This thread has gotten too long for those who are "still stuck with dial-up," so please, if you would, go to the "New Financial Thread" above to continue the current discussion. Thanks for your cooperation!
Originally I wrote: This thread is, as the name implies, a place for announcements rather than in depth discussions.
Note regarding Richard Emerson's comment from 2:06 a.m., November 3, 2006:
Mr. Emerson wrote me this afternoon and requested I remove his comment because he'd lost his password and couldn't log in. I honored his request. However, his edited version of those comments is in letter form here.
If you have something you'd like to have included here, rather than put it in a comment in this thread, please place the information in a comment and leave it in the "Suggestion Box" thread. That way I can add links and edit as needed and post it "on the front page" in this thread.
So much for that idea. Now that there don't seem to be any announcements, at least not any that have been dropped in the Suggestion Box, I've just changed the title to reflect the fact that discussions are indeed taking place here.
That's all. Continue on now...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
88 comments:
New BBC Open Forum,
I would rather you remove our comments altogether than edit them and post them on the front page.
While understanding your position, I do not agree with much of what is said here. Therefore, I would appreciate you removing my comment from the front page.
Thanks in advance,
WM
Will,
I'm sorry if I offended you. Other than to turn your URL into a proper link, I didn't edit your comment when I placed it in the announcements, but I have removed your comments as per your request.
If Mr. Furniss feels the same way, I'll remove his information as well. That will be his call to make.
NBBCOF
Thank you very much, no offense taken or harm done.
WM
I would also like you to remove mine. Thank you very much! Have a wonderful afternoon!
Kevin,
Consider it done. All the best to you in your endeavors.
NBBCOF
Thanks. I appreciate it very much. Follow Christ in all that you do!
If anyone could use a laugh, especially you dads, here's an article I found on a website that I found humorous.
Link<
allofgrace,
That link isn't good any more.
Sorry...try this one.
Link
lurkin,
Was there anyone on the list with the initials M.S.?
mostlylurkin wrote: "There's word of a meeting right about now of a recently expanded Ad Hoc committee."
Oh, to be a fly on the wall of that meeting room!
oldtimer, WTB,
I just removed oldtimer's comment. WTB, you raised a very valid concern. I was just going to respond to oldtimer's post with some comments.
No offense to you, oldtimer. We appreciate the information, but as WTB says, these men are risking their positions in the church, and I don't want to play a role in making their job more difficult.
Thanks, guys.
oldtimer wrote:
"It was... that got the first group of men kicked off the deacons."
Which "group" are you referring to? Pre-Mark Sharpe or were others removed the same time as he? I know other deacons have been kicked off. I believe the quote by one current deacon was (paraphrased), "I was surprised to learn the highway is littered with former deacons they've run over in years past."
oldtimer,
Thanks. I understand. I would like to see the walls of protection come down, too. But as long as people have jobs and families and reputations to protect, I don't want to "out" someone who hasn't chosen to publicize his concerns himself. Not sure this is what you were referring to, but it's my position on this subject.
Last night’s meeting went well: Positive, productive, restorative.
Praise God!
More information will be forthcoming from the church.
Andrew,
Praise God Indeed! Thank you for the update. It is good to know that there are things happening, finally!
How will we hear, by mail? or will it be covered in a service?
mom4,
I don't know how or when the "church" will pass on an official update.
The process that we are all in is still in progress and I'm sure they are eager to communicate with us.
Personally, I am encouraged.
Define Gossip
Andrew,
It's what we're all hoping and praying for, but you have to admit without any other information it kind of sounded like the current BBC party line -- "positive, productive, and restorative." Translation: "Everything's fine. Don't us ask any questions."
I believe you. It sounded to me like oldtimer was just "funnin'" with you.
NASS
NASS
I missed the humor - I'm a fairly seriously minded person. You however have made me laugh and think and I appreciate your example to us all. Thank you.
to oldtimer...
My intent is simple and pure, the information is not secret, the information is accurate.
I stand by my statement.
Don't read into more than I stated. I am not saying closure is upon us. I don't believe it is. But, healthy and open communication by key players is occuring, critical information is forthcoming, and people are serious minded about it all.
Hi lsg,
I too would like to see more progress. I hope this latest meeting can be a building block toward additional disclosure and restoration of brothers, staff, and the body as a whole.
Right now I'm not able to see this meeting as a bad thing. But it could turn out to be a waste of time, but only time and truth will tell.
I know God is able to work all this out. Just as he is able to speak to and redeem a lost sheep he is able to bring back and restore damaged relationships, lost trust, and all the rest. He really is a great God.
Amen Andrew...you got it spot on brother. He's greater than our hearts..and certainly greater than our problems. One thing that I've been blessed to see in all this...is what we've seen take place here. I don't know about you, but I've sensed a lot of softening of hearts..with all the high emotions and sentiments, we've managed to hear each other's hearts in this, and come together as a family..even though I don't know any of you...I feel more like I belong to a church family now than I have in the previous 4 yrs I've been at Bellevue. Rom.8:28. Blessings.
IWTK,
If there is no credit card abuse like you stated, then why did it take the leadership sooooo long to lay it all out there?
Who has reviewed the receipts and stated that there is no abuse and did they compare the receipts with the bills to verify each charge? Have they contacted the credit card company and made sure that there were no corrections or revised statements issued? Is there more than one credit card or credit card company? These are legitimate questions that I have. I am not trying to be devisive, but this started somewhere and who ever is responsible needs to be held to account whether there is something wrong or not, no matter who it is.
ilovebbc,
Thank you for that information. Here is what that nationally televised conference from July 11, 2004 was really about. There's no mention of the "Bush/Cheney campaign."
Here are the links you provided in "linkable" form:
"We might all want to email Janice Broach at jbroach@wmctv.com about her article on Channel 5's website which is here.
"Likewise, Fox News has similar misinformation on their web site here.
"At the bottom of their article I followed these instructions to let them know about their error.
"'Call our SoundOff line at 901-320-1234, or post your thoughts on our SoundOff blog.'"
It's always seemed odd to me that whenever certain politicians come to town (think any large city) that with all the locations available for large public rallies, they nearly always end up "renting" space in a predominently black church. That's just my observation -- kind of like "the sun came up this morning."
I commented just last night that if Bob Corker had held a campaign rally at Bellevue it would have made the national news, and they'd be calling for, yea, demanding the IRS to yank the church's tax exempt status -- which I'd agree they should. Seems a bit of a double standard to me.
This is the Commercial Appeal's reporting of the same story. Maybe I just blinked and missed it, but I didn't read anything about the tax-exempt issue in that article.
However, there was this quote from the same article:
"The party faithful swayed, sang, waved signs and chanted 'Harold Ford' and later 'We love Bill.' One woman swooned and spoke in tongues."
Yes, but was there someone there to interpret?
NASS
Marvelous observations, Nass.
Ms. Broach is getting more than a few e-mails about this, and to her credit she is investigating further.
Not surprising, given her reputation, but heartening nevertheless.
--Mike
"The party faithful swayed, sang, waved signs and chanted 'Harold Ford' and later 'We love Bill.' One woman swooned and spoke in tongues."
Yes, but was there someone there to interpret?
And while I'm thinking about it, that was an awfully snarky response.
Loved it.
It should be pointed out, though, that it was not a church-sponsored outburst, and a swoon rental fee was paid by Harold Ford, Jr. For Tennessee.
--Mike
Biblefellowshipteacher wrote:
"If we don't wake up at Belleuve and decide on a more open church government, we are going to regret it a year from now."
I think we already do.
NASS
"If we don't wake up at Belleuve and decide on a more open church government, we are going to regret it a year from now. Baptist (sic) want transparency in church government."
Yet not everyone wants transparency in commenting about church government.
Interesting.
--Mike
Josh,
"About the dream -- Mark Sharpe's issue should have been with Mark Dougharty, not the pastor."
Does this lead us to believe that Mark Dougharty is the one who had the dream? If not, where did it come from? I must have been out of that loop, because I have not seen or read anything on this subject being resolved. I must have missed it so please explain ...
Josh,
"There are a few individuals here who will never be happy until there is complete and utter transparency. However, how is this to be accomplished in a church when financial data needs to be kept confidential and private?"
I can see having a budget summary to release to the congregation, but I believe that where the transparency needs to be is when someone wants to see the line items in the budget or has a question about an item, they have the right to review and ask appropriate questions to the responsible persons, be they committee, deacon or pastor, and they should receive a complete and honest answer and the financial documents, whatever they may be, should be made available.
In the event someone does not see eye to eye, I am sure there are enough men and women of the church with backgrounds in finance who could work with that person to come to an amicable conclusion to all parties involved - don't you think???
Josh,
Unfortunately, I do not naturally have a suspicious mind unless something looks suspicious, so I would have never have suspected someone trying to pull a con. I do, however, believe that there is a substantial number of persons within the church that are fully capable of knowing who is who and what is what and what questions are appropriate and what are not. Bank account information for example is a security issue, not an open records issue and there is a difference. There are laws in place to protect the church as there are laws to protect the individual. You are talking about a hypothetical con and I am talking about an honest concern and a need for accountability within the church.
There are municipal and government records that are open for public inspection. Pay rates, personnel files and budget items, open bids and meeting minutes are all open for anyone to inspect, some under supervision, but if I wanted to see what the Mayor of Memphis is spending or earning, I have a legal right to do so, not that I would even want to go there...
IWTK
Sorry you feel that I was demanding too much, I do want to see that all the bases are covered in order to put this matter to rest. Please re-read my post in the light that I wrote it. It was not intended to be hostile, but a genuine, legitimate question.
This issue about the credit card receipts is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. While I am glad that there are men who are taking the time and making the effort to investigate this issue, it does not absolve others of their responsibility for failing to render accountability from the beginning. Your statement from scripture "What men meant for evil God meant for good." does not apply here because we are not seeking with an evil heart. For you to say so is abhorrent and shows your lack of insight into this situation. There is pain and heartache on both sides of this and it is a no win situation.
Josh,
WOW, I cannot believe you said that! Are we not congregationally led? Should how we approach this matter not be brought before the congregation in a decent and orderly format? And I pray daily, somedays constant in prayer and supplication for my church home.
Iron sharpens Iron my brother in Christ - that is scriptural.
Josh,
Sorry, I mis-spoke, approved is correct (is it not:))
Josh,
I must have been mistaken, especially since Dr Rogers made it a point to bring things before the congregation for "approval". I know that decisions are made and general approvals are given prior to items being brought before the congregation. Changes can be all just politics unless it is handled appropriately. The congregation does need to know specifics on some things, especially committee/leadersip decisions that affect the direction of the church. Even when Dr Rogers wanted a new committee, he did not just form it, rather he addressed it with his leadership, made all the appropriate communications and then brought the matter to the congregation for approval. No one at Bellevue has ever shoved anything down our throats until now. It is now not only a matter of trust, it is a matter of pulling the rug out from under the congregation and not even telling us until we hit the ground!
I am sorry you don't understand me Josh, I must pray how to answer you so that you will realize what I am saying. You seem to be attempting to drive home your point that perhaps you and others have total control and us nobodies are just taking up your air. It is a matter of respect.
Sorry, I will have to sleep on that one.
Gentlemen - those who have differences about what actually went on the meeting...
If there is no secret then can you please give the detail that you are dancing around so that your notes can clearly be debated.
You are fencing in the dark.
That approach is not very productive for either of you or us.
Your thoughts?
Josh,
If the congregation as a whole wanted to evaluate the decisions they were approving - how would that work at Bellevue?
outsidelookingin:
"Already, we are finding out that early allegations that were called lies are now being found to be true."
Can you tell me what you are referring to. I don't mean to be dense but would appreciate your help. Thanks.
josh tucker wrote:
"I use the term congregation approval with regard to leadership within the church to mean the congregation approves the men who are to be our leaders and then they go about making the decisions."
Just out of curiosity, did we ever vote on David Coombs being called as the new "extra" associate pastor? If we did, I must have missed that.
"Finally, come on, throwing around a number in the thousands -- how on earth do you know that?"
I don't think there is a question the number is in the thousands. Half the deacons are concerned about him too. It's untrue for anyone to claim this is a small rogue group. We need to face it, the church is split down the middle.
“Bellevue's deacon body/particular committees have access to the type of information you are discussing.”
I believe that is false. Our deacons don’t have access to financial information. Not even our full finance committee knows the pastor’s salary. If you remember, when a deacon, Mark Sharpe, tried to find the truth he was blocked. The pastor even kicked him off the deacon body for daring to ask questions of him. Show me the Scriptural support for that pastor making that move. Even if he has the power, should he use it in such a self-serving way?
MKW,
You ask a fair question. It is undeniable he has been barred for serving by the pastor. A deacon friend has said he was "kicked off." Is that strictly true? I'm not sure. I'm sorry, I did not mean to overstate that situation or mislead anyone. Someone here surely knows the straight truth of it.
lsg,
I take it there was no vote on David Coombs. Thank you.
I know there are a lot of questions about how Baptist church government is supposed to work. Here's a couple of links to some documents written by Baptist forebears. Perhaps it will be helpful, at least to see how early Baptists governed themselves and handled matters of discipline.
Link
Link
Anyone interested in the church government issue should read these articles from the Baptist Press. As I wrote yesterday, it seems to me we have a de facto elder system, but the congregation still believes it has authority.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23596 Final Decision Making is Key to Polity Debate
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17636 Congregationalism: Viable & biblical, speakers say
WBT,
LOL...beat ya by seconds.
Gnats,
It has been characterized to me by a DEACON that he was "kicked off" by the pastor. However, in an earlier post I said I may have misspoken.
Be careful before accusing someone of spreading lies.
ilovebbc wrote: "I was there the night the announcemnet was made that he was joining the staff but I don't recall if there was a vote or not. I believe it was the same night we voted on messengers to the Tenneesee Bapt Convention among other things."
I was there the evening David Coombs was presented to the congregation (it was October 8th), and I can tell you with certainty there was no vote on him or anything else that night including messengers. It was, "Here he is, your new 'Administrative Pastor.'" I remember it clearly because that was the same evening we were treated to the now infamous "The Danger of a Fault-Finding Spirit" sermon.
Josh,
Thanks for your response...
"At Bellevue, the latest approach has been to trust the various church committees and the administration/pastorate to give the congregation enough information to make the evaluations. To a degree, I believe a certain amount of trust does need to be placed upon the men within the church leadership that they are allowing enough information to be given to the church congregation."
I agree. But...
...one of the things a deacon told me recently was that during the AR era the deacon's meetings were often deferential toward the leadership and committees that were closer to the action and information. And basically, and in general, he said, they often just went along with the leader and would chat about current events and stuff. Now, I'm not suggesting that is or was the case in each meeting. In fact, I remember someone telling me that a certain leader wanted to change something a few months back related Sunday worship and certain deacons spoke up and said that wasn't going to happen. I hope the interaction was respectful and honoring both ways but I absolutely applaud taking a stand. Apparently it was a concern of too much, too fast. Again, I expect (as in require) and hope that these men are able to reason together. And frankly, if they can't or won't – they need to find another area of service that doesn't require the fortitude.
Leaders need peer-quality subordinates. Honest men, men that easily, almost effortlessly, serve humbly and love one another. Men of intelligence and dignity. Men of experience, wisdom and discernment. Men of faith - real, deep, unyielding personal faith. Men who will say, "oh king, live forever. But we will not bow to the idol. Our God is able to save us - and whether by fire or miracle, He will deliver us from your hand oh king. Either way, we will not bow.” Don't you just love that - that's not insubordinate; that's calibrated and yielded to the one true God. Hallelujah! Oh that we would ALL trust Him completely and walk with Him intimately, throwing our lives before him in total adoration and trust. What an exciting thought - Real Christianity!
We would all agree that, as a rule, reasonable people want to believe in and follow their leader. Unreasonable people, who unfortunately will be with us always, will find something to fuss about. But my concern based on my personal observations through this situation, and having worked for and with strong leaders, is that people, even strong, intelligent, smart, able men will sit silently in fear and weakness. Have you not witnessed the “big talk” and posturing only to be amused, and hopefully saddened, by the silence or pitiful squeak in the boardroom? Mind you, there are many reasons to certainly guard your tongue and be wise in regard to timing; and, of course, most certainly! honoring and respecting your authority; but I see a very constant habit of leaders, even pastors – yes, I have personally witnessed it, who open the floor for discussion but have no interest in and often are offended by the input of others. They charm and smother the soul, the drive and life, the heart of the manhood in the men. Uuhhgg. Truly, not from heaven! Truly not a leader!!
Josh said -
“I am not in favor of blind trust or approval, neither am I in favor of complete congregational oversight (or access to information) either. I am satisfied with having Bellevue's deacon body act as the general congregation's proxy in these types of matters.”
I would be too if our system – and in fairness, I'm not there, so maybe I have misjudged the dynamic and reality of our current deacon's meeting and men – but I would be too if our system actually worked with the people currently in place. Honestly, the leaders - staff, elders, and so on - they don't seem to be in touch with where the concerned congregation is. They've ignored, fussed, distanced, huddled, and really done very little to sort all this out and guide us toward healing. And frankly, where were the deacons, where was the staff, where were the shepherds while accusations went unanswered and corrected? I know, I know, “listen to the 9/24 meeting, it's been addressed”, but come on - engage already, stay on the field and run the ball until the buzzer sounds. I'm sorry I guess I'm just frustrated. And perhaps, as I sit here and reflect, frustrated mostly with God. He never is in a hurry. And I have so much to learn. I hope all this is meaningful or helpful to someone. I mean it for good. I'm not bitter or angry, and I don't mean any of this judgmentally. I just honestly want to know, where have they been for so very long. It brings me back to my experience, logic, and observation – and yes I have to fill in some blanks with well balanced reason – but it just seems like we have very few men that have any idea of what is going on and so very few that will speak up and be counted. It didn't happen overnight but I know, that I know, that I know....all is not lost and hope is not extinguished. With Jesus, with Him, as our Saviour, Lord and friend, we will find comfort. We will experience peace. And we will see God in Heaven receive all the credit and all the glory.
Sorry to rant – I'll go take my medication now and spend more time talking to God.
I love you each.
lsg,
Please e-mail me. (Address in profile.) Thanks.
LSG,
It's none of my business, but I think there is a slight misunderstanding. NBBCOF asked you to email her in a previous post.
Also, she deleted my post, which was right after yours, for the same reason she deleted yours.
MKW said:
"Can we get Bro. Derrick Calcote to explain the procedure for a deacon rotating off and on "active" status? In other churches where I have been a member, a period of "inactivity" always followed a period of "activity," to give deacons who had been serving a while a chance to rest and to be fed without the demands that the office of deacon requires of them."
Be glad to brother. This is the way it works.
Deacons serve a three year "active" term. After that term they have a mandatory year off, being "inactive."
After you are inactive for a year you may, or may not be invited back based on any number of factors.
One reason an "inactive" deacon may not be invited to become "active" for a particular term would be be if it seemed that deacon did not live up to the commitments he said he would abide by.
These "qualifications for a deacon" are made crystal clear to you. In fact we are given a written copy so there is no confusion.
One of these qualifications is that we will "...work with loyalty under the pastor's leadership."
In my personal opinion that absent genuine repentance, this obviously would preclude certain people from becoming active deacons.
In His service, and yours,
Derrick Calcote
Quote: "Half the deacons are concerned about him too."
Again with the rumor, gossip and slander.
As a deacon let me say this: Nothing I've seen or heard in deacons meetings, after meetings, in fellowship, or wherever with my deacon brothers would suggest that this 50% number has any basis in realitity.
The first time I heard this number was right before the first deacons' meeting that addressed these issues. To be honest, I didn't know what to make of it and I was quite concerned. I went into the meeting expecting it to be very contentious.
Instead it was about as harmonious a meeting as you could imagine.
There were a couple of guys with questions, but they weren't upset.
And with each meeting we've had since then it seems to me that this unity and support is only growing.
In His service, and yours,
Derrick Calcote
lsg,
I asked you to please e-mail me privately. You said nothing mean or out of line. I just need to talk with you, and I will explain why your comment was deleted.
And for the record, I have no earthly idea who you are (nor is it any of my business). Anyone is welcome to freely post here using only a screen name. Likewise, you do not know who I am, so please don't claim to know something you don't.
Thanks,
NBBCOF
Brother Calcote, I respect you and your service. I appreciate your opinions and the witness of your character. I hate like anyting to dispute what you said. However, I'm certain a large percentage of your deacon brothers have changed since that first meeting.
I know you desperately want to defend the pastor and I bet your fellow deacons know it too. My guess is you don't know the true pulse of the deacons because you are presumed unwilling to consider anything other than unqualified support for the pastor. You seem like a super nice man here, yet I see you as so entrenched in your viewpoint that you are unapproachable with any evidence conflicting with your view. Others likely see you the same way.
I bet if you spent time talking with a different group you would have a different feeling for what is really happening.
Remember, you were certain the pastor does not check tithes. Even after evidence out of the pastor's mouth was provided that he did it at Gardendale you refused to believe he does that. I think you finally said even if he does, you don't mind. My point is you thought you knew something that was easily proven untrue, or at least highly debately. You weren't lying, you believed it.
I don't think you are lying about the deacons either because I think you really believe it. I also think if you try you this will easily prove untrue.
I'm as confident what I said is true as you are it is false. Conversations this week with multiple active deacons is where my information came from. I believe what they told me.
I am sorry to disagree with you, Sir. Thank you again.
lsg,
Also, I removed only one of your comments. Any other comments you've made are still there unless you removed them.
The only names mentioned in your comment that I removed were Mark Sharpe, Richard Emerson, and Chuck Taylor, names that have been mentioned in many comments in many contexts here. I actually agreed with everything you wrote, so that wasn't the problem! There was an unrelated reason for removing your comment as well as WTB's comment right after yours.
There has been a misunderstanding, and I will explain myself to you privately if you'll just e-mail me.
NBBCOF
I can no longer watch men like derrick and josh and
and others speak about finincial and deacon issues that are laughable...in their insistence that "they know" the truth about detailed staff salary and budgeting decisions, as well as the "concensus" support for Dr. Gaines. You are both speaking way beyond your level of knowledge.
Richard,
I will be praying for your son. Praying for Bellevue and all ...
I agree that we need to engage (politely) the Communications Committee.
Things change. Don't assume they are as defensive and protective as you think or as they may have been in the past.
Give them a chance.
I have presented questions and received answers from the communications committee. I trust and believe the person I spoke with on the committee. And until I see clearly that he is intentionally lying, which I don't believe he ever will, I will continue to trust and work with him toward resolution.
We all need to take a positive roll in this. Let's keep moving forward with whoever is willing to work toward our common goal – restoration and rebuilding.
Later, there will be more clarity and opportunity to clean house if and as needed.
For now we need to let God work in the hearts of men.
Stand firm in love for one another.
Communications Committee:
Harry Smith - Chairman
John Crockett
Scott Foster
Mark Spiller
Jim Barnwell
Steve Tucker
David Coombs
The Finance Committee
Chuck Taylor - Ex-Officio
*
Who are the members of the "expanded" committee?
Also, since Chuck Taylor is one of the individuals who has been at odds with other members, why is he on the committee in the first place if this committee is to be open and unbiased?
Harry Smith also had a "speaking" performance at the 9/24 meeting, but declared that he had no knowledge of any of the incidents that were being discussed, perhaps his position on this committee will enlighten him?
David Coombs is a congregationally unapproved new hire, will he be loyal to his employer?
Jim Barnwell is on staff and of course could loose his job as so many others have done.
I do not know many of the others, but if they are of the same mindset, I can see why we are not moving along in the submissions to the committee.
I believe the members of the committee could be why there has been so little response.
I also want to say that I have no personal ax to grind with these men, it just waddles like a duck.
IWTK,
Sorry, I did not call them "ducks". That was a supposed to be a "funny" - a simile.
It is a quote often used and from several sources and I have heard it almost all my life..No harm intended.
Outside,
That was my point with the "duck" comment. I appreciate your input and I have sent my submission last week. I have yet to hear from anyone. I guess I was not too far off in my assessments. Perhaps I will try again - perhaps I will wait and see what they do.
I sent Chuck Taylor an email a month ago. It was nonjudgmental and respectful towards both Chuck and the pastor. I simply asked him the questions that were on my mind. I received an auto-reply and that was all. So, please don't ask me to take anything to Chuck or to this committee. If it were a different group of men I would feel differently.
Is Gene Howard on the committee?
The Committee is working to sort all this out and provide answers.
Please make sure you are at church on Sunday.
*
Sunday Morning or Sunday Evening - I want to make sure everyone I know that is interested is there.
iwtk,
I have emailed Chuck at that same address before and he never minded before this started. Also, forget the committee, he was the Deacon Chairman. My email was for him, not a committee.
bbcdad,
"Outside looking in posted this:
Here is the list of wonderful Godly men who were at Bellevue one year ago when Steve Gaines arrived and who are now gone.
Randy Redd
Jim Whitmire
Craig Parker
David Powell
David Smith
Rob Mullins
Cary Vaughn
Tanner Hickman
Ross Ramsey
Greg Ringle
7:23 PM, November 02, 2006
The Communication Committee will give a Report...
...at the end of the Sunday Evening Service...
...after the Lord's Supper and Cary Vaughn recognition.
*
bbcdad,
I do know all of these men who are now gone. I do not know all of the circumstances around their departure because I have yet to talk to all of them, but I do know personally that things were not as we were led to believe because I have talked to some of them and the stories are way too similar. I have submitted that to the committee as well. Maybe it will be covered Sunday..
With all due respect to those who continue to beat the drum of "half the deacons" are not standing in unity with the pastor let me say this.
If the numbers of dis-unified deacons are anywhere near "half" then these men have no courage of their conviction.
They have had AMPLE opportunity to voice their concerns both in deacons meetings, or with the leadership outside of the meetings.
Instead they have stood and applauded our pastor and those who stand with him with vigor.
Doing so, in my opinion would make them not only lacking courage, but also would make them dishonest. Dishonest by choosing to hide their true feelings and instead pretend to support the pastor. Such men in my opinion would be unworthy of any position within the church, much less that of a servant/leader.
However I do not think that to be the case. I think the deacon body is made up guys who by and large try their best to lead Godly lives of integrity. I choose to believe the deacon body is as a whole an honest body, who would not try and deceive others about their true feelings.
So I stand by my statement that those who report that "about half" of the active deacon body is not standing in unity with the pastor are are doing nothing short of engaging in gossip, which our Lord takes very seriously.
In His service and yours,
Derrick Calcote
The two new members of the communications committee (to be added) are Jim Angel and Derek Duncan.
mkw,
1. Talk to Mrs. Whitmire.
2. You have a point.
What kind of answers do you think we will hear from the communications committee Sunday night??I'm sorry to be a pessimist but I don't think we will hear anything except the same covers.....
MKW,
I don't consider Dr. Whitmire to be dishonest but rather staying above the fray. I assume if someone asks him to his face what happened, he may feel he should tell them but for the most part he is trying to get on with his life. I can't understand how someone who is in the choir didn't notice what was going on. When he read his resignation letter, he listed out every single program he had ever started. Did it not seem like he was making a point about something?
Diana Hart
Just a bit of trivia, but our church of "30,000" is actually more like 18,000. The church has about 12,000 members for which they get returned mail (offering envelopes, etc.).
Members move away or go to other churches and don't bother to notify the church that they're no longer a member. I don't believe the church ever purges it rolls, so no telling how long our membership numbers have included these "MIA" church members.
I would guess a lot of mega-churches have similar inflated membership figures. Nothing really to do with this discussion except for people every now and then posting a note about a "church of 30,000 members".
Truth Hunter,
I doubt I can address all your points but here are a few.
***
I know for a fact you are incorrect in your assessment of the deacons. FACT! A deacon said yesterday...
***
Again... rumor and gossip. Not fact.
***
the number is somewhere between 40 and 60. That is a statistically significant group.
***
Even if that number is correct (which would surprise me) that number does not constitute "half."
***
You know for sure the pastor was not planning to take money on foreign trips
***
If a man I regard as honest, and whom the Lord has placed above me as my spiritual authority looks me in the eye and says he wasn't going to take money for something, I will take him at his word.
***
You also know for sure he did not improperly use the credit cards.
***
Yes. This was confirmed by examination by Chip Freeman, David Coombs, Wayne Vander Steeg, Harry Smith, Aubery Earnhart, Perrin Jones, Mark McDaniel, John Hyneman, Everette Hatcher, Chuck Taylor, Steve Tucker, Jeff Arnold, Scott Foster, Mark Spiller, Bart Berretta, Mike Hobday, Bryan Miller, Jim Barnwel, and Gene Howard.
I know most of these fine people and trust them implicitly. If they say everything there is reasonable and customary, I have no reason to doubt their word.
***
I've been told Mark D. has admitted he did this.
***
"I've been told." More rumor, gossip and slander.
***
He doesn't check tithes.
***
Correct. There is a general check of some (like deacons before we are ordained, and before we are reactivated) to see if they are giving. But they can not check "tithing" as they have no information on what we make.
Also Pastor Gaines doesn't check this personally.
Also this has been the policy for deacons for many years preceding Pastor Gaines' arrival.
***
I don't know the pastor is guilty of anything.
***
Then in love, I would strongly suggest that in light of scripture you stop lobbing accusations.
***
What if you are proven wrong about all of it?
***
At this point I am not aware of any substantive allegation that is out there that I have not received a satisfactory answer to, so that doesn't relate.
***
Also, do you think our church was dying under Dr. Rogers.
***
Pastor Rogers was a dear friend to my family. My father had lunch with him a day or two before he entered the hospital. When I greeted him in the lobby of my office that day he was already "fighting a cold" that turned out to be tragically much more.
So based on that alone I'd certainly not choose a word that harsh to describe what was going on at Bellevue. But the point that was being made was our attendance was unfortunately on a steady decline.
This is no condemnation at all of our beloved Pasor Rogers, these types of things happen from time to time in the life of a church.
May the glory go to the Lord Jesus and to Him alone, we are seeing attendance on the rise again. While some of the changes we have gone through may not suit the tastes of us all, our Lord is blessing it. We see His mighty hand at work every week in the counseling room.
I pray some of this will be of use to you and others, especially the part about the credit card usage.
Frankly based on the people (and number of people) who have reviewed that, I can not imagine who would cast doubts on that at this point.
In His service and yours,
Derrick Calcote
We can now officially agree on one thing.
Since you have just labeled a host of Godly men as "men on a holy high horse," barring a change in your own heart, we will indeed never reconcile our opinions.
The men on that list that I do know are among the most Godly men I know.
It pains me to see them impugned by someone who is presumably my brother in Christ.
Check under those men on "High Horses" and see if they are mounted on Steve Tucker, Harry Smith and Darrell Nephew's (all active deacons) Tucker Saddles.
And the slander of Godly men continues.
The Lord has graced me with a great compassion for those who have stood in opposition to our pastor. He has called me to a ministry of reconciliation.
But now for the first time since I've undertaken this task He has laid before me, my heart is truly broken as I see my dear brothers in Christ mocked.
May our Lord have mercy on those who slander his saints, and draw them to repentance.
Why can't the questions be answered?
Last I checked, every substantive question has been answered. The problem lies in the "butwhatabouts," when some folks are forced to resort to use thinner and flimsier things as objects of their indignation.
Please--ask yourself just how productive it is to refer to others with whom you disagree on issues to be men on "high horses." Or, for that matter, "high holy horses."
Yes, I like the alliteration, but I despise the disparagement.
--Mike
WM,
Sorry to be so long in addressing this issue, but I have been out of pocket and glad of it from the looks of the previous posts. I understand where you are coming from and my heart goes out to you. I was leary of accusations myself and have searched out the truth and all the answers I could get from anyone involved.
I would like for you to ask the departed ministers, including Jim Whitmire, a question. This could/will tell why they are not forthcoming with accusations.
"Were they required to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to receive their final pay, severance pay, pension, insurance or any thing else?"
Especially if they have families to support, I can assure you that they will sign these agreements and I can assure you that they will not break their agreement unless LEGAL protections are in place.
The circimstances around the departures of these men (and some women we have not heard of yet) are all perceived to be different, however, they all have one thing in common and that is the arrival of Steve Gaines.
I have heard from members of W Jackson and Gardendale alike and unfortunately this has happened before. Steve Gaines surrounds himself with certain powerful men, usually the wealthy ones that have plenty of power to sling around. He goes on to use these men as "armed" (not physical armaments!) guards and strokes their egos to assure that he is buffered against the membership and has NEVER had to give account to anyone in the membership of these churches he has led.
I understand that he has had supporters in all of his churches,
and I can only speculate, which I will not do, on the reasons other than the above mention supporters.
As far as the Whitmires departure, did you know that the Parkers purchased their new $515,000.00 home on 11/23/2005 - that was EIGHT days after Dr Rogers went home to glory. The Rogers worked for 50+ years to have a home that was worth a lot less when they purchased it. Could you find and purchase a home in EIGHT days?
Steve Gaines had PROMISED the search committee that he would not make any changes for at least the first year, yet he was waiting in the wings to pounce on the opportunity within days (or less) of Dr Rogers' death.
This whole thing is a stench in the nostrils of our Lord.
Forum at large,
Last evening I produced a list of 19 Godly people who have reviewed the "credit card issue" and have all agreed that everything is reasonable and customary for a senior pastor.
This was not only promptly judged as not acceptable, but the men were characterized as on "holy high horses," "hiding behind vestments," "protecting their own," "proud of their positions," some sort of collusion is even suggested because some of these men work together.
It is with a broken heart I note that it seems that no explanation will ever be enough; no crowd of witnesses will ever be sufficient.
If the true testimony of 19 Godly people is viewed as having no value here, then I am wasting my time and yours by posting.
If anyone with a sincere heart has a question, please feel free to contact me via e-mail.
In His service and yours,
Derrick Calcote
dcalcote@msn.com
MKW,
I do not recall using the word "pounce', however, the fact that the knowledge was known that Dr Whitmire was on his way out before he even heard tell of it is obviously there. I also referred to the fact that the Rogers family did not own their present home which was valued over $300,000.00 until they had worked for many years and the Parkers (even with family help) were able to purchase and maintain such a home within a handful of years compared to the Rogers lengthy labors. I am sure the Rogers home is in excess of the Parker's residence at this time because of the market value increasing. My point was that there WERE (not yelling, just emphasis) iminent changes in the works even though Dr Gaines had promised the search committee PRIOR to his even being brought before the congregation that there would be NO changes for the first year. Ask the search committee if you believe that this is not true. I do not mean to appear spiteful or devisive, I am just tired of everyone dancing around all the issues and the cat and mouse games. I fully expect another dog and pony show on Sunday night and I will be pleasantly surprised and will humbly apologize if it is not.
If my emphasis on the animals is offensive, I apologize, the situation just resembles those old similes, sort of like the "duck" comment I made earlier.
ATTENTION PEOPLES!!!
For the sake of our dial-up friends, this thread is getting too long and needs to have a knot tied in it.
SO PLEASE, IF YOU WILL, KINDLY GO TO THE "NEW FINANCIAL THREAD" AND CONTINUE YOUR DISCUSSIONS THERE.
Thank you.
NBBCOF
MKW,
I did use the word "pounce" - I should have gone back and checked what I read before I responded. I was in error and I apologize for the statement.
woundedandbleeding,
Your comment in its entirety has been moved to the "New Financial Thread."
This thread was getting too long.
EVERYONE, PLEASE GO TO THAT THREAD TO CONTINUE YOUR DISCUSSIONS.
Post a Comment