10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that [sheep], than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Please continue your discussions of the most important issues you see facing Bellevue today. What will it take to restore your trust in our church leadership?
645 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 645 Newer› Newest»SOTL wrote: "And people wonder why child abuse victims don't come forward. We get picked apart, while the abuser is defended by men in the ivory tower."
Give it a break. Nobody has attacked you because you're a victim of child abuse. You've been called out for your slanderous remarks. And please show me where someone has defended the actions of PW. You do not have carte blanc to call people names then hide behind the victims shield. I've had a ton of emails from those who read this blog but don't post themselves glad that someone is willing to take a stand against your bully tactics. You will not shout me down with your cries of being a victim. I have not written or done anything to you that would be in the area of victimizing you. And obviously it doesn't bother you or you would refrain from attacking me directly.
Hey Trollcakes!! Straight up! Right on.....glad to see you.
Namaste, Trollcakes!
You make me laugh every time you post. I imagined a little bitty snake hissing through a megaphone to seem bigger. Hey, don't take much to make me laugh!
karen
Yo,
So it's Sweet Cakes now?
(Tipping hat to STL.)
JMO
WHAT slanderous remarks?
STATE THEM!!!
Hey,
Karen, Gmommylv--I tip my hat to thee too.
Yoo Hoo
JM(& G's)O,
I tip my drawers to thee. tehe!
Trollcakes,
I just got this -> JM(& G's)O
Took me a minute, but I got it! :)
karen
"lindon, read I Corinthians Chapter 6 versus 1-11 and explain to the group what the Bible states about suing a brother in Christ. Your reference to Jesus is Mark 12 was about government and not the filing of lawsuits against a brother. The versus in Corinthians leave no doubt to the situation."
Friends,
The key word in the 1 Corinthians 6 passage is 'brother'.
Mark 12 was referencing our higher standards as Christians than 'just' obeying the civil law. Which is why I have a hard time understanding why a 'minister' needs to consult attorneys over such things that have been discussed here today.
But then, I no longer hold to the worldly view of church.
JMO
When you call the File Fiasco story lies and supposition, you are victimizing me. But it does not surprise me that YOU don't understand that.
You are just full of hate and arrogance.
"WHAT slanderous remarks?
STATE THEM!!! "
Sotl, my sister, don't you know the game by now? Those accusations that JMO throws out on this blog are for the lurkers...to make them think a certain way. Most are not going to go back and read 10,000 comments to see if you are a slanderer...but they may assume by JMO's remarks that you are.
That is why you see remarks like this from JMO every few posts and other remarks about Coombs supposed 'integrity' that he is obviously hiding behind his greivous orthopraxy! How does one measure integrity? By ACTIONS.
Remember, truth is NEVER slander.
Well, I"m going to fly around in my airplane for a while ( everyone DOES have one, dont' they?)
I'll be back later this evening.
offline
Lindon said...
Remember, truth is NEVER slander.
Lindon,
I am so glad you see the game for what it is - BUNK! (Is there a Hebrew/Greek word for that?)
I did have to Google "orthopraxy" - thanks for my new word of the day.
karen
απατάω
That is the Greek word for what JMO is doing on this blog.
:o)
lin wrote:
"απατάω
"That is the Greek word for what JMO is doing on this blog."
baloney
And IMHO, that is the Hebrew word.
"A former pastor's" comments are here:
Part 1
Part 2
Rather than reposting those very long posts, please just link to them.
Thanks,
NBBCOF
lin wrote:
"IF you have NOT taken the time, please read former pastor's comment. I am reposting it because the teaching is vital. God Bless you former pastor."
Link is in previous comment.
JMO said
Ok guys, going off-line. Gotta meet piglet and help her understand that when people have differing opinions that her opinion of the law doesn't rule just because she believes the law is clear. I've been involved in too many legal situations to think that the law is clear on any subject. That is why we have courts and lawyers. Going to the wild blue yonder
Piglet says:
Now that I'm back online, I see that JMO has continued to be side step the issue.
He refuses to acknowledge WHY this law is on the books in the FIRST place if not for circumstances EXACTLY like ours.
Westtnbarrister has commented on this law so, sorry, but I don't need any help. :)
a former pastor
good post, hope the right people read it.
However, did you mean to say "the unsaved do not understand much of the things of God"?
Clearly the unsaved are without the knowledge of the things of God, however the saved can also be ignorant (KJV) of the things of God. I Cor 12:1 This is an oversight that has gotten the leadership of Bellevue in trouble.
Apparently JMO and his buds are banking on the fact that the leaders of BBC can play dirty but members won't go to court.
Any pastors want to weigh in on this?
How about 25+ ????
AOG??
piglet,
They better not bank on that. We've already consulted an attorney. I dont' know if we will follow through, but we are considering it. I have to decide if it's something I really want to do.
Jmo's hateful comments with his talking points from DC may just push me over the edge, especially after today.
How bad do they want the publicity?
There's a difference between filing a lawsuit against the church and asking a judge for an injunction to enforce the statute....for sure, they made the move to refuse the requested documents in order to force the hand of the ones asking for the documents. The ball is now in their court, and in order to get the documents, will have to get an injunction. It's a slick political move in the sense that if those requesting the documents do decide to go for an injunction, they'll immediately be accused of violating scripture, even though the administration is in violation of the same scripture by not adhering to the law. Again...slick political move, but a bit too obvious imho.
And btw jmo,
speaking of that sermon...and a few others similar to it...content alone is really not what's at issue here...it's timing..which imho is a bit suspect..going all the way back to the night of 9/24..and I am not cynical by nature. Looking at content and timing, I see this equation...content + timing = church politics...plain and simple. I'll give credit where credit is due...he knows how to work a crowd..perhaps he missed his true calling (politics)...but then I suspect there's some denominational ambitions present anyhow, so the practice in church politics will serve well in that realm. There are kingdom builders, then there are empire builders...you decide which one we're looking at. As always..jmho.
CAKES!!
Where've you been, missed your humor around here.
Stepped out to the mailbox a minute ago and was thinking about you & wondering if all this had gotten toooooo depressing for you.
Keep those hissing snakes in their place.
SOTL, keep in mind that you will have a tough time claiming damages. Especially as people testify that you were on a blog posting hate filled messages about the church and staff that you plan to sue. I would love to be in court as the defense attorney asks you about your postings on this blog. I am sure that the jury will fill sympathy for the damage caused by our staff....yeah right. The jury will have unbiased reasonable people that will not be swayed by your writings on a blog. But it says a lot about you when you want bad publicity for Christ's church.
JMO,
How was your flight today?
AOG, do you mind sharing how that goes with I Cor 6:1-11. Please read...carefully. The Bible doesn't talk about lawsuits inasmuch as it speaks of going into the worldly courts.
I don't disagree on the 9/24 sermon. Steve Gaines had stated he had not planned on being in Bellevue that evening. So the sermon wasn't preplanned. I have stated in the past that I felt that that sermon and a couple of others were self-serving.
I would love to see your post after the scripture. I do agree that the pastor did not follow Matt 18...but you need to show me the verse that says that if one doesn't follow scripture then I am not required to follow scripture. I think that Bro. Steve had our ship going in the wrong direction but I have faith that actions are in place to correct that. May not be know publicly but things are happening behind the scenes.
sheeplessatbbc or as I like to say sleeplessatbbc,
Were you the one who asked me today if I go to Bellevue? Since I created such a stir on this board I am getting suspecious of anyone approaching me in public places. But to answer your question, it was some beautiful sky today.
jmo,
I'm not debating lawsuits here...just making an observation on the cleverness of the move, which even though they are violating the law, puts the other parties in the position of having to go to court to get them to do what they should already have done. Like I said, it's pretty obvious from where I sit..they can scoff at the law, but at the same time put someone else in the position of being the bad guy. I won't debate the legitimacy of lawsuits...again, I'm just observing the clever, though unethical refusal to abide by the statute. I'm satisfied there was no evil or illegal intent for the documents in question, so the refusal to comply just doesn't fly from my point of view. But, given that they're hedging that the parties won't take the matter to a judge, it creates a "can't lose" situation for the administration...at least in their estimation..if they take it to court...they give the administration ammunition against them in the eyes of the rest of the congregation...if they don't..they got their way..either way. But, all that aside...the LORD has been known to confound the wise. jmho.
Just My () Opinion said,
"I've had a ton of emails from those who read this blog but don't post themselves glad that someone is willing to take a stand against your bully tactics"
(One bullying ploy is to imply he has someone/others on his side. Thus, providing strength/backbone.)
Most bullys are cowards. What's in your pulpit?
isabel, you are quite the expert with your knowledge of a bully. I kinda like that thought process..not me being a bully but me being a coward. For someone in marketing let me just say you've missed guessing the correct demographics of your consumer. The first thing a marketer needs to know is who is his market. I hope that you have better success in the world than with guesses on the blog. By the way where you'd come up with that most bullys are cowards bit. That sorta from our mother words of "sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt"...never got that one either...words are very powerful and they do hurt. You bully wordsmith you!
Just My Opinion said...
SOTL, keep in mind that you will have a tough time claiming damages. Especially as people testify that you were on a blog posting hate filled messages about the church and staff that you plan to sue. I would love to be in court as the defense attorney asks you about your postings on this blog. I am sure that the jury will fill sympathy for the damage caused by our staff....yeah right. The jury will have unbiased reasonable people that will not be swayed by your writings on a blog. But it says a lot about you when you want bad publicity for Christ's church.
6:22 PM, March 05, 2007
JMO, What a load of "bunk." Any juror with half a brain will see the true tone of SOTL's posts and it's not hate. I get so tired of people throwing that word around when it is not applicable. What DC did was unethical. If I were SOTL I would be furious too. However, that a long way from hate.
JMO, Are you Steve Tucker?
lin,
I can answer that JMO is not.
This is STRICTLY from a world view. Not a Christian view:
"keep in mind that you will have a tough time claiming damages."
Who said it was about money?
" Especially as people testify that you were on a blog posting hate filled messages about the church and staff that you plan to sue. "
hateful? I don't see hateful from sotl...I see someone who has been very hurt by her church. Her privacy breeched. Her very personal information that the church insisted upon, treated in a cavalier manner. Who cares about damages?
"I would love to be in court as the defense attorney asks you about your postings on this blog. I am sure that the jury will fill sympathy for the damage caused by our staff....yeah right. The jury will have unbiased reasonable people that will not be swayed by your writings on a blog. But it says a lot about you when you want bad publicity for Christ's church."
Unbiased reasonable people? Been around many jury's lately? We all know how well loved mega's are in their communities...especially around the court house.
But you have an itty bitty problem like the fence. See, all of Memphis knows that BBC protected a pedophile minister. Then, you have the issue of BBC refusing to turn over documents that members should be allowed to see...like meeting minutes, financials, etc. Then there is the timeline of events and Coombs having her file...when? How long had he been there? Why didn't the counseling minister call her? Why was the file out of the counseling office?
Sounds like a pattern to me...
As to lawsuits, one of the foremost reformed ministers, Dr. RC Sproul filed suit last year against a blogger for slander. He filed in the Seminole Co Court. The blogger was a professing Christian and had worked behind the scenes first trying to get Ligonier to be honest about some financial dealings and contract scandals. When Ligoneir refused, he went public. However, before the blogger went public, Ligoneir filed suit. (Literally filed the suit 2 days before the blogger went public because they knew he was going to..he told them)
RC has articles about how Christians should not file suit against other Christians. It is in his Reformation study Bible. His excuse for filing the lawsuit? He claims the blogger was not really a Christian. John Piper, John McArthur and other reformed ministers refused to say publicly that the Ligoneir lawsuit was wrong. They are still sharing stages with him at conferences.
(By the way, the lawsuit is still pending... withdrawn without predjudice... because they cannot find the blogger. They hired Private investigators with donor money to try and find the guy. This was covered in the Orlando Sentinal, USA today and Instapundit wrote about it...no one had heard of this blogger until they filed suit...and then donations went WAY down....layoffs, plans on hold.....getting the picture...JMO? People do not like their donations and tithes going to pay lawyers and private investigators)
lin, Tim is correct. Neither am I Steve Gaines, I am not on staff, I have no knowledge of any secret conspiracies, I am not married to anyone on staff, I am not fooled easily. But why does it matter who I am? I have never asked for anyone's identity on this board. And I don't care. All I care about is that people are accountable to the truth.
And on that note I must say that I appreciate Tim's email. It shows honesty when someone admits that they were in error. Of course some of you think that Tim somehow went to the dark-side because he admitted that he may have received wrong information. I think that Tim genuinely believed what he had posted on the petition web site and wanted to make public the incorrectness of the information. I still disagree with the petition but we live in a free world so I have no issue with someone doing what they feel they must. But someone less honest may have not been willing to admit in a public way their error. Thank you Tim for standing for truth.
jmo says:
Especially as people testify that you were on a blog posting hate filled messages about the church and staff that you plan to sue.
sotl says:
oh, such as the TRUTH about my file, and how it was out of the cousneling office and in the hands of David Coombs?...LOL...just becuase you don't like the TRUTH, doesn't make it hate filled.
By the way, give me your doctor's name. I'd like to stop by his office and look thru your files...I'd like to know what medications you are on, etc, what your health issues are, and just general information that is NONE OF MY BUSINESS>
We'll see how you like it.
Only a bully like yourself would shrug their shoulders about David Coombs having my file. Only a bully would think it was no big deal. And you are one big bully.
But you are not going to bully me. I will not allow it. You post unkind comments about me because I dare to stand up to you.
You are nothing to me. Now run on over to David Coombs house and help him look thru the personal files of others. I'm sure he needs your help.
"Of course some of you think that Tim somehow went to the dark-side because he admitted that he may have received wrong information."
Anyone? What wrong information? We still have not established that what your guys have told him is really true nor the circumstances involved.
What about Hannaford?
Tim,
Why are you so quick and certain who JMO is not???? Do you KNOW who he/she is????
lin,
You need to ask Tim if he believed the information that was presented to him. I assumed he did since he retracted his previous opinion. But I don't speak for Tim. Ask him, he reads this blog.
In response to your last question. I will not respond on this blog but if you will email me I will answer that to your satisfaction.
ezekiel, commissions would be the answer. But on this board what I'm selling, they ain't buying. So thankfully I have opportunities to make some lunch money outside this blog. But if the inference is that I'm associated with Bellevue in any way the answer is no.
Hold on!!! Tim...PLEASE do not fall for the 2 faced bull from the person who is not ST. Go back ...she /he was acting like a fool about her/his side WINNING the day you posted the letter. That is as low and ungodly as it gets....(except for the Sr Pastor's actions that have destroyed BBC's heritage...) This is all shameful and sad...not a win for one side or the other....."someone" needs to try and talk from ONE side of their face only.
"You need to ask Tim if he believed the information that was presented to him. I assumed he did since he retracted his previous opinion. But I don't speak for Tim. Ask him, he reads this blog."
Do you have any idea how many Christian ministers I have seen blatantly lie over the past 2 years? LOTS. They need to read Revelations 21 real close. Satan is making his mark in these last days.
We have a problem, you see. So far, your guys do not have a good track record for being forthcoming and truthful. On the otherhand, they have an excellent track record for ignoring scripture. That is what concerns me the most.
"In response to your last question. I will not respond on this blog but if you will email me I will answer that to your satisfaction"
Thanks for the offer, but I am not so sure the 'talking points' would be of any use to me. No offense, but that is how I read your comments...as talking points.
Scripture is so very important, my friend.
1 John 2:
3And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
lin wrote: "Anyone? What wrong information? We still have not established that what your guys have told him is really true nor the circumstances involved."
First of all I'm not involved with 'your guys' so I don't know what Tim was told. But my understanding from Tim's letter was that he incorrectly stated that CW was not interviewed. He now believes that CW was in fact interviewed by the committee.
Just My Opinion said...
lin, Tim is correct. Neither am I Steve Gaines, I am not on staff, I have no knowledge of any secret conspiracies, I am not married to anyone on staff, I am not fooled easily. But why does it matter who I am? I have never asked for anyone's identity on this board. And I don't care. All I care about is that people are accountable to the truth.
Sheepless or Sleepless as you like to call me, (really I am sleepless these days so its ok)
says,
JMO,
You must be older than some think. You seem to have forgotten, maybe a senior moment, that you asked me if I was Jim Haywood.
Then you proceeded to attack me referencing the Saving Bellevue site as it relates to many things including spelling errors.
Glad you enjoyed the skys today, they were beautiful.
"First of all I'm not involved with 'your guys' so I don't know what Tim was told. But my understanding from Tim's letter was that he incorrectly stated that CW was not interviewed. He now believes that CW was in fact interviewed by the committee. "
When? You have the date? Who interviewed him? Why was it common knowledge that he was refused? Why was it in the report that an important victim would not cooperate because of accomodations? Did they lie in the report? Is there another victim?
Somebody is holding out on the circumstances and details of this situation and I believe because it would not look good for someone. Perhaps SG?
It just does NOT add up.
I believe you are very well informed of the spin the leaders (your guys) at BBC are wanting out there. I never said it was truth...I called it spin. Because I think it is. Of course, that is JUST my opinion.
lin wrote: "Thanks for the offer, but I am not so sure the 'talking points' would be of any use to me. No offense, but that is how I read your comments...as talking points."
I am sorry you feel that way lin. I wanted to share a viewpoint from someone that you would have respected his opinion. But because of confidentiality I will not share on a public forum. I thought that you may have been honest in your search for truth.
"But because of confidentiality I will not share on a public forum. I thought that you may have been honest in your search for truth."
Sorry friend, but I doubt I would get truth from you. I know that sounds mean but I am basing it on all your comments here in the last month or so. Personally, I doubt you really care for truth. You seem to care about 'winning'.
Much like your pastor did not care for scriptural truth when he protected a pedophile minister.
From time to time, there are various reminders from various quarters that "words mean things."
Indeed, they do.
For example, "namaste" is a term commonly translated "I bow to the god in you." Cross over The Bridge To Wikipedia (the forthcoming sequel to "The Bridge To Terabithia," coming to a theater near you), and you'll find that "namaste" can be translated a number of ways, none of them good. I quote thusly, and like so:
I salute the potential to become a God that lies within you.
The Spirit in me meets the same Spirit in you.
I greet that place where you and I are one.
I salute the Light of life in you.
I receive the free spirit in you.
I recognize that within each of us is a place where peace dwells, and when we are in that place, we are One.
My energy salutes your energy.
The life in me sees and honors the life in you.
May the life within you be strong.
The light within me sees and honors the light within you.
And "tashi delek," according to one of my failing neurons, is a greeting that has to do with luck--luck being a concept that is at odds with the sovereignty of God.
For what it's worth.
--Mike
Nothing was said about who the victim was (that was not interviewed )until CH 's letter was posted for the brief time that it was. The info about SG's refusing to see the victim is still correct,that SG and others knew he was a sexual deviant and continued to pay him to roam the halls is still correct...that personal,confidential files were seen by people on the "investigative committee"...still correct...all this and more are still against scripture and common sense and decency. To my knowledge only 2 people(other than the victim) could have cleared up the impression that came from the letter. They MAY not have cleared up the misunderstanding because they WERE directly involved with the victim...I don't know. But Tim coming forward with that after he was made aware of it by DC was the right and only thing to do. It does not make all the wrongs done by the BBC leaders right.NO ONE WINS.
Mike Bratton said...
From time to time, there are various reminders from various quarters that "words mean things."
Sheepless says,
Mike,
The person you are hammering has never professed to be a Christian, he has made it quite clear he is not. Yet, he has shown more love and compassion for some on this blog than others who are professing Christians. What does that say for "Christians"?
Did it ever occur to you that you might could be a positive influence on this person rather than beating him up? We are to be a light to the world, your light is burning rather dimly right now, you may want to think about recharging it.
"I am sorry you feel that way lin. I wanted to share a viewpoint from someone that you would have respected his opinion."
OK, you have peaked my curiosity as to 'someone' I would respect. My e-mail is in the meta profile...if you still want to even after all I have said...e-mail me his opinion.
gmommy,
Let's blow this pop stand tonight. We'll go for a ride in my private airplane. I'll come and get you, or we can take yours, if you prefer.
Be watching for me. I'll land on your street.
Lin,
I do not have inside information as some do BUT I did show the CH letter to a professional in that particular field because I could not see the intent and purpose of the letter. I thought I may be missing something. The professional's opinion was that the letter was to distance himself from the situation and as I suspected to appear rather holy and above it all. IF the author of that letter counciled both the criminal and the victim,it seems to me that would be unethical and unhealthy. MAYBE there was reason to distance himself and maybe that is why he didn't speak up and clear up the misunderstanding. When DC said the night of the report that a professional had advised either PW or the leaders NOT to report the abuse(not quoted)...one name came to my mind.
lindon, I have forwarded my emails to NBBCOF for her to determine how to communicate this information. There are some confidential names that I do not want shared on this blog. I will leave it to her to determine how best to resolve this question. You will not see any names if she posts but her crediability is solid with those who have questions. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. But the truth is the truth.
NBBCOF, you have email!!!!
SOTL....sound great! Lets pick up Sweetcakes on the way out. I would much rather spend my time with an honest compassionate person than one that speaks from both sides of his face!!! Get ready SweetCakes...SOTL and I are on our way!!!!
SOTL, please don't land on the street. It is a FAA no no. I assume that you're instrument rated since you can fly tonight. Well gotta go to bed...I'll be watching for you in the skies. I certainly glad there are other women who can fly.
JMO,
I received your e-mail, and unfortunately, it still doesn't answer the original question. There was no information in it that I didn't already receive from that same source some time ago. January 11th was never in question. See point #3 in the "The Patient is in Critical Condition!" thread. Your source didn't mention any other meetings to you or to me, and I asked. So until I receive more definitive information than what I already have, I have nothing to say on the subject.
NBBCOF
Well Bratton, it's funny how people who overlook so much evil in their own midst, find the boogey-man in the kind greetings of another. Is their no God within you in which to bow? That was rhetorical.
Futhermore, Wikipedia is not a peer-revued encyclopedia nor an encyclopedia at all--its entries are posted by anyone, much like comments on this blog. You could post on Wikipedia, Bratton, thus you may gather the credibility of the definitions therein.
I don't really believe it's Christ, within you, that dredges here; I cannot cite it, but there is verse that defines three attributes of a Christian: faith, hope and love, "but the greatest of these is love." I truly hope you find that third gem.
So, you would attack the character, not the substance, of one who demonstrates more kindness than you, who is more loving, who patiently makes the effort to pen credible and complete (as opposed to the condescending and flippant "point-by-point") arguments.
Ooo, Cake's might have jest hexed you by offering his love. That just makes me sick, dude; you are no messenger of the divine.
Keep your grace, if you're its manifestation.
NBBCOF, The original question that starting this was as follows:
lin wrote: "When? You have the date? Who interviewed him? Why was it common knowledge that he was refused? Why was it in the report that an important victim would not cooperate because of accommodations? Did they lie in the report? Is there another victim?"
The point of this and Tim's email was that CW was in fact interviewed by the committee. My emails to you confirm that as well. And that was the point #1 on the ICU report. I had hoped that you were a honest person in these matters. But maybe that was a wrong assumption on my part. It disappoints me that you would be so entrenched in your position as to not verify the fact that CW was in fact interviewed by the committee. Your response to this will speak to your integrity.
SOTL,
You mentioned that when you heard about PW you wondered who who had counselled you and so you decided to contact BBC and try to find out who it was. By any chance did you mention on the blog that you were going to do that, or that you had called the church, before you heard from DC?
So you're questioning NBBCOF's integrity and honesty b/c he/she won't post your e-mail?
sheeplessatbbc said...
Mike Bratton said...
From time to time, there are various reminders from various quarters that "words mean things."
Sheepless says,
Mike,
The person you are hammering has never professed to be a Christian, he has made it quite clear he is not. Yet, he has shown more love and compassion for some on this blog than others who are professing Christians. What does that say for "Christians"?
I'll encourage you to scroll up, as you should have before you responded in such a manner. The person who employed the term "namaste" is a Christian. As gently as possible, I was attempting to remind everyone to use caution in their interactions.
Did it ever occur to you that you might could be a positive influence on this person rather than beating him up?
It occurs to me that, when I attempted to open a conversation about the Gospel with "this person," I was mocked by the "regulars" here.
We are to be a light to the world, your light is burning rather dimly right now, you may want to think about recharging it.
It also occurs to me that the brand of partisanship practiced by you and yours benefits no one.
Except, of course, you and yours.
Trollcakes said...
Well Bratton, it's funny how people who overlook so much evil in their own midst, find the boogey-man in the kind greetings of another. Is their no God within you in which to bow? That was rhetorical.
Of course it was--it could not be otherwise. And I'm not finding any "boogy-man," merely observing the definitions of out-of-the-ordinary phrases used here.
Futhermore, Wikipedia is not a peer-revued encyclopedia nor an encyclopedia at all--its entries are posted by anyone, much like comments on this blog.
There's a joke there, but discretion being the better part of valor... :)
You could post on Wikipedia, Bratton, thus you may gather the credibility of the definitions therein.
The first definition of "namaste" was from my own (gasp!) memory, as was the reference to the meaning of "tashi delek," also; were any of the quoted definitions or my bits of personal information incorrect?
I don't really believe it's Christ, within you, that dredges here; I cannot cite it, but there is verse that defines three attributes of a Christian: faith, hope and love, "but the greatest of these is love." I truly hope you find that third gem.
I truly hope you find Christ.
Since I get hectored for attempting to communicate with you here, I'd love to speak with you via e-mail or telephone, or even in person about your need for a salvific relationship with Jesus Christ.
And as I've noted more than once before, what is unloving is to refrain from sharing the Gospel with people in need of Christ.
So, you would attack the character, not the substance, of one who demonstrates more kindness than you, who is more loving, who patiently makes the effort to pen credible and complete (as opposed to the condescending and flippant "point-by-point") arguments.
Your response is insubstantial. I'm curious, though, to see if my fellow Christians among the "regulars" here will take a moment to refute your remarks.
Ooo, Cake's might have jest hexed you by offering his love. That just makes me sick, dude; you are no messenger of the divine.
Keep your grace, if you're its manifestation.
But of course, you don't deal in character attacks, right?
--Mike
JMO,
I never said he wasn't. What do you want me to say that I haven't already said? Look back at #3 in the "The Patient is in Critical Condition" thread and read it for yourself. The January 11th meeting is mentioned there.
David Coombs has stated there were several interviews, so that doesn't exactly fit with one on January 11th. The bottom line is, I don't know! I do know I'm receiving conflicting information from the source you mentioned in your e-mail, so as I stated before, until I know something definite, I am not going to comment further. Live with it.
To everyone, unless he wants to come here and have a public dialog, all public speculation about CH's motives needs to stop immediately!
NBBCOF
Troll(sweet)cakes,
I write thusly, and like so:
Art thou wasting thy time engaging thy detractors?
At 11:36 PM, March 05, 2007
Mike Bratton said...
It occurs to me that, when I attempted to open a conversation about the Gospel with "this person," I was mocked by the "regulars" here.
junk99mail replies...
Hi, Mike,
As I recall, your first words to Trollcakes when he informed you he was not a Christian were something like, "Then you have bigger problems." Maybe not an exact quote, but something to that effect. You were then chastized by other bloggers for your tone and approach in dealing with a non-Christian. I wouldn't exactly call your words attempting to "open a conversation about the Gospel", and I wouldn't call the criticism you received for your remark being "mocked".
I'm not saying this to engage you in debate or to give you any hassle, just saying my recollection is a bit different from the way you framed it.
Namaste is the common greeting, equivalent to hello, throughout India, Nepal and Tibet, period.
Deep Thought (by Jack Handy)
Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
Trollcakes said...
Namaste is the common greeting, equivalent to hello, throughout India, Nepal and Tibet, period.
And how does the "common greeting" translate into English? Obviously, just because a word is "the common greeting" doesn't mean it translates as "hello," with no other meaning.
--Mike
junk99mail said...
At 11:36 PM, March 05, 2007
Mike Bratton said...
It occurs to me that, when I attempted to open a conversation about the Gospel with "this person," I was mocked by the "regulars" here.
junk99mail replies...
Hi, Mike,
As I recall, your first words to Trollcakes when he informed you he was not a Christian were something like, "Then you have bigger problems." Maybe not an exact quote, but something to that effect. You were then chastized by other bloggers for your tone and approach in dealing with a non-Christian. I wouldn't exactly call your words attempting to "open a conversation about the Gospel", and I wouldn't call the criticism you received for your remark being "mocked".
I'm not saying this to engage you in debate or to give you any hassle, just saying my recollection is a bit different from the way you framed it.
I understand. However, there was much more to it, including nasty e-mails.
--Mike
You're right, junk99, but I'm no Charlie Fox; I advocate, not ignoring the apologists always poking people in the eye here, but running them roughshod. In love, of course.
Bratton's grasping at straws with his latest droppings thrown in my general direction, and it is quite delightful, until I get bored of it, to call him on it.
Did you see how quick JM(& G's)O slinked off after the gaffe he penned in the very sentence pretty much questioning SOTL's literacy? Ha!
Those are those special moments, seeing someone like that hoisted by their own petard.
At 12:02 AM, March 06, 2007
Mike Bratton said...
I understand. However, there was much more to it, including nasty e-mails.
junk99mail replies...
Sorry to hear that. No reason for anyone to be nasty, even if they didn't appreciate your approach.
To be honest, I didn't consider your original comment to be as bad as some took it--I looked on it is your way of trying to pique interest. I recall that the thing that first caused me to examine the Bible and the claims of Christianity seriously was when a Christian friend told me I was too ignorant of those matters for her to have an intelligent discussion with me about them. The insult to my pride caused me to start reading the Bible and learning about Christ -- in order to better argue my points. And, of course, God, with His usual irony, used all of that to bring me to Himself.
"Hoisted by his own petard" is just one of those phrases you gotta laugh at.
bedtime ... zzzzzzzzz
I find it curious that there would be any question as to why a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and a devoted school teacher would be interested in how this matter would be handled.
I have made every attempt to abide by a certain standard of dialogue, beginning with changing my too-blue screenname, and altering my regular syntax, which is often full-blown lapis lazuli.
If I had not developed some love and concern for people I've met in person and those here, I'd have been long gone soon after the Coombs ordination--this turkey's cooked. It is time to move on, just not in the quiet and dispersed manner BBC wishes in order to save face.
cakes wrote:
"I have made every attempt to abide by a certain standard of dialogue, beginning with changing my too-blue screenname, and altering my regular syntax, which is often full-blown lapis lazuli."
And for that we thank you! I hope that isn't your swan song. Your keen insight and humor have been much appreciated!
Mike, Please remember this verse when dealing with our friend Cakes:
1 Corinthians 5:
"12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside."
"The point of this and Tim's email was that CW was in fact interviewed by the committee."
The whole committee?
The state law require non-profit organizations to provide certain membership information and financial information to the members of their organizations. This obviously encompasses religious organizations such as our church because it is non-profit and is therefore financed by the membership.
In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul’s admonishment regarding Christians taking other Christians before a non-Christian court of law was very limited in scope. By this I mean that he was primarily speaking of one Christian individual suing another Christian individual, which limits the dispute to being generally between two people. Secondly, it was limited to disputes that were of little significance.
So to put it briefly in the form of an example, he is telling Bill that it is wrong to take Sam before a court of law because he broke his lawn mower when he borrowed it and refuses to pay the 100 dollars to get the mower repaired.
He was saying in small matters of this sort, it does more harm to the cause of Christ than the 100 dollars is worth. It is better for Bill to take the loss and go ahead and pay for the repairs himself if the pastor and/or deacons of their church can’t persuade Sam to do what is right in the matter and pay for the repairs.
The unsaved world is very likely to see two Christians taking small matters like that before a civil court as petty and immature. This is likely to be an indication to them that being a Christian must not amount to much and they may be tempted to say, “If that is the way Christians act then we don’t want anything to do with Christianity!” In this case both Christians in the Lord’s eyes would be doing wrong by taking the issue before a court of law.
Here is a quote from Matthew Henry about 1 Corinthians 6:
“Here is at least an intimation that they went to law for trivial matters, things of little value; for the apostle blames them that they did not suffer wrong rather than go to law (v. 7), which must be understood of matters not very important. In matters of great damage to ourselves or families, we may use lawful means to right ourselves. We are not bound to sit down and suffer the injury tamely, without stirring for our own relief; but, in matters of small consequence, it is better to put up with the wrong.”
I highly recommend that you go to the site below and read Matthew Henry’s comments on verses 1 thru 8 of 1 Corinthians 6:
Go to this URL
Http://bible.crosswalk.com
Then in the Search Window type:
1 Cor 6
Then click Find
Then click Include Study Tools
Then click Find
Then below to the right of the first verse next to the letters MHC-COM click on Commentary of 6:1
On the other hand, if Sam tries to beat a red light one day and the light is red when he enters the intersection and his car collides with Bill’s and Bill is injured and hospitalized, costing thousands of dollars and his car is totaled costing thousands more, then if Sam is not insured and refuses to pay for the damages he caused by breaking the law and running the light, then in God’s eyes and in the eyes of the lost world, Bill has every right to sue Sam. In this case Bill’s testimony doesn’t suffer, but Sam’s would.
Sam would be bringing reproach on the name of Christ for refusing to do what was right, but no one in their right mind would discredit Bill’s Christian testimony for using the proper channels of the law to force Sam to pay for the damages he caused.
For the purpose of vividly making this principle as crystal clear as possible, let’s say that Sam has never been married and even though he is a Christian, sadly he gets his eyes on Bill’s wife, Mary, somewhat like King David got his eyes on Bathsheba.
He decides he wants her for himself. He schemes how he will kill Bill and make it look like an accident and then make his move on the vulnerable, grieving widow.
He murders Bill and he and Mary eventually get married, but in his nightmares at night, the way he tosses and turns and the things he says in his sleep eventually makes it obvious to Mary that he killed Bill.
No one, but no one, is going to lose respect for Mary’s Christianity for her going to the authorities and filing charges against her new husband in a secular court of law for murdering her late husband. Sam’s reputation as a Christian, however, would of course be forever destroyed.
Sadly, as I see this regrettable and reprehensible issue unfolding regarding the release of certain information by the leadership of our church which is required by law, it is my firm opinion that they are in the wrong before God for not doing so and the membership of the church will be in the right before God if they have to take the issue before a secular civil court to force the leadership to comply with the law.
If the leadership forces the congregation to go to this extent then the leadership is the group who will be bringing reproach on the cause of Christ. The unsaved world is not going to blame the congregation for demanding that the leadership do as the law requires.
This issue is not between two individuals. It is between a number of the members of our church staff and thousands of the members of our church.
This issue is not over petty matters. It is over millions of dollars being controlled by a handful of leaders in our church without allowing the membership to know what is being done with the money.
Even of infinitely greater importance, it is over the possibility of many souls not being saved around the world that would have otherwise been saved had the money gone where it should have gone to support the winning of the lost to our Savior. Again, these issues are light years away from being petty!
The one fact alone that the staff gave $25,000 of God’s money to support a woman pastor and support a ministry that is pro homosexual and pro abortion is enough evidence that their handling of church funds is seriously in need of being monitored by the membership.
The membership should be granted the opportunity to examine the financial records of our church both now and from now on to insure that the funds are being properly dispensed.
Sadly, the public disgrace and the wrath of the Lord will be upon the leadership for breaking the law, not on the membership for using whatever legal resources necessary to force them to obey the law!
Heavenly Father, I fervently pray that you will give the victory to those who are seeking to do Your will in this matter and I fervently pray that You will defeat those who are not! In the mighty and strong name of Jesus I pray! Amen.
First order of business – I would like to publicly apologize to New BBC Open Forum. I questioned her integrity and honesty because she would not confirm a meeting with the primary victim and the committee. I was wrong to have questioned her and I apologize personally to her for that offense.
The second order of business is that I’ve learned how difficult it is to ascertain truth with partial information from numerous sources. This should be a lesson to all that are in search of the truth. This is especially true when we have a 48” fence called “itty bitty” by our pastor. It is especially true when we have past victims of abuse inflaming the crowd into believing that we had a sexual pedophile actually seeking to harm our children within our church. My point on this is that many including me have taken a point of truth and extrapolated that point into a scenario or expanded statement. When doing that we actually discredit ourselves and distort the truth to some degree. I am guilty of that in stating in a factual way that CW had met with the committee.
I believe by explaining how I came to that conclusion and why I now will state that I am revising that statement back to a more limited one will help us all to understand and learn from my mistake. The reason I was certain of a meeting with CW and the committee came from the email that Tim Coggins had sent out. Please read the following:
Amy posted on 7:02 PM, March 03, 2007 a letter from Tim Coggins concerning his meeting with David Coombs and others. An excerpt of that letter is quoted below but the full context can be read if you go back to the original post by Amy.
“David Coombs stated clearly and precisely that the victim had been interviewed three times for a period of over six hours during the investigation. The setting of the interview was not precisely as the victim preferred, but there were some concessions made to accommodate him in this process. This information was in direct contrast to what had previously been stated by three separate parties in communications and correspondence that I had received. The only response that I offered Mr. Coombs, at that meeting, was that I had extremely conflicting information from sources closely associated with the victim.
Over the past several days, I have contacted sources and reviewed the original correspondence received to verify the accuracy of what had been understood. The results of that review process have led me to believe that the concerns that were held by these sources were of methodology in the interview process. They related that their opinion was that methodology employed did not offer concessions that were necessary. There was also the opinion that the interview process did not offer the ability to present factual information in entirety upon which to derive a conclusion concerning issues beyond the employment status of Paul Williams.It is apparent, however, that the investigative process did include multiple interviews with the victim.”
You can see from the above that a reasonable person could believe that an interview took place between CW and the IT committee. When NBBCOF did not post an acknowledgement to my email quoting a second source I could not understand why. Later in the evening I received a clarification from someone that I trust which placed a different view on the situation from Tim’s letter. Now it is my understanding that on at least two occasions CW did in fact met with David Coombs. But the meeting was not with the full committee if I understand the information correctly. The statement made on this blog that inferred that the victim was not involved in the process is incorrect. Additionally my statement that the committee met with the victim was not correct. The correct statement should be “The victim met with David Coombs on at least two occasions during the time of the investigation. In the last meeting the victim had an opportunity to review the final report and make changes.”
I have asked other on this blog to be accountable for their statements. I would expect no less of myself. I apologize to all who may have been mislead by my original statement.
Just My Opinion said...
The correct statement should be “The victim met with David Coombs on at least two occasions during the time of the investigation. In the last meeting the victim had an opportunity to review the final report and make changes.”
I have asked other on this blog to be accountable for their statements. I would expect no less of myself. I apologize to all who may have been mislead by my original statement.
7:42 AM, March 06, 2007
*******
Thank you,JMO. That took some explaining on your part to clarify the issues. I have not been here for several days, so I am trying to catch up now. I, too, had understood Tim's e-mail to say the same as you had thought. I am glad this came up, not for the conflict part of it, but because I would have otherwise been mistakenly interpreting what Tim was trying to say in his letter. I love seeing actual conflict resolution, clarification of fact, and humility enough to admit (unintentional) error (the Lord bless you for it, too), and progress being achieved. This is a wonderful way to start the day, and I thank you, JMO.
Dee
JMO says.....
It is especially true when we have past victims of abuse inflaming the crowd into believing that we had a sexual pedophile actually seeking to harm our children within our church.
Amy says....
You are going to get grief over this statement- so I might as well start it.
I think in light of what the "average bear" knows about pedophiles (basically, that their behavior doesn't just stop),it is very frustrating to a lot of folks (abused or not) that such a lax attitude was taken in allowing a man who admitted to raping his own child to roam the halls of buildings where he would have access to children. Maybe PW didn't "seek out children to intentionally harm them"- but he did harm at least one child, very badly,when he couldn't control his sick impulses. One child raped is more than enough for justifiable outrage, and if Steve Gaines can gloss over the raping a child, then what is his measurement of right and wrong? PW's own family didn't leave him un- supervised with his grandchildren. The Williams obviously understood there is no time span that insures the safetyand well being of a child in close proximity to a pedophile.
Former Pastor said in part...
The membership should be granted the opportunity to examine the financial records of our church both now and from now on to insure that the funds are being properly dispensed.
Sadly, the public disgrace and the wrath of the Lord will be upon the leadership for breaking the law, not on the membership for using whatever legal resources necessary to force them to obey the law!
*******
This post which was made at 3:37 AM was a wonderful statement especially in its entirety and covered several important points.
Thank you, Former Pastor, for caring enough to add your clarifying words to these issues we are now facing.
Dee
Amy said in part...
I think in light of what the "average bear" knows about pedophiles (basically, that their behavior doesn't just stop),it is very frustrating to a lot of folks (abused or not) that such a lax attitude was taken in allowing a man who admitted to raping his own child to roam the halls of buildings where he would have access to children.
*******
Yes, Amy, I would have to agree with your assessment of that sentence out of JMO's post. Another risk of allowing PW to remain for those additional months was the fact that he was interviewing former victims of sexual abuse. That apparently IS a reality that is going to come back to haunt the pastor and some of the staff at BBC.
Dee
Offline...
Thank you for that, JMO. I accept your apology. I wasn't trying to be evasive. I merely had conflicting information from Tim's letter (his source was apparently DC) and your source (both from my communication with the person and from the e-mails you sent me) as to exactly what took place, with whom, and when. I'm still trying to verify all that and will withhold making any further comment until I do. I think it would speak negatively of my credibility if I stated something I wasn't sure about than it would if I waited until I had the facts straight.
Regarding your "final" statement:
"The victim met with David Coombs on at least two occasions during the time of the investigation. In the last meeting the victim had an opportunity to review the final report and make changes."
You still may have to tweak that, as that still doesn't quite jibe with what my source is saying, but your willingness to admit when you're incorrect about something is commendable.
NBBCOF
Amy wrote: "You are going to get grief over this statement- so I might as well start it."
Amy, I will get personal here but limit my explanations as well. I am not the average bear. My immediate family had to deal with the issue of sexual abuse by a grandfather with a granddaughter. It utterly torn our family apart. Brother against brother, cousins against cousins and nobody was left unhurt by the situation. My uncle provided money for my sister and I to seek professional help. I was not a victim but my uncle felt that I may not have remembered or had somehow suppressed something. He cared enough to have me seek help in case. Again I was not a victim but I did at an early age of my life try and learn as much as possible about incest within families. To say I'm not sympathetic would be wrong. To say I'm without knowledge would be wrong.
My point was that nobody has the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Not even a past burn victim. Yes, we should be diligent in every preventative measure. Yes, PW, should have been shown the door. Yes, we should point out a potential problem. But to do so in an inflammatory manner is not right.
Amy, by the way, because I am viewed as the enemy on this board I get challenged for my grammar, spelling, tone, attitude, and gender. If I said the sky was blue, posters would attack me by saying that I ignored the clouds. But if you are on their side you can say most anything without a challenge. Most of the time they are praised as they publicly slander men of our church. Maybe the next time you see that you'll respond in kind.
NBBCOF, I am aware of the third meeting but I do not know for sure whether it was during or after the process. So I did not mention it as being within that timeframe. If it were within that process then the meeting to review the report would not have been the last meeting but the second meeting.
junkmail asks:
By any chance did you mention on the blog that you were going to do that, or that you had called the church, before you heard from DC?
SOTL says:
I might have. I don't remember. I know that I mentioned it on the blog, but I don't know if it was before or after i had talked to him.
Tim said in Letter
The results of that review process have led me to believe that the concerns that were held by these sources were of methodology in the interview process. They related that their opinion was that methodology employed did not offer concessions that were necessary.
Maybe we need to look at the word "METHODOLOGY".
jmo says;
My point was that nobody has the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Not even a past burn victim. Yes, we should be diligent in every preventative measure. Yes, PW, should have been shown the door. Yes, we should point out a potential problem. But to do so in an inflammatory manner is not right.
SOTL says;
Ok, let's review, he's not allowed to be alone with his grandchildren.
So I have an idea. You have kids?
Show us how ridiculous it is for us to think that he is still dangerous. Leave your kids with him for a weekend.
If you aren't willing to do that, then knock it off.
Don't talk anymore about how he is no longer dangerous. It makes you sound ridiculous. EVERYONE with any sense at all knows that pedophiles NEVER recover.
Please state for us which child at BBC you were willing to take that chance on.
lwood, I suppose that the methodology question would depend on what one is seeking to find. If I am going hunting to enjoy being in the woods and spending time alone then my methodology would be without much preparation. But if I was going hunting to put food on my table then I would resort to a more intense methodology. This may be a weak analogy but it serves the purpose of explaining how people can differ. If you are hunting for food to feed your family and I for fun then we may not agree on the methodology since we are seeking to achieve results for differing reasons.
It may be that one was seeking a result to ascertain the employment status of PW, while the other was seeking to bring a healing to the situation. Neither was seeking an outcome that opposed the other but the methodology would be vastly different depending on which solution you were seeking.
And all that is just my opinion based on my limited knowledge.
JMO-
Please don't think I am attacking you, I truly didn't mean to.
I just wanted you to understand why it's hard for some people to let this go. Don't you agree that yelling "fire" in this case is appropriate -because there is a "fire"? I haven't read every single post, but I have read the majority of them, and I have never read a post where someone added fuel to the PW fire with unconfirmed stories or suspicions. The tone of some posts may be more emotional, or angry sounding, than others based on the individual poster's personal experience and pain, but they didn't try to alter the truth in my opinion.
You can disagree with me, people I know and love do everyday, and I would never consider them an enemy. Treating each other in a kind and courteous manner, especially when we disagree, is behavior that deserves respect.
Again, I am sorry if the tone of my last post seemed like I was on the attack. I wasn't-promise.
JMO said: It is especially true when we have past victims of abuse inflaming the crowd into believing that we had a sexual pedophile actually seeking to harm our children within our church.
Bless your heart, you are still missing the point! Fact: BBC did have a sexual pedophile roaming the halls. (PW admitted to molesting his own child for 12-18 months.) Fact: No one knows, really, if there are other victims. That is the only point trying to be made. NO ONE KNOWS. (PW knows, of course, but his integrity is not something to bank on. And there could be victims which may never, or much later, surface. WE DON'T KNOW.) The danger was there and WE DON'T KNOW for sure.
jmo says:
Just My Opinion said...
SOTL, please don't land on the street. It is a FAA no no
SOTL says:
OH my...you mean, I might break the law???? No problem..I'll just tell them that I am a member of BBC and EVERYONE knows that we have a God-given right to break any law we choose with impunity.
Sign if you think they should go
We can begin to heal if they all go. They need to step aside so trust can be restored. If they really care about Bellevue they will leave so we can move on. Their character is at issue yet they chose not to open the books. What does that tell you?
Sign if you think they should go
Don't worry....it's just an itty bitty plane.....
;)
SOTL...whoever else is out there,
A few questions and observations....
Why is JMO acting all human today but like a frenzied child the day Tim posted his letter???? Why would anyone read and respond to him at this point after such back and forth,one thing is resolved then he goes right back to that thing later as if it is new info from him... This appears to me as a self serving agenda. He whines about how he is attacked but he attacks with such vengence(I do not know how to use the spell ck. for the blog)that it feels too unstable for us to deal with. I am having trouble believeing this is one person.
About PW wanting to "help" me with my SON (child at the time.)..did no one see that???? Is no one able to grasp that the bogus investigation done by BBC was not an atmosphere for victims. If PW thought he had me in the "scary place" and used that opportunity to try and get to my child (I snapped at that moment because I am always in hyper protective mode when it comes to my children) BUT WHY would no one believe that there could very well be other vulnerable women from BBC that walked into the trap. The hairdresser that I spoke with who was asked repulsive sexual questions when screened by PW to teach at BBC thought she in some way deserved to be revictimized because of her past.....there is alot of confused thinking out there. And the leaders of BBC are PROMOTING some of this perverted thinking. Example...telling the deacon leaders that all abused people abused their children . I was asked in ernest "WHEN" I wanted to hurt my children.Why was it not investigated or questioned more when I told Mike S,HR hired by BBC, about PW wanting to get to my son...I was asking about scriture to this man.....not help me with my son ,I am a vulnerable victim,I will fall for your trap!!!
SG NOT firing PW on the spot and the bogus investigation being about NOT uncovering the whole truth and the manipulation and disobedience of God's word makes this as clear as day but yet so many remain blind.
What was the purpose of DC meeting with Tim and others ....to continue to put out more confusion and half truths???? And JMO pretends to be on the inside with the BBC leaders and then gets on here acting sane and saying his source initially was from Tim's humble disclosure??? This all stinks really bad. Our churches are as perverted as the world's thinking. Lies are the new truth...just like the world. Money and power are the gods served. DC knows Tim and the other men will behave like CHRISTIAN gentlemen. So they play them.
If nothing else....we need to KNOW,understand,and be able to articulate the PURE word of God. Otherwise, we will be confused,distracted . and led down the path of distruction by the neww and improved....and perverted gospel. We need to wake up.
lwood wrote:
"Maybe we need to look at the word "METHODOLOGY"."
I think we need to look at the word "interview." "Meetings," especially meetings after the fact (i.e. the drafting of the report) do not constitute "interviews" in the investigative process. This is a lot bigger than semantics. It goes to the heart and spirit of truth. "Methodology" is why "interviews" reportedly never occurred.
Amy, I didn't see anything in your post I considered an attack or with tone. I generally don't respond to some who are just attacking. We will disagree but lovingly so. I do get it but I don't feel the outrage others do in regard to this situation. I respect their feelings on the situation. I just feel when they use those feelings to condemn our church leadership that it sometimes goes beyond reasonable limits. Yes, I have stated numerous times that Steve Gaines made a mistake in allowing PW to remain on staff.
Thank you for the spirit in which you challenged me to think about my position. I will refrain from posting on this subject again. You have convinced me that I may not be as sensitive in this area as I should.
jmo says:
I just feel when they use those feelings to condemn our church leadership that it sometimes goes beyond reasonable limits.
SOTL says:
There are NO " reasonable limits" when the uneducated talk about a
pedophile as though he were not dangerous.
To say this indicates that they believe that he can be around children and POSSIBLY not cause any harm.
Again, I ask:
Which child at BBC were you willing to take that chance on?
Unless you can answer that question, you KNOW, in your heart that PW WAS a threat, IS a threat, and WILL ALWAYS be a threat.
Who, in their right mind, would leave their children with him?
If you would not leave YOUR children with him, why do you think that some child whose name you do not know at BBC would be safe?
AS long as people like JMO proclaim that it is silly to thinkt hat he was still a danger,and criticize those ( like me) who think he was, and is, I will scream from the rooftops, becuase i do not feel that there is one single child at BBC who was not deserving of protection.
I am NOT willing to take the chance to allow a child to be violated.
But, that's just me. Perhaps there are those who feel differently.
concernedSBCer said...
Don't worry....it's just an itty bitty plane.....
;)
And what methodology did you use to decide it was "JUST an ITTY Bitty plane" :) Oh the use of WORDS.....
SOTL wrote: "AS long as people like JMO proclaim that it is silly to thinkt hat he was still a danger"
I do not think it is silly! SOTL, I can create enough of my on problems on this blog without you mistakenly describing my thoughts. I try to maintain fairness in my quoting someone specifically. I would hope that you would have the courtesy to do the same.
gmommy says:
And the leaders of BBC are PROMOTING some of this perverted thinking. Example...telling the deacon leaders that all abused people abused their children
sotl says:
Gmommy,
I think that they do this in order to shut us up. They do not WANT to hear from us. It indicts them.
They want to heap MORE shame on us...They want us to think that if we speak up, then others will think that we, too, are guilty of that which we speak up against.
It's vile, manipulative behavior, designed to influence the uneducated.
New BBC Open Forum said It goes to the heart and spirit of truth. "Methodology" is why "interviews" reportedly never occurred.
EXACTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My apologies, Jmo
But help me out here..Perhaps I used the wrong adjective.
What adjective should I have used in response to this statement from you:
Ijust feel when they use those feelings to condemn our church leadership that it sometimes goes beyond reasonable limits.
SG DID NOT make a MISTAKE.
He disobeyed God and God's word. He smeared the heritage and stand of BBC.
The leaders behind him are not stupid enough to see this as a mistake
The investigation was not to show the truth. The report was full of partial truths and some outright lies.
DC had no pure motives for meeting with the Integrity guys. He got just what he wanted. JMO helped him accomplish his self serving agenda.
jmo says:
Ijust feel when they use those feelings to condemn our church leadership that it sometimes goes beyond reasonable limits.
sotl asks:
Please help me to understand just, what, exactly, is a " reasonable limit" where the safety of children is concerned.
Statistics show that there is no such thing as a reformed pedophile.
So with that in mind, help me to understand why you feel that the children at bbc were not in any danger.
Since PW is not allowed to be alone with his own grandchildren, why do you feel that the children at BBC were safe?
So, JMO, just exactly WHAT are "reasonable" limits, when a pedophile walks the halls, unattended, among innocent children, given that there is no such thing as a reformed pedophile.
I ask you again:
WHICH child at BBC were you willing to take that chance on?
The deacon LEADER (fed by the elders we didn't elect,) told me that child sexual abuse and lying (or any other sin.)
( still different consequences in the world today)
were the SAME sin and I was WRONG to think that a pedophile could not change.
When we adopt the world's view of sin and lack of consequences we are doomed.
These people are very educated. They are willfully and deliberately perverting the truth.
SOTL, there are no reasonable limits which can be in place when protecting a child is concerned. But we are adults and should have a reasonable way of communicating. My comment was to the communication not to the issue of protection.
SOTL, thank you for your apology. Words are powerful and can be very hurting. My "methodology" is that we refrain from using "itty bitty" when we describe a 48" fence. I think when we say "itty bitty" it distorts and diminishes the size of the fence. By the same "methodology" when we say "silly" we put an attitude and acceptance on a person that may not be correct. Don't you just love all these words we are using that most of us don't use everyday. I have got to get a haircut today. I think I'll ask her what her "methodology" will be in cutting my hair.
JMO,
I vote the methodology of BUZZCUT! :)
karen
Lin said...
Mike, Please remember this verse when dealing with our friend Cakes:
1 Corinthians 5:
"12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside."
The way you wielded that Scripture would invalidate any evangelism, any time, any place, render the Great Commission moot, and put the Bible at odds with itself. Or hadn't you considered that?
Perhaps you should have considered the larger context of those verses?
1 Corinthians 5
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Since you brought it up.
Trollcakes said...
You're right, junk99, but I'm no Charlie Fox; I advocate, not ignoring the apologists always poking people in the eye here, but running them roughshod. In love, of course.
Bratton's grasping at straws with his latest droppings thrown in my general direction, and it is quite delightful, until I get bored of it, to call him on it.
Another excrement reference? I smell (ahem!) a trend...
However, since you've not been able to address the issue raised, I'd be careful of performing that end-zone dance without reason. All I did was suggest that, for those of us who are Christians, using non-Christian words in deference to others is an overextension.
Why, again, was that a bad thing?
A Former Pastor said...
...
The one fact alone that the staff gave $25,000 of God’s money to support a woman pastor and support a ministry that is pro homosexual and pro abortion is enough evidence that their handling of church funds is seriously in need of being monitored by the membership.
If I may, that one's been dealt with awhile back. Bellevue gave money to a Christian church of another denomination after its building burned.
"Oh, but they have a woman pastor!" Indeed. Are we to vet contributions to other Christian churches based on their staffing? Oops, that church elects elders--can't give them anything. Oh, that church has a pastor who didn't get his doctorate--don't write them a check.
Do I agree with women in the pastorate? No, but it doesn't matter what I agree with, since the idea isn't Biblical. Does it make the church something other than Christian? Of course not.
"Oh, but they support the wrong things!" Should the money from Bellevue have been earmarked? Honestly, I was surprised it wasn't. But don't go down the "money is fungible" route, please; with that argument, it's impossible to give money to any person or any group whose beliefs don't line up 100% with your own.
And since the last time I asked this question, it apparently got lost in the shuffle: Why, precisely, are you a "former" pastor? Retired? Doing denominational work? We'd like to know.
--Mike
gmommylv said...
The deacon LEADER (fed by the elders we didn't elect,) told me that child sexual abuse and lying (or any other sin.)
( still different consequences in the world today)
were the SAME sin and I was WRONG to think that a pedophile could not change.
When we adopt the world's view of sin and lack of consequences we are doomed.
These people are very educated. They are willfully and deliberately perverting the truth.
If I may, let me ask you a question: Why can a pedophile not change?
--Mike
Mike,
My biggest problem with the donation to FUMC has always been that Steve Gaines thought this was a good idea and everyone else went along with it - because Steve Gaines said so. The fact that Harry Smith admitted that the matter wasn't even prayed over tells me that it was an off the cuff remark by Steve Gaines (hey, let's help them out) - while in theory a nice gesture from one Christian organization to another, but considering the fact that FUMC was 100% covered against loss by their insurance, I feel the money could have been used by BBC to further causes that BBC has been supporting, i.e., IMPACT ministries, the food bank at IMPACT, Moriah House, etc. There are other organizations in Memphis that could have used that money and there would have been no controversy.
In our email exchange today, that we, as Christians, should not greet non-Christians in the name of Allah because it would ruin our witness (this is what you intended for me to understand, right?). Well, I think we ruined a part of our witness as BBC when we gave that money to a church that does not have the same biblical ideals as we do. Where's the cut off? I don't know, but I do feel this donation was wrong.
karen
mike bratton said...
If I may, let me ask you a question: Why can a pedophile not change?
IF they say they've changed, would you let them babysit your kids? As SOTL has said, research shows that pedophile do not change - they just fight the urge with more tools (or some just lie about being reformed).
But seriosly, would you feel comfortable leaving your kids around an admitted pedophile if he told you he was "cured". I'm not so sure you would.
karen
former pastor
Thanks for weighing in on the topic of christians suing in court. :)
But at 3:37 a.m.?
Hope you're getting your zzzzzz's.
Mike said:
If I may, let me ask you a question: Why can a pedophile not change?
Piglet says:
Oh, MIke, Mike,Mike...sigh.
(shaking head)
Of COURSE God can change a pedophile.
But who gets to determine that is the case?
Apparently Gaines determined that for ME and I continued to drop my kids off at the church for various functions without knowledge that this person was in the building with them. Do not try to defend that.
I insist on making that decision for myself and my children. Nobody else should make it for me.
BTW, I have never heard from a "reformed" pedophile. I've seen interviews with folks who were homosexuals and are now married with kids, but no pedophiles that I can recall....:/
AOG
Thanks for your comments on the court thing yesterday.
I didn't forget about you! :)
Sign if you think they should go
We can begin to heal if they all go. They need to step aside so trust can be restored.
This is not intended to bash any man listed. Instead it is an honest attempt to make the change necessary to start healing. As long as they are in power the church will be divided (absent Divine intervention). Once trust is destroyed it is nearly impossible to get back. Most of these men were well-respected six months ago. They spent their credibility defending a flawed pastor and a flawed system. It is time to for them to do what is right for the good of all.
Sign if you think they should go
I want to say a thank you to the brave souls who have signed my petition so far. We are over eighty and counting.
Sign if you think they should go
Mike
Don't take MY ( or gm's) word for it ( concerning the fact that a pedophile can't change) We are not psychologist. Please, google it, and read.
The very fact that a person would do that to a child indicates a sickness. They are too sick to change.
From personal experience, I know this to be a fact.
Pedophiles have been interviewed in jail and will tell you that the ONLY way they could stop themselves was to be behind bars, where no children are present.
As you might imagine, if I am channel surfing, and something is on tv about this subject, I, quite naturally, stop to watch. Others may or may not have the same interst that I do. I also will see an article in a newspaper or magazine and will read it. I don't necessarily seek out these stories, but have an interest in reading them, for obviousl reasons.
It's not even debatable as to whether or not they can change. If you want to make the argument that it is POSSIBLE that they MAYBE could change, I have to ask you the same question as I have asked JMO:
WHICH child would you want to take that chance on?
Here's the litmus test:
Would you leave your OWN child with someone who is a KNOWN pedophile?
Why do you think that there is a sexual predator register? Because there is great likeihood that they will strike again.
WE cannot take any chances with our children...You do not want your child, or anyone else's to be violated, i'm sure.
Mike,
I"m really not tring to be argumentative, but rather I am trying to educate you on this subject.
If you were to come to any of the support group meetings around town, you would see the horror of sexual abuse against men and women.
It's IMPOSSIBLE for me to describe.
Trying to describe it would be like trying to explain a sunset to a blind person, who has never seen a sunset.
How much credibility does a pedophile have when he says he's changed? Only God knows his heart. For that reason, he should NEVER EVER be left alone with children. The urge is always going to be there.
For those reasons is why I have objected and been so outraged over SG making the decision that he was NOW harmless.
WHOSE child, WHICH child was SG willing to gamble with?
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".
I will not confuse this discussion by responding to your thoughts on our pastor and leadership. That can be another topic but I'm researched out for now. But I disagree that they are delibertly and willingly perverting the truth.
Mike,
I really would answer you ,probably tell you more than you wanted to know,IF I believed you were interested in my answer. I have experienced too many "godly" people twist a sincere response and bang that person in the head with it. I wish you wanted the answer.
I wish I were not watching and experiencing my own church doing the same thing that the unsaved world does.
I am too weary today to lay myself out there for you to rip the scabs off wounds and watch me bleed while beating me down with the only thing that has kept me alive.
I am tired of trying to explain to my son why our church friends think and behave like the world.
Maybe another day.
Mike,
Sorry to keep posting to you, but I tend to think of other things.
I asked you in my 12:24 PM post:
Would you leave your own child with a known pedophile.
Let me rephrase that question, please.
Rather, I would have it to read thusly and like so: ( to quote another poster on this board :) )
" Would you leave your child alone with a KNOWN pedophile who NOW claims to be 'healed'?"
That, my friend, is the litmus test.
gmommy,
My heart hurts for you.
I am praying for you right now.
MIKE,
Here I go again.
I want you to ponder this:
Let's say that someone ( not necessarily PW) was a KNOWN pedophile and came to you and told you that he had accepted Christ and was a changed man.
Do you then leave your children alone with him? Do you allow your children to go places with him, unsupervised?
What happens when you find out, later, that, weeeellll, he wasn't so changed afterall.
Your children, after a few years into adulthood, process what happened to them.. Guess what? They are now going to come to you and they are going to ask you THIS question:
"Dad, why did you not protect me"?
And you tell them that you THOUGHT he had changed.
They will say to you:
" AND YOU BELIEVED HIM"????
SOTL,
They don't care.
gmommy,
I suppose you are right. My own mother didn't care. That's just a concept that is very difficult for mem to fathom, seeing as how I would throw myself in front of a train to protect my two children.
Mike,
Honestly, I don't mean to hammer you. But I did think of something else.
Even IF the pedophile thinks he has changed, and only God knows his heart, that does not lessen the responsibility we have to children in our care. The outcome is still the same.
So it really does not change our actions as parents and adults as the protector of children in our midst. We should take ALL precautions against a pedophile, and not to do so is just putting a child in jeopardy and putting yourself in a position to have to defend your actions to an adult incest survivor later on.
His repentance is between him and God only. It does not mean that we then let up on him and allow him to be around children.
There is no point in our arguing about whether or not a pedophile can change. That argument is immaterial as to the protection that we are STILL obligated to provide for our children.
SOTL said
WHOSE child, WHICH child was SG willing to gamble with?
Piglet says:
The obvious answer to that is OURS.
CW thought it necessary to protect his own children.
I can't believe anyone could say our children were not at risk.
The power of God to heal is not at issue. The ability of SG to make decisions is in question. I think we've seen enough to know that he cannot make decisions. :(
piglet said:
The power of God to heal is not at issue. The ability of SG to make decisions is in question. I think we've seen enough to know that he cannot make decisions. :(
SOTL says;
Piglet, that's why i love your posts...I have to write a dissertation to get to what you can say in two sentences. :)
Piglet said The ability of SG to make decisions is in question. I think we've seen enough to know that he cannot make decisions. :(
Precisely the reason that DC is in the front office and SG in the back office. All goes thro DC before SG opens mouth and puts 2 feet in it. Is that the left foot first or the right foot,Methodology speaking Which is he standing on the left or the right..any thought JMO....:)
lwood,
Oh Steve Gaines can make decisions - ones that benefit him the most and leave the rest of us in the dust. I'm just waiting for the day where one of Steve Gaines' decision really hits some of his "true belivers" in their heart and see how long their "hero worship" lasts. Not that I will glory in their hurt, but some of the most loyal to Steve have been the most vicious to bloggers here and IDC. I'll be there to help them pick up their pieces and pray and do whatever else they need. I hold no grudges - I won't say "I told you so".
karen
lwood, I would hope that would be the case. I can assure you that if it goes through DC before SG is allowed to comment then we will not have some of the issues like Union City, PW, nor "itty bitty" fences. SG has a long way to go to show that he is capable of pastoring a mega church. DC knows what it should be like because he served under Dr. Rogers. SG came in too fast and furious to understand what he was facing. And we have all paid a price for his learnings. But he has asked for forgiveness and he is our pastor. I hope we can more forward to the task at hand.
lwood,
So basically, DC is like his " political advisor" much like John Podesta was to Bill Clinton as his " chief of staff".
However, we still have a problem. SG gets up there and speaks from the hip, such as Union City and itty bitty fence. How is DC going to stop him from doing THAT?
Those are rhetorical questions. It really doesn't matter to me anymore. I have no need for the type of Christians that BBC is producing these days, nor do I have need for the BBC leadership. Matter of fact, I don't know if I will EVER step foot in a church again after I have seen the way men and women from BBC have behaved. They are viscious and it is not in my best interest to associate with or to subject myself to those kind of people.
I'll just stay home and watch Dr. R. on TV.
Now I understand the bumper sticker I saw one day that said:
Dear God, please protect me from your people.
No offense to those of you who are interested in truth and the integrity of God's Holy Word.
SOTL,
Very well said!
Not to undermine your previous post, but when you mentioned the bumper sticker, it jogged a memory.
Remember seeing those billboards with quotes on them, such as"
"Don't make me come down there - God"
or
"You think it's hot HERE? - God"
Just thought those were so funny yet so right on.
karen
I think you all should get outside and enjoy this beautiful day instead of blogging all day!
Just My Opinion said...
lwood, I would hope that would be the case. I can assure you that if it goes through DC before SG is allowed to comment then we will not have some of the issues like Union City, PW, nor "itty bitty" fences. SG has a long way to go to show that he is capable of pastoring a mega church. DC knows what it should be like because he served under Dr. Rogers. SG came in too fast and furious to understand what he was facing. And we have all paid a price for his learnings. But he has asked for forgiveness and he is our pastor. I hope we can more forward to the task at hand.
2:24 PM, March 06, 2007
What????????????Must be this word Methodology again. Am I believing what JMO just wrote..Steve Gaines has a long way to go to show that he is capable of pastoring a Mega Church....I gotta take Memphis advice and get out and get some fresh air and sunshine.:)
A word about pedophiles...
It's not so much that the can't change, rather, it is extremely rare for one to "go into remission" as it were.
That said, even if a pedophile has an appearance of total life change, that person should never have accessibility to children. Ever. Period.
The temptation is far too great for most of them. It's not worth the risk.
And I agree with whoever said today that we just don't know if there are other victims. None of us has all knowledge here, nor should we pretend to.
socwork,
Absolutely!!
That is why I am totally baffled when JMO makes the statement, like he/she did a while back when she/he said:
"The way some people are acting, you would think that we had an active pedophile roaming our halls."
( the first line of that sentence was paraphrased, but the last line was word for word)
Now how would JMO KNOW? I suppose it would be because PW SAID he was not active. Oh, ok...whatever, that's appaently enough evidence for some people to allow a pedophile to roam the halls, unsupervised, where there are MANY MANY MANY children.
EVEN IF, they are " reformed" ( no such thing) they are STILL not to have access to children. EVEN IF they state that they are HEALED ( by Benny Hinn?) that does not alter OUR responsibility to take EVERY measure possible to protect children.
Some would have us believe that PW was not a threat becuase he said he wasn't, and therefore, we should not over react to his roaming around the halls of BBC.
Our responsibility as adults as the protectors of children is not reduced just because a pedophile delcares himself " inactive". To do so would be EXTREMELY irresponsible. Oh wait, SG already did that.
I honestly do not understand why intelligent adults can't see this.
They think that we should err on the side of the adult perp rather than to err on the side of protecting innocent children.
mom4 wrote: "He was warned by Dr Rogers himself that he needed to slow down and he arrogantly continued to push his own agenda. He manipulated everything from the beginning until this very minute and he will continue to do so until he is removed."
And how do we know that Dr. Rogers warned him? Dr. Rogers was a pretty private person in these type matters. Do you know for a fact what you post is true? And how do you know it?
Friends, Normally I do not engage Mike but since this is about scripture I fear I must.
Mike wrote:
Lin said...
Mike, Please remember this verse when dealing with our friend Cakes:
1 Corinthians 5:
"12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside."
Mike: The way you wielded that Scripture would invalidate any evangelism, any time, any place, render the Great Commission moot, and put the Bible at odds with itself. Or hadn't you considered that?"
Mike, the KEY words in that passage are JUDGE THOSE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH (caps for emphasis). In this passage Paul is writing the church in Corinth. To believers. He is discussing sexual immorality in the church. Since Corinth was sinful and open society there was lots of open sexual immorality. Paul is making the point that the believers are NOT to judge those outside the church but only those inside who are sinning.
It really has nothing to do with the Great Commission. We are to witness to the world...not to judge them and make them more 'moral' first. A regenerated heart will do that. (Unfortuantly, many churches do the opposite)
Mike wrote: Perhaps you should have considered the larger context of those verses?
1 Corinthians 5
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. "
Thanks, the rest of the verse makes my point for me. If we judge the world, we would have to leave it! In this verse he is speaking to professing believers in the church. He is telling them to clean up their church.
Somewhere in Peter we are told that judgement begins at the 'House of the Lord'.
If we want to witness to Cakes, let us start by not protecting and harboring minister pedophiles. We are to be holy, set apart...not ignoring the very Word of God. We should not look nor act like the world.
But unfortuantly, we sometimes look worse than the world.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to make those verses more clear. The verse is much easier to understand in the ESV.
"If I may, let me ask you a question: Why can a pedophile not change?"
What does that have to do with beig an elder or being forgiven?
The qualifications say an elder must be above 'reproach'.
PW did not confess, did not step down after the criminal act and obviously, there were some problems still by the actions of the victim all these years later. PW still did not handle the situation scripturally nor did his boss, the pastor.
The fact that we are even discussing this is ridiculous. Of course he can receive a heart of flesh (EZ 36) but that STILL would not make him qualified as an elder. You know, I find it interesting that Ted Haggard's former church understands the scriptures but BBC doesn't?
Forgiveness does not always mean you are restored to your former position and status. 'Above reproach' is pretty narrow.
PW can even be welcomed back into the Body after repentance. Still, that has nothing to do with being an elder/minister.
"I can assure you that if it goes through DC before SG is allowed to comment then we will not have some of the issues like Union City, PW, nor "itty bitty" fences. SG has a long way to go to show that he is capable of pastoring a mega church. DC knows what it should be like because he served under Dr. Rogers. "
Does anyone see the absurdity of this?
Then why is he, an adult minister with 20+ years experience, still there being paid 400,000 (or somewhereabouts) dollars?
On the job training?
Really folks, a minister of 20+ years who ignores scripture? David Coombs is going to mentor and monitor him? Is he going to teach him scripture, too?
Can anyone see how bizarre this thinking is?
"Am I believing what JMO just wrote..Steve Gaines has a long way to go to show that he is capable of pastoring a Mega Church....I gotta take Memphis advice and get out and get some fresh air and sunshine.:)"
I doubt JMO is doing a 180 here. I think a subtle trap is being set. Beware.
Let's face it folks, defending SG is a hard task in light of scripture. But you now have DC to save the day...another man who ignores scripture and laughs in the face of an abuse victim. And has a very nasty and arrogant son.
Truth is NOT slander
Lindon
Allow me to answer the five questionsin your abovepost:
Yes.
I don't know!! Why?!!
Oh, I certainly hope not!!!
I think the head knowledge got lost on the way to his heart...
YES! This is the TWILIGHT ZONE!!
Well, you know things are just not what they used to be, Lindon. You pay TWICE as much these days and get NO quality!! :0'
Let me add that we are paying Gaines $400,000.00 a years PLUS we are paying DC who knows what to play damage control. All this and for WHAT?
Maybe they'll start letting Bro. Joe do the preaching on Sunday, too, and Steve can sit at home in his jammies waiing for the armored truck to bring his paycheck!!
But I'm not bitter. :)
Mom4
I'm sending you mail.
But give me a minute.
To WatchingHISstory:
Thank you for the kind words about my post.
You asked, “…did you mean to say "the unsaved do not understand much of the things of God?””
I love it when people like yourself are discerning enough to catch things like this. I imagine others were also just as discerning and noticed it as well and wondered about it, but chose not to ask about it or noticed you already had.
Not if, but when I incorrectly interpret the scripture, I am the first one who wants to know about it and I appreciate very much when Christians who have no agenda other than that of exalting the Lord constructively question what I have said.
I always appreciated Dr. Roger’s humility so much every time he said things like, “I used to believe a particular scripture was saying such and such, but I learned later in life that I had been interpreting it incorrectly for years.”
I think humility is one of the signs of greatness in the truly great servants of the Lord like Dr. Rogers. May their number increase, I pray!
To answer your question, yes, I did intentionally use the phrase in question and this is my reason for doing so. I think there are varying degrees of knowledge which people who are lost possess about the things of God and I further believe the same is true about believers, that is, believers often differ greatly in the levels of their spiritual maturity.
The Bible teaches that those who are born into the world and die without having ever heard about the Bible, heaven, hell, Jesus, angels, etc. are without excuse. The defense God uses for saying this, as you probably know, is that they have the Universe to prove to them that there is a God.
This is found in Romans 1:18-20. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, “ -- The New King James Version of the Bible.
Then there are those unsaved who have grown up in areas of the world who have a Bible and have learned that God gave His Son, Jesus, to die for the sins of the world and they know many things about God that the Bible teaches, such as He made Adam and Eve, and He chose Israel to be His chosen people, etc. These are still unsaved, but they know much more about God than those in our first example.
However, God has ordained that there are many things that the unsaved will never know about Him until they are born again. A simple illustration might be to compare it to a radio and a television. They both have sound, but only a television has a color, moving picture to go with the sound.
The reason for the difference is that the radio doesn’t have the necessary circuitry to be able to receive the picture signal and transform it into a color, moving image which can be seen.
Similarly, God has communicated things about Himself which even the lost know about Him, but He has reserved many things which only His children can receive by means of the additional “circuitry,” the Holy Spirit, which enables them to perceive what the unsaved will never understand unless they too become children of God.
For example, we as believers are sometimes literally overwhelmed with the precious awareness of God’s presence and the joy is so great that it often overflows out our eyes in the form of tears of joy which just can’t be held back! Praise His wonderful name! They are flowing even now as I type these words.
The unsaved cannot understand how we can exuberantly sing, “I’d rather have Jesus than silver or gold. I’d rather have Him than have riches untold. I’d rather have Jesus than houses or lands. I’d rather be led by His nail pierced hands.”
The unsaved would rather have the silver and gold and the houses and lands, which don’t begin to afford the joy we Christians experience.
They don’t have a clue about the “joy unspeakable” or the “peace of God” which we experience day in and day out as we revel in the ecstasy of being inundated in the great sea of God’s wonderful love! Well, it’s shoutin’ time!!!
I hope this answers your question. The Lord bless and keep you!
If anyone wants something to worry about, turn on ABC 24. A man who believes is is Jesus and there is no such thing as sin.
Pastor, Thanks for teaching us. You are STILL a pastor. :o)
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=747
Christian Research Network mentions BBC
Former Pastor-You bless me with your sweet posts!
I don't know if you saw the comment I made Sunday- so I'll say it again. If you don't want to be a "Former Pastor" anymore, would you consider sending your resume to GBC?
a former pastor
Thanks for you answer. Believers do have varying degrees of their spiritual maturity.
Pray for me that I will have no other agenda than to exalt the Lord constructively.
I just read the article, Linden, by Don ( ? last name?) and I don't think I could have said it better myself.
Makes you wonder if the author of
" You would have thought we had an active pedophile roaming the halls of BBC" feels foolish, IF they even bothered to read it.
Please, please, please
scroll past Mike Bratton and JMO. Please do not waste the energy and time and further engage them into their postings.
Focus on the messages in Former Paster's posts - again and again.
Dear Former Pastor,
My father suffered from the same disease. We found that there are many groups of Christ loving volunteers who will assist you in your burden. Do not fail to ask for the help you need. You and your wife will be in my prayers.
I appreciate your posts and have printed them out to keep and share. You are a wise man and presented your scriptural teachings in way that showed that you had studied to show yourself approved - unto men and unto God.
Thank you.
Former Pastor,
Thank you for sharing your story and giving us the opportunity to pray for you and your wife. You are a dear man and a wonderful example of a godly pastor, husband, and man.
Former Pastor,
Correct email is:
Sheeplessatbbc@yahoo.com
Former Pastor: My father has Alzheimers and it is a tragic disease. You are in my prayers and we appreciate the time you have spent sharing with us and teaching us. We love you.
Cry Out To Jesus
(by Third Day)
To everyone who's lost someone they love
Long before it was their time
You feel like the days you had were not enough
when you said goodbye
And to all of the people with burdens and pains
Keeping you back from your life
You believe that there's nothing and there is no one
Who can make it right
There is hope for the helpless
Rest for the weary
Love for the broken heart
There is grace and forgiveness
Mercy and healing
He'll meet you wherever you are
Cry out to Jesus, Cry out to Jesus
For the marriage that's struggling just to hang on
They’ve lost all of their faith in love
They've done all they can to make it right again
Still it's not enough
For the ones who can't break the addictions and chains
You try to give up but you come back again
Just remember that you're not alone in your shame
And your suffering
There is hope for the helpless
Rest for the weary
Love for the broken heart
There is grace and forgiveness
Mercy and healing
He'll meet you wherever you are
Cry out to Jesus, Cry out to Jesus
When your lonely
And it feels like the whole world is falling on you
You just reach out, you just cry out to Jesus
Cry to Jesus
To the widow who suffers from being alone
Wiping the tears from her eyes
For the children around the world without a home
Say a prayer tonight
There is hope for the helpless
Rest for the weary
Love for the broken heart
There is grace and forgiveness
Mercy and healing
He'll meet you wherever you are
Cry out to Jesus, Cry out to Jesus
I was catching up on the blog and ran across this dinosuar.
Mike said:
If I may, that one's been dealt with awhile back. Bellevue gave money to a Christian church of another denomination after its building burned.
Piglet says:
Yeah, Mike,and your argument didn't make sense then the same as now. The church was INSURED for the damages....
Mike continues to trivialize it by saying:
Oh, but they support the wrong things!" Should the money from Bellevue have been earmarked? Honestly, I was surprised it wasn't. But don't go down the "money is fungible" route, please; with that argument, it's impossible to give money to any person or any group whose beliefs don't line up 100% with your own.
Piglet says:
Are you still singing this song?
Would it be too much to hope that they atleast believe the Bible and not promote practices that the Bible calls an abomination?
Mike, this is an apostate church. They teach that scripture is NOT inerrant, the pastor is an activist for homosexuals in the clergy. Where have you been? This pastor is also an activist for abortion rights. This is not the difference between sprinkling or dunking!
You need to stop defending this donation. You're embarrassing yourself or your ecumenical slip is showing. I even stopped giving to the United Way because they funded Planned Parenthood. Tithe and benevolence money should be handled carefully.
Another reason for the members to see the "financials" that were requested and have yet to be relinquished to us.
Be sure and read more of the articles from the link Lin gave us in her 8:47 post. There have been moments and days that this blog is terribly depressing .BUT with all the great links given and the new "friends" made and the wisdom shared by Lin,former pastor,BBC senior, and others,it has also been a blessing! I am even "grateful" for those that have twisted and misused God's word on this blog because now I am more committed than ever to study and grow in the Lord and to stand for the purity of truth that never changes and never disappoints.
Piglett said...
I even stopped giving to the United Way because they funded Planned Parenthood.
junk99mail says...
Hi, Piglett,
I've heard this before, but I've also heard that each local United Way is independent and funds only local charities and that the Memphis UW does not fund any agencies that perform and promote abortions. I even looked at the Memphis UW web site and materials and did not see any agencies there that seemed obviously objectionable. My current employer promotes UW participation quite a bit, and lots of folks I know (including Christians) donate through UW. But still I am cautious, though I'm not sure why. Do you know of anything specific to be concerned about?
Reports of Financial irregularity with United Way
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/1220.html?1089299015
Piglet,
I haven't donated to UW in about 20 years for that very reason.
Junkmail, I was unaware that they are operated locally. Not saying they aren't, just never heard that.
I am very careful that I do not knowlingly donate or fund ANYTHING that could possibly fund the murder of an innocent baby.
About 20 years ago, I was shocked to learn that not all denominations were pro-life. I was naive enought to think that, " of course they are pro life, they are Christians." NOT true at all.
But I know I am preaching to the choir here :)
junk99mail
I stopped giving through my employer more than 15 years ago. Maybe much has changed since that time - I haven't worked outside the home since then.
It's entirely possible that a donation to UW would be okay depending on where you live. It's worth checking out before making a decision about donating or not.
I was just giving an example but thanks a lot for clarifying! :)
don,
Thanks for the link; I'll check it out.
piglett,
I wasn't intending to question your statement...just trying to find out more info. I generally prefer to make donations to specifically Christian organizations anyway, particularly my local church. I figure that the church should be doing charitable service for the community anyway, plus giving to something intended to minister to spiritual and eternal needs seems more worthwhile. Not to minimize the good done by many charitable organizations or to discourage anyone from giving to them; it is just my personal preference. One concern I still have about UW is that I don't know how much money might go to the national org, which in turn might support other local chapters that do fund abortion providers. So even if I was inclined to give to something not specifically Christian, until I know for certain there is no funding of or association with abortion providers (or other morally objectionable activities), I feel better about sticking with what I know to be good.
P.S. to my previous post: it certainly helps when whatever organization you are giving to provides open and full disclosure of how the funds are being spent! Who wouldn't be leery of giving God's money (it's all His anyway, not just that "10%") to a place that withheld financial records from the donors? Not that I am naming names of any place in particular. :)
JunkMail,
10:49 pm 3/6/07 post
Thanks for such wonderful words,
"Cry out to Jesus"
Piglet said...
I was catching up on the blog and ran across this dinosuar.
Mike said:
If I may, that one's been dealt with awhile back. Bellevue gave money to a Christian church of another denomination after its building burned.
Piglet says:
Yeah, Mike,and your argument didn't make sense then the same as now. The church was INSURED for the damages....
Had they gotten a check from their insurance company by the time we sent them ours?
Mike continues to trivialize it by saying:
Oh, but they support the wrong things!" Should the money from Bellevue have been earmarked? Honestly, I was surprised it wasn't. But don't go down the "money is fungible" route, please; with that argument, it's impossible to give money to any person or any group whose beliefs don't line up 100% with your own.
Piglet says:
Are you still singing this song?
Would it be too much to hope that they atleast believe the Bible and not promote practices that the Bible calls an abomination?
Would I like them to believe the way I believe? Absolutely. I guess you glossed over where I lamented that the funds we provided weren't earmarked for assistance that wouldn't directly support those activities with which we would disagree?
Mike, this is an apostate church. They teach that scripture is NOT inerrant, the pastor is an activist for homosexuals in the clergy. Where have you been? This pastor is also an activist for abortion rights. This is not the difference between sprinkling or dunking!
Were I you, I would go back and review what the term "apostate church" means. Hint: It does not mean differing on secondary doctrines, no matter their import. As it stands, you've just made a sweeping judgment on the spiritual state of every member of that church, from the senior staff to the newest member.
You need to stop defending this donation. You're embarrassing yourself or your ecumenical slip is showing.
It should've been earmarked.
And it should've been more.
My estimation would be that I'm more aware of Martha Wagley's beliefs and activities than you are, and have been well before their church caught fire.
Do I agree with everything she advocates? Hardly. Women are Scripturally prohibited from being pastors, and any sexual activity other than that between husband and wife is sin.
Does their church preach another Jesus? No.
I even stopped giving to the United Way because they funded Planned Parenthood.
Did the same thing my own self, way back when.
Tithe and benevolence money should be handled carefully.
We agree. So should the English language, particularly terms that are used to label and condemn those with whom you disagree.
Another reason for the members to see the "financials" that were requested and have yet to be relinquished to us.
Increased financial transparency? Something else we agree on.
--Mike
Oh, and before I forget...
Lindon said...
Friends, Normally I do not engage Mike but since this is about scripture I fear I must.
You "fear (you) must"?
Please...
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Your namesake used Scripture to suggest that bashing other Christians was good fun, and that ignoring the spiritual state of non-Christians was fine and dandy just as long as they agree with you and yours.
Obviously, such mishandling of the Bible to defend the behavior of a clique shouldn't go unquestioned--even though, around here, it does.
--Mike
Mike said...
"Does their church preach another Jesus? No."
Please explain the "No" answer.
If this same Jesus is the Living Word and the FUMC preaches a different doctrine (one that defies the Word), how do you come to that conclusion?
Mike wrote:
""Please...
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Your namesake used Scripture to suggest that bashing other Christians was good fun, and that ignoring the spiritual state of non-Christians was fine and dandy just as long as they agree with you and yours.
Obviously, such mishandling of the Bible to defend the behavior of a clique shouldn't go unquestioned--even though, around here, it does.""
For truthseekers: Please go back and read the threads of my post about 1 Corinthians 5 and read Mike's response and then mine about his misuse of that scripture.
Please read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 5 in context. Paul is clearly telling the church not to judge the world. He is telling them to clean up their church.. throw the immoral brother out (so he can have the chance of being saved, ironically).
Cakes has made his position very clear. He is on a public blog because he is a survivor of abuse. He has asked us NOT to witness to him.
But he can see for himself a church that acts like the pagan world making fun of victims of pedophilia, incest and abuse. He can see the church protecting a pedophile. He can see for himself a pastor who ignores scriptural commands.
Cakes is articulate, sarcastic and caustic in his wit. I doubt he thinks he is bashing Christians. He seems to be bashing willful ignorance of a very serious situation.
Now, How can one know if Christians here are 'ignoring' the spiritual state of Cakes?
Here is a shocker for which I will be pummeled:
The world embraces homosexuality, radical feminism, etc. That is to be expected. We are not to judge...only to witness.
But a church that embraces the above and claims to be the Bride of Christ is another matter. They are to be rebuked in love. They are to be deemed as having bad fruit and preaching a different Jesus.
Judgement begins at the House of the Lord. How can we proclaim Christ when we look and act just like the world?
Grace and Peace
Psalm 1:1 comes to mind.
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/how-do-i-know-if-he-is-sorry/
Excellent resource article on Seven signs of true repentance.
(sorry, I cannot get links to work in comments...keep getting engine error. Please copy url into your browser)
sweetcakes,
I just want you to know that I love you in the name of Jesus.
I sincerely appreciate your posts on here. They make me laugh, sometimes they make me cry, and I have learned many many new, big words :)
Thank you for your defense of all the survivors out there. You have articulated your message well.
Just wanted you to know that you are in my prayers, and that you have touched my life in a good way.
lin,
Thanks for an excellent read. Very on point for the problems at Bellevue. Here's a clickable link:
How do I know if he is sorry?
MOM4 said...
Mike said...
"Does their church preach another Jesus? No."
Please explain the "No" answer.
If this same Jesus is the Living Word and the FUMC preaches a different doctrine (one that defies the Word), how do you come to that conclusion?
Pick a doctrine.
Any doctrine.
Somehow, somewhere, someone in the "big tent" of Christianity is going to disagree with you about it.
Except for what can be called the "non-negotiables"--those things that are the core, defining theology and doctrines of the faith.
One's stance or another on abortion does not prohibit salvation. Neither does one's stance or another on human sexuality or on gender roles. The Bible is clear on each of these issues, yes, but in themselves they are not make-or-break criteria.
On the other hand: One's stance on Who Jesus is, for example, does either allow or prohibit salvation--as does, by extension, one's stance on the Trinity. Believing merely that Jesus is a good moral teacher, a divinely-created being, or a prophet puts someone at odds with what Jesus had to say about Himself, and what Scripture says about Him.
If you folks want to walk around presuming to invalidate the salvation of everyone who doesn't agree with you about abortion, or homosexuality, or feminism, or capital punishment, or finances, or politics, or whatever the issue du jour is, knock yourselves out. Just don't pretend you have any Biblical support to do so.
--Mike
Mike said...
"If you folks want to walk around presuming to invalidate the salvation of everyone who doesn't agree with you about abortion, or homosexuality, or feminism, or capital punishment, or finances, or politics, or whatever the issue du jour is, knock yourselves out. Just don't pretend you have any Biblical support to do so."
WOW, enuff said...
The Bible doesn't know of a "big tent"...only a narrow way.
John 1:1-5
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
To deny the Written Word is to deny the Living Word. It is impossible to have the Living Word apart from the Written Word.
Knock yourself out trying to seperate Jesus from the Bible.
Mike said...
"If you folks want to walk around presuming to invalidate the salvation of everyone who doesn't agree with you about abortion, or homosexuality, or feminism, or capital punishment, or finances, or politics, or whatever the issue du jour is, knock yourselves out. Just don't pretend you have any Biblical support to do so."
"everyone who doesn't agree with you".........I'm sitting here scratching my head because I don't care if they agree with me. They are disagreeing with the Word of God. According to the Bible, God's Holy, Inerrant Word, Abortion is WRONG. According to the Bible, God's Holy, Inerrant Word, homosexuality is WRONG. (In fact, whole cities were destroyed due to it as I recall). Women pastors have nothing to do with feminism. It's just really hard for a woman to be "husband of one wife." This is not about personal disagreements; this is about not adhering to the Word of God.
Tim,
I never did find out if you received the documents D.C stated in his letter BBC was willing to turn over. Did you? Also, what other steps from administration are being taken to heal BBC?
Mike said:
Does their church preach another Jesus? No.
Piglet says:
Easy believism. Just call on Jesus and you're saved - no life change necessary.
Works don't save but your fruit is evidence of your salvation.
A pastor living, not just in disobedience, but in open defiance of God's word, who leads others to do so as well should NOT be receiving our financial support. I don't care what GOOD they presume to be doing with it.
There are many God honoring minstries that are sharing the LIFE CHANGING gospel of Jesus who could use our support.
Your overall support of this pastor is making more sense to me now.
Tolerance and unity. Once liberal doublespeak but now part of the new gospel.
concerned sbcer said
"everyone who doesn't agree with you".........I'm sitting here scratching my head because I don't care if they agree with me. They are disagreeing with the Word of God. According to the Bible, God's Holy, Inerrant Word, Abortion is WRONG. According to the Bible, God's Holy, Inerrant Word, homosexuality is WRONG. (In fact, whole cities were destroyed due to it as I recall). Women pastors have nothing to do with feminism. It's just really hard for a woman to be "husband of one wife." This is not about personal disagreements; this is about not adhering to the Word of God
Piglet says:
Such great points!!
I shouldn't be surprised.
You folks want to revoke the salvation of people you share a church roof with--and make no mistake, it's because they don't agree with your clique. Why should it be any surprise you'd want to do the same to other Christians who disagree with you on more substantive issues?
And before you crank up the rumor mill any further, I've already addressed the specious comments made so far. From a post celebrating the one millionth slur from a member of the anti-Bellevue group, I quote myself thusly, and like so:
The one millionth post was both gutless and clueless--what that says about the author, I'll leave to you people to decide. The anonymous author either doesn't know me or doesn't care that I'm probably more pro-life in word and deed than he/she is on his/her best day--which isn't a bragging point, but a statement of fact. I understand that you and yours label people in lieu of discussing ideas and points of view, but please understand that such personal attacks benefit no one, and only do further damage to you and yours.
And speaking of "labels," let me caution you and yours about something: The only label worth having is the label of Christian. Any other label--including the label of "pro-life"--that takes precedence over the one of Christian is an idol, purely and simply. There are people in this world who are 100% "pro-life," working tirelessly against the evil of abortion-on-demand, who are as lost as proverbial geese. If people worry that showing kindness to an individual or a group might damage their pro-life credentials, those people should re-examine their priorities.
When groups such as the coalition attacking the pastor, staff, and lay leadership continue to try to tar and feather individuals, rather than debate positions, they guarantee the persistence of the perception they're more about rousing the rabble than reforming the church.
--Mike
Post a Comment