishing yourself for consciously refusing to follow your own guidelines? Or are references to excrement (as you and at least one other poster have recently made) considered around here to reflect "a respectful, Christian spirit"?

Again, please, either take the high road or don't make the trip.

In recent weeks, I've spent far less time overall reading that site, much less posting there. Will I bellow an "I Quit!" and never visit there again? Of course not; matter of fact, you'll notice that this site still links to them--as with the so-called "saving Bellevue" site, it's important that people have access to different perspectives regarding the issues facing Bellevue Baptist Church.

The point's self-evident: When people can say what they wish without regard for responsibility, what they say is often unflattering and counterproductive. It produces the same kind of opportunism that is found in those few who use the Bellevue situation to make names for themselves--two sides of the same contrarian coin.

We must, as a church body, work together to address the issues before us, or face the real possibility of lasting damage to the church's ability to share the Gospel both locally and globally.

Or, as that noted philosopher Dr. Jack Shephard has said: "Live together, die alone."

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Now it's getting even more humorous--I understand that posts of mine from that anything-but-Open Forum are being retroactively deleted.

Heh heh heh...

Some serious "anti" comments

2007-02-10T16:14:00.000-06:00

Perhaps you are aware--and if not, you will be--that the United States nurtures, at present, the seeds of wholesale Christian persecution. In no way do we as Christians in the United States have the level of persecution present in places such as China or Saudia Arabia, but the soil for growing such persecution is being prepared.

Earlier this week, The Catholic League called for Democrat presidential aspirant John "The Breck Girl" Edwards (and if Mr. Edwards didn't have such a documented fascination with his hair, the nickname wouldn't have as much traction) to dismiss two of his staffers, both of whom have made stridently and unrepentantly anti-Christian public statements. Not just "We don't like Christianity because of" x, y, or z, but... well, my ability to analogize comes up short in this instance. The Catholic League's website is listing more details, but I cannot bring myself to directly link to the quoted comments. Suffice it to say they are some of the most disgusting statements I've ever seen directed at Christians and Christianity, and particularly at the Catholic denomination.

Perhaps, at my age, I should be surprised by such things, but Mr. Edwards has refused to fire his employees, after he had indicated that's precisely what he would do. (I thought it was too cold outside for flip-flops??) The events surrounding these two Edwards campaign staffers serve to illustrate, again, why Mr. Edwards is patently unqualified to run for President--even as the Democrat nominee. Does anyone really think that Mr. Edwards would've even gotten a single hair in his coiffure out of place in firing his two staffers had they made similar statements against, oh, say, Muslims and Islam?

Open contempt for those of us who are Christians and for Christianity in general is getting more and more fashionable. Combine that with individuals, such as Mr. Edwards, whose "leadership skills" are summed up as following the fashionable, (rather than leading through what is perhaps unpopular to what is right) and one phrase comes to mind: It's going to get worse before it gets better.

But we knew that already, didn't we?

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: As of yesterday (February 14), both of Edwards' staffers have resigned. Did they leave of their own accord, or were they "encouraged to depart"? It really doesn't matter. The point is that blatantly anti-Christian screeds are not firing offenses in at least one Democrat's presidential campaign.

Caution

2007-02-07T11:15:00.000-06:00

One of the links in the list below is to what is oxymoronically called an "Open Forum."

Currently, it is not.

It used to be, to its anonymous moderator's credit, but the over-the-top behavior of a poster who didn't share the predominant mindset was excuse enough to restrict input. As a result, the invective flows in a much more uncontested manner--including remarks directed at your friendly reporter.

Don't share the mindset of the "regulars"? Why, then they can question your salvation, and do so with barely a word of protest! Then, they can use your support of Pastor Gaines and blame him for someone else's poor behavior.

The banned poster, Cary Sidhom, indeed made numerous mistakes, including duplicitous behavior with a family friend he knew frequented the Forum. Cary was condemned by one poster for--and I quote thusly, and like so--"collecting info on [someone else], like a spy, (to use against [that someone else] in public)." Yet notice that Josh Manning, another young man who is also guilty of making numerous mistakes in this situation, is lauded for surreptitiously recording a conversation with Bellevue's Administrative Pastor, David Coombs. Collecting info, if you will. Like a spy. To use against Mr. Coombs. In public.

Double standard, anyone?

When I attempted to reply to Mr. Manning's defense of his poor behavior, my observations don't make it past the moderator's mouse-clicks. And when I attempt to respond to lies specifically told and retold about my own self on that forum? Same song, second verse. It's nice to see the occasional rebuttal to the insubstantial accusations, rebuttals such as this (again, I quote thusly, and like so):

"I wouldn't group Mike Bratton in the same group with Ace. Unlike Ace, Mike Bratton has, to my knowledge, been honest and has not tried to cause problems. Bratton on numerous occasions in my opinion has brought forth solid and legit points. And when there has been a disagreement, instead of attacking, he's had good arguements (sic) for and against various things."

That's from a young man using the fine Klingon pseudonym of "Koragg." Q'apla, honorable brother! (It's a Star Trek thing; you might not understand.) But I digress.

Unlike the anti-Bellevue cadre--and with each passing day, they illustrate their growing antipathy for healing, mutuality, and sober discussion--this site cites divergent viewpoints, so readers can make their own decisions. However, I must strongly caution you that the "Open Forum" is, by and large, "open" to those who just cannot abide opposing viewpoints. Which is to say that, nowadays, the Forum is hardly Open at all. Visit it at your own risk.

--Mike

The waiting is the hardest part

2007-02-05T16:34:00.000-06:00

So, that was it?

Months of Sturm und Drang about what might or might not have gone on at Bellevue Baptist Church with regard to the presence of a sexual predator on staff result in reports from the Personnel Committee and the Investigative Team--reports which used to be on Bellevue's website, but don't appear to be anymore. If I hadn't picked up a hard copy, I wouldn't have access to it; even attempting to Google it in a cached state trips a request for a password.

In a nutshell, we received a "Mistakes Were Made" report, something that was already obvious. Other than the dismissal of Paul Williams from the staff, there were no reported censures of those who erred in their handling of the matter. From my perspective, and after hearing the thoughts of a great number of people, we must be missing something.

Be clear--I'm calling for no one's job, no heads on pikes. Were I in the position of being one of those named as being at fault, that in itself would be censure enough, mortifying as it would be to me. However, I find myself still waiting. Waiting for the substantive consequences. Waiting for the "new Bellevue," if I may use such a term. Waiting for the Bellevue that holds two-way, open business meetings so that members can voice concerns directly and freely. Waiting for something more than a reference to "uncharted waters" and training which should be unnecessary, if not downright offensive. (Again, if I may, the "waters" were "charted" by the Catholic denomination quite awhile ago, if not properly navigated. Uncharted? No. Unfamiliar? Very much so.) Waiting for the Bellevue that goes further than one- or two-deep on its bench, distributing responsibility in a less-concentrated manner among more brothers and sisters in the congregation.

The fact that none of this appears to be happening gives fuel to the small group of people who do want to see careers destroyed--since they can continue to veil their bad behavior behind a presumed Quest For The Truth. Pastor Gaines, and Bellevue staff and leadership, I urge you to take the wind from the sails of those people, by responding to the legitimate complaints which tend to be obscured by their hyperbole and misguided actions.

Please, don't make us wait.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: New information has come my way, that the church did not plan to leave the Report on its website as indefinitely accessible, only until it did what it perceived as "its due diligence." This was not a decision which would show the church staff as working to be more transparent in operation.

With great power...

2007-01-22T14:40:00.000-06:00

...comes great responsibility, or so we all have learned from our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. Although, when you think about it, you hopefully learned that from reading the twelfth chapter of the Gospel of Luke. In verse 48, Jesus is quoted as saying "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

The leadership of Bellevue Baptist Church has shown responsibility today in terminating Paul Williams fron the Bellevue staff as of today. The release from the church website reads thusly, and like so:

Bellevue’s Investigative Committee presented its report and recommendations regarding the moral failure of a Bellevue minister to the Personnel Committee on January 20.

On Sunday, January 21, the Personnel Committee reviewed the report and voted to terminate Paul Williams’ employment at Bellevue effective Monday, January 22.

The Personnel Committee will present a full report and its recommendations to the church on Sunday, January 28, following the 6:30 p.m. evening Worship Service.

There are some for whom "a full report and its recommendations" might not be enough.

I am one of them.

Even the most copious of reports will have the potential to leave questions unanswered. Even the most sweeping of recommendations can miss something of significance. For this reason, I urge Pastor Gaines and the Bellevue leadership to call Bellevue Baptist Church into a business meeting "following the 6:30 p.m. evening Worship Service."

Speaking of Luke, there's a line from the motion picture "Cool Hand Luke" that sums up in a single sentence a prime difficulty that will remain even after Mr. Williams' dismissal. I quote the actor who brilliantly and indelibly delivered that line, Mr. Strother Martin, thusly and like so:

"What we've got heah... is... a failure... to communicate!"

As I have stated previously, the only way available to put the difficulties of the past few months in the church's collective rear-view mirror is to talk openly, soberly, and frankly about them, and so work through them in a spirit of mutuality. A business meeting will allow the forum to do that; a report, with no ability for congregants to pose questions from the floor, will not.

--Mike

"What else can we undermine?"

2007-01-12T08:30:00.000-06:00

Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter want to redefine what it means to be a Baptist.

You may begin writing your own punch lines and leaving them as responses...

Now.

--Mike

Act like you've been there

2007-01-09T09:00:00.000-06:00

Last night, the University of Florida's football team beat The Ohio State University's football team 41-14 for college football's national championship. Most folks (myself included) expected it to be a runaway Ohio State win, rather than a Florida cakewalk. And while there are a number of reasons for Ohio State's collapse, one that stands out in my old-school mind is the injury to Ohio State wide reciever/kick returner Ted Ginn, Jr., an injury that absolutely did not have to happen.

After Ginn effortlessly returned the opening kickoff 93 yards for what might have been the start of an Ohio State rout, he was injured. Not by a Florida player--but during the post-touchdown celebration scrum with his teammates. "Oh, but it was an accident!" Yes, it was accidental, but it was an accident resulting from immaturity. What happened to the days of Jim Brown, and Larry Czonka, and all the other players who just found the nearest official and flipped him the ball after scoring a touchdown?

Just as my father and my coaches used to preach, there's a rule of behavior that is now all too clear in the mind of Ted Ginn, Jr. (and his piling-on teammates)--or at least it should be. That rule is a simple one: Act like you've been there. (There is the redundant permutation of the phrase that reads "Act like you've been there before," but when else would one have "been there" except "before," in the past?) Score a touchdown? If it's the first of your career, a little exuberance is understandable. However, young Mr. Ginn has scored more than that at Ohio State: 14 receiving touchdowns, 3 rushing touchdowns, 6 punt returns for touchdowns, and 2 kickoff returns for touchdowns.

He's been there. Before, even.

"But Mike, it was the national championship!" All the more reason for Mr. Ginn to maintain his focus, a lesson he will take, hopefully, to the NFL. (I would prefer to see him stay in college, but the widely-held view is that he will enter the NFL draft.) So, keep an eye on him next fall. The first time he does anything other than toss the ball and trot to the sidelines, much less allow himself to be mobbed by his teammates, we will know the lesson has been lost on him.

What does that have to do with Micah 6:8? Thought I'd forgotten about that, hmm? Well, you just get that wiseacre look off your face and I'll opine, all right?

Now, then... We'll talk about "doing justly" and "loving mercy" in subsequent articles, because the BCS championship is the perfect opportunity to talk about "walking humbly." The Hebrew word translated "humbly" can also be translated "modestly," and you might agree that modesty is something in short supply in our culture. Children's dolls are dressed to bare their midriffs, television programs are increasingly slanted to appeal to base instincts, and sports figures from Dennis Rodman to John Rocker to Allan Iverson attract the limelight more for their undesirable behavior than for their professional performance. Humility and modesty are anomalies in our society, rather than norms.

Should this be the case in our churches, as well? There is an increasing movement for end-zone celebrations by those who see calamity befall those with whom they disagree. Don't we have a responsibility to those with whom we disagree--to pray for, and work for, reconciliation with them? Or must the Body of Christ on this planet keep subdividing and compartmentalizing until we fellowship with only our spiritual duplicates? Why would we celebrate the problems experienced by another "team" or another "side"?

Act as though you've been there; were it not for God's grace, you could be the one mired in difficulty. Walk humbly, modestly, closely with God. It is in Him that we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:28), and as such we must not celebrate in others' iniquities, but rejoice when they are in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6) and encourage them toward the truth.

EDITED TO ADD: I cannot avoid the call to focus on a specific example of what I've mentioned above with regard to the current situation at Bellevue Baptist Church.

An individual named James Sundquist, who has apparently decided to make a name for himself based on what he is against rather than what he is for, has parasitically latched onto the Bellevue situation, terming it in an interview published today by EthicsDaily.com "a gift from heaven." In that interview, Mr. Sundquist also made what can be construed as a violent statement with regard to Pastor Gaines, suggesting that Dr. Gaines' pastorship "be wrested from him".

How, Mr. Sundquist, does one "wrest" a pastor's position away from him? As a mob, wielding pitchforks and torches by the pale moonlight? Since I never cease to be amazed at who peruses this site, I will not be surprised to find that you've read what I've written, Mr. Sundquist--so let me take the opportunity to tell you that what you're doing is despicable. I notice that in portraying Bellevue's difficulties as worse than those surrounding Ted Haggard, you stated that "As reprehensible as Ted Haggard's actions were, they were not a crime or felony". Mr. Haggard is alleged to have solicited a male prostitute and purchased (and used) methamphetamine. Both of those are criminal acts, and if I understand Colorado law, possessing enough methamphetamine can be a felony.

It is ridiculous to see people such as yourself, without a legitimate, vested interest in the situation at Bellevue, engaging in behavior that would make Al Sharpton embarrassed. Your behavior is the quintessential example of the rotten behavior I cited in a previous article; I quote myself thusly, and like so:

"If you use this crime as a jumping-off point to make specious accusations against anyone in leadership at Bellevue, you run the risk of being known as an opportunist, someone who is inured to the pain of others, yet glad to use it as another weapon in your arsenal. Some of you have already gone down that road--back up while you still can."

For those of you who can't wait to cite Mr. Sundquist as supporting anything and everything you want to say about the current Bellevue situation, I would warn you against it, since Mr. Sundquist's behavior is that of an opportunist. And Mr. Sundquist, I encourage you to saturate this situation with your absence--and to take some time to reevaluate why it is that you let everyone in earshot know what you're against, yet make no effort to tell people just what you're for. Just like young Mr. Ginn, you take the opportunity to celebrate momentary success against the "opposition," and just like Mr. Ginn, your behavior only injures yourself and your "team."

There are a great number of people with varying opinions in this situation who desire only that Christ be glorified, that healing occur, and that Bellevue be strengthened for the task of sharing the Gospel at every opportunity.

From what you show us, Mr. Sundquist, you're not one of them.

--Mike

Welcome to the future

2007-01-01T09:44:00.000-06:00

Today begins the Year of Our Lord 2007--and I still don't have my jet pack. I know that, in Heaven, one of the infinite number of conversations I'll have with God will go something like this:

"Lord, what about the personal jet packs?"

"Michael, my child, you're actually the reason I never allowed jet packs to make it into the consumer marketplace. Think about it. Aren't you the last person who needed to be flying around over a crowd of people when something went wrong with your jet pack? Hmm? Meteors plummeting to Earth have done less damage!"

"Yes, Lord, I see your point. And thank You for the vivid analogy..."

In 2007, as with every year we haven't practiced saying, it'll take awhile to say "2007" fluently; while you're practicing, please resist the urge to say "Two thousand and seven." It's a waste of time, breath, and energy.

It will also take some time to write it properly, especially on our checks. Be forewarned that a "5" is much easier to turn into a "6" than a "6" is to turn into a "7." Just go slowly--you'll get it.

What will this new year bring us? What's hot, and what's not? Who's in, and who's out? We'll be bombarded with pontifications from style mavens, trendsetters, pundits, and others who are uncomfortably free with their opinions. Feel free to ignore them, for we have been given an ageless recommendation regarding three things that are always "in," and that will help shape any New Year's resolutions into ones that are worthwhile. Micah 6:8 came to mind this morning: "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

More on that later. Breakfast is ready. And not just any breakfast--the first breakfast of the future...

--Mike

Threads

2006-12-21T18:30:00.000-06:00

As an actor, writer, and theater teacher, I'm big on threads. Not the kind you use to darn your socks with (just ask my wife), and not the "threads" we used to wear in the 1970s, but the threads the connect point A to point B in a narrative. Good stories, whether they're comedies, or tragedies, or somewhere in the middle, always have good threads; for a number of days I've been praying and ruminating about the threads that have manifested themselves in the recent unpleasantness--which was in many ways a comedy, until events began to turn tragic.

There have been, for a number of months now, three threads in play: trust, integrity, and accountability. I have spent a number of months cataloguing and warning against the difficulties many (if not most) of those opposing Bellevue's staff and lay leadership have in those areas. By the same token, I have also been researching and investigating how members of Bellevue's staff and lay leadership have also had difficulty in those areas, much to my disappointment.

With regard to trust, there's isn't very much to go around these days. The "anti-Bellevue" cadre (and no complaining--your group's continued predilection for attacking those with whom you disagree warrants the continued use of that appellative) has been on the offensive for so long that apologies are ignored, and tempered speech is eschewed. But look at Bellevue's responses. We've seen a gaggle of Communication Committee meetings that produce precious little communication and much more in the way of hard feelings, meetings hosted by staff and lay leadership as prone to dismiss or demean questions, in too many cases, as they were to address them head-on. We've seen pronouncements from the pulpit by various individuals that do not stand up to close examination. And now we've seen, unfortunately, felonious activity that does not (from the available evidence) appear to have been addressed swiftly and decisively.

Let me pause a moment to remind everyone involved in this of something: A crime has been committed, and innocent people have been injured in ways I simply cannot comprehend. If you use this crime as a jumping-off point to make specious accusations against anyone in leadership at Bellevue, you run the risk of being known as an opportunist, someone who is inured to the pain of others, yet glad to use it as another weapon in your arsenal. Some of you have already gone down that road--back up while you still can. Now is the time to be sober and measured in any and every response; if you don’t keep those with whom you’ve shared a viewpoint over the past few months in line, you’re tacitly endorsing their bad behavior.

Integrity is something else that is lacking these days, but something that can (just as trust can) be reclaimed. The penny-ante nonsense that was at the heart of the so-called "saving Bellevue" business should've been left by the wayside months ago, but it hasn't been; if you're one of the ones still percolating the small stuff, please stop. But there is much to be desired in the behavior of Bellevue leadership, as well. I trust they will agree with me that there have been too many actions for which apologies have been issued over the past few months. Personally, I wouldn't have issued some of the apologies, but that's neither here nor there; the fact is that it is incumbent upon Bellevue leadership to make decisions and engage in behavior for which apologies are unnecessary. I have often summarized the decision-making process of Bellevue Baptist Church in years past with the following axiom: The wheels of Bellevue grind slow, but exceeding fine. This should be the standard to which the Bellevue Baptist Church of today aspires, and achieves.

Accountability is a much easier matter to address. Never mind the anti-Bellevue bomb-tossing and sniper fire, conducted largely by people who either do it from the shadows or by people who make absolutely sure they get all the brownie points they can from their fellow "antis." (By the way, do TV interview appearances count for extra points?) Since this business has escalated from personal tastes being offended and certain individuals being disgruntled, the response from Bellevue leadership must be both more open, and more direct.

How do we all keep those three threads from fraying even further? The first step is actually a simple one: We must convene an official business meeting (not a one-way "informational" meeting) as soon as physically possible. It must not be held after Sunday night church, but at a more accessible time, perhaps a Sunday afternoon; cancel the evening service if necessary, but every single Bellevue member who has a significant question must be given the opportunity to speak, whether "anti," "pro," or otherwise. Direct, honest, open, Christ-honoring communication is the key to healing--because the lack of it is at the heart of the problems we're facing as a church body.

Pastor Gaines and Bellevue leadership, I know you keep tabs on this little corner of the Internet, and I'm frankly blessed by that beyond the shadow of any doubt or peradventure. Just as I have never questioned the character of those who would attack you, please understand that I do not question yours. However, I must stress that the objections to certain of your actions are not without foundation. A friend of mine, Mike Spradlin, has gone so far as to call for Pastor Gaines' resignation. Do I agree with him? No--but keep in mind that I also don't agree with much of what he wears to the athletic fields. Seriously, though, I believe from the evidence I've seen that calls for the resignation of any member of Bellevue leadership (either staff or lay leaders) are premature; however, I also believe that public apologies are due Dr. Spradlin for at least two incidents he's gone through with Bellevue leadership in recent months, incidents whose details I do not have permission to cite in detail.

Do I love my church? Absolutely.

Do I love my pastor? Absolutely.

Do I love those who disagree with him? Absolutely.

Which is why I must encourage my pastor and my church to convene in a business meeting. We have business which requires our attention, because it is distracting us from our singular responsibility of sharing Christ with a lost and dying world.

Merry Christmas.

--Mike

Watch this space

2006-12-18T16:36:00.000-06:00

For those of you looking for fresh commentary, the combination of illness in the family, Christmas activities, and recent events at church have made it prudent for me to rework my planned remarks. Thanks for your interest, and check back often.

--Mike

The best defense

2006-12-04T09:54:00.000-06:00

I am personally offended...

Never minds that "anti-" speak (in or out of the Bellevue difficulties) is riddled with this phrase and its variants, and that the phrase is often considered to be an excuse for any number of responses, from passive-aggressive to hyperbolic. Last night I was able to hear this phrase (and its variants) actually coming out of some folks' mouths at the Music Communication Committee meeting. It was an eye-opener, to say the least.

The song "You Humble Me"? Personally offensive to some.

Percussion, and upbeat, "modern" arrangements in general? Personally offensive to some.

Praise teams? Personally offensive to some.

The casting process for church productions? Personally offensive to some.

It was very much a blessing that I had to leave when I did, because the meeting was degenerating from a question-and-answer-and-comment session to a talk-over-one-another, don't-give-the-people-running-the-meeting-a-chance-to-respond session. (And no, I didn't say anything; I did put my hand up once, but then took it back down.) It's my hope that the meeting got back under control, but you never know.

You've heard the expression "The best defense is a good offense," have you not? I hope the "personally offended" among us will consider a permutation on that old axiom, something along the lines of "The best defense is not to give too much credit to being personally offended." No, it doens't flow quite as trippingly from the tongue, but it gets the point across. When something is a matter of taste, one's own personal tastes cannot be elevated to too high a position--and when something is a matter of objective truth versus subjective opinion, opinion loses out ten times out of ten.

Or, at least it ought to.

--Mike

One more $25,000 Question

2006-11-30T00:04:00.000-06:00

Were there more efficacious ways to help--ways that wouldn't have given an opportunity for some to treat Bellevue like a piñata?

Probably.

--Mike

Congratulations, Mr./Ms. Anonymous!

2006-11-26T20:32:00.000-06:00

You've just posted the one millionth slur from someone with an anti-Bellevue mindset! Unfortunately, since you were anonymous, I can't award you your huge prize package--although I have a way of commemorating the event. For the record, here's the soon-to-be-famous brickbat:

Anonymous said...
mike since you support the 25k gift to a church thats supports that abortion .that makes you a supporter of abortion,thats a label you can live with

8:03 PM, November 25, 2006

And it serves so perfectly as an example of why such a mindset is undesirable!

Does it attack a person rather than discuss a position? Yes.

Does it attempt to confront, rather than debate? Yes.

Does it demonstrate hate? Yes.

Does it say things from the luxury of anonymity that the poster would, for a variety of reasons, never say in person? Yes.

It did all these things so well, it made me reconsider the fact that I've allowed total anonymity in comments since the inception of TBR. (Cool acronym, hmm?) Well, you totally-anonymous folks will have to step up to pseudonyms, because the hit-and-run anonymous post is a thing of the past. Enough of you have abused the privilege so that it has to go away.

And speaking of the one millionth slur, let me post something our friend Mrs. Wilmoth sent me regarding it, thusly and like so:

Faulty logic. That's like saying if I voted for Bush, I'm in favor of our soldiers dying in Iraq. The issues of the donation to First Methodist and being in favor of abortion are not mutually exclusive. There are those of us who see it from a totally different perspective than others. Why must there be judgment, "labels," and "dead babies in the offering plate" when that was NO ONE'S intent in sending the donation?

Don't tell me what I believe. I settled the issue of abortion in my heart and mind a long time ago, and I have not changed my opinion one whit. However, I do NOT see the donation to First Methodist as a mistake. And that does NOT make me a supporter of abortion.

At the risk of being accused of "demonizing," I will repeat what has been said by others in so many other venues (and perhaps more delicately): There are plenty of churches in this city where one can worship. If I couldn't live with the decisions made by the leaders and shepherds over me, I would not continue to worship under their leadership. I would find a church that matched my expectations and "shake the dust" off as I left one that did not. And I hope and pray I would not attempt (either explicitly or implicitly) to destroy any church or its members in the process.

All in my opinion, of course.

Now it's my turn.

The one millionth post was both gutless and clueless--what that says about the author, I'll leave to you people to decide. The anonymous author either doesn't know me or doesn't care that I'm probably more pro-life in word and deed than he/she is on his/her best day--which isn't a bragging point, but a statement of fact. I understand that you and yours label people in lieu of discussing ideas and points of view, but please understand that such personal attacks benefit no one, and only do further damage to you and yours.

And speaking of "labels," let me caution you and yours about something: The only label worth having is the label of Christian. Any other label--including the label of "pro-life"--that takes precedence over the one of Christian is an idol, purely and simply. There are people in this world who are 100% "pro-life," working tirelessly against the evil of abortion-on-demand, who are as lost as proverbial geese. If people worry that showing kindness to an individual or a group might damage their pro-life credentials, those people should re-examine their priorities.

When groups such as the coalition attacking the pastor, staff, and lay leadership continue to try to tar and feather individuals, rather than debate positions, they guarantee the persistence of the perception they're more about rousing the rabble than reforming the church.

--Mike

Traveling like wildfire

2006-11-25T17:01:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend of mine. He's been hearing little wafts of information regarding the happenings at Bellevue, and wanted to know if it was as nasty as he'd been hearing.
I asked "What have you been hearing?" His reply was accurate--that there are a group of people in the church membership that won't merely be happy if Pastor Gaines (and a number of other staff members) leave Bellevue, that these people are now in the mode to destroy careers and, yes, ruin lives.

Unfortunately, it seems many people have left "disagree without being disagreeable" in the rear view mirror a long time ago, and that's a shame. Oddly enough, the bad news had traveled to my friend complete with context, which was actually a pleasant surprise. But the fact that the bad news is traveling at all should stand as a convicting indictment against the people who attack the Bellevue staff and lay leadership. Words and actions, particularly in this age, reverberate past their intended audiences; we should all, therefore, choose them carefully.

--Mike

The $25,000 Questions

2006-11-21T07:46:00.000-06:00

Plural.

Because that's what it boils down to.

Backstory: Recently, Bellevue Baptist Church donated $25,000 to First United Methodist Church, a church in downtown Memphis whose building and infrastructure was savaged in a fire. Pastor Gaines suggested the idea of a donation to the Bellevue Finance Committee, and the result was a contribution to First United.

Some individuals who harbor an anti-Bellevue sentiment (and, quite frankly, some who do not) have questioned the wisdom of such a donation. After a good deal of prayer, personal reflection, and consultation with friends, the only thing I can condemn about the donation is that it just might not have been enough.

For those up in arms about giving money to a church with a female pastor, to a church that refuses to call people to repent of certain Biblically-defined sins (particularly those of a sexual nature), here are some questions you must ask anyone to whom you offer help in the future:

1) Do you believe in everything I believe in?

2) And not just the "non-negotiables," such as how to be saved--do you share all my doctrines?

3) If I find out later that you don't completely agree with me on everything, would you mind terribly if I pull the rug out from under you?

Keep in mind, these questions have to extend to everything from financial assistance to changing a tire to giving directions.

When we see people in legitimate need--particularly brothers and sisters in Christ--our job is to help, not to run a background check. When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, it's worth noting in His story that the Samaritan didn't share all the wounded man's beliefs; he just did what was right.

--Mike

Please pray

2006-11-18T23:46:00.000-06:00

I have spent today with my family, watching football, at the paint store, and in prayer.

Over the past several days--well, more than that, actually--I have been burdened to the point of distraction for those who have chosen a "side" against the majority of the staff, deacon body, and congregation of Bellevue Baptist Church. I use the word "majority" because there is, according to what I have read, heard and seen over these past months, a minority who refuse to be satisfied until great damage is done to the church as a whole.

Now, that is not to say that these people wake up in the morning and say to themselves "Let's see what great damage I can do to Bellevue as a whole today!" Quite to the contrary, the vast majority of this minority is no doubt sincere--but also myopic. Their stated concern for Bellevue has led them to a Machiavellian focus on the end result, never mind the means used to achieve that end. They hide behind pseudonyms, generally, except for those in the forefront of the group who have chosen to wear their real names on the backs of the team jerseys for their "side." As a rule, they attack in writing in ways etiquette would forbid in conversation. When they are accommodated, it isn't enough; when their questions receive answers, either the answers are insufficient or else new questions magically appear.

To respond with skepticism regarding their validity of their actions or their ideas, as many have found out, is to be put in the crosshairs, figuratively speaking. And this, to me, is the most disappointing part of the whole sordid affair, even more disappointing than discovering I use far, far too many commas when I write. But seriously... when that "side" pushes, attacks, and defames pastors, deacons, and other church members in general without concern or apology, my heart breaks for everyone concerned--but mostly for the group carrying out such anti-Bellevue behavior.

Yes, "anti-Bellevue." Since the day the dissent moved from a private campaign of whispers within the church body to a public campaign of websites, news articles and forums, it has been attempted to be incredibly injurious to Bellevue as a whole. As most every person's grandmother has said, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, but those in the vanguard of the movement against Bellevue show precious little evidence of remembering the saying. Pastor Gaines is Hitler, so they say; the deacons who support him are Fascists, and the majority of the congregation is a group of ignorant sycophants. How, exactly, do these caricatures come across as constructive in nature? How do they bring benefit at this point in Bellevue's existence? Obviously, they do not.

Bellevue Baptist Church has been used of God for over a century in ministering the Gospel to those who need to hear it. I would suggest it is possible to be dissatisfied with the way the church has been, or is, operating without engaging in behavior that damages the church as a whole. Such behavior as we see is anti-Bellevue, though I seriously doubt the heart of anyone engaging in such behavior is.

We should, we must be prayerful in our approach to this time of testing. Whatever your opinion of any given matter in your church, do not use your opinion as justification for assaulting those with whom you disagree--rather, use it as a opportunity to draw closer to God.

--Mike

And curiouser

2006-11-16T21:47:00.000-06:00

The "Lie Headline" might have been removed from savingbellevue.com, but the information it advertised was not. My thanks to a sharp-eyed friend who noticed a cursor change whenever the cursor got close to the two spinning rings on the "saving Bellevue" home page. And when one clicks the rings (orbiting the word "Truth," ironically), the same article exists in its entirety. While the headline was removed, the accusations--including the allegation that, where Pastor Gaines is concerned, "TRUTH IS A MOVING TARGET"--still reside on the site.

Again, such sites must be shuttered by those that operate them; they were a bad idea that has only gotten worse.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: I'm pleased to note that the "hidden link" no longer works. Why it was there in the first place will, no doubt, remain a mystery that only Internet archeologists of the far-distant future will be able to solve.

However, I'm not so pleased to note a "saving Bellevue" invitation for members of Pastor Gaines' former church in Gardendale, Alabama to e-mail the site. Why, there's even a special inbox set up just for them. Wonder why?

Curiouser and curiouser

2006-11-15T09:13:00.000-06:00

"Saving Bellevue"

"Never sacrifice truth for unity"

"The Lie Headline has been removed. After talking to Jim Barnwell there appears there is a logical explanation and a communication problem that caused this. One of the parties involved will be back from Chicago tomorrow to set the record straight. This is very damaging to Steve and it is only right that this web site give you the truth where it falls even if this information was wrong on our part. This will be addressed in the next few days."

"Jim Haywood"

Reads like an apology at first glance, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it falls into the "mistakes were made" category of political-speak in lieu of an actual "I made a mistake" apology.

And what were the ramifications of the "Lie Headline"? How many people saw that who won't see a retraction, modification, or apology? For a number of weeks, truth has been getting sacrificed for an agenda of hate and confrontation by the anti-Bellevue coalition. However, I don't want my pragmatism to devolve into pessimism; if Mr. Haywood and those with a similar mindset can take this first step, there may yet be hope.

Consequently, I prayerfully hope for further apologies, particularly with regard to painting the worship services coming up Sunday morning as a confrontational "Showdown," and for depicting deacons supportive of Pastor Gaines as masked Fascists.

To the principals: Please stop using websites and forums to foment dissent. You only injure yourselves and those who get caught up with you in the anti-Bellevue wave of belligerency and negativity. We have a Commission that the so-called "saving Bellevue" business does nothing to fulfill.

--Mike

Beyond the pale

2006-11-09T08:35:00.000-06:00

The mentality of the so-called "saving Bellevue" mindset was put on full display this morning--if only briefly. A friend e-mailed me about a disturbing image he found on their website, an image meant as commentary for a resolution which members of the Bellevue deacon body will be able to sign showing support for Pastor Gaines.

The attached, nonsensical, straw-man article about "preacher rule" would've been bad enough by itself; it's still there, if you choose to peruse it. But the page detailing the resolution also contained a vile image on it, an image that puts to rest any notions that "saving Bellevue" is interested in "saving" much of anything. Yes, they yanked it down, but not quickly enough; the mere fact that they used it in the first place is, undeniably, beyond the pale.

You determine for yourself whether or not you want to be part of a group that views others in such a hate-filled way. The image in question:

I pray that it is, indeed, possible to dialogue with such people. I also pray that they will, first, openly repent of such a mindset. We will see what the coming days have in store, and how God will work in the situation.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: The November 19th worship service in which the deacon body is scheduled to show support for Pastor Gaines has now been labeled by the anti-Bellevue faction euphemistically known as "saving Bellevue" as the day for a "Showdown." I have no words to describe the sadness I feel, waking up to such bile from those who say they want to "save" Bellevue Baptist Church.

EDITED TO ADD SOME MORE: Just for clarity's sake, let me say that I viewed the image directly on (and captured it directly from) that site, not from the e-mail I received. And with regard to the "Oh, they took it down, now you take it down" crowd, that's not the point. The point is that, whether it was up for five minutes or five months, that is how they view people who disagree with them.

Quote for the day

2006-11-06T11:02:00.000-06:00

As I slogged through the anti-Bellevue texts today, I was reminded of this quote, from one of my favorite philosophers. I shared it on one of those sites, but I wanted to share it with you, as well. I quote it thusly, and like so:

"I think, when one has been angry for a very long time, one gets used to it. Then it becomes comfortable, like old leather. And finally, it is so familiar one can't remember feeling any other way. But in the long run, we are the ones who are damaged by that kind of behavior. We are. Not them."

A laurel and a hearty handshake if you know the name of the philosopher--and no fair Googling.

--Mike

Why he retired

2006-11-06T10:16:00.000-06:00

Some prescient comments from Pastor Rogers as to why he chose to retire. Your comments, as always, are welcome.

--Mike

Sniper fatigue

2006-11-03T10:15:00.000-06:00

The recent (ongoing?) unpleasantness precipitated by some members of Bellevue Baptist Church seems to be subsiding; at least, the shrillness of the personal animosity has been toned down.

In any organizational disagreement, and sometimes when an organization is running smoothly, there are those who engage in what can be called rock-tossing, bomb-throwing, or sniping. These are the people who, for whatever reason, anonymously attack those with whom they disagree on an issue under the pretense of speaking to the issue. People who snipe generally run on raw emotions. Thankfully, over time, those emotions can wind down, and most people who play the role of "sniper" do not take the time to groom understudies. As Pastor Rogers used to observe, if an individual doesn't sign a complaint, that complaint cannot be taken seriously.

No doubt this subsiding is the direct answer to prayer--the prayers of both the people who are aligned with the unfortunate, anachronistically-named "saving Bellevue" group, as well as by the church body as a whole. When the disagreements contract back within the church walls, it will be far more difficult for the snipers to lock in on a target, and virtually impossible for them to express themselves anonymously. And when people take ownership of their remarks, those remarks are almost always tempered. At that point, we may begin to see resolution.

Occasionally, those of us who don't believe Bellevue to be in dire straits are accused of "marching in lockstep," "drinking the Kool-Aid," or other such nonsense meant to imply unquestioning compliance. Personally, such is not the case; as a matter of fact, I don't know that I've met anyone at church who would fall into that category. I do know that when most people have questions or concerns about something at church, they ask them as directly as possible, rather than sprinting to the nearest website or reporter.

If your concern regarding Bellevue has been addressed, but you're not fond of the answer you've received, you do have the choice of going elsewhere, but I would advise against it. I've been at Bellevue since the Midtown days (though not consecutively), so I have personally had more than one occasion where (gasp!) I disagreed with something going on, either with an individual, a class, or church-wide. Is that motivation to leave? Not in the slightest, or at least it shouldn't be. As Christians, if our church affiliation isn't motivated by where we need to be, rather than where we need to leave, perhaps we should revisit just why it is we are where we are.

One of my favorite playwrights put it this way: "Don't think of it as leaving here... think of it as going there." If you need to go there, go there--but if you aren't led to go, you must stay. God has a marvelous way of working things out.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Or, perhaps it was all the calm before an unnecessary storm.

No stop left un-pulled

2006-11-01T15:06:00.000-06:00

Harold Ford Jr. came to Memphis today, but that wasn't the big news. The big news was that Bill Clinton came to town to campaign for him.

At a church.

This is news why, exactly?

Oh, and we must remember the words that should follow young Mr. Ford the rest of his political life (though he attributes them to Lincoln Davis): "Republicans fear the Lord. Democrats fear and love the Lord."

Must be why Democrats have abortion-on-demand as a central plank in their party's platform, right? Mr. Ford Jr., when you get that plank removed, and turn the party of Jim Webb and Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry into something resembling what it was thirty years ago, you might then be able to make the second half of Mr. Davis' statement into something other than a punch line.

Ever since Mr. Ford Jr. tried and failed to pull a "gotcha!" by showing up at a Bob Corker press conference and whining that the two of them just didn't get to spend enough time together ("I can never find you!"), there has been evidence of desperation in Mr. Ford Jr.'s campaign. As of today, I think he has, officially, pulled out all the stops.

Votes of this magnitude are not always between the candidate you love and the candidate you loathe--sometimes it's just a question of who the better candidate is of the two. If Bob Corker were a pro-abortion Republican, or someone who made irresponsibly divisive and questionable statements about faith, or someone who (let's face it) has historically given the appearance of being a political puppet, I might end up voting for Mr. Ford Jr., not Mr. Corker.

Before I close, there are two articles I'd like you to read, from the candidates' own websites (there's your warning): One from Mr. Ford Jr., and one from Mr. Corker.

I'm interested in hearing what you take away from both those articles.

--Mike

A request

2006-10-28T00:27:00.000-05:00

There's a new link on the righthand portion of the screen. It's the first one in the list, entitled "Loving Bellevue."

Please follow it.

--Mike

Amendment 1

2006-10-26T23:34:00.000-05:00

If you're one of those who's been tempted by the "I'll show 'em what I think of this election by sitting out!" mentality, think again. Particularly if you live in Tennessee. Mercurial columnist for the Memphis Commercial Appeal Wendi C. Thomas tapped out an article for today's edition regarding Amendment 1--you can read it in its entirety here.

One scintillating reader comment to her article reads thusly, and like so: "Where does 'all' stop, Wendi? Obviously not with homosexuality, in your eyes. Does 'all' mean polygamy, too? Polyandry? Pedophilia? Bestiality? Necrophilia? Since you don't like the line where it is, where do you propose we draw it?"

On November 7th, a vote for Amendment 1 will insulate current Tennessee law against the possibility of judges legislating from the bench with regard to the issue of so-called homosexual "marriage," such misuse having cropped up earlier this week in New Jersey.

Predictably, Shelby County Democrats have passed a resolution regarding Amendment 1. They characterize the amendment as one of "hate" and "discrimination," which is, of course, emotionally-charged nonsense; give the Shelby Dems credit, though, for attributing the source of their rhetoric as the DNC, and Howard Dean himself.

For no other reason than to vote for Amendment 1, please make it a priority to vote on November 7th.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Early voting in Tennessee runs through November 2. For a list of early voting location in your county, click here.

People of fact

2006-10-25T14:54:00.000-05:00

A reply to my "21st Century malady" article was particularly interesting, so I thought it would be appropriate to reply to it in a more open fashion, rather than in a comment thread. Here is the reply, quoted thusly and like so:

"Those of us who are Christians are, by definition, people of fact."

You are wrong Mike. In fact, it's the exact opposite. "Those of use who are Christians are, by definition, people of FAITH.". The Darwist and the Humanist would say that he is the person of "fact".

Sounds right, doesn't it? The Bible is loaded to the brim with references to faith. Faith is a fundamental part of Christianity. So why in the world would I say that those of us who are Christians are people of "fact"?

Because every person is a "person of faith," even if that person chooses not to admit it.

To reference the above-quoted observation, the Darwinist is a person of faith. He or she invests his or her faith in the notion that, given enough time, amoeba can become accountants. The Darwinist has no facts to work with, no transitional forms that would give evidence of between-species evolution, nothing but the dogged belief that organic life, in defiance of a basic law of physics, gets more complex over time.

The Humanist has even less to work with. He or she invests his or her faith in the notion that human beings are basically wonderful. Did you know there's a Humanist Manifesto? Absolutely, and organized Humanism does Darwinism one better; the tail end of their Manifesto reads thusly: "We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow."

Does anyone know of any facts that would have motivated anyone to think that human beings, in and of themselves, are ever going to turn this planet into a Utopia?

Didn't think so. Me either.

Darwinists put their faith in random chance. Humanists put their faith in human goodness. Those of us who are Christians, to the contrary, put our faith in facts--in a set of undeniable truths. We are not merely "people of faith," because everyone possesses a faith which must be invested, either in something or someone. Or, in our case, Someone. We have put our faith in the fact that "God became flesh, and dwelt among us," and thus made a way for us to have an everlasting, saving relationship with Him.

Faith and facts are not polar opposites. As Adrian Rogers used to say, "Faith in faith is positive thinking." Faith in Christ leads to salvation.

And that is a fact.

--Mike

A common 21st Century malady

2006-10-23T11:16:00.000-05:00

As we delve further each day into the new century (which, as of this writing, is still, for some sad reason, personal-jet-pack free), we see more and more evidence of a trend that, in and of itself, isn't fond of evidence. It is the trend of emotionalism, where otherwise well-meaning people give their emotions--and anything attached to them, such as opinions, perceptions, and the like--equal footing with objective, verifiable, no-doubt-about-it facts.

This malady afflicts, to varying degrees, both major political parties in the United States; it is pervasive in the Democrat Party (with the prime example being their core pro-abortion position), and is making inroads in the Republican Party (with the prime example being those in their party who don't address illegal immigration as both a law-enforcement and a national-security problem). It is ever-present in the larger society, where litigation is the weapon of first choice from those who make careers out of being aggrieved. And it is even rearing its ugly, maniacal head in Christian churches, where the old campfire song "They'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love" is being reworked as "They'll know it's a church fuss when they see our laundry."

Those of us who are Christians are, by definition, people of fact. If it is not a fact that God is Who He says He is, if it is not a fact that Jesus stepped out of a grave one Sunday morning, if it is not a fact that the Bible is accurate and authoritative, if it is not a fact that the only way to spend one's eternity in Heaven is through a salvific relationship with Jesus Christ, then we Christians are wasting our collective time. If the Bible is not factual, then it is not credible, and we are no better off than followers of any human-constructed religion; to coin a phrase, "we are of all men most miserable." Thankfully, those are all objective facts: Our choice to accept them as such gives them no more credibility than rejection of those facts gives them less.

The recent brouhaha at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis (sounds like a pay-per-view event, doesn't it? "The Brouhaha At Bellevue!!"), where a small group of members has bypassed the Biblical mandate to keep church disagreements within the church, is an example of emotionalism being the sole fuel for a viewpoint. Just as in the legal concept of the "fruit of the poisonous tree," the entire group is contaminated by the emotional choice (still ongoing) to broadcast their personal disapproval of just about every aspect of what goes on under the leadership of Bellevue's pastor, Dr. Steve Gaines. Using a website orbited by several satellite blogs, the group publicly disagrees with everything from salaries to song services, with lurid headlines billboarding stories of each new imagined transgression.

The headlines are a key to the lack of restraint which is a key element of emotional appeals--desperate times calling for desperate measures, and such. Since officially violating Biblical dispute-resolution principles by going online in August 2006, this anti-Bellevue group (their viewpoint being "anti-Bellevue" because of a refusal of responsibility for the consequences of their behavior) has used personal disparagement as a calling card. Bellevue members who do not share their view, and Bellevue's senior staff have been defamed in various media as "cowards," "the Mafia," Stepford robots, and supposdly employing a "Hitler style of management," among other libelous appellations. This anti-Bellevue activity has even gone to the extent of publishing the e-mail addresses (and, until they had to good sense to remove the information from their main site, the home addresses and telephone numbers) of the deacon body--which, at Bellevue, is composed of more than 180 deacons.

When emotionalism drives people to engage in behaviors that are counterproductive to the larger cause of Christ, it should be a reminder to us all not to fall prey to the same temptations in our own lives. The blogging site I use has as a positioning statement the phrase "Push-Button Publishing." Just because something is suddenly easy to do, such as publishing your opinion when something at church doesn't please you, does not mean it is automatically right to do. The advent of this century has not brought with it jet-packs (though we must not give up hope), but it has brought with it a new ease in indulging one's own subjective emotions. We must guard against pushing buttons in an emotional reflex; after all, the Christian church is a place where Jesus is glorified and saints are equipped, not a place where every whim and opinion must be sated.

--Mike

The Bears

2006-10-19T23:55:00.000-05:00

No, I'm not writing about the Chicago Bears, who (as of this moment) are 6-0, with a two-and-a-half game lead over the Minnesota Vikings in the NFC "Norris" Division. I'm writing about something a friend of mine reminded me of recently with respect to the disappointing bombast directed at senior Bellevue leadership.

As we were conversing, I expressed concern and compassion for those in the so-called "saving Bellevue" group; with a furrowed brow, he nodded and said to me "Mike, I love them--I just pray the bears don't run out of the woods on 'em." That remark stuck with me, and has been an additional reminder to me that any conversation should be about ideas and viewpoints, and should studiously avoid self-inflated opinions and personal potshots.

If I may synopsize for you the true story my friend referenced, thusly and like so:

A long time ago, there was a man of God who was anointed to be a leader. He had been the apprentice of a well-known, Godly, much-loved figure--one could even call him a prophet. This prophet was someone who received adulation not just in his immediate vicinity, but throughout their nation. After this well-known, Godly, much-loved figure had completed his ministry (and immediately before he went on to be with the Lord), he passed his mantle on to his apprentice, this man of God who was chosen to be the successor to the prophet's ministry.

The man of God had barely picked up his mentor's mantle when some of his mentor's followers began pining for the mentor. Ignoring the apprentice's appeals, they badgered him until they were allowed to search the countryside, a search which came up empty. After that, most of the congregants began to settle in with their new leader, taking their concerns to this man of God--even concerns they hadn't taken to his predecessor.

Not everyone, though, was so warm and receptive. As he was out one day, on his way to meet with other believers and share what heady things God had been doing in his life, he was accosted by a mob, dozens of young people. Their taunts had nothing to do with how this man of God was doing his job--these were people who made a habit of mocking others, and they repeated their jeers so this man of God couldn't help but hear them. Your mentor is dead, right? Why don't you join him, you bald-headed idiot? Yeah, you heard us! Why don't you die and go up to heaven, too, bald-head?

This was crossing a line. They were mature enough to know better, but that didn't matter. These young people weren't disagreeing with how the new leader was doing his job, but rather ganging up on this man, attacking the new leader personally, publicly, and repeatedly. Their attacks were at once insubstantial and vindictive.

The man of God turned around, and stared at them for what must have been a long moment. It was God's prompting that caused him to utter the curse--what a horrible thing it must be to be legitimately cursed in the Lord's name!--and then, it happened.

Meeting up with one wild bear would be bad enough. Two of them would be a multiplied danger, particularly when God has given them their marching orders. The entire mob, all 42 of them, died in the divinely-ordered bear attack. They weren't just killed, they were shredded, torn by two she-bears. And why? Not for debating policy or doctrine, but for verbally attacking people. Verbally, mind you.

And the man of God? He went about his business.

--Mike

If you will...

2006-10-19T14:47:00.000-05:00

...please take the time to visit the "Faux rescues" post on this site, located in the September 3 archive. After receiving a friendly e-mail from someone who disagreed with a portion of that post, I have updated it as a result of his observations.

--Mike

For everyone's edification

2006-10-15T18:03:00.000-05:00

Here's another comment that warrants response in a post, rather than in a comment thread:

I am the anonymous writer who requested that the label anti-Bellevue not be continued.

Pleasure to meet you.

Please don’t take the time to educate me on the English language as I am fairly proficient in this area. You may be a great voice person but I do have a functioning knowledge of our language.

I'm quite flattered, actually. And I'd love to return the compliment, but I know so little about you. However, I don't recall questioning your knowledge of English...

Just for your edification ‘anti’ is a term meaning ‘against or opposed to something’ therefore your use of anti-Bellevue would mean that someone is against or opposed to Bellevue.

You, however, feel free to question mine?

For the record, though, I completely agree with your observation. "Anti" does, indeed, mean "against or opposed to something." Which is why the term is employed (and not just by my own self, mind you) with reference to those associated with the so-called "Saving Bellevue" group.

And that is not the case.

But of course it is. It became the case the day savingbellevue.com set up shop, and was only accentuated when some affiliated with it began to give interviews to the local media.

Additionally Dr. Rogers’s comments were in the context of a pastor’s style of preaching and leadership. I don’t think anyone who sat under Dr. Rogers believes that he would have approved with the methods being used to stifle and intimidate fellow members.

As I've written more than once, it's the anti-Bellevue cadre that stifles dissenting opinion on their website and blogs (refusing as a rule to print such opinions), pins pejoratives such as "coward" or "Mafia" on those who disagree, and attacks individuals instead of discussing ideas.

Someone, please, show us all a single, documented, factual example of a senior staff member at Bellevue Baptist Church putting the screws to a Bellevue member.

And to save someone the effort: Secondhand information, or information that's your anonymous word against someone else's, doesn't meet the criteria.

My last point to you Mike is that you seem to demean people who don’t post their names.

As I've said before, I'm not sanguine about antagonistic remarks made by people from the shadows of anonymity. This is one of the primary problems with the "Saving Bellevue" group: With the exception of a few, they conduct their unfortunate activity without signing their names.

Some of us may not be in a situation whereby we can post our names due to our position within the church.

If you value your "position within the church" so much that you are unwilling to sign your names to what you write--particularly when it's in opposition to something you believe to be wrong, I really don't know what to tell you.

Except to suggest you might want to re-evaluate your positions, both on this "saving Bellevue" business and within the church.

I recall Dr. Roger’s (sic) asking if a man was in search of the truth or just searching to fortify his stated position. Mike, I ask you directly “Are you seeking the truth or just looking to support the stand which you have taken?”.

And I'll answer directly: Seeking the truth.

I expect to meet this week with a friend and brother in Christ who disagrees with my viewpoint on this issue. If he presents me with facts that change my viewpoint, I will not hesitate to say so. However, I didn't come to my present position via emotion, opinion, half-truth, rumor, or esteem for another individual, but by facts.

And one incontrovertible fact is that the conduct and content at savingbellevue.com has been divisive, personality-driven, and a vigorous violation of the Biblical template.

Way back when, there was the concept in U.S. politics of the "loyal opposition." Were you an elected federal official who disagreed with the President? By all means, disagree with him--even work to unseat him in the next election. But never, never denigrate him to the United States' enemies, or otherwise work to undermine the country's status in the eyes of the world.

Is this the first time a congregant's disagreed with a pastor? Of course not. Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly common to run "attack ads" against one's pastor, campaigning against him publicly.

And that only serves to undermine the church's status in the eyes of the world.

--Mike

Here, let me hold up this mirror...

2006-10-13T11:49:00.000-05:00

If you anti-Bellevue folks genuinely like the way you look in it, well, I don't know what else to say--except to encourage you to look a little harder. This anonymous comment is a prime example of what you (and all of us) should seek to avoid:

You guys just don't get it. Do you not see that you are amateurs compared to Josh Manning

Again, it's about personalities, not issues. The Sheehan Syndrome is alive and well, as noted previously.

and he has gained more respect after Weatherwax letters than he ever had.

Respect from whom, exactly? From those who write anonymously, throwing rocks and then hiding their hands? How, exactly, does throwing long-distance verbal Molotovs engender respect--much less "more respect"--from anyone?

Do you have a problem with the truth?

Good Tom Cruise impression. I'll refrain from playing the Jack Nicholson role here, if you don't mind...

Looks like to me PW lied in his first letter and admitted it in the next.

Your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine. The fact of the matter is that Bro. Phil Weatherwax's second letter didn't apologize for anything. In it, he did state that he loves young Mr. Manning, and is concerned about the level of contentiousness.

You and are now following the pattern that our Paster (sic) started. You better watch out

Nebulous, veiled threats are part of that contentiousness.

or people will start holding the tithes for God until SG and Jamie are fully exposed.

As are more pointed threats.

Its all about the money now and Steve caused it. Yeah he knows the Bible but so do you and so do I.

Thank you for the compliment, but honestly, I have no idea what you know and what you don't know. Behind your anonymity, you could be an eighty-year-old Buddhist.

Or a forty-year-old atheist.

Or a twenty-something grad student.

Please, people--if you feel there are issues to discuss, discuss the issues. Leave personalities out of it. When you attack others, you do no favors to the name of Christ.

I'm going to leave this mirror propped up for awhile. Let's all make good use of it.

--Mike

Tactics

2006-10-11T23:12:00.000-05:00

Something has recently dawned on me.

And by "recently," I mean about ten seconds ago.

Does anyone passing through this little corner of the Internet think, for a moment, that President George W. Bush needs to sit down for a serious one-on-one with Cindy Sheehan? Mrs. Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in Iraq, actually received personal condolences from the President; after their meeting, she had nothing but nice things to say about Mr. Bush. Fast-forward a bit, and she's camping out in a ditch near the President's Texas home, "protesting" the war effort and opining about virtually anything and everything else. Fast-forward a bit more, and she's purchasing property in Crawford under false pretenses so she can more easily hector President Bush, still using her son's coffin as a soapbox.

Mrs. Sheehan's tactic (and the tactic of those surrounding her) is to make her own self the issue.

Unfortunately, that same tactic is being employed by Mark Sharpe And Friends.

Let me quote Mr. Sharpe, thusly and like so:

I feel compelled

The question asked was in reference to Mark Sharpe's request

(There's that talking-about-oneself-in-the-third-person business again. Mike Bratton just hates that...)

I'm not sure how much he knows about the situation because I've not talked to Jim Barnwell and Jim Barnwell has not talked with me.

Unless someone who knows has told him, he has no idea of the efforts I and many other deacons and members have done to discuss these issues in a private manner instead of openly before the church in this public setting.

(A church, just for the record, is a private setting--not a public one like, oh, say, the Internet.)

That doesn't sound like reconciliation to me.

My heart is grieved

I plead with the administration

I plead with the laymen who are in leadership

This is the most disturbing part of the whole anti-Bellevue business: The issues raised are playing a weak second fiddle to the individuals doing the issue-raising. See for yourself, the next time you visit savingbellevue.com, how their own page titles look to you (emphasis mine):

Deacon David Bishop Letter to Pastor

What steps has Steve Gaines taken to reconcile with Mark Sharpe?

Mark Sharpe asks Steve Gaines to resign.

Honestly, there are no legitimate "sides" to this business. The idea is that those of us who are Christians are, or should be, on the Lord's side; if we have disputes, then someone (or everyone) involved is out of alignment with God's will for that situation.

When the savingbellevue.com people took to the Internet, the newspapers, and the television, actually "saving Bellevue" got lost in the shuffle of interviews and pronouncements. It was taking a figurative stick, and drawing a figurative line in the figurative sand; publicly calling those at Bellevue who disagree with your viewpoint "cowards" and "the Mafia," among other things, are polarizing, line-in-the-sand statements.

Only with a real sadness can such a viewpoint be identified not as a desire to save Bellevue, but as anti-Bellevue. Pardon me for getting personal, but I'm sick of seeing it. The "Saving 'Saving Bellevue'" blog has, for whatever reason, shut down; it would be nice to see savingbellevue.com follow suit. I'd much rather report and/or opine about any of the thousand other stories zipping through the air these days--but as long as that site keeps churning along, this one will offer alternatives.

--Mike

Briefly

2006-10-10T20:19:00.000-05:00

I'm still around, folks--just taking a few days of vacation in a part of the United States where the Internet isn't pervasively available.

I must say that I'm heartened and blessed by the responses to my lack of activity. And while I'm thinking about it: For the person, whoever you were, who suggested that I was so, so in the wrong for blogging, let me refer you to the very first posts I put here. I'd love to be writing about other things (and I plan to), but the current Bellevue situation has prompted me to respond with an alternative point of view.

Thank you for your interest. Give me a bit of travel time to get back in front of my HP keyboard, and we'll see where it goes.

--Mike

This deserves the light of day

2006-10-05T09:47:00.000-05:00

So often, comments to posts can get lost in the shuffle. This one (which came in moments ago) was just too special to leave in the stack:

Anonymous said...

MIKE

You are a bully, and damaged at Bellevue. You need to check what your saying with God. If you have a relationship with him, listen.

9:39 AM, October 05, 2006

I have a few requests for you, whoever you are:

1) Please quote specific things I've said, written, or done that qualify me, in your mind, as a "bully." I know that since the anti-Bellevue crowd started this nonsense, I've prayed for--and publicly hoped for--an amenable resolution to it. I have invited those involved with savingbellevue.com to post here, since their associated sites do not allow for discussion, or even permit the posting of comments that are critical of their efforts.

2) Please define the term "damaged at Bellevue." In whose opinion? In what areas? To what extent? If you have some double-super-secret insider information, please share it.

3) Please highlight the things I've said, written, or done that give you the notion that I don't "check" what I'm saying with God. For your edification, there hasn't been any post or comment I've written regarding this entire situation that hasn't been prayed over; more than once, the Lord has prompted me to use the "Backspace" key and either rephrase or delete sections of posts and comments. And, sometimes, whole posts and comments.

4) Please give me the Biblical support for feeling comfortable in questioning my salvation. To my knowledge, no one who is critical of the anti-Bellevue group has made the nauseating leap you just made.

Whoever you are--if you've ever heard Adrian Rogers speak about nasty, venomous letters he had received, you've heard him make the astute observation that whenever people lack the fortitude to at least sign their names to their criticisms, those criticisms mean nothing.

If you cannot respond to those requests (either in a comment or to my e-mail) without clearly and plainly identifying yourself, there's no need to bother. And if you do choose to identify yourself, keep in mind you'll be claiming ownership of your above-quoted unfortunate remarks.

Your call.

--Mike

An open letter to Mark Sharpe

2006-10-04T09:12:00.000-05:00

Mark,

Since there is no other way you've made available to get in touch with you, this is going to have to do. I'm aware that you and yours stop by from time to time, but rarely, if ever, leave responses. Perhaps that will change.

The so-called "Saving Bellevue" site has a new entry: "Mark Sharpe asks Steve Gaines to resign." Such a National Enquirer-esque advertisement brings to mind the danger of believing one's own press clippings. You've been quoted in the paper, and mentioned on a few websites, so now it's news that you are asking Pastor Gaines to resign?

Not hardly. Your pastor and three others cared enough about you to come to your house and try to talk with you. That's something to be blessed by, not complain about. Yet you wear it as a "red badge of courage," talking about how you've been intimidated and harassed.

But let me examine a few choice quotes from your "epistle." Speaking of fences, I quote you thusly, and like so:

Steve Gaines, you mentioned Sunday evening that you and the others “were so desperate to try to protect Bellevue – we were so desperate”. What were you desperate about protecting?

The answer, which should be obvious even to your own group, is to protect Bellevue--"saving" it, if you will--from the type of gossip and antagonism you and yours dispense.

You misled the church by inferring that the website had stated that the Bellevue 4 jumped over the gate. Nobody has ever stated that you or others jumped over the gate.

(I must say, referring to the "Bellevue 4" is absolutely hilarious... in a pitiful way...)

Mark, let me be blunt here: You are representing part of the truth as all of the truth. How did Pastor Gaines begin his remarks regarding the vaulting of fences? Why, you can read it in the transcript savingbellevue.com used to have posted, and which this site still does. I quote it thusly, and like so:

We've already talked about the fence, and I want to join Brother Chuck and we're representing the others that were involved- the four of us- we absolutely.. that was a mistake obviously, we shouldn't have done it.

In case you've had trouble finding that quote, it directly precedes your referenced quote regarding Pastor Gaines desiring to protect Bellevue from the bile your group dispenses.

By the way, Mark, have you called the sheriff's department yet? Trespassing is something they're interested in. No? You haven't reported this heinous trangression of county law by that gang of scofflaws, the "Bellevue 4"?

Hmm...

After reading your missive--which, apart from the rumor-mongering, reads as self-aggrandizement and resumé-touting--there really isn't much else to comment on. Except, of course, to note that the analogy you and yours inspired with your opinion-laden accusations, "more 'I's' than a sack of potatoes," is the new catchphrase for the 21st century.

Please, post a comment or three here, Mark. Your opinion is just as important as anyone else's.

Not more, though.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: A commenter made an excellent point, Mark. Your proclamation calling for Pastor Gaines to slink away into the night mists is from you.

It wasn't even from the prestigious law firm of Sharpe, Saba, McClerkin, Benson, Bobbitt, Haywood, and Manning. Just from you.

Why is that?

EDITED TO ADD SOME MORE: Once again, Mark, you've made it into the Commercial Appeal. Do you have James Dowd on speed-dial?

You might have noticed...

2006-10-03T20:08:00.000-05:00

...and even if you haven't, I have chosen to remove my post containing Pastor Rogers' sermon quotes which were germane to the current situation. It is my prayer that they have served their purpose, and encouraged reflection in the hearts of everyone concerned.

--Mike

For the "Saving Bellevue" leadership

2006-09-30T11:54:00.000-05:00

It appears you're done.

Your collective behavior has crossed a line, now using Scripture (specifically Ezekiel 34) to openly judge and threaten the members of the Bellevue staff with whom you disagree.

Rather than working for mutuality, healing, and moving forward as a church family, you have consistently engaged in tactics which can most generously be described as unfortunate.

Enough, honestly, is enough.

--Mike

i2, Brute?

2006-09-28T19:47:00.000-05:00

For lack of anything else to fuss about, now the anti-Bellevue huddle has set its sights on the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevils of (drum roll, please) marketing!

Apparently, there's an ad for Bellevue's i2 Thursday night young-adult get-together that has the audacity to have within its frame a head-shot of a smiling young woman. Heresy, right? I mean, obviously, her first name must be "Jezebel" to allow herself to be photographed... smiling... and then to let her image be used as part of an advertising campaign!

Oh, but look at that.

It's disappeared from the SavingBellevue.com site almost as quickly as it appeared.

But it was there, in all its glory. Let's pray it doesn't reappear.

--Mike

And sure enough--what do you know?

2006-09-28T08:58:00.000-05:00

It got misplaced. At "Saving Bellevue," anyway.

Were I to hazard a guess as to why it's not there anymore, I could come up with a few:

1) Sunspots.
2) Government conspiracy.
3) Sunspots caused by a government conspiracy.
4) The realization that, when the comments are read in context and in their entirety, the whole "Saving Bellevue" business is shown to have more holes in it than a good slice of quality Swiss cheese.

You can pick from my list, or submit your own suggestions.

--Mike

Just in case it gets misplaced

2006-09-27T22:59:00.000-05:00

A transcript provided at the "Saving Bellevue" website of the September 24, 2006 meeting regarding allegations levied against Senior Pastor Steve Gaines and other staff members of Bellevue Baptist Church. I cannot vouch for its accuracy, since I was unable to personally attend the meeting (which took place after the Sunday evening service) and because the transcript's author is unidentified, but from what I have heard regarding the proceedings, it appears to be accurate.

I will comment in a subsequent post.

Meeting from Sunday Evening, September 24, 2006.

*In several places I have put an asterisk because I could not make out one or two words. It was no more than one or two words (literally) that were left out. They did not take out the meaning on anything. I hope this helps.

Gaines:

I’ll tell you what this is and what it’s not. It’s not a business meeting. It’s a time for information to be given to you from leaders of our church. And I’ve asked Chuck Taylor, chairmen of deacons, and I’ve asked also Harry Smith who’s worked for several years on our finance committee, and I’ve asked Chip Freeman who’s in our financial office. He is one of our best staff members here and he’s over our administration- business administration. I asked him to come and share and then I’m going to come and share. Chuck I want you to come, Chuck Taylor- I hope you understand what a jewel you have.

Chuck Taylor:

Thank you, pastor. You know the first thing I want to do is thank you for all of your expressions of love. To say we’ve been overwhelmed is actually an understatement. It’s amazing the letters- the phone calls- the emails- the hugs the words of encouragement and support. This is an incredibly loving church- a Christ-centered church. I just want to thank you for how you have supported our pastor and this church by your prayers- and by your encouragement. You know for a few months now we have been hearing a lot of shocking things. I don’t know how long you’ve been hearing it- I’ve actually been hearing it for about 4 months. The intensity has been growing on a larger scale. There’s a lot of things being said that are shocking-that are troubling. And people have been asking me why don’t we hear from the pastor. Why don’t we bring it before the congregation? Why don’t we hear a response from the leadership of the church? Is that an indication that there is truth and validity to the accusations? Well I want to tell you that our pastor and your leadership here at Bellevue have been responding but they’ve been doing it in a very private manner. Issues and concerns and differences between brothers is a very private thing. The only thing that should be on public display according to John 13:35 is the love we have for one another. This is the way the leadership has approached all of this. Now before our last deacons meeting we had asked all the deacons if they would submit to me any questions they had or any questions they were being asked that they didn’t know the answer to. And we got a lot of questions that were sent to us. And then we took those questions and gave them to the men that had firsthand knowledge- men of the church that had firsthand knowledge of what the truth is the allegations and accusations. And on Sept. 10, these men came before the deacons and shared with them all of the answers to the questions- brought truth to all the rumors and all the information going around. So tonight, we want to share with you the answers to those questions. Now, when we’re finished, if you have some questions, I want to encourage you to find a deacon, they have been well informed, they’ve been equipped. We have 186 deacons, all scattered throughout the congregation and all throughout the body of Christ. I want to encourage you if you have any questions find a deacon- ask them- if they don’t have the answers- they will get for you the answers. We also have committees. You know, forever we have heard that we are pastor led, deacon served, committee operated and congregationally approved. Committee operated means that every area of our church there are laymen who have insight and oversight in that area. There are chairmen of these committees. Find the chairmen if there is an area of concern that you have- I want to encourage you to find the chairman of the committee that has oversight and insight in that area. And if you don’t know who the chairman is, you can go to the library, the events registration booth, and you can find the lay ministry booklet. It comes out every year. The current editions are there- it will say, “Lay Ministry 2006-2007”. It will have all the chairmen, all the committees, the chairmen and all the members. It’ll even have all their telephone numbers. So I want to encourage you to get answers to the questions that you have, because these men that are on all these committees and stuff- they will help you find the answers to the questions and concerns that you might have.

Now, what I wanted to do is just to address three different areas of concern. And the first is is the incident where we climbed over a fence to go visit a brother. You know the main thing I want to say about that is that I apologize to my church for anything that caused embarrassment or disappointment. I publicly apologize to the family that we went to visit that night. We meant no harm. We were not coming in force to intimidate. We had met in Brother Steve’s office on Monday afternoon. This took place on Monday before the Friday evening where there was going to be an off campus meeting involved. It was Monday- we met in the afternoon in Brother Steve’s office some of us. We met to pray. To talk. To try and make some decisions. How to reach out. We had heard all the accusations and things that were going to be brought forth in a public manner. Didn’t matter who showed up, as far as we knew the News media might be there. What do we do? SO we made a decision that we would go to this brother and try to sit down and talk with him. It was out of love and concern for our church. And now the next day, and really let me just add it was an extreme measure, but for us, it was an extreme situation. And again, it was out of love for this church, and for this individual. The next day, a deacon brother contacted the gentleman we went to see and tried to arrange a meeting with him and whoever he wanted to bring with our pastor and church leadership. The meeting didn’t take place. Then on Friday, three deacon officers were able to sit down with this gentleman and just share with him and talk with him. That’s really all that happened. The main thing I want to say about that incident- we did trespass. I do want to apologize for embarrassing the church in that manner.

Now, the second thing I wanted to address is that it’s been said that Brother Steve negotiated his salary. Well, I’m one of only three men that was in that meeting. Brother Bob Sorrell, Harry Smith, and I- we met with Brother Steve and Donna. I want to tell you we met with Brother Steve- the pastor search committee did 3 extended meetings. I’ve estimated probably 16 hours worth of conversations. We talked about everything under the sun. We asked him every question that we could even conceive of. Then we allowed him to ask questions. I want to tell you that not one time in those meetings with Brother Steve with the search committee or as myself privately talking with Brother Steve on the telephone- not one time did compensation come up. We called Brother Steve for a fourth meeting. We said, “We’d like you to come to Memphis- we’ve got one more question we’d like to ask you”. He was gracious- he and Donna they flew to town. We met over at the hotel room, and we as a committee said, “Brother Steve, we as a committee, think God has led us to you- we think you’re God’s man. We’d like you to come be our pastor if our church votes to call you. ” Without missing a beat, Bro Steve said yes. Later, the pastor search committee adjourned- and three of us, Bob Sorrell, Harry Smith and, myself sat down with Brother Steve and Donna, and then we talked about the compensation. We laid out the package there before them. He was coming regardless of what he was being paid. Income was not the issue. It never has been- it never will be. There were some adjustments made. Just want to tell you this. In the compensation package, we did not discuss moving expenses and all those types of things to transition from Gardendale to Memphis. We did come up with some other things to cover- customary allowances for any church- any organization when you bring a senior person you do pay moving expenses- we did make some allowances and adjustments for that. I just want to stress that income was never a part of the discussions.

And then the third thing I want to talk about is video of Brother Steve telling Gardendale good-bye. I want to encourage you to watch that video in its entirety. It’s in our library. There’s nothing hidden. It’s a 50minute video. And in that video, you will be moved when you see how much Brother Steve and Donna and their family loved Gardendale and how much Gardendale loved them. It was tearing his heart out to come to Bellevue. God was in it. The only reason Brother Steve came to Bellevue was because God told him to come to Bellevue. And that video, somebody has taken a 3 minute clip from a 50 minute video to stay that Brother Steve did not like Bellevue. That video had nothing to do with Brother Steve’s opinion of Bellevue. He had nothing by respect for this congregation. But it’s all about the love that he had for the congregation that he had pastored for over 14 years. And he had come home that night after he left here and poured his heart out and the video is in our library. I encourage you to see it. That 3-minute video is completely taken out of context. Now one other thing just to add in Brother Steve’s coming- people are talking about the changes. Why are we doing this, why are we doing that. Why so many changes and all this stuff. When we talked to Brother Steve he did tell us of the things he would change. New leadership brings new ideas. But I want to tell you every pastor that we talked to- every one of them- told us about the change they would make. That’s a standard question we asked all of them. Not a one of them said we wouldn’t touch anything; we’d leave it the same. We will make change. We called him to lead us- to cast a vision, and we’re gonna follow our pastor. {applause} Praise the Lord. We’ve got a few more things to cover, so bear with us here. I wanted to share with you too something that every pastor whether we were talking to him as ours or just talking to him just about to get counsel and those type things. There was not a pastor that didn’t say it was gonna be difficult whoever got called to follow Adrian Rogers. They said this church will face great challenges. We just didn’t know what they would look like then. Well, Brother Harry Smith would you come on and work you way up here. Let me just close by saying this you know, ask yourself this question. If there was any cause for concern about finances why hasn’t one member of the finance committee, the budget planning committee, why hasn’t one member joined in the opposition? Not one. Not in the 2005 not in the 2006 has joined in that. They love God. They love this church. They are long time members of Bellevue. They want what is best- what is right. Not one of them has joined. If there should be concerns about bylaws, why hasn’t one member of the board of directors expressed concern about bylaws? You know for years many attorneys have served on the bylaw—uh—the board of directors. They know that stuff. Not one of them has expressed concern about that. And implying that if Brother Steve his trying to lead Bellevue to become a seeker friendly church, um, why does he still preach about sin, judgment, and damnation. You heard the message tonight. That’s not seeker friendly. {applause} He gives an invitation after every message. Seeker friendly churches don’t do that. I want to tell you after 14 years at Gardendale- you know one of the key indicators of the seeker friendly movement is to take the word Baptist or some denomination out of it- after 14 years at Gardendale, it is still called Gardendale’s First Baptist Church. And Brother Steve is a leader in the SBC. He has made sure that now whenever someone comes and joins Bellevue, we give them a Baptist Faith and Message Statement for them to read to know what Bellevue Baptist Church is all about. We’re not seeker friendly in the way that that is being used. God bless you. Thank you very much. Harry Smith is now going to come. Harry has been very very involved in compensation of our church. He knows the process. He’s been involved in it for years. For current staff and our pastor. * Thank you . {applause}

Harry Smith:

Well there are a lot of things I’m thankful for, and one of them is that Chuck Taylor is my deacon chairman. Fellow church members, Brother Steve asked me if I will talk to you tonight about the financial process that our budget and compensation for our staff go through each year. And as Chuck has already mentioned, there are a few of our members who you’ve seen either by email or website that are not happy by the way our church operates. And as you’ve also heard, our church for many years has been a pastor led, committee operated, and congregationally approve church. This model has worked well for us. Under it, our church has grown, and we’ve seen advances in our church. It’s been a model for the SBC. For many churches it’s been an example to follow. But there’s some people that don’t like the model. They feel like it is not effective and they feel like there should be more information disclosed to the church. They feel like compensation for some of the staff members should be furnished, along with other financial information. They even believe that some of the expenses of the church are not appropriate. Well I believe in and support the model that our church operates under. And I believe that at any other large church like Bellevue it would be hard to operate any other way. I’ve also heard the comment that a few of the people run the church. My name has been associated with that group. I have never volunteered or asked to be on any leadership role or position at Bellevue. And I really believe that to be true of all the leadership at Bellevue. The pastors have always chosen who will be in leadership positions, and they have brought those names to you as a congregation to approve. The committee on committees, which you’re familiar with, meets all during the year. They select over 600 members-volunteers to be on the different committees, the various committees we have at our church. Once these committee members are selected, in a business session they are approved by you- by the congregation. It’s at this same meeting that our budget is approved each year. Now each of - most of the committee members serve for 3 years, and then they have to be off the committee before they can be asked to be on the committee again. In addition to these committee members, we have many Bible study leaders, and we have other volunteers who serve in all different aspects of our church- different service aspects. And many of them serve for more than 3 years at a time. That’s great, because they do a good job. And now let me talk to you for a minute about our budget process. Our budget process starts off with the Budget Planning Committee. Then it goes from there to the Finance Committee. And from there to the deacons. And from there to our congregation for approval as I mentioned while ago along with the committee on committees report. The budget planning committee is selected each year by the pastor. And it’s made up of those who are past and present members of the finance committee. Some of these men that have served on this committee have been John Crawford, David Coombs, David Purdue, Brian Miller, Jeff Arnold, Jeff Pearson, Mark McDaniel, Wayne VandeerSteeg, and myself. And the first thing that we do when we meet- the budget planning committee meets with the pastor, the associate pastor, and the executive staff- is they sit down and they talk about what kind of increases (are seen with the marketplace) as far as staff increases. And before we leave that meeting, we come up with a percentage number that we give the executive staff to work on for staff increases for the coming year. Now, in the last 3 years, we’ve asked the staff-the executive staff team to use those increases both for merit increases and for cost of living increases. Now, also there was a grade system that was devised several years ago by an outside consultant. This grade system was used in setting compensation- or keeping up with compensation for our staff. The consultant that helped us with it, he used other churches and the business community to use in setting up the grade system. And then, there’s a compensation committee which is a sub-committee- and I may be telling you more than you want to hear, but I want to tell you how it works- then there’s a sub-committee of the budget planning committee that is called the compensation committee. They meet with executive staff to look at possible future staff decisions that might come up in the coming year. And also look at increases for our staff. Once they finish their work, they bring this information back to the Budget Planning Committee- the full committee- where they review and they approve, and of course this becomes a part of our budget. At this point in the meeting, the executive staff leaves the meeting, and the associate pastor gives the budget planning committee their recommendation for increases for executive staff. When they’re finished the associate pastor leaves, and the pastor gives us his recommendation for the associate pastor’s increase. Then the pastor leaves. Then we set his compensation for the coming year. That’s the process, and that’s how it’s worked, and it’s worked well over the years. Now, during the year personnel changes that happen as new people are added- that’s always been handled in the past by the office of the pastor. Now, in this past year, that same thing has happened. Those increases and additions are handled the same way. Now, Bro Steve where he came from in Gardendale, they had a committee that helped him with this. And he’s asked the budget planning committee if they would help assist the office of the pastor in the future with any new staff additions and also with their compensation. In setting their compensation, the grade system that I talked about earlier is also used. Now with the staff members that have been hired this year, I kinda just took it on myself, and I went back and I looked at the people who were added and I looked at their compensation, and in my opinion, they all looked very adequate and acceptable. I think they were all fine. You know, I just learned this afternoon about another issue that’s on the website. You know, I don’t read the website. I have to confess, I don’t even know how to pull it up. {applause} My wife could show me, but I really don’t want to read it. I just didn’t want to see it. But I did hear today that our associate pastor had received a one-year salary- a bonus- and that the decision was made by 3 people. Well, I just want to tell you it’s not true. And I want to tell you the facts are that about two years ago before Brother Steve came, and while Dr. Rogers was still our pastor- and with Dr. Roger’s approval- a pension benefit was given to our associate pastor. Not one that he’s received yet, but one he will receive in the future. But this is the same benefit that was offered and received by our former pastor, our former associate pastor, and our former minister of music. Now, the full budget planning committee and the full finance committee approved this benefit-this pension benefit. So it was not 3 people, it was probably more like 15-20 people. So this is—I don’t know where the credibility stops you know, but I’m just telling you, that’s not true. And that’s what happened. Now, I had down, Chuck, too to talk about the pastor and salary, but Chuck did such a good job, I’m not even going to say anything else about it except to add one more thing. After the sub-committee approved the compensation package, it was taken to John Crockett, who was our chairman of the finance committee last year, for his approval. And now on a personal note, last year you gave… I’m sorry, now on a personal note I want to tell you I love Bellevue. It’s God’s church, it’s your church, and it’s my church. And I loved Dr. Rogers, and I miss him. I love Brother Steve, and I am so thankful that he’s my pastor. {applause}Last year, you gave me one of the greatest blessings that I could ever have- that anybody could ever have. That was to allow me to be your deacon chairman. And that was a blessing and a privilege and a responsibility. And I asked our deacons last year if they would help me with 3 goals for our church. One goal was to be a praying church. One was to be a friendly church. And one was to be a unified church. I asked them if they would take the leadership role in helping our church in those 3 areas. As we traveled last year we could see the friendly churches and we could see the difference. And we all knew that without a praying church we would not find God’s man for our church. And of course we knew that we needed to be a unified church. Tonight as your brother in Christ, I’m asking you to join with me and be an example for our church as we help our church to be a praying church, a friendly church, and a unified church. God blesses our church in so many ways. And you know I just can’t imagine that if we weren’t where we were supposed to be that I can’t imagine that God would be blessing us like He has this past year. I’m asking you tonight, to help us put this aside and lean forward so we can serve Christ together. Thank you so much.

Chip Freeman

I'm Chip Freeman. I'm the church administrator, and I've been responsible for the finances for the church for the past 5 years. My profession, I'm a CPA, so I deal with the facts. So, tonight I would just like to present to you the facts. Now let me start by saying, you can have total confidence in the way the money is received and the money is disbursed here at BBC. There are numerous checks and balances, as well as internal controls in the financial arena of the church. And I just wanna give you a few. There is accountability daily, there's accountability monthly, then there's accountability yearly. Let me give you some examples. On a daily basis, any time that the offering is received, it is safeguarded. It is protected. There is more than one person in the room counting that offering- it is safeguarded- that offering. Also, daily when someone on staff is to request a check for disbursement, that request has to go through multiple layers of approval. It has to go through supervisory approval. It has to go on and on and on until it's been established that, yes, it is a necessary business expense of the church, and yes, it's needed, and we have budget funds to pay it. So, the request has to be approved, and then before the check is even printed and mailed, another layer of accountability-- it has to be signed by 2 different members of the finance office. And they're doing the same thing. They're looking to make sure that it's been approved. They're making sure it's a necessary business expense to the church. They're making sure that everything is clear and everything is done right. So that's daily going on here at BBC. Now as you know we live in a world of electronic commerce, and we do occasionally need to use a credit card to make a purchase. And I want you to hear me. We have very few credit cards in the name of BBC. But they're subject to the same level of scrutiny. The purchase has to approved. The purchase has to be well documented before the credit card bill is ever paid. And those credit cards are only used for necessary business expenses of the church. No credit card has been used for personal expenses- especially not our pastor's credit card. They have not been. So, I want you to know that. Daily controls... Monthly we have strong accountability for the finances at BBC. Every month a group of 12 godly men who serve on the finance committee- they look at everything that's happened over the past month financially. They look at every dollar that's come in. They look at the way it's been spent. They look against the budget items that have been spent. And they ask all kind of questions as they look through and oversee the financial transactions of the church. These are godly men; they love Bellevue. They want Bellevue to be done right- in the utmost of excellence. And they do that every single month. You can have confidence- confidence in knowing that. And they know that their name is on the line- not only is the church they love on the line- their name because they're members of the finance committee. And they're not the same members every year. Each year some people rotate off- some new fresh people rotate on. So, there's a 3-year commitment, just like all the other committees here are Bellevue. So you've heard of some daily accountability-monthly we have accountability- yearly this church has financial accountability. Each year the church has an external audit by a firm called "Brundidge and Payne" (unsure on spelling) They're an independent accounting firm. And they spend an entire month scrutinizing the churches financial activity for the prior year. They look at everything that was spent. They look at money that came in- how was it handled? They look at controls- now, they're an independent accounting firm. And each and every year- you can have confidence knowing this- each and every year, we have received the highest rating the audit gives to a company- the highest one. Matter of fact, {applause} Praise the Lord! And some years, they'll follow up with comments which is separate from the report- they'll say hey look at these things, maybe you wanna do something a little better- we can help you make a suggestion here. They do that sometimes on occasion- we appreciate their comments. You know this year they had no management comments. They said things are being done there in such a professional and proper manner. We have no suggestions- no comments to make. So, that was just this year. {applause} And they present their report by the way to an audit sub-committee. A group of laymen independent from the staff, so that if they needed to talk to that committee about something they're concerned about they have the freedom without the staff being there-without the staff being in the room. So, just another layer of accountability, guys. We also have a budget planning committee Brother Harry just talked about. Guys, they're also made up of some gifted laymen that love this church. And they oversee the church's setting, the planning, and the spending of the entire church budget. Guys, there's accountability- there's a lot of accountability financially over this church. I want you to know that I started my career 14 years ago in public accounting. And I've worked in many public and private companies. All of which hold themselves to generally accepting accounting principles and also, many of them to governmental standards. And I can assure that after being here for 9 years, BBC holds herself to an even higher standard of financial controls and accountability than these large, multinational companies- a higher standard. And you know {applause} Let me give you two reasons that come off the top of my head. First, we have a tax exemption that we are protecting here at the church. And you don't want to do anything that would jeopardize the tax exemption of the church. But second, and most importantly, we're doing our work with money that has been given to the Lord, and we are continually working on this staff as unto the Lord. It's all unto the Lord {applause}. I'm telling you the facts. And friends, it's a shame for someone to bring suspect to the way that the finances are handled at our church. There is so much false information and innuendo out there that it's only shedding doubt. That's all it's doing. But you need to hear from me- you need to hear me the financial integrity and accountability and the internal controls have always been strong at this church. So, now you know the facts. You can have the total confidence in knowing the way that the money is handled at BBC- it's handled with integrity, it's handled with accountability. Your tithes and your offerings are being used to minister the gospel to a world that needs Jesus. Thank you for the privilege of serving. {applause}

Steve Gaines

I want to thank Chuck, and I want to thank Harry, and I want to thank Chip. Chip, by the way, was considering going to another company- he came back totally on his own. We prayed with him through that situation. But I tell you I'm so glad Chip came back- I love this man of God- he's a sweet brother in Christ. Well I've got- I've already preached once haven't I? I want to share a few things with you. I'd a lot rather preach a sermon than do what I'm doing, but I feel that as a shepherd, I need to do this. I want to do it- in a prayerful and hopefully genuinely humbly way. Where do you start? I don't really know, but one of the things that concerned me that I read in the paper was the Bellevue was staffing a sister church in town. And I appreciated so much the answer that Bob Sorrell had- the retired former associate pastor. He said, in no way is that the case. Brother Bob retired from Bellevue several years ago. He has asked Jim Whitmire- also retired from Bellevue, Peggy Perkins a delightful lady, also retired from Bellevue, then another staff member who was from Bellevue- David Smith to help a sister church that has gone through a great deal of struggle and heartache. Friend, we're not staffing them. We're simply some people that have served here under a great man of God- Bob Sorrell- are trying to help a sister church in need. And I think that that's the focus of that (*?) I don’t want it to be said that we're staffing some other church. We're simply helping other people, and if we can't do that as brothers and sisters in Christ, we're in trouble. Amen? {applause} Bellevue is not running Germantown Baptist Church.

Let me talk to you about something that was pretty amazing to me. That was that I had a dream and that that caused me to do something. We have a member of our church- I've met him. The Lord has saved him- he's an awesome person. And he gets excited, and I can appreciate that. He says amen quite a bit. And that's fine. But it was getting to the point where it was a little hard for me to concentrate on my preaching while that was going on. The Bible says you ought to handle things like that in public. By the way, it says you handle anything like that- in private rather- you ought to handle it in private- and any confrontation like that. And so, I woke up on a Monday morning - it happened the day before- I woke up, didn't have any dream. I told Mark Dougherty- I said I really want us to talk to this church member and just ask him in private in a very simple way if he would not say that as much. Just kinda back off a little bit. Well somewhere between that and- somewhere- I was told, somebody said you had a dream or a vision about this in the night and that's why you told this man that that's the case. I never had a dream about that. I never told anyone I had a dream. No staff member I've talked to- three of the staff members involved- None of them said that I said that I had a dream. I want to read to you and I'm not trying to devote my little devotional book. If you want to know what I believe, by the way, I believe I put it in print. 365 pieces of my heart.

Feb. 2 God's Steadfast Word is talking about the prophet who has a dream may relay his dream, but may him who has my word speak my word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain declares the Lord. Is not my word like fire declares the Lord? Like a hammer that shatters the rock.

Now that's the scripture, here's my commentary.

The Bible is God's reliable word. It should be the ultimate authority for every Christian. It consists exclusively of 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament. People have tried to add to the Bible with false revelations, claiming special visions and dreams from God. God warns against such bogus spiritual guides by giving us 3 vivid descriptions of his steadfast word. First of all, God's word is like grain. The messages of false prophets are straw compared to the grain of scripture. Today some claim to have special words from God- perhaps an apparition in the field, or a message from a so-called prophet. These must be examined in the light of the Bible, and must never- that's italicized- be considered as being on the level of scripture. Secondly, God's word is fire. Jeremiah said that God's word was fire in his bones that it had to be spoken. As we shared today, scripture still burns to the stubble of false ideas. It blazes in the people lives with the power of salvation. Thirdly, God's word is a hammer- it's a spiritual hammer that shatters the false ideas of men. His word will have the final say- it's the ultimate hammer of truth that can destroy the lives of the evil one and his false prophet. Last Paragraph. We do not need to lust for a vision, prophecy or dream. We need to hunger for the written word of God. In the Bible, we will find the grain we need to feed our hungry souls, the fire we need to keep us ablaze for Jesus, and the hammer we need to shatter the false ideas of our pagan, confused society- including sinners. Who needs a dream when we have a Bible? {applause}

I guess on the website that that is mentioned. I don't want to try to guess, but it can only be I think one of two things. That I had a dream and tried to cover it up- or that I'm some wide-eyed mystic that that's how I get my vision for Bellevue-through dreams. I just want you to know that there's absolutely no substance to either of these suggestions.

We've already talked about the fence, and I want to join Brother Chuck and we're representing the others that were involved- the four of us- we absolutely.. that was a mistake obviously, we shouldn't have done it. We were so desperate to try to protect Bellevue- we were so desperate- we actually were in prayer meeting. We thought of that verse that Jesus said If you're at the alter, and you remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift at the alter and go away- first be reconciled with your brother. It took us quite a while to find where he lived. We did, we climbed over that fence, and it was not by the way- if you go to the website, they have this big tall gate and with all do respect, look at us and do you think that we... {laughter} It was the little bitty white fence about that tall next to it that we went over. And I want to say, I join Chuck, I say to the family, I hope you know we never- there was no intimidation at all- we just wanted to be reconciled. And we're sorry, and I want to tell you as a church, we're sorry. It was poor judgment on our part, and I want to tell you this, it did not come out of a bad heart. It was a mistake and it was. It was a mistake of the head and not the heart. We do not have bad hearts, we were trying to reconcile. {applause}

Now, the Gardendale resignation video. This is going to be the most emotional one. They've taken a 3-minute statement out of a 50- minute resignation. I left here, I think it was July 10th-was that the date?- and we went home, we drove home. We're home now, but we drove what was home then. We got to Gardendale at 5 till 6. The service started at 6. And when we walked in the sanctuary, the place was packed. My girls couldn't even walk in. They turned around and fell back into my arms and Donna's arms and cried knowing what we were about to do. And when I walked in there, they were worshipping God, and they knew what was coming. And when I- finally it was my turn, Mark Harris handed it over to me- he's our minister of education. And I walked up there and somebody just blurted out- We love you Brother Steve. And they all stood up like you've done. And I cried and they cried. In the middle of that tape, the 3 minutes they got in there, I was tired; I was bone tired. And I was hurting- my spirit was raw. Now, you've gotta understand what I'm about to say. I didn't want to leave Gardendale Alabama- not because I didn't want to come to Bellevue-- I didn't want to go anywhere. I didn't want to come to Bellevue, because I didn't want to leave Gardendale. I didn't want to leave what God was doing. For 14 years I had prayed over that place- for 14 years, I had led people to Jesus- for 14 years I had done funerals, weddings- for 14 years I had poured my life into that place. Now, when I was sick and couldn't even tie my shoes, they kept me as their pastor. And when I couldn't even comb my hair, my wife had to comb my hair for me, they kept me as their pastor. And I did everything I could- even telling them I'm gonna stay with you- I'm not gonna go any place. And I meant it with all of my heart. And every time I would turn around- I withdrew my name- not that the committee offered me this job and I said no to it- I withdrew my name from the process. I called twice- Chuck says 3 times-several times. I did everything I could to stay in Gardendale. And in this video- and you've gotta understand- I went there when I was 33 years old- and I was 47 when I left. These people we loved each other, and you know what we're gonna love each other the same way, and we're getting there. It just takes time {applause} I thought I loved Donna after the first year- you remember your 1st year anniversary? Oh I love you. I'm gonna tell you something, brother, after 26 years, I'd die for her. {applause} What I said to them was- I didn't memorize it- I'm like Harry, I don't like to go to the website. I didn't really look at what they had on there. It said something about "Didn't I tick you guys off?" Now, you gotta remember, we're in Alabama, ok? Not in cultured Tennessee- we're in Alabama. {laughter}I asked them- I did- I did everything I could to tell them you know what I thought was right with Gardendale- and what I.. and I said what I thought was wrong with Bellevue. I wasn't saying that I thought that Bellevue was bad or anything like that. They lifted that totally out of context. You know what, you can take 3 minutes out of just about any sermon or just about anything you want and miss the whole point of the whole sermon. Listen to me, if I didn't have any respect for this church, I would've never come here to try to be your pastor. I loved Dr. Rogers. There is nobody- listen I never had a better friend on this earth than Dr. Adrian Rogers, and if anybody's implying that I've ever demeaned this church or his ministry or anything else- that is simply not true. I want to encourage you- like Chuck said- if you want to watch it, don't watch the little 3 minute thing on the website. You go watch the whole 50 minute thing, and you see my heart and see that I'm simply trying to pour out my heart to my people to try to affirm them. They were crying. I was crying. It was a tough night. But I want to tell you, I have never and never will do anything to demean this church or to put this church down. I love this church. I'm gonna give the rest of my life in service to the Lord through this church. And anything I said in that video had nothing to do with me trying to degrade this church in any way. So I want you to know that. {applause}

Why don't you preach on Wednesday nights? {laughter}Why did we use Dr. AG with all these preachers we have here? Dr AG is one of my dearest friends. First of all, why don't I preach on Wed. nights? I'll tell you why. I have children. I have school-aged children. I can't be out every night of the week. {applause}I have volleyball games, I have things to go to and I am there every time I can be. And I don't miss much, because they've got one person that can be their daddy. {applause} I chose on Wed. night to save that where I wasn't preaching. And I go to committee meetings, every three weeks I have a - right now I'm trying to meet all the deacons. Every 3 weeks, I meet with 5 deacon couples. We have a dinner and we get to know one another. That's been wonderful. I have committee meetings on those nights, and also during the entire fall I went to meetings like with Phil's group- the youth. I've been in all those age groups. I've been in all kinds- and we're doing- listen to me, we are doing every- Donna and I-we- we are doing everything we know to try to get to know you folks. Wed. night is a night that I need- I go visiting on Tuesday night- then I go... I'm meeting on those Wednesday nights. If I didn't do what I do on Wed. nights, I'd be gone 4 or 5 nights out of the week. I cannot raise a godly family and be gone every night of the week. {applause}

There's different guys all the time- no consistency, so I brought Dr. AG here. I wanted Joe Jernigan. You might remember about that time though, he had a lot of health problems. Well, who's preaching now? Same guy I wanted then. I had to get Dr. AG- but now that Joe is- listen, Joe Jernigan could be out here pastoring a church just as big as Bellevue {applause}

Now, Rick Warren, Bill Hybel- seeker sensitive movement. And if you go to the website, it seems like that's what whoever's in charge of the website- they're really afraid of all this. I've never even read a book by Rick Warren. You say, you haven't read… I haven't even read-- the book that this church went through, Purpose Driven Life. How many of you have read that book? Come on, get ‘em up. I've never even read it. This staff back in 1996 went through the Purpose Driven Church. Dr. Rogers, Jerry Falwell, James Merritt, Elder Townes, OS Hawkins, most of them past presidents of the SBC- Jerry Falwell- all these guys wrote an endorsement for Rick Warren's book- including Dr. Adrian Rogers- wrote an endorsement. I've got in right there- you can read it- on the inside- back in 1996. And then when his other book came out, this church went through that. Just in the most recent theological journal, they call it the journal of missions and evangelism I believe for Mid America Theological Seminary- an article by Rick Warren on missions is in there. It was just this last spring. I'm not here to defend Rick Warren or not. If you're saying- do you believe in church growth? I believe in people being saved. I believe in people getting their hearts right with God. But if you're talking about watering down the gospel, you think that's me? You haven't heard me preach. {applause}We're not seeker sensitive because we have some folks up here holding microphones. We’re not seeker sensitive because of that. Guys, listen to me. I am a Baptist. Somebody said, what would you be, if you weren’t Baptist? I guess I’d be ashamed. I don’t know- I’m just a Baptist. {laughter} Now, that was tongue and cheek, by the way. I was kidding. {applause} I’ve never read the book. Donna is saying get back to your notes, Steve. Okay. I’ve never read the book. And I’m not in that movement.

Music at Bellevue. On the first day I came here, we got together all the folks- Dr. Whitmire, John, everybody. And I said I want a 50/50 split. 50% hymns. You don’t know anybody that loves the hymns more than I do. And I’m not trying to brag, but I could quote half of them by memory- or more. And we will always, listen to me, always- you say where are we going? We went there the first day. We will always sing the great hymns of the faith at Bellevue Baptist Church. {applause} (*a few words muffled from the applause) The other- the non-traditional songs. The Bible says, Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. We’re gonna sing songs that your children listen to. Songs that are coming up and that most of them are singing to God, and they’re all based on scripture. And I promise you, it will be based on Biblical theology. And if we sing one that happens to squeak by, and it wasn’t that good, you know what- you won’t hear it again. You won’t hear it again. We’re gonna sing songs that magnify Jesus, that are based on the Bible, that..- what we’re trying to do is minister to everybody. Listen to me, I’ve told you many times- I’m like a broken record on this- I don’t want to have one traditional service and one non-traditional service. I want to have one worship service for all the services so that everybody can go. {applause}

Personal use of the church credit card. I’ve got one. You wanna look at it? Here it is right here. {laughter} There it is. I have- I’m 48, I’ve had a church credit card since I was 30 years old. I have never ever never not one time used a church credit card for personal use. Not one time. Not one time. {applause} And in fact, I’ve turned in since I’ve been here and at Gardendale, I’ve turned in every receipt, wrote down every detail on it- it’s all. And I asked Chip. I said Chip, would you just go back, I said I know I didn’t do it, but just so that I can say this, go back. He looked at every statement. I don’t know how long it took him to do it. He looked at every receipt. There’s nothing there. There’s nothing there for any of our guys that have church credit cards. There’s not many of them out there anyway. So, folks, don’t go there. That’s- there’s nothing to that. I’m just looking at my notes, trying to finish up.

And then, one thing that really kinda concerned me. I heard about this, and I saw it. They- somebody tried to say that you know when I… You might know that the Lord called me- confirmed my calling right out here by one of these little lakes. On May 21st, I was reading in Judges chapter 6. And I was reading through that in my One Year Bible. I didn’t go out and pick that. It was just there. And I read that in there and it said, “The angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, and said the Lord is with you, O valiant warrior. He said, O Lord, if you are with us, why are all these bad things happening to us? And the Lord,” verse 14, “Looked at him and said, Go in this your strength, and deliver Israel from the hand of Mideon. Have I not sent you?” Now, what God used to speak to my heart was, “Go in this your strength”. You know why? I have (his condition- I cannot make it out and hate to butcher it by attempting to spell it something like Myosteneus Gravis) I was asking, Lord am I even strong enough to do this? Am I? Are you gonna give me the strength? “Go in this your strength. Have I not sent you?” I read this passage and I saw Bellevue. And again, I was reading the Word of God. Didn’t have a dream or anything. Then I looked out there and just saw the Lord. Just like how do you know when you’re saved? How do you know when God calls you to preach? How do you know when God calls you to a church? You just know it in your knower. And I knew deep in my heart that that’s what- God wanted me to spend the rest of my life here. Now, listen. In the middle of this phrase it says, “Go in this your strength,” and listen, “deliver Israel from the hand of Mideon.” And somewhere on this blog it says something like this, “Exactly what does Dr. Gaines think he needs to deliver Bellevue from?” I don’t think I need to deliver us from anything. Listen to me, the more I get- by the way Chuck was talking about this- I’m drowning in love mail. Praise the Lord. Amen. I’m drowning. {applause} I’m not here to make this a Gardendale. I’m not here to change this church or anything else. I’m simply here- I’ve got one agenda: I wanna go after God. I want this church simply to do what it’s always done. That is to love the Lord, to love lost people, to win lost people, and to glorify God. That’s all- that is my agenda. There it is right there. {applause} Just stay up. We’ll go to the house. Or Mexican food, or wherever it is you’re going. I want to say this about Mid American Baptist Theological Seminary. I have heard this so many times. We’ve heard you don’t support Mid America. Listen, I have understood, literally the heart of Dr. Rogers. You’ve got to understand, he was my “Pa”. Now I know about the relationship between Bellevue and Mid America. I understand the story. And I don’t know anybody that I respect more that Dr. Gray Allison. I love Mike Spradlin. Listen, I’ve got friends over there. Jerry Bloom (unsure on name*) teaches over there preaching. And I came from First Baptist Dyersburg. Stan May (unsure on name*) he teaches missions over there. I’ve known Stan since I got saved. Two months after I went- I got saved- I met Stan. We’ve been friends for almost 30 years. So, I know a lot of these guys over there. We’ve got different guys in our church from Mid America. I preached over there this last week. And this last year when it came budget time, I’m the one- I’m not trying to take credit, I’m just trying to tell you- I’m the one that recommended to the finance committee. I can’t- I don’t sign any checks at Bellevue. I can’t, listen- I don’t have control over the money here. I simply made a suggestion that we up what we already give to Mid America by $1000 a month. The finance committee approved it. The church approved it. We upped that on my watch. And, as far as Mid America goes, Mike Spradlin has preached here. Gray Allison has preached here. I’ve got other professors I’m gonna have preach here. I preached there last week. As far as I’m concerned, all that depends on me- whatever that is- Bellevue will always, always support Mid America Baptist Theological Seminary. {applause}

I just want you to pray that God will not let us get distracted from the main thing. I want you to pray that God will put a hedge of protection around everybody- even those who have some differences. I want you to pray that all of us will walk in wisdom. That we’ll walk in forgiveness, that we’ll walk in Christ. That we’ll be like Jesus, we’ll be Christ-like, not condescending. I want you to pray that accusations will stop. I want you to pray that finger pointing will stop. And I want you to understand that this church is not in some major crisis. This church is simply going through something that I firmly believe is gonna make us stronger, because we’re more focused on prayer when we go through these times. We’re more focused on what really matters. And what really matters is not all these little accusations, fault-findings, and all that stuff. What really matters is there are people going to hell right out there, and it’s our job to love each other, and to win people to Jesus. {applause} I wanna say again, I’ve never had- I’ve never had a better deacon than Chuck Taylor. Never worked with a better guy. {applause} I’m gonna ask him to say a word of prayer, but don’t leave. We’re gonna- every Sunday night we sing a song. (*) As soon as Chuck gets through praying, we’re gonna sing “There’s a Sweet, Sweet Spirit” in what {Congregation: in this place}You go ahead and join your hands. Join your hearts. Now, guys, as far as I’m concerned- let’s move on. Let’s move on. Let’s pray and then we’ll sing.

Chuck Taylor

Gracious Father God, we thank you for meeting with us tonight. Lord, we thank you for the sweet unity that carries us in the place. And that is because of your presence here with us. Lord, thank you for everyone that came tonight. And Lord for the message here tonight, and who we are in Jesus. Lord it is for your glory. May we leave this place, Lord, humble. Lord, seeking to do your will. Remembering Lord that there is a gospel out there (*) as soon as you walk out these doors. May we be, Lord, your witnesses, your shining light. And Lord, as we’ve already said. May they know we are your disciples by how we have love one for another. Amen.

Let’s sing together.