Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Patient Still Needs Attention

Please continue your previous discussions here.

196 comments:

concernedSBCer said...

I'll start it off.....How will the Hannaford letter impact the deacons?

socwork said...

Well, I sure hope a lot of deacon's eyes are opened. I'm sure there will be some who will try to deny the contents of the letter by attempting to discredit the writer of the letter, but I hope that the letter will sober some people up who have been crying "let's just forgive and move on."

allofgrace said...

I missed that letter...can anyone fill me in?...you can email me if it's more appropriate. Thanks.

bmcgo3 said...

I have been praying for your church. God has a plan and he will direct your path.

concernedSBCer said...

AOG, You've got mail. :)

concernedSBCer said...

I think it would difficult to discredit him. From everyone I have heard from, he has impeccable credentials.

aslansown said...

The deacons allhave to see the letter before they can have any reaction to it. At this time there have only ben a few who even know about it.

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

oh, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the info.

KellyS said...

mom4 said: A kind soul found the Dr Rogers sermon I am talking about. It is “Snake Eggs, Spider Webs and Traffic Jams” preached 8-7-88.

If anyone has a copy or access to one, please let me know!

Thank you Kind Soul! I appreciate your efforts!


You can order this sermon by calling LWF at 1-800-274-5683. Item#1355. Available on cd or cassette-price $6. Not available to order online.

sheeplessatbbc said...

aslansown said...
The deacons allhave to see the letter before they can have any reaction to it. At this time there have only ben a few who even know about it.

3:00 PM, February 14, 2007

aslansown, do you know if All of the deacon officers have seen it?

Finance Guy said...

It's easy to discredit him. When "They" can discredit Joyce Rogers and Jim Whitmire, they can discredit anyone. "He just wants to bring down the Pastor". It's that simple. Or they can start something about how he's just taking up a patient's offense or something. Who knows what in what form the slander attack on his character will take place, but it will. That has been the MO of the "Elders-that-we-dont-have" every-time someone raises their hand and questions something. As sure as night follows day Mr. Hannaford is now on the "enemies" list at Bellevue. And they want us to believe they "love" us, the sheep. Get real. Your actions are speaking so loud I can't hear a word you're saying Mr. Coombs, Mr. Gaines, Mr. Smith and Mr. Purdue.
If I had a million dollars and slavishly followed whatever you dished out, I'm sure you would love me.
-FG, who knows he sounds a bit bitter. He'll get over it....eventually

MOM4 said...

The contents of the letter in question have all ready been expressed in other threads under different circumstances but the jest of it is that the leadership failed to interview the victim in their investigation. We need to drop it unless the good doctor sees fit to release it himself.

MOM4 said...

kellys,
Thank you!

socwork said...

aog,

The letter basically confirmed what ICU Nurse outlined on the front page of this blog.

That being that multiple requests were made by the victim to meet with the investigative committee, but the investigative committee did not want to include the people that the victim wanted to include (like his counselor, etc.), so the requests were denied. Five times. So the leave-no-stone-unturned-investigative-committee evidently left a few big stones unturned. Intentionally.

The letter was removed shortly after it was posted, but I don't think I've shared anything that wasn't already known given our conversations on this blog and ICU Nurse's reports. The letter basically outlines and confirms the suspicions that the victim was indeed not interviewed. It's an excellent, objective, and factual letter.

Hope that helps a bit.

concernedSBCer said...

Mom4: Fair enough.

socwork said...

concernedsbcer,

I have heard the same as you (but I wouldn't put it past some people to try anyway).

sheeplessatbbc said...

Mom 4
You have mail

searchingfortruthatbbc said...

As to Dr. Hannaford's letter, remember - the letter only went to the deacon OFFICERS.
Many of the deacons will never know about it unless the officers allow it, or they saw it on this blog before it was removed.

sickofthelies said...

I wish someone had thought to copy and paste that letter. sigh.

StoneThrower said...

Serious question,

I know that people tend to pat me on the back when I say we need to hold church leadership accountable but then get mad at me and/or delete my posts when I suggest we hold EVERYONE accountable but....

Where is the outrage at Hanniford for HIS knowledge of this abuse and failure to report?

Some of our leaders dropped the ball, that is for sure, but if anyone should know the law and how to deal with this stuff it should be him.

What gives?

searchingfortruthatbbc said...

Thanks bmcgo3 - that is such an encouragement! I know that God will be glorified in all this no matter what! He will either be gloried through His grace or His justice, and perhaps, both!

socwork said...

Where is the outrage at Hanniford for HIS knowledge of this abuse and failure to report?

It may look like this is the case given the investigative committee's report, but I do not believe this is accurate. The timeline present in the report was misleading (ie. wrong), making it appear as though certain people were negligent in reporting this abuse, when in reality, such was not the case.

In other words... I would just say not to jump to this conclusion based on what we have now confirmed was a misleading/false presentation of "investigative findings."

2006Huldah said...

Mom4 gave us the following:

"Lying is not simply a byproduct of modern culture with which we must live. Ignorance and disrespect of truth are the shears carving away the fabric of our society.

If you look the other way you become part of the problem and not the solution. Because so many have looked away, justice is on the junk pile, righteousness is rare, and equity is evaded. God can use a single voice, however, to reverse a torrent of unrighteousness.

Stand for justice, stand for righteousness, stand for equity, and stand for truth. As you do, be confident that God will lift you up (James 4:10)."
*****
Mom4, I LOVED this. This was from Dr. Rogers? Doesn't this speak so much to our current situation. And the "God can use a single voice, however, to reverse a torrent of unrighteousness." At the moment I am wondering if the devil might have used a single voice to bring about the opposite. (And I'm not talking about my own, but rather an unknown one.) Man, that gets to me. Is this article from the "Spider Webs..." sermon, too? I was thinking that they probably have it at the Bellevue library.
****
Aslansown said the following:

"Dee, I was puzzled over your agony in the quote attribution until I heard this about Joseph. Now I understand and share your sorrow. How can we dare to have such a flippant view of that which grieves the heart of our Father?"

Aslansown, thank you for your understanding and for being in the study of the Word which enabled you to have this insight.
****
Hope Patterson said...

Dee,
"I'll be praying for you today, but I hope you're not blaming yourself for not remembering who made the statement about 'holy ground.' Dr. McKinley is an extraordinarily humble man, and he has a way of delivering a great message without making a lasting impression about himself. The fact that you didn't remember him is just a testament to his preaching style."

Hope, thank you for praying for me today. It is important. There is something going on in me after your revelation this morning about the quote, and I still don't know what it is all about even after praying. I am going to continue praying until I get my answer, though. I think what you have said here about David McKinley's being so humble might be part of the answer. The reason the "standing on holy ground" always echoed through my soul was because I knew it was said sincerely when I had heard it, and because NOW I know it was NOT attributed to the right man in my mind. Now I am wondering if someone misinformed Dr. Rogers, too, about who had said it while he was gone and maybe it influenced HIS thinking. Then, when Dr. Rogers said that to me about Steve Gaines, I thought he was attributing the quote to Dr. Gaines. Therefore, this incorrect thinking would have influenced both of us and I don't know how many more. It is so strange. That whole time frame is coming back to me now. I remember how we had all those different pastors come in that summer of 2001 since the church had given Dr. and Mrs. Rogers the whole summer off for vacation. The World Trade Center was destroyed September 11, just a couple of weeks after Dr. Rogers had stood below it and looked skyward. All strange.

I am in sackcloth and ashes over this. I am afraid that the humility we all wanted in a pastor/leader was in David McKinley and he wasn't even given the time of day. Keep praying everyone. Pray fervently. I think an answer is coming.

Dee

searchingfortruthatbbc said...

StoneThrower, you bring up a valid point. If, in fact, Dr. Hannaford was the one counseling PW before all of this "broke", then of all people, he would have known it MUST be reported. It really makes you wonder why so many people protected PW and allowed him to continue to be in ministry at all, much less "counseling" past victims of abuse - shocking!

socwork said...

Again, I would remind us that we do not have all of the information here. AND, that the information we have from the report of the investigative committee is not only inaccurate, but at this point appears to be deliberately misleading.

Logan said...

I know i don't post very often, but would someone email me a copy of the hannaford letter? thx

jl

sheeplessatbbc said...

We should not throw stones at the good Dr, he has done a very good thing and with permission of the principles. We certainly do not know when he came on the scene and a report could already have been made for all we know. Some things posted here could be slander. We should be very careful what we imply, and out of respect for a man of integrity discontinue the use of his name. After all we are here to help the cause, not hurt it, aren't we?

Lwood said...

We need to search for the truth before we throw stones....We do not know when the Dr.knew any of this.We need to know the time frame and did he counsel any of these people at all....We are asuming alot....Please wait on the evidence before we cast the stones.
PLEASEEEEEEE

Trollcakes said...

New term: “Bratton-esque”—any argument whose final veracity comes down to the edict, “’cause I said so.”

The unfortunate quality of Bratton is that he thinks, if condescending enough, you’ll respect him. Behind that humph-harrumph sanctimony is simply a defensive mechanism; as such, it is a pity and I hope resolution proceeds for his sake and the people like him too.

Always dictate the conversation, parse and muddle it with theology, minutia and mini-tempests, anything that moves attention away from those plain and simple moral indictments against the ministers that sat on their hands and twiddled their thumbs for however many months, Poison the well of open discourse with the stupidest of arguments (did anyone ever find the word “consequences” in the Bible; and if so, what relation does that fact have to do with whether it is scriptural or not? Crimminy!); then whine like lil’ nursey-babies when they are called out on the mat! “Why, you’re nicer to Trollcakes than you are to me, and he’s a boo-dist--bwah!” Did you hear, yesterday, the crickets chirping from their corner of the chamber after the content of that letter, addressed to the deaconship, was linked? They had to go regroup and likely change their poopy-shorts.

It seems being an apologist for this cloak and dagger routine gets tougher by the day.

But otherwise, they are right—gossip is bad too.

MUAH! Happy Valentines!

New BBC Open Forum said...

trollcakes wrote:

"'Why, you’re nicer to Trollcakes than you are to me, and he’s a boo-dist--bwah!'"

Just a thought... maybe that's because t'cakes is nicer to the rest of us than you are.

Standingontheshoulders1973 said...

Dee,

I have been away this afternoon, and have just now "caught up" on the blog. I will be praying for you as I know and understand your hurt and pain. What a difficult thing this has been for so many people. I have enjoyed reading your posts and appreciate your wisdom and insight.

I was looking through my Bible yesterday while seeing if I had any of Dr. Rogers notes in Isaiah 59 (trying to help out finding the sermon everyone has been searching for). I did not find those notes, but saw the following verses which were a comfort:

"You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in you. Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord, the Lord, is the Rock eternal."

Isaiah 26:3-4

I also found this verse:

"'Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am He, I am He who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.'"

Isaiah 46:8-4

I believe with all of my heart that our dear Heavenly Father, will give us peace, comfort, wisdom and protection in our time of need. We may never know all of His purposes for this trial we are going through, but we can know that , "He who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." (Psalm 121:4). How many times did Dr. Rogers remind of us this!?

I am so thankful that we can rest in Him!

sheeplessatbbc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Bratton said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mike Bratton said...

Obviously, the post referencing Isaiah meets the quoted standard.

;)

--Mike

2006Huldah said...

Standingontheshoulders73,

Thank you for your kind and tender words. I really do need them today. I also very much appreciate your prayers as I search and ask for answers to what is happening right now. Honestly, I have been crying, on my knees, then my face, and I MUST KNOW what HE is doing with this new revelation from Hope Patterson today. Please continue to pray with fervor so that the rest of this will be revealed. The greater the number praying about this, then perhaps He will answer sooner. There is something awesome coming.

Dee

BBC Refugee said...

Mike,

What is going on? What is this change in your tone? Why antagonize people on this blog? I have seen your blog. It looked nice enough. Why not stay there if you cannot be nice? Why do you want to pick fights with people?

Jury said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
New BBC Open Forum said...

jury,

Just don't go there.

Jury said...

NASS,

Perhaps you may want to e-mail me why you deleted my comments

David Brown said...

Dear Jury: You are about to get both barrels from me. You could NOT be more wrong!

Your assumptions are simply that. And we all know the real meaning of the word assumption. Break it down. You are not even warm, in fact you are so far off you must be outside standing in the cold.

I just got home from the office and your post has warmed me up real quick.

You suggest the DA is over worked and that is the reason they have not charged anyone. Ok, I bite where are your facts? How do you know this? I say you are wrong and I can prove it. You want to meet me this week or next at Kevin Rardin's office? For the record he is the asst. DA that prosecutes these crimes. I'm sure he would like to hear your spin.

And your mentioning this victim's name continually. Do you know this victim personally? Does he approve your use of his name or that of his father? Do you know his father that well? I do know them both and I don't use either of their names out of respect. Why do you? Do you have any idea the harm that this causes a victim? You are hurting a very dear friend needlessly.

You ask why he is silent now? Good grief, I was silent about my abuse for over 35 years and it took another 9 years before the real story was told. How dare you to suggest this victim's silence was somehow bought.

It is good that you post anonymous, because if I knew who you were I would be on your door step demanding an apology from you for this victim. In fact this dear victim, the peacemaker he is, might be with me.

You may thing you are cute by acting like you know something. Your post shows just how much you really do NOT know about this crime and it's effect on this victim and his family.

For my other brothers and sisters that know me, I rarely get this upset and I do apologoze to them for my post. But I will NOT stand by and let someone that knows absoutely nothing hurt this victim. He has been hurt enough. Will you join in my condemenation of this poster with the way he has treated this victim?

Dear Jury: I encourage you to email me privately and lets deal with it. But leave this dear victim's name out of it. Ok?

David Brown
SNAP Coordinator of West Tennesee and Memphis

New BBC Open Forum said...

jury,

I think Mr. Brown would be glad to explain it to you... just in case you didn't "get it" the first time.

socwork said...

Some things are worth getting upset over.

concernedSBCer said...

David: Righteous Anger is allowed. Thank you for protecting our dear friends.

MOM4 said...

Dee,
The post I gave was from Dr Rogers. It was part of an article that was in the Commercial Appeal in 2001. I wish I were that wise!

Mike Bratton said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
david S said...

What is being said about Mike:
BBC REFUGE: “have seen your blog. It looked nice enough. Why not stay there if you cannot be nice? Why do you want to pick fights with people?”

BBC, does your tone remind you of: “If you don’t like it here, leave...” Which so deeply offends you all about the administration. It is unfortunate that instead of addressing issues raised you must lower yourself to the level of: You offend me, go away. I thought part of the purpose of the blog was to open church disucssion.

“This forum was created to provide a place where those who are seriously concerned about the issues facing Bellevue Baptist Church can come to comment and exchange ideas in a respectful, Christian spirit.”

Troll: “The unfortunate quality of Bratton is that he thinks, if condescending enough, you’ll respect him. Behind that humph-harrumph sanctimony is simply a defensive mechanism; as such, it is a pity and I hope resolution proceeds for his sake and the people like him too.”

... Respectful Christian spirit?

New BBC Open Forum said...

david s wrote:

"... Respectful Christian spirit?"

Or maybe just stating the obvious. Have you actually read some of MB's posts? Or attempted to discuss anything with him? I've found it to be an exercise in futility.

If one shows respect, that respect is usually reciprocated. If one doesn't, one should expect and be prepared to take the heat.

So let's all try to show a little more respect for each other.

Esther said...

davids wrote:"It is unfortunate that instead of addressing issues raised you must lower yourself to the level of: You offend me, go away. I thought part of the purpose of the blog was to open church disucssion. "

That is the point...he is not addressing issues. When some have tried to address substantive issues with him in the past he casts aspersions on this blog and says they are going about it all wrong.

For example, a few threads back, someone asked Mike point blank, after he suggested that these concerns be dealt with in a different way: How and to whom do people address their concerns? But, Mr. Bratton saw fit not to answer that comment.

I would really like to hear Mr. Bratton's detailed solution to this situation. But it must be detailed and a true attempt for truth. Perhaps he has posted it to his blog. If he has, why not interject these ideas here when he feels the need to post instead of just attacking the messengers?

There comes a point, when someone just keeps saying that what you are doing is wrong,....but does not offer a new process or solution, you just have to come to the conclusion that they are just trying to poison the well.

I believe personally, that Mr. Bratton's posts have been arrogant and condescending. This is my opinion only.

Esther said...

Davids, Trollcakes is a buddhist and has made that known to this blog from the beginning.

And, just so you know, that was the most direct comment like that I have seen from him. He has been very respectful on this blog even though attacked many times because he is NOT a Christian and some think he should not be allowed to post here.

allofgrace said...

davids,
With all due respect to you and to MB, I've yet to see him actually make an argument. He takes someone else's argument, disects it and cuts into small pieces, then throws in short sound bytes in between parsings. That works well for Limbaugh on talk radio, but this ain't that. At best, the most he says is his one or two sentence commentary on the end...usually something to do with anonymity...then sails off into the sunset. He's more intelligent than that, and for once I'd like to see him make a statement about something...anything..without referring to someone else's comments.

New BBC Open Forum said...

esther wrote:

"This is my opinion only."

Not really. ;-)

david S said...

all of grace,

I always understand exactly what Mike is saying. Agree or disagree, I see his argument. Actually, he did propose a method of discussion on his own blog: A church business meeting. Now there's a thought! If you don't see answers by Bratton here, he does propose some on his own blog.

david S said...

Allofgrace:

"and for once I'd like to see him make a statement about something...anything..without referring to someone else's comments."

Okay, well, this is pretty clear:

"We must convene an official business meeting (not a one-way "informational" meeting) as soon as physically possible. It must not be held after Sunday night church, but at a more accessible time, perhaps a Sunday afternoon; cancel the evening service if necessary, but every single Bellevue member who has a significant question must be given the opportunity to speak, whether "anti," "pro," or otherwise. Direct, honest, open, Christ-honoring communication is the key to healing--because the lack of it is at the heart of the problems we're facing as a church body."

allofgrace said...

davids,
I have no problem with Mike's use of sarcasm..it's a valid usage to make an argument...the endless parsing of others' words is mind-numbing, and detracts from whatever it is he's trying to say..sarcasm I get...the other seems lazy...just make a statement, that's all I'm saying.

Trollcakes said...

Greetings from the pureland--ah, there was nothing wrong with my commments to or about Bratton and the humph-harrumph-ers.

There's not a taint of hatred in stating the obvious; and besides, I find it humorous that one of you may look down your nose at me with your sense of moral superiority, and right past the perdition with which you are up to your chins.

The irony of misplaced outrage regarding this blog. I think it is a sign that the truthseekers are gaining on the humph-harrumph-ers.

New BBC Open Forum said...

david s,

I agree that was one of his more lucid moments and one of the few times I understood him. Rare but good example.

"I always understand exactly what Mike is saying."

Really? Wow. I'm impressed. Seriously and totally... impressed!

Trollcakes said...

Sorry, I imagine a lot of stiff suits sporting stern looks and the clearing of throats--as depicted by Dr. Seuss.

"Why, I never!"

david S said...

NASS,
yep, always. of course, I skim the heavy stuff and slow down when I think I might get it! So, when I don't understand I blame it on "well, I was just skimming." (Bad of me).

... But why would I clarify after having so greatly impressed you? Never mind the above, stay impressed!

Trollcakes said...

If BBC doesn't grant the meeting, then what? If he hasn't stated a contingency, in case the church is true to form, then it is an empty suit.

David Brown said...

Dear Jury, unlike you my email address is on my profile. I don't have to hide my identity. I have asked you to email me. Why haven't you responded? You come on this blog and make a lot of unfounded stupid statements like you know what is going on.

You harmed this victim. If you are still lurking out there, email me. Or I want to hear an apology from you to this victim you claim to know so well. If you think I take your comments lightly, ask 4545 how I can be. They can tell you first hand how I can be when you hurt a victim.

Other wise don't post anymore.

David Brown
SNAP coordinator of West Tennessee and Memphis

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

Dear Brothers and Sisters: I need to share a little hummor at my expense. Several of you were worried that my inner ear infection might have been a result of me going fishing at Pickwick in 21 degree weather.

I have a confession. Let me tell you how I fish in cold weather. See, when I was in my biker days, I bought this heated suit that plugged into the battery on my Harley. One could get very hot wearing it. It has a thermosat you could adjust the heat to keep from sweating too much.

Well I no longer have the Harley but I still have that dog gone suit. So when the weather is as cold as it was a few weeks ago, I had my freshly charged battery beside me while I was plugged in. I did catch fish too for the 3 hours I was on the dock. And I never got cold

So there you have it. Now you know how I really "rough it" when I go fishing in the winter time.

I do love you all and thanks for your prayers. I appreciate your emails and phone calls. We must always be on guard in protecting our children.

David Brown

Trollcakes said...

Do you think Jesus loved the money changers he ran out of the temple? Do Baptist still believe in spanking bad children--is it because they are hated?

Trollcakes said...

David, I could use one of those heated suits tonight.

Esther said...

"I always understand exactly what Mike is saying. Agree or disagree, I see his argument. Actually, he did propose a method of discussion on his own blog: A church business meeting. Now there's a thought! If you don't see answers by Bratton here, he does propose some on his own blog."

Uh...I think that has been suggested. Uh wait! I think it has been officially requested.

But, let me guess...it was not suggested for 4 months in the 'right way'. It always comes down to silliness like that. :o)

I have to wonder what these people make of Hannaford's letter? It has got to get old trying to defend these people. :o|

BBC Refugee said...

david S said...
What is being said about Mike:
BBC REFUGE: “have seen your blog. It looked nice enough. Why not stay there if you cannot be nice? Why do you want to pick fights with people?”

BBC, does your tone remind you of: “If you don’t like it here, leave...” Which so deeply offends you all about the administration.


David S,

Why do you now attack me? Was my question that offensive that you must take up someone elses offense? Are you trying to make a drama? My question was simple and not meant to excite.

Since you have brought it up;

Do you believe that if someone is not in agreement with SG they should leave BBC?

Mike, do you believe that if someone is not in agreement with SG they should leave BBC?

concernedSBCer said...

AOG, you've got mail.

sheeplessatbbc said...

Mom 4

You've got mail.

BBC Refugee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
concernedSBCer said...

I seem to remember that people have been asking for a church meeting since late summer...isn't that why Mark got paid a "visit"??? It hasn't happened yet......

Trollcakes said...

I just returned from Bratton’s site and he is no Gaines sycophant—if he’d bring some of that sauce to his discussions here, instead of the acrid quips, he would get no (heck) from me. But he regards the “truth seekers” as either motivated by revenge or pride; best I can figure, he’s a good and decent family man who wants resolution, within the church body, too. What he may want to consider is that, sans a forum implemented for the concerns of those affected within the church, it would by osmosis leave the church where the affected could digest the information and emotions stemming from these crimes and revelations—where, in the light of day, point and counterpoint, rather than just a monologue delivered from a megaphone, will precede real healing. Y’all could not wait for Bellevue to provide a forum, and one won’t be forthcoming—I want to know what Bratton says if BBC say no. Roll over and stay? Go GBC? GBH? UB40?

He lacks tact sometimes, but he means well.

David

socwork said...

I would be genuinely surprised if a church/business meeting was granted at this point. (And not a let's-get-together-so-we-can-read-a-prepared-statement kind of meeting, but one with open dialogue...)

BBC Refugee said...

I actually spoke to a BBC Member today that said he is not aware of any issues at BBC until PW. He was very sincere. He is extremely concerned about how the situation was handled, but until this it was church as usual.

I wonder how many other members are in this boat?

socwork said...

I wonder how many other members are in this boat?

Tooooo many!

Lindon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
allofgrace said...

concerned,
Thanks for the email

allofgrace said...

lindon,
LOL...wrong blog my friend.

Lindon said...

aog, I fixed it quick! But you are quicker...

Mike Bratton said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
concernedSBCer said...

AOG, You're welcome.

Lindon said...

"If asking you folks to be accountable is so, so horrible, then how can you folks possibly begin to justify asking for accountability in others?"

As far as I can make out, no one here is a pastor or minister at BBC.

Scripture is what ministers are to be accountable. Not people.

And when they are not accountable to scripture then there is a serious problem. And it is perfectly Biblical for people to point that out...publicly.

The problem is then compounded by the 'secrecy' surrounding this whole situation. This sets it up for the anonymous postings. The leaders set the tone for communication with, 'if you don't like it, leave'.

Well, it is NOT their church. It belongs to Jesus Christ and the Word is how we know this fact.

Just about every suggestion you have made has been done by someone involved and people have watched as those who have tried have been raked over the coals by your leaders. Instead of responding with grace and love. As the shepherds should they not model that? Even if the sheep don't?

Sigh. All of this you are well aware. But this situation is so far out of hand that the only way to bring it back is for the leadership to come forth with true repentance and open the books.

Mike, why would they refuse official requests for information such as minutes and financials? What is your take on that?

New BBC Open Forum said...

Yesterday a new rule was enacted.

I wrote:

"Any comment in which the poster makes comments such as "whoever you are" will be deleted."

mike bratton wrote:

"'Messengers' don't tie their messages to rocks, hide, and toss them from the bushes."

You do realize this violates the rule. However, the rest of your comment was acceptable and contained some good points. Therefore, please either rewrite it and omit the above reference (or any other wording expressing the same thought) or it's history. Sorry, but rehashing this is getting really, really old.

And yes, I did receive your 9:13 e-mail, the only one I've received from you. The answer to the last question you asked is "no thank you." Get over it.

Jury said...

David Brown said...
Dear Jury: You are about to get both barrels from me. You could NOT be more wrong!

Your assumptions are simply that. And we all know the real meaning of the word assumption. Break it down. You are not even warm, in fact you are so far off you must be outside standing in the cold.




David,

Have you spoken with any attorneys at Weintraub Stock & Grisham???

All I can say in this matter is; I have and I'll leave it at that.

I have more history and involvement here than you may realize. That is all I'll say about that matter.

I am sorry I offended you and the Williams and I'll use their name no more and this will be my last post as well.

From NASS's last blog site from savingbellevue, she and everyone else mentioned names along with yourself. I guess I took toooo much liberty in doing the same.I suppose the rules have changed again and I just simply did not know this.

I have never spoke with anyone from the DA's office. Have you ever spoke with anyone from Weintraub office?????

I guess we have conflicting stories. I believe in the end you will see the State's opinion coming from Weintraub's report. That would fit in with the reasoning for not talking to "certain people." Again, please don't get mad if we disagree here.

David, would you please tell me if you have mentioned you displeasure with NASS for not mentioning her Idenity or that may be the way the rules are now set-up here.

I will admit here that no one has the full story here and I will not pretend that I do.

David, God Bless you my brother as I know you a do great service for our Lord.

Again, I will not respond to another post so please say your time.

ezekiel said...

Mike Bratton,

I am still waiting for the answer to my question. One would think that if you have the fortitude to demand answers to your questions, you would be capable of answering mine.

To further the discusssion of Ephesians 5:11-12 I offer the following exerpt from MacAUTHUR Bible commentary. Page 1699

First the scripture...

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].

5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

MacAUTHUR:

"no fellowship with...darkness. Paul's instruction is plain and direct: Christians are to faithfully live in righteousness and purity, have nothing to do with the evil ways and works of Satan and the world. The two ways of living are unalterably opposed to each other and mutually exclusive. Cf. 1Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14. but rather expose them. The Christian's responsibility does not stop with his own rejection of evil. He is also responsible for exposing and opposing darkness wherever it is found, especially when it is found in the church. See notes on Matthew 18:15-17; Galatians 6:12."

MacARTHUR on Galatians 6:12 was also very interesting....

"The Judaizers were more concerned about their personal safety than correct doctrine. By adhering more to the Mosaic law than to the Gospel of Jesus, they hoped to avoid social and financial ostracism from other Jews and maintain their protected status as Jews within the Roman Empire."

Swap "preachers" with Judaizers and Jews and read it again....sure looks current to me!

They sell MacAUTHUR at Barns and Nobles for about $40 bucks. It appears it would be worth your money.

sickofthelies said...

Jury,

I, too, join David Brown in outrage over your post. For you to insenuate that the victim took money for silence is a sure sign to me that you dont' have a clue about this subject.

Knock it off!

New BBC Open Forum said...

jury wrote:

"David, would you please tell me if you have mentioned you displeasure with NASS for not mentioning her Idenity or that may be the way the rules are now set-up here."

Actually, that's the way the rules have been set up here from Day 1. They're posted on the front page. So I assume your name is jury.

If you have conflicting information about the investigations or anything to do with this situation, I'd suggest you contact David Brown privately. I'm certain he'd be very interested in any insight you could provide. My point in deleting your first comment was that this isn't the place to discuss it unless you have solid proof which you can present. To imply that the victim in this case was paid hush money is ridiculous.

And no, in all the times David and I have spoken, he's never mentioned that.

aslansown said...

Here's the deal on the Hanniford letter (has a ring reminiscent of THE PENTAGON PAPERS).

1.I have been asking Deacons and it appears that only the Deacon Officers have seen the letter. I do not knoe for sure if all of the officers have seen it.

2. Chuck is an honorable man and if he thought that it should be universally viewed, he would have presented it in such a manner. We should assume that he felt that he was going through the proper channels and procedure in regard to this matter.

With that said, I feel that the best policy would be to keep in touch with as many deacons as possible until we can be sure that they are aware of its contents and your concern. What cannot be allowed is for the Deacon leadership to keep this hidden. You (we) need to force the issue by letting the Deacons know that you are aware of Dr. Hanniford's concerns regarding the veracity of the report and that "no","I don't know" and "go away" are not acceptable.

socwork said...

Well, I know that the infamous letter did not say online for very long, and it seems that it was meant for public consumption (at least not yet)... however, many of us did read the letter, so if the deacon board tried to bury it, it would be difficult to do so. In fact, I have a hunch that CH would not allow that to happen to his letter. Just a hunch...

aslansown said...

SOCWORK:
I'd say you have good instincts. It is also apparent to me that there was no way the letter was going to remain silenced. Why else would it have appeared in public so soon?

socwork said...

Thanks aslansown :)

I wonder about that too... in fact, I wonder how it made the saving bellevue site even for as long as it did. How did it get there? Who sent it there? Who really requested its removal? Do we know that CH requested that it be removed or could someone else have requested that?

(And yes, jmo, I am now offically speculating. I think asking questions is so important to the process of learning and gaining knowledge. And what does James 4.2 say in a slightly different context? You have not because you ask not.)

New BBC Open Forum said...

I was asked to post this. It will be apparent who wrote it.

"I am posting today to quell any speculation about my letter which was posted and then removed from the SavingBellevue.com website yesterday. First, I want to thank the administrator of that site for honoring my request that the letter be removed. Second, I want it to be clear why the letter was removed.

"There is, unfortunately, a very public debate going on regarding the actions of the BBC leadership. I say this is unfortunate not because there is a debate, but because it has become such a public spectacle; assumptions are running wild, and attacks on various individuals' character has become commonplace on both sides of the issue. The church is called to be salt and light in the world, yet these displays are broadcasting an image of the church as merely a group of people unseasoned by the Spirit and living in the same darkness as our secular neighbors.

"I want to be clear that I am not saying there are not divisions within the church. I believe any concerns must be dealt with biblically, promptly, and fully for healing and reconciliation. Please realize that speculations, assumptions, and accusations do nothing but cause more distress. Seek truth, share facts, and discuss your differences in a manner that honors God and those most impacted by this issue.

"In that spirit, my letter was a correspondence solely to ten men who are deacon officers at Bellevue. The letter was a matter of conviction directed to those individuals. Therefore, I will not comment publicly on the contents of the letter, even though I am sure there are many people who have read it. I'm sure some who frequent this blog will express their opinions, but it is my hope that any further discussion will take place in a manner that edifies the Body of Christ.

"Wisely, a friend said to me today, 'In the final analysis, what power does Bellevue have over any of us? Only such power as the Lord grants them.' In addition, I would add only such power that each of us grants them, or the power we give anyone else for that matter. Dr. Rogers once said to me that healing takes place when our repentance is as great as our sin. I sincerely and humbly pray all involved in this conflict, on either side, will examine our hearts and pray for the gift of repentance. Will you join me?

"I conclude with certainty that in God's time, these issues will be resolved to His satisfaction."

socwork said...

Thanks for posting that NASS.

David Brown said...

Dear Jury: The ONLY way you could know anything is if you were on the Investigtive Team. If you are not and then to suggest that someone from the Weintraub firm shared information with you about this case, you and them have breached the cannon of ethics with the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court. And that is a real serious charge. I think I will ask that Board to do an investigation based on your "knowledge." Wonder how Weintraub attorneys would feel about your comments? As I have said to you last night unless you have worked with this victim you are clueless, leave it at that.

I asked you to email me and you couldn't even do that. So don't come on this blog pretending you know something you don't. If you are friends with Weintraub I doubt he will be pleased with you trying to imply that he would share confidential information with you and thus break all kind of ethic laws. I will contact him this morning and let him know that his name and his firm's name is being posted by you. Yes, I do know him too. Small world.

And lastly, don't try and tell me how much you appreciate what I do, I don't need it from someone that has made such ridiculous statements and have continued to hurt this vicitm. You owe him an apology.

David Brown
SNAP coordinator of West Tennessee and Memphis

ezekiel said...

1 Cor 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think [of men] above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

4:7 For who maketh thee to differ [from another]? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive [it], why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received [it]?

4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

4:10 We [are] fools for Christ's sake, but ye [are] wise in Christ; we [are] weak, but ye [are] strong; ye [are] honourable, but we [are] despised.

4:11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;

4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

4:13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, [and are] the offscouring of all things unto this day.

4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn [you].

4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

4:18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

4:19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

4:20 For the kingdom of God [is] not in word, but in power.

4:21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and [in] the spirit of meekness?

Mike Bratton said...

ezekiel said...
Mike Bratton,

I am still waiting for the answer to my question. One would think that if you have the fortitude to demand answers to your questions,


"Demand"?

Hardly.

you would be capable of answering mine.

If you could re-post it, rather than making a reference to a question way back yonder in scroll-land, I'd greatly appreciate it.

--Mike

2006Huldah said...

To everybody who passes this way,

If you have not been listening to Love Worth Finding this week, you have missed some very important messages to us from the Lord via Dr. Adrian Rogers. "Portrait of an Apostate" is a two-part series which is being aired today and tomorrow.

Tie your shoestrings tight before you go there, lwf.org, because what you will hear might blow you right out of your boots.

JESUS IS LORD! HALLELUJAH!

dee

Mike Bratton said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
2006Huldah said...

Ezekiel,

I am so glad you love the Bible like you do. Every day you are such a blessing to us by putting that good WORD up here for all of us to absorb. Thank you for offering Psalms 1-8 yesterday to those who are hurting (which would have included me). Yep, I'm okay now.

What you said, too, in your post about Ed Thompson's comments regarding how we had become "fat, dumb and happy under Dr. Rogers" is true. I often thought so even back when Pastor was still preaching. I think some of the people are TRYING to still keep on doing that, too, even though they need to be hearing the alarms that are blaring now, putting on their armor, and heading into the battle. We really need to be praying and I mean PRAYING.

Good Soldier of the Cross, keep on!

dee

Mrs. C said...

Hey folks,
Please begin to scroll on by Mike Bratton's posts. It is obvious that he is only interested in being argumentative in an attempt to raise our ire all the while stating the claim of being objective. Nothing he has said rings true pertaining to his good will or insight. This man thinks he is right,right,right, even when the truth slaps him in the face. He will never admit there is sin in the camp or wrong doing by ANYONE other than the bloggers who post here unless he is convicted by Almighty God and even then - well, I am beginning to wonder..
The man is NOT objective and is on here to create dissention and strife, he may not able to receive the truth at this time, so just scroll on by and pray for the dear fellow!
Mike - no reply is necessary because I won't read it.

2006Huldah said...

Previously stated:

I often thought so even back when Pastor was still preaching.
****

What was I thinking? Adrian Rogers is STILL preaching, and his message today (lwf.org) is absolute proof of it!

dee

Mike Bratton said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mrs. C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
2006Huldah said...

Friends, Romans, and Countrymen, lend me your ear--

Don't be deceived by the fire and excitement of the potential opportunity presented here to head into a pointless battle.

Rather, be drawn to the greater battle by observing the quieter, less obvious offering that the Lord has related to you through my post and that being the summons to you to go to lwf.org and listen to the broadcast (which is FULL of FIRE and EXCITEMENT) for today.

Knowing you are wiser than others may think,

dee

socwork said...

Good morning, my friends.

I just watched an excellent two minute video on Christian Worldview Network's website by Brannon Howse on the idea "judge not, let you be judged" and how this is misused and abused.

I highly recommend it. It's only 2 minutes.

Video

2006Huldah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sheeplessatbbc said...

Socwork,

Thanks, that was great!

Skipping over to LWF now to listen to our Pastor.

allofgrace said...

Sorry to bring up an old subject(donation to FUMC), but this commentary showed up this morning and I think it deserves a look.

2006Huldah said...

Allofgrace,

Very good and very good to see such a conservative evangelical in the Anglican Church. Did you read the additional link, too? Uplifting! It shows we are not the only ones who recognize that there must be separation from those in the "church" who support unbiblical sexual practices. We can love them, but we must be separated for the sake of Christ.

Dee

sickofthelies said...

Jury,

Just FYI, Last month, I DID speak with Mike Weintraub and I DID speak with the Asst. Attorney General, and neither one of them shared your ridiculous information with me.

Mr. Weintraub is a very nice man, and we had a very ' chatty ' conversation for about ten minutes. Same thing with Kevin Rareden. I found both men to be EXTREMELY professional. That kind of professionalism doens't lend itself to statements like the ones you have attributed to them. I am personally offended that you would insenuate that Mr. Weintraub would break such a breech of trust, and I'm sure that he will be, too.

Please stop it with your comments. You have no idea how much you are hurting not only that victim, but others, as well.

Wannaknow said...

From the investigative report:

X. Question of Timely Action

Early in 2006, two people, a trained psychologist and a former church staff member, learned of the issue and could have contacted the Department of Child Services or other authorities about the presence of a child molester on the staff of Bellevue.

If the trained psychologist was CH, why did he not protect our church? Who is the former church staff member? It states they knew in early 2006. This would imply they knew before SG. Why did they not protect our church?!?!

I know these questions probably cannot be answered. They are just questions in my mind. Oh well!

Wannaknow

socwork said...

wannaknow,

I agree that would be an excellent question if the investigative committee's report was completely truthful. It's becoming exceedingly clear that this is not the case.

david S said...

BBC REFUGE:
David S, Why do you now attack me? Was my question that offensive that you must take up someone elses offense? Are you trying to make a drama? My question was simple and not meant to excite."

I wasn't attempting to attack you. I was asking why your response to someone is: If you don't like it here, leave. It seems memorable of the admin. response to many of you. No drama was being attempted. I have three daughters, I live with enough drama.

As to your question:
"Since you have brought it up; Do you believe that if someone is not in agreement with SG they should leave BBC?"

I did ask a man not to return to our church last night. So I do believe there are times for Shepherds to ask people to either repent or leave. However, we were dealing with a crossdresser...

if you were disrupting worship, I would think you should leave. If you have valid concerns, it is an issue between you and Christ as to how you should address those. ulitmately he is Head of the Church, not SG. If you feel you should stay and fight for Bellevue, then you should with a sense of peace. However, it may be that after a time God leads you to worship in antoher place. either way, that need not be at the coaxing of men, but by the Holy Spirit.

David

David Brown said...

Dear Jury: Your circle of friends just got a litle smaller. I just got off the phone with the Weintraub firm. I passed on to them the comments you have posted on the blog. They looked at them while I was on the phone. They are extememely upset over the LIES and SLANDER you have posted. (Their words, not mind). They have asked that if anyone has any idea who this person is to let them know immediately. See I have worked in the legal profession here in Memphis for over 20 years as a paralegal and legal investigator. It is a close group.

NASS would you forward to me the copies of Jury's post? I am going to forward them to the proper people. Remeber Jury just because you post anonymous, your identity can be found out.

You mentioned something about the savingbellevue site. I have never posted anything on there. NEVER! I have no idea what you mean about mentioning other people's names either.

And as far as NASS' identity, I know her personally. She is a sweet Christian lady. And, I know her first name too as I know many others on here. Someday soon, I will know yours.

You heard from SOTL too and their response to your post. You just don't get it do you? I sure wish you had the courage to email me. You can make up any identity you want to, you know mine. So why don't you email me? Or better yet call me, my number is on my profile.

David Brown

Wannaknow said...

socwork,

I definately am not trying to argue, but how do we know the report is not accurate? Just curious.

Wannaknow

socwork said...

A few reasons...

1. I read it. There were holes. I didn't know if it was inaccurate at that point, but I had a hunch.

2. The letter, which I won't go into too much, but it was accessible for a few hours, and outlined pertinent facts and evidence that appear to have been intentionally excluded from the investigative committee's final report. That's all I will say for now, but perhaps the writer of the letter will at some point give permission for the letter to be made public (maybe depending on the response the letter gets from its intended recipients at BBC).

Just putting two and two together over here... hope that helps!

2006Huldah said...

Wannaknow said:

"Who is the former church staff member? It states they knew in early 2006. This would imply they knew before SG. Why did they not protect our church?!?!"
****

Steve Gaines officially became pastor at BBC August 1, 2005.

Renewed said...

Mrs. C said...
Hey folks,
Please begin to scroll on by Mike Bratton's posts. It is obvious that he is only interested in being argumentative in an attempt to raise our ire all the while stating the claim of being objective. Nothing he has said rings true pertaining to his good will or insight. This man thinks he is right,right,right, even when the truth slaps him in the face. He will never admit there is sin in the camp or wrong doing by ANYONE other than the bloggers who post here unless he is convicted by Almighty God and even then - well, I am beginning to wonder..
The man is NOT objective and is on here to create dissention and strife, he may not able to receive the truth at this time, so just scroll on by and pray for the dear fellow!
Mike - no reply is necessary because I won't read it.


I'm not Mike, so will you read my reply?

Do you think you are objective? I would say no one is completely objective. We are all too close to the situation. Each of us come to this blog with our own biases. It is impossible to be objective here!

On many occasions I have read Mike's responses to the accusations, slander, and yes, gossip on this blog. I respectively submit that Mike's responses are not the problem.

I disagree that Mike is overlooking "sin in the camp" or "wrong-doing" by anyone. He readily admits on his blog that a church-wide business meeting is necessary to go forward at Bellevue. He admits that the situation with PW was mishandled.

Dissention and strife are being caused by those who continually slander our pastor and anyone who supports him. I would submit that many on this blog cannot readily accept the truth that God's Word specifically says to let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.

Proverbs 6 says There are six things which the LORD hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

Respectfully,
Renewed

Wannaknow said...

2006Huldah said...
Wannaknow said:

"Who is the former church staff member? It states they knew in early 2006. This would imply they knew before SG. Why did they not protect our church?!?!"
****

Steve Gaines officially became pastor at BBC August 1, 2005.

Hudlah,
I agree that SG became our pastor in August 2005, but wasn't it not reported to him until June 2006? Wouldn't that mean if the psychologist and former staff member knew in early 2006 that they knew before SG? And, shouldn't they have come forward?

Just thinking out loud.

Wannaknow

Standingontheshoulders1973 said...

Dee,

It is good to "hear" your joy has returned! I'm glad that you seem to be doing better today! I prayed for you several times throughout the evening last night!

Thanks for your exhortation. I am going to listen to Dr. Rogers now as I do my work!

standing

socwork said...

renewed,

Dissention and strife are being caused by those who continually slander our pastor and anyone who supports him.

Can you give us some examples of the slander, please? I am curious to know what you are referring to.

aslansown said...

WANNAKNOW SAID:
Hudlah,
I agree that SG became our pastor in August 2005, but wasn't it not reported to him until June 2006? Wouldn't that mean if the psychologist and former staff member knew in early 2006 that they knew before SG? And, shouldn't they have come forward?

Just thinking out loud.

Wannaknow

11:51 AM, February 15, 2007


Your question illustrates why the IC report should have been delivered in a church-wide business meeting. The best defense against gossip, slander and strife is the TRUTH. It appears that a longing for and a willingness to be completely honest and accountable before GOD and The People is at best lacking.

Mrs. C said...

renewed said...
Proverbs 6 says There are six things which the LORD hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

Haughty eyes - Steve Tucker,et al

A lying tongue - Steve Gaines, et al

And hands that shed innocent blood - those who have withdrawn support from Life Choices in favor of Steve Gaines & his leadership cronies.

A heart that devises wicked plans - Mark Dougharty, et al

Feet that run rapidly to evil - Phil Weatherwax, Steve Marcum, et al

A false witness who utters lies - Larry Ray, et al

And one who spreads strife among brothers - David Coombs, et al


The gospel is not a pick and choose game for you to play. You would be better off to remove the beam from your eye rather than attack one with a splinter.

sickofthelies said...

mrs. C,

WELL SAID!!!!

Renewed said...

Mrs. C.,

You responded just as I expected. I should have known better than to even try.

I will not aruge with you or anyone else. It does no good.

Renewed

aslansown said...

MRS C:
You beat me to the punch, although I was going to take a gentler approach. That scripture quotation reminded me that The Scriptures apply to everyone, equally, without consideratio of how much money we have, who we know, or who we think we are.

I am reminded now that what views I have in this or any other matter better agree with what Scripture plainly says and not whether the scripture agrees with my preconcieved notions.

We need to be about first is aquainting ourselves with the TRUTH of God's word and then applying it to our lives. We must invest God's Word in our minds and spirits until it becomes our very thoughts. The Scripture says, "Your words were found and I ate them and they became to me the very joy of my life".

None of us can afford to attempt to apply the Scripture to anyone before it is first worked out in our own lives with with a reverential fear as we offer ourselves as a living sacrifice before our God.

Piglet said...

Renewed:

There is so much public dirt on Steve Gaines that gossip and slander are not necessary to tarnish his reputation.

To all:

Just a little interesting trivia...

Didn't Steve Gaines preach his first sermon to us as our pastor on 9-11-05?

At the time I thought it a was a small coincidence. Now it seems only fitting.

Re

socwork said...

So I guess that means there really was no slander after all? Thank you.

aslansown said...

Renewed:
If the response was just as you expected, what were you attempting to do and why are you dissapointed? Why not try a different approach? Rephrase the question and you might get a different response.

You need to remember that you are adressing a group of people who, with a great deal of justification, feel that they have been disfranchised by the leadership of Bellevue. They have been preached at repeatedly and told to "like it or leave" for merely asking for the acountability that the Scriptures require of all of us and especially the leadership.

The essence of living out the Christian life is putting others first. This requires that we go to great lengths to understand other's thinking, hurts and expectations.

My request to you is to be as open as possible to engaging in two-way conversation.

sickofthelies said...

Renewed said:

"Dissention and strife are being caused by those who continually slander our pastor and anyone who supports him"


SOTL says:

I don't even know where to begin with your post.

Let me just say this:

In an effort to support the pastor, this is what one person said with regard to PW:

" It happened 17 years ago, give the guy ( PW) a break"

Let's dissect that.

1) "It happened 17 years ago." He was unrepentent during that length of time, while he counseled women who had been sexually abused, and went about his business at church as a 'prayer minister'

2) "give the guy a break"

SOOO, we should give PW a break. A man who would rape his own son. A child predator. A man that would betray his own flesh and blood.

And now you tell us that if we OBJECT to the fact that SG kept this guy on staff for 6 months AFTER he knew, that we are slandering the pastor.

Would you rather that we join the ignorant and say:

" It was 17 years ago, give the guy a break"

Is THIS how YOU support your pastor? Is THIS how you would have us to do so?

To that, I say,

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!

ezekiel said...

Mike, you said

Since Ephesians 5:12 refers to the behavior of non-Christians, the "basis for quitting" would be on the grounds that that church in question was not a Christian church.

Are you suggesting that Bellevue is not a Christian church?

--Mike
9:24 PM, February 12, 2007
Then I asked,


Are you suggesting that since 5:12 refers to non christians (?) that secrecy is ok for christian organizations?
9:28 PM, February 12, 2007
Mike,

For what it is worth, I think you mean well, but you are a victim of what you have been taught for years from the pulpit. Exalt your preacher, don’t question him and believe everything he says.

Then you repeat what you have been taught and perpetuate the lies, just as you did in your above comment. That is “muddying the water and trampling the grass” referred to in Ezekiel 34:18-19.

A lot of us have been there and still are. I say this not to condemn you or judge you but to point you and everyone else to the WORD. Dig it out yourself, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”. We have had muddy water and trampled grass for so long we don’t know what a clear cool drink of water from the WORD even tastes like anymore.

And before you condemn me for “muddying the water and trampling the grass” just know that I am the least among you, don’t listen to me, get in the WORD.

Or you can always keep arguing in the flesh, exalting yourself and impressing everyone with your talent.

concernedSBCer said...

There are so many issues right now, I don't even know where to start. Many Christians have been spoon-fed so long they may know what they believe but they have no idea why, or if it is even scriptural! There is very much an attitude of blindly following. And you know, I have no problem with blind-following as long as you are following the right person. That person would be JESUS. Period.

SG needs to follow Jesus. All of us need to follow Jesus. I realize this sounds like a "Captain Obvious" kind of statement but I talk to and hear about these people that "are on the other side of the fence" (i.e. supporting SG regardless of...well....anything) and it makes me crazy! I truly don't understand how they can be so blind to clear facts, admitted facts, legal facts.......

sickofthelies said...

concerned sbcer said:

I realize this sounds like a "Captain Obvious" kind of statement but I talk to and hear about these people that "are on the other side of the fence"

SOTL says:

BUT, BUT, it was just a itty bitty fence.

:)

Mike Bratton said...

Mrs. C said...

Proverbs 6 says There are six things which the LORD hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

Haughty eyes - Steve Tucker,et al

A lying tongue - Steve Gaines, et al

And hands that shed innocent blood - those who have withdrawn support from Life Choices in favor of Steve Gaines & his leadership cronies.

A heart that devises wicked plans - Mark Dougharty, et al

Feet that run rapidly to evil - Phil Weatherwax, Steve Marcum, et al

A false witness who utters lies - Larry Ray, et al

And one who spreads strife among brothers - David Coombs, et al


Just for the record, a number of you "regulars" here agree that God hates David Coombs, Larry Ray, Phil Weatherwax, Steve Marcum, Mark Dougharty, Steve Tucker, and Steve Gaines.

And, of course, et al.

If I'm mistaken, then where's the ringing condemnation of the declaration?

ezekiel said...
Mike, you said

Since Ephesians 5:12 refers to the behavior of non-Christians, the "basis for quitting" would be on the grounds that that church in question was not a Christian church.

Are you suggesting that Bellevue is not a Christian church?

--Mike
9:24 PM, February 12, 2007
Then I asked,

Are you suggesting that since 5:12 refers to non christians (?) that secrecy is ok for christian organizations?
9:28 PM, February 12, 2007
Mike,

For what it is worth, I think you mean well, but you are a victim of what you have been taught for years from the pulpit. Exalt your preacher, don’t question him and believe everything he says.


I see. You're suggesting I'm a "victim" of the man who was my pastor longer than anyone else, Adrian Rogers?

Please.

Considering he was the first to encourage people to "be Berean" when listening to a sermon, your remark is foundationless.

As has been previously noted, and is easily discovered by reading my website, I hardly "exalt" Pastor Gaines. Then again, I didn't "exalt" Pastor Rogers, even though he was my boss and my friend.

But to answer the question you apparently posed earlier: Yes, a little secrecy is a good thing in a Christian church.

Should a transcript of every counseling session be available on a church's website?

Should every church member's home address and phone number be available for public consumption?

Should the travel schedule of a church's pastor and senior staff be easily obtained?

There are, obviously, some areas in which secrecy is a good thing. Having said that, there are also some areas in which secrecy is counterproductive--such as in the areas of church finances and committee staffing.

--Mike

Hope Patterson said...

Just a little interesting trivia...

Didn't Steve Gaines preach his first sermon to us as our pastor on 9-11-05?

At the time I thought it a was a small coincidence. Now it seems only fitting.


piglet, I know you didn't mean anything hurtful by your statement, but some of us lost loved ones on 9/11.

That date is much more than interesting trivia to us.

Renewed said...

socwork said...
So I guess that means there really was no slander after all? Thank you.


Forgive me. Perhaps I should have just said "gossip".

Renewed

sickofthelies said...

renewed said:

Pardon me, perhaps I should have just said " gossip".

SOTL says:

gee, renewed, here you go again. Are we gossiping when we take exception to this statement:

" It was 17 years ago, give the guy a break"

I note that you have no answer to this.

Piglet said...

Hope Patterson said


piglet, I know you didn't mean anything hurtful by your statement, but some of us lost loved ones on 9/11.

That date is much more than interesting trivia to us.

Piglet says:

The signifigance of that day is not lost on me or anyone else. Noone will ever forget it or those that lost their lives.

That is precisely why that date is surrounded in tragedy.

I also see what is happening to our church, those we love and worship with, as a profound tragedy.

I hope you didn't misunderstand my meaning because this was not a joke. It is ac ommentary on the seriousness of what we see unfolding.

My condolences to you regarding your loss.

socwork said...

Should a transcript of every counseling session be available on a church's website?

Come on, that's a rediculous proposition.

Should every church member's home address and phone number be available for public consumption?

You mean like a church directory?

Should the travel schedule of a church's pastor and senior staff be easily obtained?

Why not?

I usually don't engage with you on this blog, and may regret starting now, but seriously... some of us are here for serious dialogue about serious issues. Whether you intend to have the tone you display or not is of course debatable, but you have displayed a tone that is not communicating an interest in discussion of the issues at hand. It seems like you do mean well, and I do know that you too want an open business meeting to confront these issues as you have communicated, but you sound very defensive in your posts. JMO

socwork said...

renewed,

if all we are doing here is gossiping, then perhaps you should avoid all appearance of evil in that you are reading and therefore participating in the gossip, yeah?

Like I just mentioned to MB and have mentioned to others on here, some of us are here for serious discussion... no one is making up stories about SG (slander) - and if they are, you are right, this should stop. SG has given people enough to work with without having to make up anything.

Mike Bratton said...

socwork said...
Should a transcript of every counseling session be available on a church's website?

Come on, that's a rediculous proposition.


Then you agree that some secrecy in a church is a good thing.

Should every church member's home address and phone number be available for public consumption?

You mean like a church directory?


Church directories are not distributed to the general public.

Should the travel schedule of a church's pastor and senior staff be easily obtained?

Why not?


Security concerns.

I usually don't engage with you on this blog, and may regret starting now, but seriously... some of us are here for serious dialogue about serious issues.

I completely agree.

Whether you intend to have the tone you display or not is of course debatable, but you have displayed a tone that is not communicating an interest in discussion of the issues at hand.

"Tone" is a remarkably subjective thing. Ever since the latest round of epithets began flying in my direction, I've been blessed with a busy inbox, full of e-mails from people reading the same things you read, yet thanking me for how calm I am in responding to so many provocative, barb-laden comments.

It seems like you do mean well, and I do know that you too want an open business meeting to confront these issues as you have communicated,

Do you think that all the "regulars" here want an open business meeting, too?

but you sound very defensive in your posts. JMO

Funny, I thought I was offensive. :)

--Mike

concernedSBCer said...

socwork....a church directory...great idea.....it works for lots of other churches, why wouldn't it work for BBC?

Travel plans....please tell me there are some who are so paranoid that no one is supposed to know their travel plans...unless of course your traveling could be interfering with your job...

Just thinking out loud.

ezekiel said...

Mike,

There are, obviously, some areas in which secrecy is a good thing. Having said that, there are also some areas in which secrecy is counterproductive--such as in the areas of church finances and committee staffing.

There you go again with the muddying and trampling....

What you call "counterproductive", the WORD calls "unfruitful works of darkness".....

You turn so easily to what Dr. Rogers taught, defend so vehemently what Dr. Gaines teaches yet trample, muddy the WORD and ridicule me for suggesting the same defense and the same respect for the WORD.....Thanks for making my point.

I must be mistaken.....I guess you came up with this little gem all on your own "Since Ephesians 5:12 refers to the behavior of non-Christians"

concernedSBCer said...

Are requests for membership lists FROM MEMBERS considered for public consumption?

Andrew said...

from NASS's passed on letter to us all... (11:47 PM, February 14, 2007

"Seek truth, share facts, and discuss your differences in a manner that honors God and those most impacted by this issue."

Well said sir.

Andrew

Renewed said...

socwork said...
renewed,

if all we are doing here is gossiping, then perhaps you should avoid all appearance of evil in that you are reading and therefore participating in the gossip, yeah?

No. I will not discuss any other issues on this blog. I was only trying to defend a brother who was being spoken of in a negative manner.

What bothers me is that you are all supposed to be my brothers and sisters yet you treat me as an enemy. Based on this, Heaven help me if I ever need love, compassion, and forgiveness from you. This breaks my heart!

I am done. Obviously I've offended some of you. I am sorry. It was not my intention.

Renewed

sickofthelies said...

Mike Bratton:

soc said:

Whether you intend to have the tone you display or not is of course debatable, but you have displayed a tone that is not communicating an interest in discussion of the issues at hand. It seems like you do mean well, and I do know that you too want an open business meeting to confront these issues as you have communicated, but you sound very defensive in your posts. JMO

SOTL says:

What I don't get, Mike, is, IF you sincerely want an open meeting, etc...then why do you come on here and try to discredit the very people that want what you want? I don't get it.

ezekiel said...

2006Hulda,

Thanks for the encouragement!
Please allow me to use what you said to make a point. I know this sounds picky but the point, I think is critical. I am certain you understand this even better than I do!

You said,

Ezekiel,

I am so glad you love the Bible like you do.


I am trying so hard to get everyone to understand that the "Bible" is Jesus.....The Bible is the WORD and the Word is Jesus.

So when you say "love the Bible" I would prefer "love the WORD". (John 1)Yes, I do so much love Him and I work hard to get to know Him and Abide in Him.

Without a personal, daily relationship with the WORD, how can we say "I am saved, He abides in me"?

socwork said...

renewed,

how have I treated you as an enemy? I want to know, really. I've reviewed our interaction on this blog this afternoon.

The thing is, when someone (anyone) comes on the blog and accuses those posting of slander and gossip and causing division, what kind of response do you expect?

I simply asked you for some examples of the slander that you accused posters of.

You qualified your statement and said you should have just said "gossip" instead of "slander."

If you would like to discuss the things we are discussing on this blog, you are welcome here. (Although, it's not my blog, and the blog administrator will have the final say). Just know that if/when you make accusations like you did, the natural, logical consequence is going to be to get some responses that feel "mean."

Mike Bratton said...

concernedSBCer said...
socwork....a church directory...great idea.....it works for lots of other churches, why wouldn't it work for BBC?


Because it would be obsolete before the first publishing run was complete.

Travel plans....please tell me there are some who are so paranoid that no one is supposed to know their travel plans...unless of course your traveling could be interfering with your job...

You're aware, are you not, that there are poor souls out there who thought it would be great fun to do bodily harm to Pastor Rogers?

Do you think that mindset has gone away?

ezekiel said...
Mike,

There are, obviously, some areas in which secrecy is a good thing. Having said that, there are also some areas in which secrecy is counterproductive--such as in the areas of church finances and committee staffing.

There you go again with the muddying and trampling....


Is that name-calling supposed to be part of "serious discussion"?

What you call "counterproductive", the WORD calls "unfruitful works of darkness".....

More on that in a moment.

You turn so easily to what Dr. Rogers taught, defend so vehemently what Dr. Gaines teaches yet trample, muddy the WORD and ridicule me for suggesting the same defense and the same respect for the WORD.....Thanks for making my point.

No, you've done that all on your own, particularly since I've yet to ridicule you. Thanks for illustrating how a straw-man argument works.

I must be mistaken.....

Yes. Very much so.

I guess you came up with this little gem all on your own "Since Ephesians 5:12 refers to the behavior of non-Christians"

Well, to be accurate, Paul came up with that "gem" as he was inspired by God the Holy Spirit to do so. I just, well, read it on the page.

The fifth chapter of Ephesians continues a compare-and-contrast between those of us who are Christians and those who are non-Christians, between those of us who have an inheritance and those who do not.

I don't know why you keep returning to it, but Ephesians 5:12 makes reference to non-Christians. "Them," you know?

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

sickofthelies said...

What I don't get, Mike, is, IF you sincerely want an open meeting, etc...


"If"?

What, I'm lying about the need for an open business meeting?

Heh heh heh...

then why do you come on here and try to discredit the very people that want what you want? I don't get it.

I ask that people be transparent and accountable, whether they be in Bellevue leadership or in this group.

When that's trying to "discredit" someone, please e-mail me and let me know.

--Mike

ezekiel said...

Mike,

You must have missed my post earlier this morning. You just want to argue...enjoy yourself...by yourself. Argue with MacAurther all you want.

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

GOSSIP:

A** is Stephen C.
Carter T. kneeling at the altar
TV channel pulling BBC from the air


This is just what I can remember off the top of my head... if you want me to go back and research I will.

Finance Guy said...

Hey guys,
I got something else we can talk about besides how bizarre and irrational Mike Bratton is.

There's a pretty credible rumor out there that the Reverend-to-be David Coombs is working on new bylaws to "present" to the church.
Given that a main purpose of bylaws is to protect the rights of the "minority", I'm not sure I'm comfortable with him up there behind closed doors writing up his idea of what updated bylaws should be.
What do you guys think about this?
Look for a bylaws committee to be put in place soon, the members will have last names such as "Smith", "Vandersteeg", "Coombs", "Brand", "Taylor", "Miller", "Tucker", "Purdue", "Whitehorn", “Brooke”. You know, the elders-that-we-don't-have. People must think we are the most talent-less large church in the world, since it’s only the same 10-20 people out of 30,000 who are able to handle such weighty matters of church governance.



Perhaps Mike Bratton is trying to get on this committee. This could explain his sudden reappearance on the blog, and his unkind and illogical attacks on the "pew", as designed to help his credibility with the "pulpit". I suppose this would be to overcome the damage of his temporary sanity of calling for a business meeting on his

bepatient said...

Regarding my last post, I am not trying to be mean, but at least own up to the fact that there is a lot of gossiping that goes on here. You may not be the one doing it, but it does happen all the time.

socwork said...

bepatient,

I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I have never discussed any of those issues on the blog. Of course, I can only speak for myself.

Blanket generalizations are not appreciated, nor are they typically accurate (and bepatient, I'm not saying you are making the generalization, that statement was for the blog at-large. :)

Piglet said...

Mike Bratton said

Just for the record, a number of you "regulars" here agree that God hates David Coombs, Larry Ray, Phil Weatherwax, Steve Marcum, Mark Dougharty, Steve Tucker, and Steve Gaines

Piglet says:

I don't think you are really this niave,but I believe the scripture states that the Lord hates these sins regardless of WHO commits them.

I doubt any of these guys gets a free pass..

2006Huldah said...

Wannaknow said,
"Hudlah,
I agree that SG became our pastor in August 2005, but wasn't it not reported to him until June 2006? Wouldn't that mean if the psychologist and former staff member knew in early 2006 that they knew before SG? And, shouldn't they have come forward?

Just thinking out loud."
****

Wannaknow, I am sorry I am just now getting back to answer your question. Of course, you are right. I had misread your statement. I thought you were saying that SG hadn't come to BBC until 2006. Since I always get my backtracking of year dates mixed up after a new year begins, I was sort of thinking that had happened to you. I am sorry. Please forgive me for my muddled meddling.
I think it even states in the investigative report that the counselor became involved in March (?) of 2006, then JF in May, then SG in June. Yes, there were definitely others who knew before SG knew IF the report was accurate on those particular points.
What does that mean for all those who knew 17 years ago, or 1 year ago? I am not a lawyer and I do not even want to speculate. They may not choose to do anything to anybody since the "child" is now and adult and quite possibly may have the option to decide whether or not to prosecute. I don't know. I just hate it that it EVER happened at all. It ought not to have. I am always totally amazed by the various sins people-especially those who are trained in the Word of God--fall into. At the same time, I do not want to stand here with my mouth hanging open and looking down on them because I figure if it happened to them, maybe it could happen to me. It just makes me be even MORE on the alert for the snares of the devil. "Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary, the devil, like a roaring lion walketh about, seeking whom he may devour; Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." 1 Pet. 5:8-9.

Dee

ilovebbc said...

Maybe if DC is working on new bylaws we could wait and see them before we criticize. It might be something we'd all be pleased with.

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

be patient said

GOSSIP:



A** is Stephen C.
Carter T. kneeling at the altar
TV channel pulling BBC from the air


This is just what I can remember off the top of my head... if you want me to go back and research I will.

Piglet says:

In both cases someone asked a question regarding these issues and someone else on the blog gave the accurate information. In one case there was an apology made for any misleading statements.

In the absence of open dialog inside the church walls, this forum has actually been AMAZINGLY accurate.

People ask questions and present speculation as speculation-which is sometimes verified with facts.

If you can get the leadership to talk to their own membership in a nonthreatening and truthful way this would all cease. And I mean in a forum where all parties concerned are present and testimony cannot be spun.

bepatient said...

socwork,

Gossiping happens here, on both sides. I try not to engage in conversations about it myself, but the fact is that it happens. So that is not a generalization. I just don't see the point in pretending it doesn't.

Everyone was acting like Renewed was so off the mark in saying that, but like it or not, it is true.

bepatient said...

Piglet, my point is this- No one just came and said "hey can anyone verify this?". They present it time after time as fact...

That is why it is gossip and not conversation.

2006Huldah said...

Standingontheshoulders1973 said,
"It is good to "hear" your joy has returned! I'm glad that you seem to be doing better today! I prayed for you several times throughout the evening last night!

Thanks for your exhortation. I am going to listen to Dr. Rogers now as I do my work!"
****

Precious Standingontheshoulders,

Your kind and thoughtful words to me have made me cry. You have truly touched my heart, and I thank you so much for this beautiful, bright spot you have given me today. Your prayers were certainly heard because HE did help me yesterday after that big, shocking, revelation I got from Hope Patterson. The Lord has begun a work here, I believe, and He may soon be glorified. I am not referring to any "behind the scenes human efforts" although it could possibly involve some of those. Rather, I am talking about plain, old, wonderful, glorious WORKING of the Lord Himself. Yesterday moved me to pray more fervently. The more who pray for a resolution, the sooner HE WILL DO IT. I am EXCITED in my spirit even as I say this to you. HALLELUJAH! Keep on praying, and thank you again for remembering me in your prayers. You are so loved.

Dee

Trollcakes said...

a"Maybe if DC is working on new bylaws we could wait and see them before we criticize. It might be something we'd all be pleased with."

Yeah, he's done so much to bolster our confidence thus far.

alphasenior said...

Finance Guy said...

There's a pretty credible rumor out there that the Reverend-to-be David Coombs is working on new bylaws to "present" to the church.

I would implore any member with sufficent influence to make sure the product of this bylaw committee is published to the membership for review and understanding prior to any business meeting.

Be careful that you don't first hear the provisions of this document read hurriedly some Sunday night followed by spontaneous amens.

Piglet said...

be patient said

Piglet, my point is this- No one just came and said "hey can anyone verify this?". They present it time after time as fact...

That is why it is gossip and not conversation.

Piglet says:

Regarding Carter kneeling at the alter, I believe the post about this ended with these words "Did anyone else see this?"

The person posting did not have a clear view and someone else who did explained what happened.

I don't recall the entire exchange about the BBC broadcast.

Finance Guy said...

trollcakes
You took the words right out of my mouth.

ilovebbc
Even if you are correct, would you agree that it's a bit odd that one person is charged (secretly I might add) with writing bylaws that affect an organization with 30k+ members? It's even fishier when that "one person" happens to be a the "second in command". Don't you think there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest? This goes back to the same old integrity and accountability issues that the "pew" is having with the "pulpit" at the moment.
When's it gonna end?

New BBC Open Forum said...

bepatient wrote:

"A** is Stephen C."

Nice coverage. :-) Actually, if you'll go back and look at the update on that particular topic, you might gain some insight on who might have started that little rumor. We don't need to discuss it here (and in fact, we won't), but you may find it interesting to look at the timeline for that series of comments.

Piglet said...

i love bbc said

Maybe if DC is working on new bylaws we could wait and see them before we criticize. It might be something we'd all be pleased with.

Piglet says:

I would hope so, but this same man signed a letter denying requested documents to the church members. He apparently feels that these issues are none of our business.

What will he do with the court order that is coming?

I hope our bylaws include a stipulation that willfully disobeying the law disqualifies one from holding a position in the church.

Piglet said...

Mike Bratton

And no, I'm not referring to traffic tickets. :)

Mike Bratton said...

If you're looking for more-direct communication with Bellevue, you can try this:

Send Belated Valentines To David Coombs

Well, I took a little poetic license with the title, but it's a new way to communicate your concerns.

--Mike

Mike Bratton said...

Piglet said...
Mike Bratton said

Just for the record, a number of you "regulars" here agree that God hates David Coombs, Larry Ray, Phil Weatherwax, Steve Marcum, Mark Dougharty, Steve Tucker, and Steve Gaines

Piglet says:

I don't think you are really this niave,but I believe the scripture states that the Lord hates these sins regardless of WHO commits them.

I doubt any of these guys gets a free pass..


Scroll back up.

You're correct in what the Scripture says, but the post in question made the observation that the sins were equated with the individuals named.

The post stated that God hates those individuals.

Did I just hear a pin drop?

--Mike

Finance Guy said...

alphasenior
I would implore any member with sufficient influence to make sure the product of this bylaw committee is published to the membership for review and understanding prior to any business meeting.

Let me add this. Anytime a committee opens up it's product (communications committee, budget committee, personnel committee vis-à-vis PW situation) to the congregation for comments, it’s usually in a small room, in small groups, and make no mistake, it’s not open for any changes. It’s only so the committee chairman can “explain” himself. It wouldn’t matter if 500 people showed up and demanded a change. They would just be told to “like it or leave”. This has been true for years.

I can only speculate as to why they would only discuss these in small, private encounters. In my opinion, in order for a bylaws committee to have any credibility, the church leadership is going to have to find a way to engage the church body in a significant way. I would suggest doing things as I understand how Germantown Baptist did the pulpit committee. Have a church business meeting, and accept nominations from the floor for members of a bylaws committee. This committee cannot be dominated by the same 10-20 people that have dominated like committees for years. There then needs to be a series of business meetings where this committee brings drafts to the congregation for comment, and then goes back into working sessions.

In no case can a secret, appointed committee bring us a document, put pressure on us that they have “done the Lord’s work”, and then ask for a sign of acceptance by “amens”, now let’s hold hands and sing “sweet-sweet spirit”. That’s tantamount to dictatorial, legalistic rule.

If Bellevue does not stand up and demand openness and accountability, that is exactly how it will go down.

Why are they so afraid of us?

bepatient said...

NASS,

I almost considered not adding that one, but I only did because I wanted to not be biased- that gossip came from "our" side and was quickly accepted as fact.

And Piglet,

I did meant to clarify in that post about CT DID contain that phrase, but I got distracted! But even with that, it quickly took on a life on it's own even after it was corrected.

Mike Bratton said...

ezekiel said...
Mike,

You must have missed my post earlier this morning. You just want to argue...enjoy yourself...by yourself. Argue with MacAurther all you want.


Another example of either clairvoyance or attempted character assassination.

You asked for an answer, complained that you didn't get one, you got one, and then you responded with an unfortunate remark because you got an answer.

Finance Guy said...

Hey guys,
I got something else we can talk about besides how bizarre and irrational Mike Bratton is.

...

Perhaps Mike Bratton is trying to get on this committee. This could explain his sudden reappearance on the blog, and his unkind and illogical attacks on the "pew", as designed to help his credibility with the "pulpit".


And yet another example.

--Mike

MOM4 said...

Whew,
There are some hostile folks on here today - Is it a full moon? Mikie and fellow gainers - calm down a bit! You are going off the deep end.

And I don't need a "she started it"..."did not"..."did too"...

Git A Grip Children!!!

sickofthelies said...

ANYONE that thinks that DC is working on bylaws so that we can be open and transparent has been smokin somethin.

New BBC Open Forum said...

mike bratton wrote:

"Just for the record, a number of you "regulars" here agree that God hates David Coombs, Larry Ray, Phil Weatherwax, Steve Marcum, Mark Dougharty, Steve Tucker, and Steve Gaines"

How stupid do you think we are? To quote someone from days gone by, don't put words in my mouth.

Why can't you simply discuss something or just present your views without trying to pick a fight with everyone here? Either cut the crap (there, I didn't censor it this time) or I will delete your comments. It's up to you.

2006Huldah said...

Ezekiel said,

"I am trying so hard to get everyone to understand that the "Bible" is Jesus.....The Bible is the WORD and the Word is Jesus.

So when you say "love the Bible" I would prefer "love the WORD". (John 1)Yes, I do so much love Him and I work hard to get to know Him and Abide in Him.

Without a personal, daily relationship with the WORD, how can we say "I am saved, He abides in me"?"

2:24 PM, February 15, 2007
*****

My brother, Ezekiel,

I am so glad you love the WORD like you do. I so appreciate the way you daily choose to share with us very pertinent scripture from the beautiful Word of God.

"For the word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

Yes, I do know EXACTLY where you are coming from, Ezekiel. You are so precious to Him.

Dee

Lin said...

Bratton: "Just for the record, a number of you "regulars" here agree that God hates David Coombs, Larry Ray, Phil Weatherwax, Steve Marcum, Mark Dougharty, Steve Tucker, and Steve Gaines."

Where was this said? Point to the sentence that said, "God hates (insert name here)"


Bratton: "As has been previously noted, and is easily discovered by reading my website, I hardly "exalt" Pastor Gaines. Then again, I didn't "exalt" Pastor Rogers, even though he was my boss and my friend."

Are you an employee of BBC now?


When scripture is misquoted I have to step in and contend for the truth. Please see Ephesians below. In chapter 1, Paul tells us who he is writing to...The church in Ephesus:


Ephesians 1
1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To the saints in Ephesus,[a] the faithful[b] in Christ Jesus:


Now, In Chapter 5 it is important to note verses 1-3. He is addressing the church and even makes it clear he is speaking to the church in verse 3. Read it closely.

Ephesians 5
1Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.

He is telling them in verse 4 that even a hint of immoral behavior is wrong for Holiness. Why? Keep in mind that Paul was at this church teaching for 3 years! He knew what their culture was like. He penned this Epistle from Prison.

He is talking directly to the professing Christians in the church at Ephesus. Why would he need to do that? Because these were Gentiles in Greek culture where rampant immorality was natural and a way of life. Most had mistresses, concubines, and worshipped idols when they converted.

4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

..For this you can be sure.. is also a translated in the NASB as "For this you know with certainty". These words are present tense and are the same as a 'command' in the Greek. If you go back to Eph 2: 2-3 this will be clearer why he is writing this.

6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

7Therefore do not be partners with them.

Why would he need to tell believers not to fellowship with these people? They had been under his teaching for 3 years. They had also been taught by Priscilla and Aquila and even Apollos (which did not work out so well)

8For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10and find out what pleases the Lord. 11Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
12For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14for it is light that makes everything visible.

Now, how do you expose the evil deeds of the the world? One does not have to..it is obvious to a believer..idol worship, concubines, etc in Greek culture. But, you can expose to light unfruitful deeds of darkness by believers in the church. Expose is the pivotal word here. We know that Paul told the Corinthians not to judge the world...not to worry about what the world does. We are not to judge now because we will judge in the end. But, we are to expose evil in the church. Paul does not contradict himself.

" This is why it is said:
"Wake up, O sleeper,
rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."
15Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is."

Foolish in this verse is the Greek 'aphron' which connotates a a person in Greco-Roman society who had lost the correct measure of himself and the world around him.

But even more important is his exhortation to understand the will of God. The meaning "Understanding the will of the Lord", is virtually identical to Paul's earlier charge for believers to walk "trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord' (See note Ephesians 5:10) The subsequent verses explain God's will includes believers being filled with His Spirit, being thankful, submitting to one another, being loving husbands, being obedient children, being disciplining fathers, being obedient slaves and being non-threatening masters. The point is that God's will is best discerned from God's Word.

"18Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."

The lure of all the drunken Greek festivals was great to the Ephesians.

" 19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

This is a plea of sorts to fellowship and worship with ONE another instead of fesitivals and wine. That is, in letting each other know of their joy in salvation, they are to do so in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. They are to find expression to the Spirit-filled life in this way.


I'll end it there. But this Epistle is definitly written to believers who were being warned about bad behavior..Why? IF this was written about unbelievers, then Paul's words in 1 Corinthians are contradicted in Ephesians.

1 Corinthians 5

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[b]

There are NO contradictions in scripture.

Trollcakes said...

New BBC motto?

"Move along now; there's nothing to see here."

Bratton, why do you harp on these peoples anonymity so much? A "reporter" should know that anonymity is as old as the age, and has been employed for many purposes--yet usually to veil the identity of one whom would otherwise feel coerced, badgered and subject to backlash by the wealthy, powerful or simply the impetuous--haha(not naming names).

Nobody here wants a bevy of deacons, dressed like morticians, jumping their (little) fence for a smattering of spontaneous "fellowship." You don't think people here have any call to fear some downward pressure from the big guns at BBC, eh?

No, I cannot really think of anybody who ever experienced a negative consequence to their life stemming from the expression of dissent to the leadership of Bellevue.

Read my lips--would-never-happen-in-a-million-years.

concernedSBCer said...

BePatient: I must address your post of 3:07. I have read every post since mid-December and my recollection in all these cases was an "I've heard this; does anyone know anything?" Especially in the case of CT, it VERY MUCH was a question. My understanding of gossip is when something is presented as fact that in fact is not, or is a guess, or can't be substantiated. My experience with this blog is that questions have been asked, answered have been found, and we move on. I don't recall in any of the mentioned cases as it being presented as fact, just as a "Do you think?" or "Have you heard anything?" etc. This blog has to some extent become our location to try to get some information (it doesn't seem to come from anywhere else). And honestly, most of what has come out has either been true or has been proven later to be true.

Finance Guy said...

Mike,
And yet another example.

Mike,
If you are going to assign motives to people, you really shouldn't be surprised when others do it to you.

And your communications to people today have in fact been illogical and unkind. For instance, let me use your last comment to ezekiel.

You're aware, are you not, that there are poor souls out there who thought it would be great fun to do bodily harm to Pastor Rogers?

Do you think that mindset has gone away?


This is illogical for two reasons. First, there no way anyone can do bodily harm to Dr. Rogers, for obvious reasons.

Second, If you are referring to Dr. Gaines, (Which I have to assume that you are), it’s illogical because Dr. Gaines speaking engagements are publicized far and wide by the organizers of those conferences yet you defend the churches decision not to make the same communication to it’s members, who have every right to know that the man they hired to be their pastor is not “going to be at work next Sunday”.


You must have missed my post earlier this morning. You just want to argue...enjoy yourself...by yourself. Argue with Macarthur all you want.

Another example of either clairvoyance or attempted character assassination.


This is illogical and unkind.
First, you prove the point about how you just want to argue. Second, it’s unkind (obviously you don’t really think he’s clairvoyant, and to suggest he dabbles in the occult actually is character assassination on your part). All ezekiel is doing is pointing out your observed behavior.

Third, it’s illogical because it’s not “attempted character assignation”. An example of character assassination would be “Mike Bratton is the 21st Century reincarnation of the High Priest Ciaphas”. Pointing out what you flaunt before the world, that you like to argue, is hardly character assassination. In fact, it appears to be something you are rather proud of.

You accusing him of this is another attempt to deflect from the real issues, which is something else your behavior on here communicates as your intent.

Now, go ahead and make fun of some spelling or grammatical mistake I may have made. It’s very interesting to me how you focus laser-like on such minutia, and completely ignore the substance of the serious issues people raise on here. And then you go run and “play the victim” like some post modern liberal.

Finance Guy said...

lin,
MB worked at LWF. That's why he said Dr. Rogers was his boss.

New BBC Open Forum said...

trollcakes wrote:

"Nobody here wants a bevy of deacons, dressed like morticians, jumping their (little) fence for a smattering of spontaneous 'fellowship.' You don't think people here have any call to fear some downward pressure from the big guns at BBC, eh?"

Sad but true, I suspect. Out of the mouths of "boo dists"...

Finance Guy said...

sickofthelies said...
ANYONE that thinks that DC is working on bylaws so that we can be open and transparent has been smokin somethin.

You mean drinking some-bodies kool-aid!

aslansown said...

Folks, You realy need to follow MB's link in his above post. You will find a new web page on Bellevue's website that will shed a lot of light on what we have been talking about here, especially FINANCEGUY'S statement regarding the reformulation of Bellevue's rules of governance.

At first reading it would appear that we have "more of the same" including membership in the coveted committee on formulating the rules. GO see for yourself.

Mike,
Did you post this so as to illuminate us? If so, thanks.

sheeplessatbbc said...

Mike Bratton said...
If you're looking for more-direct communication with Bellevue, you can try this:


Mike, thanks for the information.

Everyone, this is Bellevue.org the "Administrative Pastors" page,
1. Letter to the church dated 2/14/07
2. Response to members requesting records, February 9, 2007...(pay close attention to 3rd page, when did we approve these things??!!)

senioralpha & finance guy, you're absolutely right!!
IF...David Coombs is working on new by-laws the church certainly needs to be able to review them in their entirety in plenty of time before a "railroaded" congreationally approved meeting.

**It would be nice to see a set of the current by-laws with all ammendments**

sheeplessatbbc said...

Aslansown, Looks like you and I had the same idea.

ezekiel said...

2006Hulda,

Thank you so much for your kind words!

sickofthelies said...

sleeplessatbbc said:

IF...David Coombs is working on new by-laws the church certainly needs to be able to review them in their entirety in plenty of time before a "railroaded" congreationally approved meeting.

SOTL says:

NOT gonna hold her breath!!!

Piglet said...

Custos,

I know you keep up with the blog as much as you can. If you are out there, could you please respond to the reasons Coombs gave for denying documents?

The letter is now on Bellevue's website.

How can they say this is not in "good faith" when the law was made,I presume, so members could "check" on what is going on behind closed doors? It could only benefit them if all is well, could it not?

Do they already know that the findings would cause "more disharmony" because of what is there?

New BBC Open Forum said...

THERE'S A NEW THREAD DEVOTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PASTOR'S LETTERS IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE UP!

Thank you,

NBBCOF

Tim said...

The request clearly states:

"so that we, as members of Bellevue Baptist Church, may communicate in an open, civil, and transparent manner with our fellow members regarding recent matters in the Church’s life."

The Request


The response is clearly misleading:

"You are apparently operating under the premise that a member of Bellevue for any or no reason has the right to obtain all records for the Church."

The Response


From the investigative report:

"Bellevue Baptist Church initiated the current investigation, instructing the team to “leave no stone unturned” to reach the truth and to conduct the investigation in an independent, unbiased manner. Toward that end, outside counsel and an outside Human Resources consultant were retained, and the Investigative Team was created. David Coombs, who was asked to lead the team."


Questions:
Is this the same gentleman that reported information incorrectly to David Brown at the beginning of this investigation?

Is this the same gentleman that sifted thru pebbles while ignoring boulders?

Is this the same gentleman that treated a dear woman cruelly who told him that, “Pedophilia thrives in secrecy?

Is this the same gentleman that treated Josh Manning rudely?

Is this the same gentleman that told Josh Manning that he did not care what the Tennessee law said?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but is this the same gentleman that the church is planning to ordain to the ministry on February 25?

Surely this could not be the same gentleman.