Saturday, December 23, 2006

Today's Media Coverage - December 23, 2006

Here's the latest from the Commercial Appeal.

Today's Commercial Appeal letters to the editor are
here.

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just something to think about. Had this debocchel been taken care of 6 months ago when by law it shough have, PW family members would not have been publically dragged through the mud. They are further victems of inability to handle tasks at hand. Colatteral destruction? That in it self is heavy and serious.

Anonymous said...

From the article:
Spradlin took part in the conference call and said he was not asked to resign, nor was he pressured to resign for speaking out.

Another rumor laid to rest. I think some apologies are due to some people....and they should start by going to David Perdue + Steve Gaines.

Anonymous said...

Things to consider:

What if we find that Paul Willaims never told anyone at Bellevue 17 years ago?


As of this moment, we haven't been told who this person is that knew.


What if Paul Williams says that the person he met with 17 years ago that knew of his rape is deceased?

What if Paul Williams tries to help himself criminally by doing that?

Anonymous said...

he was not asked to resign, nor was he pressured to resign for speaking out

Another rumor laid to rest. I think some apologies are due to some people....and they should start by going to David Perdue + Steve Gaines


Ace,

The one part of that meeting your source did not tell you is that David Perdue did call Mike Spradlin a liar. Mr. Perdue made perfectly clear his intentions. Now if your source is David Perdue or Steve Gaines I can see why they kept that part quiet. Then again, maybe you are DP or SG.

I love my church said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Informed,

That is a whole different issue, don't try to ignore what I said. If that was said, though, then David needs to issue Michael an apology... just like you and others here need to issue David + Steve Gaines an apology.

Finance Guy said...

overflowinggrace said...
financeguy,

Not knowing for sure what PW told SG in June..can you see any scenario where you might not have acted so quickly. For example, if PW told SG that somthing happened 17 years ago and he had resolved it with his family. Lets even say that he told SG that he confessed it to AR (even if he really didn't confess it). It's that reason that I can't slam SG for this or at least be as harsh as many on this blog. I guess my bottom line is that I don't think PW confessed the whole truth in June. I welcome any responses.


overflowing,
I appreciate you desire to think the best of the pastor, but I'm just going to have to say, that in today's day and time, a person in any sort of position of trust like that, knowing what we now know about people with this problem, Dr. Gaines should have taken some action besides just letting things slide. It doesn't matter that it was 17 years, 17 months or 17 days. If nothing else, Dr. Gaines should have been wise enough to realise that PW wasn't being completely forthcoming, and there just might be some more recent issues. Dr. Gaines could have very quietly asked PW to go visit his long lost cousin in Canada for a few weeks while it was investigated. He could have asked him to go ahead and retire. He could have acted in any number of ways that would have addressed the issue, but not subjected PW to a public flogging. His absence would have been noticed, but heck, lots of staff have been dropped kicked out the door over the last year for reasons no one really knows. His exit wouldn't have been that remarkable, just another name on a long list.

I'm not sure what the right thing to do would have been. If I knew, I would have put my name in front of the search committee to be Senior Pastor of the church. We have to be able to trust our pastor to exercise wisdom in these situations. You be the judge if he's acted with wisdom since he's been here.


...but to all please refrain from calling me a lover of pedophiles, defender of fence jumping, pro-contempory christian music lover.


I don't know you, but I would guess you are just someone who loves your pastor and wants to think the best of him.

Thats commendable and is how it should be.

Anonymous said...

Josh,

You and many others have shed FALSE light on the "pledge" from day one. Period. The "pledge" was nothing more than re-stating what ALL Deacons had already agreed to. It was ONLY to show love and support for the Pastor. That is all, period. there is nothing else to it.

Also, Dr, Gaines, had NOTHING to do with the motion/"pledge". Nothing. It was NOT his idea and again, he had nothing to do with it. There were several calls after you on the radio that gave the REAL facts about it and what happened.

It was the also a motion by a Deacon that was the reason Chuck Taylor took it to Dr. Gaines. Dr, Gaines did not call and shots regarding the "pledge" NONE.
He made no decisions.

How many times does the above REAL facts have to be stated?

The caller said there was no such "pledge" referring to how you described it. The caller was right. I had no problem with the actual "pledge" getting into Mike's hands. There was nothing wrong with it.

If a Deacon had an issue with the "pledge", they should have never signed on to be a Deacon. They agreed to the same at that time.

Anonymous said...

4545,

It is my understanding from Chuck's letter that he went to Dr. Gaines and discussed it with him.

Gaines was spending the integrity of Chuck Taylor, whether he realizes it or not.

This is very very sad to me. Chuck Taylor is a good man, but has been used unmercifully by SG, as have many others.

I think that CT has become caught up in something and because he is in the middle of it, he cannot see it. If it were happening somewhere else and CT were to observe it, I think that he would see it for what it is.

The actions of CT of late do not match the CT that I have always known and admired. He is just a man, and is not infallable.

I would be interested to know what CT thinks about the 6 month harboring of the pedafile. After all, CT has a young son at Bellevue, too. The CT i once knew would have never condoned such a thing.

I still love and respect CT and his sweet, precious wife, Becky. I am praying that the scales would be removed from his eyes.

Anonymous said...

4545 You are not honest to say ALL the decons agreed to it. I know decons who certainly did not. Why wasn't it signed by ALL decons if they were behind it>

Anonymous said...

I have been following this website for a couple of months now and I hope that you will understand why I choose to remain anonymous. I literally fear for my job as I write this. I can not believe that Bryan Miller is calling the actions of PW a “moral failure”. If I were to have a “moral failure” with one of my students, do you think the school would be so generous as to give me a paid leave of absence while they investigated the incident? I think not. I can guarantee that I would be without a job in a heartbeat, and probably in jail. I am embarrassed that the leadership of my school would take this kind of stand. I have already moved my membership (as that is what SG has proclaimed we should do if we are unhappy with his leadership) and now I will be looking for another job at the end of this school year. I find it ironic that the following is listed on the ECS website:


Values:
ECS values are scriptural ideals that guide all areas of school life. Each member of the ECS constituency – board, staff, parents, students, and alumni – is to:
• exhibit unconditional love while maintaining uncompromising truth
• exercise responsible stewardship
• demonstrate personal integrity
• exercise authority with grace and submit to authority with respect
• build a climate of trust

Anonymous said...

BlessMeWithTheTRuth said...
A Refreshment course on Paul Williams

In the event Steve Gaines were to claim that Paul Williams did not confess his rape and sodomy sex crime, let me remind you that Steve Gaines sent David Coombs to David Brown with SNAP to speak on behalf of Bellevue.

David Coombs verified the sex crime to David Brown in an offical capacity, representing Steve Gaines and Bellevue.

There is no wiggle room left.

It this were a cour the following people might be called to testify to prove that Steve Gaines knew about the sex crime.

DAVID COOMBS
DAVID BROWN
THE ABUSER OFFICER WHO TOOK DAVID BROWN`S CALL
ACE - If they ever find out who he is
PAUL WILLIAMS
PAUL WILLIAMS` SON
MEMBERS OF PAUL WILLIAMS FAMILY
AND WHOEVER SuRFACES THAT KNEW OF THIS and HAD THE VICTIM`S NAME BEFORE IT BROKE.

Let it be clear that Steve Gaines did nothing about Paul Williams UNTIL he was contacted by DAVID BROWN and when he had DAVID COOMBS response on his behalf, DAVID COOMBS was less than honest.

Steve Gaines can not change the facts as much as he would like to!

3:53 PM, December 23, 2006


uturn said...
QUESTIONS:

Are Steve Gaines and his supporters looking for polical favors in order to clear up the Paul Williams incident?

What political figure would come to the aid of Bellevue if asked?

Can the DA be bought off by Steve Gaines through a polical connection?

Has Paul Williams been asked to sign an agreement with Bellevue which states that he can not share his personal history as a minister at Bellevue Baptist Church with anyone.

Has Paul Williams signed such an agreement?

Does Paul Willliams have evidence of improprieties within the leadership of Bellevue Baptist Church that would compromise the integrity of senior ministers and staff?

Is Steve Gaines making plans to offer Paul Williams a severence package?

Does Steve Gaines know who Paul Williams counseled with since the initial incident?

Why did Steve Gaines make such great efforts to close down an Alabama newspaper in his hometown for displaying ads that supported gay lifestyles but not immediately dismiss a known pedophile that was in his own church?

Who is paying for lefal cousel pertaining to the Paul Williams incident?

Who is the counsel?

Is Focus on the Family helping Steve Gaines with the Paul Williams incident and supporting Mike Spradlin`s call for Steve Gaines resination at the same time?

4:15 PM, December 23, 2006


BlessMeWithTheTruth said...
Reported by Ursula Madden
Gaines' decision to keep confidence could lead to criminal charges

Dec 22, 2006 09:24 PM CST


Gaines' decision could lead to criminal charges
Legal impact to Gaines decision

For six months, Pastor Steve Gaines had a secret.

"In June of this year, I had a confidential meeting," said Gaines.

By his own admission, Gaines knew another minister at the church had sexually abused a family member 17-years ago.

Keeping that confidence could lead to criminal charges against Gaines.

"Everyone has a duty to report. There are not exceptions, there are not exceptions for clergy or anyone else," said Assistant District Attorney, Kevin Rardin.

Rardin could not talk specifically about possible legal action against Gaines.

But, he says Tennessee law is clear when it comes to reporting sexual abuse against a child.

Rardin adds, "Failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect is a crime in and of itself.

Rardin says it doesn't matter how long ago that abuse happened, or if the child who was abused, is now an adult.

"Even though the child you mention may now be an adult, there may be other children at risk from the same person, the suspect, and that's why it's incumbent upon you to report it to the appropriate authorities."

Depending on how much Pastor Gaines knows about what he calls this minister's "past moral failure" could determine if he is in trouble with the law.

Children's advocates also say Tennessee law is clear.

"It is that every person is required to make a report to an agency like Department of Children's Services if they have reason to believe that someone may, a child may have been molested or abused," said Nancy Williams, with the Memphis Child Advocacy Center.

According to Bellevue Pastor Steve Gaines' own words, he didn't just have reason to believe it, he had a confession from one of his ministers, who admitted to molesting a child.

"No matter when it happened, it's got to be reported," said Susan Mackenzie, a Memphis attorney who has represented adult survivors of child sex abuse.

She says reporting abuse is important because it could encourage other victims to come forward and prevent additional crimes.

"Child sexual abuse is rarely an isolated incident if an adult has sexually abused one child the odds are there other children out there," she said.

Tennessee's reporting law applies to everyone. There are no exceptions.

"It is that responsibility that we all carry and if we fail in that responsibility there needs to be some consequences to us," Mackenzie explained.

And there are consequences. Not reporting child abuse is punishable by up to three months in jail and the possibility of a fine.

This was increased just last year by the Tennessee Legislature from a maximum of $50 to $2500.

4:25 PM, December 23, 2006


BlessMeWithTheTruth said...
Please notice that the article I just posted says

"Depending on how much Pastor Gaines knows about what he calls this minister's "past moral failure" could determine if he is in trouble with the law."

This is where Steve Gaines and his counselors are going to consentrate their efforts for now.

The less Steve Gaines admits to knowing the better off he is legally speaking, so watch carefully how this plays out.

I hope Steve Gaines will just be honest about all that he knew but if he isn`t, he better remember the winesses that can prove a lot of what he knew.

4:34 PM, December 23, 2006

Anonymous said...

Rod,

You might need to read my post again. I said ALL Deacons, when they signed up to be a Deacon, agreed to the very same things that made up the "pledge". To support and lift up the arms of the Pastor. The "pledge" was only reaffirming that. If any of the Deacons could not sign it, they should have resigned. They agreed to certain things when they became a Deacon as all Deacons do at all churches. This "pledge" was nothing crazy and nothing new. It was simply to show support for the Pastor. Very simple.

Anonymous said...

fedupatbbc said-

4545,

It is my understanding from Chuck's letter that he went to Dr. Gaines and discussed it with him.

REPLY- Yes, and that is what I said above. It was also a motion by a Deacon that was the reason Chuck Taylor took it to Dr. Gaines. Dr, Gaines did not call any shots regarding the "pledge" NONE.
He made no decisions. Chuck going to Dr. Gaines, had nothing with Chuck or Dr. Gaines. NONE!


Gaines was spending the integrity of Chuck Taylor, whether he realizes it or not.

REPLY- That is just not true.

Anonymous said...

Josh??

Anonymous said...

5454,

You are wrong in that the pledge Chuck Taylor wanted us to sign has nothing to do with what we agree to when we choose to be a deacon.

If they are the same, present both of them and we'll lay them out for everyone to see.

You need to stop deceiving people. This is getting us nowhere.

Anonymous said...

4545 also said,
Gaines was spending the integrity of Chuck Taylor, whether he realizes it or not.

REPLY- That is just not true.

At least you are correct on this one. Gaines can't spend the integrity of Chuck Taylor. Chuck Taylor spent all he had when he trespassed willingly along with Steve, Mark Doughtry, and John Caldwell.

Anonymous said...

4545 I think you might be surprised how many decons do not support the sg in the light of all that has occured and are afraid like everyone who doesn't agree with him to speak out for fear of reprisals.

Anonymous said...

It is so interesting that Dr. Spradlin, a man who has always conducted himself in a godly manner and above reproach would be called a liar! I personally am horrified at the the behavior of perdue. I would think he might stop and change his ways and thought when someone like Dr. Spradlin speaks up and take heed to what he said. Even Dr. Dobson supports Dr. Spradlin. How is it possible to be so blinded and also so cruel, perdue? And also so wrong.

WOUNDEDANDBLEEDING said...

Greetings to you in Jesus` holy name!

I just spoke to deacon David Perdue.

I asked him if he called Brother Mike Spradlin a liar.

He gave me a confident NO!

I asked him if he was trying to have Brother Mike Spradlin removed from his position at the seminary.

He said he would not comment on that and thought it was none my business.

I told him that we were concerned about the way the Paul Williams confession had been handled and he told me just to wait on the
investigation committee.

I ask him why does there need to be an investigation on a man who confessed that he abused his own child in a sexual manner and he said it`s been 17 years so what a few more weeks?

I told him that we felt he should have been dismissed immediately and that Pastor Rogers would have dismissed Paul Williams from his duties immediately and he said that was only my opinion.

I told him that I had heard Sister Joyce Rogers on the radio and that I was not stating my opinion but her facts.

He said we don`t have all the facts.

I said are you saying that Paul Williams has been dismissed?

He said he didn`t know.

I said didn`t Steve Gaines say that Paul Williams had been placed on leave with pay pending an investigation and he said just wait on the investigation committee to finish their work.

He said that I should wait on the investigation committee to bring out the facts because people who are currently giving their opinion about the Paul Williams confession may be surprized when they here the investigation committee`s final report.

He cautioned me several times to stay off the blog.

He told me several times that the blog was divisive and full of half truths.

I told him that I had heard half truths from the pulpit, hadn`t he?

He didn`t answer me.

I asked for his permission to bring this information to the blog and he agreed that I could.

I also wrote to Brother Mike Spradlin but I haven`t heard back from him as yet.

Brother Charles and I are only interested in the facts and we believe in going directly to the person directly involved when we hear anything that is this harmfil.

I hope this information is helpful in some way,

At the close of our conversation I encouraged him to stand behind Brother Mike Spradlin because he was doing his best to walk out the scriptures and that he was a man of honor.

He wished me a Merry Christmas and I him as well.

Under HIS wings and in HIS love,
Sister Pam

Anonymous said...

Rod- It is spelled Deacon and no, I would not be suprised, I know. But, I think you would be suprised how many do not stand up for what they believe in, no matter what it is. It is very very sad!

Custos said...

Contrary to popular belief, I do have a life outside of this craziness. Today I've been out enjoying Christmas--shopping, eating with dear friends, and laughing. Too few days like that lately.

Taylor's letter obviously indicates deference to Dr Gaines. Taylor apparently only moved after he had been released by Dr Gaines. The idea that a deacon proposed this of course sensable, since it's hard to imagine that Dr Gaines actually sits as a deacon. Motions generally don't technically come from non-members or the chair; however, as our legislative system demonstrates in abundance, those behind the scenes can easily have their work submitted through members of the body--a la lobbyists, interest groups, bureaucrats, and the Executive itself. The Executive. That's my point.

But that aside, I don't understand this thinking: X was purportedly the case under Dr Rogers, Josh did not say X had not been the case under Dr Rogers, Dr Rogers' relationship with X was obviously not germane at all to Josh's point since his point was based on the actions of the present administration not the mere existence of it, therefore Josh lied. This makes no sense at all.

Also difficult for me is the defense of the pledge juxtaposed against this: If Dr Rogers had such pledges, he never had them signed knowing that he was harboring a child molester, breaking the law, intimidating church ministers, etc. Said differently, I fail to see how appealing to Dr Rogers' actions legitimates the current administration's actions--he had nothing to hide, seemingly they have everything to hide. Perhaps things aren't as they seem; we can only hope so.

Further, somehow people are saying my expression of opinion was a lie or false. Again, definitionally, that's impossible.

But, again, here's the weird thing. I didn't lie, I've not withheld documents, I've not threatened staffers, I've not broken the law, and I didn't harbor a child rapist, yet I'm the one getting slammed by many.

This brings me to a question: Those of you who ardently support Dr Gaines, what action on his part would cause you to withdraw your support? Said another way: Is there a line that he could not cross in your eyes?

ezekiel said...

custos,

The path really is a narrow one. I don't find it too odd that there are few of us and many of them. Another standing O....What would it take?

If people are going to insist that their relationship with God has to be through a man then the name doesn't have to be SG. It could eventually be anything. It will eventually be the Anti-Christ.

All through the Bible, God is asking for a personal relationship with each of us. Israel did not want that personal relationship...They asked Moses to speak for them at the Mount...Then Joshua. Sin and disobedience began to creep in even then when they failed to drive out all the inhabitants before them. God quit fighting for them then, just as he has now.

I just started Judges. They had good judges and bad ones. Israel turned back to God with the good ones and turned away with the bad ones. They did the same thing with their kings later.

The answer to your question...Nothing will be across the line. As long as the masses don't have a personal relationship with God, they don't have the Holy Spirit writing His word on their hearts. Without that, they will follow man all the way to hell. It says that in Revelations....The book that preachers avoid. Israel (God's chosen people)did it and now a lot of people in the church are going to do it as well. They are judged in Rev 17. I won't be a part of that.

Anonymous said...

I will post this AGAIN, because I still have not gotten a reply etc.

Josh,

You and many others have shed FALSE light on the "pledge" from day one. Period. The "pledge" was nothing more than re-stating what ALL Deacons had already agreed to. It was ONLY to show love and support for the Pastor. That is all, period. there is nothing else to it.

Also, Dr, Gaines, had NOTHING to do with the motion/"pledge". Nothing. It was NOT his idea and again, he had nothing to do with it. There were several calls after you on the radio that gave the REAL facts about it and what happened.

It was the also a motion by a Deacon that was the reason Chuck Taylor took it to Dr. Gaines. Dr, Gaines did not call and shots regarding the "pledge" NONE.
He made no decisions.

How many times does the above REAL facts have to be stated?

The caller said there was no such "pledge" referring to how you described it. The caller was right. I had no problem with the actual "pledge" getting into Mike's hands. There was nothing wrong with it.

If a Deacon had an issue with the "pledge", they should have never signed on to be a Deacon. They agreed to the same at that time.

Custos said...

I replied two posts back.

Tim said...

4545,

I have personally spoken with several deacons at Bellevue and they are unaware of any pledge that they made at the time that they became active deacons.

Obviously, you speak of something that you know nothing about. Perhaps you should get your facts before you proceed in spreading rumors.

The pledge was wrong from the start. Dead wrong. Blatantly wrong. There is absolutely no Biblical support for such a show. I suppose if Chuck Taylor were have been able to get 100% support he would have proceeded. I wish that he had proceeded with the support that he did have for it as well as recognizing the support that he did not have. At least that would have been open and honest in the sight of all men. Instead he chose to publish a lie that the overwhelming support was such that it was unecessary. It is high time that our leadership quite playing politics and starts acting with integrity and transparency.

I would have hoped that Bryan Miller could have brought some of these changes about. Unfortunately he has already exhibited a huge lack of integrity in his announcement to the church on December 17 in which he failed to properly acknowledge the known fact that Dr. Rogers was not aware of the allegations against Paul Williams.

Anonymous said...

Josh- You call that a reply? Please try again. I went into great detail more than once and responded to your post in great detail.

You continue to make up things you think make sense to you and shed FALSE light about the "pledge", just like you have on other issues.

Dr. Gaines nor Chuck Taylor had anything to do with the "pledge" and or the motion to take it to Dr. Gaines.

You and others continue to mislead and give incorrect info. You did on the news, radio, and on here.

Custos said...

I don't think you understand that my response hit each of your points.

I wouldn't mind a response to the questions I posed to you.

Best,
Josh

Tim said...

4545,

Who do you purpose initiated the deacon pledge? Was it you? If not, then how do you know that Steve Gaines was not either directly or indirectly involved? If it was you, then who are you?

You would obviously like for those that read to believe that you have credible information, but have no evidence to back it up. The lack of evidence to back up what you are saying has been something that we have frowned upon on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Another observation...

In reading the account of the 16yr old girl leaving the service as Dr. Gaines received an ovation, I thought to myself how the girl would have been portrayed if her allegiance was reversed. What if she had been dining in a restaurant and there were some savingbellevue.com-ers discussing their disdain for SG and it upset her to the point that she had to direct her parents to leave (that in itself is amazing to me, I mean what 16yr old directs there parents to leave)?? Would she have been portrayed the same on this website? From what I have read, I feel like she would have been castigated further, while in reality she is made out to be courageous in this forum. Why is it that only negative things regarding SG is posted here? Is there no BALANCE?? While we are hearing calls for resignations, I believe it is time for Jim Haywood to resign and allow someone who is more objective to run the website. Let's see how much traction this receives...

Anonymous said...

bws- I agree with you totally. Why post such a "letter"? There was truly very little to it. Maybe the 16 year old girl should have stayed to actually hear what Dr. Gaines had to say. The standing o was not staged and shows that MANY at Bellevue and others are in behind Dr. Gaines. Dr. Gaines did NOT want the focus to be on him and let that be known.

Why post that letter? Why? There was nothing to it. There is NOTHING anyone can do if people are going to leave for crazy reasons like a standing o.




From her letter- When we finally got out of the sanctuary, An older couple was talking to a deacon. The man said,

"They have the wrong God".


Reply- WOW, you must be joking. There are many that in many ways worshiped Dr. Rogers and every word that came out of his mouth and everything he did. I am in no way bashing Dr. Rogers. I loved him as much as anyone. I think you will understand my point.


From her letter- I drove out of that lot and I plan to never look back, God is no longer in that building.


Reply- God IS working at Bellevue in HIS way in a mighty way. By the way, God is everywhere.

Anonymous said...

Tim- I will not post that info. With the vast resources you and Josh and others seem to have, you could find out if you really wanted to.

Anonymous said...

Quote: If a Deacon had an issue with the "pledge", they should have never signed on to be a Deacon. They agreed to the same at that time.>>

Folks, pledges, oaths of loyalty, etc., are not Biblical. We do not pledge our loyalty to men.

Matthew 5:34

If the pastor were wise in scripture, he would have refused to recognize any loyalty letter at all whether he had anything to do with it or not.

Follow Christ, not men

Anonymous said...

quote: "The standing o was not staged and shows that MANY at Bellevue and others are in behind Dr. Gaines."

Millions followed Hitler. Thousands follow Rick Warren. Numbers mean nothing in light of truth.

Matthew 7: 14For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

FEW.
.

Anonymous said...

esther- You continue to shed FALSE light on the "pledge". How sad. You are making up stuff and deceiving.

Anonymous said...

4545 wrote: "esther- You continue to shed FALSE light on the "pledge". How sad. You are making up stuff and deceiving."

I most certainly am not trying to deceive anyone. How am I shedding false light on the 'pledge'. I simply stated scripture in light of such a document.

To give you an example: Some churches have their members sign 'member convenants'. These are unscriptural. (Let your yes be yes..)

The same with any other type of pledge or oath. If we are followers of Christ, we should never sign anything such as this in a Spiritual context.

Perhaps I should ask you why it is thought such a thing is needed at all in way shape or form within the Body of Christ?

allofgrace said...

bws,
Jim Haywood doesn't run this blog, therefore he can't "resign" from running it. I'm sure you're welcome to post all the pro-Gaines things you want in order to bring balance.

allofgrace said...

4545,
If you won't bring forth the facts concerning the pledge, then how can you refute what anyone else is saying about it? Just saying that someone else is being deceptive, or shedding false light on it is not a refutation.

Anonymous said...

I have posted at least 2 posts with truth and facts about the "pledge".

Josh mislead at the very least on the news, radio, and on here.

allofgrace said...

4545,
We also have the testimony of a deacon..eleos..who says that he was never at any time asked to sign a pledge of any kind as a deacon. How do you account for that?

allofgrace said...

4545,
Wasn't it you who said that any deacons who didn't want to sign the loyalty pledge should never have become a deacon, since in order to be a deacon one has to sign or agree to a similar pledge...correct me if I'm misquoting you.

Anonymous said...

I said that Deacons agreed to the same things contained in the "pledge". I never said they signed anything or had to sign anything when becoming a Deacon.

Anonymous said...

Making something out of NOTHING. It was very simple. It was to show love and support for the Pastor. That's all. So many are reading into it and seeing what the WANT to see.

Tim said...

4545,

I beg to differ with you. The statement was political and in poor taste from the beginning. It was a poor idea and even more poorly executed. The fact that the support by the deacon body was not even close to being a majority should indicate that even most of our deacon body disagree with such politically motivated actions.