Comments by "a former pastor":
Part 1
Part 2
The Ramifications of the Corporate Mindset in the Church
The Cult of "Do Not Judge"
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.
438 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 438 Newer› Newest»NASS, I will be glad to send you what I have, which is a faxed copy of the article. How should I send it to you? Do you have a fax?
new BBC open forum...
thanks and sorry...will go back and read again ...thought it was an insult to someone.....was catching up for the day. I have a copy of Mrs. R's letter....right thru the heart of the unity "sermon" and other issues.Thanks for redirecting me!
I'd love to have a copy of that article...I have no fax though.
Solomon...please forgive me for misunderstanding your post. I thought it was the hammer but I was wrong!!
Trollcakes said...
Let's all attend on the 25th, wearing eye patches--celebrating one blind eye. It will be a glorious time of fellowship!
And when SG asks a question we can all answer:
Arrrrrrrrrgh!
I am trying to scan the article, but can't seem to get it onto e-mail file. I will try again. IF it fails again, I will seek help tomorrow and try again. Sorry.
No, I don't have a fax. My e-mail's in my profile.
NASS, just sent the article to you. Hope it gets there.
About this meeting on the 25th, where are the non members going to go during this meeting while the members vote on committees, budgets, and other church business?
byebelle,
Got it! Thank you!
I hope that it can be posted. Her words need to be shared with everyone on both sides of these issues. Truth trumps unity!
I've asked permission to publish the article. Please, no one do so until such permission is granted.
Thanks,
NBBCOF
The ABC's of Rick Warren by Paul Proctor here. Great article...
That should have read "unless such permission is granted."
mike bratton wrote:
"Hmm... Perhaps I clicked the wrong thing."
Hmmm... perhaps it was "Publish." Mike, please take it elsewhere. You've stirred up things enough here.
New BBC Open Forum said...
mike bratton wrote:
"Hmm... Perhaps I clicked the wrong thing."
Hmmm... perhaps it was "Publish." Mike, please take it elsewhere. You've stirred up things enough here.
12:40 AM, March 09, 2007
Wow, Nass. That's a neat trick... not even leaving any evidence there was a post in the first place.
And isn't it ironic that you behave in precisely the way you and yours disliked in the Communication Committee meetings--with an abject inability to tolerate opposing viewpoints?
--Mike
Well, Mike. I suppose I could borrow from another page in the BBC playbook and just say, "If you don't like it, go somewhere else."
I have no problem with opposing viewpoints and meaningful discussion, but you seem to want to do nothing but argue and insult people. Yeah, I know... "Give me one example." You can read as well as I can. Your last comment contained several examples.
Good night.
Mike,
You were asked to take it elsewhere. I could have put it more bluntly, but I wanted to maintain some degree of civility.
You wrote:
"'Why do you even bother with those people, Mike?' When a day goes by without that question, I'm surprised--but when I'm asked, the answer is a simple one: Because I love 'those people,' and I believe you have legitimate questions, legitimate concerns, and legitimate pain."
Then please, Mike, if you really and truly care about "those people," stop heaping more pain on them. If you love them, you certainly have a strange way of expressing that love because I don't "feel the love" when I read most of your comments. Quite the contrary in fact. I feel rather unloved.
As for your contention that I intentionally deleted your comment "without a trace," it wasn't intentional. I used to always check the "Delete Forever" box because it doesn't leave all those "droppings" (oops, sorry, I couldn't resist) after a post was deleted, and since these threads tend to get pretty long sometimes, saving space becomes important. Then someone objected, so I made it a policy to stop checking the box. Unfortunately, old habits die hard, and occasionally I unconsciously check the box. Believe it or not (and I'm sure you don't), that's what happened tonight. I'll readily admit I have intentionally checked the box a handful of times since, but tonight wasn't one of them.
Now, run back to the Bratton Blog and blast us "hate-filled" bloggers to your heart's content.
Bratton,
You've got one channel--contempt. So, you frame the issue as no one can point out an occasion in which you've made a personal attack. You regularly cast aspersions on the motives of those posting here.
You call it what you may, but if you show contempt for people--accuse them of things like questioning someones salvation without qualifier, answer in smarmy quips dripping with dismissal, get on tangents about a simple greeting, or wax judgemental about some stupid copyright--then use language to futher marginalize people with legitimate problems ever trusting Gaines or Coombs based on even simply the partial information from the leadership alone, while minimizing their culpability in matters much more grave than copyright violations, gossip or theological opinions, then you have in fact crossed the line yourself regarding sober discussion.
Take this gem, for instance:
"months and months of personal attacks against those with whom you disagree." Are you afraid to say perhaps, "people who cannot sit under a Pastor who not only sheltered a pedophile for 6 months, but was incurious regarding with whom he would be in contact (from the PCIR, not gossip)." This cannot reduced to a simple "disagreement"--if a school principal did exactly the same, not only would they no longer work for the school system, they'd likely have trouble finding a job period.
Or this from your blog:
"If your group's said to be all about integrity, yet it commits copyright violation after copyright violation (even after the copyright holder says "Um, would you mind not violating our copyright?"), then what's your group really all about?"
You play the plausible deniability game well; but you are in fact questioning the integrity of the whole group built on a milquetoast argument (and one never even articulated). Thus you've attacked the motives of everyone in the group(insert plausible deniability here).
You constantly display an unbalanced sense of outrage, and it would be humorous, if you didn't constantly badger people that are alienated, shocked and wounded.
Just because you think you are above the fray is futher evidence of your arrogance and dillusion. Truly, you should seek to get the 2x4 out of your own eye, before you attempt poke the splinter from another's.
Finally, your beloved leadership doesn't have to circumvent your questions as long as you're pitching softballs. ("Pastor Gaines and Bellevue leadership, I know you keep tabs on this little corner of the Internet, and I'm frankly blessed by that beyond the shadow of any doubt or peradventure. Just as I have never questioned the character of those who would attack you, please understand that I do not question yours.") Awe, how sweet you are to the rich, powerful and law-yered, Bratton.
But the victims of the mess they created--let them eat cake, eh?
Nighty-night, NASS.
'Night to you, too, 'cakes.
Good morning Brothers and Sisters in the Lord, and " others "
This mornoing there is a "don't miss " piece done by Paul Proctor which correctly shows the complicity and dialectical doubletalk ABC did when it puffed Rick Warren last night again.
Don't miss this insightful article.
http://www.newswithviews.com/PaulProctor/proctor114.htm
"For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."
NASS, are you saying that Bratton is now banned from posting on your blog????
Trollcakes,
Thanks for the encouragement and kind words.
As of late my post have become few and I seldom wait for rebuttals that try to create a perverted chat room of this blog. Most of the tit-tat for dialogue speak volumes for itself without needing to be directly confronted.
memphis,
"Banned" is such an ugly word, but as long as he's just trying to keep things stirred up, you could say that. Mike hasn't always done that, so let's not go so far as to say it's permanent, just that he needs to stop heaping pain and derision on the people who post here. Tim just summed it up well in his last comment. Not everything that's said here has to be confronted.
And what makes anyone think he or she has the right to come here just to disrupt? I don't post on the Bratton Blog because I have nothing to say there. Actually, I could have thought of several things back when I read it regularly, but I didn't because it would have just been argumentative, and the moderator probably wouldn't have let it through anyway. Or if he did, he'd have tried to pick it apart like a day-old Thanksgiving turkey carcass. I don't need that here, and I don't need to go anywhere else for it. But if that's all Mike wants to do, he should [go].
I appreciate the concern of all who want to set the truthseekers straight. However, what I have noticed is personal attacks instead of in-context scriptural rebuttal and debate. It seems many posts end with a version of "Most love Dr. Gaines" as if it's a poll that determines integrity and leadership, or "Dr. Gaines is God's chosen man, end of story" as if that's an appropriate answer either. There are ways to debate differing opinions with class and dignity and the possibility is always there for God to work to open eyes. But personal attacks only serve to make the chasm wider and to hurt fellow believers.
What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular.
JMO wrote (in an unpublished comment):
"Has it gotten so difficult for your side to hear the truth that you've now eliminated our basic freedom of speech? I will now copy and re-post hoping that you will have a change of heart with a new day."
1. What you wrote wasn't true.
2. Your "basic freedom of speech" hasn't been eliminated or even dented. I don't have the power to do that, but I do have the power to determine what gets posted here. Fortunately I don't have to exercise that power very often because I'd much rather people police themselves, but last night was one of those occasions. (And whether you realize it or care, I deleted several comments by both "sides" that pushed the envelope.) Please don't ever confuse posting comments on a blog with your constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech. A reasonably intelligent third grader could understand the difference.
3. It is a new day, and a beautiful one at that, but I haven't had a change of heart -- or mind.
NBBCOF
P.S. About that poster with a screen name similar to yours, the name wasn't the same. People can read, so I didn't think there was a need for any explanation. Besides, the comments posted under the JMO screen name have been so different some days I was convinced they were written by more than one person.
Nass, First of all I am not trying to get banned myself here (but if it happens, it happens), but I wanted to follow up with your post to me. In order for their to be arguments, there must be two sides. I think that when someone posts a list, and someone gives opinions on that list, well, that is fair in my eyes. When someone wants to present a different side to a question or statement, I also think that is fair. To just assume that someone is heaping pain on people who post here is way off the mark regarding Bratton. Now I admit there have been some in the past that have been here to totally disrupt, but just because someone disagrees does not automatically means disruption.
Another thing I have noticed, and I may be wrong on this, but it seems that very few people that actually post anymore do not even attend BBC anymore. I have no issues with them voicing an opinion on Rick Warren, or on purpose driven “whatevers”, but on the topic of BBC, it seems they (non members and non believers) have more weight than some of the membership does.
And I know that there are people on the “blog” that have had some horrible experiences in their lives, and I hope they are able to push through whatever issues they are facing and are able to find help in a place where they are comfortable and feel safe, but I do not believe that the Internet is a place to find help, and I say this because some seem to take comments way to personal on here. I look at time stamps and see people posting all day everyday on this blog, and if that is what they want to do, then more power to them, but we have had some great weather lately and it would be a shame to be at a computer all day and not enjoy the weather. Perhaps that is why some take things so personally on here, perhaps a nice walk in the sunshine would be good for us all. Anyways I guess I have rambled on enough, just had some things I wanted to say here, and now I have said them, so now I say later!
The letter below is taken from christianresearchnet.com. It comes from the Watcher’s Lamp blogspot, which is interesting in and of itself. I thought this letter to be worth sharing in that he/she sums this up very well.
Casting The First Stone-An Open Letter To Rick Warren
Dear Rick,
I watched your interview with Martin Bishar on NIGHTLINE. Your words were careful, confident and deliberate. The world was told how to know what a real church is by virtue of your question:
“Is it going to live for itself, or is it going to live for the world that Jesus died for.”
The world now has the impression that there are only two types of churches:
One that is selfish and self centered.
One that spends itself on the world.
Living for the world , Rick ? I am not as credentialed as you , but the following verses in the Bible immediately come to mind:
John 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
Rick, if Christ wasn’t willing to pray for the world at large, why are you telling the world that the church that “lives for the world” is the mark of real church?
May I share another verse with you.
John 14:14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
The apostles and the true believers through time are not of this world, as Christ is not of the world.
Rick, why would you portray to the world that the church exists for the world?
Finally, I can not tell you how disappointing it was to hear you agree with the comment that people who refuse to change are indulgent to blame for the splits in churches that introduced your programs.
Rick, why would you portray to the world that believers who contend for the Gospel and refute false teachings in their own churches are indulgent and the cause for the division?
Now that you have cast these two trademarks of what kind of church the world should look for, you have just thrown the first stone at the churches that remain. The churches that do not follow or subscribe to your network.
Rick, is that what you wanted to tell the world? Is that what you wanted to tell Christian community?
“The church the world loves, is the church God abhors.” – Charles Spurgeon
I may be wrong in this statement, and if I am, please feel free to correct me, but....
Jesus did NOT die for this world. He died for our sins. If you look at the book of revelations, this world's going to be destroyed at some point after the true believers are taken up in the rapture. Jesus died as payment for our sins, both past and future. For Warren to say what he said....just makes me wonder if he's reading the same bible the rest of us are.
"When someone wants to present a different side to a question or statement, I also think that is fair."
So do I.
"To just assume that someone is heaping pain on people who post here is way off the mark regarding Bratton."
Are we talking about the same Mike Bratton?
"Now I admit there have been some in the past that have been here to totally disrupt, but just because someone disagrees does not automatically means disruption."
Again, I agree.
"Another thing I have noticed, and I may be wrong on this, but it seems that very few people that actually post anymore do not even attend BBC anymore. I have no issues with them voicing an opinion on Rick Warren, or on purpose driven 'whatevers', but on the topic of BBC, it seems they (non members and non believers) have more weight than some of the membership does."
I'd like to think no one carries more "weight" than another, but frankly, I've gained much more insight from several of the "non-member" and "non-believer" (got anyone in mind?) posters than many of the entrenched BBC members (such as 4545 whose only arguments are "hate-filled blog" and "wow"). I believe your claim about there being "very few" of the people who post still attending BBC is unfounded. But it doesn't matter. I never said you had to be a member of BBC to post, and that stands.
"Perhaps... a nice walk in the sunshine would be good for us all."
Couldn't hurt! I'm about to get out and work in the sun.
"Anyways I guess I have rambled on enough, just had some things I wanted to say here, and now I have said them, so now I say later!"
And thank you for saying them in such a civil manner. I may not agree with every point you make, and that's fine, but you stated your case without insulting people. Later!
I just got the proposed budget for this year in the mail.
And there isn't going to be a "meeting" after the worship service on March 25. According to the budget document that was mailed it reads "The Bellevue Family will vote on the proposed budget at the conclusion of the evening Worship Service on Sunday, March 25, 2007".
I suggest some of us head up there on March 18th at 4pm in the Fellowship Hall when the budget will actually be presented if we have any questions.
NBBCOF wrote: "P.S. About that poster with a screen name similar to yours, the name wasn't the same. People can read, so I didn't think there was a need for any explanation. Besides, the comments posted under the JMO screen name have been so different some days I was convinced they were written by more than one person."
While I appreciate your clarification that I would not have been confused by the similar blogger with my name that did not appear to be the case. There were a few posters who made reference to JMO which has usually been directed to me. I am still concerned as to why you did not post my messages last night commenting on Mike's post. Could it be that I was in support of his position?
Finally, my comprehension level may appear to you to not be above that of a third grader. But as I look at my PHD diploma I just smile to myself. And yes I do understand freedom of speech and forums such as this normally allow that to happen. People who value their rights don't tend to limit others. I assume all you guys will take full advantage of your rights come the 25th!
Hey Nass: I posted this earlier but it never made it on the board. If you deemed it not good for the blog, that's fine, but I wondered if it got lost in blogland somewhere. Thanks
I appreciate the concern of all who want to set the truthseekers straight. However, what I have noticed is personal attacks instead of in-context scriptural rebuttal and debate. It seems many posts end with a version of "Most love Dr. Gaines" as if it's a poll that determines integrity and leadership, or "Dr. Gaines is God's chosen man, end of story" as if that's an appropriate answer either. There are ways to debate differing opinion with class and dignity and the possibility is always there for God to work to open eyes. But personal attacks only serve to make the chasm wider and to hurt fellow believers.
What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular.
JMO wrote:
"But as I look at my PHD diploma I just smile to myself."
Wow. You gots one of them thar "Post Hole Digger" sheepskins, too? Sheeps, we are in the presence of greatness!
I don't often quote Scripture here, but these are just screaming:
Proverbs 11:2
When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.
Proverbs 16:18
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbs 29:23
A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.
concerned sbcer,
It posted at 9:53 a.m. Scroll up!
oops...so sorry...missed it!!!!
That's it, Mike. You can now consider yourself permanently banned. Does that make you feel more important (as if that were possible)?
Everyone, please don't respond if Mike Bratton posts again. And if you don't like my decision, please don't tell me about it. At this point, I really don't care. That discussion is over.
NBBCOF
Ph.D.
Piled Higher and Deeper
NBBCOF
God Bless You.
Never, ever, ever... dialogue..
ahhh
you already get it !!
Liberals are so predictable..
howl ,falsely accuse , and divide faithful Churches just like liberals always are want to do.
and ...when confronted
howl , whine, and scream ..just like little , panicked and victimized liberals do when confronted with The Truth.
Bottom line..
Howling, ....for liberals...is much like breathing... it comes naturally.
So when you hear howling
Pay no attention...
They are howling emperors with no clothes, although they do have big yappers.
The End
MJM,
Heh heh.
"People who value their rights don't tend to limit others."
Tell that to the victim of this entire mess and his alleged comprehensive 'interview' with the 'committee' on his terms.
Memphis: Some of us have businesses that require us to have laptops/handhelds that go everywhere with us. 99% of what I do is online and e-mail.
Can anyone tell me why Donna Gaines was written a check out of the Missions Budget? I had heard this from a friend and didn't know any details. Thanks!
Karen
Karen, I'm not sure. Thats one thing I don;t like about the proposed budget Under Missions, theres a section about Reserve for New Opportunities. Maybe thats where the money came from?
BTW, I sent you an e-mail earlier today. Let me know if you got it :).
I sit here and ponder to myself:
If SG is BBC's " God's chosen man", what about Benny Hinn? What about Ted Haggart? What about Jim Baker? Are ( were ) they not " God's chosen man" for their own churches?
( I'm sure there are more, but offhand I just cant' think of them)
When people make that statment, do they think that there is no such thing as a man who is a pastor, to fall from grace? Do they also contend that those "pastors" that i listed above were not really
God's chosen man? Or do they say, " well, HE wasn't, but OURS is"..
How do THEY decide?
I"m really curious as to how this is justified.
In my estimation, men are just men, and sometimes, they fall from grace and are no longer God's chosen man.
But how can SOME be defended as " God's chosen" when it behooves them, yet, when they can look at another pastor and say, " well, HE wasn't"..wonder if they realize that there are SOME who would disagree when they point to the ones that THEY think aren't God's Chosen.
Just cause THEY think that SG is " God's chosen "don't make it so.
I mean, who are THEY that they think they can decide who is and who isn't?
To whoever does the petitions: Please stop; they are a waste of time. Do you really think that you will achieve what you want through anonymous names and names that are falsified? The only service they render is that of making this group look stupid.
Lin said:
Memphis: Some of us have businesses that require us to have laptops/handhelds that go everywhere with us. 99% of what I do is online and e-mail.
No need to explain it to me, was just an observation..if you feel lead to post all day and night, then I think you should post all day and night, I personally think, it would do everyone alot of good to get off the blog so much and get out and enjoy life, their family, their dog, or whatever....
Karen said...
Can anyone tell me why Donna Gaines was written a check out of the Missions Budget? I had heard this from a friend and didn't know any details. Thanks!
I can address that since it was brought up in the last deacons' meeting.
For a few weeks there has been a story about Donna Gaines being given a $30,000 check out of the missions budget.
It is only the latest in a long line of outright lies that have been told to impugn Pastor Gaines and his dear wife Donna.
It did not happen. Please ask your friend who told you this to stop engaging in gossip and slander.
In His service and yours,
Derrick Calcote
dcalcote@msn.com
Derrick,
Please stop with the "lies and slander" diatribe. I was asked by 1 person and I came here and asked on her behalf.
What was "brought up" at the last deacon's meeting. Since I didn't see it here or on savingbellevue.com or idc.net, it must have initiated somewhere. Why would it even get legs (if even tiny legs) if it didn't have a ring of truth to it.
It would be very easy to chase down a $30,000 check, so I hope you are right, Derrick.
karen
Thank you IWTK,
So she was given money for a trip for missions - not "it didn't happen".
I was just asking - all of a sudden any question I have is now lies and gossip. You two (IWTK and Derrick) can't even get your story straight and I AM THE ONE SPREADING GOSSIP????
karen
Derrick said...
It is only the latest in a long line of outright lies that have been told to impugn Pastor Gaines and his dear wife Donna.
It did not happen. Please ask your friend who told you this to stop engaging in gossip and slander
IWTK said...
Her airline and hotel will be covered as is any staff person or lay leader of a missions trip has been done.
Pick one - which one is the lie?????
karen
Its amazing how some people will take an innocent question and turn it into an assumption of Gossip. I don't think Karen would have asked if it wasn't for the fact that she wanted to find out what exactly happened. Do not assume something is gossip when its a question. A question is different from gossip.
Karen, did you receive my e-mail?
"No need to explain it to me, was just an observation..if you feel lead to post all day and night, then I think you should post all day and night, I personally think, it would do everyone alot of good to get off the blog so much and get out and enjoy life, their family, their dog, or whatever.... "
You are making assumptions and speculating! Blog Police...I want to make a citizen's arrest!
Memphis, are you on dial up?
Lin
'magna bum laude'
Derrick said it did not happen and it was lie.
Are we going to debate whether it was a paper check, an ACH or whether her ticketes were direct billed to the church.
Please don't split this hair - you contradicted each other.
Let's be clear - I was just asking a question and posted it to get a clear answer. Obviously it's not a clear answer. You two fight it out - I was just asking and got 2 completely different answers.
karen
Karen,
They bring a fellow here, pay him $400,000.00 a year, give him Wednesdays off to moonlight, and hire him an expensive associate "pastor" (DC) to help him with his "overwhelming" workload -- and then they wonder why we are suspicious of the money handling around here.
Then we request finanicals that should be OPEN to the membership and are DENIED, which further adds to the air of secrecy and distrust.
Now they have scheduled a meeting to review a "proposed" budget. How many of us have a "proposed" budget? I think what would be VERY telling would be to look at LAST years' budget and see how it matches up to the ACTUAL figures!
OPEN THE BOOKS. WE'RE NOT IDIOTS!
Not yelling at you, Karen:)
Thanks koragg and yes.
Man, can't even ask a question anymnore without getting snapped at - nice fellowshipping with fellow church members. :(
karen
iwtk,
nah - just disappointed in people today.
karen
concerned sbcer
Loved your comments at 9:53.
Well worth posting twice! :)
iwtk said,
In additon, my understanding is that the budget increased by 3.5% from last FY's budget. David Coombs can comfirm this as well.
I don't completely understand - was the budget increased for any particular reason other than those that are cost of living (so to speak). Do we have the money to cover such budget increases? Just because you budget for something, doesn't mean the cash will be there to cover it. (just ask my checkbook!)
karen
iwtk,
It's the 24th, right?
Special Ministry Celebration Service and
Annual Congregational Meeting
March 25, 10:00 a.m.
I haven't received anything in the mail yet so we're talking about 2 different meeetings?
karen
Bobby Moore is preaching Sunday Morning and Sunday night. He is a wonderful man of God. I am looking forward to hearing him. I wonder where our crown prince will be?
Karen, et al...
I hope you guys ask some of these silly questions on the 25th. I think the response you will receive from the membership will help you to realize that you are wasting a lot of time and emotion on matters which don't exist. As for a question getting legs on this blog. Golly, I think you could claim that Bro. Steve had a fortune teller on staff and get some "legs" on this blog. BTW he doesn't have a fortune teller on staff!
Mike, sorry to see you removed to bystander status on this blog. I to no one's surprise believe that Mike was wronged by NBBCOF.
JMO said
I hope you guys ask some of these silly questions on the 25th. I think the response you will receive from the membership will help you to realize that you are wasting a lot of time and emotion on matters which don't exist. As for a question getting legs on this blog. Golly, I think you could claim that Bro. Steve had a fortune teller on staff and get some "legs" on this blog. BTW he doesn't have a fortune teller on staff!
Piglet says:
We wouldn't have so many "silly" questions if the financials were open to us as they should be according to law.
People with nothing to hide, hide nothing.
AOG
You said, "Finney . . he was pure pelagian." If I'm not mistaken Finney was semipelagian. Finney was not a socinian nor a unitarian.
The natural outcome of pelagianism is that free will has replaced any need of the work of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Modern day examples are the Jehovah Witnesses and much of liberal Christian theology.
Semipelagianism believes that man retains a degree of freedom by which he can cooperate with the grace of God. This seems to be what aformerpastor was indirectly implying. Gaines and Rogers both are semipelagian or some variation thereof.
watching,
Semipelagianism? Isn't that like being almost pregnant?
You're right about Finney. It's difficult to classify his theology, since it was so offbeat. Not Pelagian, though. He did affirm salvation through faith, not works.
At least he got something right.
Karen,
What IWTK and I said are both correct.
It has been bantied about on this blog that Mrs. Gaines was written a check for $30,000. It didn't happen.
The church is picking up the travel expenses for a missions related trip, just as it has done in the past, and will continue to do in the future.
You said, "Donna Gaines was written a check out of the mission budget."
It did not happen.
And as long as people continue to spread lies and slander, if I see it I will correct them. Since I do not know your friend, I ask you to pass along a similar admonishment to them.
solomon wrote:
Semipelagianism? Isn't that like being almost pregnant?
Actually, I believe that would be like being "semi pregnant."
Koragg said...
Its amazing how some people will take an innocent question and turn it into an assumption of Gossip.
With all due respect, it was not an "innocent question." It was gossip.
Here was the quote.
Karen said...
Can anyone tell me why Donna Gaines was written a check out of the Missions Budget? I had heard this from a friend and didn't know any details. Thanks!
The untruth that Donna Gaines was written a check out of the missions budget was presented as FACT. The only question was "why?"
This is indeed gossip, and slander.
I'm not trying to beat people up, but it is not even debatable. I am sorry if it offends people when I ask them to stop gossiping, but there there is a simple solution.
STOP SPREADING GOSSIP.
watching, solomon,
I've based my views on Finney according to his Systematic Theology. Pelagius believed that whatever man is commmanded to do, he is able to do within himself. He also believed that each person is born a "blank page"...denying original sin...Finney lines up with both of those beliefs from what I see in his ST, thus the Pelagian tag. As always, jmo.
Derrick,
Did you see the check book to determine if the check was written directly to Donna Gaines or was the arrangements and expenses for the trip made by the church and paid by the church directly to the vendors. Just wondering? Not gossiping!
AOG
I don't follow your line of thinking. By what you say he is semipelagian. Pure semipelagian
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Peace
mom4, why do you need to know? I honestly don't care myself. If Donna Gaines is going on a mission trip to represent Bellevue then we should pay her expenses. Now if that was a mission trip to Paris, then I'd be asking why Paris?
I think sometimes you guys ask questions just to stir up resentment. Like the constant mention of Bro. Gaines making $400,000 per year. Just gossip and nothing more. And don't mention Graig Parker. I spoke with him and he is too honorable to discuss these type concerns.
JMO,
A budget is an expectation of what should be. Financial records are the proof of what actually was. I would expect that since you have been around for so many years and what with the Phd. that you possess you would already know that, but apparantly not.
People represent BBC on mission trips every year that the church doesn't pick up the expenses on....but we've already been down that road..as for the 400k/yr...I've never been in any Baptist church where the pastor's salary was a secret...or the church secretary's for that matter. The fact that it's kept secret would lend toward "gossip" about it....but if he IS making that 400k/yr...it would certainly stand to reason that it would be something of an offense to the working stiffs who are paying it, and will never see that kind of money in their lifetime...much less in a year...and for the record...this group of bloggers aren't the only ones who think 400k is exorbitant.
JMO wrote:
"And don't mention Graig Parker. I spoke with him and he is too honorable to discuss these type concerns."
It's "Craig Parker," but my point is that apparently he wasn't too "honorable" to discuss his very serious concerns with Mark Sharpe and several former staff members (back when they were still on staff). I believe he wanted to discuss it with Steve Gaines but was denied such a meeting.
AOG, and your point is "if he is". Why not go to the meeting and ask. By the way Dr. Rogers salary was not for public consumption either. Were you asking about his as well?
Tim, I have a business and I do know the difference. But I can assure you that my budget is reflective of my past spending and anticipated future spending. Is your assumption that they just make up a budget and then go about it anyway they desire? I think that the men on the committee have enough integrity to not mislead the church. But if you don't trust them by all means have someone place yourself in nomination on the 25th. I'll vote for you just to insure that you can report back the findings to this blog.
JMO said
Piglet the financial budget sent out in the mail are the same as the past 20 years with one exception. They have more details than those of the past. WOW..where were you the past 20 years when the budget came out and was approved. If you guys were more active in the church you would be aware that this is the way it's been during Dr. Rogers and since. You have no beef now. Rather than having it approved on a Wednesday evening service or Sunday evening service they have moved it to Sunday morning with more announcements of the event than ever. And the law doesn't say what you think it says. Just because you say it doesn't make it fact.
Piglet says:
How do you know how "active" we are in the church?
To answer you, we have been right here the last 20 years (25 actually) voting in approval of the budget under a pastor with integrity.
Now we don't have that and some allegations have been made that cannot be VERIFIED due to lack of information released by the leadership who are accused of the mishandling of funds.
If this law does not state that we are to receive these financials upon request (and I believe it does) just how would a membership go about dealingwith the possible corruption of leaders with millions of dollars at their disposal who may be taking advantage of their position? Why do they want NOONE TO KNOW? Don't you suppose this law is for THIS VERY CASE? Why would BBC leaders be willing to tie things up in COURT if they were not hiding something?
And as for the budget, everyone knows that the budget proposed and what actually occurs are often two very different things. We want to know what has OCCURRED. Anyone can present a budget that appears above board, the proof is in the receipts for that year and you KNOW it.
Quit acting like we're a bunch of gullible fools. :/
Thanks.
JMO said
Is your assumption that they just make up a budget and then go about it anyway they desire? I think that the men on the committee have enough integrity to not mislead the church. But if you don't trust them by all means have someone place yourself in nomination on the 25th. I'll vote for you just to insure that you can report back the findings to this blog.
Piglet says:
So now you say we have to BE leadership to hold leadership accountable?
FAT CHANCE anybody questioning SG will make it into leadership. Surely you see the problem with this, or maybe you don't and you got your Phd online for $29.95.
Nobody questioned Dr. Rogers because he was above reproach. These are different days, my friend.
JMO
I apologize for the Phd remark. :(
JMO,
If you have a business then I would have to imagine that you review the actual expenditures and probably have a comparison to budget. I have never seen a company yet that sends a budget to the bank and says well it's virtually the same (sort of, almost, kind of like) the financial statement would be, we just don't think it's necessary to produce one for you guys. Theres no reason that it shouldn't be any different in the church.
I would think that those on the committees would want the records to be made available so that there could be some trust of their integrity. If everything is perfectly legit, then why would it be veiled in such secrecy.
"So now you say we have to BE leadership to hold leadership accountable?"
GCM tactic. Right out of the playbook. All the responses to the questions about budgets, mission trip financing, etc are right out of the playbook.
I get more financial information about an F500 corp where I own a puny amount of stock than you all can get out of your church!
They probably don't want you to see how much a church paid lawyers this past year. Not to mention other things. Harboring a pedophile can get expensive.
Wonder which personality JMO is today?
Tim,
Do you think it is wise to disclose all individual salaries in our church? Does you company disclose all individual salaries where you are employed. I don't disclose and for good reason. I don't need the morale problems full disclosure would create. I see that AOG stated that the pastor makes $400,000. He said that most members wouldn't see that in a lifetime. What??? Is he saying most members make less than $10,000 per year? The average salary for a preacher in a large SBC church is about $95,000. Bellevue is beyond that in size and responsibility. What do you and AOG believe is fair compensation for the job? And why don't we want to amply pay our pastor? And what do you think is being hidden in the finances? And I will ask you the same question I've asked others. Where were your questions when Dr. Rogers was pastor?
AOG, I don't know what companies you are investing with but I can assure you that I've got a number of reports coming in monthly that are not disclosing full information. They disclose just what the government requires and place as much spin on that as they legally can. Can we say Enron?
lin, in case you missed the earlier post by NBBCOF she acknowledge that a similar named posted trying to confuse the less astute. I've got the same personality that I had for about 60 years. Not a very good one but it's mine.
I've been in Baptist churches from memberships of 40 to 30,000. Most all were run by the leaders. The members entrusted the leaders. If there were problems the members left and went somewhere else.
Why do you care about our little old church? You're not a member if I recall your earlier posts. Maybe you're the leader for the right way to run a church business. If so, thanks but no thanks. We'll work out our problems without your help. We didn't need your advise before and we don't need it now.
JMO,
Lin is welcome to post here. Don't like it? For the hundredth time, if you don't like the way things are "run" here, you're welcome to go elsewhere, or in other words, exactly what you're telling us about BBC. This is a blog, not the church.
As for the "similar named posted" (or "similarly named poster" if you will) to which you refer, I never stated the person was trying to cause confusion. The name was "just my opinions," and while the person was just trying to stir things up, I never stated s/he was trying to impersonate you. You just assumed that.
My, you certainly seem to be wasting a lot of your obviously more-valuable-than-us-lowly-non-Ph.D.ed, hate-filled bloggers' time here. And my remark about a reasonably intelligent 3rd grader was in reference to understanding the difference between our constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech and the freedom to post whatever you want on someone else's blog. Nothing more. I stand by my statement.
allofgrace,
If you can make sense of Finney's Systematic Theology, hat's off to you.
imho, of course!
JMO said
I've been in Baptist churches from memberships of 40 to 30,000. Most all were run by the leaders. The members entrusted the leaders. If there were problems the members left and went somewhere else.
Piglet says:
Well, now. Isn't that convenient for anyone who gets a death grip on the money and refuses to open the books for anyone to see? Quite a nice set up.
Especially if the same guys keep showing up on all the committees...
jmo with a phd asks Tim:
Where were your questions when Dr. Rogers was pastor?
SOTL with a bachelor's degree says:
Dr. Rogers did none of these things to make us question his integrity:
1 lock the pastor emeritus out of his office that he had occupied for 32 years
2) Dr. R. never claimed that his best friend and mentor was the pastor emeritus and then only went to see him in the hospital one time.
3) Dr. Rogers never had a dream and sent out a goon squad to shut the amen guy up.
4) Dr. R. never broke the law and tresspassed over an ' itty bitty fence' and then minimized his crime and had his " sheep" laughing at him about his crime.
5) Dr. Rogers never went to Union City and slammed his own sheep.
6) Dr. R. never mistreated Jim Whitmire, a man who had given years and years of service to BBC
7) Dr. Rogers never befriended a pedophile and " felt compassion" for him where he was perfectly willing to subject the innocent children in our church to the pervert. He did not put 117 children at risk the way that SG did.
8) Dr. Rogers never had need, in 32 years of service, to give a billclintonesque, " I still want to be your pastor" with the quivering lip.
9) Dr. Rogers never made the statement that since there was no policy in place ( a lie) that he had no idea what to do with a pedophile on staff.
10) Dr. R. never made a head goon a minister
11) There was never ever a need for a " report" and the television crews concerning the PW crime
So, Mr. JMO with a PHD, there ya have it. And you wonder, even with a PHD behind your name, why people don't trust this guy?????
AMAZING, SIMPLY AMAZING!!!
Solomon's unadressed 'question of the day':
In her 1:59 post, sister SOTL pondered how men are declared to be 'God's man for the job'.
Who does such declaring? Is the man in question truly God's man? Why or why not? If they are in fact God's man, can they ever be disqualified by their conduct?
Moreover, why would a man be declared God's man if he was not?
Very relevant and pertinent questions indeed.
solomon, Yeah, I've been wondering about that for a while.
WHO gets to decide?
Solomon,
All this, " God's Man for the Job" arguement reminds me of the catholics and the pope. I grew up in South Miss, as a presbyterian and never even knew there was a pope until i went to college!! LOL
So when did Baptists start this annointing of a pope?
It's very confusing.
SOTL,
Thanks for the response. You saved me the trouble of having to list it out. I appreciate you so very, very much. Your strength and perservance is impressive.
At 10:00 PM, March 08, 2007
sickofthelies said...
sweetcakes,
What I WOULD be willing to do is to meet on Sundays in someone's home. No self-appointed pharasees, no millionaires club, no required counseling where the goons have the keys to the file cabinets, no bill clinton politics, no quivering lip, no twisted scripture. JUST worshipping Jesus, straight from the Bible.
If any of you know of such a "church" please email NASS, she can get in touch with me.
junk99mail says ...
NASS,
You have mail for SOTL.
Tim,
LOL, i'm like one of those toys that kids have; you can hit it and it goes down, but then bounces right back up.
" That which does not kill us makes us stronger"
SOTL,
Weebles wobble but they don't fall down!
AOG, solomon
Dr. Rogers preached a sermon praising Finney, Sunday and Moody for their evangelism heritage and a hertige passed on to Bellevue. Surely Dr. Rogers would have known Finney to be a pelagian.
Just an aside...
With everything like it is in the Body of Christ today, I have just learned and find it extremely interesting and somewhaat amusing that a year ago George Barna joined a home church group.
who is george barna?
"lin, in case you missed the earlier post by NBBCOF she acknowledge that a similar named posted trying to confuse the less astute. I've got the same personality that I had for about 60 years. Not a very good one but it's mine."
'Less astute' would be me. :o)
"I've been in Baptist churches from memberships of 40 to 30,000. Most all were run by the leaders. The members entrusted the leaders. If there were problems the members left and went somewhere else."
No priesthood of believers? No Wed night business meeting? No voting? Yikes, does not sound very Baptist!
Actually, Scripture teaches that Christ is the Head of the Church. That is why it is called The Body of Christ. When we seek Him, we don't protect pedophile ministers or hide financials, or do anything in secret. Check out Acts 5 for an example of the outcome of secrecy in the early NT church.
"Why do you care about our little old church? You're not a member if I recall your earlier posts."
Good question! What is the 'church'? Ekklesia: 'ek' meaning 'out' and 'kaleo' meaning to 'call.'
Church: To call out.
What is The Body of Christ? Am I a member of the Body of Christ? You know, I cannot find 'membership' anywhere in the NT. They were all part of the Body of Christ. From Smyrna to Rome.
" Maybe you're the leader for the right way to run a church business."
Church is a business?
" If so, thanks but no thanks. We'll work out our problems without your help. We didn't need your advise before and we don't need it now. "
Christ is the Head of the Church. If the Body does not seek Him in everything, you get the result of what is happening now at BBC. Men doing things their way.
lindon,
Yyyyyyeeessss!
LOL...Mr. Barna was the one who said we need to "market" the church.
watching,
It's hard to fault Dr. Rogers or anyone else for praising Finney. Only recently are his heresies finally being exposed. Men saw his numerical successes, and rewrote his theology to make him appear orthodox.
Finney's true legacy is the 'burned over district' in the northeast. There has been no revival there in over 150 years thanks to his false teachings.
We can expect more of the same when people realize that the 'purpose driven life' leads to just as much emptiness as Finney's invitations.
Speaking of here's a site that will give you something to think about. http://www.ntrf.org/
By the way, I don't know these folks and am not affiliated with their organization, nor am I either a promoter or detractor of what they are saying. I'm just saying it makes you think. Be sure to check out the "Our Beliefs" and "About Us" sections (interesting where these guys went to seminary...)
"Who does such declaring? Is the man in question truly God's man? Why or why not? If they are in fact God's man, can they ever be disqualified by their conduct? "
Is the point that no one has to declare such a thing...the fruit makes it obvious that one is striving to Glorify God and conform his mind to Christ?
Quite frankly, I had never heard this 'man of God' thing until the GCM started using it all the time...like the mantra one heard used for Rev. Moon.
I once heard Paul Washer say in a sermon there is no such thing.
Derrick Calcote said...
Koragg said...
Its amazing how some people will take an innocent question and turn it into an assumption of Gossip.
With all due respect, it was not an "innocent question." It was gossip.
Here was the quote.
Karen said...
Can anyone tell me why Donna Gaines was written a check out of the Missions Budget? I had heard this from a friend and didn't know any details. Thanks!
The untruth that Donna Gaines was written a check out of the missions budget was presented as FACT. The only question was "why?"
This is indeed gossip, and slander.
I'm not trying to beat people up, but it is not even debatable. I am sorry if it offends people when I ask them to stop gossiping, but there there is a simple solution.
STOP SPREADING GOSSIP.
4:33 PM, March 09, 2007
Koragg Responds:
With all due respect Derrick, perhaps your not reading the statement the same way I am. Karen heard something and was asking for information on it. Asking for information is different from gossiping.
If you had answered Karen's question the way iwtk did, we wouldn't have this discussion. All you had to do was say that there was no such check cut. You did not have to accuse her or anyone else of Gossip.
solomon,
As to Finney's "successes"...by his own admission...a vast number of his "converts" quickly fell away..teaching men to trust in their own abilities always leads to disillusionment, thus the "burned over district"...one of the most Godless areas in the whole country.
Oops. My previous post was intended to start with "Speaking of house churches..."
sickofthelies said...
"who is george barna?"
aol said...
"LOL...Mr. Barna was the one who said we need to "market" the church."
RIGHT! Wouldn't I like to get ahold of this guy!!! The nerve!
"With everything like it is in the Body of Christ today, I have just learned and find it extremely interesting and somewhaat amusing that a year ago George Barna joined a home church group. "
You cannot be serious! Where did you read this? I cannot believe it!
"Karen heard something and was asking for information on it. Asking for information is different from gossiping. "
That is how GCM churches stop people from asking questions they do not like. They call it 'gossip', 'divisive' or 'slander'.
Ask imaresistor.
solomon, you have probably read it but Evangelicalism Divided is a great book. By Ian McMurray.
It talks alot about the legacy of Finney in the 20th Century. Amazing some of the 'decisions' that were made by well known evangelicals that are really affecting the church today. The book is very well researched.
Bible references to "man of God" (from ESV)
[Note: all but one these refers specifically to prophets in the Old Testament; the other is to "the Angel of the LORD"]
Deuteronomy 33:1
This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the people of Israel before his death.
Joshua 14:6
Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal. And Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, "You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me.
Judges 13:6
Then the woman came and told her husband, "A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. I did not ask him where he was from, and he did not tell me his name,
Judges 13:8
Then Manoah prayed to the LORD and said, "O Lord, please let the man of God whom you sent come again to us and teach us what we are to do with the child who will be born."
1 Samuel 2:27
And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, "Thus the LORD has said, 'Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh?
1 Samuel 9:6
But he said to him, "Behold, there is a man of God in this city, and he is a man who is held in honor; all that he says comes true. So now let us go there. Perhaps he can tell us the way we should go."
1 Samuel 9:7
Then Saul said to his servant, "But if we go, what can we bring the man? For the bread in our sacks is gone, and there is no present to bring to the man of God. What do we have?"
1 Samuel 9:8
The servant answered Saul again, "Here, I have with me a quarter of a shekel of silver, and I will give it to the man of God to tell us our way."
1 Samuel 9:10
And Saul said to his servant, "Well said; come, let us go." So they went to the city where the man of God was.
1 Kings 12:22
But the word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God:
SOTL,
Yea, may y'all find each other.
Junk99,
Ah, compassion on this blog.
Re: church "membership"
From www.biblegateway.com:
Sorry. No results found for "membership" in Keyword Search.
However, see:
Romans 12:4-6 (ESV)
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
And my comments:
We tend to use the word "membership" in an organizational or corporate sense, whereas the biblical concept of being "members" is one of organism and community.
solomon said...
allofgrace,
If you can make sense of Finney's Systematic Theology, hat's off to you.
solomon,
Actually I only had to look at his views on two important doctrines....the fall, and atonement...everything else hinges on what a person believes on those 2 things.
"Has anyone noticed that over 60% of the operational budget goes to salaries(compensation). That is a high cost of labor. I would like to see what the percentage would be in other places of this size? "
Good question. Since BBC has been referred to as a 'church business', every businessman knows the quickest way to affect the bottom line is to cut labor costs. Since BBC has lost some 'customers' I would think they would not need such high labor costs.
Troll(sweet)cakes,
"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.”
:)
Lindon said...
"You cannot be serious! Where did you read this? I cannot believe it!"
Reply-Oh yes, I am serious. I can't remember where I read that; should have saved it. Will re-track.
Lindon said...
"That is how GCM churches stop people from asking questions they do not like. They call it 'gossip', 'divisive' or 'slander'."
"Ask Imaresistor."
Amen! I could write a book...in fact, it has been suggested.
Ima
ima, if you find the Barna reference...e-mail me. But don't inconvenience yourself. Just if you happen to remember or come across it.
ima, write the book.
junkmail
Nass must not be at the computer this evening, as I have not yet received your email.
:)
Lindon said...
"Since BBC has lost some 'customers' I would think they would not need such high labor costs."
Yes...maybe they'll go for the 'mom and pop stores'. :) Meaning of course, the home church.
We did something similar to home church for a while after we were politely voted out before we found another church home. We met at the local park in a very small community building. I have to tell you that it was really a special time...I would not hesitate to do it again. In fact, it is more appealing to me that the churches as we know them.
Ah, the D.L.--don't get kicked off the blog.
SOTL,
NASS emailed me and said she would pass the info along to you.
Cakes,
I probably won't get kicked off, but might get fussed at by the word police for speaking your language. Maybe it would've helped if I'd preceeded my quote with the words "thusly and like so". :)
I love this verse. Night all...
John 4:22-24
22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
Heh heh heh.
Going thru the budget.
It looks like a projection of an overall 10% increase of $2M in receipts over last year.
$1.4M of that going toward an increase of almost 12% in salaries.
If you conisder all part time employees as 20 hrs/wk then the average salary is $51,500 for full time and $25,750 for part time. Just for reference the avg. salary in TN in 2005 was $38,550.
Wow! The average salary for part time is almost as much as I make working 40 hours a week!!!!!!!!! (I'm about 28,000 a year full time!!!)
SOTL, junk,
I forwarded junk's e-mail to SOTL at 9:57 tonight. I'll resend it.
koragg,
Consider that average is likely somewhat skewed by certain high-level administrative salaries. I doubt any lowly part-time staffers are making anywhere near that. That's the thing about averages. They're just that -- averages. All it takes is one or two values outside the bell curve to throw the whole thing off -- which I suppose was Tim's point.
I would like to know if the receipt projections from last year exceeded the $21M+ or not. I would have to assume that since a 10% increase is projected in the coming year that it must have at least been met.
Over the past four years salaries have went from just under 48% to over 56% of the total receipts.
Another little tid-bit. The utility bill runs about $75,000 a month. Looks like MLG&W doesn't treat the church as well as it does some other folks. You know if we just cut the utilities off we could hire 2 more Sr. Pastors and they could form a committee. I bet if we had three they could navigate those waters and steer a clear course.
nbbcof,
That was exactly the point. Only I expect that there are closer to 8-10 that are throwing the curve out of round, maybe a few more than that.
There is one thing about the Missions budget that bothers me. Theres a line about Reserve for New Opportunities. They need to define that. What I mean is, and maybe this is just me being a little suspicious here, but that could mean anything. Whats to say someone in leadership is cut a check and they record it under this? This catagory needs to be defined a little better as far as the purpose.
The following website makes the claim that George Barna is part of a house church: http://revunplugged.blogs.com/
unplugged/2006/11/what_you_will_n.
html.
I have not found anything specifically from Barna to verify the statement. But I have read in multiple places that Barna's recent book "Revolutions" has positive things to say about house churches.
Koragg said...
This catagory needs to be defined a little better as far as the purpose.
junk99mail says ...
Ohhhhhhh! You used the "P" word!!!!
:)
These goons are trying to make me a liability to you and perhaps I am.
I hope to see you all soon or somewhere down the road, but I cannot be the cause of more shovelfuls in your direction from these !@#$%^ (c)hristians. I knew this day would come, so everything's cool.
Watch out for your own no matter how it unravels. It's important.
lindon wrote: ""Has anyone noticed that over 60% of the operational budget goes to salaries(compensation). That is a high cost of labor. I would like to see what the percentage would be in other places of this size? "
lindon, that is not unusual for a service oriented business to have a compensation cost in that range. In my business with a good number of employees we budget 48% for base compensation of our operating revenue. This does not including bonuses. Our bonuses are based on profits so in a year that we showed a profit our compensation would exceed 50%. I believe that Bellevue was around 56%. As to your second comment about "lost of customers" then there should be a reduction in employees. Actually a loss of "customers" is not the measuring stick for financial concerns as much as a loss of revenue. I've lost a number of customers through the years due to mergers and/or customers leaving. But all business are run from revenue generated and not the number of customers. Yes the number of customers can affect your revenue but the size of the customer you have is important as well. I could lose a client such as Fleming Furniture but gain a client such as FedEx. I don't think I need explain that my revenue flow would be more positive even if I lost 30 clients the size of Fleming Furniture.
Tim wrote: "I would like to know if the receipt projections from last year exceeded the $21M+ or not. I would have to assume that since a 10% increase is projected in the coming year that it must have at least been met."
Tim, that would be yes that we exceeded our projected offerings for last year.
Tim wrote: "If you consider all part time employees as 20 hrs/wk then the average salary is $51,500 for full time and $25,750 for part time. Just for reference the avg. salary in TN in 2005 was $38,550."
Tim, you're getting into an area which I do have some knowledge, statistical analysis. But rather than debate your rationalized assumptions let's assume they are accurate for this discussion. The next question I would ask you is "what is the avg. salary of a member of Bellevue?". I don't know but my limited educational guess would be that it's much higher than the state average. The state average would be affected by more rural and poverty income families. I doubt that we have very many of this demographic in our membership. Secondly, since we have a rich elitist group running our church I would assume a much higher income average due to that. I just threw that in since everyone talks about our millionaires club.
Finally what would be wrong with paying the employees a higher than average salary? Shouldn't God's full time people be rewarded better than the average?
solomon
and you don't see American fundamentalism today as a "burned over district" as a result of some variation of "pelagianism"
Don ( No PHD ) says..
So this is what the yet ongoing unrest at Bellevue has come to?
Delightful mind games of internet "gotcha ".
Having never embraced any online trolls, I must say that cuddling up to trolls is definately poor in Biblical discernment,... , however, that being acknowledged;... light years worse is leadership cuddling up to pedophiles on staff, while having a persoanl history of ostracizing and bashing long time faithful music ministers and deacons.Equally wrse is having leadership supporters glossing over all of this as a non issue.
Of Course, I dont have a PHD ..so what do I know ?
AOG
Those two doctrines are clearly denied in pelagianism but less so in semipelagianism. Semipelagianism does more damage than pelagianism in the long run.
I guess Faithful music ministers and concerned deacons are a bigger threat to leadership than pedophiles and neighboring churches that teach damnable false doctrines.
Those get rewarded.
Woe unto those who call evil..good...
Don, you'd be correct that is if you could find that support but you'd find little evidence of my support of the acions of Bro. Steve on this blog and certainly not in a face to face conversation. And as to rewards, troll certainly takes the cake.
Don ( No PHD ) says..
So this is what the yet ongoing unrest at Bellevue has come to?
Delightful mind games of internet "gotcha ".
As opposed to gossip and slander, I think we've taken a step forward.
trollcates said, These goons are trying to make me a liability to you and perhaps I am.
reply: don't go, these people will just find someone else to harass. They can't seem to answer simple questions so use you as a 'deflection device'. If not you, then there will be someone else to use. You are but a convenient target for them at this time. If you leave, they will just 'retarget'. It's all about avoiding answering the issues.
At least we never slandered anyone in here by calling them " hezbollah "
watchingsaid:
and you don't see American fundamentalism today as a "burned over district" as a result of some variation of "pelagianism"
Not a bad parallel.
Just My Opinion,
What does that site have to do with trollcakes? Trollcakes has stated the reason he's here from day one. And thats because Steve Gaines and his group of barking moonbats were protecting a pedophile in the church. And btw, attacking someone like you did is totally uncalled for. Unlike some people on the blog, Trollcakes has been a valuable contributor to this blog.
jmo,
Who do you think asked "trollcakes" to change his screen name? I was aware of some of his other internet activities before, and I was suspicious of his motives when he first showed up. (I may not have a Ph.D., but I can Google.) However, he has not proved to be the disruption to this site that several of my fellow professing Christians have, and he's shown more kindness and compassion to those of us who are hurting, especially to SOTL, than you ever have. (BTW, when did I ever say I doubted anyone's salvation?) Even Bratton said he was trying to start a dialog with "trollcakes" so he could witness to him "in love." (Sorry, I've yet to feel any of Mr. Bratton's love, but I digress.) Would you not agree that approaching someone in kindness and acceptance (not of his activities but of him as a person) is far better than treating him like an outcast and figuratively beating him over the head? You know, I bet that adultress in John 8 was relieved that Jesus didn't treat her the way the Pharisees did! (I know I'm digressing again, but I've always wondered why they didn't drag in the man she was committing adultery with. After all, it takes two to tango. What's good for the goose, etc.)
I can think of one example in particular where I was having friendly e-mail exchanges and discussions on the blog with someone whose opinions differed somewhat from mine, a member of Bellevue as a matter of fact, and I discovered that at the same time this person was on another blog writing very insulting and offensive things about all the people who post on this blog (and by extension me personally). For a while I was hurt and offended and didn't correspond with this person; however, I got over it and am now able to dialog with this person again. I'm cautiously optimistic because I've glimpsed what was, at least back then, what this person said when his/her guard was down, but I've moved on, and I've found him/her to actually contribute significantly to the discussions here. That's my attitude towards "trollcakes." I might not like his other online activities, but at least he's not dragging them in here and stuffing them down our throats (unlike the purveyors of the "transitioning" movement).
So, JMO, bugs, derrick, et al. (if the shoe fits), allow me to borrow this oft-used phrase once again. If you don't like the people who post here (which you obviously don't), if you don't like what's discussed, and/or if you don't like this blog period, then you're free not to post here. You're even free not to read it unless, of course, it's part of your job description. (How're things with you this fine day, Diane? Did your boss finish all his shredding that night?) If there's just a handful of us "dissenters," why do you waste your time engaging us? You're obviously in the "majority" (as you've claimed). Seems like you're wasting a whole lot of your precious time on a ragtag bunch of uneducated, hate-filled bloggers. Is this some kind of sadistic sport for you, or do you just enjoy being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable?
Discussion and disagreement are fine; disruption is not. Surely someone with such an advanced education and outstanding credentials as yourself knows the difference. If the latter is your goal, and from all indications it is, please don't let the door hit you in the backside as you exit.
Some of the posts here could excite the basic nature of a man to want to dare to meet outside and settle the issue physically. That is so institutional Baptist and institutional church. Where is Jesus in the mix? And no need to recite any spiritual credentials. I don't think they would count with communication at that level. And lest there is any doubt as to whom I am referring - JMO and those with similar challenges.
The anger and bitterness exhibited from JMO, Mike, and several others (you know who you are) does not appear to be anger at sin but anger at fellow believers that are seeking to follow both God's laws and man's laws. These posters have repeatedly made personal attacks and twisted statements out of context, then hidden behind a "we aren't to judge" or "where is your compassion, it's under the blood" statements. Rebuttal to these statements concerning major issues have been made time and again and they refuse to acknowledge the facts. SG has admitted to many of these "mistakes" aka sin and they still refuse to see it. Oh, they'll make statements like "I want a business meeting" or “SG was wrong" yet actively seek to minimize the responsibilty on the current leadership.
I am currently reading a book about the Titanic written in 1912 by survivors and one thing that I noticed that reminds me of BBC is that many were in denial that there was danger even after the ship began to list and the engines stopped. They went about their activities, playing cards, smoking in the lounge, etc. not knowing that she was going too fast in an ice break that she had been warned about by six separate ships. They didn’t worry because nothing could happen to the Titanic; she was the "unsinkable" ship. For years, BBC has been a foundation of the SBC, a lighthouse in Memphis. Right now she's in the middle of an ice field. Will she slow her speed and navigate safely through, listening to warnings and humbling to follow the guidebook, or will she barrel on in an effort to gain new records, while sustaining a fatal blow?
eprov, let's not excite that basic instinct of man. As my dad used to tell me, don't write a check that your bank ain't willing to cash.
concernedsbcer, there are not many facts that of which I've failed to respond when asked. Of course disproving something unproven can be quite difficult. We all recall the "have you stopped beating your wife?" paradoxical question.
As to your point of anger and bitterness, an honest person could only conclude that falls on both sides of the street. You don't make statements of a church leader's integrity ("not one ounce of integrity") with an attitude of love and caring. Alas, a comparison of the Titanic to Bellevue Baptist. How kind of you. Of course this is not our maiden voyage by any means. Ask the folks at Second Baptist Church for clarification on their account of their voyage.
JMO: I wasn't intending to be unkind with my comparison to the Titanic. The point I was trying to make is that it seems as if there are many that haven't seen fully the situations that have grieved our Heavenly Father...a child being molested by his minister father over a long period of time and being protected by leadership, negative comments spoken about BBC members from the BBC shepherd at another church, lack of transparency on many issues, and very importantly, a failure to address the pain experienced by many of his sheep.
concernedSBCer said... They didn’t worry because nothing could happen to the Titanic; she was the "unsinkable" ship. For years, BBC has been a foundation of the SBC, a lighthouse in Memphis. Right now she's in the middle of an ice field. Will she slow her speed and navigate safely through, listening to warnings and humbling to follow the guidebook, or will she barrel on in an effort to gain new records, while sustaining a fatal blow?
9:40 AM, March 10, 2007
What a great thought.....This is so true today of BBC...
Does JMO stay up day and night??
Someone asked yesterday where Dr. Gaines would be this Sunday...Well it is spring break and there is a trip March 10-17 to Ski Breckenridge or another March 15-18 to Palm Coast, Fl. I would pick Breckenridge myself:)
Probably not the Gulf Coast where there is work to be done.:(
Sweetcakes,
I have just signed on this morning and read your swan song post :(
Please don't leave us. You have been so much more kind to me than some of these "christians" that post on this blog.
I love you in the name of Jesus.
If you insist on leaving, please email NASS and she can forward the email to me so that I can stay in touch with you via email. How am I going to learn more big words if you leave? Ya know, I DON"T have a PHD and need all the learnin' i can get :)
Trollcakes,
I don't post often on this forum, I read it mostly. I think you offer a lot, have a sweet spirit and great sense of humor.
Don't let the mean posters run you off. I wish I could say this is not what Christians really look like, but sadly, I don't have much of an arguement do I? Just do what you do in real life- stick to the people who are kind, and consider the source with those who aren't.
You don't see folks concerned Bratton won't be back, do you?
Keep posting.....
JMO....
you're the one that is hiding.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again as a reminder...JI Packer wrote in his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, that it's downright rude to intrude into the soul of another person without first extending the hand of friendship....starting an argument with someone, or criticizing someone for the sake of "opening a door to evangelism" won't win you an ear with them. As always, jmo.
Amy wrote: "You don't see folks concerned Bratton won't be back, do you?"
Well I for one will miss Mike. I am sure that most will be glad when I'm banned as well. I guess I'm the only one that sees all the irony in these posts supporting Cakes. I agree we were wrong to support FUMC but we are also wrong to enjoy in the fellowship of not only one who is a non-believer but has a site linking up to mockery of Christians. So is it ok to make jest of our Lord and Savior, trade porn, and be lustful in life as long as one agrees with your position on Bellevue? Yes, we are to love one another. Yes, we are to share the gospel. No, we are not to accept those into our fellowship which mock our beliefs. And many have shown more acceptance to 'cakes than Mike. Where now are our Bible scholars who posted Scripture against our giving FUMC a check? No there is no fairness and little true righteousness on this blog forum.
amy wrote:
"I wish I could say this is not what Christians really look like, but sadly, I don't have much of an arguement do I?"
I'm ashamed to say you don't, but I hope those posters aren't representative of Christians as a whole. If they are, I can understand why someone like "trollcakes" would leave the faith. Of course, the problem with this is that the behavior of men is not representative of the love of our Savior, the One Who never changes. If I wasn't reminded of that every day, I'd have left the church years ago because men will always disappoint you. Christ never will.
"You don't see folks concerned Bratton won't be back, do you?"
I wouldn't say the concern is widespread or overwhelming by any means. Just a handful of "dissenters."
jmo wrote:
"I am sure that most will be glad when I'm banned as well."
Sounds like you'd like that. Is that what this is all about?
"So is it ok to make jest of our Lord and Savior, trade porn, and be lustful in life as long as one agrees with your position on Bellevue?"
Who said it was okay?
"As to your second comment about "lost of customers" then there should be a reduction in employees.Actually a loss of "customers" is not the measuring stick for financial concerns as much as a loss of revenue. "
JMO, I have owned 3 businesses over the last 20 years, so I know a tiny bit. One production oriented and 2 service. Unless those employees are able to bring in new business right away, what are they doing? I don't know what kind of business you have that customers/clients do not = revenue...unless you are able to sell more services/products to existing customers to make up for the loss.
But then, we are supposed to be talking about a 'church' aren't we?
At 12:32 PM, March 06, JMO posted this:
gmommylv, I believe that the deacon was correct is his response to you concerning sin. The worldly view of sin is one of degrees based on the consequences created. We live in a culture where the concept of sin has become entangled in legalistic arguments over right and wrong. When many of us consider "What is sin?" we think of violations of the Ten Commandments. Even then, we tend to think of murder and adultery as "major" sins compared with lying, cursing, or idolatry.
The truth is that sin, as defined in the original translations of the Bible, means "to miss the mark." The mark, in this case, is the standard of perfection established by God and evidenced by Jesus. Viewed in that light, it is clear that we are all sinners.
Romans 3:23: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
In light of this, it does no good to compare ourselves to the world. This is by God's design, because only when we understand our weakness will we consider relying on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
Romans 3:20 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in His sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."
God wanted us to recognize our sins. Even those who have not murdered or committed adultery will find themselves convicted of lying, or of worshipping false idols like wealth or power ahead of God.
Sin in any amount will distance us from God. So sin is equal in the sight of God
Isaiah 59: 1-2.
"Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor His ear too dull to hear,"
"But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear."
We must resist the temptation to act as if we are righteous, especially by leaning on our good works.
1 John 1:8-10"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives".
SOTL says:
Well, well, well...it seems that JMO NOW thinks that Sweetcakes sins are worse than his own.
OH, and BTW, Dr. Jmo, I'm still waiting for your "proof" that the file was not " just laying around".
Don't think that I have forgotten that.
"I could lose a client such as Fleming Furniture but gain a client such as FedEx. I don't think I need explain that my revenue flow would be more positive even if I lost 30 clients the size of Fleming Furniture."
That would be dangerous.
No there is no fairness and little true righteousness on this blog forum.
This is one time I agree with you, jmo. There's not one iota of personal righteousness on this blog...or anywhere else for that matter. The only righteousness I have is a foreign one....I stand in Christ's righteousness and merit alone.
"Yes, we are to love one another. Yes, we are to share the gospel. No, we are not to accept those into our fellowship which mock our beliefs."
Which brings me to the question: How can you support Gaines in light of the above statement?
JMO,
I spent the last few minutes looking for the last post I read from Mike Bratton. It is in response to Former Pastors respectful written, heartfelt concerns he addressed to BBC administration.
If I may ask, "A former pastor," why are you a former pastor, rather than a current pastor?
--Mike
9:30 AM, March 05, 2007
You and I have respectfully disagreed with each other, and that's how it should be done.
Mike's post above was just an example of how he treated many people on this blog- he got personal and ugly if he didn't agree with what someone said. Trollcakes didn't bring a condescending,intolerant attitude to this blog. I Googled him too, and what's sad is some of the posters on this blog just gave credibility to his other sites.
SOTL,
I would be especially pleased if you would be there.
It occurred to me that there are a number of Bellevue members that are no longer attending the worship service. This Sunday would be excellent opportunity for many to return to Bellevue to welcome our guest preacher, Bobby Moore. It would be wonderful if this coming service marked a higher than normal attendance to honor the filling of the pulpit by this man of God.
Please make plans to attend if at all possible. This is an important event in the life of the church and every effort needs to be made to have a significant increase in attendance.
Pass this information along to your friends and family so that we can have a visual and noticeable impact to furthering the kingdom work of the church.
lindon wrote: "JMO, I have owned 3 businesses over the last 20 years, so I know a tiny bit. One production oriented and 2 service. Unless those employees are able to bring in new business right away, what are they doing? I don't know what kind of business you have that customers/clients do not = revenue...unless you are able to sell more services/products to existing customers to make up for the loss.
But then, we are supposed to be talking about a 'church' aren't we?"
Lindon, you used the comparative to "customers" not I. Alas, I'm challenged on my business sense. No the number of customers do not in fact equate to revenue growth. It reminds me of the story of a guy selling computers. When asked what he was selling them for he said $1 million dollars. To which the questioner replied, "man I bet you don't sell many at that price". And with a smile the salesman responded, "I only have to sell one." So would you rather receive a new Porsche or 10 bikes? Quantity doesn't always translate to equal value.
lindon wrote: "Which brings me to the question: How can you support Gaines in light of the above statement?"
Support? I doubt you will find a single post supporting the actions of Bro. Steve from me. But I do support my church, it's leadership, and I respect the office of pastor.
Amy wrote: "You and I have respectfully disagreed with each other, and that's how it should be done."
Yes the most difficult task of all...defending one's opinion without being read as disrespectful. Thanks for the kind words Amy. But I must be honest in that I've had too many occasions to show disrespect to others as it was shown to me. But God knows me to be stupid and full of my self so He provides opportunities to enlighten me to help make me more in His image. But He hasn't had much to work with in my case so it's been a longer than necessary process.
JMO...
Although I didn’t dialogue with ‘Cakes’, I found him to be sympathetic with the dissenters on this blog, who after all this blog was founded for. He made no attacks on the people who have been ostracized from BBC and I am sure they sensed a kindness in his remarks that they don’t find from the people supporting Steve Gaines. It is much easier to converse with people who feel your pain than it is to converse with people who are causing it. That is the main reason that I can’t understand why the pro-Gaines folks come here…these people are not in agreement with these dissenters, so what can possibly be their reason for posting here? Is it to help these folks through their time of grieving over their church or is it to stab those with stab wounds already? Is it to try to make things right? Change their minds? Shoot the wolves? What? I have seen nothing productive in the posts from the Gaines people in mending any fences. I wonder if the leadership at Bellevue really thought that the ends would justify the means in all this. These movements (PDC, etc.) cause nothing but havoc on the brothers and sister of Christ…they destroy, not build. Has it been worth it to them? Show me one good outcome to having slipped this movement into this great church! Just one! And yet, some of you are standing behind Steve Gaines and his men at all costs, which makes you guilty by association. What is it going to take to wake you up.
jmo said, eprov, let's not excite that basic instinct of man. As my dad used to tell me, don't write a check that your bank ain't willing to cash.
reply: Maybe your daddy can cash the check. But you need to settle down, quit being so arrogant, and quit trying to bully. There are some people on here who can cash the check, so to speak.
imaresistor wrote: "What is it going to take to wake you up."
Sorry but wasn't aware that I've been sleeping through this process. As for supporting the actions of our pastor, I don't think you can find the evidence to make a guilty charge on that account. It does disturb me that one as yourself weaves a full patchwork of charges against those of us who are not dissenters. Not that I fully understand this pro/con type casting as I've am not singled minded but have differing opinions depending on the facts in questions. Those facts such as the handling of the PW situation I have stated my opinion from day one that Bro. Steve did not handle this well. Same with Dr. Whitmire, some of the deacons, and the Union City speech. But as for the Warrenism, change of music selection, and other items, I am not certain that any specific fact is in evidence. I was more involved in the PDL movement under Dr. Rogers than I've noticed under Dr. Gaines. The only issue I personally have with the music is that we now have ushers taking offering during the special music. I find this to be a distraction in what was for me a time to worship and prepare my mind for the hearing of God's Word. I've expressed my opinion as to the fact that we have hurting members to those that need to hear it, our lay leadership. Posting my comments on this board may have endured me to some of the dissenters but it served no purpose. My comments to our leadership about transparency and the lack of concern to hurting members is more effective. I know many of our leaders personally so dare say I may have had more impact by personal contact than those who wrote letters.
I actually posted and it's probably still on his site numerous comments to Mike with reference to using the anti-Bellevue phrase. I took the opportunity to meet with Derrick to discuss some of my concerns with regards to our pastor. So no, I've not been sleeping though this process. But neither have I sleep through the process as my friends in leadership have been slandered by accusations which I know to be a false representation of who they are. Am I to be faulted for fighting slander and gossip with what I know to be true. Now to stand by as my friends were attacked wrongly, that would be sleeping through this sad ordeal! No sir, I'm wide awake...
oc, my bank is always open..My daddy's not around, he's in heaven. Is it easier to call me names rather than discuss the issues? I would suggest that in discussions with others that you attack their position rather than their person. It takes neither intelligence nor nobility to attack the person but to attack another's opinions takes both thought and honor.
"I would suggest that in discussions with others that you attack their position rather than their person. It takes neither intelligence nor nobility to attack the person but to attack another's opinions takes both thought and honor."
But it does take more intellegence than you've got, obviously, to understand irony. I quote Bratton thusly and like so:
"Heh heh heh."
jmo,
Don't you even know what you are saying? You're the phd that started with the 'check cashing' threat. And by the way, I called you no names.
jmo said,
oc, my bank is always open.
reply: Well, I'm good for it. What do you propose?
"It reminds me of the story of a guy selling computers. When asked what he was selling them for he said $1 million dollars. To which the questioner replied, "man I bet you don't sell many at that price". And with a smile the salesman responded, "I only have to sell one." So would you rather receive a new Porsche or 10 bikes? Quantity doesn't always translate to equal value. "
You are talking two different subjects here. One is Short term- big gain? Why not drop the price to $750,000, still a nice margin, and sell 10?
Unless you have been living in a cave the last 20 years, customers expect quality AND quantity AND JIT whether it be bikes, cars or services.
If you are talking only margins on high end products and services, my statement above still stands.
" So would you rather receive a new Porsche or 10 bikes? Quantity doesn't always translate to equal value. "
This is a whole other subject: Sell to the masses or sell to the classes?
(They sell a lot of bikes in certain countries) :o)
"Lindon, you used the comparative to "customers" not I."
Scroll up. You originally referred to the church as a 'church business'. So that makes 'tithers' BBC's customers.
jmo,
That's what I thought. Bankrupt.
oc wrote: "Don't you even know what you are saying? You're the phd that started with the 'check cashing' threat. And by the way, I called you no names."
I guess the words arrogant and bully were meant to flatter me? And FYI the check cashing was in response to the basic instinct comment. But email me if you need further clarification on the other. My email is available to you. Sorry I'm not online all the time for a quick response.
"Am I to be faulted for fighting slander and gossip with what I know to be true. "
Friends, don't be taken in. The GCM playbook always refers to asking questions they do not like or approve as 'slander, gossip and being divisive. That is how they get around answering them.
And JMO, since your charge is to defend Coombs, what you know to be true brings into question YOUR credibility, PhD or not.
JMO, what you are faulted for is supporting a church that supports a pastor/elder who ignores scripture. That includes Coombs since he has chosen to overlook the fact that the pastor ignores scriptural commands.
That sounds mean but if your pastor ignores the Word, uses verses out of context, etc. What does BBC really have? An incompetent overpaid, CEO?
jmo,
No, I will not email you. Just put it out here.
lindon wrote: "You originally referred to the church as a church business."
Actually for clarificaiton that should have read church's business. The point still remains the same is that it our church's business not yours. Secondly I would never consider tithers as customers as you did. And finally, the American consumer has voted and said it will fore go service and quality for better pricing. Proof source: where are we making many of our products - China; where are we selling many of our products - Wal-Mart. Some of us remember the day that when you shopped for products you received service. The margins are so low today that consumers get less of both.
Post a Comment