Special Ministry Celebration Service and
Annual Congregational Meeting
March 25, 10:00 a.m.
A Ministry Celebration service will be held Sunday, March 25, at 10:00 a.m. This will be a special time as we look back and celebrate the ministry victories of 2006. There will be no Bible Fellowship, and overflow seating will be provided in the Fellowship Hall.
This Worship Service will be followed by the Annual Congregational Meeting. Items to be discussed are:
- Nominations from the Committee on Committees for members to serve on all church committees
- Presentation of the church’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007-08 from the Budget Planning Committee in conjunction with the Finance Committee
- Any other business properly the subject of consideration by the congregation may be brought forward at this meeting
Even if you're attending a different church but haven't moved your membership, please plan to be there this Sunday, at least for the first annual meeting portion.
764 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 764 of 764prov. 22:22- So, how does this hate filled blog fit into your "theology"? You have the nerve to point your finger at others.
Junk--I appreciate sarcasm as much as the next guy, when used appropriately and not to disparage anyone. It's not just your comment. people ripped this guy for having the astrological stuff on his profile, and he probably didn't even know it was there. My "sign" was on my profile--I had no idea until I started thinking about it after reading the posts on this blog. Sure enough, I went back and took my birthday out and the sign was gone. All I'm saying is that was something inocent, and the man deserves an apology for the way he was treated by some on this blog--regardless of what he said or implied about Dr. Rogers. He was judged without anyone taking the time to find out the "truth". Frankly I find it incredibly disappointing that no one has stepped up to admit their error and seek forgiveness.
4545,
You know what's SICK? What's sick is that some people pop in here and make their self-righteous proclamations and have the NERVE to state that they can ascertain the intent of a person's heart. Sir/madam, you speak for the Holy Spirit? And if you are so holy, and find this blog offensive, then do what some of you suggested that disatisfied bbc members do. Take a hike.
Alright musicguy.
I guess I'll be DC. An apology from me is an apology for the blog.
Satisfied?
Attention everyone!
Pot paging the kettle...
I repeat
Pot paging the kettle...
Awww, Mr. Deacon's back on the "hate-filled" blog! Sir, I believe "oc" had some good advice for you.
AMEN Socwork! Here, Here!
oc said: What's sick is that some people pop in here and make their self-righteous proclamations and have the NERVE to state that they can ascertain the intent of a person's heart.
REPLY: Sad, what you described is what has been on this blog from day one. Please spare me. You and many others do what you just accused me and others of EVERY day on here and off. You "claim" junk all day long with NO evidence and no idea of someones heart. Many on here seem to get joy out of it.
MusicGuy said...
Frankly I find it incredibly disappointing that no one has stepped up to admit their error and seek forgiveness.
10:45 PM, March 24, 2007
I must have missed his denial of being into "astrological signs", please point me/us to it.
His sign is still on his profile, since you are so sure he is not into it, maybe you can help him remove it; if he wants to; since you had the same problem on your profile.
No, OC, I'm not. There goes the biting sarcasm again. What's so hard about doing the right thing? And the comments of 4545 were no better. You guys will get nowhere with each other if you continue to treat one another so poorly.
Charlie...take it fom here....
4545 said,
You "claim" junk all day long with NO evidence
Back this up, if not, leave.
4545, I love you and want to warn you about false teachers and wolves you are following. There is evidence your pastor either does not know scripture or ignores it consistently in his position.
Only evidence you refuse to see and acknowledge. Just because you don't see or recognize, doesn't mean it's not there.
musicguy,
My intent was not to disparage. I knew what caused the astrological sign. What I wrote was a parody / paraphrase of his message at 2:56 PM today. I think most folks who were crtitical were upset by his implications that neither Dr. Rogers nor anyone else at Bellevue had true spiritual discernment all those years, etc. But it would have been better for me to make my point in a more direct way, simply by pointing out to him the offensiveness of claiming to be more spiritual and in touch with God than anyone at BBC. My hope was to use my padody to encourage him to think about the implications of that. If he indicates an offense, I will seek to set it right with him. Thanks for your concern and your encouragement to maintain civility.
Sheepless said...
I must have missed his denial of being into "astrological signs", please point me/us to it.
His sign is still on his profile, since you are so sure he is not into it, maybe you can help him remove it; if he wants to; since you had the same problem on your profile.
It is not a "problem" as you put it--it's just a person who put their whole birthday in when filling out their profile, and probably not ever going back to look at it and know the difference. There is nothing that states in there that by putting in your birthdate that your sign will show up on your profile. You all say you follow Scripture to the letter--I just think it should be followed in this instance as well.
It is not from a lack of knowing on my part. I know much more about the "issues" and have sense day one than most on here. I support Brother Steve 110% and have no "motives" as many of you claim some of us have. Just another example OC.
lin: I am sorry, but I know different If you and others feel that way, why are you still going to Bellevue?
4545,
Still waiting for the evidence....
Fuzzy Math (no more baloney)
Active in Bellevue- 10,000
minus dissenters - 500
_______
9,500
Majority, or supporters should equal 9,500.
Supporters on petition- 430
9,500
-430
_____
9,170
Where are the other 9,170 supporters?
(Or maybe my albacus is broken...)
William T. Loney, Mathematician
oc, don't hold your breath.
Socwork,
Yeah, I'm gettin' purple. But I'm STILL waiting for the evidence....
junk99mail said...
musicguy,
My intent was not to disparage. I knew what caused the astrological sign. What I wrote was a parody / paraphrase of his message at 2:56 PM today. I think most folks who were crtitical were upset by his implications that neither Dr. Rogers nor anyone else at Bellevue had true spiritual discernment all those years, etc
Junk--I knew what you were saying/doing with your statement. I was bothered by his statements as well (I've been reading all day--not continuously!), and I don't even know Dr. Rogers or BBC except by reputation. I guess I was just trying to make the point that if your trying to talk about truth and integrity, then it should be practiced even on a blog. I'll shut up now.
4545 said...
lin: I am sorry, but I know different If you and others feel that way, why are you still going to Bellevue?
BECAUSE IT'S THEIR CHURCH TOO !!!
GET IT?????
Late-night repeats for the Gaines Peanuts.
So often the truthseekers are made to defend themselves against charges of hatred or worse, when doing so is wasted breath; a simple digestion of what little to which they've grudgingly admitted is a legitate response to the Padre and his backup dancers' mess.
The burden, actually is upon the sycophants--tell us why, oh tell us why. Why do some truly destructive behaviors from some seemingly get the kidd gloves, but those that question the same are treated like heretics and have the Book thrown at them by the very same empty suits?
You have unfinished trust and accountability issues, Bellevue, and your bidness will never be finished if you conflate, coven-like, to fini your bidness. It will forever be your albatross, your final legacy that cannot be lived down by a million people people making a profession of faith.
The shoe is on the other foot. I know you wish to feel like everything is ok again and want to move on, but you cannot move on if you won't take an honest look at the problem. You'll just have to revisit it over and over.
-----------
Can you articulate the gravity of the leadership's wrongdoing (or even, the lack thereof)and credibly argue that they have, indeed, been made accountable commensurate to their failure(if you choose to argue, that yes, letting the pedophile walk was pretty irresponsible); that they deserve, not just your trust and respect as leaders, but all members?
I get the "they cannot abide a difference of opinion" jag, I just haven't heard you apologists plainly state:
"Yes, Pastor Gaines, although he really screwed up, has my renewed and absolute trust, plus everyone should follow suit, because of X"
Or, "Dear Leader and other dear leaders have been accountable for their irresponsible leadership by X."*
Or, "What they didn't do for 6 months wasn't so bad given X."
*No Kim Jong Il reference is intended.
------------
Good sign that their sending out the dogs.
Koochie koochie koo, little puppies!
-------------
"It will NEVER EVER cease to amaze me that they go on and on about integrity but continue to insult people who see things differently and belittle those who disagree."
What is insulting is trying to answer this broad brush. None of you articulate how these ministers have been accountable for this mess or defend why they are deserving of your trust as leaders in the aftermath (because you know you cannot), only that you disagree with those that won't play along or leave. Saying you disagree is not a argument--in the sense of containing facts and qualifiers--just a statement of loyalty; then saying that I must respect your position of loyalty on the face of it, admittedly, sets it up for ridicule.
"...belittle those who disagree"
Laugh with me, truthseekers.
oc: Take your pick. Almost every post on this blog.
mucisguy,
Point taken.
Be Blessed,
"Junk"
Am I really talking to a deacon? This can't be.
4545 said, oc: Take your pick. Almost every post on this blog.
Non answer. Try again.
4545 said
lin: I am sorry, but I know different If you and others feel that way, why are you still going to Bellevue?
Piglet says:
For the same reason that you don't give the house keys to the burglar when he breaks in and just leave. :)
OC, DITTO.
I pray 4545 is not a deacon.
He is 110% in support of Steve Gaines??
Yeah, and I'm still waiting for 'evidence'..........
Run,Forest, run......
I'm -14.27% in support of the Padre.
I'm not a deacon, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
bill loney,
Actually you can deduct about 100 signatures from that total since they were apparently deemed to not be legitimate by the petition master and subsequently deleted. The total number isn't reduced to reflect that.
sheepless
I told my husband last night that I don't think it is real support for Steve Gaines in a lot of cases, just a refusal to admit they were wrong about him.
Why do I believe this? Because months ago when all this started they harped that it was all about music.
Then Gaines had to admit to several things he was caught at or taped saying and had to apologize. This happened twice and was BEFORE the check to FUMC or the pedophile incident, which should have been the end.
But too many had their pride invested to admit to the obvious. Of course there are those, too, who have positions they don't want to lose or positions they aspire to.....Those leftover are clueless.
Believe me, I've talked to some clueless people! It's amazing what they don't know.
support brother steve,
in your effort to reach 10,000, you may want to consider leaving the fake names and critics on your petition, not that "mine" is a fake name:)
Of course, some may want to give the benefit of the doubt to Seymour Butts, Mike Olon, and Ben Dover. But following the advice of Steve-o's fans, I won't judge them.
William T. Loney,
Petition Consultant
ps...just an observation, if only half of the deacons, staff (and their wives and children) signed, it seems you would have nearly 500. But, maybe they are just busy.
Cakes,
Stick around that 14.27% may dwindle.
sheepless wrote:
"I pray 4545 is not a deacon.
He is 110% in support of Steve Gaines??"
He's never denied it, but he denied being a lot of other things. Scary, huh?
Cakes said, I'm not a deacon, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
No, that would make you the pastor.
That's -14.27%, dude.
4545.
WHERE IS MY EVIDENCE? And yes, I am yelling.
Re: Celebration
Will there a ferris wheel and jumping fence...oops, I mean jumping tent?
And O, how I do love candy apples! No, I better not go, for I have feeling there will be enough 'bill loney' already tomorrow:)
William T. Loney,
Carnival Enthusiast
Piglet,
Clueless yes..and want to stay that way.
As the truth continues to unfold, ALL IN GOOD TIME, it will be hard to keep the defense up.
G'night people!
Look for the pig at the big shin-dig! :0)
Support Brother Cakes said...
That's -14.27%, dude.
SOOOO SORRY,
My eyes are tired..did not see that - sign. That's more like it.
And that's dudette to you, dude.
NASS,
Maybe he did his internship at Gardendale to learn how to deacon!!
EVERYBODY....
Set your alarm clocks, we'll have to be there by 6 am to get a seat at the overflowing celebration!
Somebody remember to bring the handcuff keys to unlock SOTL
See you all tomorrow.
4545,
Done waiting for you to 'conjure' up evidence. I see you have tried to cash a check that your ......oh, been through this before. I have no idea why you think that you can come on this blog and make accusations you can't defend and get away with it. Some of us are not...zombies. Stay with your kind.
Oh, yeah. Guess what. If you haven't figured it out yet. I don't care about being 'PC'. I don't compare myself to Jesus, but He wasn't "PC" either. So deal with it. There are times when Jesus wasn't 'gentle'. Sometimes He was a warrior. Sometimes He was what the Pharisees might call, 'Obnoxious'. Deal with that.
I have waited patiently. It is after 1 in the morning. I have given 4545 plenty of time to present his case. He has not presented one piece of evidence to prove that the brothers and sisters on this blog are liars, or that they are proclaiming 'junk all day long',as he insists or asserts, therefore, in my admittedly unhumble,obnoxious opinion, I proclaim this a non issue and request that 4545 cease and desist with any more ignorant blogging at this site. In other words, go home, BoBo.
Now here is a good post. It shows principle and passion. I would love to have had a church full of people like this.
padroc said...
4545,
Thanks for provoking me to share these thoughts.
We are still at Bellevue because we love sinners but not their sin. I am one who is loved in spite of my sin. For me, leaving would be sin because it would be a faithless act. Denying God's ability to love you or Dr. Gaines through me would be sin because I would be calling God a liar.
My love for Jesus will be observable by my obedience to God and His word. My witness is to be as one overflowing with patience and kindness as an act of gratitude and thanksgiving to God for His amazing grace. So I stay.
I will to love my pastor with his sin. However I do not love his sin. And when his sin is a public sin against members of the body of Christ I’ll be here to see, hear, pray, and confront him respectfully in love and in private as a friend. I will not be an accuser, but neither will I be complacent or apathetic waiting on God to do what He has commanded you and I to do. So I stay.
I can also imagine that leaving for me might cause some of my brothers and sisters “backs” to be unprotected. Some who I perceive as “having their heads in the sand” need the wise cooperation of those whose discernment allows the light of truth to show the way to holiness and righteous in our fellowship. Isn’t it odd how our differences work to make us one. So I stay.
I will not put up, shut up, close up, hang it up, or give up till Jesus comes or God calls me home.
But, neither will I knowingly be an offense to anyone. May the proclamation of the Gospel be the only offence for which I am known. So I stay.
I will not put up, shut up, close up, hang it up, or give up till Jesus comes or God calls me home.
But, neither will I knowingly be an offense to anyone. May the proclamation of the Gospel be the only offence for which I am known. So I stay.
“When Jesus reached for an expression of his Love for Jerusalem he morphed his language into a hen gathering her chicks because a woman's love for her husband or a mother's love for her children would corrupt God's love.
There is no love worth finding among men! “
ANyone that supports SG 110% makes them SUSPECT in my book, given the fact that SG felt compassion for a man who would sodomize his son.
HMMMMM
45,
I, too, would like for you to be specific as to the ' junk' you claim to be on here.
But then again, I recall a conversation that you and I had back in December, where you chastizied me for thinking that PW belonged in jail. As I recall, you said to me:
" Do you think DR. Rogers would want PW in jail"
What a bunch of JUNK that was!!!
You are so blinded by your zealous "following" of SG that you cannot ascertain right from wrong.
And to answer your ridiculous question again, the same way I answered it before:
" No, I think that Dr. R. would want PW free to molest as many children as possible"
Oh yeah, I remember...you support SG 110%, so I must assume that means that you supported his allowing the pedophile to walk freely thru the halls of BBC, lusting after our children.
You are walking on eggshells with your 110% statement, dude.
SOTL,
You ROCK!
SOTL wrote: "Anyone that supports SG 110% makes them SUSPECT in my book, given the fact that SG felt compassion for a man who would sodomize his son."
I am not sure about that 110% support but as for as compassion for PW. I know a Man who gave His life for PW. You can't have any more compassion than that. Yes, Jesus hates sin but He loved the sinner so much He died for him. May the love of your Lord and Savior flow through you actions and attitude rather than fleshly hate and anger.
As John wrote in the New Testament "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
TR,
What are you really saying? Would you like to take PW's sons' place, and then talk about 'compassion'?
Jesus is about forgiveness, not stupidity. Don't throw His blood around.
Truth Rules
Soo, now we are to have compassion for child molestors?
Why don't you show up at some of the support groups for the survivors of incest and tell THEM that, ok?
Truth Rules
You are an arrogant hypocrite.
I suppose that if you are/were raped, you would feel compassion for your rapist?
Of course you would!!! You are a Stevite.
We're dealing with pursed lips and folded hands again, folks.
Maybe invite them for dinner at your place the next evening for a little reading of " The Purpose Driven Life"?
Know what, TR? Because of my job, I make frequent visits to Parchman prison. How would you like to participate....well, I'll leave that alone. Apparently you have no idea about being 'violated'.
SOTL, maybe not arrogant, maybe just ignorant, maybe a combination.
oc,
I get the impression that TR is saying what he/she said with pursed lips and folded hands, but, mind you...this only applies to everyone else but him/her.
Or would he/she have us to assume that if his/her child was raped, that he/she would feel nothing but compassion for the rapist?
He/she looks ridiculous in their statement.
Seems like he/she took it right out of the Democrat playbook..." feel compassion for the violator, not the victim, because the violator had a bad childhood"
boo hoo
And Christ after being tortured and nailed on the cross said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Amen
Off line off to church
oc...little worse than prison life
Funny, the 'he/she' designation would work real well at Parchman....
TR says, as he/she runs off to a comfortable pew....... 'Off line off to church,' and,
'oc...little worse than prison life'
But oc says ...Yeah, but it ain't you, is it? Think about it while your soft 'tushy' meets the 'rich Corinthian leather' of the pew.
Oh, and TR,
You might want to thank the pew for not pushing the issue, so to speak.
" I know a Man who gave His life for PW. You can't have any more compassion than that. Yes, Jesus hates sin but He loved the sinner so much He died for him. May the love of your Lord and Savior flow through you actions and attitude rather than fleshly hate and anger"
There you go again. Leaving out the full counsel of God. The WHOLE scripture.
Here is the part you left out: Repentance, regeneration and sanctification. Oh...and justice. God is pure Justice..that is why Jesus HAD to die on the cross.
We only know fruit. And as of yet, there has been no public repentance (which brings accountability and was missing the for 17 years) from PW for many public sins. Starting with rape of his son, continuing to live a lie as a minister against teaching of scripture. I am sure he feels bad but gee, even his own victim son had to confront Gaines about keeping him on staff for crying out loud.
Funny how you leave out the victim in all of this. He is sort of inconvenient in all of this, isn't he?
What you posted above is a half truth which is really a lie. You have bought into an easy believism which cheapens the precious Blood of my Savior. He paid a very high price. It is NOT cheap.
Study Matthew 7 very intensly because Christ is teaching about 'professing believers' when He says, many will say, Lord Lord and I will say, I never knew you.
He is not talking about athiests...nor Madonna. He is talking about people going to church on Sunday. Even people who are doing big works in His name..casting out demons. Read it. Study it. Pray over it.
REPOST:
Jesus is about forgiveness, not stupidity. Don't throw His blood around.
8:41 AM, March 25, 2007
lin, thankyou.
That's what I wanted to say, but as you can see by my posts, I'm not real good at 'explaining' things. Yes, I need to work on my patience, at least. I'm just thankful that their are others here who can explain what I really mean, and more eloquently. (And with less 'obnoxious' flavor, I might add) Thankyou all. oc
lin
Wonder why the victim never confided in Dr. Rogers? Why did he seem to find it easier to confide in Gaines?
watching said,
Wonder why the victim never confided in Dr. Rogers? Why did he seem to find it easier to confide in Gaines?
Maybe because he isn't 12 anymore.
oc
good point
WELL, for whoever missed the meeting - it was a sham as expected.
When a motion was too hot to handle, they signaled a player to motion to adjourn the meeting which speedily passed. Although we did get one motion passed which should bear mention since it will directly affect committee members. It was on the conflict of interest of committee members. The only problem, is the review process of the committee members is an "inhouse review" - since they are the master and commander of their own ship, they will still do whatever they want.
One motion that was defeated was to increase the missions budget to allow 3+ million of the reserves to be added to the missions budget to be given to the MABTS to help retire their debt. That was soundly defeated. I guess they will continue to give the missions money to reprobate churches instead.
The main motion that caused the stir was for open quarterly business meetings and the adoption of the 2002 SBC resolution requiring sexual and moral purity in the leadership. I guess that one would have passed and since the leadership wanted to keep the status quo, they shut it down.
And oh, by the way, Mrs Rogers got up and walked out when we did, which was right after the vote to adjourn was passed. The lady knows truth when she sees it.
Thanks for the update, mom4. Can't say I'm surprised...
Socwork,
Hi, friend!
poor baby josh manning was REJECTED. yeah baby!
Bob,
You can try to cast doubt on the truth if you want, but those in attendance know the truth - it was obvious.
Did they not shut down the meeting with a motion on the floor?
NASS,
Take him out.
BB,
The motion was not about Josh Manning, it was about the moral and sexual purity of the leadership! Do you not care about that?
Mom4, you and I both know it was a trick motion. Some people can be so deceiving...and dare I say it, evil.
REJECTED!
OK Bob Barker,
Let's hear your version.
Hi oc :)
No mom4 pretty much nailed it on the head. I was there too and saw how it was handled...right on cue the meeting was adjourned...interesting that the motion on the floor was in part a motion to move to quarterly business meetings...as predicted the "nursery workers" were the reason for adjournment....as I've said all along...master politicians. Technically the majority can say they gave the dissenters their chance...in reality it was a show...but then, what's new? The majority are blissfully ignorant as to how a "congregation-approved" church works...as long as everyone gets along and everything appears "ok" on the surface, they're quite content regardless what may be going on behind the scenes.
BTW, mr. bob barker, you're a fine one to be telling anyone they're full of anything.
mom4, I left after the vote to adjourn as well. Want to crown me as knowing the truth when I see it? If you don't then you are dishonest in making any assessments about those leaving. Personally, I wanted to beat the traffic.
Allofgrace, you are full of lies too. Just thought you might want to know that.
Laugh and gloat all you want mr. barker...the laugh is on you...YOU'LL be the one who has to deal with what took place today and all it implies.
bb you must be about 12 yrs old.
Allofgrace, please do tell me where I laughed. you must have me mistaken for someone else. don't worry, I forgive you.
NASS,
Take him out.
ok, bobby,
you did not answer my questions? Why? Are you afraid?
mom4, I could care less about how people are deceiving and evil. i would have voted AGAINST Josh, as would have the majority because IT WAS A TRICK.
YOUR MOTIVES ARE EVIL.
So, what happened to STRICTLY adhering to Robert's Rules?
Truthdoesnotruleatbbc,
Regardless of why Mrs. Rogers left when she did - did you see her? Well I did.
On another note, you left to beat the traffic??? Is there a reason that you would leave before the final prayer from your leader? What could be more important? Your lunch??
BB: May God have mercy on you. I know you are very young and VERY immature, but you will have to give account of your actions- like we all will- and I think you will have a difficult time justifying your behavior here. I am sure Jesus is ashamed of your behavior right now.
CHarlie: It was a set-up.
For the craven bunch whom bless us with their fellowship:
The Part you Throw Away
by Tom Waits
You dance real slow
You wreck it down
You walk away, then you
Turn around
What did that old blonde
Gal say?
That is the part...
You throw away
I want that beggars eyes
A winning horse
A tidy Mexican divorce
St. Mary's prayers
Houdini's Hands
And a Barman who always
Understands
Will you loose the flowers
Hold on to the vase
Will you wipe all those teardrops
Away from your fase
I can't help thinking
As I close the door
I have done all of this
Many times before
The bone must go
The wish can stay
The kiss don't know
What the lips will say
Forget I've hurt you
Put stones in your bed
And remember to never
Mind instead
Well all of your letters
Burned up in the fire
Time is just memory
Mixed in with Desire
That's not the road it is
Only the map...I say
Gone just like matches
From a closed down cabaret
In a Portuguese Saloon
A fly is a circling around
The room
You'll soon forget the
Tune that you play
For that is the part
You throw away
Ah, that is the part
You throw away
Charlie,
Is it legal to accept a motion to adjourn while another motion is on the floor and seconded?
concerned,
you are TOO kind. I'm asking NASS to take him out.
oc,
BB and TR are both here to aggitate and cause strife. They both need to go..I agree!!
Bob Barker said, "Anyone who visits this blogspot is 1) a joke"
First and foremost this would be you Mr. Barker. You have had your fun, now why don't you collect your toy soldiers and run along home. You are in the wrong battle zone. I can tell by your fruit.
BB: Thou speaketh with a forketh tongue.......You say we don't care for our fellow Christians...then when I show you I do, you tell me not to. I stand by my previous statement: May God have mercy on you. I know you are very young and VERY immature, but you will have to give account of your actions- like we all will- and I think you will have a difficult time justifying your behavior here. I am sure Jesus is ashamed of your behavior right now.
MOM4 said...
Charlie,
Is it legal to accept a motion to adjourn while another motion is on the floor and seconded?
REPLY:
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Charlie: So where was the official Parlimentarian?
Charlie,
That is what I figured. Now why would they not want to vote for regular business meetings and moral and sexual purity? That is scary!!! And it happened at BELLEVUE BAPTIST CHURCH!!!
There is sorrow in heaven this dark day!
Most importantly we rejected Josh Manning.
Three of the "Anti-Bellevue" folks sat in front of us this morning. One of the three was very disrespectful during the whole service. She loudly flipped through a magazine during the entire service and answered her cell phone on several occasions. She even talked to someone on her cell during the invitation. That's no way to win people over to your side.
Bob Barker the price is right!!! Rejected.
And another thing....where was the 300!!! Maybe 100...Tops!!
Its not often that I really have a meltdown, but today I did. Larry Ray is lucky I didn't say what I wanted to when I left the building.
BTW, that guy in the white shirt with stripes that was storming out of the sanctuary as Moonbat Gaines was walking up to pray was me. I was livid with how the meeting ended. As suspected, the Bellevue moonbats did not want to adress the issues that concern the congregation. Mainly because they are afraid of the truth.
Folks, Bellevue's like the Titanic, its sinking and sinking fast.
concernedSBCer said...
"CHarlie: It was a set-up."
Yes...no doubt. They will wait you out. You will leave because you are fed up with it. It will be an apostate church.
OFG: What was wrong with Josh's motion? You WANT to have sexual predators walking your halls? That is a SBC 2002 resolution! Why is that intimidating to anyone?
Hummmm....because there are more stories still to come out? It sure doesn't make sense for there to be any other reason.
Unless......there are those that just do not want to follow God's word.
overflowingwhatever,
Disrespect? Check out your leader.
Not that anyone cares but my take on the meeting:
It was shown that BBC can conduct a orderly meeting and allow for differences of opinion.
I was disappointed that Josh Manning chose to make a motion. One because his presences creates division and secondly because he is not an active participate of our fellowship at this time. I personally believe that his motives are disingenuous to the pursuit of the harmony of our church.
I did vote against ending the meeting because I felt that anyone who wanted to voice a motion should be heard. But the majority rules and I was in the minority on this vote.
I would have vote for the $3 million going to Mid-America but it was stipulated in the motion that it would be given without designation. If it were to have been designated specifically to retire their debt then I would have voted differently.
I did vote for the conflict of interest motion. I felt that Pat Caldwell had a conflict while serving on the Pastor Search Committee because her son-in-law worked for Bro. Steve at Gardendale. She would have known by bringing Bro. Steve that her SIL would have the potential to be back in Memphis with her daughter.
Overall I thought that the meeting went well other than the adjournment. I really thought that there would be more opposition to the budget and the committee motions. One key learning is that it is better to make an amendment to an agenda motion than to wait for the new business time. But I am certain that most on this blog will find fault as it's shown that many of you have been given the gift of complaining.
Koragg: I am so sorry.
concernedSBCer said...
Charlie: So where was the official Parlimentarian?
REPLY:
The Parlimentarian WILL NOT correct an error, UNLESS a ruling is ASKED FOR. That is where "Point of Order" comes into play.
of,
I asked several people I know who are still members if they were coming and they all said no. One person said he had already heard from someone on staff what they were planning so it was a waste of time to attend for a disengenous meeting when they could be hearing a good sermon at another church. I will expect many will be moving their membership now and the church will be left with vindictive and spiteful people who would rather win at all costs than follow scripture. May God have mercy on you all.
1)We have little respect for Josh Manning.
2)He was trying to put two things together that are not related. We don't need to have business meetings any differently than we have for the last 30 years!!!
TR: I was on board with respecting and appreciating (not necessarily agreeing; two different things) your post until this: "But I am certain that most on this blog will find fault as it's shown that many of you have been given the gift of complaining." What a rude thing to say. I've seen no complaints here this afternoon, just a frustration that what was promised was not delivered.
mom4 said....
The main motion that caused the stir was for open quarterly business meetings and the adoption of the 2002 SBC resolution requiring sexual and moral purity in the leadership.
REPLY:
Not that it would have made any difference, but those TWO items SHOULD NOT have been made as ONE motion. A major technical FAUX PAS.
mom4 writes: "I asked several people I know who are still members if they were coming and they all said no. One person said he had already heard from someone on staff what they were planning so it was a waste of time to attend for a disingenuous meeting when they could be hearing a good sermon at another church. I will expect many will be moving their membership now and the church will be left with vindictive and spiteful people who would rather win at all costs than follow scripture. May God have mercy on you all."
concernedsbcer, please tell me this is not complaining.
What the heck was up with the sweeping cameras during the votes? At one point, they did a shot of the crowd of those who were opposed, and I was the only one standing up on screen?
Does that mean Steve Gaines and his moonbat mafia is going to come to my house to intimidate me? If they even try to come, they better come prepared because I will call the law and have them arrested for trespassing. Bellevue Leadership is not wanted in Mason, TN.
truth rules said...
mom4 writes: "I asked several people I know who are still members if they were coming and they all said no. One person said he had already heard from someone on staff what they were planning so it was a waste of time to attend for a disingenuous meeting when they could be hearing a good sermon at another church. I will expect many will be moving their membership now and the church will be left with vindictive and spiteful people who would rather win at all costs than follow scripture. May God have mercy on you all."
concernedsbcer, please tell me this is not complaining.
REPLY:
Please allow me to comment. Telling the TRUTH is NOT COMPLAINING!!!!!!
And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Rev. 21:3-4
See, we know the "rest of the story"....we have read the last chapter....and we win! Have Hope. Rest in Him.
"He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, Come, Lord Jesus!
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Rev. 22:20-21)
TR said,
concernedsbcer, please tell me this is not complaining.
No, I'm not 'concerned' But this is not complaining. It's expressing feelings. Really, many knew the score before the game was played. Many had an idea of the setup. So don't prance around like a high school cheerleader who got an unexpected win. In a way, your momma bought this.
So after the business on the agenda did anyone before Josh Manning get a chance to speak?
The privileged motion to adjourn takes precedence of all others. In all due respect Charlie Fox, you are not the authority on Roberts Rules of Order. A privileged motion to adjourn can leave a motion without any action taken. Though I did not vote to adjourn, the majority did. This motion was Congregationally approved! And isn't that what everyone was seeking? That the majority of the membership have a voice. That voice was heard today. You may not have liked hearing it but you heard it loud and clear.
Adjourn
A member can propose to close the meeting entirely and immediately by moving to adjourn. This motion can be made and the meeting can adjourn even while business is pending, providing that the time for the next meeting is established by a rule of the association or has been set by the meeting. In such a case, unfinished business is carried over to the next meeting.
Mannings motion should show in the minutes as unfinished business and consequently be the first order of business when the church is next called into session.
Anyone interested will need to be alert to Sunday night "calls to order" for specific business such as Convention Messengers.
of said...
"2)He was trying to put two things together that are not related. We don't need to have business meetings any differently than we have for the last 30 years!!!"
Did I miss something? WE ARE NOT HAVING BUSINESS MEETINGS LIKE WE HAD FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS!!
When was the last meeting we had? It was before Dr Rogers died!! Why are they only holding them annually now (with pressure to have one at all!)and shutting down the ONE they did have?
Why was the motion on the floor ignored? Would you have voted to reject the sexual and moral purity of the church just to spitefully reject the presenter of the motion?
charlie fox, then you agree with mom4 that the BBC will be left with "vindictive and spiteful people" as being the truth. Hopefully you guys will be a blessing to another church and have freedom away from us "vindictive and spiteful people". May God bless you in your new churches....signed Vindictive & Spiteful et al
mom4 said
"Why was the motion on the floor ignored? Would you have voted to reject the sexual and moral purity of the church just to spitefully reject the presenter of the motion?"
Perhaps it is because we don't want to be pressured into how Josh's view of how the meetings should be held. Maybe we want them to be on the Wednesday or maybe we want them on Sunday mornings. And I won't be bullied into him deciding that for me just so that I can't be accused of not wanting to support the SBC's position on sexual immorality...
It is like the Homeland Security stuff, if you don't want your phones tapped, you support terrorists.
The privileged motion to adjourn takes precedence of all others.
--------------------------
Wrong. See section 22 pages 234 to 240.
Straight out of the book....
17. To Adjourn. The motion to adjourn (when unqualified) is always a privileged motion except when, for lack of provision for a future meeting, as in a mass meeting, or at the last meeting of a convention, its effect, if adopted, would be to dissolve the assembly permanently. In any organized society holding several regular meetings during the year, it is, when unqualified, always a privileged motion. When not privileged it is treated as any other main motion, being debatable and amendable, etc.
The privileged motion to adjourn takes precedence of all others, except the privileged motion "to fix the time to which to adjourn," to which it yields. It is not debatable, nor can it be amended or have any other subsidiary [12] motion applied to it; nor can a vote on it be reconsidered. It may be withdrawn.
The motion to adjourn can be repeated if there has been any intervening business, though it is simply progress in debate. The assembly may decline to adjourn in order to hear one speech or to take one vote, and therefore it must have the privilege of renewing the motion to adjourn when there has been any progress in business or debate. But this high privilege is liable to abuse to the annoyance of the assembly, if the chair does not prevent it by refusing to entertain the motion when evidently made for obstructive purposes, as when the assembly has just voted it down, and nothing has occurred since to show the possibility of the assembly's wishing to adjourn. [See Dilatory Motions, 40.]
TR...
"bob barker said...
mom4, I could care less about how people are deceiving and evil. i would have voted AGAINST Josh, as would have the majority because IT WAS A TRICK.
YOUR MOTIVES ARE EVIL."
So this statement by BB is NOT vindictive and spiteful? Why would anyone vote against an individual rather than the motion on the floor unless it is spite and vindictiveness? Why would the leadership want to shut down the motion regarding the sexual and and moral purity of the church leadership? What are they afraid of?
I believe at the next business meeting (next year?) Josh's motion is considered un finished business and will be on the agenda.
1)We have little respect for Josh Manning.
It must be all that overflowing grace then, Christian.
Why little respect? Did he let a pedophile walk for 6 months too. C'mon, what'd he do?
You must be rich or handsome, because like the rest of your ilk, you just pontificate as if the words came from God Himself, and cannot quibble with supporting facts or qualifying arguments.
Now, (tehe) Truth Rulez,
So, in your opinion, except for the part of the meeting that cut short even the voicing of certain motions, it was great. And, you just know, in the aftermath, some terrible people--namely, the ones whose voices were thwarted--are going to make a big deal out of it. Well phooey on them, huh?
Are you a freaking child?
bepaitient,
You dear lady, are part of the problem - you see an individual you dislike and would rather vote against him than to vote for a practice that was thought out carefully by the SBC to prevent the lack of sexual and moral purity in our churches. Shame on you!
And, since I have nothing to hide, it makes no difference to me if Homeland Security listens to my phone conversations or not - I will continue to provide all things honestly.
AND prior to the SG leadership, we DID have meetings on Sunday night - and some on Wednesday night when necessary. Who are you trying to kid here?
truth rules said...
charlie fox, then you agree with mom4 that the BBC will be left with "vindictive and spiteful people" as being the truth. Hopefully you guys will be a blessing to another church and have freedom away from us "vindictive and spiteful people". May God bless you in your new churches....signed Vindictive & Spiteful et al
2:35 PM, March 25, 2007
Oh how Sad.....The Tears must be flowing in Heaven this afternoon. How much hate can be spewed from the member Truth Rules whoever they are. God have mercy on you this day.
mom4, "So this statement by BB is NOT vindictive and spiteful? Why would anyone vote against an individual rather than the motion on the floor unless it is spite and vindictiveness?"
Well do you vote for a president/city mayor/city councilman based on the person or his platform? No I don't think it's vindictive to say one wouldn't vote for something because Josh was proposing it. My children are not against marriage but I would hope that the one who makes the proposal is the determination factor not just the 'motion' itself. Seriously, Josh has enjoyed his place in the limelight of this division at Bellevue. By his own admission he is not an actively involved member of our fellowship. He is away at college but he finds the time to come to our business meeting and make a motion. Talk about motive...hmmm..... walks, talks, quacks, it's a duck. And most of 'vindictive and spiteful people' as you call us saw that duck from the north eating in the cornfield he hadn't plowed.
Whoever voted to shut down the meeting just voted for pastors to be sexually immoral.
Don't come crying to us when your child is molested by any of the perverts that will be invading YOUR church soon.
"Wonder why the victim never confided in Dr. Rogers? Why did he seem to find it easier to confide in Gaines? "
WS, I don't think you understand the ramifications of sexual abuse in children. We think we can put rational thought to it but we cannot. As David Brown has explained to us, some 'adults' don't even tell about it until they are in their 40's. Pedophilia is probably the most secret of crimes. Think of it, a child, is abused by an adult. Someone they are supposed to obey and trust. Like a priest or a dad. There are all kinds of emotions and such that play into this. Pedophiles are some of the most phoney people out there. Think about that, they have lots to hide.
Actually, I find the victim as a young man very courageous in the way he handled this. In the end, it is about his fathers eternal life. Quite frankly, I have nothing but the utmost admiration for this young man.
TR said,
Talk about motive...hmmm..... walks, talks, quacks, it's a duck.
And if it coils, slithers and hisses?
MOVE ON UP, FOLKS. A NEW THREAD HAS BEEN STARTED TO CONTINUE THIS.
Thank you,
NBBCOF
Steve Gaines said today in his sermon invitation that in order for a sinner to be saved he should acknowledge that God loves him.
If the Bible says that we are dead in sins, how can a sinner be asked to acknowledge that God loves him?
Ephesians 2:4-7
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Truth rules said
I was disappointed that Josh Manning chose to make a motion. One because his presences creates division and secondly because he is not an active participate of our fellowship at this time. I personally believe that his motives are disingenuous to the pursuit of the harmony of our church.
I did vote against ending the meeting because I felt that anyone who wanted to voice a motion should be heard. But the majority rules and I was in the minority on this vote.
Piglet says:
So why does Josh bother you? Because he EXPECTS truth and transparency from our "godly" christian leaders? Because he expects them to obey the law?
How is he divisive? By informing people of facts that pertain to us all? What about asking for quarterly business meetings is divisive? What is threatening about wanting our ministers NOT to be involved in perversion?
Was this a sneaky attempt to get quarterly business meetings? Maybe. Was it working within the system? Yes.
How heinous to requst regular business meetings!!!
As it stands, now we wait a full year to e heard again on church matters.
Hopefully, we will have all forgotten by then......
OFG said
1)We have little respect for Josh Manning.
2)He was trying to put two things together that are not related. We don't need to have business meetings any differently than we have for the last 30 years!!!
Piglet says:
I am proud of Josh and telling my sons to watch him! He is a brilliant young man with convictions and a backbone, which is more than I can say for most men in our church twice his age!!
So why does Josh bother you? Because he EXPECTS truth and transparency from our "godly" christian leaders? Because he expects them to obey the law?
How is he divisive? By informing people of facts that pertain to us all? What about asking for quarterly business meetings is divisive? What is threatening about wanting our ministers NOT to be involved in perversion?
Was this a sneaky attempt to get quarterly business meetings? Maybe. Was it working within the system? Yes.
How heinous to requst regular business meetings!!!
As it stands, now we wait a full year to e heard again on church matters.
Hopefully, we will have all forgotten by then......
Seems to me that Paul is saying that a sinner who is dead in sins must be "quickened" if he is going to be saved.
I must be new to this emergent message. Does this mean that all the sinners that heard the altar invitation were "quickened" and all they had to do was come forward and acknowledge that God loved them?
be patient said
Perhaps it is because we don't want to be pressured into how Josh's view of how the meetings should be held. Maybe we want them to be on the Wednesday or maybe we want them on Sunday mornings. And I won't be bullied into him deciding that for me just so that I can't be accused of not wanting to support the SBC's position on sexual immorality...
Piglet says:
Josh had to have details in his motion. Those details can be amended when up for discussion.
Oops, there was no discussion allowed, now was there? So who was bullied here????
"I must be new to this emergent message. Does this mean that all the sinners that heard the altar invitation were "quickened" and all they had to do was come forward and acknowledge that God loved them? "
I would not call it an emergent message. It is all over Christendom. It is almost as stupid as baptizing babies. You go forward, say a prayer and get baptized and wa la! You are pronounced saved. It is a lie from the pit of hell. And many are believing it.
God proved His love with the Cross. When we see our sin and are totally repulsed by it we know we need a Savior. Being saved is a supernatural act. Only God can convict us of our sin to repent and be saved.
Does the phrase "love worth finding" according to scripture imply that every sinner has been quickened and just needs to seek love?
TR said:
Josh has enjoyed his place in the limelight of this division at Bellevue. By his own admission he is not an actively involved member of our fellowship. He is away at college but he finds the time to come to our business meeting and make a motion. Talk about motive...hmmm..... walks, talks, quacks, it's a duck. And most of 'vindictive and spiteful people'
Piglet says:
Is it just POSSIBLE that Josh cares about the church he grew up in? Please tell me what is so DIVISIVE and hateful about asking for quarterly business meetings????
Now, I might understand if he had said "I move that we get rid of this slimeball pastor.."
Why are folks still posting here when there is a new thread? :0)
Repost from previous thread:
Truth rules said
I was disappointed that Josh Manning chose to make a motion. One because his presences creates division and secondly because he is not an active participate of our fellowship at this time. I personally believe that his motives are disingenuous to the pursuit of the harmony of our church.
I did vote against ending the meeting because I felt that anyone who wanted to voice a motion should be heard. But the majority rules and I was in the minority on this vote.
Piglet says:
So why does Josh bother you? Because he EXPECTS truth and transparency from our "godly" christian leaders? Because he expects them to obey the law?
How is he divisive? By informing people of facts that pertain to us all? What about asking for quarterly business meetings is divisive? What is threatening about wanting our ministers NOT to be involved in perversion?
Was this a sneaky attempt to get quarterly business meetings? Maybe. Was it working within the system? Yes.
How heinous to requst regular business meetings!!!
As it stands, now we wait a full year to e heard again on church matters.
Hopefully, we will have all forgotten by then......
Truth Rules, OFG, 4545, BB
I would like to take credit for Josh's being here since I emailed him and begged him to come....but I'm sure he would have come anyway!
Was thrilled to see him!!
Thanks, Josh.
JUMPING UP AND DOWN HERE!!! PLEASE MOVE ON UP, FOLKS. A NEW THREAD HAS BEEN STARTED TO CONTINUE THIS.
Thank you,
NBBCOF
Post a Comment