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 401 – 482 of 482Hello All,
Thanks for the support I've received over these past months with my surgery, car accident and other stuff.
I am no longer interested in what happens at Bellevue Baptist Church. The way my friends and acquaintances have been treated by leadership and lay people is shameful and beyond comprehension. Once we were "one in the bonds of love". Now we are "one in the bonds of love only if you agree with me and show blind faith in leadership". You win - you can have Bellevue - you can do with it what you want. I don't care anymore. I will not return and I will not be sorry for the stand I've taken these past months.
I wish all of you peace and tranquility in your lives - life is too short to tear each other up. Our voice has been heard; just not listened to. I lay down my sword and walk away proud. For those of you who wish to stay; good luck.
Love ya much!
Karen Turk Marshall
Galatians 5:24
4545
I am sick and tired of the "You All" lumping together people in the same boats. That is as devising as the liberal Democrat tactic of splitting the elector rate with the “rich vs poor, black vs white” group “lumping” stereotyping political rhetoric.
(It’s also a liberal tactic to seek to destroy a person’s character with personal attacks when you don’t like the message they have. “Politics of Personal Destruction”. How many of you heard attacks on Josh Manning yesterday? “He shouldn’t have been at the mike. He has too much baggage”, etc etc etc”.)
It’s true, there are people on the "anti" side that are so blinded by hate and bitterness that they bring disrepute to the name of Christ, and hurt the credibility of those who are truly concerned about the direction and future of this local fellowship, as well as the overall church of Jesus Christ as represented within the SBC.
But it is equally true that many many people are disheartened at what they can see and discern with there own eyes. There are Godly people on both sides of this debate, and you and "your side" seeking to discredit anyone with concerns as being part of a group of people by saying such inflammatory things like..
One cannot defend the pure hate on this blog and the heart of the "movement"."
..is untrue, wrong, sinful and very very un-Christlike.
You need to apologize for your attempts to cast any of your fellow believers who disagree with you in negative lights. This violates so many Scriptures I can't even begin to start listing them. To you I say get the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to deal with the speck in your brother’s eye. Oh wait, except you don’t see them as your brothers and sisters in Christ. You see them as adversaries that are to be defeated.
Your comments after yesterdays meeting were more appropriate to the aftermath of a sporting event. Not the conclusion of a church business meeting.
Whether it was intentional or not, the leadership sent the message yesterday that they did not really want open debate, but they wanted us to think that they did.
4545, you reinforce this perception with your “RA RA GO TEAM! HA HA YOU BUCHA HATEFILLED BITTER LOOSERS” comments.
But to the rest of you bloggers
YOU NEED TO WATCH YOUR ATTITUDES. There is scripture about maintaining a good report. The “pro-leadership” side wants you to be hateful and negative so they can say “see see?”. Don’t give them that ammunition.
You won’t listen to me, but don’t post anything on here motivated by emotion. You should have an attitude of prayer and respect before you comment here. These are our brothers and sisters. We are commanded to love them, no matter what the disagreement. I’ve had to disappear from here for almost a month because I quite frankly some of the hateful rhetoric was starting to affect me. Tone it down. I’m finding myself agreeing with Mike Bratton more than some of you, and that scares me!!
Also note, the World is watching. You sin if you behave in an un-Christlike manner that brings disrepute on the name of Jesus.
“And that’s all I have to say about that” (for now anyway!)
4545 said...
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.
REPLY:
4545 (Deacon ?)..Please start by reading your own posts over the past 24 or 36 hrs, you're looking for hate in all the wrong places. I respectfully request you get on your knees before the Lord and ask His forgiveness for the hate you have spewed. 4545, are you a professional blogger??!!
4545 says,
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.
REPLY:
Yes, there were TOO MANY, members that were affirmative for leadership & SG. If you were honest with yourself and others you would admit that the vast majority of the membership is clueless as to the many "issues" surrounding leadership & SG. They were voting blindly and clueless, voting without knowledge is dangerous.
4545 said,
One cannot defend the pure hate on this blog and the heart of the "movement".
8:31 AM, March 26, 2007
REPLY:
What IS the "movement"?
financeguy,
Point taken. We all need to reflect sometimes. Thanks!
Onlyamember,
You are correct. I personally know seven staff members who oppose the pastor and current leadership. They are too scared to publicly acknowledge their feelings. I'm not referring to the odd maintenance man or security guard (I do not know how any of those fine gentlemen feel), instead I am referring to men on the ministerial staff known by all BBC members. After yesterday, some of these men are likely to leave.
Also, no one has pointed out yet (that I've seen) that parents were told to go get children at 11:30, and I spoke with a nursery worker last night, and she mentioned that children were in fact picked up then, and they were given the opportunity to go to the business meeting or go eat. Also, in some cases the church (or someone) provided food for the nursery workers.
In fact, the lobby was so full of children and parents that the noise level in the lobby made it almost impossible to hear what was going on inside the auditorium.
This is only relevant since "Pastor Steve" and Jim Angel made such a big deal of the fact that we needed to be mindful of the nursery workers. Throws wood on the “conspiracy theory” fires if nothing else.
I might add parenthetically, that I serve my time on a monthly basis in childcare, and Pastor Steve isn't quite so concerned about the nursery workers when he's preaching. If you serve at 9:30, be assured you will be late for whatever you have to do at 11:00. I’ve heard it’s the same at the 11:00 service.
FG: Thanks for the reminder. I know I have tried very hard, as I know most Truthseekers have, to maintain our principles without getting personal. While there has been much emotion, I know no one wants to dishonor our Savior. For any I have offended, please accept my apology.
Everyone,
Please heed the comments of finance guy regarding your attitudes on this blog.
And for Pete's sake, please ignore Steve Tucker (4545/hisservant).
Proverbs 12:22: Thanks for the reminder.
Proverbs said:
"You are correct. I personally know seven staff members who oppose the pastor and current leadership. They are too scared to publicly acknowledge their feelings. I'm not referring to the odd maintenance man or security guard (I do not know how any of those fine gentlemen feel), instead I am referring to men on the ministerial staff known by all BBC members. After yesterday, some of these men are likely to leave. "
The fear of man bringeth a snare
If these "staff members" are truly afraid of men...this is yet one more indiction of why BBC is in trouble today..
spineless men, who fear men more than the Lords disfavor
Oh Lord please give us 300 Gideons...valiant men ...not 30,000 nervous nellies
While it’s on my mind, I’d like to say something. I’ve heard people on “both sides” say that Jamie Fish should be held accountable for his role in the PW issue by either resigning or being “let go”.
Since the one thing that is clearly acceptable on this blog is questioning each other’s motives, allow me to analyze possible motivations.
On the “pro-leadership” side, this could be an attempt to deflect attention away from the pastor, who clearly has the responsibility to make whatever decision was to be made. Not the head of Biblical Guidance. I must point out, least the verbal report we were given where it was stated clearly that “Jamie Fish did not agree with the opinion of the outside counselor that there was no problem in keeping PW on staff”. I may have the quote wrong, but that was the gist of it. Also, I ask you what authority does Jamie Fish have to hire and fire staff members? That’s right. None. It’s undisputed that the Pastor knew about PW at least by June, and said “it’s under the blood” with no job consequences. The word on the street, which admittedly is unprovable, is that the Pastor was telling PW as recently as the Saturday before the Wednesday the Personnel Committee voted to fire him that he was “not to worry, his job was safe”.
Some have argued that Jamie Fish should resign as a show of integrity. While I understand this, I disagree with this. As far as I can tell, Jamie fulfilled his responsibility. He gave counsel, which was rejected, and at that point it’s up to the Pastor to act. Some argue that it would send a message if he were to resign, but to what end? If Jamie resigned his job, it would be 1) a travesty as BBC would lose an effective Minister and 2) just more collateral damage along the lines of Rob Mullins and David Smith.
Also, to draw a parallel, who should resign at MLGW for the “FordGate”? Joe Lee, or anyone under him who knew it was going on? As Harry Truman famously said “The buck stops here” (with the person in charge).
Was Jamie wrong to not report PW to legal authorities as soon as he found out? That’s a question for the DA, and the DA only.
Those of you who don’t know Jamie, he is a Godly man, who has clearly been called to the work he does.
PW and anyone else reading this should see an illustration of the truth how sin affects more than just the sinner. It has a wide ripple effect. Chew on that the next time you decide to sin, and justify as that it “affects only yourself”.
Leave Jamie alone, as well as the rest of his family. I’ve heard stories of people going up to his kids and making mean remarks. That’s just childish and cowardly. Jamie is not the enemy. While not perfect, I believe that he is being asked to shoulder more than his fair share of the responsibility by people who are not informed about all the details of the PW situation.
“And that’s all I have to say about that”
Psalm 43:3's 9:13 post is worth repeating!!
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!
Thank you! Truth seekers, let's lead by example, ok? Behave like you want others to behave.
James Sundquist (aka libertyinchrist) said...
BBC STEVE GAINES "CELEBRATION" = HANANIAH
[16] Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD.
[17] So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion from the floor.
I move that Sundquist be forever banned from posting again.
His desire for the death of Steve Gaines is the ugliest thing that has happened in this conflict yet - PERIOD.
We don't need that kind of wickedness in our midst. God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked, but apparently Sundquist is setting a new precedent.
4545
YOU are THE MOST HATEFUL person on this blog.
If you don't like it here, stop reading it.
Truth Rules said
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. ;)
Piglet says:
You REALLY dislike Josh. And it is obvious why. He has done nothing but rip the veil from the putrid decay that has begun to eat away at our church and you want it to stay covered.
CW is on the receiving end of abuse and punishment by certain in "leadership" at BBC who still
hate the fact that they were exposed as evil in their hiding of a pediophile "minister" while there were purposefully, of course, ignoring God's inerrant and infallible Word on the subject.
They were already publicly in the "defense mode" over their ungodly behaviors, etc. when God brought all of this, too, to light. Had the asst. D.A. come through with adherence of TN law, some would have ended in court and perhaps in prison thus ending their money-making charades in Church.
God's Truth and Light on the subject very publicly has already cost them much of their coveted tithes and offerings as people have left BBC in droves. Thus CW is considered their enemy (as is God's Word).
---------------
JM is considered an enemy because he insists on adherence to God's Word (which is considered an enemy since The Word speaks Truth). His youth and education is also despised by the old "has-beens" and his treatment by them contains ALL of the elements of spiritual jealousy.
We love you, CW and JM. We RESPECT both of you for your love for The LORD Jesus and for your love for The Word and for your love for His Church.
It is for this love, however, that both of you meet the conditions of a wolf, his hirelings, and his lukewarm and compromising audience for hatred and punishment at BBC (and also by a handful that blog here). After all, the one they serve (satan himself) hates both of you, is burning in jealousy towards you, and hates all of us also that desire ONLY the Light and Truth and Word of The LORD Jesus Christ.
Why?
Jesus, our Blessed LORD answered this when He said, "Men LOVED darkness rather than Light BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL."
God's Word is in their mouths but NOT in their hearts, just as God spoke in His Word.
-----------------
CW and JM,
The favor of The LORD God Almighty Jesus Christ rests upon you.
Stephen and Bonita Ann Richie
Living Hope In Jesus
www.livinghopeinjesus.com
solomon,
I respectfully request that you leave James Sundquist alone - if his quoting Scripture makes you draw the conclusion that Mr. Sundquist is calling for the death of Dr. Gaines, then you need to get deep into your Bible. He cut and pasted Scripture into a comment box. How is that a call for the death of Dr. Gaines?
If God wanted to kill Dr. Gaines, He sure doesn't need Mr. Sundquist's permission. God "took out" alot of people in the Bible without our permission or suggestion.
Not sure why that post got you hot?
karen
MARCH 25, 2007
CELEBRATING A COUPLE OF YEARS
OF
TRUTH SUPPRESSION
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (suppress) the truth in unrighteousness;
karen...
Bravo!
I can't talk for Mr. Sundquist...but I can say for myself that I do pray for death on Steve Gaines' vision. It is his vision that has brought death to Bellevue.
ima,
thankyouverymuch! I just can't draw the conclusion that "solomon" drew there. Maybe he'll explain and then I'll see it. The only person we can control is ourself; no one can pray hard enough or wish hard enough or hope hard enough to kill anyone - But, I do know if God wants you; He'll take you, rest assured! I think I'll ask Enoch (when I get to Heaven) how it feels to be "not". I've always wondered...
karen
Jeremiah 14: 14
Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a "false vision" and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Truth Rules:
Do you have a problem with the SBC 2002 resolution conerning the sexual misconduct of pastors?
Why chastize Josh?
Is there something that you would like to share with us?
HMMMM?
I voted to adjourn the meeting. I would have had no problem staying to vote, it was obvious that a vast majority supports the Pastor, so I had no worries about anything crazy being passed. But the motion Josh Manning started, showed me that the games were about to begin, and there was no need to continue.
The reason I felt that way was because how he put the 2 totally different issues into one motion. Making it so if you didn’t want to vote for quarterly meetings to be held when and how he wanted them, you also had to vote against the sexual immorality part. So then if it got voted down, all of the anti-Gaines crowd could say, "See, they wouldn’t even vote for having sexual morality in the church". When in reality it would have been the quarterly meeting part that got the motion voted down.
Pretty slick move used by politicians all the time. Combine a controversial (or at least debatable) issue and an issue that everyone agrees with. Forcing those against the controversial issue to either give in or vote against the one everyone agrees with. IMO, if Mr. Manning was serious about wanting these issues passed, he would have brought them up separately.
I saw no need to keep the worldly political type games going in a church meeting...
SOTL,
I agree with you - even if the resolution were passed as a "figurehead" type of resolution - it doesn't really mean anything special since sexual sin is against everything the church should stand for - what is the harm in passing it. Our Convention passed it anyway; what would be the big deal about passing it in an individual church?
karen
Seems to me the motion by Josh was brilliant - he needed to combine 2 motions as it didn't look like he'd have another chance to speak - seeing that the masses were starved for lunchtime.
karen
Nameless,
Are you Mr Angel or Angell?
4545 said
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.
Piglet says:
This makes me laugh. We are a quiet family and have never made any waves. Many in IDC are just regular folks like us who were thrust into this battle because we waited...and waited...and are STILL waiting for deacons, staff and other notables to stand up and show some brass! I've heard countless reasons that each refuses to do so...I'm tired of it!!
Evil is prevailing because good men and women are doing NOTHING.
Power? We don't want power at all! We want those in power to have integrity and follow the rules we ALREADY have in scripture, our tiny bylaws, and state law. Is that too much to ask? Apparently for some...
Open the books and let the chips fall where they may. Adjourn the meeting AFTER business is conducted. COUNT the votes when it is too close to call.
You are right about SOME things.
1) I want SG GONE. Why pretend there is any hope for this guy unless there is a miracle that rivals the raising of Lazarus? He has a behaviour pattern that goes back YEARS and probably never change.
2) I am, as others, praying that God will make MISERABLE any of those leaders who are out of His will and running BBC into the ditch (spiritually, not numerically), until they repent. And further, I am praying that God will remove SG by whatever means necessary if the members will not do so as they ought.
Yeah, it was so brilliant it got members who were willing to listen and vote for things that were reasonable, (as shown by the conflict of interest motion that passed easily), to realize that some were bringing political tactics into the meeting and it was time to end it.
The sexual immorality motion could have been brought up and passed unanimously in a few minutes...
And lol, no Im not Mr Angel or anyone else that has anything to do with the staff. Im just a regular member...
Don,
Vision Casting pushed by change agent Guru's
11:44 PM, March 25, 2007
Link doesn't work...could you post again. I am interested in reading this.
gmom said
As far as staff members not on the same page as Stevie......there are plenty! We have several friends that are on staff and they do not agree with the leadership of BBC; but they have to pay bills and provide for their families. They hope to try to make a difference from the inside. Hasn't happened, yet.
Piglet says:
There are SO many of these, and deacons, too. Don't they know that if they unite and speak with one voice they could NOT be ignored?
It reminds me of the jews lining up and going to the slaughter in Germany..a real tragedy!!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/349394966?ltl=1174925271
Have ya'll seen that petition page?
Derrick Calcotte,
You need to shut down that petition page - it's been hijacked by infants!
karen
Sure Ima..
Ima happy to oblige
VISION CASTING GURUS
not that it matters, but I know exactly nothing about 4545 so I can't imagine I implied anything of the sort. Must have been someone else.
only said
You are correct. I personally know seven staff members who oppose the pastor and current leadership. They are too scared to publicly acknowledge their feelings. I'm not referring to the odd maintenance man or security guard (I do not know how any of those fine gentlemen feel), instead I am referring to men on the ministerial staff known by all BBC members. After yesterday, some of these men are likely to leave
Piglet says:
Well, if they are leaving anyway, could they PLEASE speak out first?
Where is their voice?? I am so grieved over this. Why is it we could speak out and put our names out but they cannot?
PASTORS, STAFF - THE SHEEP NEED YOU!!!THE SHEPHERD IS BEATING US!!!
What have we come to? If we are discerning enough to KNOW the truth, is it ANY GOOD if we don't SPEAK it? God, please help us...
oops - Proverbs 12:22 posted the remark, not only.....
ima...
the link still does not work
tell you what ...go to google
type in the following ..
" willow creek "
" vision casting "
"leadership "
"blanchard "
and just see what comes up
As far as the petition goes, someone on here used my blogger email to sign the petition in the name of "chuck taylor".
That was a childish, fraudulent act. It's been removed, and I really don't care enough to investigate IP addresses or whatever, but I would appreciate if you wouldn't do it again.
Simple Coward defined:
A staff member who is afraid of losing their job for standing opposed to sheep beaters and open falsehood , while claiming to want to change things from the inside..
Also...
If it is your job you are afraid of losing
You already lost it in Gods eyes, the moment you suppressed TRUTH for the sake of gain.
Just sayin
Poll time! Check out the top thread.
NBBCOF
Overflowinggrace,
if you are out there- pretty please email me!!!!
SOTL asked: "Do you have a problem with the SBC 2002 resolution concerning the sexual misconduct of pastors?"
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
As are most of you, I'm a little bit cynical in nature. Josh wrote that he hadn't prepared to make a motion thus the reason he was unshaven. I just found it interesting that he had the SBC resolution on him. It would be like Steve Gaines coming to your fenced community and just happened to have a ladder to scale the not so itty bitty wall. You would be interested to know why he happened to have a ladder if he didn't plan on scaling your wall, wouldn't you?
SOTL continued: "Is there something that you would like to share with us?"
Yes, I do have something to share...I'm a lowly sinner, unable to save myself, but one that has repented and been saved through the Blood of the Lord Jesus. My past is my past and my future is bright! Praise God for loving me enough.
But thank you for asking my new found friend.
Karen said...
Derrick Calcotte,
You need to shut down that petition page - it's been hijacked by infants!
Karen,
I did not start that petition. I saw it posted on this site, clicked the link and signed it. It just so happened that I was the first one to sign it.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that though.
Allow me to say that I think this blog should be shut down for the same reason that you suggest that the petition be shut down.
The case of Christ is being damaged more and more by the minute by all the hate, bile, and vitriol that is posted here by both those who claim to support the pastor, and those who claim to oppose him.
I say "claim" there because I think that some comments on both sides are so over the top that they can't possibly be by someone actually trying to represent their stated position, but actually trying to discredit the position they are saying they support.
In His service and yours,
Derrick Calcote
dcalcote@msn.com
nameless said
I saw no need to keep the worldly political type games going in a church meeting
Piglet says:
And shutting down the meeting was NOT political?
And without a clear majority, to boot.
Josh played by the rules. Someone could have asked for the motion to be split - that's part of the rules, too.
But, in the end, it just showed more folks what we have already seen at BBC. Those who didn't already know are seeing...
concerned
Did you get my email?
Sorry for the misunderstanding, Derrick. I thought you started it, but I agree with you. Whoever is posting to that petition in an inappropriate way is not funny and we are not laughing.
karen
A gift to all Bereans
MP3 radio shows of Pastor Bob Dewaay exploring the rise of mysticism in the church, divinaiton, and redefining Christianity..
A treasure to be sure....
URL is below :
Copy and paste it into your browser
oops..here is the URL
http://cicministry.org/radio_series.php?series=all
4545 posted: "do any of you even go to Bellevue?? If so, how could not have seen the case with Brother Steve's stuff in it?"
Is it that big????????
Why the luch box? So we can be reminded he was once a kid like all of us?
I bet my "Flying Nun" lunch box is worth more on ebay!
Truth Rules,
I understand your cynicism, but you are incorrect about Josh. I know for a fact that Josh Manning was given his motion when he arrived at church. Josh didn’t forget to shave, but then happen to remember to bring along his written motion. He had no hand it writing it. He was unaware of its existence until he arrived at church yesterday morning. We had several motions to offer and needed folks to present them. Josh volunteered. As it turned out our other friends who were ready to present were never allowed their chance to speak. If Josh hadn’t jumped up when he did, I doubt he would have been heard either. Last week I received multiple warnings from insiders that our motions would never be heard. Looks like my sources were right.
I believe Josh may have made the decision to combine two of our motions into one two-pronged motion because it was not originally written that way. Other than that, his involvement was limited to presenting the motion.
Vision Casting
The summitt at Willow Creek
Link to amazon sale item
VISION CASTING GURUS
More on VISION CASTING
As former devoted Nnew ager and recently converted to Jesus Christ , author 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 at VISION CASTING inside the evangelical camp :
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 the bed of CONFUSION AND apostasy WITHIN THE WALLS OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH.
THROUGH FALSE VISIONS
Jeremiah 14: 14
Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a "false vision" and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
I scanned the posts from the past 20 hours and saw some mention of a conflict of interest between a person on the stage and the motion on the floor regarding immorality...I am in the dark on this issue. Will someone fill me in?
Onlyamember,
I've seen the word facebook used before, please enlighten me as to what a facebook is.
Thanks,
Don,
What this as a title for a new book?
The Christians: An Extinct Species
ima,
How about a book called "Lion Owners Handbook - Feed Them Your Local Christian Today"
karen
4545 posted: "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 still don't understand what this means - I may be slow today so someone please enlighten me. Thanks!
karen
Sheepless: I'm not "Only a member" but I can tell you about facebook. Facebook is like an online biography webpage that students, usually high school/college, use to stay in touch. There is a picture of the person, sometimes albums of pictures; there is a place for the person to write things like the school they go to, their major, whether they are dating anyone, etc. Each person also has a "wall" that friends can post messages on. To be allowed to see someone's page, they have to clear you by listing you as a "friend." This theoretically keeps predators from stalking. Regarless, many use it somewhat as an online diary and feel it is fairly safe since the only ones that can see your facebook are the people you allow to. Hope this helps!
"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. "
Amen Josh. I certainly knew better. You risk a lot taking on the positional 'influencers'. It is much 'cushier' on their side. I know.
"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."
Could be a curse. Re: Laodicea
"Yeah, it was so brilliant it got members who were willing to listen and vote for things that were reasonable, (as shown by the conflict of interest motion that passed easily), to realize that some were bringing political tactics into the meeting and it was time to end it."
nameless, you are cracking me up. Twice you have mentioned that you thought it was a political tactic to bring up 2 very legitimate motions in one.
You are making it very clear that that you are using a 'political tactic' to call his motion a 'political tactic'.
I’m glad I can make you laugh.
But the facts are that these 2 "legitimate" motions have nothing to do with each other. It was an attempt to either 1) slip in the new business meeting guidelines, or 2) force members who didn’t want new business meetings to also vote against sexual morality in the church - thereby making these church members look like they are against sexual morality. Like I’ve said before, it was a slick move, by a slick guy.
Was putting these 2 issues together in one motion illegal according to the rules being used??? Nope, and apparently, according to the parliamentarian, neither was adjourning the meeting.
Had he made the motions separately, and allowed each to stand on its own merits, I personally would have not voted to adjourn. But as soon as I felt it was “game time”, I was fine with it coming to an end.
"Had he made the motions separately, and allowed each to stand on its own merits, I personally would have not voted to adjourn. But as soon as I felt it was “game time”, I was fine with it coming to an end. "
That, my friend, was a political tactic. And we all know you were 'cued'. Why wasn't CW allowed to talk at the mic? YOu do not think the victim deserved to be heard?
Is it a sin to tell someone both stupid and rude to shove off?
lindon said: "That, my friend, was a political tactic. And we all know you were 'cued'. Why wasn't CW allowed to talk at the mic? You do not think the victim deserved to be heard?"
What are you talking about being 'cued'? All I did was stand when they asked who was for the meeting being adjourned, along with a majority of others. If you are trying to suggest that I was the guy that proposed the adjournment, you would be wrong. Someone else already asked me that and I answered the question then.
As far as the victim, I didn’t know he was at the mic or wanted to speak. I would have had no problem with him speaking. To bad he didn't get to the mic before Mr. Manning.
Look, these people that come here with no rhetorical gifts--whom never utter a syllable carrying even the scent of a supporting fact or credible thread of reasoning--give them no quarter.
So much wailing and gnashing of teeth over little-ole words--these "bullies" come here and pretty much break wind, rhetorically-speaking (Hate-slander-blah, blah); then they transform into the sanctimonious Deacon Fred once you tell them they stink.
Don't let the braying of the empty suits keep you from giving them the what for. They come here to monologue, not to have a conversation.
only:
Did Phil or Greg ever call the mother back re: the 15 y/o girl?
nameless,
Obviously, you have no concept of how business meetings operate or how a motion is presented.
Another motion could have been made to divided the question in two parts. Simple as that.
There was not a political game being played that would force anyone to vote in favor of both or not at all.
I believe that there were probably a number of people just as you were that had no idea how Robert's Rules work.
I also wish that those that were too hungry to stay and continue the meeting would have left and let those that were truly interested stay and debate. At the very least, a motion to recess for a couple of hours could have been made and then everyone could have went to eat and came back to continue in a civil manner.
Karen: So I guess you consider the pure hate on the blog "loving others"?? You and others pointing fingers, wow.
Finance: You have the nerve to post about me making personal attacks?
Also, why are you not holding those on "your side" accountable for their hate speech? Why not?
It is in your face and made personal on purpose.
onlyamember: Please stop putting words in my mouth. Also, so you are saying it ok to personally attack others and their family because as you say it is a family issue??
onlyamember: So you disrespect Brother Steve fo his football jersey being in a case (not his idea), but you never had a problem with many almost worshiping Dr. Rogers? So called "shrines" all over the church and nothing ever said by you or anyone else?? Wonder why?? How very sad.
And do not even say that I am saying something against Dr. Rogers, far from it. I knew him and loved him.
I am just amazed at the levels many of you are taking this. It shows a great deal.
General Henry M. Robert
I emailed material relevant to your reviewing the motion to adjourn. I would appreciate your input via email.
Thank you.
Patrick
Patrick Clough
Check your email.
Treason In The Church
Trading TRUTH for a Social Gospel
TREASON IN THE CHURCH..TRADING TRUTH FOR A SOCIAL GOSPEL
NON PURPOSE DRIVEN PREACHING FOR A WICKED AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION
SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD
onlyamember
Said: Jamie is the ONLY BBC staff member that called, prayed and ministered to the family of the teenaged girl that was handcuffed and arrested at BBC.
12:46 PM, March 26, 2007
____________
What!!!
A tenaged girl arrested at BBC what year?
What did they arrest her for?
Jamie Fish prayed for her?
He Jamie Fish ministered to her family??
There has to be a reason behind his caring for her.
For whoever in the world who reads this who is a Christian ( Believer in our LORD Jesus) if you are willing please pray for me.
A rare smile in the midst of pain
WILLOW CREEK SUMMIT DISMISSES LEADERS TO GO AND ASSIMILATE ALL THEY HAVE LEARNED
Post a Comment