Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- New BBC Open Forum
- This forum was created to provide a place where those who are seriously concerned about the issues facing Bellevue Baptist Church and the SBC can come to comment and exchange ideas. Anonymous comments are welcome, but it is respectfully requested that instead of choosing the "Anonymous" option those who want to post comments without logging in select a unique screen name. This lets everyone tell the difference between one anon and another without revealing any personal information. Under the box where you compose your comment where it says "Choose an identity," just check "Name/URL" and type in the screen name of your choice. You can leave the URL field blank. It would be helpful if you'd use the same screen name for any subsequent comments. This makes reading and following discussions easier, helps avoid confusion, and doesn't result in one person being credited for writing something s/he didn't. Comments by posters whose only purpose is to disrupt (i.e. trolls) will be subject to deletion. Your cooperation will be appreciated.
337 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 337 of 337david,
You must be a different david than the one posting earlier today.
NASS,
I'll see if it's my email program.
NASS,
My email is working..i sent a test from yahoo.
David,
What are your thoughts on the $25,000 issue to FUMC?
David,
People aren't making all this stuff up. If I really thought that were the case I wouldn't be here.
David,
What do you think of the $1000 airline tickets for a cheer leading camp that was treated as a moving expense?
The birthday party for his daughter that was direct billed to the church.
The birthday gift for his wife of hotel accomodations for her and her friend that was direct billed to the church.
David,
These were things that came up after our pastor stood in the pulpit held up a credit card and said, "I have never not once used a church credit card for personal transactions". The truth may be that the credit card was never used, however the question was concerning financial improprities.
David,
I want to say I appreciate the "kinder and gentler" Pastor Dave we've been seeing lately! It's a big improvement over the original.
As for all the "proof" you're asking for, please just accept, that as someone not here and involved in all this, that you have not seen the proof that some of us have. Some of these things are being addressed now, but they need to be dealt with privately. Isn't that what you've been asking for? That we not air the church's dirty laundry publicly? The "proof" you require could involve mentioning names and details which do not need to be made public right now. Please just trust that the things you've read about here today, as much like a soap opera as a lot of it sounds, are based in fact and are being brought to light. E-mail me privately if you wish, but please do not keep badgering people for further proof right now. These are not idle accusations, and the truth will come out. Be patient.
NBBCOF
david,
Just for the record. I agree that the evidence needs to be in place before the accusation. I also will not defend some of what was posted earlier today, because I have no first hand knowledge of the events.
I also must confess that I have had my moments when I have battled with civility. It is very difficult to watch a church that you have been a part of for over 20 years begin to crumble. It would be even more difficult to watch in silence.
david,
Concerning the $25k gift:
We have had one deacon that took responsibility and apologized for the mistake. One our of One Hundred and Eighty. The one that took responsibility and apologized did not instigate the donataion, did not approve the disbursement and did not deliver the check.
I am not sure that the same thing would not happen again. I am certain that if it did they would be much more careful about letting anyone know that it had been done.
Instead of getting some controls in place...they just slap each other on the back and congratulate themselves.
david,
I do appreciate your empathy with us. You have been very understanding of our plight and our pain.
I have been intending on holding meeting for the membership either on sight or off sight to keep the membership informed. The meetings that I am considering would be open door a simple acknolegement of membership at the church would be all that was necessary to attend. The door would be open no matter which side of a particular fence you may be on. The format would be to present truthful and accurate information that had been verified. The members would have an opportunity to direct concerns that could be considered so that we could determine a proper resolution.
I believe that many people could be helped by such meetings.
Do you have any opinions on such an idea?
I will check back tomorrow on this. It is getting late and my eyes are slamming shut. I keep thinking that I just heard someone close a car door out in the driveway and realize that it is my own eyelids.
David,
Apology accepted. I understand what you're saying, but there are certain things that simply would be inappropriate to discuss in this forum at this time. I wish this forum hadn't even come into existence. It wouldn't have had things been handled within the walls of the church, but they weren't. I'd welcome the opportunity to correspond with you privately. E-mail address is in the profile.
NBBCOF
Tim,
It would have to be the same format as the "information meeting" of 9/24 or it would likely dissolve into a shouting match. Probably just another reason they haven't had a business meeting in 1 1/2 years.
hisservant-1 posted:
my BIG problem is the hate filled way you and others are going about things.
I don't post often here, for several reasons. This being one of them.
Hisservant-1, whoever you are hiding behind that veil, please cut the "hate filled" speech garbage. It's a baseless charge, much like the charge of "racism" bandied about these days, designed to shut people up quickly. It's politically correct nonsense, nothing more. Anything you disagree with you simply label as "hate". What an intelligent debate tactic...
Following the same line of thinking, you'd likely characterize Jesus' divinely choice words for the Pharisees and His turning over the moneychangers' tables as "hate speech" and "hate crimes".
Pffft.
And frankly, I take issue with most all of you who post anonymously. I can understand some of the reasons — particularly among the women, the fear of some form of retribution — but if something is as important as all of this is, and if you're willing to stand up and speak about it, it's better to crank that spine up nice and straight and let 'er rip. I do realize it's an Internet forum, too... but such is the cost of convenience and an accessible forum.
Just an observation... grace and peace to each of you. (Sincerely.)
Collin Houseal
Just because something is offensive to you, or anyone for that matter, does not make it hate speech.
Have we become so PC that we can't see that?
fedupatbbc said...
At the cc meeting with the orchestra on Sunday evening, the question was asked of Steve Tucker about a certain staff member ( high up staff member) being seen in a cordova restaurant, with a bottle of wine on the table. Although the staff member was not reported to have been drinking the wine himself, he picked up the tab for the person at his table who WAS drinking the wine. Steve Tucker danced around the question and said that ' well, if you might alienate someone who wants to drink by not allowing them to drink in your prescense, and blah blah blah, then it is ok to purchase wine as a gift for someone..blah blah blah. and my question is, ..WHAT ABOUT CAUSING YOUR BROTHER OR SISTER TO STUMBLE? Apparently, if Steve Tucker is speaking for the church..do we now have a new policy about the consumption of alcohol? What lengths will these guys go to in order to defend the status quo? I wonder if that CC meeting with the orchestra was recorded? Anyone know?
10:52 PM, December 06, 2006
You are correct in that Steve Tucker did indeed defend the “pseudo staff person” to be specific in his quote. Rather than focusing on the possibility that this staff member may have caused another brother or sister to stumble, he arrogantly attacked the individual who brought up the question. In fact, initially ST acted like he did not know about the incident. Then, 30 minutes later, he said it was a “true story” and that it was a staff member who purchased the wine for a family member (this man’s sister) at the dinner table. ST went on to say that “he was prepared” and that he had “talked to the man today (Sunday) about it.”
Observations/Comments:
1) Based on Steve Tucker’s comments at the meeting, we have a situation where a lay-leader (Deacon Officer, former Chairman of the Deacons, Missions Committee, etc.) of our church adamantly defended a senior staff member’s decision to purchase alcohol in a public restaurant.
2) What is the policy of Bellevue Baptist Church regarding staff members and the purchase of alcohol (regardless of the situation)? Steve Tucker never did give a definitive answer; instead, he defended the staff member.
Does anyone know why our Women's Ministry no longer offers Beth Moore and Precept Bible Studies on Tuesday mornings? This really saddens me.
i-flyaway wrote:
"Does anyone know why our Women's Ministry no longer offers Beth Moore and Precept Bible Studies on Tuesday mornings? This really saddens me."
No, but I think Donna Gaines is working on a similar series that you'll probably be seeing soon.
Around 10:49, Mom4 said,
Dr Rogers did live to see the consequences of calling Steve Gaines to Bellevue, and there are confirmations that he even went to him and told him that he had made a mistake, to no avail. If a man as Godly as Adrian Rogers was duped, how could we have discerned the matter?
May I make a suggestion to end some of the speculation and claims that "there are confirmations" of various statements made? Someone pointed out yesterday evening that the savingbellevue site at least posts letters, emails, and documents to substantiate their charges. Unless a document exists and can be posted from an identified source who can claim what you say is fact and lend credibility to it, can we seriously pray about ending some of the innuendo and outright gossip that gets posted here? Some have been careless in this regard, and I do have concerns for you, my brothers and sisters, that none of you (that none of us) fall into sin by passing along something that shouldn't have been passed, either because it was untrue or because it "seemed like a logical conclusion" at the time, or because although it might be true, its volatile nature and/or ramifications cause the source to be unwilling to stand by it in a public forum. Please understand -- you are asking us as a church body to believe some of the absolute worst things that could be said about other individuals, people we have believed for quite some time to be Godly leaders and whom we view as in a position of Scriptural authority over us -- so for us to lay aside what we believe is our allegiance to God's Word and God's plan, there had better be a tremendously good reason.
The Bible requires 2 or 3 witnesses of an accusation. Can anyone place 2 or even 3 identifiable individuals up front who will claim Mom4's statement as fact? Someone from Dr. Rogers' family, perhaps?
If after a reasonable period of time one is unable to produce witnesses to bolster a position or a charge, should not that charge then be dropped in this forum? Can we consider doing this to protect not only our own and each other's honor, but also the integrity of this process?
I daresay, those of us who are staunch supporters of the pastor, his family, and our church's leadership would have a different level of respect for an individual who would stand by their claims behind their own identity instead of a pseudonym.
Also, these 2-3 witnesses need to have heard Dr. Rogers make this statement themselves. I'm not suggesting we just go out and find more individuals who "understand this to be true" or who heard it from someone who heard it from someone and they're a "very reliable source." Does that make sense?
maybe,
The information you requested regarding Dr Rogers' statements can be confirmed by staff members (some who are no longer on staff) and the Rogers family. Although they may not want to say publicly, they may have to so that the Gaines defenders can get off that story that Dr Rogers totally approved of Steve Gaines.
David,
If you want to know about the "key" - just ask. You sound like someone on staff or in a leadership position. Ask someone, in Security, Operations, or the pastors offices. This is a fact!
Perhaps you guys can get to the bottom of this real fast and go ask Steve Gaines. If he acknowledges it the same as the "dream" incident, the there are those who know better who may come out and say so.
Sincerely and respectfully, Mom4, you're missing the point. I am not the one leveling such outrageous charges of sin and impropriety. If you, blessme, and others are going to do so, you must do so with corroboration. I do not wish to bring further embarrassment on the Gaines and Rogers families by digging up supposed bones from their backyards. That you are not willing to do so yourself, but want to portray it as being the responsibility of others to do so, speaks volumes.
Per 1 Timothy 5:19-20, "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning."
It is not my responsibility to do the fact-finding here. It is yours. If you continue to make accusations, you must back them up with credibility or take a stand that makes you, yourself, vulnerable to rebuke by your church family. It would be really convenient for anyone to make an unsubstantiated charge against another person at will and expect others to believe them just "because I said so," but Scripture is clear that it requires much more than that to carry the appropriate weight of belief by and censure from the church.
Maybe,
I understand what you are telling me regarding the 2 or 3 witnesses. I have done that.
I have verified one incident (3 persons from 3 different sources) and the key incident I have first hand knowledge of. Like I said, if you have doubts, ask someone because I am sure you will not believe me, regardless of what I say. If I come forward with the horrible "specifics", people will loose jobs and my family an I will be subjected to the same harassment as Mark Sharpe - sorry, but no thanks - the truth is not good enough for some folks, they have to see for themselves(Remember the rich man and the poor man - the rich man wanted someone to go tell his brothers about hell, but the Lord said that the scriptures were in front of them and they refused to believe it - such is our church).
maybe,
If I remove my posts, will you go check this out?
HisServant-1 said...
Karen: this is a DIRECT question for you! you just posted that BlessMewithTheTruth and he/she hate filled evil posts were a blessing to you today.
can you please explain!!??
I went home for the day and didn't check the blog until this morning. I have seen and been privy to some of the information (not rumor, not slander, not libel), but TRUE INCIDENTS THAT HAVE EITHER HAVE HAPPENED OR ARE ON GOING. Hisservant, if you are truly His Servant, PLEASE go check it out for yourself. Go to the Whitmires, go to Linda Glance, go to all the others "blessme" named in the posts from yesterday. Don't come back until you've found out for yourself. PLEASE, you're willing to question whether I am some "gentle Christian" or a monster <--not your word, but my interpretation of them. I've never questioned whether or not you are actually "His Servant" so why in the world would you question my level of Christianity? Go find out the TRUTH for yourself; not what you've been fed from the pastor, or the deacons or anybody else. Go directly to the people involved. Will it take awhile? Yes, we've been uncovering these truths since Steve Gaines came to Bellevue. Will it be worth it all? You bet!
I am a pretty mild person, but when "blessme" blew a gasket and started "putting it all out there", it was kind of a relief to me to finally see someone standing up for truth.
Hisservant-1, you seem to care alot about my opinion. Why??
Blessme, you have my support 100%.
Listen to the VOICE OF TRUTH today - you might learn something!
Love, Karen
Casting Crowns - Voice Of Truth
From the album Casting Crowns
Oh what I would do to have
The kind of faith it takes
To climb out of this boat I'm in
Onto the crashing waves
To step out of my comfort zone
Into the realm of the unknown where Jesus is
And He's holding out His hand
But the waves are calling out my name
And they laugh at me
Reminding me of all the times
I've tried before and failed
The waves they keep on telling me
Time and time again. 'Boy, you'll never win!'
'You'll never win!'
Chorus:
But the voice of truth tells me a different story
The voice of truth says, 'Do not be afraid!'
The voice of truth says, 'This is for My glory'
Out of all the voices calling out to me
I will choose to listen and believe the voice of truth
Oh what I would do to have
The kind of strength it takes to stand before a giant
With just a sling and a stone
Surrounded by the sound of a thousand warriors
Shaking in their armor
Wishing they'd have had the strength to stand
But the giant's calling out my name
And he laughs at me
Reminding me of all the times
I've tried before and failed
The giant keeps on telling me
Time and time again. 'Boy you'll never win!'
'You'll never win!'
But the stone was just the right size
To put the giant on the ground
And the waves they don't seem so high
From on top of them lookin' down
I will soar with the wings of eagles
When I stop and listen to the sound of Jesus
Singing over me
I will choose to listen and believe the voice of truth
Okay, I've written this three times and had to make myself go back and retype it without the caps lock on.
It is not the job of the one being told the accusations to verify the stories being told. The burden of proof is on the ones pointing their fingers, naming names, destroying lives and reputations. You should do your own dirty work, then get your "reliable witnesses" to stand before those of us on this blog with credibility.
Until you do, I am convicted that I will be in sin if I lend any measure of credence to your lies. I cannot "entertain" your uncorroborated accusations as anything more than the rubbish they are until they are verified.
Give me some credible proof, folks. I'm a reasonable adult. You could actually convince me you're telling the truth. See if you can talk your "very reliable sources" into going public. Surely your great faith as you seek for TRUTH at all costs will protect you and those who believe in what you're doing. How many times have you all talked about how God honors TRUTH?? Will He not protect you if you stand up the "rightness" of what you are doing and saying, no matter what it costs you?
Or is it more convenient to destroy other people's lives while so carefully protecting your own?
maybe,
I'm giving you just one: Mark Dougherty had Bellevue Baptist Church pay for Steve Gaines daughter's plane tickets as a "reasonalble moving expense".
How do you respond to that? Let's just start there.
How about Bellevue Baptist Church letting Donna Gaines use BBC facilities to film her new video series? Will the profits go to BBC? NOPE! The profits will go to Steve's Gaines other company "Hope for your Future". How do I know? I KNOW!
There are 2 perfectly true incidents for us to discuss. What say you?
Karen
Also, for what it's worth, I am not a bear, I am not a troll, and I am not a paid church employee. No one is twisting my arm to say anything here. Just in case anyone was wondering.
As for the question about what should or should not be granted to Bro. Mark Sharpe, I believe he has more than had his day in the eye of the church and the public. His complaints have been aired, have they not? He chose to take his accusations to a public venue rather than keep them inside church walls, as did blessme yesterday. It's much too late to try to go back and try to cover their issues with Matt. 18 or 1 Timothy 5 at this point.
Maybejustmaybe,
You Rock!
Karen said,
How do I know? I KNOW!
More of the same, Karen.
And what do I say to your statements? Absolutely nothing until you give it some credibility.
pastor, thanks.
maybejustmaybe said...
Karen said,
How do I know? I KNOW!
More of the same, Karen.
And what do I say to your statements? Absolutely nothing until you give it some credibility.
9:51 AM, December 07, 2006
So what you're saying is I am not credible enough - what would you like me to do? Would a signed affidavit satisfy you? Mark Sharpe has one of those regarding the Holy Land trips. Would you like some of my blood? I can give you some. Would you like to hook me up to a lie dector test? Let's go!
Why is my telling you what I know not good enough for you? You don't know me - maybe you do - but you have called me uncredible. Why? Because I don't have a big bank account or my name isn't in come Lay Ministries booklet? Or is it because I'm a woman? Or maybe you know I'm right and you're doing your dead level best to discredit me for your own gratification.
I know what I know because I've seen it, uncovered it or talked to the people who have seen it or uncovered it.
But please, what about what I've said makes me a non-credible source of information. Because you say so? NOT!
Karen
Anticipating another question that, no doubt, will be asked. What does one do when Matthew 18 has been properly followed and nothing is resolved? Someone who is truly in the know about exegetical matters should probably answer this, but would I be correct in assuming that the option at that point is to "treat the offending brother as an unbeliever," or leave the church? Would the option be to continue to perpetrate further damage on the fellowship by making accusations?
Karen, did you witness the event between Mark D/Linda Glance/Bro. Steve regarding the ticket with your own eyes or ears? Or did you just hear from someone who believes their credible source? Are you presuming that this was all wrong because of your own opinions? Have you asked Bro. Mark or Bro. Steve about the details of this issue, or are they "guilty until proven innocent?" (Seems I remember you saying once that you have never talked to Bro. Steve -- that you can't "get close enough to him" to do so.)
I did not call you "uncredible" -- I said that your statements lacked credibility until you gave them validity. You have now said yourself that you are making these accusations on this basis:
I know what I know because I've seen it, uncovered it or talked to the people who have seen it or uncovered it.
Let those who witnessed these events themselves own them.
And why would I care how much money you have? I am as poor as the veritable churchmouse myself. I care not for a sample of your blood, as your blood hasn't bought anything of interest to me, nor could it. And as for disparaging you because of your gender, surely you gest. I am also a woman. Our church is full of wonderful Godly women. I know you would agree with that statement.
Please understand, Karen, my beef is not with you personally. It is with the continual hurling of unfounded accusations whose ultimate goal is to destroy the lives of others.
And I am not saying that that is your goal, Karen. I believe with all my heart that it is, however, Satan's point to all of this. Steal, kill, destroy. And if we can let this deteriorate into a catfight between two sisters in the Lord, I'm sure it'll make him smile like a Cheshire cat.
Questions that should be addressed
With the leadership (Steve Gaines, Mark Dougharty, Chuck Taylor, Steve Tucker, and Harry Smith) having knowledge of a much deeper detailed account of the dream issue, why has the leadership and pastor refused to get Steve Gaines, Mark Dougharty, David Smith, and Bryson McQuiston in a room with witnesses to hear each other’s testimony and be cross examined. In the presence of witnesses and all parties involved, we would be able to get to the truth and resolve this issue once and for all.
* Mark Dougharty, in May of this year stated that Steve Gaines had a dream before changing his story once he found out that Steve Gaines was denying it.
In the CC mailer sent to all members, it was never admitted that trespassing occurred by Steve Gaines, Mark Dougharty, Chuck Taylor, and John Caldwell in the Windsor Grove Subdivision on their way to pay a visit to a deacon at Bellevue . Steve Gaines and Chuck Taylor repeatedly lied to the deacon body and church congregation about a “little picket fence” and an “itty bitty fence” about knee high.
* The CC statement says no intimidation was involved. Why did it take 4 men? Why did they not call the deacon they went to see, and why didn’t they come back if they were there for reconciliation? They stated days later that they were there to keep an off campus meeting taking place on Friday of that week. If reconciliation was the purpose, why did it take 2 months for Chuck Taylor, Mark Dougharty, and Steve Gaines in that order to apologize? We have John Caldwell who is past chairman of the Deacons and current long running Chairman of the Deacon Nominating Committee who has not apologized to the church, the Sharpe’s, or the neighborhood. Why has he been allowed to continue in this position that has nominated new deacons to come on and removed deacons that didn’t line up with his thinking? Why has he been allowed to serve the Lord’s Supper?
Are we as a church going to be able to have an open discussion on our bylaws? Contrary to the CC mailer, Bellevue has a problem with the bylaws? A lot of the membership seems to believe they are outdated and need revising. When is this going to take place and how is this process going to be done? We currently have groups who are evidently able to spend millions of dollars without the knowledge of the congregation.
Why didn’t we offer Pastor Gaines enough money to live on when we called him? Why did we have to go back and offer him more?
99% of all Southern Baptist churches publish the salary of their pastors. Would it be embarrassing to the church body for us to know how much Pastor Gaines is paid? Are 99% of the SBC churches wrong?
Is it true that Pastor Gaines requested that the Office of Administration consisting of David Powell, Randy Redd, Jim Whitmire, Bryson McQuiston, Craig Parker, and David Smith not be allowed to be a part of the compensation process that had been in place for years? Why did Harry Smith tell the church it was in place in September of this year at the “information meeting” when he knew it wasn’t? Why was Harry Smith the one who personally signed off on these new hires according to his testimony?
Bellevue Baptist Church is funding the production or facilitating the production of Donna Gaine’s Bible studies that will be marketed nationwide. Is BBC being reimbursed by Hope for Your Future Incorporated, which is the company owned by Steve and Donna Gaines.
Is Pastor Gaine’s company “Hope For Your Future” the recipient of revenues from the sale of this Bible study? Is Dana Street , Bill Street ’s wife on BBC payroll or the payroll of Pastor Gaines? This ministry is Donna Gaines ministry and has nothing to do with Bellevue Baptist Church .
When the leadership was confronted in May with inappropriate charges that originated from the finance office of Bellevue , why did the leadership at that time (more than 6 months ago) refuse to address these concerns? The concerns included not only credit card charges but direct billed charges. Why did Mark Dougharty in a 3 hour meeting not deny any of the personal charges of the pastor? Why did Chuck Taylor, Mark Dougharty, and Harry Smith refuse to let anyone investigate these concerns if there wasn’t anything to hide?
Why did the finance office make these allegations starting in November of 2005? Would the church allow a targeted audit by a 3rd party to review all monies spent at Bellevue for the past 2 years and make the results
Why was Chip Freeman called into Mark Dougharty’s office and asked for the 2nd time if he was talking with Mark Sharpe? He was threatened by Mark Dougharty accourding to Chip Freeman, with firing as well as the staff inside the finance office.
Did Steve Gaines tell the search committee he would not preach on Wednesday nights? Did the search committee know? If so, why did the search committee not tell the church before being selected? If they did know, why didn’t Steve Gaines tell them?
Has Steve Gaines decided to give away trips to Greece/Turkey next year because of the publicity? Has he kept the cash in the past? There is an affidavit church leaders can look at from a man who has known Steve Gaines for a long time that says in years past, Steve Gaine’s practice was to host these trips for profit and keep the cash. This man claims in this affidavit that Steve Gaines threatened him if he exposed what was going to his church. This is taking advantage of his sheep. It’s a fleecing of the sheep.
Why have we asked ministers recently to sign a form on the way out that would prohibit them from speaking about the inner workings of Bellevue since Steve Gaines arrived? Who inside Bellevue recommended this document? Was Steve Gaines behind this? He has publicly stated that he has had his staff sign pledges in the past. Are we willing to take a former staff member to court to enforce this document?
What is our church policy on drinking? Is it permissible for ministers or deacons to purchase alcoholic beverages for others?
Harry Smith mislead the Communications Committee Meeting Sunday by telling the group a letter of invitation to return went out to Mark Sharpe and perhaps other deacons that chose not to “covenant” with Steve Gaines. Harry Smith when asked who told him that couldn’t remember. Terry Brimhall who was on the committee confirmed that at least Mark Sharpe and Richard Emerson’s names were not even brought before the committee. The question that needs to be answered is why has John Caldwell been allowed to remain chairman of this committee for the past 10 years? Why has John Caldwell been allowed to remove these men without bringing it before the committee? Why has John Caldwell not apologized for trespassing and embarrassing Bellevue Baptist Church ? What authority is John Caldwell operating under to be able to remove men from the deacon roll single handedly?
Hisservant-1:
You wish to call the people on this blog troublemakers? They would be in good company. Jesus was a "troublemaker", all of his disciples were "troublemakers", the apostle Paul was a "troublemaker", Martin Luther was a "troublemaker", George Washington was a "troublemaker". This list goes on.
Hisservant, If you believe the Bible is true, you should understand that there will come a day of reckoning for everyone involved. At this time, I'm not sure who's in the right or wrong, but you should examine your heart, and if you are motivated solely by a desire to protect yourself, your position, or the reputation of the Pastor and the church, I think you will have a hard time defending that to Jesus. The Bible does not teach us to project a false image of unity to the World. I wonder if you are a parent. Once principle of parenting is that your children know that you are not perfect. They know you make mistakes. How you handle those imperfections determines how they view and respect you. Likewise is the church. The World already knows we aren't perfect. They see our mistakes and imperfections. How we show the World we are different is how we handle our problems and conflicts. The leadership of BBC has so mishandled this situation, that either 1)They are guilty of the accusations and worse or 2)Are incompetent and unable to be stewards of the fellowship of believers that is BBC. This matter could have been ended months ago by men of integrity and wisdom. Instead, it’s taken on the air of “tactics” and “strategizing” rather than true desire for reconciliation and healing. Unfortunatly, it has taken the bullying tactics of this blog and the other website to even force the leadership to acknowledge there was a problem, much less take the steps that have been taken.
My wife said to me the other day that she feels "sorry" for Pastor Steve and all he's going through. While I’m sure a lot of us feel that way, it’s tempered by the fact that by his behavior, he's brought a lot of this on himself. The image that is growing is a picture of a man that wishes to appear humble, but in fact has a great deal of pride. That apology Sunday (which apparently contained misleading half-truths about the Whitmire situation) seemed forced, and he seemed resentful that he had to apologize. (And the "If I offended anyone" qualification, at least to the choir before hand, bothered me as well.)
Only God knows your heart, and only He knows what the outcome of all this will be, but I'm accusing you right now, whoever you are, of being part of the problem, and not part of the solution. You will respond that is in fact the truth behind the blog, but since the “troublemakers” have been unable to get a Biblical audience with the deacon and church body, this was the last resort. The only tool left in the toolbox is the one you have to use, when the “under-Shepard” refuses the tools given to the flock by the “Over-Shepard”. God gave the church Matthew 18, and the church leadership has denied the truth of that passage. If you disagree with me, ask your past Deacon Chairman and the Saddlemaker about their conversation with the man that sits in the head office across the street from Bellevue.
I'll leave you with a quote from Edmund Burke, a contemporary of our nation’s Founding Fathers.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Why do need to debate what we know is true?
Karen, you and many others know that Mark Sharpe has a signed affadavit that shows what you are saying is true, so if anyone wants moer proof, let them go to Mark Sharpe and go look at the affadavit.
Rest in the knowledge that you have done your best to tell the truth and let those who don`t appreciate it keep asking their questions without feeling tou have to respond any further.
I appreciate you Karen and I know you are a credible.
Stillwaters and finance guy,
Good well thought out, meaningful, non-accusatory posts.
Pastor Gaines is a great communicator and writer. It would appear to me, an explanation answering just those comments alone, what his thoughts are, what his actions were, why he felt he was right, areas he felt he was wrong and how he will put in processes to repeat or not repeat those actions.
I don’t blame the deacons nor the pastor for not having a church wide meeting on those subjects. Those meetings usually deteriorate rapidly, because emotions run high. By putting forth a written comment on the above, it would give people the opportunity to see those responses in writing, thereby erasing accusations from misleading body language etc.
From that point forward, if someone disagreed with the pastor, they would be able to specifically point to the page and paragraph where a statement was made.
Blessme’s approach will get no where, because of the intense hostility implied through the written language. However the approach taken by financeguy and stillwaters is received as thoughtful legitimate concerns. Perhaps blessme’s rabid approach did some good, and motived financeguy and stillwaters to put their thoughts forward in a meaningful way.
After the pastor has provided an honest, Holy Spirit inspired, non self motivated, written response to those allegations, I would suggest the pastor (on his own request) go before the church and call for a confidence vote, after some time is given for his written responses to be well read, thought about, discussed and prayed over.
This would be a benefit for Dr. Gaines, because if the church feels like they need a fresh start, his next church could read his comments and decide up front, if this is the man they feel God is calling for their church. Henceforth, that would put an end to this blog, and the church can then move forward finding their man, and replacing certain lay leadership positions.
However, if the vote of confidence allows Dr. Gaines to remain as pastor, that should put an end to this blog and other accusations and folks can follow the Holy Spirit and bless other churches, if that is where they are led.
I know Dr. Gaines is not required to defend his actions in writing, but I believe this gesture would be very similar to what Paul wrote in Acts 20:32-37.
concerning Acts 20:32-37, not what Paul wrote, but what Luke wrote concerning Paul.
December 7, 2006
Belmont Study Committee
Messengers heard a report from the Belmont Study Committee, a special committee appointed to study the convention’s relationship with Belmont University.
The school’s trustees amended its charter last year to remove the power of the convention to appoint board members, making the board self-perpetuating.
That action triggered a repayment clause in a 1951 agreement signed by officials of both schools. The convention filed a lawsuit in September seeking to reclaim the more than $50 million in Cooperative Program funds allocated to Belmont since its founding.
Austin explained the decision to file a complaint with Davidson County Chancery Court.
“First, both sides have discussed mediation and indicated a desire to pursue that course,” Austin said. He noted that in most cases, a “complaint” is filed before mediation begins. “It is still our hope that this issue will be settled out of court,” Austin told messengers.
The second reason for filing suit, Austin continued, was to “seek to honor the faithful Tennessee Baptists who foresaw such a time as this as they wisely sought to protect the interests and investment of Tennessee Baptists across the years.”
Third, Austin said the committee filed suit to “seek to honor our current convention membership.” The convention, which held a special, called meeting in May, expressed itself clearly, Austin noted. “Tennessee Baptists have contributed more than $23 million to Belmont in the past decade alone. That financial support demonstrated that you viewed Belmont as a valid kingdom enterprise. We honor your commitment to protect this investment.”
Fourth, Austin stressed the filing of the complaint or lawsuit was not done vindictively.
And, finally, Austin said, Belmont’s change of charter “pulled the legal trigger."
“As the convention has instructed us to seek all remedies in the best interests of the convention, we came to the decision to move forward in a legal process with the continued desire to settle at any time. No avenues of resolution are closed,” he stressed.
“Private negotiation and/or mediation are still the desired route,” Austin said. “We are now in a time of discovery that hopefully helps both sides to move more quickly to settlement.”
Austin said the question is often asked, “What will keep another school from doing the same thing?” He related that the only answer he can give is “relationship. We must work to strengthen the ties of trust that bind.”
After the report was presented on the first day, Austin asked messengers to write down any questions which the committee would respond to the following day.
“We are now involved in a legal process. No one member of the committee can speak with legal authority. We want to consider your questions and bring informed answers back to you,” Austin said.
No questions were submitted by messengers.
Rogers remembered
A tribute was held in memory of Adrian Rogers, who served as pastor of the host church for 32 years. Rogers died last November, just prior to the annual meeting in Clarksville.
“It was my privilege to parallel Dr. Rogers’ ministry here,” said TBC President Phil Jett, pastor of Englewood Baptist Church, Jackson. “I know first hand he was a tremendous friend to pastors. He was a friend to me.”
Current Bellevue pastor Steve Gaines talked about his predecessor and friend.
“Dr. Rogers was a mentor. He was a Paul to me and I was privileged to be one of his many Timothys,” Gaines observed.
Gaines also noted that Rogers was an inspiration. “Most of us have been inspired by his preaching. No one can preach like Adrian Rogers.”
The Bellevue pastor said he was privileged to be serving the church Rogers led for 32 years.
“We thank God for the loving memory and continued legacy of Dr. Adrian Rogers,” Gaines concluded.
Rogers’ widow, Joyce Rogers, was introduced to the convention and presented a bouquet of roses by Jett and his wife, Marilyn. Mrs. Rogers received a standing ovation from messengers.
Karen posted: I am a pretty mild person, but when "blessme" blew a gasket and started "putting it all out there", it was kind of a relief to me to finally see someone standing up for truth.
REPLY: relief?? when you read someone spewing hate filled personal attacks?? that is very sad. "truth" or not, there is NO excuse for those hate filled attacks etc. none. They in no way represent Christ. they are 100% self.
Hisservant-1, you seem to care alot about my opinion. Why??
REPLY: because over the last few weeks, you have seemed to be a calming spirit at times for this blog. I think that has changed and that is just what I feel. nothing personal and I am not judging you. you support Tim, and blessme and all the others that spew hate.
Blessme, you have my support 100%.
REPLY: that is truly sad.
Karen: so what do you want me to ask Linda Glance?? what? I have talked with her several times. She has made known all the facts on certain issues and was totally supportive of Brother Steve. It actually has been said that several of the things that you and others are calling into question with Brother Steve would fall on her as much or more. YOU and others and are also calling Linda and her integrity into question.
maybe,
Please understand, I was a little heated before and I apologize for my tone and ask your forgiveness. PLEASE? :)
There have been enough people who have personally witnessed the junk that is going on at BBC for me to be convinced, yea, CONVICTED that I have to speak out. Before Steve Gaines came to BBC, you couldn't have BEGGED me to step up and say ANYTHING about ANYTHING at BBC. I a little BBC 2nd generation who never questioned anything. For me to speak out in this manner is so huge. I've said it before and I'll say it again-I haven't said anything on this blog that I wouldn't repeat to your face. Just for the record - the "pop a knot in 'pastor's' head" comment, I said it to Derrick Calcotte on Sunday. Ask him; he'll tell you I said it when we were discussing "pastor" from the blog - not Pastor Gaines (for those of you who don't know). I haven't said anything I'm ashamed of (except for my tone sometimes, which I've apologized for and asked forgiveness for).
The fact that most people won't beleive the truth because their counselors are telling them otherwise. I'm saying that as a BIG generality - no one comes to mind and I'm not directing it at anyone. But I truly believe that unless it comes from a deacon or the Pastor, some folks will NEVER look past their words to their actions. To me, the two are not matching up.
I can't convince you and you won't convince me. Now what? Wanna wrestle? :) Just needed a giggle!
karen
HisServant-1 said...
Karen: so what do you want me to ask Linda Glance?? what? I have talked with her several times. She has made known all the facts on certain issues and was totally supportive of Brother Steve. It actually has been said that several of the things that you and others are calling into question with Brother Steve would fall on her as much or more. YOU and others and are also calling Linda and her integrity into question.
11:22 AM, December 07, 2006
Ask Linda Glance if Steve Gaines paid back the amount direct billed from the Hilton from Donna's birthday - did he pay back the entire amount? Did the direct bill from the Hilton include sales tax? BBC is tax exempt so it wouldn't include tax. If Steve Gaines paid back any credit card charges to the church, I guarantee he didn't add sales tax the them. Go find out for yourself. Ask Wayne Vandersteeg - he's the one who told the truth when directly asked.
I may not agree with the way something is written but if it is truthful then it is not offensive to me in fact just the opposite is what does offend me.
A person who sweetly protrays a lie or uses nice words to call someone who is telling the truth a liar offends me terribly.
I will take truth in any form I can get it but I will always be offended by a lie or by someone who tries to dispell the truth or someone who keeps someone else from telling the truth by pointing to the manner in which they tell the truth.
Blessmewiththetruth has not revealed anything that many others don`t know already.
If the things that were said are new to anyone, then please know there is credibility in every word that was written as far I can see.
I would suggest that again that truth is not offensive to those who want the truth.
If you don`t like the way the truth was expressed then leave it at that and stop adding to that complaint that what was shared was not true.
I read where some of you were demanding an answer from blessmewiththetruth when you should have been asking Mom4. This would have been about the key issue. Mom4 gave those details, so be careful to remember who needs to be addressed when you start asking questions. I`ve seen this happen so many times before.
The fact that our church`s light is dimming is too sad for words and it could all be resolved so easily by following the holy scriptures.
I can not deny that our church is not following scriptures in many areas and that is the core problem for everything we are facing.
Karen did you hear Linda Glance`s name come up at the last CC meeting by the committee members?
If so, would you tell us what what said please.
Stillwaters said...
Karen did you hear Linda Glance`s name come up at the last CC meeting by the committee members?
If so, would you tell us what what said please.
11:44 AM, December 07, 2006
Nope I didn't - alot of what "blessme" said yesterday wasn't mentioned at the CC meeting, but it probably should have been. These issues could have been brought up, but we got only 3 weeks of the CC's time (they worked so hard!) and still there are unanswered questions. I still have some, so how can their work be done?
Karen, I heard one of the CC members clearly say that the Pastor was advised by Linda Glance on how to set up the holy land tour packages after they had been asked a question about why the our pastor had increased the ticket prices to make money for himself.
I am sure others who were there heard the same thing.
It was the CC committee that pointed the finger at Linda Glance and no one else.
Linda Glance's name did come up in the CC meeting Sunday. A committee member was "answering" the question about Holy Land trip profits (I can't remember if it was Harry Smith or one of the others) when he stated that Linda Glance was the one who "suggested" Steve Gaines set up the tours that way. As someone said yesterday though, he was doing this long before he came to Bellevue, and we have a signed affidavit from someone who spoke with Steve Gaines personally several years ago that attests to this. I think it's deplorable to try to place blame on Ms. Glance for this practice.
stillwaters,
I just search it - here ya go!
WOUNDEDANDBLEEDING said...
PART 3
The Communication Meeting Report
December 3, 2006
Brother Mark Sharpe now approaches the Committee with a question concerning Pastor Steve making money off of members of the church who are purchasing tickets for Holy land tours which he and his wife Donna host.
Brother Mark tells the Committee that he has a sworn affadavit from a man who has known Pastor Steve for 20 years, stating that Pastor Steve was personally profitting from tours while at Gardendale by adding additional charges to the Holy Land Trips and that when he confronted Pastor Steve on this, Pastor Steve showed intense angry and threatened him
Brother Mark asks if Pastor Steve is now giving away tickets instead of pocking the overflow of monies because he is aware that Bellevue members have expressed the same concerns as the person who gave the sworn statement he now has in his possession.
Brother Harry Smith begins to tell how many pastors do the same as Brother Steve.
Brother Mark relates facts that he researched and collected about how the travel agency works and what they offer.
He tells the Committee that several choices are available to those who hosts Holy Land trips.
He offers the fact that hosts can accept free tickets and/or cash for hosting and/or they can take the option of tacking on additional costs to
each ticket sold at the expanded price. Brother Mark also points out how wrong it is to profit off of church members by increasing the price of tickets and then pocketing the money for personal use.
A Committee person interjects by reading the Committee`s previously written response from the Q&A sheet which ends by saying Pastor Adrian Rogers did the same as Pastor Steve.
Brother Mark brings up the fact that Pastor Rogers` hosting benefits went directly to Love Worth Finding and that he did not pocket the profit or seek to make personal monetary gaines from tours or his flock.
A Committee person then gives credit to Linda Glance for setting up the tours for Pastor Steve the way it was set up.
Brother Mark then objects to the way in which Pastor Rogers` name is being used to validate Pastor Steve`s tours for profit and other mainline issues.
Brother Mark makes it clear once again that Pastor Rogers did not do the same with his tour package benefits as Pastor Steve has been doing.
The crowd applauds.
See PART 4
1:56 PM, December 03, 2006
I am extremely concerned about Steve Tucker defending the purchase of alcohol by one of our staff.
Tim, did you say that he did not like Dr.Rogers stand on abortion?
Has anyone gone and confronted Steve Tucker?
For the life of me, I can not see how he can minister at Bellevue if he has these positions.
Karen, forgiven. No wrestling needed (or desired! -- ewwww!)
mjm
New BBC Open Forum said...
Linda Glance's name did come up in the CC meeting Sunday. A committee member was "answering" the question about Holy Land trip profits (I can't remember if it was Harry Smith or one of the others) when he stated that Linda Glance was the one who "suggested" Steve Gaines set up the tours that way. As someone said yesterday though, he was doing this long before he came to Bellevue, and we have a signed affidavit from someone who spoke with Steve Gaines personally several years ago that attests to this. I think it's deplorable to try to place blame on Ms. Glance for this practice.
12:02 PM, December 07, 2006
I never thought of it this way until I read what you had to say and I have to agree with you.
The fact that this practice was in play before our pastor came to us, and then placing the blame on Linda Glance because it is done this way now, shows me a lot of things.
The CC members are just not being honest with us and they will go as far as they need to in order to cover up for certain people who dishonor our church, no matter who they have to discredit.
Is Linda Glance willing to be the scapegoat for this?
Even if she is willing, the fact that our pastor was doing this before he came to Bellevue would discredit and overide a scapegoat confession.
How can anyone not see that Bellevue`s integrity is crumbling before our eyes is beyond me!
hisservant1,
do you have a special key on your keyboard that says "hate-filled personal attacks???"...because you have used that way past redundancy.
Someone stated that they knew Donna Gaines and that she is a lovely christian.
That`a nice but I still would like to know about the project she is making/Bellevue expenses pm jer project/where the profits are going.
I am sure plenty of people would say that our pastor is a lovely chrisitian but he has done some pretty terrible things.
In the light of all the wrong that is going on at our church, just believing someone is a lovely christian because you have a relationship with them and you have a good experience with them is not an indication that no wrong has been done or that they are not part of the wrong doings.
On another note, we should never discount what someone shares because we see them as an unlovely christian. That is equally as wrong in my opinion.
Lovely or unlovely people can tell lies or tell the truth.
We should be committed to the truth reguardless of who it comes from.
Hisservant-1
It DOES NOT matter what has been done. What is true or what is not.
Do you really mean that? Can the leadership can do whatever it wants to do, and no one should ever call them on it?
Choice,
I emailed it to Dr. Gaines secretary, I called the church office and recieved the email address.
Is Hanitized kind of like sanitized?
Choice,
I applaud your efforts, but I really don’t have the time, to go to other websites and witness, but I appreciate the invite. I have a tough enough time just teaching my people who Christ is and what He wants reproduced in our lives.
The reason for my interest in what is going on at BBC, is primarily so I can learn also. I am really starting to understand the need for total transparency and integrity in all things. I have also learned, to address concerns directly and immediately.
I have also learned to pray and think about statements, before I respond. When I first came on here, I was indignant because a fellow pastor was being criticized openly. However, after reading the similar issues that continue to come up, time and time again, I asked myself what I would do.
I know there is probably only a handful of people on this blog, but as new people come in with the same objections, spoken of through a spirit of peace and understanding, I start to see this probably goes beyond the handful.
I’m sure Dr. Rogers probably had his critics in his day for different methods, but one thing is certain, his character was never criticized, at least not by an honest person. I am no better, or probably not much different than, Dr. Gaines. Furthermore, I would also say I have never achieved the success, nor probably will ever achieve the success of what Dr. Gaines has accomplished. All I can do is learn from others (good and bad), and keep my eye on the true prize, and that is the upward call of following Christ (Phil 3:14).
The reason why I quote scripture in most of my quotes, is the scriptures tend to keep me grounded, which again makes me think about those things which I write.
So guys, we’ve got 127 pages of text on this thread alone when I pasted it over to word in 12pt Times New Roman. That’s impressive.
Regarding the bit of an explosion yesterday afternoon: Truth without love is as a clanging cymbal. But, calling sin “sin” is not out of line. Nor is depicting it in the same view that God would see it. I refer yet again to Matthew 23 and Ez 34.
The trouble seems to be, as some of us have held from the beginning, that the Leadership refuses to allow an open hearing. We have asked repeatedly, and they have denied it.
People who disagree with us and claim we’re hate-mongers (and the accusation of hatemongering I do not consider to be hate speech by the way nor much of what goes accused of hate being hate speech on this blog), why do you not insist as stridently as we that a full, open airing of these issues should take place? Only that sort of forum will allow the truth to come; and then only when all who testify or comment are guaranteed immunity from retribution which might be based on their testimony.
You who visit us and condemn us for our actions should be more interested than we in bringing this entire ordeal to a close because you see it as sin. I urge you brothers and sisters, join us and ask the Leadership to help put an end to this situation once and for all.
I echo Nass’s statement: Nothing that bless me said was “new” to me. It has all been floating in the background for weeks if not months. But of course, since staff members fear to speak, and they have more access to information than anyone else. This being the case, an open hearing with full immunity will help to settle and seal this entire dark page in Bellevue’s history.
But I fear the likelihood of such a hearing is small. The same people would have to agree to this who for months refused to disclose the church’s bylaws (which by law are available to all members at any time) and credit card statements that presumably vindicated the Leadership. And even now, my understanding is that not all cards have been looked at or approved and that Harry Smith misrepresented Craig Parker’s position on the card statements. Past this, it is now clear that the Communications Committee was a political paper tiger designed not to provide answers but to provide catharsis for what the administration surely considers to be a rioting proletariat. And the form of this catharsis? Allowing the proles to vent and responding with a simple and consistent, “I don’t know.” This from a Committee that by definition is supposed to know. All of this said, the chances of getting an open hearing seem small, but friends that is the only way that any truth, incontrovertible from either side, will become discovered.
Only full documentation and immunity-fortified testimony will avail anything at this point. Folks, we need to stop spinning our wheels, and we need to demand that a full hearing take place before the church.
To sum this up, BlessMe is 100% on target if what he/she is saying is right. In that case there is no excuse for the Leadership’s actions, and they are draping themselves in darkness. If, however, BlessMe is not accurate, then he/she is out of line and just plain wrong (though this is hard to imagine given what can only be described as obfuscation from the Leadership). But the only way to know for sure is to have an open hearing. Put it down plain, put it down straight.
THAT, is the $64,000 question.
Bellevue voted to give the land on Appling to MABTS. I am very happy for that vote and Love MABTS.
Decisions that big need to be voted on.
When did we vote to send over
$200,000 to the seminary in New Orleans?
Then who decided that?
Stillwaters,
In regard to Steve Tucker:
Let me give you a brief over view of the mission of Life Choices. You can learn more about their ministry at www.life-choices.org.
They counsel women that are in crisis pregnancy and considering abortion as an alternative. They present Jesus Christ to these women. They provide them with an alternative solution. They provide maternity clothing to women that may need it. They provide shelter to those that may need it. They provide counseling for women that have post abortion trauma.
Approximately 12-15 years ago, my wife and I wanted to present a ministry opportunity to his SS class. The ministry opportunity was with Life Choices. It was Steve’s belief that there might be some in the SS class that would find this ministry offensive. He further stated that he did not believe that this issue needed to be discussed within a church forum, that it was a political issue that needed to be handled by the government. When pushed further on this issue he bowed his back and displayed an arrogant and offensive attitude much as he did in the CC meeting Sunday.
I am certain that he never displayed this attitude on this particular issue before Dr. Rogers, because if he had Dr. Rogers would have pinned his ears back and set him straight. If you think that I am wrong about that then you need to listen Dr. Rogers’ sermons concerning abortion. He was the first preacher that I ever heard address this issue and after one sermon my heart was changed forever.
Perhaps Steve has changed his mind on this issue but I seriously doubt it. It is ironic that he would be so concerned about teaching his BIBLE class, but not as concerned about the Bible that is to be taught.
custos,
Absolutely right. This mess should have and could have been taken care of long ago. If Dr. Gaines is the leader everyone claims he is...why didn't he address these things at the beginning? By his and the other leaders actions..or lack thereof..we've been left with no options other than to believe that there's things to hide...with or without proof..they've brought much of the suspicion and distrust on themselves with the political damage control, rope a dope tactics, half truths, the farce of a CC, etc etc. In light of all this, even someone one-eyed and half sensed would come to the conclusion that either a) there's truth to all the accusations and leadership will do anything to hide it and hold on to power, or b) they are so inept that nobody in leadership knows or cares what goes on at BBC...in either case..something's got to change.
I still believe the only way your going to get the meeting you want it to stand up and take over a Sunday service.
Oh and if all 200+ of the people in a CC meeting were to rise up at the same time and approach the pulpit. They couldn't help but be heard.
Moneytrail,
Many believe the gift to New Orleans was part of Steve's attempt to garner favor within the SBC. It is no secret he wants power within the SBC. He trades favors like fantasy football diehards trade players.
To answer your question, Steve initiated the gift to NOBTS.
Steve was part of a recent move to have Union University take over MABTS. Steve is on the board of Union, so what a feather in his cap that would have been. Imagine all the powerful men he would have impressed with that move. Dr. Allison stepped in and put a stop to it.
Many believe Steve wanted Union to take over to force out Mike Spradlin because he knows Mike questions many of his decisions. Steve dispatched men to discipline Mike (Chuck Taylor was one of them. I believe the other was Steve Tucker). This story is widely known, you can go to savingbellevue and read the letter from Jesse McClerkin. He references some of this.
Please call Mike and he will shed light on this story and probably tell you others. The man is a rock and he knows the truth about many issus at Bellevue. God bless Dr. Mike Spradlin.
custos,
The reason that I believe that we should have open door meetings either on sight or off sight is to bring these issues to the congregation. I believe that the CC meetings proved that the number of members seeking information was growing.
Quite frankly, I agree with Ju:
I still believe the only way your going to get the meeting you want it to stand up and take over a Sunday service.
Oh and if all 200+ of the people in a CC meeting were to rise up at the same time and approach the pulpit. They couldn't help but be heard.
We need to set a date, soon, for a Sunday evening service, and do precisely that.
My family and I have not been attending since shortly after the Sept 24 meeting, but my membership is still there and I'd be willing to stand and fight for the church I've been a member of for the past 20+ years.
You don't ask a tyrant for permission to speak. No tyrant worth his whip would give you that permission.
You just start speaking.
ch & ju,
Unfortunatly, I believe that such action would provide both ammunition and aim. The vast majority of the congregation is uninformed and an action such as this would convince them that we are a disruptive ungodly group. I do believe that doing something of that nature would produce immediate results, just not the results that are needed.
I think at least one of the results you would see would be the true nature of the church administration coming to light. How about at the end of the service? When he does the invitation? Everyone walks to the front and tells whatever deacon that greets him that the church is in crisis and that they should deal with it now? Or one of the other times when SG calls people to the front.
So..........how do we get an open hearing to take place at Bellevue????
I think only the deacons can push hard enough for this to happen. The role of deacon is to serve, and pushing for a forum or at a minimum a Matt 18 meeting with Mark Sharpe would be of service to BBC at this point in time.
Otherwise the situation will fester.
What continues to bothers me a great deal are the things that we know are factual and yet remain unresolved.
I give to those of you that are new to this website but one example from the growing list of unresolved concerns which are well documented.
BBC donated $25,000 to a downtown Memphis church (FUMC Memphis). This is a fact. This church has a Senior Pastor that advocates the Biblical acceptability of both abortion and the homosexual lifestyle. The FUMC pastor advocates for the admission of gay/lesbian and transgender people to the clergy. These facts are all well documented and not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether this type of donation is (1) acceptable and (2) routine.
The BBC leadership has not formally apologized for this donation. As time passes it is hard not to infer that their answer to question number (1) above would be that indeed a donation to a church that advocates heretical teachings is an appropriate use of BBC funds. Because the leadership has not announced any plans to prevent BBC from making future donations to other churches that preach heresy one wonders if these type of donations are routine. How easy it would be to just clarify who recommended and who approved the donation and whether it was right or wrong in their eyes. How easy it would be to make public the procedure or lack thereof for this type of donation. I wonder why they refuse to clear this mess up.
How can we have faith and confidence in our leadership when they refuse to make public to whom we have donated money and to take a position on whether donating to churches with heretical pastors is acceptable and whether is it in fact current BBC policy?
The silence on this is deafening.
And this is but one example of the lack of transparency on a number of issues that are festering as we speak. These are not rumors and the legitimate questions are not hate speech.
...the true nature of the church administration coming to light.
Agreed, absolutely. And Tim, I understand where you're coming from as well. The timing during the service would be critical. I agree that towards the end of the service would be best, as that's when "information meetings" are traditionally held.
ju,
I echo your passion concerning the church. The truth is that such action would disenfranchise most of the congregation and would not require a response from the administration.
Also, I believe that there would be many that would disagree with doing anything of this nature during an invitation.
Well I don't mean it to be a confrontational gesture. Maybe just all rising and going to the front to talk to the deacons will give them the strength they need to stand up and serve the church. We can all talk until we're blue in the face you see what talking to the CC got us. We must take some ACTION to get that equal and opposite reaction.
Also, I believe that there would be many that would disagree with doing anything of this nature during an invitation.
Count me in the unacceptable camp. I do not think taking over a worship service is acceptable and would not advocate for this. It is proper to encourage deacons to stand and push for a Q&A forum or a business meeting to deal with this. Regardless of which side you are on dealing with many of these festering issues is the proper course of action I believe.
Why are they so afraid of questions and a review of the adequacy of the current policy?
At the end of the service, just before the "hand holding" ceremony, perhaps someone needs to stand up and make a motion to go into an emergency business meeting, someone else needs to second it and according to Roberts Rules of Order and the requirements of our 501c3 exemption status, THIS IS LEGAL and there is nothing they can do about it. Some lawyer out there correct me if I am wrong.
All visitors need to be excused and at that point, we ARE in a business meeting and can make a motion to bring items to the floor for discussion - one of which could be to set a date for another business meeting if items are not discussed or there is opposition that is challenging at that time (we do not want an all out fight in front of visitors). This is only a suggestion, but I believe it is workable?? Thoughts anyone??
I like Mom's idea. Either way Tim I think you will either have to force the church into a business meeting or rise and confront the problems in a way many wouldn't like to do. What are the alternatives? Talk about it some more wait for the men to offer another committee that will do nothing but distract from the issues?
David,
Our 1929 bylaws are on the savingbellevue.com website.
And yes, we need to do our homework prior to doing anything else.
Ok so maybe it's not to take over the service. Maybe it is to rise at the invitation and go to speak to the deacons. Week after week until something occurs. After talking to them return your seats?
I for one am not proposing we necessarily "take over" anything, and certainly not during any invitation time.
In my mind, I agree with what mom4 put forth: simply calling the church body into an emergency business meeting. The point of my earlier post was simply to say it's silly to ask permission for us to do this; that permission will never come. We just have to do it. It's really no different than the administration side calling us into an info meeting at the end of a service; we're just taking the initiative from the congregation side.
Certainly, it must be done decently and in order, and it must be organized and tactful. But it must be done.
To all who are following this web log:
Be sure to read the post of someone whom I have never before seen on a comment, "brokenheart". Read his/her post which was added at 7:42 PM, December 06, 2006.
West Jackson Baptist Church's experience with Steve Gaines and how it really all came to pass for them is described here.
You don't want to miss this one because it rings of revelation.
If our church does not want to abide by scripture, they need to prepare for some of the members to either use the courts of men or try to take over the church service and I can`t say which will happen.
Bellevue`s staff must know by now that one way or the other a solution must come because many of those who leave Bellevue for fellowship will not be moving their membership until this is resolved,
I don`t know where their minds are or their spirits at this point but they have lost all wisdom and integrity.
2006,
I read that post and read it again and even printed it out so I could absorbe it all. I have heard that story before, but from someone else. I traced it back and if it is the same incident, it is where Steve Gaines used the proceeds from the church's onsite daycare to pay for his doctorate and when questions arose, he got the church to approve it AFTER it was a done deal, thereby covering himself from inquiries by the church body. I understand that the church did not know when they approved it that the monies were already spent. This has been verified by 2 persons in Jackson.
The information had been given to Harry Smith about a month ago and he considered it an unfounded allegation and would not research it.
If a senior staffer has admitted to sexual sins and the pastor knows it, would someone please tell me why the scriptures can not be carried out just as it is written?
A person in leadership who is guilty of sexual misconduct should be immediately removed and ministered to.
I am afraid to find out what else has been going within the staff of Bellevue.
How can those who do not want to be held accoutable , or will not hold their staff accountable, be trustwothy to hold any of us accountable?
MOM4 said...
2006,
I read that post and read it again and even printed it out so I could absorbe it all. I have heard that story before, but from someone else. I traced it back and if it is the same incident, it is where Steve Gaines used the proceeds from the church's onsite daycare to pay for his doctorate and when questions arose, he got the church to approve it AFTER it was a done deal, thereby covering himself from inquiries by the church body. I understand that the church did not know when they approved it that the monies were already spent. This has been verified by 2 persons in Jackson.
The information had been given to Harry Smith about a month ago and he considered it an unfounded allegation and would not research it.
3:10 PM, December 07, 2006
Mom4, just what would you call this exactly? I mean in legal terms?
Can we get a sworn affadavit from the West Jackson church to verify this?
I am not sure what the legal terms would be, we will have to ask someone that was a participant in the Tennessee Waltz.
And yes, we will need to have documentation before we can bring it to the church.
BTW...
"The information had been given to Harry Smith about a month ago and he considered it an unfounded allegation and would not research it."
Mr Smith would have had the authority to contact W Jackson and investigate it.
I'm only addressing this one issue, so please don't post back and ask me about others.
Regarding the FUMC donation, an answer for why BBC made this donation has been provided. There is just ongoing disagreement about whether that answer is acceptable and about its implications. Big difference between "no answer provided" and "I don't like the answer."
So (and this is an honest question) what is to be done when the congregation (especially one the size of BBC) has fundamental, philosophical differences of opinion? I see the donation as understandable and appropriate, you don't. Who gets to be right? And is a business meeting the right avenue for resolution of matters like this?
BROKENHEART said...
The problems here with Steve Gaines, the leadership, and at our beloved Bellevue are a repeat of West Jackson Baptist and Gardendale. This has been going on for 20 years and thus, I believe it shows a pattern, a history and ultimately a serious character flaw in our pastor.
The day he was introduced to Bellevue and voted on, when the committee member asked if there were any nos for SG as our Pastor, a man three rows behind me stood up and SHOUTED NO!! That was ignored and everyone moved on. I thought it strange, but wondered IF he knew something we did not know.
That very day I called my best friend of 50 years, a Godly and honest-to-a-fault lady and gave her the information of who our new Pastor was. She literally went into shock. She could not believe it. You see, she was a member and staff member at WJBC and proceeded to tell me story after story of people SG had mistreated and run off from the church - people that the church loved, Godly and humble people. She told me of questionable financial expenditures at the church - one that was DIRECTLY involving her department and the impact it had. She told me of a "group of men" who surrounded SG and protected him.
My friend stated to me "he will divide your church, there will be financial questions and he will be protected by a group of men who will run interference for him." This was told to me in August of 2005.
My friend is a personal friend of a Deacon at WJBC who was on the committee to ask SG to RESIGN or be fired. SG resigned. One of the deacons at WJBC is related to Steve Tucker and he says this is not true. I know without a doubt that it IS true! The church body did not know he was asked to resign. They were kind to SG by not releasing this information.
I told my friend, that I would assume SG had repented and had a completely changed heart. I supported him, loved him, praised him, prayed for him and defended him. Now, alas, all her statements have come true and it is apparent she spoke the TRUTH.
Now, 18 years later, SG is the same person he was then. He is still mistreating people, not making wise financial decisions and is building his power team to protect him.
All of you, please continue to pray for him. SG is in serious need of prayers. I weep for his family. Think of how they are suffering. I saw Donna with tears in her eyes when I went to her Bible Study class.
I can forgive SG. I just know his character and I simply do not think this is the kind of man God would want as the Shepherd of his Flock.
I feel SG was allowed to come to Bellevue to bring SG to his knees and expose "false" leaders.
I believe the Bible and Romans 8:28 says all things work for the good to THOSE WHO LOVE THE LORD. Those on this blog who truly love the Lord, I do believe truth will prevail. It took WJBC three years. I love Bellevue. I will not give up on praying for a true man of God to lead us - whether it is a changed SG or another man.
his servant, david, mjm, etc. - do your homework. The facts ARE there.
Don't take our word for it - investigate. It is so easy to find these things out.
I could repeat some horrible things that happened to men of God at WJBC by SG's hand, but you would consider it slander. It IS the truth. But, again, investigage, the truth will unfold.
Whom do you serve - GOD or man?
SG may provide power and prestige for some of you today, but what price would you pay if this man is leading you down an unrighteous path?
Pray, pray, pray. This is the answer. My tears have saturated my pillow over this and I desire to see all of us here on this blog and at BBC a united Body of Christ. How I long for that feeling again.
Thank you for allowing me to express my feelings.
In Him,
Brokenhearted
7:42 PM, December 06, 2006
When will all be able to see that we have a crisis situation at Bellevue Baptist Church!
Beyereconciled said,
When will all be able to see that we have a crisis situation at Bellevue Baptist Church!
A statement with which I wholeheartedly agree.
mjm,
allow me to ask you a question. If the pastor of FUMC was a lesbian..would it be appropriate? Hopefully she isn't..but she supports it. Or, if FUMC performed homosexual marriages? Or funded abortions?
I've heard the good Samaritan story used to justify this gift. But there's a vast difference between a person and an institution.
For the sake of argument, let me illustrate the difference. If during the fire, a homosexual or an abortionist were seriously injured, then the good Samaritan principle would apply.
However, no one was injured..no individual..which is what the good Samaritan story about. Rather a building which houses an institution was damaged. An institution led by a woman pastor who supports homosexuality and homosexual marriage as well as abortion rights. Which means from her pulpit (institution), she preaches that what God calls an abomination, is good. This isn't something that "doesn't line up perfectly with Baptist doctrine"...it's the antithesis of it. Would Bellevue support an abortion clinic?...allow a homosexual marriage to take place in it's walls?..well, this gift gives tacit approval to such things. It simply cannot be justified.
mjm,
Concerning the $25K:
Whether you or I agree with it at this point is irrelevant. The congregation was never given the opportunity to decide, the deacon body was not given the opportunity to decide, the finance committee was not given the opportunity to decide. One problem with the donation is that if you have enough power you can do what ever you feel like doing, without any one approving it.
The answer to your question is yes the membership should be able to voice an opinion on this issue and vote.
Tim those are excellent points. How about using that as the basis to start an emergency meeting? It's based in fact and can hardly be argued for. It could be the start of things.
Was this gift just procedurally wrong...or morally wrong?
I know Wayne Vandersteeg appologized for the $25K donation to FUMC but he's not the one who just popped up and said send the money over there.
I like Mr. Saba's request that Steve Gaines reimburse the church for the $25,000. I've not heard Steve Gaines followup on Mr. Saba's request.
ju & ch & mom4,
I had to check out for a bit, so I lost the discussion for a while.
The problem with calling a business meeting is that if it were done at this very moment, the vast majority of the congregation is too ill informed to make a reasonable decision. This is why I am considering informational open door meetings to inform the congregation at large and to motivate them to action. Once the numbers are there then the action plan will be easy. Without the numbers, we would be just as well walk in and fall on a sword.
So you're saying an internet forum is the appropriate venue for debating these issues? That was my question.
What I think of the donation has been made perfectly clear, but is really immaterial and not particularly germane to my point. We have a basic difference of opinion about what the whole issue means. I personally believe that the good outweighs the bad in making the donation. Does that mean I condone everything the members (and pastor) of that church believe? Certainly not.
While we're at it, let's be sure we check the theology of every individual, every entity, that has ever received a dime of Southern Baptist money. After all, to do less, according to your argument, is heresy. Don't bother telling me, "Dr. Rogers wouldn't have done it ..." -- but if he had, I'll bet it certainly wouldn't have bothered folks nearly as much.
Everything Bro. Steve does is suspect in your eyes. If he had NOT offered to send them money, it would have been wrong (and I still maintain that the first I heard that it was a good idea was right here on this blog -- an idea that has since been retracted by one of the people who said it). So he requests that we send the money, and that's wrong, too.
Herein lies the problem, not that another church's theology doesn't line up with ours. It's that our own theology doesn't seem to line up with itself. There is much discord among the brethren at Bellevue, much of it sown right here and now pretty much seeming to take on a life of its own.
Someone please help me. I said "informational meeting". Time to find the sword isn't it.
maybejustmaybe said...
Beyereconciled said,
When will all be able to see that we have a crisis situation at Bellevue Baptist Church!
A statement with which I wholeheartedly agree.
REPLY:
I have the very same question.
I am in hopes of the entire congregation being presented with all the things we have found out to be true so they can understand what is going on with our pastor, his wife, and the leaders of our church.
I think many are just unaware that we have a hireling instead of a pastor.
I feel sorry for all of those who come behind us and find out that the church hiarchy is no longer serving Jesus but themselves. I know how this has hurt me and I know it will hurt anyone who see this for what it really is.
Are we going to have to wait until we have a Haggard episode before something is done about this?
mjm,
Do you believe that it would have been a better to choice to send the money to the Memphis Union Mission, which does align more closely with our beliefs, or to FUMC, which stands oppessed to our beliefs?
tim...
We have been stabbed in the back and now you see us falling on our swords....nnnnnnoooooo!!!
mjm,
These things are not questions of theology. It's a question of calling evil good. And God doesn't weigh good and bad in a scale..he calls things just what they are.
mjm,
If we were to decide as a congregation in a business meeting how to best meet the needs of the people in this area, or if our deacon body were allowed to consider it, or if our finance committee had debated the issue, don't you think that we could have come to a mutually acceptable solution.
WOW Mayjustmaybe it looks like you are part of the discord.
Cool your jets please.
If you like FUMC and you like the donations we gave them I feel so sorry for you but I want argue with you about it but are you clear on what you are supporting?
Abortion
Gay Marriage
Homosexuality
Lesbian groups
Planned Parenthood
Female Clergy
That`s a scarry bunch of stuff to stand up for but if you want to go ahead
(mkw?)
My name is David Brown and I have posted on here a few times. I need your help. It came to my attention that someone posted on here last night something about sexual misconduct and it being covered up.
This is extremely serious to me. See I was sexually abused and raped repeately as a 15 year old in Nashville at the hands of a Catholic priest. If you do a google of "rape of faith" you will find my story that was printed last year in a Nashville paper.
I am also a Southern Baptist and former long time member of Bellevue. I recently moved my membership to First Baptist of Millington.
I am not sure if these accusations are true or not. I have not had a chance to read the post myslef. I was alerted to them by a friend of mine that still goes to Bellevue.
Sexual misconduct by clery is flat wrong, whether it be a minor or an adult. And I don't care if it is a priest, pastor, minister, elder or deacon. It is abuse of power and if this is true here it is abuse of God's power.
PLEASE IF YOU KNOW WHAT WHEN ON WILL YOU CONTACT ME? I don't care what side of the "fence" you are on. My concern is for the victim and seeing that it does not happen again by this individual. NASS, I think my email addres is available to those that check my profile. If it is not, it is davidbrown@bigriver.net. Please contact me with information if you have it.
I for one will not be silent if indeed this did happen. I can assure you that if this person has done it once they have done it before and will do it again. And before some of you jump on me, I do have the facts to back that up. I am one of those facts.
I am also the local coordinator for SNAP of West Tennessee and Memphis area. Go to www.rememberthesurviors.com. We provide support and counseling for victims and their families and loved ones.
Once again if this is true please contact me as soon as you can. I will keep your information private and will not reveal the sources but I do want to get to the bottom of this.
My heart does go out to all the brothers and sisters that post on here. There are some awfully good people involved in posting and very pasionate. And that is what makes Bellevue so beautiful even if some of you don't see it. If somehow we could corral that passion to spreading his Word, wow you talk about problems? The parking lots would not be near big enough.
Once again I ask for your help with the charge of sexual misconduct. Thanks. His humble servant. David Brown
Tim,
You're still basing all your statements on your own presumption that the donation was patently wrong.
Someone in the know can correct me if I'm wrong, but we already donate to the causes you mention, plus we are one of the pivotal spokes in the Church Without Doors ministry. According to the explanation I have received on this issue, our church did not make that donation to those other entities solely in an effort to minister to the downtown population of Memphis. We made it to reach out to a church that had burned to the ground.
Whether it would have been "better" to have made the donation to another recipient is not the issue, at least it is not for me. I acknowledge it may be the issue for many of you, and that is certainly your right. I do not have a problem with our church making the donation to FUMC based on the reasons for which it was made. Go ahead and start throwing those labels at me, because I know you will. Fault my theology or my spiritual immaturity if that makes points for your argument, but I honestly do not agree with most of your call on this entire issue.
And I still maintain that an answer HAS been provided -- most of you just don't like it. I will agree with you that there needs to be some resource for solving conflicts such as these, or we are destined to remain a body divided. And that is not pleasing to our Lord, regardless of where anyone stands on the issues.
Just to be clear, that last sentence was not a stone. Division in the body was not what Jesus prayed for in the garden before He was crucified -- He prayed that we would be ONE. It is not pleasing to Him for us to be in disharmony with one another. My point this afternoon is: How do we go about becoming ONE when we have differences of opinion? I apologize if that point has gotten lost because of my passion. I am really struggling here, with a very sincere desire to be clear and to be understood, just as you all are.
Concerning the need for a regular, fair, and open business meeting:
Some have been calling for Mt. 18 since the beginning of these problems related to Mark Sharpe, Riad Saba, etc. Others have said either that Mt. 18 had not been followed, did not apply, or did not apply to the pastor. But, no one is above the Word of God.
The quotation comes from a time when there was a similar problem. Luther brought charges against the Pope; however, in Luther's day the Pope controlled any attmpt to bring about a free, impartial forum to resolve the differences that existed. The Pope said that he was above the temporal law, or that his interpretation of the scripture was the true interpretation, or when any attempt was made to call a council the Pope claimed to be the only one with power to call a council.
Bellevue is in a similar mess. There may be legal matters that need to be dealt with. There are those saying that Mt. 18 is not the way to handle these problems. All that is happening seems to be the current leader(s) blocking attempts at a scriptural forum.
Luther believed that it was necessary for true believers to do whatever was in their power to see to it that such a scriptural, free, forum that would seek the truth be established.
Since the biblical process was short-circuited by leadership, similar forums have popped up on the internet.
Still, we need Mt. 18 to be exercised. And we need regular, quarterly business meetings so that the membership does not remain voiceless. In my opinion as usual.
Martin Luther refers to Matthew 18
Address to the Christian Nobility
of the German Nation
(1520)
The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round themselves, with which they have hitherto protected themselves, so that no one could reform them, whereby all Christendom has fallen terribly.
First, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the contrary, that the spiritual power is above the temporal.
Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scriptures, they objected that no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope.
Thirdly, if they are threatened with a council, they pretend that no one may call a council but the Pope ...
Now may God help us, and give us one of those trumpets that overthrew the walls of Jericho, so that we may blow down these walls of straw and paper, and that we may set free our Christian rods for the chastisement of sin, and expose the craft and deceit of the devil, so that we may amend ourselves by punishment and again obtain God's favour.
.... The third wall falls of itself, as soon as the first two have fallen; for if the Pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, we are bound to stand by the Scriptures to punish and to constrain him, according to Christ's commandment . 'tell it unto the Church' (Matt. xviii. 15-17). . . . If then I am to accuse him before the Church, I must collect the Church together. . . .Therefore when need requires, and the Pope is a cause of offence to Christendom, in these cases whoever can best do so, as a faithful member of the whole body, must do what he can to procure a true free council.
mjm,
The answer that was provided was that they were unaware of the things that this church supported.
mjm,
I don't think, unless I've missed something, that anyone has labeled you. "I don't know" is an answer..but it doesn't settle much...just because an answer has been given concerning the donation doesn't settle it...it only means it's done now and can't be taken back..but how these things are decided in the future is not, or shouldn't be, a dead issue.
mjm,
I made the point.
Do you not think that if we were able to decide as a congregation, or the deacon body or the finance committee that we could come to a mutually acceptable solution?
Maybe just maybe said:
Regarding the FUMC donation, an answer for why BBC made this donation has been provided. There is just ongoing disagreement about whether that answer is acceptable and about its implications. Big difference between "no answer provided" and "I don't like the answer."
Maybe – you simply saying that the question has been answered does not mean it has in fact been answered. The proof is in the pudding. I am anxious to hear the finance committee and Dr. Gains either support or renounce this gift to FUMC - a heretical church. Please point me to a BBC website, mailed letter or even a recording of a sermon where the Pastor and finance committee explained the appropriateness or lack thereof with respect to this gift and what FUMC teaches. If such an answer exists I have not heard it. All I have heard is Mr. Vandersteed’s (spelling?) apology.
Again - I am sorry if I have missed the official BBC response to the Life Choices position on the FUMC gift. My questions remain whether in the opinion of the BBC leadership the $25,000 gift was (1) appropriate and (2) routine. I also request the public release of the BBC policy with respect to using tithes and offerings for donations to organizations. Specifically does it prohibit donations by BBC to organizations whose leadership teaches heresy when Biblically sound organizations are an alternative?
I understand that one single deacon (bless him!) said he was sorry the donation was made. However to my knowledge he did not address prior gifts to perpetuate heresy nor did he address policy changes that may prevent the future funding of heretical churches by BBC. His apology is a good start and indicates that he is sorry. Is the Pastor and finance committee sorry? If they are not sorry can they please explain why they use member’s donation money to subsidize pastors who spread the doctrine that homosexuality and abortion are acceptable practices? Mr. Vandersteed is apparently sorry. If he reflects the feelings of the leadership, then perhaps the leadership will make this known publicly and explain what policy changes have been implemented to ensure we don’t have a repeat. If the gift is acceptable in the eyes of the leadership then perhaps Dr. Gaines can explain in a sermon series when and when it is not acceptable to donate funds to heretical organizations such as FUMC, planned parenthood and the National Man Boy Love Association. They all "help" people after all.
cjesusnme said...
HealingBalm asked: "Are we going to have to wait until we have a Haggard episode before something is done about this?"
reply: Oh no! Too many people know too many things for this to go away until something bigger happens! If the leadership doesn't provide the opportunity to bring the truth to the open, before the entire congregation, this will eventually blow up in their faces, just like the signing of the loyalty pledge and the information posted yesterday about the staff member and sexual immorality.....except 10 times worse! I'm not threatening anyone....just know human nature and how people tend to take things into their own hands when they don't see things taken care of by their leadership! Too many people have sacrificed too much to see Bellevue crumble!
REPLY:
All of this is scarry and there isn`t much left to discover.
so far we the pastor and leaders have been found:
LYING, BUYING ALCOHOL FOR FAMILY MEMBERS, POCKETING MONEY FROM CHURCH MEMBERS VIA INCREASING THE TICKET PRICES FOR HOLY LAND TOURS, SEXUAL IMMORALITY, FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETIES, SUPPORTING CHURCHES WHO SUPPORT ABORTION, HOMOSEXUALITY, GAY MARRIAGES, LESBIAN GROUPS, FEMALE CLERGY WITH DONATIONS, HIDING THE TRUTH, DEFENDING LIES, SKIRTING THE ISSUES, GIVING HALF TRUTHS AT THE CC MEETINGS, BLAMING OTHERS FOR THINGS THEY HAVEN`T DONE, NOT ALLOWING MATTHEW 18 TO TAKE PLACE, KEEPING THE CONGREGATION UNINFORMED AND IGNORANT OF THE FACTS, INTIMIDATING STAFF MEMBERS AND MEMBERS IN GENERAL, THREATNING MEMBERS, CALLING MEMBERS NAMES, SENDING MEMBERS HATEFUL LETTERS, LYING ABOUT MEMBERS, HARMING THE MINISTER OF MUSIC, ACTING LIKE THEY DON`T KNOW THEY DID ANYTHING WRONG, CALLING SIN EVERYTHING BUT SIN.
What more can they do before Moses thrown the stoney tablet down at them?
maybejustmaybe-
Here is the rationale given by the CC on their website:
Why did Bellevue give $25,000 to the First United Methodist Church of Memphis?
In a meeting with the Finance Committee, Dr. Gaines noted that a church in the community had recently burned and requested the committee consider, at their discretion, if Bellevue could help them in some way. The Finance Committee voted to make a donation. The gift was a gesture to show the community that Bellevue cares about a church that was having a difficult time.
This gift was made in the same spirit as in 1998 when Bellevue sent supplies to the victims of hurricane Mitch in Honduras, sent money to Tsunami victims in December 2004, or when Bellevue opened its facilities to the victims of Katrina last year. Bellevue has helped Catholics in Honduras, Muslims in Indonesia, Buddhist in Thailand and Hindus in India.
Over the years Bellevue has given money to many organizations that do significant humanitarian work but are not perfectly aligned with Baptist doctrine.
In this case, the gift was given to their building fund from our designated disaster relief fund, not general tithes and offerings.
You are absolutely correct- you have a right to your opinion, but I am just one of many, if not most, at BBC who consider this gift of money as a betrayal of trust. I will keep saying this until the end of this conflict- the issues are simple: truth and trustworthiness. The ninth commandment is an absolute- don't lie- even when you mistakenly believe that the “greater good” (unity in the church) will be served. Telling the truth leads to being trusted by those you lead.
Tim said...
mjm,
The answer that was provided was that they were unaware of the things that this church supported.
4:37 PM, December 07, 2006
That's not the answer that was given in the CC mailout. That was what I was referring to.
Tim said...
mjm,
I made the point.
Do you not think that if we were able to decide as a congregation, or the deacon body or the finance committee that we could come to a mutually acceptable solution?
4:39 PM, December 07, 2006
Is it not possible, with all the attention called to this donation and the controversy that has stemmed from it, that checks and balances and new policies will emerge from administration that will change the status quo? With all the clamoring for change and reform of late, I wonder if there's not an expectation of "too much, too quickly." It has seemed the last few days that there's a monster behind every shrub on the BBC property -- how quickly do you all expect to deal with all of these issues? Even with a business meeting? Even if you fire all the staff and/or they resign? The accusations are coming out so fast it's worse than trying to drink from a fire hose.
Give those who appropriately make these decisions (the deacon body, etc.) an opportunity to act, and to act as honorably as you ask that they act. Then if you don't like the result, do something. But give them a chance, and show a willingness to cooperate with what they might offer rather than continuing to bombard them with rocks.
And yes, Tim, since making your point appears to be so important -- I will concede that greater congregational oversight would change the outcome of this situation. But probably not in the way you think. I would be willing to bet, with the disparity of opinion and judgment calls exhibited in this forum and among our membership at large, we will never agree to donate to anyone. We'll be too busy finding fault with one another. We must find a way to come together and to heal.
Anyone who has been here for very long knows that our pastor has been dealing with many of these issues for at least a year at our church and who knows how long at other churches.
Give them TIME, has now become a MOOT point and I think somewhere in scripture it says to settle these things quickly and I think there is a good reason for settling it quickly!
maybejustmaybe said...
My point this afternoon is: How do we go about becoming ONE when we have differences of opinion? I apologize if that point has gotten lost because of my passion. I am really struggling here, with a very sincere desire to be clear and to be understood, just as you all are.
Minutes later
maybejustmaybe said...
And yes, Tim, since making your point appears to be so important
Reply:
mjm,
So you making your point is ok. Someone else countering is not. Just so that we understand one another. It appears that if we all become you then we can become one.
If you like FUMC and you like the donations... are you clear on what you are supporting?
Abortion
Gay Marriage
Homosexuality
Lesbian groups
Planned Parenthood
Female Clergy
I would say it this way: "Are you clear on what your monetary gift to BBC is supporting."
Also, you left "transgender" off the list. The FUMC pastor supports (as does $25k of BBC money) the transgender lifestyle choice and for those that choose it to be ordained as clergy.
Blog newcomers... we are not making this stuff up. Here is a link.
trans·gen·dered: Appearing as, wishing to be considered as, or having undergone surgery to become a member of the opposite sex.
It also appears that since I differ with you, I'm the one being argumentative. I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I've never said that I did. You were the one trying to push me into a concession with your repeated posts directed at me. I gave you one, but you still aren't happy and still must find a rock to throw. Whatever.
mjm,
No, I have not thrown rocks.
I asked if you did not think that we could come to a mutually acceptable solution.
Thanks David, and I wouldn't worry about your wordings from before. I think my hitting it was a coincidence and consisted of probably the last coherent thoughts I'll have for a few days. =)
Cheers,
Josh
Tim, I don't at all disagree. You're right. I just think that at some point--sooner rather than later--we need to get the players--all of them--in one room and have a set of folks from each side examine and cross-examine them. I'm afraid it's the only way we'll get to the bottom of whatever all of this is.
Cheers,
Josh
Thanks AllOfGrace.
You're right. This is almost a classic Nixonian problem. It may be that the problem isn't nearly so huge as we think--the chances of this are small I'm afraid--but regardless, the Leadership's approach has not eased minds by confused them and stirred many to open inquery. Perhaps all is well, but if so, an open hearing would presumably be welcome by all.
Cheers,
Josh
Just a thought,
Has anyone considered how easily the anti-christ could decieve even churches in this day?
It just appears to me that spiritual discernment is virtually dead.
PEOPLE! I will say it again.
Go back and read the post from a person called "brokenheart" at 7:42 PM on December 06, 2006.
Please note it is not today. It is yesterday, Dec. 6.
When others start showing interest in this post, the scramblers come on the scene to distract us to other issues. Take heed!
Tim that has been in the back of my mind for months. Sorry straits we're in these days.
A mind awake--my coutry for a mind awake!
tim, custos,
And therein lies much of the problem..if not all.
Wouldn't it be a blessing if the sky were to unfurl tonite?
It would be nice to go home.
I seriously doubt that I or anyone else would have any arguments with Jesus.
What is truly sad, is that I don't believe that we would even be missed. Many churches would continue on, just as they are now.
2 Corinthians 14-16
14 But thanks be to God, who made us his captives and leads us along in Christ’s triumphal procession. Now wherever we go he uses us to tell others about the Lord and to spread the Good News like a sweet perfume. 15 Our lives are a fragrance presented by Christ to God. But this fragrance is perceived differently by those being saved and by those perishing. 16 To those who are perishing we are a fearful smell of death and doom. But to those who are being saved we are a life-giving perfume. And who is adequate for such a task as this? 17 You see, we are not like those hucksters—and there are many of them—who preach just to make money. We preach God’s message with sincerity and with Christ’s authority. And we know that the God who sent us is watching us.
LET'S TIE A KNOT IN THIS ONE BEFORE IT GETS TOO LONG.
Thanks,
NBBCOF
Post a Comment