Links to 3 articles on this subject can be found here.
A simplified definition would be the transferring of a Church asset to an insider for less than fair market value where "insiders" are defined as "pastors, ministers, board members, officers, and employees."
It is alleged impropriety of this nature that Mark Sharpe claims to have knowledge of. Specifically, he claims that current and former staff members with whom he had a close working relationship have claimed to have proof of such occurrences and have confided this information in him, but they will not come forward with that proof until the appropriate protections are in place. They reportedly have been willing to do so all along, but Dr. Gaines and other staff members have refused to meet with them under these conditions.
1. Should Mark Sharpe and these individuals be granted the opportunity to present any evidence they might have with the protections requested in place?
2. Should a preacher and other staff have church credit cards? Why or why not? Should there be accountability to the membership for the use of these cards? Should the receipts be available for review at any time? What if there are allegations of misuse? Who should be able to review them?
3. Use of a church credit card for personal expenditures, even when those charges are reimbursed to the church, is considered "co-mingling of funds." Aside from any legal ramifications, is this proper?
4. The more openness and transparency there is by the staff regarding the stewardship of money, the fewer questions there will be. How much transparency do you think is necessary?
Use this thread to discuss any matters related to financial concerns at Bellevue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
I would like to know if it is true that Steve Gaines left Gardendale with 9 million dollars in debt. If so, what was the money used for? A building project, missions or just "spending". It would dispell a lot of rumors if we knew the particulars from a reputable source.
Carolyn, you said,
"This would show a track record of financial impropriety.”
Would this not depend on the overall business structure and the business' desire and approval to pay for an employee’s continuing education?
Indeed, it could point to a problem but does it necessarily do so? I don’t have a problem with looking for more witnesses on this but we must guard against finding what we are looking for.
Everyone -
Facts and Truth are not synonymous.
Facts support and verify the truth but we can also misunderstand the truth with all the facts are not present or when they are misunderstood. Thus we can find ourselves heading in the wrong direction and doing damage.
Consider the following.
Deut 19:15-21
15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
16 "If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be {in office} in those days.
18 "And the judges shall investigate thoroughly; and if the witness is a false witness {and} he has accused his brother falsely,
19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
20 "And the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
21 "Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
(NAS)
Matt 18:12-17
12 "What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?
13 "And if it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.
14 "Thus it is not {the} will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.
15 "And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 "But if he does not listen {to you,} take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.
17 "And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.
(NAS)
1 Cor 14:26-33
26 What is {the outcome} then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, {it should be} by two or at the most three, and {each} in turn, and let one interpret;
28 but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
29 And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.
30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent.
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;
32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;
33 for God is not {a God} of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
(NAS)
2 Cor 13:1-3
1 This is the third time I am coming to you. Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
2 I have previously said when present the second time, and though now absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again, I will not spare {anyone,}
3 since you are seeking for proof of the Christ who speaks in me, and who is not weak toward you, but mighty in you.
(NAS)
1 Tim 5:17-22
17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful {of sinning.}
21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of {His} chosen angels, to maintain these {principles} without bias, doing nothing in a {spirit of} partiality.
22 Do not lay hands upon anyone {too} hastily and thus share {responsibility for} the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.
(NAS)
Heb 10:23-28
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging {one another} and all the more, as you see the day drawing near.
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.
28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on {the testimony of} two or three witnesses.
(NAS)
Mom4 said, "I would like to know if it is true that Steve Gaines left Gardendale with 9 million dollars in debt....It would dispell a lot of rumors if we knew the particulars from a reputable source."
The source for that is Pastor Gaines himself. He said it in his going away talk to Gardendale. You can get the video from our library.
ILMC,
Thanks for the insight, I will try to check out the video. So, then if it came from him, I wonder what the 9 million was used for. That large amount would most likely be a building program I would think?
I would ask Steve Gaines, but I understand he does not like us to ask him questions. I will submit it to the AD HOC committee and see if they can or will even try to find out.
Likewise, Carolyn, I would suggest you do the same with your question for your own protection. You asked a legitimate question, there is no need to have to suffer because of it. I will let you know if I find out anything about my question using the survey on the blogsite or you can email me at mom38134@yahoo.com if you wish. Thanks.
Andrew,
"25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging {one another} and all the more, as you see the day drawing near."
and
12 "What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?
Does that sound like "leave if you don't like it"?
If the Lord has placed us there and has not told us or given us permission to leave, how can you or anyone else justify casting us out?
If you have found it in scripture, please enlighten me.
And how about:
"16 "If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be {in office} in those days.
18 "And the judges shall investigate thoroughly; and if the witness is a false witness {and} he has accused his brother falsely,
19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
20 "And the rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
And now I ask, where are our witnesses supposed to speak, even our judges (v17-18) who are supposed to investigate this thoroughly.
All requests have been denied to pursue this scriptural avenue..why?
I appreciate your responses and
I am not trying to be obstinate, I have a sincere desire to know the answers to the above questions.
Carolyn, you do realize that slinging out a completely unsubstantiated allegation of financial illegality is about as libelous a tactic as anyone can engage in, do you not? Perhaps you should try calling West Jackson, at (731) 660-4535.
And "mom," if you really wanted to have your question answered rather than follow along in a pattern of libel, the main telephone number of Gardendale's First Baptist Church is (205) 631-8791.
Either you two, or the forum moderator, has a responsibility to delete the posts immediately.
--Mike
I am not sure this thread is appropriate at all. At a minimum people should limit responses to the questions posed in he thread.
Unsubstantiated allegations are not going to do anyone any good.
I can listen to a tape of Dr. Gaines & have an opinion on what he said and how he said it. That is my opinion of his words in his own voice. Someone can comment and perhaps change my opinion.
Allegations like these are just not useful and are uncalled for.
A growing church can be in debt for any number of legitimate reasons such as a building campaign.
Posters - please delete that stuff.
bin wonderin,
In my question about the 9 million, I asked if it was a building project. That is a legitimate question, especially since the library has the dvd checked out all the time.
justamember has answered my question in one statement in only a short time - which is the way all of our questions should be answered.
"From the video, that I have seem in its entirety, the 9 million debt is what is left over from a 27 million dollar debt from a building project".
If that is the case, then it is a non-issue.
I asked a question and it was answered promptly and kindly.
Thanks for your input.
Josh,
It was on an earlier post and I wanted to know where it came from, which is a legitimate question.
Based on the information received, it is not an issue and that is all I wanted. I am not trying to dig up anything and definitly not trying to make something relevant when it is not - it was already out there, and it came from Gardendale, no one here asked for it.
bin wonderin wrote:
"I am not sure this thread is appropriate at all. At a minimum people should limit responses to the questions posed in he thread.
"Unsubstantiated allegations are not going to do anyone any good."
In starting this thread it was not my intention for people to make unsubstantiated allegations. I was thinking more about the way finances are handled in churches in general and was looking for a discussion of the types of questions I proposed. It was not intended to be a "witch hunt" against Dr. Gaines.
For now, I will give Carolyn the option of deleting her own comment if she desires, but in the future, let's try to refrain from tossing out such unsubstantiated allegations. I know I've heard several that I wouldn't dream of repeating here because they are unsubstantiated.
Changing into my NASS hat now:
As for the 9-million-dollar question, I thought it was a legitimate one, and as someone said, that information came from the lips of Dr. Gaines. I think he said it was the remaining debt from Gardendale's building program, and I took him at his word about that. Really I didn't think it had any relevance to the situation at Bellevue, but it was a legitimate question.
Sirs and Ladies,
I think Ms. Carolyn understands and I'm sure she meant well. Mike there was no need to try and make the point that was already made and clear - back off and leave her alone.
To mom4 and others that may have misunderstood me:
Logic and clarity are important. We must work very hard to not let our emotions or perceptions of what MAY BE dominate our reasoning or focus all our attention. We must look at these questions from all angles and NOT just to prove something.
Guard your heart, discipline your game, keep your eyes and ears open and heart pure. Let love be our motive and method and don't stop until truth is clear.
My intention with the scripture verses were simply to share God's thoughts, unedited, in context - letting them stand and speak for themselves.
mom4 - please don't leave...I'm not going anywhere until this is sorted out.
Have you tried to connect with the new (Ad Hoc) Communications Committee? If not, maybe I'll see you there.
With love and determination,
Andrew
1. Should Mark Sharpe and these individuals be granted the opportunity to present any evidence they might have with the protections requested in place?
Absolutely. If all of their allegations are "lies" or "false" as has been stated, this type of meeting would prove just that.
2. Should a preacher and other staff have church credit cards? Why or why not? Should there be accountability to the membership for the use of these cards? Should the receipts be available for review at any time? What if there are allegations of misuse? Who should be able to review them?
Yes, I do think that they should have credit cards. Why? The same reason a lot of people have company credit cards. ie- work related travel expenses would be one reason. I am not on staff at my church but I have made many purchases for various church activities and had to use my personal credit card to do so. I then had to go through the process of being reimbursed by the church. I don't think staff members should have to go through this process. (just my opinion) I definitely think there should be several people that would review bills, etc. to verify the charges(including representatives from lay persons). My church does this.
3. Use of a church credit card for personal expenditures, even when those charges are reimbursed to the church, is considered "co-mingling of funds." Aside from any legal ramifications, is this proper?
Absolutely not! I don't buy that someone would be out to dinner (or wherever) and only have their church credit card with them.
4. The more openness and transparency there is by the staff regarding the stewardship of money, the fewer questions there will be. How much transparency do you think is necessary?
This one is a little touchy. Now, if you are referring to church funds, I believe in total transparency. Personal financial issues are another matter. I do think there should be some level of transparency, but I'm not sure how much. I don't think the church body necessarily needs to know about a ministers financial situation. I don't know what the salary of the senior pastor at my church is (or any of the other pastors for that matter) and I really don't think it is my business. Yes, I know, we pay their salary... I just don't need to know what it is. Of course, if I felt like they were living an extravagent lifestyle, my opinion might change.
At my former church, when a pastor was called, the finance committee came before the church in a business meeting and stated what the new pastor's compensation package entailed. Not to be voted on, since it came from committee, but as information. The congregation was allowed to ask questions, but again, not to be voted on. Which I think was reasonable. Also, at the end of every church year, a financial/budget statement of the church was given to the congregation during a business meeting, by the budget and finance committees. There was always a line by line list of expenditures, which included the salaries of all staff, ministry budgets, etc. I've heard some say recently that the church not knowing what the staff is being paid is common practice. Frankly I don't know if it is these days..I only know what was done at my former church...which is SBC also. When I was growing up..it was always said that as a rule of thumb (not in concrete mind you), the pastor was usually compensated at the level of the average income of the congregants. Some churches owned parsonages, which were thrown in for living quarters to help the pastor with his living expenses..he could choose to take advantage of it or not. It's also good to remember that a pastor's salary has to cover living expenses, health insurance..which is difficult to get through the SBC I hear, and anything else related to fulfillment of the duties of his pulpit ministry, plus retirement. If it's true that a country club membership was thrown in as a part of the package in this case..I'm not sure if that's really appropriate..I'm still mulling that one over..but as yet I still don't know if it was part of it or not. For me I guess the question comes up in my mind...how much is enough?...not just for the pastor mind you...I see many in the private sector who already have more money than they could possibly ever spend..yet continue to strive to hoard more and more. Just a random thought there.
In all these questions, I keep coming back to the same thing...this whole mess...all of it..could have been cleared up already and we could all move on as a church if only the Biblical pattern for resolving these things had been followed. I'm not laying blame on either side...I don't know who's right and who's wrong...except for those things which are documented..at this point, that's the fence jumping incident, and the audio clip. As for the rest, no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove either side's claims has been presented before the church. That's what church discipline is for. Sadly, in the majority of SBC churches, discipline is non-existent..or at least according to the scriptural pattern. I hope through this we can learn a valuable lesson about the necessity of Biblical church discipline.
Carolyn and everyone,
To delete any comment that you've left, simply click on the little trash can at the lower left corner below that comment and follow the instructions.
Josh Tucker said to Biblefellowshipteacher
I had a Brain Freeze...Giggle Giggle... Could that be what is happening to the TOP staff at Bellevue. Brain Freeze....
Just on a light note.
Sounds like Randy was at the same meeting I was. It was a word of mouth thing, and no public announcement was ever made that I know of. I'm not trying to be secretive. In fact, I'd love to shout from the rooftops some of the things I learned at that meeting, but I just don't think it's my place to say when and where and who or whatever about a private meeting that was organized by someone else. Again, "private" in the respect that it was by invitation only, not held in a public place, and never announced publicly. I just happened to receive an invitation through a friend who thought I'd be interested in going. Perhaps the organizer(s) will come forward with more information, but I wouldn't feel comfortable saying much more about it myself. I can confirm the statements made by Mr. Emerson since Randy has already mentioned them.
Someone referred to "another Bartlett Baptist meeting" in a comment the other day. The meeting I attended was not held in Bartlett, and I have no knowledge of the dates or locations of any other meetings although I have heard other meetings have been held.
What I will say is that Mark Sharpe and Richard Emerson and others, including some deacons, spoke at that meeting, and the deacons are not, despite claims to the contrary, 100% behind Dr. Gaines. Also, there were a whole lot more than "3 or 4" people there. What has happened since that meeting, I have no idea. I'm not "in the loop" in that respect.
NASS
You beat me to it by a matter of minutes, gnats. Send me an e-mail, would you?
Bellevue has to have the transparency of Saran Wrap, but the so-called "saving Bellevue" cadre gets to meet secretly. That matches up how, exactly?
But if I may:
1) More detail in the published budget of Bellevue Baptist Church wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Of course, I've wanted that for over a decade, and have even requested it a time or two. No big deal.
2) In the interest of both openness and mutuality, I'd like to be invited to the next clandestine meeting. I absolutely promise I won't reveal its location or attendees. You can even frisk me for recording devices if you like--but be careful, because I'm ticklish.
--Mike
Permission to hold a meeting at the church which would have been open to anyone was requested some time ago. Permission was denied.
The meeting I attended was not "secret" any more than say, a party you held in your home would be. It was held on private property and led by people I know in name only who chose to announce it by word of mouth only, and for that reason I don't think it's my place to broadcast the details of it. I wouldn't have mentioned it at all except that Randy (whom I don't know) mentioned some things Richard Emerson said at that meeting. I was simply comfirming that what he said was true. I do not know who all was involved in organizing it other than that it wasn't Mark Sharpe.
Mike (breaking my own rule here), if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that invitation. Somehow I don't think you're on the list. Even if you were, I wouldn't want to have to frisk you! In fact, just the thought of that could give me nightmares for the next week. :-)
And since when is it a crime for private citizens to meet on private property owned by one of said private citizens as long as they're not doing anything illegal?
NASS
"Mike (breaking my own rule here), if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that invitation."
Oh, I never hold my breath unless I'm swimming underwater.
"Somehow I don't think you're on the list."
I didn't figure I would be. It doesn't exactly seem "open," though, does it?
"Even if you were, I wouldn't want to have to frisk you! In fact, just the thought of that could give me nightmares for the next week. :-)"
I wouldn't begrudge you those nightmares, particularly since I'm that convulsive kind of ticklish. I've actually knocked folks colder than a proverbial cucumber with an accidental twitch of my arm...
"And since when is it a crime for private citizens to meet on private property owned by one of said private citizens as long as they're not doing anything illegal?"
Who said anything about "illegal"? I just like a good party, that's all...
--Mike
1. No one ever said the meeting was "open," at least not in the respect that this forum is "open" for people of all opinions (even you) to post their opinions. It was like an "information meeting" except that people were allowed to ask questions of those presenting the information. I suppose in that respect, it was open.
2. (Repeating myself... ) Permission to hold an open meeting, i.e. open to all church members, at the church was denied by the church staff.
3. "In the interest of both openness and mutuality, I'd like to be invited to the next clandestine meeting."
"Who said anything about "illegal"? I just like a good party, that's all..."
Let's see...
clan-des-tine adj.
"Kept or done in secret, often in order to conceal an illicit or improper purpose."
il-lic-it adj.
"Not sanctioned by custom or law; unlawful."
un-law-ful adj.
"Not lawful; illegal."
At least that seemed to be the implication... {shrugs}
The atmosphere at that meeting was anything but that of a party -- or a lynching, since that might be what someone might otherwise think.
Good night, Mike.
"And the statement that Mike Bratton is not "on the list" for such events (why should any church member not be?) -- although meant tongue-in-cheek, I'm sure, certainly contains a boatload of sadness in its truth, doesn't it?"
Yes, it does.
Admission's of a group's bias usually are sad to read.
But not surprising.
--Mike
I see no reason why a group of members should not hold an invitation only meeting to discuss church matters. It is a free country.
If anyone got their feeling hurt by being left out they need to grow up. Talk about straining gnats.
Perhaps they want to organize and plan to try and approach leadership quietly in an effort to try to resolve the dispute in a non public way. I would think that most here would applaud that.
The same folks that gripe about public websites and public allegations and people running to the newspaper are now griping about a group that is not going public.
"Admission's of a group's bias usually are sad to read.
But not surprising."
Mike,
Aren't we all biased? That's why we call ourselves Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc etc....we all have a bias in our views of what scripture teaches..amongst many other things. Isn't it impossible for fallen human beings to be unbiased? To think that we can be is just proof of our fallenness,imo...or bias.
one member wrote: "I wondered if perhaps that the reason someone has time to address any and all of these posts plus run their own blog is because they are not working. If that is the case, perhaps they need to get a job where they will only be able to "surf" on a minimal time frame. Most of us work full time and have a family and I would think that is why our posts are minimal. Just a thought."
Thank you for thinking of the rest of us and your concern for our "surfing" habits. With all due respect, you don't know my working schedule, family situation, or anyone else's. Nor do I. Let's not assume things like you seem to be implying about your fellow posters. It really isn't relevant.
Ummm, I don't think One member was referring to you- as a matter of fact I am almost positive.
one member,
Ohhhhh... I'm so sorry! I think I know which "blogger" you were referring to now! It just sounded like you were lumping everyone into the same uh... boat.
Scroll on by...
Scroll on by...
Scroll on by...
Thank you for your kind words.
"stillwaitingandwatching said...
...Anyway, I am putting this here because I have no way to contact you and our paths do not cross anymore at church. I know you have been praying about this for some time. Congratulations again! Blessings to your family."
Um... I have a blog.
And my e-mail address is attached to my profile.
So you have, actually, more than one way to contact me, if you'd really like to do so.
--Mike
Bell and MKW, thank you.
BFT, do you teach a class at Bellevue?
Allof, there's a difference between having a bias and letting that bias run wild and run free in your worldview, wouldn't you agree?
--Mike
"Private Meeting"
And once again - some people continue to reveal their own bias that seems to be based on SOME knowledge and experience but not on the actual event itself. They run with an agenda like children with scissors.
- - -
Since when did private meetings mandate a subversive intent or outcome?
Disciples…upper room…anybody….?
Neither the Deacon’s meetings nor the Ad-Hoc committee meetings are open to anyone who wishes to attend. While I would very much like the opportunity to see and hear and interact with those groups, as well as others, I of course understand that some discussions are best kept private and/or closed.
May I suggest we each be on guard against making assumptions, particularly when we don’t have first person knowledge? We must not be a simpleton but we must begin with trusting one another. If someone is wrong…let them set it right and let’s move on. If someone is wrong and then denies and refuses to set it right then we must allow ourselves the responsibility to question their trustworthiness and integrity. BUT we must be perfectly accurate and correct with our judgment – and yes I mean judgment.
Don't seek to prove anything - seek truth. Let it present itself - it always will. And let's keep those “scissors” in the drawer.
With Love.
That's nice lw. Go out there an find a way to attack Josh's credibility. Find another "Josh Manning" that's "a little bit crazy" and try to plant thoughts in everyone that is the one behind the website. I'm just guessing, but is it theoretically possible that there is more than one Josh Manning in the world? Whatever your real name is lw, go out there and search on that. See if there's more than one of you. I have an uncommon name, and there's at least three of us at my company, and twice or three times that in the same city. Who knows how many people with the same name as mine in the country. That can't be the "bellevue" Josh Manning. Look at the picture.
Also, it took me about 5 seconds to find out who registered that site.
Registrant:
Cajunworks.com
188 Enterprise Dr.
Houma, LA 70360
US
Registrar: DOTSTER
Domain Name: JOSHMANNING.COM
Created on: 18-JUL-03
Expires on: 18-JUL-07
Last Updated on: 26-JUN-06
Administrative, Technical Contact:
Hutchinson, Ryan info@Cajunworks.com
Cajunworks.com
188 Enterprise Dr.
Houma, LA 70360
US
985 688 4571
You delete your comment, i'll delete mine.
From joshmanning.com
"Hello, my name is Joshua Manning. I recently graduated from Nicholls State University in Thibodaux, Louisiana, with a degree in English. I'll be going to the University of Louisiana-Lafayette to intern under Eric Treuil this August."
This is not the Bellevue Josh Manning.
LW,
I am going to pretend for the moment that your posting was a tongue-in-cheek way of chastising people for making judgments without having all the facts.
Please tell me that's the case, because, if not, I would have to seriously question the intelligence of anyone who thinks that the website you noted is the same Josh Manning who has raised questions about the goings on at Bellevue.
And then if that's not enough, you make a series of statements that would be only remotely relevant if this was the same person, which it is virtually certain not to be since the joshmanning.com you noted is from Louisiana--and it took me about 5 minutes on Google to figure that out.
Seriously, where's Mike with a comment about libel now?
Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
What happened to WTB? We haven't heard from him on this new site. I enjoyed his perspective. Anyone know his email or blog address?
Since you asked, scared, I agree that LW is out of bounds here. His erroneous "Josh Manning" information does a disservice to both Louisiana's Mr. Manning, and the Mr. Manning of "saving Bellevue."
Someone with the capability should remove it ASAP, because, indeed, such remarks are libelous.
And you know what? Even if that was the same Josh Manning, whacking him over the head for statements that were obviously intended to be humorous is poor form.
--Mike
As one who is on the outside and has dealt with several churche in simialr situations, I woudl appeal to you guys to trash this site and go back to the biblical way. I read of rights and free country stuff but I have yet to see the biblical understanding that rights and free country have nothing to do with bibical submission and following God's plan!!! Also please note, many of the arguments that have been raised are common today and very similair to many churches who encounter change. Where is the rejoicing over the souls that have been saved? I am not trying to super spiritualize, but you guyys could use some old fashion repentence and self examination!
Josh Tucker said "Bellevue's finances are reviewed/overseen by Bellevue's finances are reviewed/overseen by an outside auditing firm, members of the deacon financial committee, the church financial officer and the staff within the finance department, as well as key figures within the pastorate/administration."
There is no such thing as a "deacon financial committee" and I do not believe the level of review you indicate happens.
mikebrattonisciaphas wrote: "Newbbc...
I think we do know one person's employment status who has a lot of time to spend on here and his own blog."
MBIC,
While that's interesting information, it really has no place here. This forum isn't about MB or any of the rest of us. Let's all try to keep the discussion away from individual personalities (as difficult as that can be sometimes). Thanks.
andrew wrote: "While I would very much like the opportunity to see and hear and interact with those groups, as well as others, I of course understand that some discussions are best kept private and/or closed."
Thank you, Andrew. As I've explained, I don't believe the meeting I attended was "private" in that it was by special invitation only. Rather, knowledge was spread by word of mouth only. I have no idea why the organizers chose to announce it this way. I just happened to know someone who'd been invited who in turn invited me. I was in the right place at the right time -- nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, we did all get secret decoder rings. I think they said invitations to the next one will be through a cryptic message published in the classified section of the Commercial Appeal. Been watching for it every day, but so far I haven't spotted anything.
Seriously, I wish someone would organize an open meeting in a place large enough to accommodate a lot more people. Whether anything's in the works, I have no idea. Someone passed around a list and got everyone's name, address, phone number, and e-mail address, but I've not received any correspondence from anyone.
I liked your open letter to Dr. Gaines. Did you send it?
NASS
Hi NASS,
Yes the open letter was from me. As I thought of all that is going on and being said I decided to appeal to the pastor who could be. I do believe that Steve wants to share Jesus with people and that in his way he wants very much to lead us forward.
And I'm with you, I too hope for a larger meeting place and a time to lay some things out. I believe we will see some activity soon that will help move us down field.
I would like to encourage each of us to take some time in the next 72 hours to pray and fast. Don't just miss a meal and keep running - pull over, fellowship and rest in Him.
We need to remove the routine distractions of life and seek Him with our whole heart. Let's get our hearts clean before each other and the Lord - perhaps then He will do what He's promised and let us see Him. Oh what a glorious thought! (vs 8 below)
Remember to pray for Steve and all the staff. There must be many who are weary of all this strain. And let's remember the Rogers family too. No matter what your take on the specifics or possible outcome of all this – I would imagine this is difficult on Dr. Rogers' children and wife.
Rest in Him tonight.
His richest blessings to you each.
Matt 5:1-16
1 And when He saw the multitudes, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.
2 And opening His mouth He {began} to teach them, saying,
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 "Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 "Blessed are you when {men} cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me.
12 "Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty {again} It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
15 "Nor do {men} light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
(NAS)
Andrew
Has Mark Sharpe seen with his own eyes the evidence that backs up his concern?
Maybe this is old news - but it occured to me today and at the moment I only have fuzzy memories of what I think I've heard him say.
I will be reviewing my notes but wanted to hear from someone who could clarify this for me and give the basis for their knowledge.
Thanks to all.
Just curious, gnats. What was your firsthand source? Not asking for names, just if you'd share the status of your source like bopen did.
gnats wrote:
"What difference does that make? Are there different levels of "firsthand?"
You're right. It really doesn't.
"Just because a staff member leaves doesn't mean that a proces is dismantled."
Not a clue here.
Cary Vaughn has resigned and I have some information on why, but I do not have permission at this time to release it. I do not want to get anyone in trouble, but if an inkling of information comes forth, I will too.
We are losing good staff right and left. I also understand that there were some staff layoffs a while ago, possibly in the children's division. We have already lost way too many teachers. I guess all these folks that are spending their time clapping and swaying will need to go to work in childcare or listen to the children in all of the worship services. I would think that those of us who spend time doing our share, giving our tithes and attending every time the doors are open would be missed, guess not.
mkw,
I do not mean to degrade anyone, if that is the way you see it, then perhaps you are looking for fault here??
Do you take your turn in childcare?
If you do, then you know what I am talking about. If not, then maybe you will need to consider signing up because like I said, we are losing workers left and right.
mkw,
Thank you for your well thought out and eloquently expressed comments. That's the kind of tone we should all endeavor to use regardless of our opinions.
I will try to address your question about the two or three witnesses. Mark Sharpe has stated that there are at least two witnesses, possibly more, who have been willing to meet with Dr. Gaines if the "proper protections" are in place. I am not privy to just what all those "protections" entail, but I understand it has to do with the witnesses requesting assurances of job protection and possibly even the presence of legal counsel and/or one or more disinterested third parties. So far their requests have been denied. Mark Sharpe has spoken of some of this in his interview with Josh Manning on Mr. Manning's blog (link in sidebar). Whether Mr. Sharpe has "seen these things with his own eyes," I don't know, but he claims to have "heard them with his own ears" from the parties who can provide the written evidence. Either way, he says he's certain there have been improprieties, and this is what needs to be addressed.
MKW,
No one has "ratted" on you, I have no idea who you are and I am sorry if I seemed in any way hostile to you. We have been "blasted" by several individuals who do not care to attempt to understand our point of view. I apologize to you for the childcare comment, whether you stay in childcare or not is actually none of my business. My point was that those who are so ready to jump on those of us that support the seeking of a resolution to this mess instead of a "leave if you don't like it" attitude are most readily the ones who are following the contemporary style of worship and the unscriptural comments that have been made about us.
I look forward to the day when this can be handled decently and in order and satisfactorily to all parties involved. We are all concerned about our church and it's members. Some of us have been shut out, some have been verbally assaulted and some of us have been asked to leave.
When this is all over, I would like to share a christian hug with all of my sisters in Christ. I would appreciate your prayers and your help in seeking a resolution to the divisions at BBC.
Josh,
We are witnesses to the 9/24 meeting. Most of us were open to receive the truth. But we saw with our eyes and heard with our ears. The fence was not "ity bity" and nothing about anything that has happened is the least bit funny. When Steve Gaines stood behind the pulpit and made light of breaking the law, repeatedly sends out his 'yes men' to do his dirty work, laughs in the pulpits of other churches about how he pulled the wool over our eyes (not all of us were fooled) we see and we hear. We are witnesses and we are many.
Choice,
Praying.
Mr. Wilmoth,
Firsthand knowledge would be as follows: I saw the car run into the building.
Hearsay: My wife said that she saw the car run into the building.
Gossip firsthand: I saw the car run into the building. I bet he was drunk.
Gossip hearsay: I heard that a drunkard ran into the building and almost killed everyone inside.
One thing about truth...it doesn't matter your opinion or mine. Because the truth will remain the truth.
Hi Mrs. Wilmoth,
Hearsay is essentially secondhand information that a witness heard from someone else and did not see or hear himself.
Legally, hearsay is any statement made outside a hearing or trial which is presented at the hearing or trial to prove the truth of the contents of the statement.
In the federal law hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
The rules of evidence begin with the premise that hearsay cannot be used in court because secondhand testimony is considered unreliable and because the person who made the original statement is often unavailable for cross-examination.
A statement introduced to prove something other than its truth is not hearsay. For example, testimony may be offered to show the speaker's state of mind.
A witness's earlier out-of-court statement may be presented at a trial or hearing if it contradicts his in-court testimony because the statement is being used to cast doubt on the witness's credibility rather than prove the statement's truth or falsity.
There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule, so a great deal of hearsay is actually admitted.
I'm unsure if I have answered your question, but I hope that helps. The rules of evidence are complicated, even for lawyers.
Hi Mrs. Wilmoth,
As an aside to this discussion I thought you might like to know about an encounter I had with Dr. Rogers years ago. I was almost through with law school and I bumped into him one day Saturday morning in the halls of the church. At the time I was dealing with the idea I was called into ministry and we talked and prayed about that. Then our conversation turned to the law. He told me if he had not been a minister he probably would have been a lawyer. He got real excited talking about law and he proceeded to preach an impromptu private sermon on our "legal salvation." We easily talked for more than an hour (I mostly listened). I have no idea what he was doing that day, but he never seemed in a hurry. He seemed to want to really get to know me.
I can't claim to have been his friend, but I had other encounters like that with him over the years.
The morning my daughter was baptized I ran into him in the courtyard. He flashed a smile and jokingly asked why I wasn't in Sunday School. I told him I was hunting for out-of-town family members When he heard that he stopped and put his arm around my shoulder. We chatted a few minutes and then he proceeded to pray the most amazing prayer for my daughter as well as my other by name.
My point, he truly cared about and liked people, especially those his congregation. He was never full of himself; he was full of the love of Christ.
Post a Comment