Friday, February 09, 2007

The Patient is in Critical Condition!


Please read the following direct quotes from the Investigative Team:

"One witness would not agree to be interviewed except in a group setting. Ultimately, the Team felt that asking the questions it wished to ask could not be done properly and confidentially in such a group setting, and therefore, the Team decided not to interview this individual. Although the individual was a significant witness, the Team felt that the information this witness might have offered basically was corroborative of what other witnesses had stated. The absence of this interview was not a problem for the investigation."


"The first to come forward with any concerns about Paul Williams being allowed to work on the staff at Bellevue Baptist Church was Paul's son and two of his son's friends who came to Pastor Gaines on December 7, 2006."

"Although there is no excuse, there is an explanation which leads to the recommendation noted above. The Pastor stated that he had never dealt with an incident of this type before. Further, there were no policies and procedures in place that he had been trained to follow. In the past, the circle of information on any problems of a sensitive nature in the church was kept very tight to protect the families of the individuals and to protect the church from embarrassment. There has been a feeling that policy and procedures of this type were more suitable for the world than for the church. This feeling is not only found in Bellevue Baptist Church, but also is prevalent across churches in general. The events relating to the Paul Williams issue have vividly brought to light the need for change."


ICU REPORT:

1. The unidentified "significant witness" mentioned was the most significant witness.

2. While the "group setting" mentioned would not have included legal counsel, it would have included all parties with firsthand information. This was to provide the church with information they needed before starting the "official" internal investigation. It would also have provided the opportunity to request that Steve Gaines make it clear in any subsequent public statement that the previous administration had no knowledge of the situation and to try to lessen the negative effect the announcement would have on the Williams family. This request was denied.

3. The unidentified "significant witness" would have offered information that was NOT corroborative of what other witnesses stated and would have changed the context of the committee's report. Significant information was provided in a meeting on January 11, 2007 which was not included in the report.

4. The December 7, 2006 date refers to the date of an actual meeting in which this issue was finally discussed, but the implication in the December 17th announcement to the congregation was that Steve Gaines was unaware until just a couple of weeks before that there were any "unresolved" issues remaining. In reality, this had been brought to Steve Gaines' attention several weeks prior to this meeting, as requests for a meeting had been made (and apparently denied) for some time prior to December 7th.

5. The "policies and procedures" as mandated by Scripture are sufficient to provide guidance to even the most inexperienced layman and should certainly have been sufficient for a Pastor with a Doctorate in Theology.

6. The "circle of information on any problems of a sensitive nature in the church" is apparently tighter now than it has ever been.

7. The idea that this tight circle was designed "to protect the families of the individuals and to protect the church from embarrassment" could not be a more inaccurate statement of fact. The clear intent has been to protect the administration and leadership.

8. The events that have "vividly brought to light the need for change" have to date produced absolutely no change and in fact continually magnify the resistance to any change relating to transparency.


--ICU Nurse

Thanks to "ICU Nurse" for these comments which inspired this topic idea. Some editing by NBBCOF.


Both reports are available here.

550 comments:

1 – 200 of 550   Newer›   Newest»
New BBC Open Forum said...

icu nurse wrote:

ICU DIAGNOISIS:

1. The entire body has been infected with the deadly SIN of INDIFFERENCE.

2. The entire body has been infected with the deadly SIN of TOLERANCE.

3. The patient has refused the medication of REPENTANCE.

4. The patient has refused the healing balm of SCRIPTURE.

5. The pulse has been weakened by the SIN of SECRECY.

6. The heart rate has been erratic because of the SIN of DECIET.

ICU ANALYSIS:

The patient is heading steadily toward a painful death. The patient has refused medication that has been proven exceedingly effective as treatment. The patient has relied instead upon counterfeit treatments that are unquestionably more deter mental to the overall health of the body. Further damage to the body can only be avoided thru the medication prescribed in Scripture.

socwork said...

Great post, ICU nurse.

The idea that this tight circle was designed "to protect the families of the individuals and to protect the church from embarrassment" could not be a more inaccurate statement of fact. The clear intent has been to protect the administration and leadership.

I know this point in particular is going to ruffle a lot of feathers, but this is such an important point, imo.

Great post - very clear.

Piglet said...

Excellent topic!

This is atleast the second time that a meeting did not take place because the administration did not want legal counsel/corroborating witnesses present. Talk about manipulating the facts! Are we really surprised?

WWJD said...

Can we say "misrepresentation of the facts" from the pulpit, yet again? Come on folks.......open your eyes and see that we have a bunch of politicians running our church!!!!!!!!!!

I say it's time to vote them out of office!

concernedSBCer said...

According to Websters:
Significant: important; of consequence (meaning 3)having a special, secret or disquised meaning

syn: momentous, weighty

If this witness was "significant" I would think an interview would be necessary no matter what.

Leadership is needed to fully address this situation and allow no questions to remain. jmho

Karen said...

Anybody see an ironic twist on the date Dr. Gaines met with PW's son and his friends - December 7th

"a date that will live in infamy"


karen

Tim said...

"The absence of this interview was not a problem for the investigation."

??? "Not a problem" ???

I suppose that it did make it much easier to present a report as fact when a large portion of evidence was not even reviewed. Truth has once again been tainted by a lop-sided version of facts.

Politicians take notice. The most effective means to avoid controversy is to be in control of the appointment of the investigative body, the scope of the investigation, and the content of the report. Wow! Hard to believe that we have had career politicians in Memphis for years upon years that can learn this simple lesson from a new comer.

Wisdom of the day:
“I now appoint the members to the committee that will investigate my activities and proceed to report according to my good will. Should I allow them to charge me with any wrong doing, I will assuredly suspend repercussions to the lightest penalty that I see fit.”

No, I suppose that it was not a problem. The problem would have been if they could not have concocted a rationale to avoid this interview and were forced to report considering the entire body of evidence.

No, Not a problem, indeed.

Finance Guy said...

Can you imagine our Pastor showing the same level of integrty as a Cartoon Network Executive?

LEFT BEHIND said...

I don't understand. Steve had no troble reacting when one of the paid orchestra was implicated in "fellowshipping" with a 18 year old in the orchestra!!

Carol T. said...

Has anyone seen anything about Jason Tallant leaving us at Bellevue? I understand he has accepted the call to be pastor at a church near Benton, AR. (Holland Chapel Baptist Church). Such a wonderful, dedicated man of God. He and his family will be sorely missed by us "elderly" folk.

Observer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Brown said...

My dearest brothers and sisters: I have been asked to address several comments referenced in ICU's Report.

I hope all will remember my comments following the release of the BBC IT Report. My primary comment was the report failed to create an environment that would make a victim to want to come forward. When I finish with this, you will understand more clearly.

Issue #1: This true. How important would it have been to speak to the victim and those intimately involved with him over the months PRECEEDING the June meeting with PW?

Issue #2: This is not correct. The "group meeting" would NOT have had legal counsel. This was never an option discussed. The meeting would have included "all" parties with first hand information; the victim, his wife, Dr. Gaines, Chairman of the newly formed Personnel Committee, PW and his wife, members of the IT and two friends of the victim. The purpose of the meeting (PRIOR TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE CHURCH BY DR. GAINES) was to give BBC factual information PRIOR to the start of the official investigation and to request that Dr. Gaines make it clear that the former administration had no knowledge. Further, the victim wanted to lessen the negative impact on his family from the announcement. This request was denied.

Issue #3: This is also true. There were wrong assumpptions and questions that needed to be cleared up prior to the announcement. It was made clear to the leadership of Bellevue that to continue to decline to include accurate information it could hurt several innocent people and create misperections that were unnecessary. And the very thing that BBC was warned about happened.

Issue #4: The December 7, 2006 date refers to the date of the actual meeting in which this issue was discussed. It is not correct to assume that this had not been brought to Dr. Gaines' attention many weeks prior to this meeting.

Issue #5: Contrary to what the report says or indicates there was a policy and procedure in place. In fact it was follow serveral years earlier with another staff member. This matter as of a different issue but it covered a serious moral failure.

As for the rest of the issues I will let them speak for themselves.

You must rememer this all started because a young man with great intergity had a question as to fitness of someone being in the minstry. Somehow we are here today and it is nowhere this dear victim ever wanted to be. There is a lot of blame to go around but NO WHERE should any of it ever be put on this young man.

This dear man is almost 30 years younger than me and yet he has taught this old man a lot. I am proud to know him and his friends. We could ALL learn from him. I hope as time goes on and if you ever encounter him, tell him how much you love him. He is a man of high principle and intergity.

I hope some of this is a little clearer. I think you can see that I was asked to share this. It is a shame that those in leadership of BBC did not work with this victim more closely. They could have learned from him. And we wouldn't have to have sat there on a Sunday night past and listen to comments about "uncharted waters" and "I have never encountered something like this before." If they had, I doubt we would be here today still taking about it.

I apologize for the length of this but it had to be said. I pray in your responses, you seek God's Will first by spending time in His Word and in prayer.

I love you all.

David Brown
SNAP coordinator of West Tennessee and Memphis

Trollcakes said...

Those with dominion over the signifiers may stage manage the debate.

When are the findings of non-internal investigations forthcoming?

Trollcakes said...

The report is a fine piece of sculpture and it writers' verbal trapeze artists.

Greetings, my friends, from the pureland. Do the 9 front singers always front the choir with mics?

New BBC Open Forum said...

observer,

Actually my mail hasn't been working this afternoon. But as for the blog dying, I would love nothing more than for there never to have been a need for the blog in the first place. I have much better things to do with my time! But I wouldn't pronounce it dead yet. Just stay tuned....

NBBCOF

socwork said...

So let me make sure I'm understanding completely...

The victim interview that was excluded because the administration did not agree to the terms of the meeting and then felt that excluding this victim would not compromise the investigation --- was the actual victim? Am I reading that correctly?

Piglet said...

David Brown

Thank you for clarifying.

The unaltered truth sure is hard to come by these days.

25+yrs@BBC said...

Yes you are reading it right socwork... It appears they interviewed most everyone--except for the most important one. And it appears that his account of things is different from the one given to the church. Unbelievable... but it seems that it is true.
D. Brown hints that he got this from the significant witness himself.

Family members of the "former administration"--let the reader understand--should be really upset about number 2 in my opinion.

This raises questions faster than I can type--actually faster than I want to type.

Let's pray for Bellevue and for the "significant witness." This was a collossal failure on the part of the Committee that may have far reaching consequences.
jmo

maybejustmaybe said...

I can't find the post now, but I asked this question (about the seeming implication that PW's son was not interviewed by the committee) either the night the report was made or the day after. I realize DB has confirmed that he has talked to this young man, but how long has this been "common knowledge" -- or has it ever been?

socwork said...

Thanks 25+. Perhaps I was "hoping against hope" that I was indeed misreading this info. Thanks for the confirmation that I wasn't.

This was a collossal failure on the part of the Committee that may have far reaching consequences.

You can say that again. My mind is reeling at the moment...

Unbelievable...

So if the key victim/witness was not even interviewed in this investigation, what was the investigation based on? (Rhetorical question...)

The investigation committee did not think the exclusion of this witness/interview would compromise/change the results of the investigation? Seriously? (More rhetorical questions...)

This one will take some time to process, for sure.

allofgrace said...

It would appear the political posturing by the administration has no bounds.

MOM4 said...

One thing I have noticed thru all of this is the fact that the Lord seems to be the one opening doors of information. No one here is knocking on doors for "dirt" on anyone, but the "dirt" keeps piling up - thru sins and errors of omission by the leadership. I think we have neither seen nor hear the worst of what is yet to come. The leadership just does not seem to understand that Proverbs 28:13 will not allow them to cover sin.

Proverbs 12:22 said...

David Brown,

About #5, are you referring to the past adultery allegations some of us remember or is there some other "serious moral failure" we never knew about?

Have we ever had an issue of child molesation before?

How was the past "serious moral failure" handled and who handled it? Was the staff member in question fired or is he still on staff today?

I apologize for all the questions. However, I feel it is important to understand what you meant by #5. I do not believe we have a history of ignoring serious moral failures. I hope I'm right about that.

Trollcakes said...

Men of God hiding behing legal jargon, perhaps?

imaresistor said...

And remember things like this. Just don't forget what brought all this about. There has been so much.

MOM4 said...

Proverbs,
There have been 2 "past moral failures" that I am aware of, one before my time at Bellevue, but I understand that it was a prominent member or staff member in adultery. He was brought before the church according to Matthew 18 by Dr Rogers and removed from the membership. The other was more recent and there are different versions as to the specifics charges, so I will not speculate on either. But, the policy and procedure handbook that was in place as far back as 9 years ago was used and the staff member was promptly fired. I have heard that Matthew 18 was followed in that case as well as the current P&P handbook (which is based on Matthew 18).
This is all I know that I am fairly sure of, I can say that others most assuredly know more than I and it will be revealed at some point, but I just wanted to give you what insight I had at this time so your question would not be left hanging with no reply. I am sure there is more to come....from others more knowledgeable than I - and probably some that aren't:(

gmommylv said...

About 8 years ago the head minister of the Biblical Guidance dept. (who was also doing divorce mediation for a fee under the umbrello of BBC) was found to be having an affair with the young attorney he had brought in to help with the legal aspects of this service. There was talk that he had also misappropriated funds but I don't know if that was true. On the night that he was to be brought in front of the church...he was a no show.I did see him from the choir a few times in the congregation..always yawning....but he was quickly removed from his position in the ministry. The attorney was a BBC member,married to another man,and in the SS class with my niece.Nothing was dragged out(as in the case of the child molestor) but I believe an attempt was made to restore him but he was not interested. There was a STAFF member not a minister that was removed from his position (for a sin I am not clear about) but he has most definitely repented...but at that time the priest scandle was raging so things were kept very low key but again dealt with quickly. The other situation I witnessed was with a deacon I think...possibly on staff as a minister...can't remember... and Bro. Rodgers brought him before the church and he was repentant and submissive to the process and at least a few years ago when my son was still playing ball,he and his wife and kids were still members. In fact his son ministered/mentored the son of the fallen minister of Biblical counceling. There has been a lot of education classes and support groups dealing with sexual abuse,sexual addiction and recovery at BBC. My knowledge of this education at BBC dates back to 1992 or 3.Not an unchartered area at all for BBC. As I have posted before,I told everyone I could how my question to PW who happened to be speaking at a Sat. event at the church resulted in the most repulsive sexual questions the worse part of your brain can think of. I could not get support except from a relative thru marriage to Bro. Rodgers who said I needed to go to Bro. Rodgers. At the time,after being blown off so many times by others ,I didn't have the guts to go to Bro. Rodgers. I have felt such guilt and shame that maybe if I had,at least PW may not have been able to injure and victimize the many people he has since my "INCIDENT".....Bro. Rodgers may have have been the one person that would have cared to listen to me and I am so sorry I didn't try. One more thing...the most recent deacon or board of directors that was put on suspension or removed from his position (???)was involved for the past 5 years in a moral failure.I was told that several members of the power brokers...self appointed elders...whatever they are.... knew for a peroid of time and did not plan to take any action until a certain long time leader...who also went to bat for MS....called for action.Don't know any more details than that.

Finance Guy said...

Memphis,
I got your email. I'm not sure if I will respond or not. I'm going to have to decide if you are sincere or just trying to trick me into revealing myself.
-FG

MOM4 said...

ICU nurse,
The patient has been dealt another death blow!!

Harry Smith and Charlie Brand have been newly appointed as directors on the BBC Board!
Thus inflicting more damage to the already infected body.

May God help Bellevue Baptist Church!

WWJD said...

MOM4 said...
Harry Smith and Charlie Brand have been newly appointed as directors on the BBC Board!
Thus inflicting more damage to the already infected body.

Did I miss a business meeting because they were supposed to be voted in those positions, right? Ummmmmm......Houston, we are still having problems!

allofgrace said...

Wow..comment moderation is off.

WWJD said...

AOG:

Yep, and it's kind of scary! LOL

socwork said...

Freeeeedoooommmmm...

Allow me to repeat myself this morning... this recent information is so disturbing.

Still reeling...

imaresistor said...

"appointed as directors"

So...who appointed them? This is a most important question.

imaresistor said...

"appointed as directors"

And WHEN were they appointed?

trucker said...

Will we see them appointing new members and unappointing old troublesome members

imaresistor said...

What gives these appointers the right? Do the bylaws give them this right?

allofgrace said...

That's crazy...even churches (reformed) who have lay elders..they're nominated and voted on by the congregation..some even impose term limits on them.

Lily said...

NBBCOF:
Found this article on integrity on the FBI website. Although not scriptually based, it certainly does provide excellent definitions.
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/july972.htm

Please forgive me as I am blog-challenged

allofgrace said...

lily,
actually I think there's a clinical name for that.."blog-deficit disorder" ;)

Piglet said...

When was our last business meeting of 2006? Anybody remember?

BBC Senior Citizen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Piglet said...

bbc senior citizen

Wise words. Is it any wonder that these rich mega pastors are trying to draw in a younger crowd and get rid of those "more seasoned"? Is it any wonder they want younger deacons that lack the discernment that comes from many years of walking with God?

Steve Gaines is on the throne of his life and the king of Bellevue. What will finally knock him off? And will he ever learn his lesson?

Lily said...

bbc senior citizen:
Excellent post - this certainly has been a long, hard test and I agree that it is far from the end.

Thanks to AOG for the proper name of (one) of my disorders.

Question: If the governing documents of BBC state that the Directors are to be elected by the congregation, just when did the last election occur?

Also, when requesting documents from the Church, was the request also made for any and all amendments to the Bylaws?

Piglet said...

lily said

Also, when requesting documents from the Church, was the request also made for any and all amendments to the Bylaws?

Piglet says:

No,not unless they were requested the first time around. These last letters did not request bylaws since we (supposedly) already have a copy.

The board of directors was contacted this week and informed that they are personally liable if BBC continues to ignore the statute and deny it's members the documents requested. Stay tuned for the next chapter in the story of the BBC outlaws.

BBC Senior Citizen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Memphis said...

FG, I have no intention of trying to learn your identity, for it is not important to me. It was a sincere email to you (which is why I emailed you and did not post it here on the blog) and if you wish to reply, please feel free to. If not, then that is fine as well. Thank you for letting me know you did get that email though.

socwork said...

Here's a little encouragement this afternoon...

Psalm 37.28, 30-31
28 For the LORD loves justice;
he will not forsake his saints.
They are preserved forever,
but the children of the wicked shall be cut off.

30 The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom,
and his tongue speaks justice.
31 The law of his God is in his heart;
his steps do not slip.

snowbird said...

Snowbird returns from out-of-state flight to the hinterlands -

Spoke to friends from Georgia, Arkansas, Minnesota, and Illinois - the Bellevue story was well known. Much prayer has been offered. And the chorus and disbelief was the same - how could BBC leadership allow a confessed child molester to remain on staff for seven months. Tragic as the sexual sin saga is, the real outrage by the outside observers is against senior leadership - both the senior pastor and other staff and lay leaders for allowing such a transgressor to remain. They were in utter disbelief.

And internally, in the Memphis area, BBC members galore - our business associates to deacon friends are leaving, other deacons still staying on but all of their friends have left BBC -- same story -- there is utter disgust about senior leadership's lack of action and integrity.

It seems the power block core leadership thinks this is going away because PW has been dealt with. They seem to be blind or deaf to the cries against dumb, unbiblical decisions and attitudes.

Of course, then there are the legal issues, noncompliance with state code, etc..... Will they ever learn? BBC Senior Citizen is on to something here - the lessons are obvious to everyone but the senior leadership core -- when will the blinders come off, and humility show up?

Snowbird returns to the roost to ponder . .

MOM4 said...

imaresistor said...
"appointed as directors"

So...who appointed them? This is a most important question.
11:50 AM, February 10, 2007

imaresistor said...
"appointed as directors"

And WHEN were they appointed?
11:51 AM, February 10, 2007

Ima,
This was an issue I addressed last fall. According to the 1929 unrevised by-laws, any board vacancies shall be filled by congretational vote at the last business meeting of the annual year, which would have been in December 2006. Prior to Dec 06, Don Ware requested a business meeting in writing and was blown off with a spiteful comment by Bruce Brooke. At the end of 2006 we only had one vacancy to be filled. With Bruce Brooke's untimely departure, there was now 2 vacant seats to fill. After the December 06 business meeting window passed, the by-laws state that any openings can be filled by appointment by the remaining members of the board, which is what they did. However, by refusing to allow the December business meeting required by our by-laws, legally they are in violation and the appointments may very well have to be overturned and the vacant positions filled by congregational vote at some point. These are matters that will more than likely require legal means to invoke our rights as provided by the State of TN and our by-laws unless the current board members have a change of heart and yield to God's law instead of their personal agendas.
I will note that in December 2006, there were many in the congregation that were ignorant of many of the questionable activities that have been occurring within the leadership. It is no longer that way as the Lord is opening doors of information in many areas of the church and her leadership.
We will need to pray and prepare for the time when the Lord shall open the door to unseat the Board of Directors and the congregation will be allowed to nominate and vote on our leadership according to God's mandate, not mans.

I may not have all of my facts straight as I am not a lawyer, but I can read and understand most of what I read. If I am in error, someone who has more information, please expound on this topic.

maybejustmaybe said...

I finally found what I was looking for on the previous threads. Please see below:

Anonymous said...
From the "report" ... in section III, under "Scope of Interviews," the individuals interviewed by the team are listed. The first listing is PW and "those family members who were directly and indirectly affected" by his actions.

Perhaps it's just me -- but if PW's victim was specifically interviewed, why didn't they list him separately? Are we sure he WAS interviewed? The caveat paragraph that follows, describing persons of interest who declined to talk to the team -- I assumed that to mean individuals who had no trust in the outcome of the investigation. But on reading today, I wondered if that could include PW's son.

It just seems to me, as central as he is to this entire story, he deserved to be treated as more than just someone who was "affected directly or indirectly" by the team.

Again, and I am sincere in this question, are we positive PW's son was interviewed by the investigative team?
9:18 PM, January 29, 2007

allofgrace said...
mjm,
I would suggest asking David Coombs.

9:28 PM, January 29, 2007
Anonymous said...
I thought the same thing MJM... If they haven't thoroughly interviewed him, there may be some real bombshells out there. Whoever it was, if they wanted witnesses, why weren't they allowed? This reminds me of what went on with Mark Sharpe's request for witnesses. I can't believe they reported before the DCS investigation is over. imo
9:28 PM, January 29, 2007

allofgrace said...
mjm,
We're holding the same report you are...the folks who investigated know all the answers.
9:35 PM, January 29, 2007

First, I will admit that I did not call anyone at the church and ask this question of them directly. But my question is, did anyone else? How and when was it discovered that PW's son was not interviewed by the Inv Team?

mjm

BBC Refugee said...

It is my understanding that Steve Tucker will continue to be the Chairman of the Missions Committee. They claim "he is the only one qualified". That has got to be a stick in the eye of many that have lead so many missions trips over the years.

These men sure do believe in recycling. They recycle themselves all over the church.

If it is true that Harry Smith and Charlie Brand have been "appointed" to the Board, who appointed them?

Just my opinion said...

Just for my understanding...why the concern for additional witnesses? The results would not have changed...PW was fired! The committee found the staff lacking in how this situation was handled.

It was not the committee's intent to determine anything other than PW employment status and who erred in the handling of the situation. End of story.

But for all you folks who love the gossip, suppositions, and have the like minds of those who buy the Enquirer Magazine, what's your point?

I personally find it distasteful that you guys just can't let go. I am certain that PW and his family would like to move on. And it's no longer our business but a family matter. Those who continue to dwell in this area are just gossiping. Pray for the family and their recovery but let it drop.

snowbird said...

As Mom4 mentioned above, the board itself may, according to the bylaws, appoint someone to fill an unexpired term. Presumbably, they would need to be elected in a regular election at the expiration of that term, which might be two or three years out.

The critical point being -- no meetings have been recently held at which time BBC membership has opportunity to vote for new or incumbent directors.

The apointment of directors by the board to fill unexpired term is authorized by the bylaws. The omission of business meetings to elect directors is not --- the ultimate stonewalling to preserve power.

MOM4 said...

bbc ref...
Please see my post at 4:40. The present board filled the vacant seats with these appointments.
I also heard about Steve Tucker being appointed to chair the Executive Missions Committee for the 10th+ year in a row. My understand of that particular committee is that they can fund anything and everything they want without ANY accountability. This is something that needs to be looked into by our deacons, especially the deacon officers. Steve Tucker and Harry Smith are long time business partners. Now Harry is seated on the board of power and Steve has the unappropriated funds (hundreds of thousands or more) that he can disperse at will.
The circle of power is indeed a vicious circle, one that has been intertwining BBC for years. This is not new to Steve Gaines, they just could not get away with being so bold with Dr Rogers. Now they are free to do their will without restraint. I would wonder how much that kind of power costs.

socwork said...

jmo,

Perhaps I can shed some light on why people are still interested. (If indeed you are really interested and not wanting to insult those who are still concerned?)

It is almost unfathomable that an investigation of someone who committed repeated acts of pedophilia against his son would have excluded the testimony of the victim. THE victim. THE key witness. Not interviewed.

At this point, the problem isn't even about this family... and please don't insinuate that those of us who are concerned are not praying for all of them. It's about a church and committee that while knowing the extra scrutiny they are under by not only church members but the world at large, would still come to a conclusion that this would be ok. Perhaps this too was unchartered waters for the committee?

(Hm... well, we've never done an investigation before. How would we know to interview the victim?)

jmo, I would love to dialogue about this and help people understand my own position better, but when you say things like "you people" who love "gossip" and have "like minds of those who buy the National Enquirer," it seems more like you are trying to insulting than having a civil discussion. I hope I'm wrong. JMO

Psalm 43:3 said...

mom4- Unless I misread the annual budget handout, the missions committee's annual budget is 5 million dollars, approximately 1/5 of the overall church budget.

alphasenior said...

Ima,
This was an issue I addressed last fall. According to the 1929 unrevised by-laws, any board vacancies shall be filled by congretational vote at the last business meeting of the annual year, which would have been in December 2006.


Please notice that the church operates on a fiscal year ending in March. For legal purposes, March 31st constitutes the deadline for any annual event the church may face.

Just my opinion said...

socwork, I am true to my attempt to dialog but I don't feel the need to retract any of my statements regarding many who participate on this blog. I am a senior adult and understand the difference between concerns and gossip.

First this was not a criminal investigation but one to determine two things: Employment of PW and who erred in the handling of the situation. All criminal concerns or DCS concerns are not within the scope of Bellevue so a victim statement (and you've assumed one was not made; not totally correct) was not necessary to come to the conclusion that the committee came to....fire PW.

Yes, the pastor and staff members were wrong in their handling but for those that want firings to take place....it won't happen. I've managed people for over 32 years of my life and I've certainly made some judgement mistakes. So my question to you is 'what do you want to happen?".

The consequences will remain and shadow Bro. Steve for years to come...but what more do you want? I suspect that many people (here I go again) will not be satisfied until Bro. Steve is gone. Well, the vast majority of the members are not wanting that to happen....and the majority wins in this decision. And please don't start attacking me with scriptures...I am certain that my knowledge is better than most who read this blog. And by the actions of many who post, following the scripture is not the goal so much as the following of one's feelings and emotions. And we know what Dr. Rogers said about that, don't we?

socwork said...

jmo said,

socwork, I am true to my attempt to dialog but I don't feel the need to retract any of my statements regarding many who participate on this blog. I am a senior adult and understand the difference between concerns and gossip.

I'm glad to hear that. I hope you understood my concern about your tone (it did not sound open... it sounded snarky).

First this was not a criminal investigation but one to determine two things: Employment of PW and who erred in the handling of the situation. All criminal concerns or DCS concerns are not within the scope of Bellevue so a victim statement (and you've assumed one was not made; not totally correct) was not necessary to come to the conclusion that the committee came to....fire PW.

You are right, it's not a criminal investigation. That is separate. That still doesn't negate the fact that the key victim's testimony of Paul Williams was not included. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about something I have assumed, so if you want to clarify, please do so.

Yes, the pastor and staff members were wrong in their handling but for those that want firings to take place....it won't happen. I've managed people for over 32 years of my life and I've certainly made some judgement mistakes. So my question to you is 'what do you want to happen?".

I want to see integrity in the leadership. I want to see repentance from those who claim to belong to the Lord. I want to see justice. We have all made errors in judgment. I would never argue that. But this seems to be much deeper than "mistakes."

The consequences will remain and shadow Bro. Steve for years to come...but what more do you want? I suspect that many people (here I go again) will not be satisfied until Bro. Steve is gone. Well, the vast majority of the members are not wanting that to happen....and the majority wins in this decision. And please don't start attacking me with scriptures...I am certain that my knowledge is better than most who read this blog. And by the actions of many who post, following the scripture is not the goal so much as the following of one's feelings and emotions. And we know what Dr. Rogers said about that, don't we?

No, I don't know what Dr. Rogers said about that. I do agree with you that many on this blog post out of emotion and feeling (it's hard not to). You mentioned the consequences that will haunt SG for years to come. What consequences are you referring to?

sheeplessatbbc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MOM4 said...

alphasenior,
This is what I was going by when I made the statement about the annual year. It is copied from the by-laws.


Section III. DIRECTORS. The directors of the corporation
shall be seven in number, shall serve for one year or until their
successors are duly elected and qualified and shall be elected by the members of said Bellevue Baptist Church at the last monthly business meeting prior to the end of each calendar year, beginning with the year 1929. Any vacancy in the Board of Directors shall be filled by the directors for the unexpired term. An annual meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held on the (same) day that the
congregation of said church holds its last business meeting of the year.

Special meetings of the Board may be held at any time or place Upon three days written notice, upon call of the President, or upon call of two-thirds of the members of the board; or such meeting may be held without notice, by unanimous consent, such consent to be expressed by written wavier of notice, or by attendance at such meeting.

Like I said, I am not a lawyer, I was going by what I read.
Thanks,
MOM4

MOM4 said...

alphasenior said...
"Please notice that the church operates on a fiscal year ending in March. For legal purposes, March 31st constitutes the deadline for any annual event the church may face."

So I wonder when the last business meeting is scheduled for this year?

alphasenior said...

MOM4 said...
alphasenior,
This is what I was going by when I made the statement about the annual year. It is copied from the by-laws.


I see what you see and you are certainly correct. It is not unusual for a corporation to change its fiscal year. Perhaps this was done sometime since 1929 and just not reflected in the by-laws. I feel sure the charter will show March. This is certainly an ambiguity that should be looked into should you have business before the church.

searchingfortruthatbbc said...

Hello everyone! I feel as if I know all of you. I have not posted before, but let me assure you that there are many of out here. Remember what they say(whoever THEY are), that for every letter a congressman gets, there are several hundred others who are like-minded. I have a question for all of you - how do all of you feel about having the Lord's Supper tomorrow night? I, for one, am terrified! With ministers, deacons and others who think so little of God's Word who will participate in this sacred supper without even thinking about what they are doing scares me. My heart is so grieved, I'm not sure that I can take it myself. Any ideas on how we can approach the THRONE ROOM of the LIVING GOD to remember HIS PRECIOUS SON and what HE did for us with such dirty hands and hearts?!?! I keep telling myself that God is in control(certainly!), and that our battle is NOT against flesh and blood, but I feel as if I am walking through mud. I can hardly enter the building without feeling oppressed. Help Lord!

MOM4 said...

alphasenior,
Thank you for your insight and I appreciate your correction.
At this point at our church, who knows when a business meeting will happen. It is a shame that the flagship of the SBC is being run more like a pirated ghost ship..

MOM4 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
noscales said...

How convenient, two SG followers are added to the Board Of Directors. These two men have displayed unwavering support for SG in the face of deceit, law breaking, disregarding scripture and bullying tactics. I guess that blind loyalty is a prerequisite to holding a significant power office at BBC. They will be voted on at the next business meeting. The entire group will be voted on, not just the new appointees. Does anyone find it interesting that Harry Smith was asked to leave a local board but can walk across the street and be appointed to the BBC board? With at least 15,000 active members at BBC why do we continue to see the same names appointed to these "power positions"? I would like to know what the litmus test to be appointed is, previous experience, good ole boy connection, influence in the community, or just total pastor loyalty.

New BBC Open Forum said...

noscales wrote:

"I would like to know what the litmus test to be appointed is, previous experience, good ole boy connection, influence in the community, or just total pastor loyalty."

E) All of the above.

Lily said...

Alphasenior stated:
Please notice that the church operates on a fiscal year ending in March. For legal purposes, March 31st constitutes the deadline for any annual event the church may face.

The original Charter (unlike those of today) did not identify the fiscal year end. The original bylaws did not reference fiscal year end. There are notations on the TN Sec of STate website that indicate the fiscal year closing month was changed. Unfortunately the TN Sec of State website does not readily provide this information as so many other states do, but instead rely on written request with $$ to get the information unless you go to the their office in Nashville and pull it up on film for review and copying. So what was the original fiscal date and when did it change?

Lily said...

While I am on the subject of corporate governance . . .
Hope Fpr Your Future, Inc. is an Alabama corporation whose registered agent is Steve Gaines with a Gardendale address. Hope For Your Future, Inc. has not (as of this date) filed a Certificate of Authority to do business in Tennessee.

Piglet said...

JMO said

The consequences will remain and shadow Bro. Steve for years to come...but what more do you want? I suspect that many people (here I go again) will not be satisfied until Bro. Steve is gone. Well, the vast majority of the members are not wanting that to happen....and the majority wins in this decision. And please don't start attacking me with scriptures...I am certain that my knowledge is better than most who read this blog. And by the actions of many who post, following the scripture is not the goal so much as the following of one's feelings and emotions. And we know what Dr. Rogers said about that, don't we?

Piglet says:

We have a pastor who has broken the law 4 times. His fan club wants to keep him. Now who is ignoring scripture and following emotions and feelings?

Give me a break!

Piglet said...

Mom4 said

So I wonder when the last business meeting is scheduled for this year?

Piglet says:

I was told sometime in March.

sheeplessatbbc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
25+yrs@BBC said...

Just my opinion wrote:

"And please don't start attacking me with scriptures...I am certain that my knowledge is better than most who read this blog."

25+ says:

My... aren't we humble.

The Committee's charge was to leave no stone unturned. Sure seems like Gibraltar was missed while they collected pebbles. Actually, it seems they couldn't see the stone for the rocks.

So far as your frustration with the blog.... Frankly the blog shouldn't exist... but when the leadership violates scripture that calls for the forum provided in Mt. 18, then they have left little option for any member to bring it before a church of 30,000.

Modern church leadership that fears a blog does so because they cannot afford the light of an open, fair, forum before the church illuminating sin.

Compounding this, BBC's leadership has broken the law by not providing a membership list within the statutory timeframe given. JMO, your condescension is evident to those who read this blog. God will eventually bring all of this to light.

Just my opinion...

sheeplessatbbc said...

Hello everyone. I've been reading your posts for several weeks now and have gained a lot of insight by visiting here. I'm sure there are many more like me that have never posted before but have certainly joined your army in their hearts. Thank you all for your fearlessness and for the stand you are taking for our church. Dr. Rogers always said "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything". Can't you just hear his voice when you read something you remember him saying. What a man of GOD, what a man of integrity! May GOD be with us all thru these troubling days and give us the courage to stay the course. By the way, I am pre-Adrian and feel blessed to have called him my pastor.

allofgrace said...

sheeplessatbbc,
Welcome to the ranks of the disenfranchised. Don't worry...we're not giving up unless and until the LORD makes it plain to do so. Blessings to you.

25+yrs@BBC said...

Church leadership that fears blogging should remember that the Word says "perfect love casts out fear." Love the sheep... all of the sheep--even the ones that are scattered--and feed them and care for them fairly and in truth. That is what the Chief Shepherd does. They are simply "under-shepherds." Love the sheep and follow the Bible and the baaaa, baaaaaad, bloooooogs will vanish.
jmo

Piglet said...

Hello, sheeplessatbbc and searchingfortruthatbbc. :)

It's always good to hear from another fellow warrior.

Feel free to share your thoughts with us anytime.

Just my opinion said...

25+, what you may see as condescending is disdain for the bloggers on here who search for vengeance. May I ask what did you want to see happen with the committee's report?

And please don't post the normal integrity stuff....I've known most of the men in leadership personally for many years. Their integrity was there during Dr. Rogers time and has been there since.

As for those who keep speaking of breaking the law....what about God's laws. I would suggest that more time be spent in study of God's Word prior to attacking a man of God and Christ's church. Some of you have appointed yourselves judge and jury but that is not where the Scripture places you.

sheeplessatbbc said...

Thanks Piglet, and thanks for helping me find the blog a couple of weeks ago when I lost it after it was removed from SavingBellevue. I was a lonely Sheep there for a while.

socwork said...

Love the sheep and follow the Bible and the baaaa, baaaaaad, bloooooogs will vanish.

25+yrs, this made me laugh. Thank you :)

just my opinion,

Who here is seeking vengeance? Clearly, that's the Lord's business.

Hebrews 10.30
For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."

Oh, and what were those consequences you alluded to earlier?

25+yrs@BBC said...

Just my opinion wrote:

"25+, what you may see as condescending is disdain for the bloggers on here who search for vengeance. May I ask what did you want to see happen with the committee's report?"

25+ says:

What I see as condescending is your condescension... and it will certainly not help things toward resolution.

So far as the report goes, it was represented as having left no stone unturned--but they didn't interview the VICTIM.

Inconvenient, bothersome, minor detail? Or major blunder? Right now the only ones who know are the victim and those closest to him with whom he has confided.

The report stated with certainty that it wasn't a problem for the inquiry. Don't tell me this is all about this or that... The leadership should have been concerned to find out if the victim knew of any other similar behavior--among other things.
jmo

gmommylv said...

So you do what you demand we not do..attack with scripture...but you know more...forgot..looks like you appointed yourself above the judge and jury you declared we were..relax,..you are in that majority...so our having open discussion that is not allowed in our chuch anymore shouldn't fire you up...take your own advise....

25+yrs@BBC said...

Just my Opinion wrote:

"Some of you have appointed yourselves judge and jury but that is not where the Scripture places you."

25+ says:

You come here judging the posters and then lecture the posters about judging others. Hmmm...

FYI the scripture says to bring it to the church. From the dream to financial concerns related to the former CFO's departure to other major concerns, this scriptural forum has been denied. Yes, the church should be allowed to hear BOTH sides. The call here is not for judgment but for the trial.

If not here, all of us will stand before the Bema. Truth does not fear light.

jmo

allofgrace said...

URGENT!! IMPORTANT VOCABULARY UPDATE:

accountability=vengeance

attack=quoting scripture related to accountability

gmommylv said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Finance Guy said...

Someone asked about the Lord's Supper tomorrow night.
How in the world can we as a church take the Lord's Supper with all this unresolved conflict is beyond me. I will probably be there tomorrow night, but will not participate in this ordinance. I think it would be borderline sinful to do so in this environment.
Just my opinion of course

Piglet said...

JMO said

As for those who keep speaking of breaking the law....what about God's laws. I would suggest that more time be spent in study of God's Word prior to attacking a man of God and Christ's church. Some of you have appointed yourselves judge and jury but that is not where the Scripture places you.

Piglet says:

You are presuming that we are not praying and in the word?

How much scripture reading and praying does it take to know that a preacher of God's word should ATLEAST set a godly example by obeying the law?

I guess it takes seven months of Bible study to know that a church should not have a pedophile on staff?

God will judge Steve Gaines.

But who is qualified to lead this church? Surely not him or those that approve of his actions.

I'm beginning to think SG was never spanked as a child.

sickofthelies said...

ar·ro·gance /ˈærəgəns/
–noun offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

Here's another word for which we have seen displayed here tonight.

socwork said...

accountability=vengeance

attack=quoting scripture related to accountability


Whew... I'm gonna need a dictionary soon.

imaresistor said...

rlpmMom4 said...
" It is a shame that the flagship of the SBC is being run more like a pirated ghost ship.."

Yes...mutiny.

25+yrs@BBC said...

socwork...

careful with the dictionary...

It's one thing to spew tea on the screen, but those dictionaries, well, they are not a monitor's best friend.

socwork said...

Hahaha, thanks for the tip!

sheeplessatbbc said...

Finance guy & searchingfortruthatbbc, you bring up some very valid considerations.
I'm asking simply for your input and that of others. It is "The Lord's Supper" and if we do not have unconfessed sin in our lives then we are worthy to take "The Lord's Supper. If we have hurt, disappointment and many other negative feelings toward BBC leadership, would that be considered unconfessed sin? Jesus said Father forgive them for they know not what they do..it seems this would not apply to leadership (for us to forgive them), for they do know what they are doing and are willingly continuing to hurt the body of Christ at BBC. Where does that really put us? I guess the phrase, if in doubt don't do it, applies here. Any thoughts from anyone on this?? Thanks

aslansown said...

The reason that the VICTOM needed to be interviewed is because HE was the one who brought this matter to the attention of the church leadership. He therefore becomes the FIRST one that the committee should have interviewed so as to assertain the legitemacy of the complaint. Also, his testimony is crucial in determining whether or not the leadership acted correctly regarding his complaint because only he and his two eyewitnesses can attest to Dr. Gaines original reaction and subsequent reaction, or rather lack thereof.

As for JMO,
The Pastor refused to follow scriptural mandate as outlined in Mt. 18 and Gal. 6 in this matter. At the heart of the matter regarding the firing is GROSS SIN on two counts. First is Pedophilia and second theft, the theft of our trust with lies. The leadership refused to refer to scripture (ITi.3) as the guidelines for worhtiness to continue to serve in an ordained position. Instead, the man was fired for not having removed himself from a position wherein he was councelling. These are Brian Miller's own words and reflected what was said in the report.
What frightens me is that it is apparent that the leadership of BBC sees SIN as only a mistake to be dealt with as though it were an accident, instead of seeing it as something akin to a staph infection that left untreated will grow it kills BBC.

alphasenior said...

From TN Sec St

Name I.D. Number
BELLEVUE BAPTIST CHURCH 0060669

Business Type*: CORPORATION
Profit/Nonprofit:
Status*: ACTIVE
Date of Formation/Qualification: 03/25/1929
Domestic/Foreign: DOMESTIC
Place of Incorporation/Organization: SHELBY
Duration: PERPETUAL
FYC(Fiscal Year Closing) Month: MARCH

Principal Office:
Address Line 1: 2000 APPLING ROAD
Address Line 2:
City: CORDOVA
State: TN
Zip: 380181210
Other than USA:

Registered Agent:
Name: NEELY,GREEN,FARGARSON & BROOKE
Address Line 1: 65 UNION AVE, 9TH FL
Address Line 2: COTTON EXCH. BLDG
City: MEMPHIS
State: TN
Zip: 381730543

sheeplessatbbc said...

Alphasenior,

Registered agent, is this?
1. Insurance or some other agency
2. Brooke, is this Bruce Brooke, BBC Board of Director

Thanks

New BBC Open Forum said...

sheepless,

1. Law firm
2. Yes

sheeplessatbbc said...

Has anyone checked to see what the the board of directors, that are meeting via e-mail/phone, are being paid per year? Corporate BOD's are paid a very hefty salary..just wondering what we are paying these guys for email/phone and there's "no additional business pending"!!
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!

alphasenior said...

A registered agent is an entity designated by a Corporation to accept official documents on behalf of the corporation. The registered agent must be a resident of the state of incorporation. In addition, the resident agent must maintain a physical address within that state and must be available to accept service of process on behalf of the corporation during standard business hours.

Just a suggestion but anyone serving legal notices, statatory demands or service of process from any legal proceedings should do so to the agent duly registered with the Secretary of State.

sheeplessatbbc said...

Going to count my Sheep now..nite all

25+yrs@BBC said...

FWIW I believe that BODs for churches normally serve voluntarily and not for any compensation.

Lily said...

Alphasenior,
Thanks for adding what I left out. The SOS info page does show the year end as March, but the original governing documents state December. So, some where along the way a decision was made to change to March. This would indicate there are amendments to the Bylaws. Amendments that have not been shared with the membership

ezekiel said...

1 Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.

11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

11:30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.


11:28 and 11:31 seem to be particularly important. The emphasis is on confession of sin and repentance from sin.

If you can examine yourself and find no unconfessed sin....and have repented of sin you have confessed......it looks as if the Lord's Supper would be safe to partake of....

Looks like there should be plenty of left overs....

sheeplessatbbc said...

Thanks Ezekiel, Good Scripture, that settles it, none for me tonite.

Trust in GOD, but lock your door..

allofgrace said...

ez,
Good to see you around again. Drop by the blog sometime.

searchingfortruthatbbc said...

Good morning all - I appreciate all of you who addressed my question about the Lord's Supper - it a major concern for me. Also, please be praying for our deacons who meet this afternoon. Some of these men desperately want to restore ingetrity to our church and others have their fingers in their ears and are singing LA LA LA LA LA. Please pray that the Lord will open the eyes of their understanding to the TRUTH. Please understand that I do not want to attack anyone, but we have certainly lost our direction. Praise the Lord, the ANCHOR holds, as Dale always reminds us! Have a great day!

New BBC Open Forum said...

Did anyone witness the "search and rescue" mission in the baptistry during the 9:30 service this morning? I trust the young victim was unharmed.

socwork said...

Did anyone witness the "search and rescue" mission in the baptistry during the 9:30 service this morning? I trust the young victim was unharmed.

Please, do tell. What happened?

New BBC Open Forum said...

Joe Jernigan was doing the honors, and the first candidate was a little girl whose chin was even with the water level. He baptized her, and she went up the steps to Joe's left. A little boy, no bigger than the girl, was next. Just as he started to baptize the boy, there was a splash off to the side, and Joe left the boy standing there alone up to his chin in the water and dived up the stairs to his left. Apparently the little girl had gotten to the top of the steps, slipped, and fell in! The camera next to the baptistry panned up to the side, but they were so far up you couldn't see either of them. Finally he came back and said something about, "Sorry for the search and rescue mission," and continued. In the meantime the boy had dunked his handkerchief, so Joe had to wring the water out of it. Then after he finished the fourth and last candidate, Joe walked back and forth several times and appeared to be looking for something on the floor of the baptistry. I kept waiting for him to spot whatever it was he was looking for and dive for it!

socwork said...

Oh my! You're a great storyteller by the way... I could totally see it happening. How funny!

Finance Guy said...

I appreciate the Scripture reminder from ezekiel.

Mrs. Finance Guy and myself had the "Lord's Supper" discussion on the way home today. She's of the opinion that it's a representation of our communion with God, and other people's relationships with God aren't a factor in your participation. I mostly agree with this, and I am not at the point where I believe the Lords Supper tonight is a sinful event.

Below are a couple of thoughts from a random pew filler.

1) It seems like the leadership would be sensitive to the fact that the current state of conflict might make many people uncomfortable with the Lord's Supper right now.

2) The attempts to ignore and suppress the conflict, instead of seeking Biblical resolution to the issues, make much of the Worship and Ordinances seem a bit ..'empty'.

3) The fact that the Pastor and his behavior is central to much of the uneasiness people have right now, his serving us the Lord's Supper seems kind of shallow.

4) In addition to being a Biblical Ordinance, it is also an act of Worship. (Done properly anyway). As I'm finding it harder and harder to worship in the current climate. As I believe that this is a Sacred event, I'm just going to make a personal decision that while I will be there (Hebrews 10:25) I will not participate in this ordinance.Having said that, I don't think it would be necessarily sinful for anyone else here to participate.

I may or may not be in the choir, so as to keep you detectives out there guessing!

bkjrm said...

Josh--

I just read the latest entry on your blogsite. Please post it here.

We are praying for you. Please know how grateful we are for your courage and strength. I know your efforts are not in vain. Many are questioning our leaders. More by the day.

There are many who are quietly digging in and will stand when the right time comes. When that is I do not know.

bepatient said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bepatient said...

The Financial Year month change was done in August of 1990.

gmommylv said...

If it is appropriate here on the blog,may I ask where and what Josh M is studying.My daughter thinks he is around 26.Is that correct? I am amazed at the wisdom and courage of this man. I would be the most proud mom in the world to have raised a son like Josh. I am still watching as some of my mature Christian friends say,well before I can think or do (take a stand),I need to know about....BUT yet they don't do their own research or digging or thinking. As our precious pastor taught us...if we don't take a stand we will fall for anything. Josh and the men willing to sign your names and risk so much....thank you. Men on the sidelines watching and waiting..or still in your prayer closet...what are you waiting for? Your sons are watching and learning how to be a man of conviction and courage from you. Please show them.

achristianbeliever said...

Don't know him personally, but J. Manning is a very courageous young man. All you have to do is google him ; ). The following is an article with a nice picture.

www.lyon.edu/webdata/groups/Public%20Relations/Manning-Harvard.htm

socwork said...

Someone mentioned a deacon's meeting this afternoon. Was this a regularly scheduled meeting or a specially called meeting? Anyone know anything about this?

Just my opinion said...

socwork, no need to speculate. There is always a deacon meeting prior to the Lord's supper. It allows for a time of prayer and preparation to serve the members this evening.

Some of you may not be aware but unless things have changed there is a committee of people who spend their Sunday afternoon preparing the unleavened bread and juice for tonight. Having served in that capacity for a few years I can attest to the time and effort that are done behind the scenes.

socwork said...

Speculate? It was a simple question. That's it.

Be careful when you speculate about my intentions. ;)

Observer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
socwork said...

How was church this evening? (Re: the discussion about the Lord's Supper tonight... not speculating, just asking)

StoneThrower said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
StoneThrower said...

How was church?

Wonderful.

Mrs. Rogers was there with the young people from her chidren's new member class who were receiving their first Lord's Supper.

All the music focused on the blood of Christ.

The sermon was a good one, on the prayer life of Jesus.

As much as I like to throw stones, I couldn't find a reason last night.

socwork said...

Thanks stonethrower.

I was starting to think I had missed the nobody-post-on-the-blog-under-any-circumstances memo.

:)

New BBC Open Forum said...

I just received an e-mail from David Brown. He's been feeling very dizzy for a couple of days and will see the doctor this afternoon. Please remember David in prayer that everything will be okay.

StoneThrower said...

Lack of posting?

Probably because Jim Haywood is calling us a bunch of gossipers.

If we are gossiping, then he is doing so too.

Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Finance Guy said...

observer,
you misunderstood. Choir membership does not require (yet) 100% participation. Often, (a lot more lately)for different reasons, current choir members sit out in the congregation instead of singing in a particular service. I was just pointing out that I may or may not participate in the choir.
Hope you aren't sad that you didn't catch me in a lie!

MOM4 said...

Actually, Haywood is "controling" the events thru his website. I guess he does not want input from others, he does his own thing and we are not worthy of his website. I know that he has not responded to my emails.
The IDC and this blog are out to bring accountability and integrity to the forefront, not to bring anyone down (they may fall from their own actions, but not from anything negative we do). I guess he does not agree. Oh well, the Lord knows.
We have been very busy lately, plus, the postings are having to be monitored because of the you-know-who's and that discourages folks.

InformedatBBC said...

David Coombs upcoming ordination

Folks, there is new evidence of his heavy-handed style (sorry cannot give details on this without exposing someone), he has been on staff at Bellevue for less than 8 weeks, he's never served on any other church staff before and there has been no "proving period" to show he is worthy of ordination.

How can our church leadership see fit to ordain David Coombs at this time? What if anything can be done to stop it?

I believe this is a critical event in our church right now that must be postponed / stopped.

nbtt said...

InformedatBBC said...
David Coombs upcoming ordination

Folks, there is new evidence of his heavy-handed style (sorry cannot give details on this without exposing someone), he has been on staff at Bellevue for less than 8 weeks, he's never served on any other church staff before and there has been no "proving period" to show he is worthy of ordination.

How can our church leadership see fit to ordain David Coombs at this time? What if anything can be done to stop it?

I believe this is a critical event in our church right now that must be postponed / stopped.

It appears to me that there is nothing that the leadership will not do with no regard for what the Bible says or what the law says.

They seem to care nothing for what the memberships wants or thinks. They want their way and are willing to stop at almost nothing to accomplish their agenda.

Nobody could have convinced me a year ago that we could have sunk so low. I guess I was just living in my make believe world from outer space. IMHO

MOM4 said...

Is this not how Mark Dougharty got "ordained". That was a joke as well.

LibertyInChrist said...

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE DOES NOT COVER CHILD MOLESTATION

I was trying to get some information from an insurance company. We were inquiring for a music school who already liability insurance which we they do have. But there are two kinds General Liability and Professional Liability (Workmen's Comp is separate). General Liability basically covers you for such things as if a student gets injured while on your premises or off premises if you do a concert in another location. Professional is much more expensive and covers teachers and counselors from malpractice type of counseling or advice that causes them harm, etc. The church will have this to cover pastors in case of a civil law suit. But here is the catch. Professional Liability insurance WILL NOT COVER COVER YOU IF A CRIME WAS COMMITTED LIKE CHILD MOLESTATION via one of their employees...such as pastor Paul Williams who was on staff at the time. So this exposes BBC to be wide open for a law suit (Paul Williams) without any insulation because their insurance will not cover them. In the case of a big financial settlement, this would force BBC to liquidate major assets, as is already happening in diocese after diocese in the Roman Catholic Church. No wonder Gaines and his collaborators are circling the wagons! And note further that even for what coverage the insurance does provide, it protects BBC leaders and Steve Gaines...but where is the insurance that protects the members and victims?

ilovebbc said...

Bob Sorrell and Mark Dougharty both became our Associate Pastor straight from the business world under Dr. Rogers and neither had previously served on a church staff. Why did nobody complain then? If it wasn't wrong under Dr. Rogers, why is it wrong now?

MOM4 said...

As far as I remembered, Bob Sorrell was the only one who proclaimed to be called by God.

ilovebbc said...

Mom 4,

If Dr. Rogers didn't think it was God's calling that Mark become our Associate Pastor, do you think Dr. Rogers would have allowed it to happen?

nbtt said...

ilovebbc said...
Bob Sorrell and Mark Dougharty both became our Associate Pastor straight from the business world under Dr. Rogers and neither had previously served on a church staff. Why did nobody complain then? If it wasn't wrong under Dr. Rogers, why is it wrong now?

1:20 PM, February 12, 2007

I can't speak for anyone else but I beliieve that the matter of integrity never came up until just over a year ago. Since we have been stonewalled so many times it just makes us question anything and everything that does not follow the usual path.

It is not my nature to be so untrusting. I don't like where I am in all this because I like to think the best of people until they prove that they cannot be trusted.

ilovebbc said...

I must confess that personally I would like it it everyone on any church staff was required to have a seminary degree. To me it seems like that would better equip them for whatever position in the church they might hold. However, that doesn't seem to be the way it's ever been at Bellevue and many, if not most, other churches.

Observer said...

ilovebbc,

Phil Newberry doesn't have a seminary degree but he is a great minister.

If you want Bellevue to require that ministers have seminary degrees that would go against scripture, adding to what qualifies a minister.

There are plenty of people without a degree that are more qualified that those with degrees.

Observer said...

Did anybody else notice that NASS turned comment moderation off because she is desperate for this blog to get more posts?

NASS, your blog is dying.

allofgrace said...

I don't think anyone should carry the title or position of "minister" or "pastor" unless they've been ordained..preferably seminary-trained. jmo

allofgrace said...

I'm sure NASS isn't too concerned about whether this blog lives or dies. I wouldn't presume that if this blog dies, the issues or the people raising them will go away. jmo

Observer said...

allofgrace,

if she wasn't concerned with whether it lives or not, then why did she take moderation off once the posting started to slow down?

MOM4 said...

observer said...
"There are plenty of people without a degree that are more qualified that those with degrees."

Thou sayest...

We have a pastor with a Doctorate that is ill equiped.

ilovebbc said...

Observer, I know you are absolutely correct. I didn't say I necessarily want a seminary degree to be a requirement. I've just never fully understood why it's not. I certainly know God's calling is far more important than any diploma.

concernedSBCer said...

At my church, all the ministers are seminary trained, even the music minister. I think it is somewhat of a safeguard to have seminary trained ministers: the commitment to serve was made by that person in a tangible way by gaining the education. I do think non-seminary personnel can do a great job, but it does seem to add credibility to have that seminary degree. Sometimes it seems to me like people look at a mega, or a church, and say, “That looks like a great place to work." It is a job rather than a ministry.

Observer said...

mom4.

Dr. Rogers knew that Dr. Gaines was the man for Bellevue and supported him fully. Dr. Rogers would be ashamed of you.

socwork said...

Did anybody else notice that NASS turned comment moderation off because she is desperate for this blog to get more posts?

Now that's an assumption if I've ever heard one...

allofgrace said...

Perhaps she didn't want the hassle of comment moderation?...or perhaps the folks who were the cause of comment moderation in the first place decided to play elsewhere?...but don't let me rob you of any pleasure you might derive from thinking otherwise...it's all jmo.

concernedSBCer said...

observer, that has been debated ……

MOM4 said...

Observer said...
mom4.

Dr. Rogers knew that Dr. Gaines was the man for Bellevue and supported him fully. Dr. Rogers would be ashamed of you.

2:12 PM, February 12, 2007

Sorry to burst your bubble, this is not the case.
2006 Hulah has even posted a letter here from Dr Rogers that states just the opposite of your statement. (I have seen the original - on BBC letterhead with his original signature)

InformedatBBC said...

All of you are missing the point - this isn't about Mark Daugherty (who at least was on staff for a while) or Bob Sorrell - it's about what is going on today with David Coombs.

Again - anyone have any ideas about what to do? I am not knowledgeable about the ordination process or who decides when someone should be ordained.

Observer said...

concernedSBCer ,

what has been debated?

socwork said...

Just like seminary doesn't qualify a person for ministry, being a business person doesn't disqualify a person for ministry.

jmo

concernedSBCer said...

socwork
and you know what they say about assuming......

Observer said...

MOM4,

then why did Dr. Rogers wash Dr. Gaines feet? Why did he always support him front the pulpit? Was he lying?

I want to see this letter, how can I get a copy?

socwork said...

Perhaps comment moderation was turned on because of certain nameless posters spamming the blog...

concernedSBCer said...

observer,
whether that opinion changed......

Observer said...

concernedSBCer,

a lot of things can be debated, that doesn't make them true. I have not seen any proof for the statements that have been made.

Show me proof and I will believe you.

socwork said...

and you know what they say about assuming......

Hahaha, I was actually going to say that and thought, "Nah..."

You are right though :)

softballguy44 said...

Would that mean you would prefer the administrative assistants to have a seminary degree?
While I can see the need for the pastoral staff to have a seminary degree, I think that there are numerous people that can fulfill a position on a church staff doing what God has called them to do without attending seminary.
There are times that seminary gets in the way of true meeting of the needs.
I've served on a church staff for 10 years and feel that I am doing what God has called me to do and I don't think that our ministry has suffered from it.
JMO

concernedSBCer said...

observer, I know proof but it is not in writing. It's good enough for me. I know what I know.

Many things are not proven "in writing" but they are true just the same.

Observer said...

concernedSBCer,

what is the "proof" you know?

concernedSBCer said...

softball guy...I agree. I do think it's good (on many levels) for pastors/ministers to have seminary degrees but I do not believe it is necessary for administrative assistants/support staff to have seminary degrees.

nbtt said...

InformedatBBC said...
All of you are missing the point - this isn't about Mark Daugherty (who at least was on staff for a while) or Bob Sorrell - it's about what is going on today with David Coombs.

Again - anyone have any ideas about what to do? I am not knowledgeable about the ordination process or who decides when someone should be ordained.

2:16 PM, February 12, 2007

In my opinion it would take someone with irrefuteable facts to come forward and share them with the membership outlining why he is not qualified. If we have no facts to present I don't think there is anything that can be done.

MOM4 said...

observer said...
"then why did Dr. Rogers wash Dr. Gaines feet? Why did he always support him front the pulpit? Was he lying?"

Dr Rogers did not lie - ever.

The washing of the feet is a symbol of humility that Dr Rogers was TRYING to bestow on Steve Gaines. He knew he was arrogant and needed a lesson or two.
The passing of the mantle is a symbol of the servant leader's responsibility. This is a scriptural lesson identifying him with the great responsibility that has been laid on his shoulders.
Neither of these lessons were received by Steve Gaines. Dr Rogers was a wise man, but WE voted Steve Gaines in based on the search committee's recommendations.
You will need to look back a thread or two to read the letter. Or you may email her if you wish. NASS may have her email address if it is not on her profile. She may be willing to let you see the original, but believe me, what is on the blog is what is on the letter - she doesn't lie either.

allofgrace said...

Personally, no one's endorsement of a leader or lack thereof forms my own opinion about them...and that would include Dr. Rogers...I'm quite capable of coming to those conclusions for myself.

concernedSBCer said...

observer- Dr. Rogers' opinion was spoken to a family member.

Observer said...

Mom4,

Dr. Rogers never lied?

Dr. Rogers had lied and he would have been the first one to tell you that. Stop putting Dr. Rogers on the same level as God. He was a fallible human being just like you and me.

I hate to break it to everybody but Dr. Rogers sinned and was worthy of hell

Observer said...

concernedSBCer,

which family member? How do you know?

concernedSBCer said...

observer, that is all I'm going to say. I will not get into this discussion with you because it will never be enough for you.

All of this is irrelevant; what is important is what is BBC going to do now? There is a man in the pulpit that has at the very least shown poor judgment in extremely important issues, and at the very worse, broken the law several times. What needs to be done to restore BBC to a scripturally obedient church?

MOM4 said...

observer said...

"Dr. Rogers had lied and he would have been the first one to tell you that. Stop putting Dr. Rogers on the same level as God. He was a fallible human being just like you and me."

WHAT did Dr Rogers lie about?

He was the first to say that he was a sinner just like you and me, so don't play these games. No one is placing him on the same level as God or a person worthy of worship, but he IS worthy of our respect - he has earned it.

Shame on you!

Observer said...

Mom4,

you think that Dr. Rogers never lied? You are very foolish if you think that.

I never said anything disrespectful against Dr. Rogers. I only said the truth.

You, on the other hand, have been very disrespectful towards Dr. Gaines and his family. Shame on you!

concernedSBCer,

you won't say any more because you don't know anything.

socwork said...

For crying out loud... just because people don't share all they know on this blog, does not mean they don't know something.

It's like an infant who thinks that because the ball is hidden behind a barrier means the ball is gone. (And, no, I'm not calling anyone an infant. I'm just trying to illustrate a point).

concernedSBCer said...

observer, I know; I'm sorry you don't.

However, I repeat....
All of this is irrelevant; what is important is what is BBC going to do now? There is a man in the pulpit that has at the very least shown poor judgment in extremely important issues, and at the very worse, broken the law several times. What needs to be done to restore BBC to a scripturally obedient church?

concernedSBCer said...

good point socwork.

I believe I might have heard that "tone" before.......

MOM4 said...

observer,
I am not going to get into an argument with you. I was trying to explain something and you are going off on people. Step back and read what you have written. The very same things you are accusing us of, you are doing. You are disrespecting a dead man who is not here to defend himself and you accuse me of disrespecting a man who has admitted that he broke the law - there is no disrespect here - just telling the truth. AND how do you know that someone in Dr Rogers' family is not posting on here and most definitely has heard the very words you have accused them of lying about.
Open your heart and ask the Lord to remove the scales from your eyes dear one.

concernedSBCer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MOM4 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
concernedSBCer said...

mom4- good post. thanks.

MOM4 said...

Concerned..
Just calling it as I see it....based on facts.
Thanks!

allofgrace said...

Although there are things which are known but not shared on this blog...there are certainly enough verifiable facts to form a solid opinion on the issues at BBC.

concernedSBCer said...

AOG...if one is willing to look, listen, and pay attention.

socwork said...

Good point, aog.

LEFT BEHIND said...

If you look into it , I think you will find the ordination process gives certain " perks" to the person who is " pastorized" . Insurance , retirement, housing allowances, household items allowance, etc. They become a part of the "corporate team" with the fringes that go along.

sickofthelies said...

observer said:

NASS, your blog is dying.


SOTL says:

Observer THAT is a joke!!! As long as SG and co. are running the show at BBC, there will be plenty of need for this blog, sadly. No one here wishes that we had to have a blog. But when we are stonewalled by the leadership, and THEY refuse to follow Matthew 18, the need for this blog will remain.

Unless SG and co. have decided to ' come clean' don't EVEN think this blog is going away.

Stay Tuned.

Esther said...

Observer, Just a few things about blogs. Most blogs would flip out if they got 50 comments in one day. And those are blogs that do not focus on one situation/event for readership.

The fact that comment moderation was taken off and there are 186 comments on this thread alone is quite incredible in blogworldness.

NASS has her stat counter on the front page at the bottom. The fact that this blog is so young and has had that many visitors is quite incredible in blogdom.

And think of this: NASS does not have to allow you to comment but does anyway! So, say thanks.

At least NASS is more loving and open to disagreement than your Steve Gaines.

sickofthelies said...

Observer,

I, too, have spoken with several VERY close friends of the Roger's, and it is common knowledge that Dr. R. went to SG and told him that he needed to resign.

You don't need to believe us. We KNOW it happened. And God knows.

socwork said...

esther makes an excellent point...

This is by far the most active blog I have ever seen... most blogs don't even get 10 comments on a post.

sickofthelies said...

concernedsbcr said:

I believe I might have heard that "tone" before.......

SOTL says:

yep, sounds like someone we all know and love :)

sickofthelies said...

concerned,

Starts with a 4 and ends with a 5?

ilovebbc said...

Sickof the lies,
I'm not doubting anything you say. I just can't recall what happened between 9/11/05 (Bro Steve's 1st Sunday) and 11/15/05 (Dr. Roger's death) to cause Dr. Rogers to make such a request.

Esther said...

The ordination of this man is new to me. Many megas hire businessmen and women to run things because they are totally committed to GCM principles but very few are ordained.

And to this business about Dr Rogers choosing Steve Gaines. People need to get over this. This has nothing to do with the situation. In one former mega, the very respected senior minister had them hire a young man whose father he had known for years. This young man grew a church (notice he gets the credit) of 3000 by age 26. He was brought on staff and all was well for the first year. After that, very questionable things started coming up and needless to say, the pastor was regretting his choice but did nothing about it and could do nothing aobut it becasue he was retiring. But he did not even say anything and it was obvious to many. Same thing with passing the mantle, washing feet, etc.

This happens more than people think. The protege' almost always wants to surpass the teacher and it is not pretty when they do.

allofgrace said...

As one who has 2 blogs of my own I can tell you that even 30-50 visits a day is pretty high in itself...if someone comments once or twice a week..that's pretty good. Mine only averages about 28 visits a day. The most comments on one thread...102..over a long period of time.

sickofthelies said...

I love bbc said:

Sickof the lies,
I'm not doubting anything you say. I just can't recall what happened between 9/11/05 (Bro Steve's 1st Sunday) and 11/15/05 (Dr. Roger's death) to cause Dr. Rogers to make such a request.


Well, let me help you out:

Could it be sg's attitude when he came in of ' tearing up, pulling up, and overthrowing"? ( SG's words, not mine)

Could it be his DEPLORABLE treatment of Jim Whitmire?

Could it be the fact that he had the locks changed on the pastor's office so that Dr. R. could no longer use the office he had occupied for 32 years??????

There had to be SOME reason that DR. R. referred to SG as " bozo".

Do you not find it interesting that Janice Rogers is at GBC? If she felt that her father supported SG, she would be there.

Mrs. R. is biding her time. She is a strong lady, but let me assure you that she has no use for SG.

concernedSBCer said...

This blog is hugely busy because we are dealing with items of eternal significance. NASS does a great job moderating; she had to put moderation on because of a wanna-be.......now it's off. Whether on or off, we care about what is happening. And just because you don't see something on the blog doesn't mean things aren't moving behind the scenes.

concernedSBCer said...

AOG...not to say your blog isn't of eternal significance! I really enjoy your blog!

aslansown said...

For those that are concerned about the number of posts, consider the fact that things have settled down to discussing that which is most important, i.e. keeping the main thing the main thing.

Bellevue stands at the rim of a spiritual Grand Canyon and it looks as though we are about to fall into the abyss or possibly to be pushed in.

Things are happening in the background and there is yet hope that we will not see the fracture of our fellowship grow into a complete split.

The question that keeps coming up is two-fold.
1. What is the exact nature of our problem?
2. What can be done to bring about the healing?

With these questions comes the obvious, that we should be asking God for a wisdom of such a degree that we have never seen before. For all concerned. Along with this wisdom we need a humility that allows us to see things from God's perspective and a willingness to follow His direction wherever it takes us.

I ask this daily for myself and my family as well as our leadership.

Piglet said...

concernedsbcer said

And just because you don't see something on the blog doesn't mean things aren't moving behind the scenes.

Piglet says:

Hi SOTL, Mom4, and Concerned!

There ARE things going on that I am aware of and probably many that I am not. Keep praying - God is doing a work at BBC.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 550   Newer› Newest»