New Commercial Appeal column by Wendi Thomas.
Original Wendi Thomas column.
New FBC Jacksonville blog.
Associated Baptist Press article.
Baptist Press article.
Please bookmark this site:
http://newbbcopenforum.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
628 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 628 Newer› Newest»thing 2...
I am your friend? How nice of you to say that. Tell me a little about yourself.
(I love snow)
gmommy
It's good to see you around! Hope this was a better day.
imaresistor, well my best friend is thing 1. we made our seuss debut in the cat in the hat. we were friends with him but not after today because he poisoned thing 1 in his green eggs and hams.
do you think that was nice of the cat? thing 1 is on the couch beside me crying because he is in lots of pain. i may have to take him to the emergency room tonight. please say a prayer for him.
Some Ho Ho verses for Amos...
Ecclesiastes 2:25
For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?
Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine
Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.
Zechariah 2:6
munch munch munch...
kjv for above post... of course...
best kind of comfort food.
nite.
25+, that was excellent! Why didn't I think to do a search on "Ho ho"? And the "spread abroad" part is perfect for the one that got all the cream sqashed out!
junk99mail said...
25+, that was excellent! Why didn't I think to do a search on "Ho ho"? And the "spread abroad" part is perfect for the one that got all the cream sqashed out!
And the doubters say that the Bible is just an old outdated book of stories with no relavence in today's world.
Astounded said:
And the doubters say that the Bible is just an old outdated book of stories with no relavence in today's world.
junk99mail replies:
Yes! Zechariah 2:6 (KJV) is Biblical proof that both creme-filled snack cakes and the South are godly!
Notice anyone missing from here?
NASS,
What a wonderful blog at this time of day. Everyone is so.... so.... delightfully social Ho Ho's and all.
Snowing in Bartlett. I wonder if I should go out in the garage and dig out the sled and steel wool the runners? And The moon is ....oh phoey the clouds. How many have childhood memories of late night sledding or ice skating on top of the snow because it rained on top of the snow and then refroze. I grew up in up-state New York.
Well, not surprised about FBJax and Dr. Gaines. My personal "conflugit-o-meter" is telling me that he is not feeling so good just now. We really should be praying for he and Donna. (are my grammer right?)
I kinda thought we would see Dr. Gaines Googoo Clusters run out. I wasn't sure when.
Good night/morning all. And thanks some of you more "serious" and studious ones for raising the level of interchange here.
Jesus is Lord 24/7
imaresistor said...
On this car issue...I would hardly think the man has been here long enough to see how long he might or might not drive a particular vehicle? Seems to me you are just going to have to wait and see? Is this really significant anyway?
10:27 PM, February 01, 2007
***In itself, many of these "issues" are not issues. For me it goes to the issue of another "mistatement of fact", regarding pay.
As our pastoral search committee "sub-committee" negotiated SG pay package, it considers the following (not a complete list):
Salary
Insurance
Retirement
Housing Allowance
Travel Allowance
Vacation
Vehicle
Expenses - Eating out, gas, travel, etc
(Not included-Gifts from members, free getaways at no cost)
...and more that we are probably not aware of.
The issue is that we were told that "SG does not make anywhere close to 500K per year". The facts seems to prove otherwise.
Chuck Taylor has also said that "SG can take as much vacation as he wants". How many of CT's employees have this ability? Could it be that he will do with God's money what he won't do with his own money? Harry Smith? Dave Perdue? Jeff Arnold? Brian Miller? Steve Tucker? Mark Daugherty?
Remember the BBC MOTO: "Well, we have the money", so why not.
I submit to you the answer is YES.
There seems to be a double speak from these leaders. When they hire someone for their business, I can assure you that they consider the total "employment package" and not just the salary.
The other issue of salary is that no matter what your church or church size is, it will be a very difficult sell to me that a Pastor should make this kind of money from the tithes of God's people.
Listen up ACE, Deacon 4545, Memphis, IMA, this includes Dr Rogers. I do not know what AR made.
Today, it is not important to me, because it is just now coming to my attention and we cannot change what happened in 2005.
The problem is that all of these millionaires surrounding the pastor engratiate themselves to the Pastor by giving gifts (tithes) to the Pastor. It is easy to give oter peoples money. Just ask a Democrat or other politician. Since it is decided by only a few men, it becomes a gift from them, not the church. Because these men have been so successful in business, they feel guilty and give more money to sooth their own conscience.
This is why Mark Sharpe was also correct when he pointed out that the leadership of BBC does not look like its membership.
When you have a more inclusive leadership, accountability is more prevalent.
Isn't this what BBC is lacking?
Heavenly Father,
I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic
for which it stands
one nation
under you
with liberty and justice
for all.
Heavenly Father,
Please help us follow the Ten Commandments, even in our hearts. Help us to read today's text from the Bible (USA english) ("thou shalt" english).
Father,
You've given me the opportunity to visit, among other places: New York, London, Paris, Athens, Jerusalem, Moscow, Bombay, Beijing, Honolulu, and Los Angeles.
Father,
It is with total truth that I can say that the people of Memphis, TN, love your Son, Jesus Christ, more than the people of any of these other places do.
Father,
In my humble opinion:
Memphis, TN...
...is ****the best city on earth, the best city under Heaven****.
Please let the Great Commission move forward today in Bulgaria. In Jesus's name, Amen.
Thank you for this thread, "Today's Media Coverage - January 30, 2007"
New BBC Open Forum said...
Notice anyone missing from here?
OH MY!!!! Dr. Gaines has been dropped from ANOTHER speaking engagement.
Dr. Gaines may have withdrawn himself from the speaking engagements.
allofgrace said...
Dr. Gaines may have withdrawn himself from the speaking engagements.
That is certainly possible.
allofgrace said...
Are 7/11 burritos anything like 7/11 choruses?
they generally have the same effect
11:31 PM, February 01, 2007
Great Post!!! I so agree....thanks all for last night...I enjoyed the laughter this am.....
I will be praying for Mrs. Gaines and the Gaines family. Wonder if Dr. Gaines will withdraw from his engagement at FBC Woodstock this Wednesday Feb. 7th.
Phil Edmiston said...
"Years ago, while Dr. Rogers was pastor, I was told that even though it wasn't public information, if a member wanted to know the pastor's salary, they would tell you.
I just never had a reason to go and ask."
2:26 PM, February 01, 2007
This was my personal experience back around 1989. At a budget review and question/answer meeting which is held each February, I was told that if I actually wanted to know all I had to do was go to the pastors office and ask. I understood that I would be asked for my reasons and that perhaps "just curious" would not be reason enough to release salary information.
I never had a reason so didn't ask. To date I have not had a conversation with anyone who asked and received an answer.
Today.... We at BBC are watching our tithes, God's money, compensating a man who in a very short time has given away his integrity and lost my trust. Today I would like to know simply to put a dollar value on the seriousness of our situation. Money talks. It talks to me... We should consider as an individual how much, we personally, would be willing to pay to receive the leadership services our pastor has and is providing. In business this would be a very short evaluation process with very quick and predictable outcome. I am truly so sorry, this hurts so bad.
I’ll read later but I just can not stay on the blog and sing unto the Lord a new song which He gives me each day.
I love you Jesus for first loving me….
I have met Dr. Gaines mom...and yes we should be praying for each one by name.
bbc refugee said...
"Listen up ACE, Deacon 4545, Memphis, IMA, this includes Dr Rogers."
Ouch!!! When I read the post about how long Gaines has driven a car...it just occurred to me that he really hasn't been here long enough to make that determination just yet. Please don't misunderstand me. You have me grouped in the enemy camp! That is frightening!
Announcement
Sometimes it is hard to get people to accept your repentance.
Sometimes it is hard to get people to accept your forgiveness.
It is true. Sometimes people know in their heart that what they did was so wrong in Jesus's eyes, that they refuse to accept your forgiveness. They forever think that you are trying to hurt them or get revenge.
You know the story of Joseph in Egypt? (See my profile).
Well, my brothers don't accept my ***forgiveness.***
They found out my real name a while back. I have decided to leave.
Just keep reading three chapters per day. Some chapters will be very long. Just hang in there. Some will be very short, read some extra those days.
Really, if your Bible has about a 1,000 pages in it, then your best guide is to read ~three pages per day.
When you get to 1st and 2nd Kings and 1st and 2nd Chronicles, you might want to temporarily switch over to a chronological study. Ask AllOfGrace for help. Those 4 books of the Bible are packed with historical info. The reign of each king of the two kingdoms is the way to tie everything together.
Try to pray for the Great Commission to go on in a different country every day. The list of country names I'm using came off the IMB website, but I don't have the link handy to give you.
Peace,
Joseph
Heavenly Father,
Let love, peace, and truth guide this place. I pray for my brothers that they will accept my forgiveness.
In Jesus's name, AMEN.
Bloggers,
Please see that my 9:22 am comment (comment number 454 on this thread) is copied soon to the next thread.
Surely a new thread will be started soon. Please, make sure that my words are seen by those who don't come back on this long thread again.
I believe the issue of getting people to accept ***forgiveness*** is part of the barrier to resolution at BBC.
Let my experience shed some light on that issue for the sake of restoring fellowship.
Joseph
Piglet said- Three trips to Greece and Rome with a Bellevue crowd, per year would be a decent salary.
I want that job.
REPLY- Why is it so hard for you and all the other loving Christians on this wonderful Christian blog to stick to serious posts and serious topics? It seems very hard for you and others to go any length of time without spewing hate and attacks and rumors and lies. Why is that?
Charlie Fox said- OH MY!!!! Dr. Gaines has been dropped from ANOTHER speaking engagement.
REPLY- And you point fingers at others and their motives behind their posts?
YOUR post is just more proof that many of you are out for one thing and one thing only. To see Dr. Gaines go down, to see him suffer, to see him resign, to see him hurt, to see those that support him and love him hurt and go down as well. THAT is sad and pathetic. That does not represent Christ in any way.
Many on here and elsewhere are only out for blood and will not stop at anything less.
It goes WITHOUT QUESTION that GOD HIMSELF has removed Steve Gaines from the two speaking engagements.
THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY JESUS CHRIST IS SOVEREIGN OVER ALL THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH. HE TELLS US THIS IN HIS INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE HOLY WORD. HOW FAITHFUL AND ALL-GLORIOUS HE IS IN ALL THINGS!!!
Sincerely in The LORD and ONLY Savior Jesus Christ,
Stephen and Bonita Ann Richie
Living Hope In Jesus
www.livinghopeinjesus.com
Colossians said...
"Today.... We at BBC are watching our tithes, God's money, compensating a man who in a very short time has given away his integrity and lost my trust. Today I would like to know simply to put a dollar value on the seriousness of our situation. Money talks. It talks to me... We should consider as an individual how much, we personally, would be willing to pay to receive the leadership services our pastor has and is providing. In business this would be a very short evaluation process with very quick and predictable outcome. I am truly so sorry, this hurts so bad."
The leadership may be trying to avoid releasing the financial records to the congregation, but this will NOT escape Almighty God.
The money that is given to the church is SACRED money. It is not theirs to "spend".
Their position is more serious than running the church like a business - they are playing with fire, without prayer over the manner in which they are spending God's money.
There is a very serious spiritual problem. I have said more than once - NO WHERE IN ANYTHING STEVE GAINES HAS SAID DID HE EVER SAY HE HAD PRAYED OVER HIS DECISIONS!!!
This is key to his lack of discernment and his actions. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FACT THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO OVERLOOK.
Everyone should give this Feb 1 post a read.
Steve Gaines voluntarily removed himself from his speaking engagements. I know you have no reason to trust me, but many of you know my name and I have never lied to anyone here. I know for 100% fact that he stepped down to spent more time here with BBC and his family.
mom4 said- There is a very serious spiritual problem. I have said more than once - NO WHERE IN ANYTHING STEVE GAINES HAS SAID DID HE EVER SAY HE HAD PRAYED OVER HIS DECISIONS!!!
REPLY- No matter what he has said and what you think, Dr. Gaines prays over all of his decisions and there are many around him praying as well.
bepatient- You are 100% correct.
bepatient,
The point has already been raised that he may have withdrawn from the speaking engagements himself.
4545,
There will always be...if you will allow me the word picture... caterpillars who have glued on the wings of dead butterflies parading around as if they are real butterflies.... and then there are butterflies.
The Church is like this and more. We have the born again in thought and deed and we have the born again in Spirit.
When we discover that we feed on and long for the word of God and our bearing in life is totally dependant on God having placed our faith where God placed our sin...on Jesus, then most everything anyone says or does becomes less shocking or surprising. Now the sting of sin becomes the horrific part. We are to pray over everything with the Word of God.
Perhaps you could lead those on the blog into a short Bible study on how a "real butterfly" views the world around us and how we would best interact and relate with each other as those born of the Spirit relating to those who might not be.
Jesus is the one who will come with a sword in His mouth...not you and me. We are not to participate in a "word-of-God" food fight at the Lord's Table.
Lead us.
bepatient,
I wouldn't pretend to know what his reasons for stepping down from speaking engagements are, and I'm not doubting you. I just thought it was an interesting development.
If he needs to stay in town to care for his mother or other personal or family issues, I don't fault him for that. His family should come first. We do need to pray for his mother and for him and his family daily.
NBBCOF,
I know- I just thought I would clarify. But I know people have concerns about him spending time away from BBC, and that is a large part of why he stepped down, to devote more time to Bellevue.
4545 said...
"mom4 said- There is a very serious spiritual problem. I have said more than once - NO WHERE IN ANYTHING STEVE GAINES HAS SAID DID HE EVER SAY HE HAD PRAYED OVER HIS DECISIONS!!!
REPLY- No matter what he has said and what you think, Dr. Gaines prays over all of his decisions and there are many around him praying as well."
So the reasons for the lack of knowledge, wisdom and discernment regarding the PW situation is God's fault because he did not give Steve Gaines good directions on how to handle the situation??
Don't you think that if he had prayed over his decision that the Lord would have sent up red flags all over the place? Perhaps he did pray and was not able to discern that this was a traumatic event in the life of the church?? But don't you also believe that if he is annointed to be the pastor of this once great church, that he should also be able to discern that his duty would have been to protect the church and the sheep from this scandal?
Let's not speculate on his reasons. We know that he is not speaking at these engagements. That's all we know.
Thanks for the link, AOG. Fascinating. I want to read the complete blog as I have time. It is comforting to know there seems to be a shift in the SBC. Maybe there are more folks like us than we thought.
Pinker Socks- That did not take long. MORE proof. You and others simply cannot help yourselves. You seem to love spread rumors and shed doubt.
concerned,
The organization that that blog is linked to has been around for over 20 yrs now.
I said this the other day and I will say it again:
I do not get ANY PLEASURE AT ALL in watching Steve Gaines destroy his own career. He worked hard to get where he is..a PHD requires commitment and dedication.
Regardless of the atrocities he has perpetrated on BBC, I do feel for him regarding his mother, and we need to pray for her, as well as him.
I continue to pray that God would use him in a mighty way, in one way or another. If it's not at BBC, then some other place.
Some decisions should be a priori, needing no unction from God.
Let's move it into the rhetorical as a case in point:
If a man, who would be Pastor, found out that a minister on the church staff was an admitted child molester and took no action, not even to find out his duties, should such behavior have any bearing on the congregation's judging competence for the position or God's annointing?
Even IF SG removed himself from these speaking engagements, could it be that perhaps he is embarassed of what has happened at BBC with PW and his role in it?
If that is the case, at least he is shedding some arrogance. At least he is feeling some shame.
I don't know if that is the case or not, but if it IS the case, it's a very good thing for him.
AOG,
I am not speculating. I know for a fact why he is not speaking. But that is fine, I can't make you believe me. There is not point in arguing about it. I just want to to clarify that I am not speculating.
bepatient,
My statement was directed to the board in general, not anyone in particular. As to believing you, I don't know you and you don't know me, so I think it's safe to assume you would give no more weight to anything I would say.
Bepatient,
Thanks for writing in a manner, which is a good reflection of your screen name.
OFG (over flowing grouse, I mean grace) doesn’t seem to comprehend that notion.
Please pray scripture ya'll. I'm not going to suggest which to pray the Holy Spirit will do that when you just open "the book" and ask.
Jesus, He is risen.
SadTroll said...
"Wow - the man's mother is very ill and he takes time to take care of her - and here you guys are speculating and happy that he is not speaking at some conference somewhere...
Sad, sad....
I don't think my Jesus would be proud of you.... "
When his dear mother was in ICU at the MED, why don't you ask him where he was? Did he cancel his engagements then?
I pray for his mother and his children. This turmoil is not their fault and they should be protected from it - that is his and his wife's responsibility. I am glad that he is spending time at home - it is needed, and I do not care one ioata why he is not speaking and I do not care to speculate, but it is about time he took care of the needs of all the families, his and the church family.
AOG, that's good to know. I've just recently begin discovering the world of the blogs.
Wow, sad. Wow, selective outrage.
Some decisions should be a priori, needing no unction from God.
I think trollcates makes a good point here. There are some things that we don't need to "pray about" aren't there...
I've talked to many teens in the church (generally speaking, not BBC specifically) who call themselves Christians yet struggle with whether or not they should sleep with their boyfriend/girlfriend. They'll even say they pray about it. Is this really something we need to pray about to come to a decision on? Or has God made it explicitly clear what His will is in this matter?
I think the same idea can be applied to keeping silent about a pedophile on staff. Is this really something that needs to be "prayed about," or is this a no brainer, so to speak?
It appears to me that Founder's Ministries has Calvanist leanings. I don't lean toward Calvinism, because I can't get past the Elect point. I just don't understand it.
socwork,
I agree completely. The reason I wanted the lack of prayer issue out there is because Steve Gaines said that he was in "uncharted waters" and did not know what to do. It is known that he did not ask others, it is also blatantly obvious that he did not ask the ONE who could always tell him the correct way to respond.
Being the pastor of BBC, I totally agree that he should have enough wisdom to act appropriately in the situation involving PW.
"The problem is that all of these millionaires surrounding the pastor engratiate themselves to the Pastor by giving gifts (tithes) to the Pastor. It is easy to give oter peoples money. Just ask a Democrat or other politician. Since it is decided by only a few men, it becomes a gift from them, not the church."
Actually, it is the staff that spends money like drunken sailors. The millionaire elders only know what staff tell them. At one mega, 12 elders raised 10 million just within themselves in ONE day for something for the church.
One elder gave the pastor the down payment for his 6,000 sq foot house. Gift.
Vacations? Oh, the pastor needs to get away, we will take him to our ski chalet in Aspen. Or to Hawaii for 2 weeks.
Happens all the time. think those elders have the ear of the pastor? But the poor guy driving a yugo who is one his knees all week doesn't. Trust me. I saw it all the time.
(BTW: The poor guy if he really follows Christ does not stay long at the mega. But people who like beinga part of something big and flashy do. They like having a celebrity pastor. They like following men.)
Sad Troll,
Is that you, Ace? Too many wow-sads, right out of the gate, to be a coinidence.
Rather than always only expressing disbelief (wow) or disapproval (sad), perhaps you have, I don't know, something up your sleeve resembling a cohesive argument.
Truth-seekers,
It is axiomatic that one may always introduce doubt and speculation into any debate; heck, it's healthy even. But the pontificating from the Gaines people is so egregious (since the church pushed this conversation out into the bloggoshere), hypocritical (in the sence of the misplaced outrage by the stooges)and finally the visciousness (e.g. flik and flak).
If this group had entered the church one Sunday and introduced likewise into the proceedings there, don't you know they'd have lost their breakfast.
They are still trying to capture and muddle this conversation--look at how desparate they're getting.
Don't piddle with them. Southern Baptist still believe in spanking, yes?
"I think the same idea can be applied to keeping silent about a pedophile on staff. Is this really something that needs to be "prayed about," or is this a no brainer, so to speak?"
Its a no brainer. It is very clear in scripture. I am more concerned that he does not follow scripture. IF he did, he WOULD be on his knees in prayer. But things that are so clear in scripture...there is just no excuse.
esther,
I posted this last PM.
esther,
RE: your 5:24PM post. I am with you so far.
From all that I have read and studied, it appears that pastor, bishop and elder refer to the same person. Therefore, it appears that there are 2 offices, pastor/bishop/elder and deacon. The ministerial staff hold the pastor/bishop/elder office and laymen hold the deacon office.
Charlie,
That's ok..Founders ministries addresses a lot of concerns about the church that apply no matter what your theological convictions are.
"It appears to me that Founder's Ministries has Calvanist leanings. I don't lean toward Calvinism, because I can't get past the Elect point. I just don't understand it."
Charlie, Just a question. Do you believe that God knows everything that is going to happen? Do you believe that He knew what Abraham was going to ask? Do you believe He knew what Jonah was going to do all along?
Do you think our prayers change Him or us?
Do you think that God wants all the Glory for Himself? Everything He does or does not do is about HIs Glory?
If you give the full gospel to someone and they convert...was it you or the Holy Spirit working?
How you answer those questions will determine if you think God is Sovereign.
And that my friend, will determine election. He already knows!
There is more to it, but that is a start. (I can already hear the groanings of the 'C' people.)
allofgrace said...
Charlie,
That's ok..Founders ministries addresses a lot of concerns about the church that apply no matter what your theological convictions are.
Reply:
I can accept that. I too am deeply concerned
Charlie, I agree about the elder thing. We have reduced it to a board of directors type function. Real Elders are preaching, teaching, ministering, visiting the sick, annointing the sick, etc.
Real elders are guys on their knees. It has nothing to do with status, worldly titles, wealth, etc. Those things could be a hinderance. Maybe not...but we all know all the scriptures that warn.
socwork: you make an excellent point. Isn't it frustrating when people say they pray about things that God has already answered? I wonder if He gets frustrated....He gave us the answers and instead of applying what He has already told us, we ask for a clarification, or an exception?
esther,
LOL...no groans...actually I generally believe all the things that those who don't hold my position believe...I just believe more on particular points.
Charlie, Ironically, in scriptures it seems the deacons are handling the money issues.
Is history repeating itself, albeit at another church - FBC Jacksonville?
FBC Questions Needing An Answer
As I've heard from others, the situation at BBC is not unique these days. Others in churches far and near are experiencing the same thing as is going on at BBC.
See the Saturday, January 27 post for mention of similar issues (accountability and responses of intimidation).
aog: "esther,
LOL...no groans...actually I generally believe all the things that those who don't hold my position believe...I just believe more on particular points."
One should go slow and not use all those fancy words you reformers use. I am NOT a reformer. My ancestors were the Anabaptists fighting the reformers because they were too much like Rome! (smile) My ancestors ever had to reform...get it? They always believed in Sola Fide
t,
I love your logic...it's always profoundly simple, and simply profound.
So if God knows all, is creator of all, knows who will ultimately accept or reject (like 4/5ths of the world) him, then what's His point? And what is "His glory?"
I never have seen any Christian reconcile their stalwart belief in free will with the scenario above.
Esther said...
"It appears to me that Founder's Ministries has Calvanist leanings. I don't lean toward Calvinism, because I can't get past the Elect point. I just don't understand it."
Charlie, Just a question. Do you believe that God knows everything that is going to happen? Do you believe that He knew what Abraham was going to ask? Do you believe He knew what Jonah was going to do all along?
REPLY: ABSOLUTELY
Do you think our prayers change Him or us?
REPLY: US
Do you think that God wants all the Glory for Himself? Everything He does or does not do is about HIs Glory?
REPLY: YES
If you give the full gospel to someone and they convert...was it you or the Holy Spirit working?
REPLY: The HOLY SPIRIT
How you answer those questions will determine if you think God is Sovereign.
And that my friend, will determine election. He already knows!
REPLY: I know HE knows.
There is more to it, but that is a start. (I can already hear the groanings of the 'C' people.)
"My ancestors ever had to reform...get it? They always believed in Sola Fide "
The N is missing. It should read Never. thinking faster than one types.
Esther said...
Charlie, I agree about the elder thing. We have reduced it to a board of directors type function. Real Elders are preaching, teaching, ministering, visiting the sick, annointing the sick, etc.
Real elders are guys on their knees. It has nothing to do with status, worldly titles, wealth, etc. Those things could be a hinderance. Maybe not...but we all know all the scriptures that warn.
Reply:
I'm still with ya on that.
Charlie, You just agreed with election. (Forget Calvin)
hardware man said, at 10:36 PM on Feb. 1, 2007:
Ace, you are nailed.
http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=351763
reponse:
Well, if you go there, it has been removed, HOWEVER, I DO have a hard copy..shall I scan and post?
:o)
It's really sad...just so sad.
"My ancestors were the Anabaptists fighting the reformers because they were too much like Rome!"
Which Anabaptists?...there were several sects you know.
"So if God knows all, is creator of all, knows who will ultimately accept or reject (like 4/5ths of the world) him, then what's His point? And what is "His glory?"
I never have seen any Christian reconcile their stalwart belief in free will with the scenario above."
You are one of the deepest thinkers here. I have thought that from the beginning. Not to mention very funny!
The point is that we have turned God into this fluffy Santa Claus that does not exist. He created us and everything that happened in OT was for His Glory. He did NOT have to give His Son as a sacrifice but He did. That was Love. It was also a legal action: Justification. It was someone doing our 'time' for us except in this case, He laid down His life for us when we deserved it.
He created us to Glorify Him. But where is the Glory if we all do?
There are also some things we are never going to understand. But God is so Holy that we cannot begin to understand. Holy means 'separate'.
Free will is a joke. It is man centered. We try so hard to define God by our own limited minds.
I cannot 'accept' Jesus into my heart. Jesus IS. I either repent and follow or I don't. Scriptures shows us that the Holy Spirit opened hearts so that people believed that Jesus was Messiah.
But not all hearts.
Judgement Day will be nothing but the Glory of God. Everyone goes around saying God is love. But they so conveniently forget that God is Justice, too. Wrath and Love both describe God.
That is a non answer for you, I know. It is the best I can give with my limited understanding.
"Which Anabaptists?...there were several sects you know."
The good ones :o). The ones that did not die out on the stake.
Lighten up! I am just pointing out that there were people out there all along that did not go along with the Constantine structure of the church that morphed into the Catholic church and ultimately the state reformed church.
There are lots of names for these groups. Some not so good, some ok. The mennonites are some. the waldasians (sp?), Huegonauts (sp?), etc.
esther,
Here is where I get hung up on election from the Calvinist view. I hear and read some claim that GOD ELECTS who comes to HIM and who lives eternity in Damnation. I don't accept that in any shape, form or fashion. If I am misunderstanding the Calvinist view, then please correct me.
Esther,
Well, you are so kind to give me your take on the matter--still a tough concept for me though.
"Here is where I get hung up on election from the Calvinist view. I hear and read some claim that GOD ELECTS who comes to HIM and who lives eternity in Damnation. I don't accept that in any shape, form or fashion. If I am misunderstanding the Calvinist view, then please correct me. "
Charlie, forget Calvin. That has become a stumbling block.
My question is this: What causes us to 'accept Christ'. (I am using free will language on purpose here)
If you agree it is the Holy Spirit then how can it be anything other than election?
Romans 3. No one seeks God.(God seeks us) No one understands (We have to be given understanding by the Holy Spirit, there is NO other way)
be patient...
Would you be Donna Gaines?
trollcats: I am WAY out of my league. I totally admit that.
How can I explain the things of God that theologians for years can't explain.
Scripture tells us: His ways are NOT our ways.
I better quit now before I stumble bad.
Charlie,
Stop by my blog sometime...we discuss this stuff there. There's a link to it on the home page.
Good afternoon to all. I would like to comment about Dr Gaines speaking engagements and his Mom. Who knows why he isn't speaking? I think the point is that a way was made that he won't be at FBC Jacksonville. I am sorry that his mom isn't doing well.
I would encourage folks not to lose focus and don't be ensnared by 4545, overflowging, and ace.
Keep your eyes on the main thing--integrity and character in the pulpit the preaching of the Word. God will make a way when there seems to be no way. He is still in control and on the throne.
I am praying for you my brothers and sisters.
Standing in the gap,
Tammy
esther,
Maybe I am not understanding the definition of election in this context.
AOG,
Thanx, I will take a look.
iwtk said
When Josh broke out his Jr. Reporter Kit and taped the conversation without DC’s knowledge, not sure any law was broken or not, but it does reveal much about the young lads character and his never ending pursuits.
Piglet says:
First of all,what Josh did was perfectly legal.
Secondly,this may be in response to the lack of interest in personal testimony without "proof and facts". What else can you do but get audio or video?
He gets it and now people complain that he DID get facts and proof.
You can't have it both ways...
Piglet,
What Josh did is legal. Not really honest, but legal. I guess you guys operate under the two wrongs make a right rule. If you believe Combs is wrong.
Someone praised Josh for his work and stated how arrogant DC was. Folks, in my opinion, Josh Manning is one of the most arrogant persons I have ever seen. Just my opinion though.
That's a good point too piglet...
If JM had simply reported on the meeting with DC, I think people would still be saying "facts only please" and dismissing his report.
So now we have some facts.
be patient said
I know for 100% fact that he stepped down to spent more time here with BBC and his family.
Piglet says:
I'm glad he sees the necessity of being here with his flock. But I fear it is too little too late.
"Someone praised Josh for his work and stated how arrogant DC was. Folks, in my opinion, Josh Manning is one of the most arrogant persons I have ever seen. Just my opinion though."
We all know there is NO arrogance coming from you, right? Commenting on here the dirt you have dug up on IDC members? You even posted some of the dirt you found. Pot>kettle>black
Don't rationalize that to me. No one here pays their salaries.
Remember your own words: Two wrongs do not make a right. Yet, you yourself do the same thing. Or, do you rationalize it is NOT the same thing?
More threats from the wow-sad brigade.
We aren't going to play, Bob.
New BBC Open Forum said...
We aren't going to play, Bob.
PARTY POOPER!!!!!!!!!
GOTCHA, NASS!!!!!!!!
ima,
I can assure you I am not Donna Gaines. My identity is not a secret, plenty of people know who I am, I just choose not to post it here. If you would really like to know for some reason, please email me.
NASS, you rhawk!
For the record, I do think what Josh did was pretty low. He can feel free to record whatever he wants- I don't believe it is against the law, but the honest and fair thing to do would have been to tell DC he was being recorded.
bepatient,
I hear what you're saying. I think one of the big ideas here is that in theory, what DC said that day should not change whether or not he was being recorded. I have a hunch that many conversations would sound very different if they knew they were being recorded.
Bepatient said...
"ima,
I can assure you I am not Donna Gaines. My identity is not a secret, plenty of people know who I am, I just choose not to post it here. If you would really like to know for some reason, please email me."
You may email me if you like. That would be find.
Ima
Still always poking at a lack of proof, yet shaming those that secure it, eh?
Typical.
So, when is the congregation's q and a session with the investigative commitee scheduled?
"Bepatient said...
For the record, I do think what Josh did was pretty low. He can feel free to record whatever he wants- I don't believe it is against the law, but the honest and fair thing to do would have been to tell DC he was being recorded."
I, personally, think Josh Manning is an outstanding young man...who stands up for Jesus Christ at all costs. The shame is that there are those like DC who have put people like Josh in the situation they have...having to prove what is being said and done...actually having to produce proof because the transparency is not there. What this recording actually did was allow everybody to actually hear what those 'out of the loop' have to contend with trying to get to Truth.David Coombs is clearly trying to hide something...closing the gap to transparency in the church. He was about as arrogant as I have ever heard anyone be...and this is a pastor?
OFG said
Piglet,
What Josh did is legal. Not really honest, but legal. I guess you guys operate under the two wrongs make a right rule. If you believe Combs is wrong.
Someone praised Josh for his work and stated how arrogant DC was. Folks, in my opinion, Josh Manning is one of the most arrogant persons I have ever seen. Just my opinion though.
Piglet says:
JOSH is arrogant?!!
Did you even read my post above?
You folks have been viscously attacking everyone here for having "no proof". Just what do you EXPECT people to do when their personal testimony is discarded as "lies, gossip, and slander"?
YOU, my friend, are ARROGANT.
I firmly believe that you are in fear that all the truth WILL get out.
At 11:01 AM, February 02, 2007,
Trollcates said...
If a man, who would be Pastor, found out that a minister on the church staff was an admitted child molester and took no action, not even to find out his duties, should such behavior have any bearing on the congregation's judging competence for the position or God's annointing?
junk99mail replies:
TC -- we haven't communicated before, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate your insight and clarity of thought and communication. And regarding your question (above), it sounds an awful lot like the response of Mike Spradlin of Mid-America Seminary when a reporter asked for Mike's opinion on this ... see http://www.mabts.edu/
clientimages/23267/pdfs/
drsclaraification.pdf .
Note to everyone else: I'm not commenting on whether or not Dr. Spradlin should have made the comments, just pointing out the similarity of thinking.
Piglet,
You have mail:)
Well junk99,
I think the reporter was placing in the rhetorical to protect Dr. Spradlin and due to the status of the facts extant at the time. Here, people will conflate the issue using scripture or shame or whatever. I think good people know that some matters are a priori.
Be Patient and 4545 - what a coincidence! He happens to cancel all of his speaking engagements all of a sudden. Yeah right. I am not buying it. Even if SG himself said that spending time with his family is why, I wouldn't believe him. (we have heard that before about not preaching on Wednesday nights) These mega-church pastors fly in an hour before, preach and fly back out. If they wanted to preach they would. There is more to it than that. And no, I can't prove it.
And how would you know for 100% sure anything about SG unless you are him or unless he told you and you were able to corroborate what he told you. I just wanted to let you know not all of us can be fleeced and not know it.
Note to everyone else: I'm not commenting on whether or not Dr. Spradlin should have made the comments, just pointing out the similarity of thinking.
I'll comment on it then :)
He was asked a generic question about a pastor keeping silent about a pedophile and answered it accordingly. I'm curious about who thinks that there could have been a better answer than the one he gave?
I can't think of any answer more fitting than the one Mike Spradlin gave that day.
Bark bark, Bob.
Hey all, I'm feeling better today.
NASS, thanks for the ten pack of ho-hos. The fish in the bowl is only letting me eat 1 a day though so I don't get sick again.
thing 1
Bepatient said...
For the record, I do think what Josh did was pretty low. He can feel free to record whatever he wants-
1:30 PM, February 02, 2007
BEPATIENT,
I believe that all those who have been requesting proof will have all the proof they have been asking for. Not by the blogs words but by the "players/leaders" own words. Then, all that others will want to talk about is how information was obtained. Not the sin of Pride and deceipt of our leadership.
It will be no different from the PW issue. Some people cannot see sin for what it is. They feel it is their personal mission to defend SG NOMATTER WHAT. Then, when SG is compelled to apologize, they say "see, he apologized" and act as if that is it,it is over. Not until SG gives a petty acknowledgement of breaking the law will they shove a half hearted acknowledgement down our throat and pass it off as an apology.
How many almost apologies came regarding the fence jumping issue until there was a real apology at least from Chuck Taylor. We still have not heard from Big John have we? Previous deacon Chairman? Current Chairman of more than one Committee and member of more than 2.
Would anyone have beleived Josh Manning if it were not for the recording? No. I can hear Deacon 4545 now "THAT IS A LIE!", "I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IS NOT TRUE!" "BELIEVE ME, I KNOW!"
I heard some discomfort in JM's voice. I don't believe he was enjoying himself. I heard his nervous claps.
The first time I asked these men questions, I felt like I was way out of line to even ask. These were men I trusted. I served with them. I could not believe I came to the point of questioning them. It was the right thing to do. When you hear the answers, you cannot believe what you hear. I wish I had recorded some of my conversations, to be sure I heard correctly what they said. It seemed so out of character. I wanted to believe as they did, it would have been much easier to "get on board".
To this day I cannot believe the responses I received. I am still deeply hurt of the responses I received. Soon, you will not believe the responses others have received and you will be able to discern for yourselves. Not our words but their own words.
There is no pride in the downfall (in my opinion and the facts of attendance and giving) of BBC. There is no pride in my sin or others sin. There is no pride in deception. If there are people here longing for SG to resign or "fall", it is sin. It is not sin to desire truth. It is not sin for one to want truth or change. It is not sin to want your friends to understand that you have been truthful to them, but those that we all have trusted have been less than honest.
Please don't tell me I have misunderstood the facts, when I have been told first hand! That is insulting.
Deacon 4545. I ask you because you claim to be well connected. Will you please share with the flock the exact figures for the last 6 months giving and attendance vs the first 6 months?
BEPATIENT said...
I don't believe it is against the law, but the honest and fair thing to do would have been to tell DC he was being recorded.
Think about that comment. SG has BROKEN THE LAW 2 TIMES. THEN HE DENIED IT. People cliam it was the honest and fair thing to do to protect the perpetrator with NO REGARD for the VICTIM.
Please remember. THE CHURCHES STANDARDS HAVE SUNK SO LOW THAT THE US GOVERNMENT HAD TO COME IN TO CHECK IT OUT. Would BBC have been as thorough if the DCS had not been involved?
Troll, do you want to know wat is "sad"? Sad is that our standards did not cause us to act.
There will be more proof.
NASS
I'm not freaking out this time!
I'm nnnot afraid of th..the heffalumps.:O'
socwork-
I agree. It's interesting that Dr. Spradlin gave a number of interviews (Fox News, Channel 3, Channel 5) without any repercussions before giving the interview that got him in trouble with Dave Purdue. He could have said “no comment” to the question when asked “what should a minister do if he knows one of his staff is a pedophile,” or could have commented “off the record,” but this particular seminary trains pastors to do the right (legal and moral) thing. Ducking the question would have sent his students a mixed message and would have disappointed the many people who support the school. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of people have started supporting the school financially and with prayer because of his stand. Since this is so obvious (a priori) to most people (except those in uncharted waters), some have tried to reframe the argument and have criticized Spradlin for breaching the doctrine of local church autonomy which they interpret to mean as a church’s apparent right to do and say anything without criticism from outside sources.
At 2:07 PM, February 02, 2007
socwork said...
I'll comment on it then :)
junk99mail replies:
I appreciate you sharing your perspective. I included my disclaimer in hopes of avoiding being attacked for what some here might perceive my motives to be in bringing it up. One reason I avoided commenting on whether or not Dr. Spradlin should or shouldn't have made his comments (and why I also tend to avoid the appearance of being on "a side" in the issues typically discussed here) is that I have very close and loved friends and family who have extremely divergent opinions and perspectives on almost every matter discussed here. I friends who are "Calvinists", "Arminians", "Lordship Salvationists", "Free Gracers", pre-trib, mid-trib, post trib, pre-mill, a-mill, "Warrenists", "Dobsonites", traditionalists, fundamentalists, hymn-lovers, contemporary music lovers, "high church", Charismatic, etc. ... and one thing I know is that each one of them loves the Lord fervently, very often far more than I have ever demonstrated in my own sinful life. I know that people can vary greatly on many things and still love Jesus and know Him intimately. And, yes, I have dear friends who are ardent supporters of Steve Gaines, and others who are just as ardent in their concerns about him.
I'm sure that because I have said these things, some will consider me "soft" in my theology or doctrine (which is really not the case--I have very specific and definite opinions and positions of my own); but that's ok. This I know -- people who are smarter, more devoted, more discerning, and all around better people than me can disagree with one another in so many things, and yet I am convinced that their differences do not mean that one is more spiritual or godly than the other. We humans are often impressed by how much someone knows (which we often take to mean how much they agree with us!) or how good their behavior is -- but God alone knows those who are truly devoted to Him.
Once again, I am junk99mail, and these are my Perceptions.
P.S. Another reason I don't want to comment on Dr. Spradlin's comments is that I know him, and he knows me, and he and I are both friends with folks who would praise him for his statements and his integrity and with those who would lambaste him in both areas. I chose not to play along.
Dear A_nonamus,
THANK YOU for your 2:03 p.m. post!!!
THE GIFT OF DISCERNMENT FROM THE HOLY GHOST IS A GLORIOUS AND PRICELESS GIFT, ISN'T IT?
Sincerely in The LORD and ONLY Savior Jesus Christ,
Stephen and Bonita Ann Richie
Living Hope In Jesus
www.livinghopeinjesus.com
BBC Refugee,
Wonderful...this is wonderful news. My prayers are with you. And Truth. God will reign Supreme.
BBC Refugee,
Wonderful...this is wonderful news. My prayers are with you. And Truth. God will reign Supreme.
Just keep it up, things. I've got all day, and neither I nor this blog is going anywhere.
If you've eaten one of those Ho Ho's, you're going to be in for a big surprise later. You'll be spending tonight in the bathroom, too!
Beloved and much appreciated NASS,
Would you mind putting a link to Christa Brown's blog (http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/) on your blog's page?
-----
junk99mail
P.S. Are you pre-screening all posts from now on? Or just at certain times? Just curious.
soc wok said....
He was asked a generic question about a pastor keeping silent about a pedophile and answered it accordingly. I'm curious about who thinks that there could have been a better answer than the one he gave?
I can't think of any answer more fitting than the one Mike Spradlin gave that day.
I agree. Like it or not, Bellevue is a big SBC flagship and how a molestation situation involving a pastor is treated by Bellvue is a reflection on the SBC. Dr. Spradlin in his position was correct to say what he did. The SBC is not a good ole' boy system that protects it's own at the expense of innocent children.
4545,
I will check back later tonight. I really would be interested in your bible study on how God instructs Christians to inter relate with our speech (written or spoken). Do you have something you could "dig" up in scripture about how the words a person uses somehow foretells his or her character? Or how this apparent character is found useful and attractive to God?
We all could benefit from and grow in Christ with such a study. Somehow I think you could provide this study. What do you say? Will you at least think about it and ask God if He is really challenging you through me to “dig-a-little-deeper” and lay it all out for us?
Much later and Jesus is still Lord 24/7
junk99mail,
Consider it done!
ester said: "Free will is a joke. It is man centered. We try so hard to define God by our own limited minds."
Then may I offer that you have a skewed view of free will, or at least as to how it fits into Calvinism. Free will is compatible with Calvinism, albeit not so well with the hyper-Calvinism that seems to have eclipsed the term in this day. Just because someone says man has free-will does NOT make that person an Arminian, nor does it disqualify one as a Calvinist (or holding to much of Calvinism).
In the words of C.H. Spurgeon (who is considered by many to be a Calvinist(emphasis mine):
"The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring."
If you read Spurgeon's "In Defense of Calvism", you'll find that he didn't believe in a limited atonement and that there will be more people in Heaven than in Hell (you'll have to read it to find his reasoning).
"I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds.
.....The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.
Sorry for the long post, especially since it's only about Calvinism. I hate it when that happens. :)
ET
P.S. Just what is the difference between the "full gospel" and the "non-full" version?
TTFN! (think Winnie the Pooh)
Mike Spradlin did not give a "generic" answer. When he started talking about how he has "used up his credibility" he made it personal.
Piglet...
Have you really SEEN the h..hef..heffalumps?
Boy...You are brave! :)
If Dr. Spradlin had not answered the question, the headlines that day would have read, "Baptists just like Catholics--Believe Cover-up of Pedophiles is OK."
He answered the only way he could. Would that more men would have the fortitude to stand up when it's not popular!
Thaks, NASS! I think that stands for:
Nice
And
So
Sweet!
Okay, I have been reading my Bible and thinking about Josh Manning recording the conversation. Many here have said it was okay because DC would have acted differently if he knew he was being recorded. That may very well be true, and I don't want to get caught up in what DC should have done or said, I want to talk about the actions of JM (the old TWDMAR argument.
In Hebrews we are told to submit to authority and in regard to work- "that they may do it with joy;and not with grief". It doesn't say that we are do to that only if we agree with what the do.
In Matthew 18 (as well as other places), it talks about not causing others to stumble. If he records that conversation in the hopes of catching DC "stumbling" how is that right or showing integrity?
Now, before you just come back to me and say 'well what about SG and DC, etc.' my point is this- I have NEVER said that SG hasn't made mistakes or that he has not sinned. I am willing to forgive him and I am willing to forgive JM. I just think you should hold him and the other IDCers to the same standards.
pinker socks said...
allofgrace said:
Let's not speculate on his reasons. We know that he is not speaking at these engagements. That's all we know.
Response: It does matter to me because I need to know that someone out there is standing on principle.
pinker,
I wasn't addressing whether or not it mattered. Just the speculation about what those reasons are. He hasn't confided in me as to his reasons, and I don't think he's stated them publicly. I'm not aware that anyone in charge of the conferences he was supposed to speak at have come forward and stated they asked him to withdraw. I was just pointing to the fact that unless someone has knowledge of such a statement, then all we know is that he withdrew. I understand your sentiments.
be patient
Let's start with the law of the land. Does it not bother you that since Gaines has been here, that he and our leadership have now broken the law FOUR times?
I applaud JM for expecting our leaders to obey the law and holding their feet to the fire when they BLATANTLY disobeyed it.
Noone would have BELIEVED it ever happened if JM had not taped this!
Many members are appalled at our leaders' behaviour but don't have the GUTS to hold them accountable as Josh did.
KUDOS TO JOSH!
To THIS DAY BBC has not obeyed the law...
pinker socks
Are your socks really pink? I'd loveto see them sometime! :)
Mike Spradlin did not give a "generic" answer. When he started talking about how he has "used up his credibility" he made it personal.
You know what? Even if Mike Spradlin had been asked specifically about SG, his answer would still be the most appropriate and honest answer I can think of. Did you read the clarification on MABTS's webiste? He was asked a generic question and the reporter made the connection in the paper.
Regardless, like Psalm 43.3 said, whether it was a generic question or a specific question, Mike Spradlin answered with a measure of integrity that seems to be sorely lacking in the church these days. He's leading by example for the students of MABTS. I know a lot of leaders who could take a few lessons about that.
Slamming JM for recording DC is, well, for lack of a better word, it's just SAD. SO SAD.
WOW! if he hadn't recorded him, you would be calling him a liar.
Those PATHETIC statements criticizing Josh are just HATE-FILLED and so WRONG!!!
It's obvious that you DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS.
Bepatient,
You apparently don't understand the purpose driven movement aka church growth movements, etc. Do you not understand that under Truth, this would not even be being discussed? Do you not understand that it is the pastor and staff who originated this problem to begin with? They are the darkness.
off to the ballgame.
(offline)
In regards to the link on SB about the protocol for forming committees.
Is there a protocol listed for "emergency" committees?
If so what is it?
Should there be such thing as an emergency committee?
In regards to the congregationally run church. I agree that the modern church isn't outlined in scripture (though it is not un-biblical) the only place i can find answers to the question of who runs the church would be in the rules of the Southern Baptist Convention because that who bellevue is affiliated with that organization. what do they say????????
"I just think you should hold him and the other IDCers to the same standards" (as SG).
bepatient, what if we just turn it around and insist that you cut J and the rest of the truth-seekers some of the ridiculous slack you reserve for SG. If you hold us to the Pastor's standards, then you need to chill over some dumb recording.
What a laugh.
DR. Gaines has a very good devotion on Election in late January in his Morning Manna book. Dr. Rogers also did some great sermons on the topic.
bepatient- Keep up the good posts.
4545,
Keep up the morale.
Be Patient,
David Coombs tells the CA he never refused records, he was required by law to turn over, to a church member when asked. J.M knew this wasn't the truth and caught him in the act of lying- plain and simple.Doesn't the arrogant behavior of David Coombs and his refusal to comply with a simple request make you wonder what the administration doesn't want the congregation to see ? I think it's a huge purpose driven red flag when leaders of a church buck at the notion of accountability.
Ima- I sent you an email.
be patient,
I posted this a few days ago and have had several emails in regard to it removing scales from some of your eyes. I would ask you read this link at your earliest convenience.
"In Hebrews we are told to submit to authority and in regard to work- "that they may do it with joy;and not with grief". It doesn't say that we are do to that only if we agree with what the do."
Let's got back to 1939. Would you have submitted to a loyalty oath to Hitler? He was the authority. I believe you would have based on your comments here.
1939, your pastor signed the oath to be loyal to Hitler. He is telling his congregation to be loyal to him. Do you submit?
Fast forward to Southern India in 2004. Pastor Daniel was visited by authorities and told his church could no longer meet or he would be arrested. He does not submit.
We never submit to wolves who have us go against God's Word. You conveniently ignore that your pastor does not know the Word or ignores and it says 'sorry'. It does not scare you to submit to someone like that?
"In Matthew 18 (as well as other places), it talks about not causing others to stumble. If he records that conversation in the hopes of catching DC "stumbling" how is that right or showing integrity? "
Here is the problem with your reasoning. These men tried to get the information for months. They went about it in a very careful way. they were stonewalled and ignored.
Why are you agreeing that it is none of their business to see the by-laws. Can you give me a list of who should be able to see those? Why is it none of their business to see the minutes of the meetings? How can you support that position with a straight face? YOu really have to be blind not to see this.
They are abusing their authority. And no, they are NOT annointed. Those that are follow scripture.
We must warn the sheep of the wolves.
"Now, before you just come back to me and say 'well what about SG and DC, etc.' my point is this- I have NEVER said that SG hasn't made mistakes or that he has not sinned. I am willing to forgive him and I am willing to forgive JM. I just think you should hold him and the other IDCers to the same standards."
Mistake? That is where your reasoning is so faulty.
It must be nice to live in your la la land and be able to always 'define' the issue to what you want it to be. The Clintons were masters of that, too. It is called, deflection of the real issue. Why this problem exists at all. The name for it is Steve Gaines.
JM is not a pastor. None of the IDC'er are pastors.
None of this will convince you. YOu have been sent a delusion. I really do believe that.
If SG were a man of integrity, he would resign right away.
I just want to say that I ordinarily wouldn't question someone's salvation, but Christians don't behave the way ace, thing 1 (aka bbc employee, knower of all, and think about it), and thing 2 have behaved on this forum. Their behavior has been disgraceful, and if they're doing this for SG, they're not doing him any favors.
Let me repeat, this blog is not going anywhere. Some changes are in the works, but it will exist, in one form or another, until the Lord tells me it's time to take it down or until He returns, whichever happens first.
NBBCOF
"bepatient, what if we just turn it around and insist that you cut J and the rest of the truth-seekers some of the ridiculous slack you reserve for SG. If you hold us to the Pastor's standards, then you need to chill over some dumb recording."
trollcates: The difference is that JM did not say, 'sorry' or I have made some 'mistakes'. :o)
bepatient, did you vote for Clinton? Did he pull the wool over your eyes, too?
That is cute, NASS.
Let me tell you this. Christians don't go around spreading lies about a man of God that He has chosen. You are rebelling against God's chosen.
thing 1
P.S. I'm still waiting for that moderation to go off
It wasn't meant to be cute. Name one lie, thing. If you come up with one, I'll let you post it.
NBBCOF
P.S. You've got a long wait, precious.
Flik's back; flak cannot be far behind.
Bepatient said...
In Matthew 18 (as well as other places), it talks about not causing others to stumble. If he records that conversation in the hopes of catching DC "stumbling" how is that right or showing integrity?
Bepatient,
Have you talked to Josh Manning? Is this what he was doing, "in the hopes of catching DC".
I cannot speak to that because I have not spoken to JM.
Once again, the emphasis is being put on JM (the person with the asked for evidence) instead of the one who spoke out of line. DC made those comments, period. He controlled himself probably better than I would have personally. I might have asked JM to leave. However, DC was the one who made the claims.
Look people, IT IS WHAT IT IS, period. JM did not make DC say what he said. DC, in complete control of himself, made his own comment. DC himself is resonsible for his comment. He cannot blame it on JM looking at him funny, the shirt he was wearing or the humidity.
This conversation should not have taken place. BBC should have responded in accordance with the law, in the specified time. End of story.
I personally would not have another conversation with any of these men without a witness and a recorder. I would do this not to catch someone or make them look bad, but to protect myself, family and reputation. So that nothing said could be taken out of context. I have learned my lesson.
bepatient, JM did not 'cause' DC to stumble, he just caught him doing it.
"If SG were a man of integrity, he would resign right away."
Most definitely! This man has led his flock astray. He is destroying a beautiful church...the Body of Christ. If he had love in his heart for you, his flock, he would step down. It is selfish motive that he stays.
Lin, in speaking of Hitler, he followed the Hegelian Dialectic...how to divide and conquer in turning this world upside down. Saddleback teaches the Hegelian Dialectic in their seminars...to those who go to learn how to lead a purpose driven church through transitioning. This is dangerous stuff. Can't you all see that you are being divided...and conquered?
"Let me tell you this. Christians don't go around spreading lies about a man of God that He has chosen. You are rebelling against God's chosen."
I guess He chose Binny Hinn, too? Kenneth Copeland? Or, how about Creflo Dollar! I am sure their followers say the same as you.
Robert Tilton?
Jimmy Swaggert?
Jim Bakker?
Nice try but only people who do not know scriptures would believe that. I guess the next thing you will tell me is that the priesthood of the believers thing we read in Hebrews is a crock, right?
How can Gaines be 'appointed' by God when he ignores His Word?
ace said:
Let me tell you this. Christians don't go around spreading lies about a man of God that He has chosen. You are rebelling against God's chosen.
Response:
Did SG keep the pedaophile's secret for 6 months? Is that a lie?
Did SG allow the pedophile to remain on staff, not knowing or caring to know just where he works within the church? Is that a lie?
Did SG ONLY take action when it was made clear by the victim that he was going to OUT his perpetrator? Is that a lie?
It's just sad that you can't see the truth. Really sad..so sad.
Just wanted to offer some questions from a confused believer in Virginia….
1.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know that having the church pay for things and him repaying the church is not violating the law?
2.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know that attempting a visit with Mr. Sharpe in the manner which he did, would not be construed as intimidation?
3.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know that his flock would be wounded if they are made fun of or jested about?
4.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know the law pertaining to the provision of information to other members?
5.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know that a hidden salary always raises a red flag?
6.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know that replacing staff in an unprofessional manner raises a red flag?
7.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know that donated money would go to promote unbiblical ideologies?
8.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know that it’s unethical to donate money to organizations for personal gain?
9.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know that his position requires the ultimate in accountability, both personally and financially?
10.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know what the Bible says when in disagreement with another?
11.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know what to do in “unchartered waters”?
12.How can a pastor with a doctorate not know what to do with another minister who broke the law?
13.How can a pastor with a doctorate turn a blind eye to those who have questions?
Call me confused, call me speechless, but this list is just the tip of the iceberg.
I guess I can sum it up in like this – If only 10% of what is written on this blog is true, then this pastor should immediately contact the school who gave him his diploma and ask for a refund. Better yet, the school should contact the pastor and rescind his diploma because this stuff is learned in grade school.
SOTL,
Wow, great response. Wow.
new bbc open forum wrote; "I just want to say that I ordinarily wouldn't question someone's salvation, but Christians don't behave the way ace, thing 1 (aka bbc employee, knower of all, and think about it), and thing 2 have behaved on this forum."
My, my what dangerous ground you are plowing with that comment! Just for the record I have read similar comments from both sides. Why the hard hand comment toward the pro-Gaines side? I are not sure that your behavior with this post would be very pleasing to our Lord.
Let me tell you this. Christians don't go around spreading lies about a man of God that He has chosen. You are rebelling against God's chosen.
Really? My first thought is to not respond to this at all, because you haven't shown yourself to be interested in any real dialogue. My second thought, however, seems to have beat my first thought.
If what you say is the case, then don't you dare say anything against the believers on this blog because...
John 15:16
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
...evidently, we are chosen too.
As far as SG being "God's chosen" that we are "rebelling against"...
Matthew 7:16, 18, 20
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?...
v. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
v. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
concerned in va said
I guess I can sum it up in like this – If only 10% of what is written on this blog is true, then this pastor should immediately contact the school who gave him his diploma and ask for a refund. Better yet, the school should contact the pastor and rescind his diploma because this stuff is learned in grade school.
Piglet says:
Oh,if only more of our own could see the obvious so well as you!!
"...so you commit murder (Kill the pastor)."
Thanks for the commentary, because I don't think I would have gleaned "kill the pastor without your help.
psmpastor
Counsel us,pastor.
Please tell us what a churchmember should bo if he is positively aware of wrongdoing by the pastor and/or top leadership and is denied a forum for bringing the matter before several witnesses or before the church?
Please tell us. We want to know.
Patrick posted:
James 5:8-9, "You too be patient; strengthen your hearts for the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold the judge is standing at the door."
QUESTION:
soo, let me make sure I understand this...since you posted this verse in this context...
You don't feel that we should question the fact that OUR ( not yours) pastor covered for a pedophile?
We shouldn't question the fact that he allowed our children to be exposed to this man during the 6 months that he was made aware of it?
Are you suggesting that we put our brains in our pockets when we enter the doors and blindly and brainlessly follow a MAN? A man who has broken the law?
Please show us, scripturally, where the Bible instructs us to follow a mortal, who also happens to be a law breaker.
I follow no man blindly.
Is this what you expect of your congregation?
Hmmmmm..... perhaps psmpastor is really pmspastor....
sorry, couldn't help the pun
well, since I don't want to answer each post individually I will sum it up with this.
I am not excusing SG for the things he has done wrong. I am forgiving him. He has taken a big deposit out of the "trust bank" of our congregation- he will need to pay that back, and I am willing to give him a chance to do that. That doesn't mean I will accept anything and everything forever.
I have never said anything bad about Josh Manning. I am sure he is a very nice guy, I believe his intent is true, and I will not hold this against him- I just disagree with some of his tactics. I do think that it was inappropriate to record someone without his knowledge- I have no problem with him recording any conversation, I just think he should be honest and upfront about what he is doing.
My point is this:
Those of us that are pro-pulpit (Is that the accepted term these days?) generally can see the faults on BOTH sides. Those that are anti-'whatever you don't find offensive' don't see the faults that are being made on your "side". It is a double standard.
As far as ridiculous analogies to Hitler, etc. I think we all know that God's law trumps any earthly authority, so no, we do not have to obey an leader who asks us to commit sinful acts.
Communication has long been a problem at BBC, long before SG and DC, and I don't feel that this is the way to go about fixing it. It is just completing the circle... you don't trust the leadership... secretly recording people is going to make them more hesitant to talk to people... they won't communicate...and we are back to not trusting the leadership.
Not saying that they are not as much to blame, but I don't see how this is fixing anything.
bepatient,
David Coombs has shown himself to not be trustworthy.
He looked me straight in the face and lied to me:
" I have never seen you or talked to you"...
This, 5 minutes after he had laughed in my face.
And then he tells JM that he doesnt' care what Tenn. law says, and then tells the Commercial Appeal that our request for information has not been denied.
And so now you feel that we should not record him?
In my opinion, based on MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE wtih the man, I would not even consider talking to him without recording him. He speaks with forked tongue. As long as he behaves like a snake, he's going to be treated like one.
He brought it on himself.
I am posting for the first time. I have no idea what I am doing so this is just to see if it comes up. Forgive me.
It's silly me again. I know I am supposed to have a profile. How do I do that? Do I have to enter the characters each time I post?myyk
Welcome, rest! Comment moderation is on right now, meaning your comments have to go through my mailbox and be approved for publication by me, so there will be a slight delay before you see them.
You can all thank ace and the things for that!
NBBCOF
rest,
Your profile is already visible. Just click on your screen name at the top of your comment. And yes, you do have to type the squiggly letters every time you post a comment.
NBBCOF
be patient said
Not saying that they are not as much to blame, but I don't see how this is fixing anything.
Piglet says:
I appreciate the points made in your most recent post.
Do you atleast agree that we should adhere to the by-laws we do have, including regular business meetings, and guidelines regarding committee members, etc?
Do you atleast agree that Matt. 18 should be followed by the pastor to resolve these issues?
Can we agree that our church leaders should set an example to us by obeying the law?
Is this common ground for all?
Do we all want the truth and God's will for our church?
piglet, I agree we need to address these things, I do not think that ways that others are going about it is going to fix it or help.
I think one huge problem is that people are lumping the administration into one entity instead of addressing each person for who they are.
SOTL,
I am fed up with answering the same things over and over...
I am going to say this one more time. I have NEVER said that he should not have recorded the conversation. I simply said that I think he should have informed him that he was being recorded. This does not excuse DC, it just means that JM should have been upfront about it- that is all. Do not read anything else into what I am saying. I do not know how to make it any plainer.
At 3:16 PM, February 02, 2007
Ed_T said...
"Free will is compatible with Calvinism, albeit not so well with the hyper-Calvinism that seems to have eclipsed the term in this day.
...
If you read Spurgeon's "In Defense of Calvism", you'll find that he didn't believe in a limited atonement..."
junk99mail replies:
Ed_t, I appreciate your comments and your desire to introduce folks to Spurgeon's teachings. But I think you have misread some of what he wrote. When Spurgeon used the term "free will", it is evident from the context that he equated it with the concept of personally responsiblity and accountablability of humans for their actions. He was not using it to indicate the "free will" concept often taught today, which is the notion that everyone has the ability to choose to enter a relationship with God apart from His prior action of granting a person new spiritual life.
"Hyper Calvinism" is a technical theological term that refers to the teaching that there is no need to share the gospel with unbelievers (evangelism) because God will save whomever He will save and thus Christians are not obligated to proclaim the gospel. Unfortunately many people misuse the term Hyper Calvinist to mean "a really, really Calvinistic person" or a "5 point Calvinist".
And regarding "limited atonement", though Spurgeon did not use those exact words in the message you quoted, it is actually exactly what he taught. He uses the phrase "particular redemption", which is just another term for "limited atonement." He states it in the same message like this:
"Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!"
Anyway ... this is long, too, but I just thought I'd clarify what Spurgeon was really saying.
"When Spurgeon used the term "free will", it is evident from the context that he equated it with the concept of personally responsiblity and accountablability of humans for their actions."
Whew! Thanks for clearing that up about Spurgeon, I would think he is spinning in theg grave!
No free will at all? I was starting to think antinomianism was indirectly being promoted! we are responsible for our behavior.
Oswald Chambers:
Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! (1 Corinthians 9:16). Using this a his backdrop Oswald Chambers tells one how to recognize whether he should enter the ministry:
To be “separated unto the gospel” means to hear the call of God; and when a man begins to overhear that call, then begins agony that is worthy of the Name. *****Every ambition is nipped in the bud, every desire of life quenched, every outlook completely extinguished and blotted out, saving one thing only - “separated unto the gospel.”***** Woe be to the soul who tries to put his foot in any other direction when once that call has come to Him.
Some claim to believe in the theory of the elect, meaning that God has
already elected to save some of us and reject others. A 19th – century
African preacher was once asked to give his explanation of the theory of
election. He said, “Well, brethren, the truth of the matter is “The Lord He
is always voting for a man, and the devil he is always voting against him;
then the man himself votes, and that breaks the tie.”
At 9:56 PM, February 02, 2007
Lin said...
"Whew! Thanks for clearing that up about Spurgeon, I would think he is spinning in theg grave!"
junk99mail replies:
Hmmmmm...does this mean I can teach sometime? Or was than lindon who didn't want me to? Or are lin and lindon the same person?
And noooooooo by asking that I an NOT trying to start a rumor! :)
Oh, and as long as I am posting ... Trollcates ... that Josh (custos) sure can put forth a cogent argument for a young guy, huh?
How can a true work of the Holy Spirit be distinguished from a false one?
From a careful study of 1 John 4, the great theologian and pastor Jonathan Edwards was able to identify five distinguishing characteristics of the Holy Spirit’s work. In short, a true work of the Holy Spirit:
(1) Exalts the true Christ,
(2) Opposes Satan’s interests,
(3) Points people to the Scriptures,
(4) Elevates truth, and
(5) Results in love for God and others.
John McArthur
be patient said
piglet, I agree we need to address these things, I do not think that ways that others are going about it is going to fix it or help
Piglet says:
How should we address these things?
(Sorry, error in the last version. Corrected now.)
First off, I have to extend my most heartfelt thanks to those who defended me in reference to the Coombs Recordings. I can’t keep up with the blog all the time, so I’m in your debt for trying to protect my name. Thank you dear friends. Now down to business:
Regarding the Morality of Recording Conversations
For the record, it is amazingly amusing that some of you think recording a conversation demonstrates a lack of integrity.
Let's break it down. 1) I recorded to protect myself. Nothing wrong with that. Certainly nothing wrong since Mark Sharpe's meeting with Dr Gaines was so misconstrued to the deacons later. Indeed, I had considered using video tape but was afraid I wouldn’t be allowed in. That is the main reason I opted for the smaller recorder. Can any fault that after Jim Haywood’s experience?
2) I also recorded to get exactly what David Coombs said. Nothing wrong there either, and it basically falls under the same category as the above with one additional plus: One of the most beneficial things in this entire broader debate would be to have key conversations and statements recorded so that we could be absolutely sure of what happened.
3) The point of contention seems to be the fact that I didn't tell David I was recording him. Well, I won't concede any moral high-ground on that point, and my reasoning for that is in the paragraphs that follow. But before I explain, I’ve got to ask just on face value how in heaven's name is it wrong to keep a perfect record in a situation when you think it likely someone will break the law? What moral authority can one appeal to condemn that?
And there’s the rub: Does natural or God’s law condemn that sort of recording? Does Man's law?
Regarding natural law and God’s law, I can think of three grounds on which my actions might be objected to: A) Breaking the Golden Rule, B) gossiping, and C) causing someone to stumble.
As far as A) goes, appealing to the Golden Rule seems to fall short in circumstances where people do wrong or give us reason to believe they will do wrong. For instance, if we see a fellow doing something immoral, say robbing a bank, we don’t say to ourselves, “Now if I were robbing that bank, I sure wouldn’t want someone to stop me. Guess that means I shouldn’t call the policy.” Of course not. We realize that we must do what is right and prevent the man as best we can from committing the crime.
Now say we have a legitimate reason to believe that someone will do a wrong, do we not act accordingly? An example may help. I remember watching Dateline NBC ten or fifteen years ago and seeing one of their correspondents walk into a jewelry shop with a hidden camera. Under normal circumstances that might seem bit cheeky, but you see the correspondent had reason to believe that the store was going to cheat her because others had reported to her that the story was switching diamonds for worthless stones. And indeed, she caught them red-handed, switching out customers’ precious diamonds for cubic zirconia or some such. No one condemned the correspondent because she had reason to believe the jewelers would do wrong and she wanted to record the enounter to verify the customers’ claims. This is very similar to what we’ve dealt with at BBC. They have demonstrated time and again disregard for what is right from lies, to intimidation, to law breaking, to disregard for Matthew 18. This combined with the fact that they had in the past denied requests for the church’s bylaws gave me more than enough reason to suspect that they might well do the wrong thing. That being the case, conscience, reason, and Scripture all validate an action that at first glance doesn’t comport with the Golden Rule.
As for B) Gossiping, it is hard to condemn one for allowing others to know of a leader’s (or really anyone’s) transgression when the transgression affects all. If we are to condemn as gossips those who shed light on sins, then we must also condemn the prophets, the Lord, Paul when he spoke of the fornicator or Demas, John we he reported Jesus’ conversation with Peter, and when talked of Diotrephes. Indeed, we should probably note that most of the Old Testament is riddled with “gossip.” And this is just in reference to the Bible. What about the sex offender registry? That notes people’s transgressions. Should that be taken down? Of course not. It let’s people know that certain people are not to be trusted. The same can be said of those who, for legitimate reasons, note sin.
Further complicating the gossip argument is the fact that one can rarely hold anyone, especially leaders, accountable without noting to the masses the nature of a transgression. If this is agreed, then the only counter-recording argument left under this line of thinking is that the recorder is too accurate, and as such does not present the other a fair chance. Most would consider that a dubious proposition.
Speaking to C) Causing Someone to Stumble, I would argue that simply silently noting exactly what happened in any circumstance does not cause anyone to stumble. The argument that says otherwise is akin to saying darkness is what makes people sin. This is obviously untrue because darkness simply provides the necessary shroud for our true character to be revealed. Indeed, the idea that we can act without accountability is exactly the problem here. Not the imposition of accountability! Darkness doesn’t force sin, it simply doesn’t resist it. And you can’t argue that I should have tried to stop Coombs from sinning. I did try. I told him what the law said. I just didn’t say there could be consequences.
Those are the arguments, as far as I can see them, from Moral Law.
Regarding the arguments from Man's Law, we need to look at four things: A) Tennessee State Law, B) Federal Law, C) 12 Other State’s Laws, D) the Right to Privacy.
Pertaining to A) Tennessee State Law and B) Federal Law, my actions were completely in compliance with TCA 39-13-601(a)(1)(C&D), 39-13-601(c)(5), and 18 USC 2510 (the state and federal statutes on recording conversations).
Pertaining to C) Other State’s Law, I really hadn’t thought about this until someone emailed me arguing that my lack of character (and presumably commitment of sin as well) is proved since 12 other states forbid the sort of recording I engaged in. This is one of those arguments that feels right and wrong at the same time. It feels right because it tries to appeal to natural or universal law (Rom 2) which we as Christians are trained to obey above man’s law (so we’re always trying to be at attentive to it), but the argument also feels wrong because we can’t figure out quiet where it fits into natural law except possibly at the Golden Rule (which overlaps with God’s law) which we’ve already seen doesn’t work here.
Let’s take the argument and break it down. The argument implies that since 12 other states forbid my actions, my actions are condemnable. But where does law derive from? we define things as condemnable since the law forbids them or do we forbid things by law because those things are condemnable? The answer is obvious. So we can break the law down into two types: i) Law that derives from moral wrongs, and ii) law that derives from the whims of the people (like school zones, tax rates, zoning laws, etc).
What the 12 Other States argument implies is this: An action is wrong because it is outlawed. Well, one problem with that is that recording isn’t outlawed universally (or even in majority). The other problem is that there’s nothing in God’s law or natural law that comes anywhere near forbidding it.
With that said, we have to acknowledge that the 12 states which do outlaw recordings do so out of preference. Before you dismiss that argument, note that this happens in realms other than recording. Those of you reading the blog in Tennessee, do you pay personal income taxes? You don’t? Well, under the 12 States argument you’re sinning because other states have said that people in their states must pay income taxes. Is the picture clearer? You see, income taxes, like recordings, can’t find any acknowledgment in either natural or moral law, except to the extent that they are to be obeyed if they are legislated. Since Tennessee has neither made recording nor not paying personal income tax (because there is no personal income tax) crimes, then you do not commit a sin when you record or refuse to pay a tax that isn’t levied on you.
Similarly, some states have higher speed limits than others. If Minnesota has an interstate speed limit of 55 mph and you choose to go 70 mph in a 70 mph zone in Tennessee are you breaking the law? Again, under the 12 States Argument you are. But again this argument fails so obviously because the speed limit, like income taxes, recording laws, and a multitude of other topics which can’t seem to find their basis in natural or moral law, come down to public preference as reflected in law. Not very satisfying I know, but that’s what it really amounts to. Tennesseans don’t pay income taxes because they prefer not to and the legislation reflects that. They can drive 70 mph because their legislators prefer it to be that way. They can record conversations they are a part of without other parties knowing since their legislators (and federal legislators) prefer it that way.
Finally, addressing D) The Right to Privacy. A few may appeal to that as a defense against unwanted recordings. First, if you appeal to this, please note that this is the exact idea that Justice William Douglas used in the case (Griswold v. Connecticut) that allowed Roe v. Wade to fall the way it did. But that aside, the argument for a right to privacy comes from what Douglas called the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution. What Douglas meant is that while the Constitution doesn’t expressly say there is a right to privacy, but if we take a little bit from this amendment, a little bit from that one, and a pinch of another one; then suddenly boom! we’ve got ourselves an implied right to privacy. Now this may seem plausible to some, but most of us tend to interpret the Scriptures and the Constitution literally. If you want to accept the Right to Privacy argument go for it, but if you do, you’ll also be accepting that gay marriage is protected under the Massachusetts Constitution and the idea that Genesis may just be a mythological account with moral lessons but no firm basis in reality.
Also, Overflowinggrace, the superficial irony of your post juxtaposed against your screenname aside, how about defining arrogance as you apply it to me?
Josh Manning has more integrity in his little finger than most of the power brokers at Bellevue have even the slightest hope for.
Our desire should be to help these men be everything that God desires for them to be. It is just like marriage or a parent/child relationship- if you desire a certain behavior from them you should practice it yourself. You should break the cycle of distrust rather than propagate it.
How about approaching them with love? How about not always putting them on the defensive?
Let's say I have an issue with my spouse lying about something. In the interest of maintaining integrity and protecting out relationship would it be better to secretly record him doing something wrong and then expose that to the world or to go to him in a loving way and talk to him about it? If I bait him into an argument about it, am I not facilitating an environment that could cause him to stumble? All these actions may result in the same response, but I am only responsible for my actions.
Piglet, I don't know the exact path one should take in a situation like this, but I know with that secret recordings, "saving bellevue", and IDC, Inc are not it. Perhaps everyone should slow down, be patient and take some time to let the emotions fade a little and then see what God would have you do.
Imaresistor, Piglet, Junkmail, Socwork, BBC Refugee, sickofthelies, oc, and company,
Thank you all so much for sticking by me.
I'ma, you're way too kind. My failings are vast, but by God's grace and mercy I repent and He forgives me.
BBC Refugee, you heard correctly: I wasn't comfortable. I'm actually rather averse to confrontation, but will do it if I believe that it's the time.
I truly do owe you all a debt for trying to defend me. My sincerest thanks to you, precious friends (whom I may or may not have met!).
PS Bepatient's argument has just changed from earlier at 4:03pm. Just an observation.
Let's say I have an issue with my spouse lying about something. In the interest of maintaining integrity and protecting out relationship would it be better to secretly record him doing something wrong and then expose that to the world or to go to him in a loving way and talk to him about it?
With your spouse, sure...
Just a thought...
I think that people have been trying to have this kind of conversation with leadership but have been prevented from doing so...
Isn't that one of the reasons this blog came about?
Whether or not he should have secretly recorded DC is something we will not ever agree on. Personally, I could justify anything I wanted to do in my own mind.
The thing that bothers me the most is that , the tape was not (to my nowledge) used in the correct way. Had it been said that their demands for the names had not been met, so they used the recording in a court of law to show that BBC was not following the, well that is one thing. But for it to end up on this blog for all to see came across as a "HAHA" look what we did and kind of self serving to me.
JMHO
Memphis
bepatient said...
Piglet, I don't know the exact path one should take in a situation like this, but I know with that secret recordings, "saving bellevue", and IDC, Inc are not it. Perhaps everyone should slow down, be patient and take some time to let the emotions fade a little and then see what God would have you do.
Koragg's Response:
bepatient, I think you do have a point. And I do think that sometimes emotions run so high that it kind of clouds the message. Especially over text where its hard to tell what tone it is. That being said, and this is just my personal observation, but the leadership should show the membership more respect than they have. If leadership had at least sat down with Mark Sharpe and address his concerns from the get go and used some better judgement (which to their credit, they have admitted and apologized for the fence issue), there probably would not be a saving bellevue website nor this blog. But that is just my personal opinion.
bepatient
I have never said anything bad about Josh Manning. I am sure he is a very nice guy, I believe his intent is true, and I will not hold this against him- I just disagree with some of his tactics.
And just what would you suggest he do? Better yet, besides criticizing those who are taking action to hold Bellevue to Biblical accountability, what are YOU doing?
be patient said
Let's say I have an issue with my spouse lying about something. In the interest of maintaining integrity and protecting out relationship would it be better to secretly record him doing something wrong and then expose that to the world or to go to him in a loving way and talk to him about it? If I bait him into an argument about it, am I not facilitating an environment that could cause him to stumble? All these actions may result in the same response, but I am only responsible for my actions.
Piglet, I don't know the exact path one should take in a situation like this, but I know with that secret recordings, "saving bellevue", and IDC, Inc are not it. Perhaps everyone should slow down, be patient and take some time to let the emotions fade a little and then see what God would have you do
Piglet says:
I agree the above sounds very good. And I also think it applies to May and June of 2006. Those avenues were tried and proved to be dead ends.
We are now into February of 2007. Much time has passed.
Many have admitted that they have been hoping we would grow weary and forget about all these issues.
After 18 months, I don't think time will do anything but continue to shrink our membership. And I don't care much for numbers - but each of those numbers represent people and families that feel displaced and disowned by their church family.
We need to have dealt with this already.
Now, how DO we?
Bepatient,
God asks us to honor him.
3 Ways to assess:
Then feed my lambs
Then take care of my sheep
Then feed my sheep
Josh,
my argument has not changed. I was referring to his attitude and words, not whether or not he would hand over a list.
finance guy,
like I said, I don't know the right path, I can just see that this is the wrong one. I pray for my church, I pray for it's leaders and I came here to review the information and judge it for myself so that no one could say I had my head in the sand. Maybe that is all I am called to do- just as some are called to leave and some are not. I don't know yet.
socwork,
We should attempt to restore fellowship with any fellow Christians, and certainly with the one's in our own church.
The actions being taken now are making an open dialogue less likely not more.
Memphis,
Josh's making a tape record of his meeting with David Coombs was not a prank in order to have a laugh at Mr. Coombs expense. Taping the meeting was more than justified by the way BBC's leadership has acted in recent months. Far from being transparent and open with the membership, stonewalling has become their first recourse. If Mr. Coombs was embarrassed by what he said, he should not have said it. If he had responded courteously and respected the law, the tape would have protected and vindicated him. Are you totally unconcerned with his response? That he is "not interested in what the Tennessee code says?"
Piglet,
Please email me. I need to ask you something.
Piglet,
I do see your point.. but just like when we sit here and discuss these things- don't you think after a while it wouldn't be easier for us to give in to childish, sinful behavior rather than maintaining a respectful dialog? Just because something is harder doesn't make it wrong. Just because it doesn't give immediate results doesn't make it wrong.
If you hit a dead end trying to lead someone to Christ or restore their fellowship, you don't just stop and give up when you don't get the results you want and start berating them and embarrassing them until they give in.
Post a Comment