Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- New BBC Open Forum
- This forum was created to provide a place where those who are seriously concerned about the issues facing Bellevue Baptist Church and the SBC can come to comment and exchange ideas. Anonymous comments are welcome, but it is respectfully requested that instead of choosing the "Anonymous" option those who want to post comments without logging in select a unique screen name. This lets everyone tell the difference between one anon and another without revealing any personal information. Under the box where you compose your comment where it says "Choose an identity," just check "Name/URL" and type in the screen name of your choice. You can leave the URL field blank. It would be helpful if you'd use the same screen name for any subsequent comments. This makes reading and following discussions easier, helps avoid confusion, and doesn't result in one person being credited for writing something s/he didn't. Comments by posters whose only purpose is to disrupt (i.e. trolls) will be subject to deletion. Your cooperation will be appreciated.
482 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 482 Newer› Newest»PianoWoman,
Seriously? The pastor's wife and child came to a staff meeting? Any reason given for that? That is truly odd.
Truth Rules-
There is a dispute as to whether a majority voted to adjourn the meeting. With the vote as close as it was they should have polled each section or passed out ballots. Let's do some math... About 6000 people in attendance...about 30 percent left before the final vote to adjourn leaving approximately 4200 people. Half or a little over voted to continue the meeting until all motions were heard. As it is, over 2000 people left feeling that the meeting ended too soon.
Does anyone know if the media WAS there or not??
"The gentleman who called for the adjournment was Jim Angle. He is a man of the utmost integrity and is very respected by all who know him. "
Hmmm...where have we heard this before? Oh yeah, about Coombs. So, tell me, why does Mr. Angle have a problem with sexual purity in the church?
I have sat on many boards and I can tell you there are always 'plants' that people cue for motions and adjounments. YOu expect that sort of thing in the 'world' but not at church. Timing was very interesting here...the motion and the fact that CW was heading to a mike...hmmmm
charlie fox said...
tim said....
The motion for adjournment was not handled properly and there was a call for parlamentary procedure that was either ignored or not heard. I was not satisfied that the vote for adjournment had passed. It appeared from my vantage point to be nearly equally divided decsion and required a more accurate detailed count.
REPLY:
A motion to adjourn CANNOT be made while a seconded motion is on the floor. The correct procedure would have been for somebody to rise and loudly declare "POINT OF ORDER" and requested a ruling from the parlamentarian.
That is not correct. You can make a motion to adjourn while there is a motion on the floor and the body is engaged in debate. If someone would care to post a transcript it would be easier to see what errors if any were made. Clearly the call to adjourn so early was planned and was hardball at a minimum and more like dirty pool.
RONR section 21 [page 225]
The privileged motion to Adjourn (which is always moved in an unqualified form with no mention of a time either for adjourning or for meeting again) is a motion to close the meeting immediately, made under conditions where some other provision for another meeting exists (so that the adjournment will not have the effect of dissolving the assembly),and where no time for adjourning the present meeting has already been set. In such a case, regardless of whether business is pending, a majority should not be forced to continue in session substantially longer than it desires, [page 226] and even if no business is pending, a decision as to whether to close the meeting should not be allowed to consume time. For this reason, when there is provision for another meeting and no time for adjourning is already set, an unqualified motion "to adjourn" is afforded sufficiently high privilege to interrupt the pending question and, on adoption, to close the meeting before the pending business is disposed of. [Note from me: this is how you wind up with “unfinished business”] And for the same reason, such a motion has the unique characteristic that, even if it is made while no question is pending, it is not debatable or amendable and it remains subject to all of the rules governing the privileged motion to Adjourn (except those that relate to making the motion while business is pending; see Standard Descriptive Characteristics). Under the conditions just described, a motion to Adjourn is therefore said to be "privileged" or to be "a privileged motion" even when no question is pending.
Me again - I do not think the motion to adjourn "disolved the assmebly" despite the fact there is no set time for the next meeting since your bylaws do call for more meetings. This is a bit of a grey area I admit. If I as chair was appealed and overturned it would be okay by me.
I think I would have ruled the motion to adjourn in order unless you can give some more details.
NOW - Any motion for a Point of Order or Parliamentary inquiry would be an Incidental motion covered under Chapter 8 of RONR and should have been addressed by the chair before the vote to adjourn was taken. The chair was flat wrong if he ignored a call for point of order as Time mentioned or a call for parliamentary inquiry.
What took place this morning was shameful to say the very least. This leadership has crossed the line over and over again and proved it has no interest in those they are supposed to be "leading". And they are even less interested in what's right...oh they're very careful to stay within the "rules"...or the "system" as some have referred to it...but it's way too obvious what the real intent is. God is neither fooled nor mocked by such foolishness. The "majority" has gotten what they wanted, but I doubt seriously they've truly considered the ramifications of what that is, and what it will mean in the future. So be it...it's your baby to rock now.
junk99mail said...
PianoWoman,
Seriously? The pastor's wife and child came to a staff meeting? Any reason given for that? That is truly odd.
I don't know if a reason was given. A staff member that was prepared to "hold forth" backed off when they realized they were there. The staff member was understandably upset. No one else spoke up either. No wonder.
"His football jersey, his lunchbox and other "stuff" all in a big glass enclosed shrine with lots of pictures taken over the years of King Stevie and his wife. "
You can't be serious. Please tell me this is not so.
Earlier post from Amy:
I called BBC and was told there would only be child care for 0-3 years old during the BSF time 10-11:30. At 11:30, parents will be asked to pick up their children so the workers can be released to go to the business meeting.
2:40 PM, March 21, 2007
Wonder what happened to this plan?
I would add that if you were voting the motion to adjourn would have been out of order. Were you voting when the motion to adjourn was made?
[page 227]
The privileged motion to Adjourn...is not in order while the assembly is engaged in voting or verifying a vote, or before the result of a vote has been announced by the chair, except that, in the case of a vote taken by ballot,
"I guess it couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that the pastor's wife and daughter walked in and sat on the front row at just about the time there was a call for discussion?
Funny, I didn't know they were on the staff."
Totally classless. They have NO business in staff meetings if not on staff. it sends a message of 'dynasty' and dictatorship. Was this the 'cheerleader' daughter that had her air fare paid for by BBC to attend cheerleading camp?
Lin said...
"His football jersey, his lunchbox and other "stuff" all in a big glass enclosed shrine with lots of pictures taken over the years of King Stevie and his wife. "
You can't be serious. Please tell me this is not so.
It's true.
Lin,
So.
My mouth was gaping wide enough to catch a good load of pollen.
"His football jersey, his lunchbox and other "stuff" all in a big glass enclosed shrine with lots of pictures taken over the years of King Stevie and his wife. "
And what in the world does that kind of display have to do with the man's ministry. So what if he played football, so did Dr Rogers. That is just another shameful exhibition because the man has no substantial accomplishments to brag about - unless you count three churches he has split..
Lin,
It is very much the truth.
mom wrote: "And what in the world does that kind of display have to do with the man's ministry. So what if he played football, so did Dr Rogers. That is just another shameful exhibition because the man has no substantial accomplishments to brag about - unless you count three churches he has split.. "
It goes much deeper than that, mom. It is truly scary that he would allow that....so soon after coming there...or even before he died!
Tacky at best...Narcissism at its worst. This guy in unbelievably scary. Egomaniac is the right word.
His lunch box? Seriously?
yep, his lunch box...ad nauseum
Lin said...
--snipped for brevity --
klavierfrau said..
Funny, I didn't know they were on the staff."
Totally classless. They have NO business in staff meetings if not on staff. it sends a message of 'dynasty' and dictatorship.
kf: One word will do...Slick.
Was this the --snipped
kf: because
a) I don't know
and
b) it's irrelevant (I have no idea
about your reference)
Lindon,
Ever read this?
http://www.bellevue.org/
templates/cusbellevue1103/
details.asp?id=1360&PID=265624
Notice anything that stands out (particularly under Ministry Experience)?
A member can only call for a standing vote by calling for a "Division of the Assembly [page 272]. It is up to the chair to take the step to count the votes if it is too close to call. This can be done quickly by carving the auditorium up into sections and having deacons count the sections. Sounds like it should have been done. The chair has ALOT of power when it comes to things like this.
It has been my experience with Robert's Rules that you do not adjourn when an open Motion has not been discussed nor voted upon.
That is often done out of the tradition of showing respect and being courteous to each other. The person making the motion to adjourn may have followed the rules, but he was playing hard-ball to prevent a vote by employing this tactic. It was a mean ploy in a church meeting considering the motion at hand.
In the long run preventing motions to come to a vote typically does not lead to much harmony in an assembly. People can more easily take the disappointment of losing a vote than not getting to vote at all. Not allowing votes makes people mad, and it should.
lin: I could really careless about Bill Clinton and Hitler. Those things have nothing to do with me and Bellevue and Brother Steve.
Junk, the whole link is not copying to the browser...please send it to me in e-mail if you will!
I would like to see the tape of the service this morning? Reckon it will be made available. (they won't allow us to make our own, so surely we can buy one of theirs)??
the general said:
In the long run preventing motions to come to a vote typically does not lead to much harmony in an assembly. People can more easily take the disappointment of losing a vote than not getting to vote at all. Not allowing votes makes people mad, and it should.
SOTL says:
And now you have the REASON they did it.
"I could really careless about Bill Clinton and Hitler. Those things have nothing to do with me and Bellevue and Brother Steve."
Uh...ok. You are the one that came here lauding ' the majority'...I'm just sayin'.... about 'majorities'...
To make you feel even better about the 'majority', go over tomorrow and gaze upon the "lunch box" of your great leader. :o)
lin and others, would it be possible for you to stop talking about people and KIDS and making EVERYTHING personal?????????? Would that be possible?? Do any of you have anything worth while to offer?? There is NO difference between this blog and a worldly blog. Actually, it is worse. Pathetic!!
"His football jersey, his lunchbox and other "stuff" all in a big glass enclosed shrine with lots of pictures taken over the years of King Stevie and his wife."
Where is this shrine and can anyone go visit?
Lindon,
Sent it!
Funny lin, I did hear you or aay others say any disrespectful hate filled remarks about Dr Rogers case and the keep sakes in it.
4545 said...
lin and others, would it be possible for you to stop talking about people and KIDS and making EVERYTHING personal?????????? Would that be possible?? Do any of you have anything worth while to offer?? There is NO difference between this blog and a worldly blog. Actually, it is worse. Pathetic!!
4545: Bless your heart, you just don't get it! This IS personal. It is about kids. It is about a shepherd not protecting his sheep. I thought Bellevue was "A Family of Friends" so that would mean it is personal when those in our "family" are placed in danger. The person placed in charge has chosen to neglect his duties in protecting those under his charge. PERIOD.
" There is NO difference between this blog and a worldly blog. Actually, it is worse. Pathetic!! "
You mean the 'World' as in a pastor who ignores scripture to allow a pedophile minister to stay on staff? Or the 'world' as in jumping a fence to confront a brother? Or the 'world' as in making a shrine of oneself thinking people would want to gaze upon your lunch box?
proverbs wrote: "There is a dispute as to whether a majority voted to adjourn the meeting. With the vote as close as it was they should have polled each section or passed out ballots. Let's do some math... About 6000 people in attendance...about 30 percent left before the final vote to adjourn leaving approximately 4200 people. Half or a little over voted to continue the meeting until all motions were heard. As it is, over 2000 people left feeling that the meeting ended too soon."
As ded I. I voted to not adjourn.
"I did hear you or aay others say any disrespectful hate filled remarks about Dr Rogers case and the keep sakes in it. "
Does it have his football jersey and lunch box?
Amy: Main hall in front of the sanctuary on the Appling side.
Cake's lesson #2
Irony:
"Do any of you have anything worth while to offer??"
Do any of you even go to Bellevue?? If so, how could not have seen the case with Brother Steve's stuff in it?
There was a really large woman that was "Anti Steve Gaines & Bellevue" sitting in front of us. She read a magazine during the entire service and made a phone call during the invitation.
Give me a break.
One question for you folks. How could you ever want to fellowship with the ignorant sinners you accuse us "the overwhelming majority" of being.
Dr. Rogers never climbed a fence or
kept a confessed pedophile on staff.
"Do any of you have anything worth while to offer??"
I do!! I do!!
truth rules said...
lily wrote: "It has been my experience with Robert's Rules that you do not adjourn when an open Motion has not been discussed nor voted upon."
Then you group has not followed the rules. If the privileged motion to adjourn was not in the rules an assemble could theoretically go on forever. Therefore the reason for the privileged motion.
REPLY:
Truth Rules or anybody else,
Was a date and time for the next meeting specified in the motion to adjourn?
overflowingtoilet said:
One question for you folks. How could you ever want to fellowship with the ignorant sinners you accuse us "the overwhelming majority" of being.
wel, well, well, that leads me to ask YOU why YOU are here on this blog.
4545,
The reason I never saw the case is because when I go into the sanctuary, I don't usually pay attention to the other wall. And besides, I usually leave after Sunday School.
lin: I pray that you are not any in any form of leadership at Bellevue or any church for that matter.
It is so crazy for me to read on here some comments from some of you as if YOU should be in charge and as if you should be in leadership at Bellevue. From what I have seen on here, trust me, that is the last thing we need.
Sick,
You must have been the fat woman I'm talking about.
Toilet,
I think not.
Important Question!
According to the 3/4 page by-laws of Bellevue Baptist Church, the authority to call the church into a business meeting is not defined. Therefore is it reasonable to assume that any memeber can call a business meeting provided that it is duly announced.
Brian Miller Stated that a quorm is defined in Robert's Rules as 10% of the membership present. Therefore a meeting of approx. 3,000 members would constitute a binding meeting.
Would it be possible to call a business meeting to complete unfinished business in the immediate future?
"Cake's lesson #2
Irony:
"Do any of you have anything worth while to offer??" "
Cakes, I can't help it. A LUNCH BOX...for crying out loud...
This reminds me of something... years ago, I was STUCK at the Little Rock airport during Clinton's Prez reign. I was looking at post cards and one was a pic of little Billy Clinton in the 3rd grade with his whole class. The caption read... and it was serious:
"His classmates used to watch him think because he was so brilliant."
Cakes, a lunch box...under glass!! I am not getting over this one. Never. this is one for the books.
concerned: so you are somehow justifying the direspect and hate filled attacks on this blog?? Talking about Brother Steve kids in the way some are?? You are going to try and justify that?
I can tell you one thing, YOU cannot justify it by the Word of God and that is all that matters.
You are clearly the one that does not get it.
Try using the Word of God as your base instead of what you "think" sometime.
Everything WILL change at BBC when:
1. Mrs. Rogers OPENLY denounces the evil "leadership" at BBC and denounces what they have done to the Church that she watched Dr. Rogers labor over all of those years. She will do it out of love for The LORD Jesus that she has loved and served all of these many years.
.......AND/OR.......
2. When the assistant D.A. comes through with his warrants in accordance to TN law pertaining to keeping silence about known pediophiles.
-----------------------------
*Truly, MRS. ROGERS will have THE ultimate voice that God will use to bring down the wolf and hirelings that abide within the "new" BBC.
4545, Bepatient implied a while back that you teach BSF. Is that true?
SOTL,
Thanks for the laugh - I can't stop giggling.
Not only does the toilet overflow, it's tacky.
OFG said
One question for you folks. How could you ever want to fellowship with the ignorant sinners you accuse us "the overwhelming majority" of being.
Piglet says:
I didn't know there were so many ignorant souls here until the "annointed ego-maniac" showed up. I always thought we were a strong church with deeply held convictions, not easily mislead, loyal to Christ and His word - not a man.
I had begun to think I could be wrong but you all have me convinced after today. People just want to approve everything and get to Luby's.
It's all about Steve - not what God's will is, or what is right.
charlie fox wrote: "Truth Rules or anybody else,
Was a date and time for the next meeting specified in the motion to adjourn?"
In any organized society holding several regular meetings during the year, it is, when unqualified, always a privileged motion.
charlie, I know that this can be debatable (regular meetings during the year) but there will be other business meetings, therefore a time is not necessarily needed to adjourn. The next one will be to approve our representatives to the SBC. Technically, the Josh Manning motion should be placed on that agenda. I would suggest that David Coombs be called and asked to publicize this meeting. It is a requirement of the SBC that all delegates be approved by their local congregation.
Where is Luby's
4545: I guess I musunderstood your post. Where were you ever discussing SG's kids? Sorry if I missed it. I was referring to the children at church that were unprotected while a pedophile was allowed to stay on staff. I'm sure my post makes more sense now and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
(Still no excuse for your rude response, but at least maybe we now understood what each other was talking about.)
Overflowing Insults said
You must have been the fat woman I'm talking about.
Piglet says:
No comment needed
Piglet....was it you. It was two women and a man. The man was respectful during the service but both women were very disrespectful. I think we just need to continue to take the High Road and lower ourselves to your level.
Lin,
The irony inferred is that 4545 never has anything to offer but sanctimony.
So what.
General Henry M. Robert said...
I think I would have ruled the motion to adjourn in order unless you can give some more details.
REPLY:
GENERAL SIR,
With all due respect, it appears that you failed to read ALL of your own rules.
If you continued reading you would see the following:
A motion to adjourn is always a privileged motion EXCEPT in the following cases:
1).......
2).......
3)When the effect of the motion to adjourn, if adopted, would be to dissolve the assembly with no provision for another meeting, as is usually the case in a mass meeting, or the last meeting of a convention.
Unless a specific date and time was set for the next meeting, the motion to adjourn was NOT a priviledged motion.
4545: Try using the Word of God as your base instead of what you "think" sometime.
I am using the Word of God....and I think for myself too! What about you?
tim wrote: "Would it be possible to call a business meeting to complete unfinished business in the immediate future?"
First this is the first time we held to the 10% quorum. I've been in Wednesday night services where business has been conducted without meeting the quorum.
As to your question. I have seen the pastor recognize the chairman of the deacons at the end of a service. He would come on stage and make a motion to enter into a business meeting, it would be seconded, and voice voted approved. Therefore, my assumption is that anyone that could be recognized at any service could make a motion to go into a business meeting. But now with the new found openness we may be at a place where all business meetings will have to be publicized. But it's an interesting question non the less.
Why are they so afraid to let the victim speak?
OFG said
Piglet....was it you. It was two women and a man. The man was respectful during the service but both women were very disrespectful. I think we just need to continue to take the High Road and lower ourselves to your level.
Piglet says:
Was she pink? :O/
I had no magazine, made no phone calls and I'm not f....am I fat?l
overflowinggrace,
Your estimation of what is rude and obnoxious is obviously beyond pale. I would expect that if you behaved at the service today as you are now that there would have been scarecly anyone that did not believe that you should go look in the mirror to determine the meaning of the words.
overflowinghate:
Jesus loves fat chics, too.
at 9:24 PM, March 25, 2007
4545 said...
Do any of you even go to Bellevue?? If so, how could not have seen the case with Brother Steve's stuff in it?
I do. I rarely go through that hallway. I saw the banner "The
Early Years" and a jersey out of
the corner of my eye and tried to
avoid it. It struck me as somewhat sophmoric. I'm more interested in what he says and does now: from the pulpit.
charlie fox wrote; "Unless a specific date and time was set for the next meeting, the motion to adjourn was NOT a privileged motion."
Actually that only applies if you do not have regularly meetings in the course of the year. We will have other meetings this year. Note my previous response on this. I have checked with an attorney familiar with RROO and he said that bodies that hold 'other' scheduled meetings in the year can adjourn without setting a date. The debate would be 'other' meetings but as I stated there will be at least one more as required by the SBC. So technically we do have another meeting to be conducted on the books.
"I'm more interested in what he says and does now: from the pulpit. "
Any seasoned pastor will tell you that you learn more about a pastor's character and true beliefs OUTSIDE the pulpit.
truth rules said...
I would suggest that David Coombs be called and asked to publicize this meeting.
junk99mail says...
TR, you seem to know the leadership or at least how things work, and you felt that the meeting shouldn't have been stopped when it was--so would you be willing to call and make this request to DC and also ask that the open motion be on the agenda as old business?
truth rules said...
First this is the first time we held to the 10% quorum. I've been in Wednesday night services where business has been conducted without meeting the quorum.
REPLY:
Unless a quorum is specified in the bylaws, RRoO states that there is NO MINIMUM NUMBER required to have a business meeting.
Robert's Rules of Order
Newly Revised
10th Edition
Pages: 20-21
Oh, TR, if you do make that request, please report back here what DC says. Thanks!
truth ruse say:
Actually that only applies if you do not have regularly meetings in the course of the year. We will have other meetings this year. Note my previous response on this. I have checked with an attorney familiar with RROO and he said that bodies that hold 'other' scheduled meetings in the year can adjourn without setting a date. The debate would be 'other' meetings but as I stated there will be at least one more as required by the SBC. So technically we do have another meeting to be conducted on the books.
Oh, goodie...So we can look forward to the same type of fairness? I can hardly wait!!!
junk00mail, if I see David next Sunday then I will ask the question. I generally run into him and don't mind asking.
TR, Will you ask DC if they will make sure and let the victim speak from the mic this time?
So a meeting could be announced in the Commercial Appeal, by any member of the church and provided that at 10% of the membership were present it would be binding upon the church to abide by the decisions from that meeting.
Piglet,
There are those that are simply TRYING to "push your buttons". They are indeed the tools of satan planted here to cause dismay.
IGNORE them, Little One.
We love you!
TR
You have two questions now:
1)To Jim Angel - Why adjourn our ONE meeting we'd been trying to get with a motion on the floor only 45 minutes into a meeting?
2)To David Coombs - Will he announce the next meeting to be held?
Are you writing this down?
Tim, in response to your Important Question at
9:32 PM, March 25, 2007
My recollection and first reaction is “no” because RR assumes the bylaws set the time and interval for meetings. I’ll keep looking. In general, RR governs what happens at the meeting, the bylaws establish when and how often meetings are held. Your question may be more of a 501c3 state or federal legal question than a RR question.
Laws > bylaws > RR is the pecking order
Charlie - BBC was not "dissolved" because they will have another business meeting in one year (if not sooner) according to their [clearly lacking and needing revision] bylaws. So from that perspective the motion to adjourn was in order. It did not dissolve the assembly. If there was no provision in the bylaws calling for BBC to ever meet again then the motion would have been out of order as it was proposed. It would have needed to include a date and time for the next meting and been a made as a main motion. That's my take on it. You can always appeal the chair's ruling if you disagree.
Those are some really lacking bylaws.
charlie, Brian stated that our by-laws required the 10% quorum. What by-laws, you say? But he did ask all members to stand and then stated for the record that we had a quorum of more than 3,000 present so we could now enter into a business meeting. It may be a law based on the statue for non-profits corporations.
Truth Rules said.....
I have checked with an attorney familiar with RROO and he said that bodies that hold 'other' scheduled meetings in the year can adjourn without setting a date.
REPLY:
Scheduled: appointed, assigned, or designated for a FIXED TIME.
I suggest that you find a different attorney.
There AREN"T any more SCHEDULED meetings, so it wasn't a PRIVILEDGED motion. PERIOD. End of discussion.
overflowinggrace said...
Sick,
You must have been the fat woman I'm talking about.
9:29 PM, March 25, 2007
**********
OG,
One thing is for sure. You don't know Sickofthelies or Piglet. They are both very beautiful women and neither of them is fat. Not only are they beautiful, but they are both very smart and sincerely love and honor the Lord Jesus Christ with their lives.
Now you know.
Dee
tim said......
Brian Miller Stated that a quorm is defined in Robert's Rules as 10% of the membership present. Therefore a meeting of approx. 3,000 members would constitute a binding meeting.
REPLY:
Brian Miller is DEAD WRONG.
Robert's Rules of Order
Newly Revised
10th Edition
Pages: 20-21
OFG said
I think we just need to continue to take the High Road and lower ourselves to your level.
Piglet says: So now I'm short AND fat? (steam pouring from little pink ears)....
Come Lord, Jesus!
Oh, thank you!!!! I'm better now.=O)
TR said: The debate would be 'other' meetings but as I stated there will be at least one more as required by the SBC. So technically we do have another meeting to be conducted on the books.
I must have missed something. Now BBC is following the SBC? Just not for the 2002 Resolution? Huh?
SOTL
Let's you and me take Dee to lunch!! :D
overflowinggrace,
would you email me please?? thanks so much!
tim, not being a lawyer I would assume that could be done. I think the problem would be getting recognized to make the motion. Since we are in 'church' the pastor doesn't have to recognize anyone from the floor. You'd probably get shown the door. I'd suggest waiting for the next meeting which will elect delegates. Personally I think if someone had made a motion asking just for quarterly meetings then it would have gotten to the vote. Two problems existed in my opinion. One Josh had lost all credibility with the leadership due to the recording of conversations and his TV appearances. Secondly by his having the sexual morality portion to his motion it made one question why these two went together. Hence the ending of the meeting. Fool me once shame on me. And Josh was not going to get to play some game today.
All this talking badly about fat people is giving me a complex!
Why didn’t Jamie talk about the music department? Something to think about. What a sad day at BBC. But are you surprised? We cannot stop. That meeting was cut short and we must bombard the church with requests to finish the unfinished business. Now for all you who cannot see the forest for the trees. Can you not see all the wrong that is going on in BBC? I know people make mistakes but some things can and should be avoided: lying, arrogance, bullying, manipulating the scripture, stealing, supporting abortion and homosexuality. Did I leave out lying? I pray that GOD will remove these people from their high horses: Steve Gaines, Mark D., Jaime Parker, Chuck Taylor, Harry Smith, David Coombs, Jim Barnwell; should I go on? then I pray that God will not turn His back on us and please restore His church. Again, open your eyes church.
Correction!
The current by-laws indicate a monthly business meeting.
When is next months business meeting scheduled?
concernedsbcer wrote: "I must have missed something. Now BBC is following the SBC? Just not for the 2002 Resolution? Huh?"
BBC doesn't have to follow the SBC but if BBC wants its delegates recognized and allowed to vote at the convention then the church must approve the delegates in an official business meeting.
Ignore ofg's references to people's physical appearance..that's been her modus operandi from the time she first appeared on this blog...when you can't make a case..attack the other party...ah but it's the folks here who are "full of venom"...oh the irony.
Tim: I would think a phone call to DC would be in order...with by-laws in hand!
TR said
And Josh was not going to get to play some game today.
Piglet says:
Josh was playing the same "game" as our leadership and following the same rules.
Someone could have had the motion split - no problem. There was a procedure for what he proposed and it just was not followed.
Bryan lost his credibility with us but we sat and listened to HIM didn't we?
And didn't Bryan say something at the outset about not judging people's motives? Why not judge the motion itself and not Josh if that was a sincere statement.
Piglet,
We certainly need to take her to lunch, AND pay her the money we promised her to say those things about us. :)
:)
tim/charlie, actually Brian Miller made reference to either our by-laws or the state laws that require a 10% quorum.
piglet/sotl...am I invited?
Come Lord Jesus,
That responsibility cannot be on Mrs. R....she is a grieving widow. She is also from a time when women did not over ride men. The leaders have been so disrespectful to her and the memory of her husband.
...altho King Stevie sure pulls out the quotes from Bro. R when it is useful for him!!!
4545,
You are way beyond mean....you won,honey,leave us to talk with our real brothers and sisters minus your squeals.
Tim,
Emailed you my cell....still up.
TR: I'm still confused! BBC wants to send delegates to the SBC convention to vote on resolutions they probably won't want to abide by......
How do the 2002 delgates feel, I wonder?
Our bologna has a first name
its S-T-E-V-E
Our bologna has a second name
its G-A-I-N-E-S
O, it has sickened me this day
and if you ask me why I'll say...
cause S-T-E-V-E G-A-I-N-E-S
obviously got his way today.
As expected, I was not the only Bill Loney at church today. The deal is sealed; nothing is going to change; if anything it'll just grow worse...life is too short to take part in this 'Bizzaro world' type church. It's time to FLEE!
William T. Loney,
Professional 'Jingle' Writer
gmommylv said
...altho King Stevie sure pulls out the quotes from Bro. R when it is useful for him!!!
Piglet says:
I KNOW! That just burns my bacon! And I know some folks who are close Dr. Rogers that are SICK of it!!
piglet, I would think that Josh would have separated the motions for vote but he didn't. Only he knows his motive for placing the two together. I have a suspicion as to why he did it this way. But I personally know that Josh has no future plans to reside in Memphis, he is all about changing status quo from the inside, and he has shown himself to be less than honest. That's enough for an old guy like me to be suspicious. He is obviously a bright individual of which I would lose the wits battle. Therefore I like others would not chance his motivations.
The bylaws mention monthly meetings and don't mention a quorum at all.
They really are just making it up as they go along aren't they?
By not holding monthly business meetings they are in violation of the bylaws.
Man, these guys are a bunch of rule breakers. Shame on them for not following the church bylaws.
Start calling (in writing) by certified letter for them to follow the bylaws and hold monthly meetings.
Start proposing bylaw amendments in accordance with Section VI. The bylaws require them to vote on bylaw amendments after one week's notice is given at ANY meeting.
Truth Rules
Josh is an honest man. Taping a conversation so it does not get spun later is NOT dishonest. He taped it beacuse of the LEADERSHIP'S dishonesty in dealing with Mark Sharpe in the past.
And believe me, there has been some MORE taping since then,by godly men who want proof of the TRUTH in case it gets "changed" in the translation .. if you get my drift...
(Would have proven handy in the "I never had a dream" incident)
concernedsbcer...I don't know how the delegates feel. But if it's anything like going to the COGIC, they dined high on the hog. Fleming Steakhouse was packed with COGIC delegates this year. BTW, that's higher on the hog than Ruth's Chris. If you get my drift.
Josh Manning,
I love ya man!!!
I have in my posession a handy dandy tape recording between myself and king coombs.
I'm saving it to sell on EBAY in hopes it will be worth something when coombs go to prison for being in violation of the irs laws.
piglet, let's just say for sake of argument that you and SOTL invite me to lunch. Later, I'm on this blog playing our conversation for all to hear. Now be honest with me on this. Would you be disappoint that I deceived you this way? If not then you are happy to have people secretly recording you. Personally I would be offended.
And you guys would be embarrassed as your nice words to me during lunch would be opposite to your blasting me on the blog. If you meet me you'd just love me...
truthruse says:
piglet, let's just say for sake of argument that you and SOTL invite me to lunch
sotl says:
ok, you can stop right there, because, my friend, that is NOT gonna happen.
truth,
First of all, i did not call David
coombs, HE called ME.
And i have NEVER pretended to be nice to him. I was OUTRAGED over the purpose of his phone call to me.
There would be no difference in the way i talked to him in person and the way i have talked about him on this blog. EVERYTHING I have said on this blog, I have already said to his face. ( well, ok, everything except for the sale of the ebay tape which is going to make me a millionaire)
So there is nothing hypocritical about my phone conversation with Coombs. I was afraid that NO ONE would believe that he actually had my file if I did not record it.
TR
Good point - but remember, the leadership had put our members in the position of having to protect themselves this way. If our lunch was about my obligation to the folks on this blog and the law, it would be the business of the people on this blog whether I liked it or not.
This leadership had been evasive and not forthcoming. Openness when it was requested would solve many of the problems we now have - and finishing this meeting would have been a smart move but they must have thought something was at stake.....
I think we should push for these monthly meetings and make them wish they'd settled for quarterly.
SOTL said...
Piglet,
We certainly need to take her to lunch, AND pay her the money we promised her to say those things about us. :)
************
Thanks, Girls. Now, it seems I have forgotten exactly what the amount was, but I am hoping it was enough to buy out SG so he will "move on".
sotl says:
ok, you can stop right there, because, my friend, that is NOT gonna happen.
SOTL has now called me her friend...I can go to bed happy.
"But I personally know that Josh has no future plans to reside in Memphis, he is all about changing status quo from the inside, and he has shown himself to be less than honest."
What a strange thing for you to say since your pastor and his minions have a serious credibility problem...for one, they ignore scripture. And the itty bitty fence? YOu really are wearing rose colored glasses, my friend.
I for the life of me cannot figure out why anyone here would trust your intentions considering the fact you actually support a false teacher.
Tell us TR, why was the victim not allowed to speak?
Dee
That would have to exceed the national debt. :)
sotl, we all know DC lied about his encounter with you at church.
concernedSBCer said...
I must have missed something. Now BBC is following the SBC? Just not for the 2002 Resolution? Huh?
Even as a former flagship of the SBC, we as a church are not required to follow any resolution by the SBC even though we normally send a full complement (10) of messengers to the annual meeting. Today we exercised our right as an autonomous church to disregard a particular SBC resolution and to prevent the adoption thereof. At best, we voted to say nothing concerning the sexual integrity of ministers.
Lin
Yeah, taping a conversation LEGALLY compared to:
1) tresspassing
2) harboring a pedophile
3) ignoring bylaws
4) lying about Wed. nights
5) concealing financial records
6) breaking tax law
Let's see.....Josh should have been moderating and nobody on the platform should have been allowed to speak if we're judging credibility here....
lin said:
sotl, we all know DC lied about his encounter with you at church.
sotl says:
IF ONLY i had a VIDEO recorder that night at church!!
Oh yes, Sotl, they also came on this blog, his son and others and tried to make you look like a wacko nut case. Only problem is that you came on the blog right after you came home and reported the entire incident and then had witnesses report here, too!
It is amazing the lengths these so called... as so many like to say..., "men of God' will go to...to destroy those with no power or influence. Amazing for so called Christians, isn't it?
lin said
sotl, we all know DC lied about his encounter with you at church.
Piglet says:
Oh, yeah, I forgot that and I was even THERE!
offline..(shaking head over Gaines' lunch box shrine...)
SOTL & Piglet,
What's this rumor about you inviting TR to lunch?? How could you leave me out?? I'm crushed!!
pigs don't lie
SOTL says TR is not invited but I'm trying to make nice so he'll do us some favors....
better yet, why don't you take him out?
Psalm: At best, we voted to say nothing concerning the sexual integrity of ministers.
I understand being autonomous and all that. My point was that BBC sends the "full compliment" of representatives to the SBC convention and then disregards the very important 2002 resolution. How many other very important resolutions have been disregarded?
WOW!!
Did ya'll see where Hillary Clinton signed the petition for SG?
Josh: Thank you for your integrity and example. We appreciate and love you.
Detailed letters showing the harmful impact of arrogant men and seeker sensitive Church Growth philosophies ripping Christians , families, and churches apart .
CHURCHES AND CHRISTIANS RIPPED APART ALL ACRESS AMERICA
Piget,
I'll pass. My tape recorder isnt working.
piglet,
me? and TR? at lunch? Doesn't sound like we'd get along, but who knows? People can act one way on the blog and another when in your presence. Right, SOTL? But if you guys don't want me at lunch, I can eat alone. :(
Why did BM ignore the motion to divide the assembly? That last vote was too close to call and everyone knows it.
"And Josh was not going to get to play some game today..."
Because he got beat to the punch.
SOTL
No, no! I'm suggesting Jumk99Mail take him out! Sorry, I was unclear...
Concerned
You have piggy mail! :0)
I love lunch!
Top Ramen!
Cakes,
Maybe they will invite you instead of me. :(
;]
Ok, ok, people.
Dee can be the guest of honor, Cakes can moderate while TR and Junk debate, Sotl can tape the whole thing, and I'll just eat a lot and be cute.
Settled? :)
piglet,
you have demonstrated the spirit of a peacemaker...blessed are you!
I have frequented this blog on & off since last Oct, and have never commented. However, today I am compelled. First, I want to thank the administrators of this blog for maintaining it, although at times, we have all witnessed “un-Christian” attitudes expressed from both sides. Reading the blog, particularly in the early days opened my eyes. It’s disheartening to be aware of the lies & deceit of the leadership at BBC, but I thank you for exposing the truth however uncomfortable it may be. Initially, my family was very happy & enthused when it was announced that Steve Gaines was selected to be our pastor. We rejoiced and were behind him 100%. Then, the truth was revealed: breaking the law by trespassing, failure to report a pedophile, “dissing” BBC publicly, etc. Yes, we are all human and need forgiveness, but he demonstrated over & over by his unwise decisions just how unqualified he was to be BBC’s pastor. We could not sit under his teaching anymore & began visiting other churches. It was liberating to worship freely in the sister churches. Then today, we had the opportunity to express our opinion by standing to vote. We were not surprised by the totally controlled, orchestrated “business meeting” that occurred. However, I was surprised about the number of people who just blindly accepted the leadership’s recommendation on the committees and budget. I firmly believe it is because of lack of knowledge and blind following (think Jim Jones, etc.). However, it was extremely liberating to vote by standing for the truth, although we were in the minority. Today was definitely closure for my family. It firmly confirmed we cannot no longer support BBC’s administration or direction. The line was drawn and it was closure for my family. We are grateful to BBC for the wisdom received under the preaching of Dr.Rogers and the many good memories over the past 15 years. It is sad to leave a church that has been such a HUGE part of our lives, but we can no longer support the current leadership. Every church should be full of members who 100% support the leadership. We wish the best for BBC and know that God will be glorified in spite of man. Just think of the many who will accept Jesus as savior during the Passion Play, praise be to God! We ask the folks who have and will leave Bellevue to continue to pray for our beloved church and that God will be glorified. Please remember God’s word: God is not mocked, whatsoever a man reapeth, that will he sow.” God is in control. Please do not condemn the people who choose to stay at BBC – you do not know their hearts or what God is telling them. Just please remember to pray for them and for BBC. God is always faithful. He has equipped many under the teachings of Dr.Rogers and to His glory will use us in other areas. Keep your eyes on Jesus. Just think, one day in heaven, we will rejoice over the good things God has done in our lives.
Sadly, it appears my position on how today would turn out has indeed come to pass. Good friends, it's time to find a different fellowship and likely conventions. As BBC goes so does the SBC. Nothing else really to say sadly enough.
Junk,
You can go to lunch with Dee, Piggy and me.
Are you buying? :)
exbellevuers
We are in your camp. We shook the dust off today and will not be back unless Steve goes and things change.
I won't judge those who stay. Maybe there is more work to be done and God has called them to it.
I know many who are not ready to leave - and if they have small children who are unaware, they might can get by, but our kids know and discern much and we need to get them under godly leadership and godly role models.
We are hanging on to our membership and our vote for a while.
SOTL,
I would count it an honor just to be present; a double honor to have the blessing of paying!
Off to bed ... jury duty next week! ugh!
I learned something this morning in the business meeting and it's aftermath. We have reached the point where "my side" can do no wrong and "your side" can do no right. A sad, sad day. Bellevue has split. It will probably be a gradual falling away for the next couple months/years, but it has split.
Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, I do not believe that we are "one in the bond of love" at Bellevue anymore. After what I observed this morning, and the conversations I overheard, or was in, that certain parties both in the "pro" and "against" leadership crowds are interested in being right with each other, but only concerned with being "Right".
I can't tell you how it pains me that there are "sides" to this issue. Why can there be disagreement and debate without the inflammatory rhetoric where you are "Anti-Bellevue" or "Pro-Bellevue"? Why do you have to have a label in order to debate? I think those among the “anti” crowd are wrong to believe that the pastor and the leadership are diabolically evil, but on the other hand, to give the Pastor and the leadership free passes on whatever they do by the "we all make mistakes" and "but he is "God's anointed, and thus we are unable to hold him accountable" is equally wrong. It isn't even Biblical. This attitude is what makes things like Jones-town possible. Jesus and Paul both said many things about judging ministers and preachers against the Bible, and being aware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing. How else can we search those wolves out if there is an atmosphere that calls such debate treasonous?
And to those who play this like a numbers game and say “There side lost, and should just get over it and leave if they aren’t happy” I say to you ”People, this is not the PTA, it's a church!!!” If we are a body, as the Bible teachers, are you saying “Right Arm, if you The legs, feet and “left arm’ are in a majority against you. I’m going to cut you off and send you somewhere else”?
There are “parts of the Body” that have already been severed, and the attitude of those who remain makes me sad. Much of what made Bellevue great was the fellowship of the Believers.
I’ve go so much more to say. My heart is overflowing. This is enough for now. Maybe I’ll continue later.
Good night Bellevue. As David said is Psalm 121
“Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep”
piglet,
Email me and let me know where ya'll might visit/join.
&:^) Dee
:o Junk99
;u Tooth Loose
;^} Cakes
{:\ SOTL
:O* lil' Piglet
Collosal Hint
Its' The " VISION " thing
Trace it all the way back and find the root of the new thinking and inevitable division in churches across america..
Pastors are being taught to " cast visions " .......and that all " leaders" must have "a vision"...and once that vision is " cast " ( vision casting ) ...never deviate from the vision ..
No matter what
doubt it ?
Vision Casting pushed by change agent Guru's
Hey Cakes, what about me?
ok folks
offline
Remember:
God is in control!!!
(;o] oc
* Bob Barker
Thanks, Cakes! I think.
here is the url for THE VISION THING
http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/article.asp?ArtID=7252
It's supposed to be flattering; Bob's however...
Yeah, bob's is kinda pitiful!
Goodnight Cakes!...
Don,
Were you able to find a church without false teaching after your eyes were opened????
Seems like the deceit and corruption of the Word has spread too far.
gm.
No...
It has spread too far..
It is almost everywhere..
Amazing what 30 plus years of brainwashing pastors-in-training will yield.
More on " vison casting " ...whos doing it...and where it is eminating from
url is below
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=91265&netp_id=435024&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW
Oh, Cakes! Thanks for my cute little picture!
:O* lil' Piglet
Don,
All denominations??
You're welcome--it's a great day, remember.
As former New Ager Warren Smith describes in his book " Deceived on Purpose " ..chapter 5
Vision Casting is now rampant among so called Christian leadership training...
Warren describes his astonishment :
Chapeter 5
"As a brand new Christian, I had been horrified years ago to find what amounted to be a New Age book, written by a pastor, prominently displayed on the shelf of a local Christian bookstore. The book was filled with everything I had just left behind in the New Age. Cloaked in Christian language, it encouraged the reader to use guided visualization (now often called �vision casting�) and other metaphysical techniques to gain whatever it was they wanted. Pastors were encouraged to �visualize and dream bigger churches or a new mission field or whatever else they thought would improve their church and ministry "
The so called leadership summits are seeding ther bed of apostasy
Rick Warren & Vision Casting
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2005/10/rick-warren-vision-casting.html
SOTL
If you're up, you have mail!
I just did a little compulsive stress eating so I'm good for another hour....
gm
yes
SOTL
Oh, I see you signed off.
Nighty night.
1 Timothy 4:1-5
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Random, though not entirely unrelated thoughts on today, the meeting, and the blog:
1) Thank you to those kind enough to defend me for asking for sexual misconduct to be dealt with and for reasonably frequent business meetings.
2) Neither Robert's Rules nor US Congressional precedent in any way prohibit introducing multi-pronged resolutions/legislation. In fact, it's common practice. Read an Omnibus Bill.
3) The facts that Chris Williams was making his way to a mic and debate was brought to a screeching halt don't strike me as coincidence, especially when tied in with a resolution on ministerial misconduct.
4) Whoever this fellow is who says he knows I don't have plans to stay or not stay in Memphis knows more about my future than I do.
5) The limelight argument is absurd. What moron would do what I've done if he was just in it for self-promotion? If I were a mercenary I'd be working for the other folks, raking up future employment opportunities, accolades, and Steak Maui--it really is good.
6) I wasn't aware that structuring one's education around his home church's location was requisite for his participation in that body. Though if that is the position of some on this board, I suggest you present that at the next business meeting, asking that all students living away be barred from participation in church business.
7) Bryan Miller on the whole did an excellent job chairing.
8) I never thought I'd be in an SBC church that adjourned in an obvious political faint so that it could avoid voting to A) Have quarterly business meetings, and B) Adopt a resolution dealing with immoral ministers.
9) David Coombs spoke well regarding the conflict of interest motion.
10) Jim Angell's motion to adjourn was in order, but so were the objections from myself and others, as were our calls for division of the assembly/house. Jim's motion was heard. Ours were not, and they have the exact same status that the adjournment motion has since they are A) contained in the question on adjournment and B) designed to protect the rights of the minority.
11) Robert's Rules are designed to bring order to meetings and protect the rights of the minority while allowing the majority to rule. One of the mechanisms designed to promote these goals is the fact that adjournment can be moved at any time. The idea is that the minority, if they are about to have something rammed down their throats, can call for adjournment and regroup. It would appear, if the Chair's estimate of the vote was correct, that this was used by the majority, an irony likely lost on most.
12) An objection to a motion/called question requires a "vote on whether or not to vote." My objection, though seemingly seen by Bryan was not acknowledged. That is the chair's decision.
13) A call for division of the house or a roll call vote is in order at any time and every member has the right under Robert's Rules to request either of these if there is ANY question about the chair's ability to reasonably discern the direction of the vote. Both myself and at least one other called for division multiple times; all were ignored though they have the same standing as Jim's adjournment motion.
14) I was impressed by the overall control exercised by most. Certainly some members couldn't contain their frustration, but one the whole having 5000+ in a meeting can be tricky.
15) I am told that nursery workers, used by some as an excuse for adjourning with a motion on the floor, were paid and told to expect to stay until 1pm.
16) A motion left unresolved at adjournment will be on the floor at the next meeting.
17) If I were jockeying for recognition, I'd be doing it in Arkansas. My contact base is much better there.
18) I have no idea where I'll end up after grad school. Thankfully an MPP is flexible enough that it could land me anywhere from McKenzie to Booz-Allen; New York to London. I wouldn't mind being back in the South though, as much as that would irritate some of you who use more, um, creative definitions of Spirit-filled.
19) One fellow repeatedly told me after the service that I simply wanted to get rid of Dr Gaines. That is patently false. I've prayed so many times that God would redeem this entire situation. My concern is that Scripture be obeyed.
20) There's a delightful disingenuousness to anyone who claims to want transparency and then refuses to release certain records citing the fact that the law does not require their release. I especially like it when things like this are posted side by side on the offending organization's website.
21) Two of the most amusing things this morning: A) The chair's lauding of "Congregational Approval" juxtaposed against its willingness to cooperate with quashing the debate the by their apparently accepted definition comprises "congregational approval." B) The idea that those who came up to me extolling the virtues of unity may well have also rejoiced at the premature ending of debate: truly, nothing says "we want to be unified" like pulling the rug out from under those who respectfully disagree.
22) I can think of infinitely more enjoyable ways to kick off my spring break than what happened this morning (that's addressed again to those of you who seem to think I'm in this for my own gain).
23) To be brutally honest (and this is only because I've been hearing this silliness for about nine months now), my MPP candidacy is at an excellent school in Boston. I don't need to go through this craziness to enhance my job prospects.
24) One of the most interesting verses in the New Testament is 1 Tim 3:7.
25) One of the most interesting things about affluent democracies is the concurrent ill-informed/apathetic nature of voters and exhortation of voter turnout by elites. On a purely political note, do we really want the ill-informed voting? On a related note, why is it that all members present were strongly encouraged to stay for the meeting while an oft implied view is that those who are frequently away from the church, though well-informed, should not participate? The ignorance of the proletariat always strengthens the ruling class' internal power. This is not an indictment of anything today, merely an observation.
26) One of my favorite authors wrote, "It's better to be divided by Truth than united in error." He was right.
27) I wish I had shaved this morning, but I had zero intention of speaking when I left the house this morning.
28) I overheard someone saying that "They just want the old Bellevue back, and it's just gone." Well, A) I'm not sure what's wrong with wanting to preserve sweet things from the past. B) No one that I know of wants to take us back to the old church. C) Progressives tend to unreasonably minimize both the value and lessons of the past.
29) I truly regret any discomfort that my presence might have brought to those sitting near me. That certainly couldn't have been comfortable for some.
30) There is a distressing lack of bow ties at Bellevue, especially in really pleasant, spring like weather.
31) God may well provide apparent blessings even when sin is in the picture, therefore the presence of prosperity in any area cannot be taken as moral validation of any action. E.g. Lot was a Sodom City Councilman. Abram was rescued from Egypt despite his lying. Jacob was blessed despite his deceit. More recently, Benny Hinn, Ken Copeland, Joyce Meyer, et al have large followings, can boast conversions, and have growing churches. These are not prima facia evidence of God’s hand. One cannot argue simultaneously that any memberships or conversions at BBC are exclusive evidence of God’s blessing without arguing the same for Copeland.
32) I am curious where BBC’s definition of a quorum derives from. 10%? That can’t be right.
33) Thanks again to my kind defenders—piglet especially. =)
34) Feeble as some of it may have been, I do applaud the church’s holding of the business meeting. Well done for holding it, BBC. Now, a little more of that might not be such a bad thing, and next time, let’s not leave strikingly unresolved issues.
Told myself right after the meeting that I would cool down a bit before blogging --- well, its tomorrow.
Webb Williams was on his cell phone nearly the whole business meeting, looking over the audience. I figured he was probably directing cameras at our little caucus.
Was he totally glued to that left wall entrance, or was that my imagination?
So if nursery workers were told to expect to stay until 1 pm, and by 12:10pm we have a sort of "crisis" declared by the chair, and moments later after Manning's motion, Mr. Angle appeals to nursery dilemma -- integrity is slipping again, if it's possible to go any lower.
And probably not a coincidence that Coombs stifled question-answering in last Sunday's budget review after 45 minutes - after 1 1/2 hour filibuster of ministry updates. And this Sunday, important business is cut-off by Miller after -- yeah -- 45 minutes, after more than an hour of "Celebration" filibuster.
When will they allow pure business to be conducted for as long as it takes? Nah, they don't want to be THAT open.
Gentle Warrior,
Webb Williams? Glued to the left wall? Isn't he the staff member responsible for membership? Guess he was updating the black list, huh? And was his ear glued to his cell phone too?
Feels a little like communism? or is it a cult? Too bad I didn't have a koolaid stand going this morning, cause it was a sure winner. Wonder who sold it to them? Could it be Jim "SG" Jones?
Sounds like some good letters to the Commerical Appeal might be in order.
Lucy
I guess I owe you 5 cents, as you informed me about WW. I promise to pay later or could I barter with a glass of koolaid?
Gentle Warrior,
Pure business to be discussed?
No. It appears as if they want transparency, but without true transparency. Oh my! To look one way and in reality be another way. Isn't that the true meaning of 'lacking integrity and credibility'?
It's a sad day for BBC. While they might like to THINK BBC is still the flagship church of the SBC, in reality it is nothing more than a slow sinking titanic.
If SG even thinks or hopes that one day he will be President of the SBC, he can forget it. Pastor friends from all across the country tell me that he has shown his true colors and would never get a majority. They know him too well - his mixture of truth with untruth - his arrogant demeanor - his propensity for intimidation. (Oh, that was a big word!) Those coat tails won't ride far.
Remember, "God is not mocked". "Whatsoever you sow, then you also will reap."
Lucy
Naptime! Office is closed.
custos said
31) God may well provide apparent blessings even when sin is in the picture, therefore the presence of prosperity in any area cannot be taken as moral validation of any action. E.g. Lot was a Sodom City Councilman. Abram was rescued from Egypt despite his lying. Jacob was blessed despite his deceit. More recently, Benny Hinn, Ken Copeland, Joyce Meyer, et al have large followings, can boast conversions, and have growing churches. These are not prima facia evidence of God’s hand. One cannot argue simultaneously that any memberships or conversions at BBC are exclusive evidence of God’s blessing without arguing the same for Copeland.... (and may I add Rogers and Gaines)
WH obviously has an axe to grind with Dr Rogers, he needs to put up or shut up. I have heard that during the time the SBC was reclaimed for Christ, there were those that Dr Rogers may have offended because he spoke out about their blasphemy, could WH be one of those? I cannot imagine any other reason for the distain that WH still holds for a man now with the Lord. I would think that he would just come out and say what Dr Rogers did to offend him so he can quit whining and comparing him to SG - they are opposite ends of the pastoral spectrum...what is is WH? Why don't you just tell us?
Politicians only concern themselves with appearances, not real substance. They make the standard statements and references, to pacify the masses and hold on to power. Underneath, however, it's always the same dirty dealings of politics that have always been...but this is a church...right?
Custos makes some very good points. Blessing is no indication of God's approval. God blesses because HE is good, not because we are good...He blesses for the sake of His name. God does not wink at sin. His wheel of justice grinds too fine to allow sin to go unnoticed or undealt with. If this is true for the spiritually blind, how much more so for those who have light? It is better not to know the truth, than to know it and disobey it.
custos wrote; " I wish I had shaved this morning, but I had zero intention of speaking when I left the house this morning."
Oh that's ok. At least you remembered to have the resolution on sexual misconduct from the SBC with you. ;)
"custos wrote; " I wish I had shaved this morning, but I had zero intention of speaking when I left the house this morning."
Oh that's ok. At least you remembered to have the resolution on sexual misconduct from the SBC with you. ;"
Actually Josh, I would rather have an unshaven Godly man at the mic than someone who is shaven and ungodly.
BTW, did someone not come down from the platform at the same time that Jim Angel stepped up to the mic? Does anyone know what that was for and who it was? I know Bryan Miller made the statement about the nursery and then someone moved from the platform to the floor and somewhere in the mix, Mr Angel stepped up. This was at the same time CW was making his way forward. What's up with that?
Josh: Thanks for the list of your thoughts. The fact is, that business meeting and many more will NEVER be enough for many on this blog and off. Many will be never be satisfied and are only out for blood.
Just read the posts over the last couple of days. They spew pure hate and disrespect. They are all flesh and self and in NO way represent Christ in any way. This blog is worse than many worldy blogs I have been on.
Many want one thing. Brother Steve and many others gone and THEN they want to make the rules and run the show. But then they/you claim the other side is all about power.
The next best thing it seems for you and others is that if you cannot get rid of Brother Steve and others, you desire to make their lives and the lives of the membership miserable. That is sad.
AS YOU SAW with your own eyes, MANY of the members of Bellevue are 100% behind Brother Steve and the leadership and are thrilled with the direction Bellevue is going.
We would love to get back to doing the Lord's Work as we all should be doing every day.
This blog and the "issues" have taken over many on here and has become like an idol.
One cannot defend the pure hate on this blog and the heart of the "movement".
"custos wrote; " I wish I had shaved this morning, but I had zero intention of speaking when I left the house this morning."
Josh, in the eye of Jesus, your face was beautiful yesterday!! What else matters?
Thank you for taking a stand for our Lord and for your church and our church, Bellevue Baptist Church.
You have Godly parents that have raised a Godly young man, a real "Victory in Jesus"
I met your parents shortly before they started attending BBC, I met them thru friends of mine & theirs, the Bells from W.Mfs. When A. told me they had started coming to Bellevue, I was amazed they would drive all the way from C'Ville to BBC to worship. What a love for the Lord your parents have and have instilled in you.
When I first heard your name, I wondered if you were their son and was so pleased to learn you are.
Thank you for everything.
Pat
Liberal playbook rule #1 subsection 4.02
When all else fails...
call em names..and say that they are filled with hate.
In the absence of Charlie, let me remind all that there are some who come onto this blog not to share and search for the Truth, but to condemn and twist all that is posted. Truthseekers, please do not let those who would seek to do that discourage you or lure you into playing their game.
Charlie, you are much better at this....but I thought a reminder to start the morning might be in order!
Liberal playbook rule #2
subsection 4.03
Always , always, always...defend a fellow liberal...
even when defending that liberal appears to be totally devoid of rational common sense or propriety.
Solidarity !!!!!!!!!!!!
Don: Isn't this an endangered animal?
"rational common sense or propriety"
Josh, some of what you posted about the rules at 1:19 AM, March 26, 2007 is correct but other parts are not. I will try to post a fuller message later after work if you are interested.
Point 10 – Yes the motion to adjourn yields to incidental motions such as a Point of Order or Parliamentary Inquiry. If you raised theyse you should have been recognized.
Point 11- There are times when a motion to adjourn is NOT in order. I posted this section higher up. If you are voting the motion to adjourn is not in order. Also – you must be properly recognized to make a motion to adjourn. If the person that made the motion to adjourn was not properly assigned the floor by the moderator, then the motion was out of order and should have been ignored by the moderator. I can only assume he was assigned the floor by the moderator since no one has mentioned that he just yelled out his motion.
Point 12 – Need more information regarding the scenario. I can’t tell what happened.
Point 13 – Not fully accurate. A single member can call for “division of the house” by simply yelling out “DIVISION”. The member does not need to be assigned the floor to ask for a rising vote by yelling out division. However, a single member can only ask for a rising (standing) vote by yelling division. To get a rising counted vote, ballot vote or roll call vote a motion must be made, seconded and passed by the assembly. You must be assigned the floor to make a motion for a rising counted, ballot, or roll call vote.
Point 16 “A motion left unresolved at adjournment will be on the floor at the next meeting.” Not always. If more than ~90 days (one quarter year to be precise) of time passes between meetings the motion “falls to the ground” and must be made again at the next meeting during new business. The only things that carry over as “unfinished business” are motions made when regular meetings occur at least quarterly or more frequently (such as monthly). Again not following the rules puts BBC in a pickle. Since you should (under the bylaws) hold monthly meetings the motion should carry over as unfinished business. Since you don’t in practice hold meetings very frequently the motion may have to be made again.
I can give you the citation for the above later when I get home if you want them. You can easily find them using the RONR index though.
Finally – and I should have noticed this earlier -
Having read the BBC bylaws it is now apparent that Josh’s quarterly meeting motion was out of order and should have been ruled as such. Your bylaws call for monthly meetings. Josh’s motion was for quarterly meetings. Therefore his motion was an amendment to the bylaws because it would have changed the bylaws from monthly to quarterly meetings. Section VI requires one week notice be given of such contemplated action (bylaw amendment). Unless Josh gave one week notice his motion was out of order for lack of prior notice. Of course the irony is BBC does not actually hold monthly meetings. But the administration not following the rules is no excuse to join them in lack of compliance.
Also, as you are aware, the chairman of the deacons is not following the bylaws by failing to hold monthly business meetings in accordance with the bylaws. The deacon chairman should begin holding monthly business meetings as called for under Section III. We should pray that his heart will be convicted to follow the bylaws. All of you send him a certified letter calling for him to follow the bylaws and hold monthly meetings. I do not believe it honors God when leaders ignore written rules of church governance.
Rules are great, but when leaders ignore them they are of little use. Learn and follow the rules and pray that the leadership will have a change of heart and begin to follow the rules also.
concerned:
Yes, of course...
I am fully in favor of the preservation and conservation of these time honored values and resources.
Liberal playbook rule #1 subsection 4.02
When all else fails...
call em names..and say that they are filled with hate.
8:45 AM, March 26, 2007
onlyamember:reconcile? The fact is, that business meeting and many more will NEVER be enough for many on this blog and off. Many will be never be satisfied and are only out for blood.
Just read the posts over the last couple of days. They spew pure hate and disrespect. They are all flesh and self and in NO way represent Christ in any way. This blog is worse than many worldy blogs I have been on.
Many want one thing. Brother Steve and many others gone and THEN they want to make the rules and run the show. But then they/you claim the other side is all about power.
The next best thing it seems for you and others is that if you cannot get rid of Brother Steve and others, you desire to make their lives and the lives of the membership miserable. That is sad.
Don said...
Liberal playbook rule #1 subsection 4.02
When all else fails...
call em names..and say that they are filled with hate.
Don- Thanks for the reminder. It is called an ad hominem (Latin for “directed at the man”) attack. If there is little or no logical substance to an argument, or if someone is beginning to lose ground in a debate, they attack their opponent personally (egs. Overflowing grace to SOTL: You must have been the fat woman I'm talking about, or 4545 to Josh: One cannot defend the pure hate on this blog and the heart of the "movement").
Using politically correct language is not a new tactic but it is seldom effective among thinking people. If you disagree with homosexuality you are “homophobic” (literally, afraid of homosexuality), or if you make a distinction between forgiveness of sin and the consequences of sin, you are “hateful.”
Rise above, BBC members!
amen psalm
rise above...
Indeed
Post a Comment