The Watchman - Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

NewBBCOpenForum Link

2007-02-06T19:22:00.001-08:00

For those of you who would like to follow are participate in discussion of the events at Bellevue Baptist Church, the following link will take you to the NewBBCOpenForum. Book mark it or copy it down so that you will be able to visit it in the future.

http://www.newbbcopenforum.blogspot.com

Jefferson and the Bellevue Crisis

2007-02-06T18:47:00.000-08:00

Today I had the incredible honor of sitting in a class taught by William Kristol. If you don't know Kristol's name right off, you can tune in to Foxnews Sunday and often Special Report with Britt Hume to catch Kristol in a panel debate. One of the powerhouse minds behind the neocon movement, he's teaching a class that I've the pleasure of taking this semester.

Kristol kicked the class off by taking a look at the Declaration of Independence. It's been a couple of years since I read it, and as Kristol noted, this would probably be the only class we'd have here that would require reading the Declaration (the sadder since I'm at a school of government). A couple of things struck me during his lecture:

Noting human nature, Jefferson tosses out the line, "that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

If that line isn't an apt description of the nature of the beast at Bellevue, then I don't know what is. Penned 231 years ago, Jefferson's ink still glistens in my mind's eye. Men, given their nature, are disposed to suffer, suffer, and suffer more, if the price for such suffering's abolition is the sacrifice of the familiar. That is Bellevue. People know there is a problem. Lots of problems in fact. People know something isn't right, that things should change. That all grievances, allegations, and explanations should be heard. But this would require a change in the congregation's spiritually affluent lives--a sacrifice too great. Indeed, such is the hallmark of civilizational decline as Mark Steyn has noted in America Alone: the abandonment of self-determination to apathy.

Bellevue is declining just as civilizations do when they refuse to confront their internal rot and external threats. Bellevue, like the US, has both. Internally, BBC has corruption, sin, and hardheartedness. Many at the core of the church have sacrificed Right for expedience, choosing to run the church as a business without accountability to the shareholders (members) or transparency to the world. In the same way, Bellevue has external threats from seeker-friendliness, trendy spiritual fluff, and simple secularism. There are also many enjoying the unseemly mess that the BBC administration is exacerbating.

Many would argue that those dissenting are the real problem. This is only true if the dissenters are wrong. But if they are right, then there are huge problems at BBC which should be solved. Those concerned have tried to address the problems within the framework of the church via Matthew 18 and have been told to leave. This then raises the question: Is it better to leave a corrupt church to prey on innocents, or is it preferable to expose such corruption (vis a vis Matthew 18--which as an aside says nothing about excluding the World from knowledge of the conflict) so that pressure from the Christian world and the secular world may force a cleanup? Obviously the latter is the answer. For there are no downsides to showing the world our willingness to 1) admit sin, and 2) repent of it, and 3) restore fellowship.

Jefferson follows up saying, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

We have been abused by a pastorate intent on obfuscating (to know laughable levels), using church largess for personal gains (to be paid back purportedly, but at what cost to Cesar both locally and nationally), intimidating those who would question its actions (the dream, Mark Sharpe, other staff members who shall remain nameless here), cloaking itself in secrecy (vis a vis confidentiality agreements for multiple ministers, no business meetings or access to church documents and policy), harboring a child molester (after the molester purportedly offered to resign no less!), lawbreaking (both by trespassing (and from all signs falsely calling such trespassing an errand of reconciliation) and refusing to release documents as required under TCA 48-66-102).

One must ask what is so important that a CHURCH administration would break the law to conceal its actions.

Folks, Jefferson was right. We will suffer until we feel we can suffer no more. It shouldn't be that way. We can be free. We can be restored. We do not have to tolerate this dictatorial administration which removes deacons at will, attempts to coerce non-disclosure signature, and simply lies.

There have been "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same Object . . . a design to reduce [us] under absolute despotism."

Now the question is, will you do your duty and change our church, providing "new Guards for [our] future?" Will you? Will you force to an end this administration that does not comply with Matthew 18, refuses to open the administration to transparency, and refuses to obey the law? Will you force the administration to be accountable to the people themselves? Will you force the church to operate transparently, like Focus on the Family, such that anyone from anywhere can examine our books and non-confidential records to keep us honest?

If you will not, then I must ask, why?

Regarding the Morality of Recording Conversations

2007-02-05T09:26:00.001-08:00

Some have said that my recording of the conversation between myself and David Coombs demonstrates a lack of character or integrity. Let's break the arguments against recording down and see what we come up with.

Let's break it down. 1) I recorded to protect myself. Nothing wrong with that. Certainly nothing wrong since Mark Sharpe's meeting with Dr Gaines was so misconstrued to the deacons later. Indeed, I had considered using video tape but was afraid I wouldn’t be allowed in. That is the main reason I opted for the smaller recorder. Can any fault that after Jim Haywood’s experience while trying to record church announcements?

2) I recorded also to get exactly what David Coombs said. Nothing wrong there either. One of the most beneficial things in this entire broader debate would be to have key conversations and statements recorded so that we could be absolutely sure of what happened.

3) The point of contention seems to be the fact that I didn't tell David I was recording him. Well, I won't concede any moral high-ground on that point, and my reasoning for that is in the paragraphs that follow. But before I explain, I’ve got to ask just on face value how in heaven's name is it wrong to keep a perfect record in a situation when you think it likely someone will break the law? What moral authority can one appeal to condemn that?

And there’s the rub: Does natural or God’s law condemn that sort of recording? Does Man's law?

Regarding natural law and God’s law, I can think of three grounds on which my actions might be objected to: A) Breaking the Golden Rule, B) gossiping, and C) causing someone to stumble.

As far as A) goes, appealing to the Golden Rule seems to fall short in circumstances where people do wrong or give us reason to believe they will do wrong. For instance, if we see a fellow doing something immoral, say robbing a bank, we don’t say to ourselves, “Now if I were robbing that bank, I sure wouldn’t want someone to stop me. Guess that means I shouldn’t call the police.” Of course not. We realize that we must do what is right and prevent the man as best we can from committing the crime.

Now say we have a legitimate reason to believe that someone will do a wrong, do we not act accordingly? An example may help. I remember watching Dateline NBC ten or fifteen years ago and seeing one of their correspondents walk into a jewelry shop with a hidden camera. Under normal circumstances that might seem bit cheeky, but you see the correspondent had reason to believe that the store was going to cheat her because others had reported to her that the story was switching diamonds for worthless stones. And indeed, she caught them red-handed, switching out customers’ precious diamonds for cubic zirconia or some such. No one condemned the correspondent because she had reason to believe the jewelers would do wrong and she wanted to record the encounter to verify the customers’ claims. This is very similar to what we’ve dealt with at BBC. They have demonstrated time and again disregard for what is right from lies, to intimidation, to law breaking, to disregard for Matthew 18. This combined with the fact that they had in the past denied requests for the church’s bylaws gave me more than enough reason to suspect that they might well do the wrong thing. That being the case, conscience, reason, and Scripture all validate an action that at first glance doesn’t comport with the Golden Rule.

As for B) Gossiping, it is hard to condemn one for allowing others to know of a leader’s (or really anyone’s) transgression when the transgression affects all. If we are to condemn as gossips those who shed light on sins, then we must also condemn the prophets, the Lord, Paul when he spoke of the fornicator or Demas, John when he reported Jesus’ conversation with Peter, and when he talked of Diotrephes. Indeed, we should probably note that most of the Old Testament is riddled with “gossip.” And this is just in reference to the Bible. What about the sex offender registry? That notes people’s transgressions. Should that be taken down? Of course not. It let’s people know that certain people are not to be trusted. The same can be said of those who, for legitimate reasons, note sin.

Further complicating the gossip argument is the fact that one can rarely hold anyone, especially leaders, accountable without noting to the masses the nature of a transgression. If this is agreed, then the only counter-recording argument left under this line of thinking is that the recorder is too accurate, and as such does not present the other a fair chance. Most would consider that a dubious proposition.
Speaking to C) Causing Someone to Stumble, I would argue that simply silently noting exactly what happened in any circumstance does not cause anyone to stumble. The argument that says otherwise is akin to saying darkness is what makes people sin. This is obviously untrue because darkness simply provides the necessary shroud for our true character to be revealed. Indeed, the idea that we can act without accountability is exactly the problem here. Not the imposition of accountability! Darkness doesn’t force sin, it simply doesn’t resist it. And you can’t argue that I should have tried to stop Coombs from sinning. I did try. I told him what the law said. I just didn’t say there could be consequences.

Those are the arguments, as far as I can see them, from Moral Law.
Regarding the arguments from Man's Law, we need to look at four things: A) Tennessee State Law, B) Federal Law, C) 12 Other State’s Laws, D) the Right to Privacy.
Pertaining to A) Tennessee State Law and B) Federal Law, my actions were completely in compliance with TCA 39-13-601(a)(1)(C&D), 39-13-601(c)(5), and 18 USC 2510 (the state and federal statutes on recording conversations).

Pertaining to C) Other State’s Law, I really hadn’t thought about this until someone emailed me arguing that my lack of character (and presumably commitment of sin as well) is proved since 12 other states forbid the sort of recording I engaged in. This is one of those arguments that feels right and wrong at the same time. It feels right because it tries to appeal to natural or universal law (Rom 2) which we as Christians are trained to obey above man’s law (so we’re always trying to be at attentive to it), but the argument also feels wrong because we can’t figure out quiet where it fits into natural law except possibly at the Golden Rule (which overlaps with God’s law) which we’ve already seen doesn’t work here.
Let’s take the argument and break it down. The argument implies that since 12 other states forbid my actions, my actions are condemnable. But where does law derive from? we define things as condemnable since the law forbids them or do we forbid things by law because those things are condemnable? The answer is obvious. So we can break the law down into two types: i) Law that derives from moral wrongs, and ii) law that derives from the whims of the people (like school zones, tax rates, zoning laws, etc).

What the 12 Other States argument implies is this: An action is wrong because it is outlawed. Well, one problem with that is that recording isn’t outlawed universally (or even in majority). The other problem is that there’s nothing in God’s law or natural law that comes anywhere near forbidding it.

With that said, we have to acknowledge that the 12 states which do outlaw recordings do so out of preference. Before you dismiss that argument, note that this happens in realms other than recording. Those of you reading the blog in Tennessee, do you pay personal income taxes? You don’t? Well, under the 12 States argument you’re sinning because other states have said that people in their states must pay income taxes. Is the picture clearer? You see, income taxes, like recordings, can’t find any acknowledgment in either natural or moral law, except to the extent that they are to be obeyed if they are legislated. Since Tennessee has neither made recording nor not paying personal income tax (because there is no personal income tax) crimes, then you do not commit a sin when you record or refuse to pay a tax that isn’t levied on you.
Similarly, some states have higher speed limits than others. If Minnesota has an interstate speed limit of 55 mph and you choose to go 70 mph in a 70 mph zone in Tennessee are you breaking the law? Again, under the 12 States Argument you are. But again this argument fails so obviously because the speed limit, like income taxes, recording laws, and a multitude of other topics which can’t seem to find their basis in natural or moral law, come down to public preference as reflected in law. Not very satisfying I know, but that’s what it really amounts to. Tennesseans don’t pay income taxes because they prefer not to and the legislation reflects that. They can drive 70 mph because their legislators prefer it to be that way. They can record conversations they are a part of without other parties knowing since their legislators (and federal legislators) prefer it that way.

Finally, addressing D) The Right to Privacy. A few may appeal to that as a defense against unwanted recordings. First, if you appeal to this, please note that this is the exact idea that Justice William Douglas used in the case (Griswold v. Connecticut) that allowed Roe v. Wade to fall the way it did. But that aside, the argument for a right to privacy comes from what Douglas called the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution. What Douglas meant is that while the Constitution doesn’t expressly say there is a right to privacy, but if we take a little bit from this amendment, a little bit from that one, and a pinch of another one; then suddenly boom! we’ve got ourselves an implied right to privacy. Now this may seem plausible to some, but most of us tend to interpret the Scriptures and the Constitution literally. If you want to accept the Right to Privacy argument go for it, but if you do, you’ll also be accepting that gay marriage is protected under the Massachusetts Constitution and the idea that Genesis may just be a mythological account with moral lessons but no firm basis in reality.

Addendum:

It's interesting that some are appealing to an Argument from Contradiction: they say I violated my own principle because my actions didn't comport with the definition of "transparency."

Unfortunately that argument is a straw man. I say this because it fails to make a certain distinction--namely that the "transparency" I and others are working for is transparency required under man's law (§48-66-102), God's law (Rom 12:17), and reason.

The "transparency" I allegedly transgressed does not actually exist under man's law, God's law, or reason (as seen above)--except for the use of the Golden Rule which is subject to obvious exceptions. I pointed out some of those exceptions before, but here's another set of examples for the skeptical out there:

I Kings 20:35-43: where one of the Sons of the Prophets had himself beaten, then using the emotion that that false beating elicited from the King, the Son of the Prophets allowed the king to condemn himself; 2 Kings 6:13-23: Where Elisha completely misled the Syrians, telling them that they were not in fact at Dothan where Elisha was staying (of course he was staying there), he then indicated he would lead them to where Elisha was staying and of course did not; 2 Kings, 5:25-27: Elisha’s allowing his servant to condemn himself when Elisha already knew the servant was guilt and said nothing; and 2 Samuel 12: Nathan’s allowing David to condemn himself when Nathan already knew he was guilty but said nothing.

In each of these cases the protagonists knew something that would be damning to someone else, and chose not to be transparent about it (usually to further catch the person breaking his own code or lying). It is difficult to conclude two things from the above examples:

1) That the protagonists would condemn their own actions and simultaneously approve a refusal to release documents as obligated by man's law, God's law, and reason.

2) That the protagonists would accept their own actions and simultaneously approve a refusal to release documents as required by man's law, God's law, and reason.

Most of you objectors fall into one of those two camps. You might want to think about deserting.

In summary, it would be difficult to argue that the men at the center of the above examples would EVER think their actions were condemnable like the actions of those who refuse to release financial information as required under law. That dog just won't hunt.

Some have also noted that recording and releasing such information through the press amounts to, or results in, self-aggrandizement. But of course such an assertion about one can only be based on what the one has chosen to reveal to the other about himself, or on the other's opinion of the one's purportedly self-aggrandizement. I have certainly never in the least said or intimated that my actions were in any way designed to bring glory to myself, so those who say otherwise are left with their opinions or inferences as the basis for their criticism. To that, all I can say is that their inferences are incorrect entirely.

But another problem with the self-aggrandizement argument is that it automatically condemns any who would do good in the public eye. Take for example, Adrian Rogers. One could just as easily argue that he was self-aggrandizing when he stood up for Truth at the SBC, when he appeared in the media to defend us, and when he stood publicly against gay marriage. One could level the same accusations at James Dobson.
The problem is that the self-aggrandizement argument potentially condemns any who do good in public, implying that anyone who does good or what is right publicly only does it publicly for his own benefit. This is obviously false. Some do. Many do not. Further complicating things is the fact that this same argument logically results in the idea that one CANNOT do good if he is doing it publicly. This is obviously false.

A more interesting take on that, however, is Paul's note about motivations in Philippians 1. He notes that whether people preach the gospel from envy or love, he doesn't care as long as it gets preached. I can't help but think that this idea is applicable here. Whether one does good from a desire to look awesome, or out of a desire to simply do what is right, isn't the important thing to others the fact that he simply did right? Certainly his pride is sin, but that is between himself and God, and the good he does perhaps should not be thrown out on the basis of his less-than-altruistic motivation.

But of course, I could be wrong. As for my motivations, you have only my word that they are from a pure desire to see the truth realized, not out of any desire to bring honor to myself. I believe any who have talked with me directly could attest to this. As for what is on the inside that you cannot see, I assure you it is altruistic, but if you choose to judge that anyway, I'll say what Paul said, "It's a small thing that you judge me."

Forum confusion

2006-10-14T09:17:00.000-07:00

It occurred to me earlier today that there may be some confusion over my quote in the commercial appeal in late September when it is compared with my response to Rev. Weatherwax. There is no contradiction, but as has been wisely said, "You should always lay things out very plainly for people otherwise they may well miss the point."

The CA article quotes me as saying that I had wanted to create a forum for members of the church to discuss these issues. That quote is quite correct (though it is difficult to anticipate just what part of what you had hoped would be published will actually get published). I had desired to do that long with providing commentary and covering what I saw as the issues that would not be allowed before the church (see mission statement).

In my letter to Rev Weatherwax, I noted that it was my personal blog and not a forum. This is true as well and extremely sensible given the context of our correspondence. The blog started as a personal blog, became a forum (by definition) when people posted their opinons, and (by definition) reverted from a forum to a standard blog when I turned comments off.

If you read the correspondence between myself and Rev Weatherwax, these points become abundantly clear, but just in case there was any question at all, I wanted to do some preemptive clarification before some tried to bring this to my attention.

A New Low--Reamed with Lies by a Family Friend

2006-10-12T21:28:00.000-07:00

The administration has fired an unexpected volley at me showing beyond a shadow of a doubt the lengths at which it is willing to go to marginalize, demonize, and delegitimize anyone who asks questions or asks for a proper hearing of all evidence.

I believe this deserves to be covered here. I had laid down my sword. I quit pursuing the blog and trying to get information to the Bellevue body because I felt enough information had been put forth. Apparently, this has not been the case. And while my life as a student does not afford me the time to keep up this blog as I would like, the following needs to be shared with you all.

I recently wrote the letter immediately below to the Bellevue Deacon body. The letter is civil, even-handed, and pleading in nature--it's urges the body not to judge Dr Gaines or Mark Sharpe until a fair hearing per Matthew 18 has been allowed. How it could be interpreted as offensive or an affront is beyond me. Shortly after I sent this letter, I received an email from Rev. Phil Weatherwax at Bellevue. The subject line of that email was "your letter to the deacons." In this letter, Rev Weatherwax spent two and a half pages promulgating nothing but lies about me, and this in a vindictive, demeaning, and highly antagonistic manner. He had his facts entirely wrong.

I wrote back defending myself, and he claims not to have even read my attempt at defending myself. Our entire correspondence, starting with my open letter to the Bellevue Deacon Body, is below.

If this is what these men mean by "attempting to reconcile" then we are in trouble. If he truly believes I am in the wrong, then this set of correspondence is nothing but a manifestation of Ez 34:4: “The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up [that which was] broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.” This is one of the saddest days I've seen in my young life.

Finally, days ago I copied to Dr Gaines my initial response debunking beyond question these lies along with the original letter containing the lies. I have yet to hear back from him in any way.

Correspondence follow below:

October 8, 2006

Dear Bellevue Deacons,

Tonight I write you as a concerned member of our wonderful church. For months, many of you have heard whispered rumors and nameless fears—concerns about the direction of the church, actions of the Administration, and divisiveness of certain members. Sadly, I find myself in the last category mentioned, one who has been titled a divider of the brethren.

I write to you not in an attempt to divide, for that has never been my goal. I would simply ask that you examine both the accusations of Mark Sharpe and the Administration’s response to those accusations.

Each of you found himself in a deacon’s meeting not so very long ago during which Dr Gaines commented on some of the issues that have been driving the recent controversy. Because of Sharpe’s conspicuous absence during this meeting, one deacon asked if Sharpe should be present while the deacon body heard the matter. Dr Gaines’ response was that Sharpe’s presence would be the last thing such a meeting needed.

Dear Brothers, you know as well as I do that this is not the way these matters are to be handled. Mark Sharpe has for months, and to no avail, tried to address the body of whom he is a member. We see from Scripture that when a brother has something against another brother, he is to confront that brother, then confront that same brother with witnesses, and then if the brother will still not hear him, he is to take the brother before the church.

Mark Sharpe has made far more than a good-faith effort to follow Matthew 18. Time and again he has met with Dr Gaines, only to be told that he should leave the church. He is currently being prevented from completing Matthew 18’s mandate because the Administration will not allow him to speak to the Deacon or Church bodies.

Brothers, you are vested with respect and responsibility, and you dare not turn your backs on a violation of a Scriptural mandate, especially when such a violation is being committed by the Church’s leadership.

Some of you may reply that First Timothy 5 notes we are not to receive accusations against an elder unless it comes from two or three witnesses (indeed, I know of a deacon board member who contends that Matthew 18 does not apply to the pastor). Gentlemen, I can tell you that others who share Sharpe’s concerns are willing to speak, but only with the presence of authorities on the law in the room—this should tell you something about the gravity of this situation. The Administration will not receive them, and is thus preventing them too from completing their mandate as laid out in Matthew 18.

This brings me to the heart of this letter. I would beg you each to come forward in a visible, unmistakable way to show your concern and worry over the actions of the leadership specifically pertaining to this highly visible breach of Biblical conduct—the denial of men the opportunity to exercise Matthew 18, a fundamental part of the Christian walk. If, for this, you require two or more witness, I will personally join Sharpe, and I can provide you an enormous list of others who will do the same.

You may well respond that you have a ministry, a position, or a reputation that cannot be jeopardized by the action I’m suggesting. Well, it is not without reason that you have these things, and I thank God that He has given them to you. I also remind you, gently, that it is He who has given them to you, and this not without requirement on your part. He has given them, and you have a responsibility to serve Him above any office or privilege He grants you. We would all do well to be put in remembrance of Jesus’ words to Pilate: “You have no power over me unless it is given you from my Father.” He was of course right. No one holds any authority or power over us except that power which God ordains and allows to be exercised. Nothing can be done to us or taken from us without God’s express permission. This said, it’s easy to see why the apostles, and we too, could say: “We should obey God rather than men” or perhaps better for our purposes, “We should fear God rather than men.”

My brothers and my lay leaders, some of you know me, some of you have taught me in Sunday School. I beg for your ears now. Regardless of your thoughts on Sharpe’s concerns themselves, surely you realize that the Administration’s refusal to allow him to carry out Matthew 18 is without defense. Please dear friends, do not condemn our Pastor or our Brother, Mark Sharpe, without insisting that both sides be heard in a biblical manner. Be wise in this and insist on being able to question both men from the floor (pre-sorted questions and rehearsed responses do no one any good). Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” Brothers, do not be paralyzed by inaction. “We should obey God rather than men.”

Sincerely,

Josh Manning

From: Weatherwax, Phil [mailto:*******]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 7:12 PM
To: *******.com
Subject: your letter to the deacons

Josh Manning,

I read your open letter to the deacons and have spent some time dealing with my impressions about you, your motives, the issues you address, the scripture you are so quick to claim, and the platform on which a young church member has been thrust into the very fabric of church life. I have quite frankly, struggled with my feelings about all of the above.

First, let me address you and your motives and I must confess that I know little of you but know your parents well. I know that in your young twenty three years you have had somewhat of a history of leaving churches and joining others so loyalty to Bellevue Baptist Church cannot be the driving issue for you. I also know that when you were here your attendance was at best spotty and your involvement in the youth and college activities showed even less of a commitment to the church programs and its staff and lay leaders. I wonder if I would get the same sense of lack of commitment and loyalty if I called First Baptist Church West Memphis, Second Presbyterian, Emmanuel in West Memphis, et. al. So if a twenty three year old is not that strongly committed to the church and is not all that loyal, what motives can he have for such an all out assault on the pastor, staff and leadership of the church, while all the time claiming it is my beloved Bellevue?

The one thing comes to my mind and I am sorry if it is not true, (but then truth has not governed what has been put on your web page either) is that you are a law student who is trying a case in the court of public opinion and using the tactics used by many lawyers today. Let me give you a few of those tactics that I see.

First: it matters not whether what you say is true just get it out in front of the people and create a reasonable doubt. All you have to do is get one out of twelve to doubt. Haven't there been a few items which have hit the page and then strangely disappeared when they were proven to be false. Yet you issued no apologies to the ones who read it, may have even believed it. No retractions were made so people who saw it are just left with doubt which in some cases is not even reasonable.

Second: use influential people,sometimes called expert witnesses to make your case. The bit with Pastor Adrian Rogers was scraping the bottom of the barrel. To use an excerpt from Pastor Rogers that had nothing to do with the present situation was so wrong. Some might assume that Pastor Rogers was in full agreement with you. Do you think today he would undo what he did when he passed the mantel and washed Pastor Gaines feet? I think not and I don't think he would have endorsed you using that excerpt in the way that you did? Help me with the legality of that act anyway. It maybe crossing a fence that you did not have permission to cross. I do take my hat off to you at the credentials of the expert witnesses that you have brought to the World Wide Web Court to try your case. They are mostly faithful men and personal friends which is what makes it hard for some of us.

Third: when public opinion or evidence is against you suppress it, squash it, minimize it or discredit it. I am not only not a lawyer but I am far from being a computer and a WWW expert. Help me understand if I am wrong but was not your page originally set up to be a "blog" that was linked with the "savingbellevue" web page? Is not a blog an interactive page that allows people to express their opinion no matter which side of the aisle they are on? I guess what made me begin to wonder about your motives was early on when you announced that you were the Supreme Blog Master. Someone had to be the one to determine what went on the site and what didn't and you determined that it would be you. You have established yourself as the one who makes that determination. I would imagine if it would have remained as a true blog you would have been overwhelmed with the opposition to your views and the desire on the part of the vast majority of the BBC membership to see you ride off into the sunset and try some other case. You have done an excellent job of getting your side only before the BBC membership. What more can Mark Sharpe possibly say to the deacons then he has had your platform to say without the possibility of refutation.

Fourth: When the facts aren't on your side attack the person. I have grieved to the point of becoming sick to my stomach over the attempted assination of the character of my Pastor. Having been in that position before, I can feel the pain that your constant attacks have put on Pastor Gaines and his family. God only knows the damage you have done and done it apparently with no remorse. I look first at the infamous "fence" incident. Having been a witness for the Lord for many years and knocked on many doors unannounced I have gone through gates, privacy signs, dogs, and a hundred other impediments to be able to witness to someone. I am sure that in the same situation, I would have done the same thing and not thought about it until the "Manning-Supreme Blog MASTER" report caught me. It seems like a lot of something about nothing. What really brought me to write this long email is that the very thing that you have persecuted my Pastor over you yourself have done with no apology and no apparent remorse. Yes, you did do it. You took the deacons book and published as the Supreme Blog MASTER, the names addresses and phone numbers of all the deacons. Some of those deacons put their unlisted numbers in that listing solely for the use of the Deacon network and you published home numbers for everyone to see. What about that Deacon doctor who has an unlisted number and an "on call network," and you have just given his patients his home number. I think you realized your mistake because all but the name and email addresses soon disappeared. Now how about that gate that you jumped over and the fact that you trespassed into those families lives. Not only that you gave the gate key to others so they could enter. Where is the private and public apologies for that? I can hear you saying, "Well I thought it was the right thing to do at the time."

What about the dream and the Amen-er. You have done your best to make the pastor out to be a liar and some kind of a brute beast who squashes dissenting opinions. Well I was the one who finally talked to the man who happens to be a very good friend of mine and there was no dream that ever was a part of any conversation I had leading up to the confrontation and subsequent talk with the man. My friend received it well, was not offended with me or the pastor and I saw him sitting quietly in the pew Sunday. I can tell you from having preached to the man and taught him in Sunday School for years he can be annoying if you are not used to him. Again, story completely blown out of proportion and for What?

Fifth and final lawyer tactic. It really doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, whether the man is guilty or innocent, win at all costs is the order of the day, and if you can bring down a giant the more prominent you will become. At this time let me apologize to those many wonderful lawyers who practice law with integrity and moral character.

Josh, I am sorry but I think you are a shark who smells blood and is now going for the kill, trying to make a name for yourself. I see no other dog you have in this hunt. If I am accurate as I believe I am you need to repent and cease and desist.

Reading David Bishop's well written letter which you did chose as the Supreme Blog MASTER, to publish let me briefly address, the "where there is smoke there must be fire, and it is a pretty thin pancake that doesn't have two sides and we need to get both sides together and have this ironed out in a public forum."

Mark Sharpe has had more time with the pastor and his associate in his brief one year tenure then most of his staff have had. I Wish Pastor would jump my fence and come see me. I would apologize for not having the gate open for him. Isn't that what you are wanting a forum with the pastor and leadership.

Mark has not been able to be reconciled and restored through all these meetings and I believe the reason is simply, he does not want to be. For some reason he is enjoying the notoriety and the attention. He wants to bring down the pastor and with him the church that over and over you guys claim to love. How can I make such a statement. Well I simply refer to Mark's own words, "I ask for the Pastor's resignation." What gall! What can he hope to gain out of a meeting with the pastor and deacons. Certainly not fulfillment of Matthew 18. I look at every attempt attempt the Pastor and his leadership have made to explain their view of the situation and each only became fodder for Mark's cannon to fire back them and post on your website where only your opinion can be seen. It was interesting that David used a political debate as a comparison of how the truth can be brought out. I happened to be watching a little of the Corker vs. Ford debate and it proved to be nothing but a mudslinging contest with no more knowledge of the truth then we had before it started. Yes Pastor Rogers said, It is a pretty thin pancake which only has one side, but he also said, "there is no winner when you get in a fight with a skunk." I will add to that one "especially if you invite him into your house for the fight."

I have a hard time believing any of what you say when so much has been proven to be false, twisted or inconsequential when compared to the statements of trusted staff and laity. It is also hard for me to believe you when you have moved away from your original issues which were stated to be foundational to try to find new (usually laughable) items in the things that Pastor has said and preached.

I think it would be appropriate for you to give it up, apologize to the pastor and church and move on. Bellevue will make it with or the Supreme Blog MASTER. I hope some day when you are older and wiser that you will see what damage you have done to the Kingdom. Even if I could say that some or all of what you may have put forth is right(which I cannot) the way you have done it is totally wrong and malicious.

I give you no permission to reprint any of this letter unless you print it all. Anyone can cut and paste what I say and make any point they want. Please don't abuse my integrity by doing that.

Yours without apology,

Phil Weatherwax

Minister, Bellevue Baptist Church

From: Joshua H. Manning [mailto:********.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:18 AM
To: Weatherwax, Phil
Cc: Gaines, Steve
Subject: RE: your letter to the deacons

Dear Mr Whetherwax,

I need to preface this entire letter saying that I have held you in very high regard for a very long time. I think of so many times when in my home I’ve heard wonderful things said of you. I have considered you one of the strongest leaders Bellevue has had. I’ve been proud that my parents knew you.

I don’t desire to debate or argue with you. The letter to the deacon body was not sent to you, so I think it may have been forwarded to you, I presume (and if I’m wrong, I’ll be glad to admit that when informed and apologize) by the pastor’s offices, so that it, and I, could both be handled. You have done that task. But you’ve also said some things that for my own sake and yours I feel I need to contest:

1) My loyalty/participation at Bellevue

You mention that I’ve a history of leaving and joining other churches. All incidence of comings and goings occurred while or before I was 16 years of age. The last time I left a church I was sixteen (1999). I left Cornerstone Baptist (I’ve never attended Emmanuel) in West Memphis when my parents did. I was living with them, and my dad was the spiritual leader of our family. I left when they did. I joined Bellevue when they did. I stayed submitted to my father’s authority. Surely you do not fault me for that.

You say that you know my attendance has been spotty. Sir, that is a lie. You do not know that. You cannot know that because my attendance since 1999 has been exemplary—Phil Newberry and Rob Mullins should both be able to comment to this. I even spent the first three years of college coming back home on weekends (a two hour drive from my dorm) just so I could attend Bellevue each Sunday. The last year of my undergraduate studies, I did spend more time at college, but I don’t think living away is grounds for allegations about my church attendance given that when I was at home, my church attendance was, again, exemplary.

Further, you contend that my involvement in ” the youth and college activities showed even less of a commitment to the church programs and its staff and lay leaders.” I wasn’t aware that Bellevue required allegiance or commitments to church programs and its staff and lay leaders. Had I known that such allegiance is required, I hope I could have convinced my family not to join. I grant my allegiance to no man, only to the Lord and His Word. If you can show me in Scripture where it says that I’m to be committed to church programs, I’ll repent, but you wont’ find that passage. I’m only constrained as a believer to not forsake the gathering of the brethren. And this I have not forsaken. Programs are man made with a heavenly goal. Participation does not legitimize membership, nor does lack of participation in programs per se disqualify one from membership—at least I don’t remember ever having learned this, but much has changed over the last year.

Since much of your letter was predicated on that false supposition, I’m afraid your arguments will experience a cascade failure of sorts—the faulty assumptions skew the validity all conclusions built thereon.

2) I am neither a lawyer nor a law student—this again creates another set of cascade failures because you’ve predicated statements based on a falsity. And for the record, I’m a graduate student.

3) If by “trying in the court of public opinion” you mean “presenting allegations that should come before the church under Matthew 18 (and possibly 1 Timothy 5) but are not because the church administration will not allow that” then you are right. But I doubt this is what you meant. There is a distinction, whether you or the administration realize it, between the court of public opinion and Matthew 18. The part that seems to confuse many is that a byproduct of Matthew 18 being fully carried out is that public opinion is formed. This is unavoidable given the fact that we are dealing with thinking human beings.

4) I’m honestly having a hard time following your second enumerated point. To my knowledge I’ve not commented on Dr Rogers’ would be opinion on any of the pastor’s actions. I believe I’ve used a quote or two regarding standing for truth, but aren’t those universally applicable, being normative statements that can be practically appropriated by any who believe that they are standing for the truth. This is an especially legitimate case since we’ve not established who here is not truthful—and I would point out that the reason that has not been established is that the administration will not allow Matthew 18 to be carried out.

And, sir, before you accuse me of more of this, I can produce testimony from an impeccable source who even the most skeptical on the other side would believe. And that testimony would state that I told this person that I strictly wanted to avoid pitting “Rogers against Rogers” on the blog by responding to his quotes being touted by the administration with other quotes from him that bolster my position. This person will tell you that this is exactly what I have said to her. I will seek this person’s permission to divulge his/her name if you’d like.

5) Regarding your third enumerated point: You have again, again sir, stated falsities. A blog is not designed to be an expressly interactive interface, look it up. You’ve mistaken a blog for a chat forum. They are not the same. Again, before you accuse me of something based on a definition, look it up. Blog is common parlance for Web-Log. The idea is that of an open diary or running commentary. Some blogs have an option that allows readers to comment on what the blogger has posted. I turned this feature on and allowed a multitude of comments both from people who applauded my actions and people who hated them. I was even handed. The comments I disallowed were those which were unedifying from both sides. I eventually disabled the comment option because of the flood of foul, ungodly comments. Most of these I note came from those who support the current pastor—I’m not at all implying guilt by association, this is just an observation.

Next, the blog was not set up to be part of savingbelleuve.com. In fact, if memory serves, the blog dates back to a few days prior to savingbellevue’s start and my knowledge of the project.

I never, never proclaimed myself “Supreme Blog Master.” Where in the world can you justify saying that? Go search the blog. That isn’t there. A search of every email I’ve sent for the past year will not return any results for that phrase or anything remotely like it. I did determine that I would be the one to filter the comments while they were still enabled because it was my blog. Again, you’re commenting on things you seem to have absolutely no knowledge of: a blog is by definition a web log. It’s possible for many people to run a blog, but this one was mine personally. There is no reason in the world why I should give up the right to choose what gets posted on a site that bears my name. You know that would be unwise, and I daresay you’d never give anyone such authority over something bearing your name. Don’t condemn me for the same—especially when the same is so easily obtainable through reason and common sense. Finally, my assertion of authority in the blog is stated at this hyperlink: http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/comments-are-ended.html. Read that post and please tell me if anything in my words or implications comports with the title of Supreme Blog Master.

Next, I have never removed one item from the blog because it had been proven false because not one item on the blog has yet been proven false to me. Even Sharpe’s testimony which is most likely the hottest debated issue, has yet to be proven false in any way that I am aware of. But testimony is testimony regardless of fact. If the testimony is factual and true, then it stands on its own. If it is false, then it condemns the one who spoke it. But the fact that something may be false does not nullify its existence (we don’t strike perjury from court records), therefore it would be foolish and counterproductive for me to remove anything from the blog: its express purpose was to get at the truth of things whether the truth condemn or vindicate parts of the church.

Under this same point you refer to two other things: 1) a possible deluge of pro-Dr Gaines comments that would send me off into the sunset and 2) my doing an excellent job of getting mine and Mark Sharpe’s side before the church. Addressing 1: I turned comments off for the reasons I stated earlier to you and also on the blog itself (if you want the exact article addressing this it’s at http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/comments-are-ended.html, and you should also see http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/cleaned-up-comments-pages.html). Regarding 2: Good night man! Should both sides not be heard? I even let the other side post! What a choice of points to attack me on!

Under this same heading you say “What more can Mark Sharpe possibly say to the deacons then he has had your platform to say without the possibility of refutation.” Mr Weatherwax, you miss the point entirely. This is not about getting it out there without possibility of refutation. This is about trying to get things done via Matthew 18 (the way in which information is dissiminated to the church is nowhere mentioned in the passage. In fact, most are forced to fall back on the 1 Corinth 6 passage to defend being against the internet disbursal of information, but that argument is a non-sequitor and is answered on the blog itself at http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/answers-to-objections-to-this-blog.html. If the administration you’re a part of would actually do what the Bible tells them to do in Matthew 18, then both sides would get to hear and argue their cases and refute each other as you seem to desire. Don’t you see that?

Finally under this disgraceful paragraph, you say that “when public opinion or evidence is against you [sic] suppress it, squash it, minimize it or discredit it.” I think I’ve shown that to be false already, but I would also ask what evidence has been given that discredits anything said? What one shred of evidence can you point to that has been suppressed or minimized? Sharpe has asked for receipts and financial documents that could easily disprove every single financial question. The administration has refused. If by “us suppressing” you mean “the administration not providing any evidence only opinion” then you’ve got us there.

I’ve posted what the Chairman of the Deacons has said in defense of the pastor. I’ve given a him a forum and even let him rebut—and this while he has not allowed the same privilege of rebuttal to Sharpe in deacon’s meetings. I’ve even tried to speak with the pastor, and he doesn’t seem to be interested. Sir, this seems a joke in horrible taste. If only it were so.

6) Regarding your fourth enumeration: There is much here that will be addressed by the last paragraph you’ll find at the end of this email. Moving on: As for the rest: First, I defy you to point to one unjust, unreasonable allegation I have made toward Dr Gaines on that blog. One. I have reported on testimony. I have been very careful not made allegations, though I have analyzed what some of the leadership has said. Next, you probably won’t hear me saying “I thought it was the right thing to do at the time” as you thought I might because I am vehemently opposed the attitude that gives rise to statements like that. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Time rarely plays a role.

You speak of the “amener” and say “You have done your best to make the pastor out to be a liar and some kind of a brute beast who squashes dissenting opinions.” How did I do this? I have not made him out to be any such thing. My exact response when Sharpe commented on this in the interview was “[Speaking of Mark’s allegations] This is pretty shocking, [I summarize what Sharpe has just said.] Is that correct? MS: That is correct. JM: Now Mark, these are pretty serious statements.” The above comes straight from that first interview with Mark Sharpe (http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-record-firsthand-information.html). The above statements in no way, no way, comport with your accusation. Mr Weatherwax, you are old enough to know that words mean things. They have exact meanings. What I said in no way fits the words you used.

You say that the “amener’s” testimony contradicts Mark’s. Well, the thing that would help everyone establish what’s going on would be to allow Matthew 18 to be fully executed. Then all could be dealt with in the open. But again, the administration you’re a member of will not allow this.

And sir, the “amen’s distract” argument is so sad that I hesitate to address it. How can you say this after you’ve sat in an auditorium where the pastor has time and again solicited such comments, and even chided the congregation for not amening? I’m appalled by what seems to be a lack of intellectual integrity. But this is far less appalling than most of what I’ve waded through to make it to this point.

Again, much of what’s located under your fourth enumerated point will be dealt with by a solitary paragraph at the end of this email. Once you’ve read that paragraph, go back and reread your fourth enumerated point. I will hope for an apology afterwards.

7) Regarding your fifth enumerated point. Isn’t it hard to argue that I say right or wrong don’t matter when scripture is what I’ve been appealing to all through this? And contextualized scripture at that. Go read that blog. It’s chocked full of contextualized Scripture.

Next, I do care whether the man is guilty or not. I would point you to a line in my letter to the deacon body that said “Please dear friends, do not condemn our Pastor or our Brother, Mark Sharpe, without insisting that both sides be heard in a biblical manner.” That should debunk your contention well enough, but if not, go find the purpose statement to my blog. It was hoped to dispel false rumors against all involved.

I’ve no interest in bringing down a giant. I’ve honestly got too much to do to worry about bringing down a giant. Sir, I am studying in Boston right now. Destroying an innocent pastor in a far away city where I will probably not spend my professional life does not benefit me one whit. Indeed, as I pointed out on the blog, it would have been far easier and more personally beneficial for me to employee any abilities I have in the defense of the administration. However, I cannot do that which is not of faith.

Also, while your apology to lawyers with moral character and integrity does not constitute a de jure attack on me, it does constitute a de facto attack. So far you’ve been wrong about every single accusation you’ve hurled at me. Every single one, sir. Let that sink in. And now you have the unmitigated audacity and gall to attack my character. I’ve not attacked anyone’s character, especially the pastor’s. Search the blog. I have asked questions, but that does not constitute an attack—especially the way I’ve asked them. I’ve even commended the church when they’ve done what I felt was right. Sir, we cannot live in a society that does not ask hard questions and try to get answers. Those are not attacks. They are immunizations, designed to fortify us all.

Further, sir, I did not in any way know of or participate in the posting of David Bishop’s letter. I’ve no problem at all with your addressing it. I do have a problem with you again lying about me when you address it. Once again, read the final paragraph of this letter and then bite your tongue.

Your statement that “Mark Sharpe has had more time with the pastor and his associate [sic] in his brief one year tenure then most of his staff have had. I Wish Pastor would jump my fence and come see me. I would apologize for not having the gate open for him. Isn't that what you are wanting a forum with the pastor and leadership [sic]” is a non-sequitor—it does not follow—in regards to the unlocking of the gate. You miss the point that your wanting to have an unlocked gate does nothing to change the fact that these men broke the law—in public at Sharpe’s neighborhood. Further, I’m sure the pastor will make himself available to many who ask, especially deacons. I suspect they need only ask. That’s what Sharpe did. I would advise you to do the same. Going even further you say “Isn't that what you are wanting a forum with the pastor and leadership“ in regards to the fence incident. Again, sir, words mean things. A forum is not an in-home visit. Look it up. I and others want a forum with the pastor and the church, not a visit from the pastor. He has not taken what Sharpe said individually or with witnesses, and I’ve tried to talk with him to no avail, thus the next step is going before the church under Matthew 18.

You say that you believe Mark’s motivations are less than altruistic. That is your right. I do not dispute it. I can tell you that I’ve talked with Mark many times and I do not believe there is any evidence in Mark’s words, attitude, or demeanor—and again this is after having spoken with him privately on more occasions than I can remember—that his intentions are anything less than unimpeachable. You may disagree. That is your right, but don’t claim that a call for resignation equals self-servingness. Did you feel the same when Republicans called for President Clinton’s resignation (I in no way mean to insinuate that the President and Dr Gaines are in any way, shape, or form comparable). Did you feel it was self-serving or the right thing to do? (A more intriguing question is “are those two things mutually exclusive (as you seem to imply)?” For the record, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive at all, but we won’t go into that.)

You say “What can he hope to gain out of a meeting with the pastor and deacons. Certainly not fulfillment of Matthew 18.“ Well, I think that’s why we’re a tad more interested in dealing with the church. Sharpe has fulfilled the first portions of Matthew 18 and to no avail. Going to the church will at this point fulfill Matthew 18.

You also note that fighting with a skunk is a bad idea. Well you’re right, but you make this a tad too easy on yourself in my view. You have taken nothing by lies from the previous paragraphs and concluded seemingly that I am the skunk. What may be worse is that you’ve not actually done this, but have concluded that we’re the collective skunk (I can’t believe I’m actually reduced to writing these lines) based upon our desire to see Matthew 18 carried out and our willingness to go to the congregation—after being blocked by the admisistration—if that’s what it takes force the fulfillment of a biblical mandate. If that is the definition of a skunk, then sir I reek to the heavens and am proud of it.

Mr Weatherwax, you say that much of what I’ve said has been proven false. Sir, again, I ask you, where is that proof? Where is the signed testimony, where are the financial records? Yet again I say, words mean things. “Proven” does not mean “is alleged.” I would never say that it is proven that our pastor has done wrong. It hasn’t been! We want a forum where those who claim to have such proof may present it. If we fulfill Matthew 18, we may actually get to the bottom of all of this and then the proof will be, as the saying goes, in the pudding. Sir, if you and the administration are correct, this could all go away with the fulfillment of Matthew 18. Don’t you see, I want to get to the root of this as much as anyone does! I hate dealing with this, sir. I loathe it. I miss peace and quiet and being able to be nurtured at my church. I miss feeling that I can trust my leaders. I miss being able concentrate on my studies and being able to sleep with an unburdened mind. But believers are to be warriors for truth, and when such luxuries do no afford themselves on the battlefield, we must press on. So be it.

You say, “your original issues which were stated to be foundational to try to find new (usually laughable) items in the things that Pastor has said and preached [sic].“ Mr Weatherwax, by now I sound like a broken record, but would you please do your research. Here is the mission statement of my blog: http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/08/quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes-at.html. How are my mission statement and your version of my mission statement remotely comparable. How dare you libel me, and sir I say libel because I have the proof in black and white sitting on my web browser.

The last thing I want to address is your request for the full publication of this document if it is ever reprinted—and here you imply that I might take your words out of context. If you will remember though, I only published correspondences that were not designated as private and I always published them in whole until I was asked to stop by the author. Only then did I resort to using pull-quotes, and even then I explained to both the original author and those reading the blog that I had wanted to completely contextualize the correspondence but the original author would not allow me to. Don’t bring a straw man argument against me—especially one that’s already discredited by what’s on the blog at http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/round-two-commentary-on-bellevue.html and http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/ive-officially-been-demonized.html.

Finally, at the end of my reply to your fourth point I said that you would need to see the last paragraph of this email and then reread your fourth point (and I think your letter as well). I will hope for an apology after you do that. The last paragraph I referred to is below, but first I want to say that I truly regret having lost a family friend and someone who I had respected. This is the most painful of the cuts I’ve recently received because it came from someone I hoped could be trusted to want to uphold Matthew 18 regardless of all else. Someone who would insist on Scripture being upheld no matter what and regarding whomever—myself and the pastor not the least of whom might be held accountable under such a stand. Maybe in time some relationships can be restored. Now for that last paragraph:

I have never, ever, under any circumstances written one thing that has been on savingbellevue.com save what their webmaster liked from my blog—and that was not written for them, it was written for the church and posted on my blog. I do not have editorial control of the site. I do not own it. I do not operate it. I do not post to it. It was created without my knowledge, and my blog predates my knowledge of savingbellevue.com. I first saw savingbellevue.com on August 27 as indicated by an email record I have and as can be corroborated by a log file that all website keep. The first post, if you care to check my blog, was on August 16. I say this to say that my work was and is independent of savingbellevue.com’s. You have spent two and a half pages accusing me of being involved in something I was never involved in. I guess the difference between my situation and the church administration’s is that I’ve been accused yet I have the proof that I am not guilty and I will produce it as soon as anyone asks. I’ll be more than happy to get that log file for you and I will forward you the email I referenced if you would like.

Regrets over a broken friendship,

Josh Manning

PS If you sincerely believe that all questions can be laid to rest by proof that exists, execute Matthew 18 so that all such proof may come before the church and the proper names cleared and the church body reassured. You know as well as I do that this makes sense in biblical, logical, and common sense terms. That’s a pretty strong, three-pronged test for an action. Support that action, sir.

From: Weatherwax, Phil [mailto:********]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:12 PM
To: Joshua H. Manning
Subject: RE: your letter to the deacons

Josh,

Thanks for your response. If I might make one initial correction---Weatherwax not Whetherwax.

Let me throw out a bunch of questions for you and maybe some day we can sit down and discuss them.

Is any of what I said true? Is all of it true? Is it laced with truth and untruth? Did I believe it to be true when I wrote it? Any of it? All of? What was my motive in the first place? Does it matter? Why did I do it? Did someone put me up to it? Pastor? Administrative staff? Why did I respond, I am not even a deacon? Was it meant to be a dialogue between Josh and I or did I have plans to send it to others? How many? who? Did I think Josh would use all or part of it? Forward to his mom and dad or Mark or others? Did I think it would hurt Josh? If so would he forward it to his folks and would they be hurt also? Would this mean that a great friendship built on mutual love and respect would be gone forever? Did it really hurt your feelings? Why? Because of who said it? Because it was completely untrue? Partially untrue? Because some people would get it and they would make wrong judgements about you based on information that is not all true, completely true but damaging, or totally untrue. Would it be because you cannot respond to any of it? Because you don't know who might read it? Did this really break fellowship with you and I? Your folks and I? Have you lost all respect for me? Have I lost all for you? Can it ever be resolved? Are you so hurt that you will not ever have fellowship with me? Should we not have more back and forth over the internet? Can't we get some of the obvious discrepancies ironed out? Should we not go to some kind of Biblical resolution? perhaps Matthew 18? Whose interpretation do we use? Who is the offended party? Am I totally offended by what you fired back. Perhaps I can examine the Manning's personal and family life and see if I can dig up some dirt on them and publish it on the internet and force him to come to the Matthew 18 table.

Who did you make my email known to? Who did you make your response known to? Who did I make mine known to and what motives did we have in those exchanges. How many people have lost respect for you, Riad, Jessie, Mark, Steve Gaines, Mark D., Harry, Chip and oh yes Me, Eddie and Jo Ann. When we seek restoration and reconciliation, and when we do it out of what we say is love and respect for our church are we creating unity in the bonds of love by what we have just been doing? Are people being hurt that we do not know? Are we sowing seeds of love and unity or discord and division? Is this the right way to resolve our apparent differences???????????????????????

Josh, as I have examined the answers to the above questions in relation to the email I wrote I have to say that the answer to the last question is no. What we are doing and where this is headed can only cause division, hurt, broken friendships, lost respect, and a badly wounded body. I look at my two beautiful daughters and their families, and I don't want them to have no respect for you and your folks and others who have been at the forefront of all this. Josh it is happening, friend against friend mother against children, minister against minister, member against member. It is getting worse and worse and a polarization is taking place that is so divisive. If we truly love the bride of Christ we cannot go on. This is not the way to do it. I don't want you to lose the respect that you say you have had for me. I have tried in the best way I know how for these many years to live before you and your folks and the many friends that I have in AR with integrity and true moral character and I hope you see how it can be destroyed by the written word.

I was just thinking and can say this with a clear heart--I really do love you and this email has allowed me to put aside everything and just reflect on that alone. I desire that all that is being said will stop and maybe the Pastor's committee and the new staff position can create a forum for reconciliation and build respect and confidence in the body of Christ for our church.

I did not circulate this letter or the other. My wife and family do not know that I sent it. My desire was to show you how much hurt and division can be caused by the venue that has been chosen for this fight.

I really would love to meet with you sometime just the two of us and talk it out. My wife and I have on occassion said some hurtful things to each other that we have later regretted and really didn't mean at the time we said them but somehow our relationship was bigger and stronger than those momentary lapses and we grew past them. I hope ours is likewise.

I really did not read what you wrote -- I'll wait to hear it in person.

God is Love and Jesus is wonderful, (Adrian Rogers, always ended his letters this way and he was and is so right)

Brother Phil

From: Joshua H. Manning [mailto:******.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:10 PM
To: 'Weatherwax, Phil'
Subject: RE: your letter to the deacons

Mr Weatherwax,

The answers to a massive number of your questions are found in my earlier response to you. You want to dialogue, you say. Well, dialogue requires two parties listening to each and responding. You’ve apparently not done that since you “really did not read what you [I] wrote.” Read it, then we can talk about dialoguing and I’ll be glad to answer those questions you sent me. As for a personal meeting, what would be the point of that since you’ve shown this little interest in what I’d have to say in response to you? Why would you take hours out of your day for a personal meeting when you won’t take mere minutes to read the thoughts before you—I assure, those are the same thoughts you would get face to face. Also, if you’ll read my response, you’ll see what face to face is not an option at this time.

Sincerely,

Josh Manning

PS You mention Matthew 18 in regards to me. I am on record and will continue to be on record saying that if anyone wants is execute Matthew 18 against me, I will be glad to cooperate in anyway. In fact, if any believe I have sinned against the church, it is incumbent upon them to execute that passage against me. I will cooperate as long as it is fully carried out, not just made to be a political paper tiger.

From: Joshua H. Manning [mailto:********.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:46 PM
To: 'Weatherwax, Phil'
Subject: RE: your letter to the deacons

A final thought occurred to me earlier this afternoon, Mr Weatherwax. You condemned me for not allowing others the ability to rebut allegations (I have already shown this to be patently false). But you, sir, have done what you condemned me for, in that you hurled accusations at me and then refused even the courtesy of allowing me to defend myself. You accomplish this by refusing to even read that which I have said to set the record straight and defend the honor of my name.

In effect, had we been sitting down at a table, you’d have throw lie after lie at me and then placed your fingers in your ears and hummed a tune as I defended myself to you. How dare you accuse me of depriving others of a fair hearing when I never did and when you have done just that in black and white. How small is your consideration for the truth or for hypocrisy itself?

Josh Manning

Men of Bellevue, Now is the Time to Stand

2006-09-11T16:23:00.000-07:00

SHARPE INTERVIEW PT 2 AVAILABLE BELOW

Dear Readers,

For months, a small number of men have tried time and again to bring a number of concerns to the church administration, the deacon body, and the congregation. We have been intimidated, demonized, and quasi-excommunicated. We have fought as far as we can with the resources and information we have. We have brought you firsthand accounts, disturbing information, and stunning conversations. We have explained our intentions to fulfill the obligations set out in Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5. We have used this forum as a means to address the church and attempt to dispel harmful rumors.

For those same months a great many of you have had checks in your spirits similar to ours. You’ve had concerns about the direction of Bellevue. You’ve worried about a lack of civility, a bent toward delegitimization of opposition, a lack of transparency, a fear of, dare I say, hijacking. You, however, have not made your names known. You’ve hidden behind excuses of convenience and need, desiring benefit without cost—cure without pain.

You’ve been content to stand behind the shields of those with courage enough to make their individual names and voices heard. You have allowed these few men to absorb shattering blows and fend off vitriolic attacks, while you have sat comfortably anonymous and silently assenting as others do your work for you . . . and as others suffered for it.

To you, I say that time is ended. Today is the day when you will either stand or fall. Today you will rise up or be trampled. Today you will step into the light or withdraw farther into the shadows—and this perhaps beyond rescue. For today, I lay down my sword and shield. I have completed the mandate as set out in Scripture. We have brought you, the church, issues about our leadership that should concern you greatly. We have fulfilled our duty to church, man, conscience, and most importantly Scripture.

We can do no more than present what we know. Our few voices will not carry far over the sea that is Bellevue. We can warn but a few. You, however, have the ability to take up the cry. It is said in Ezekiel that the watchman who sees danger and remains silent is guilty of the blood shed from his neglect. We will not be guilty of such neglect. Now, the obligation is yours: this is your call to take up. You may remain silent no longer.

I do not know the future. My prayer is that Bellevue will be what it has always desired to be: a beacon of hope sending out its light and His Truth that they might lead us to God’s holy hill. And while we do that, we must, MUST, follow the words and principles laid out in Scripture. We must keep each other accountable, we must attend to the proper rules for confrontation with brothers, we must resolve our differences in the ways dictated in Scripture, and we must remain truthful and transparent. Nothing: not Sunday school attendance, baptisms, giving, or even souls saved—nothing excuses transgression of Biblical principles. We’ve been taught this for many years. Now, I charge you to uphold that teaching.

So today, choose your peril: slink into the shadow to a future of synthetic comfort and looming devastation; or rise, stand in the light, make your names and voices known—do that which hurts most in the moment, so that the future may be healed. You would never tell a man with what might be a tumor that he should simply ignore it because the examination, chemotherapy, and surgery might be painful. You dare not, you must not, do the same here.

I leave you with Galatians 6:9, “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” We have not fainted. You have not fought. Now is the time. May we not fade quietly into the night, trading truth and accountability for the illusion of peace and solace. May the God who sees all that we do have mercy on each of us.

I bid you farewell,

Sincerely,

Josh Manning

Sharpe Interview Pt 2

2006-09-10T22:02:00.000-07:00

Below is the second part of the Mark Sharpe Interview. I will not personally host comments anymore, but if you wish to weigh in on this interview, you may comment at http://msinterviewcomments.blogspot.com/.

Josh Manning: Thanks for taking time for us again, Mark. We left off last week with a bizarre story where a church member was said to be demon possessed by the administration. Then the administration reversed itself, and denied having said that. You said that story was just the tip of the ice berg. Now, I'd like to talk with you about the bulk of that ice berg: the financial information that you have.

Mark Sharpe: Josh, I'm convinced there are questions that must be addressed by Bellevue's leaders.

JM: Could you take us sort of from square one with the financial info, and shed a little light on the rumors that are floating out there?

MS: In my opinion, Bellevue started down a road that had led us to where we are today when Mark Dougharty assumed his position at Bellevue. Mark has surrounded himself with a small group of men that have over the past 5 years assumed a tremendous amount of control over the church. One could almost say that Bellevue is "Elder ruled" without any church guidelines actually calling for that to happen. A lot of the financial decisions are made without the knowledge of the church body. I think it's safe to say that a lot of financial decisions have not been known by the complete finance committee.

All of these issues have been brought before the leadership these past 4 months. I along with others have requested that these issues be dealt with to no avail. In a 3 hour and 25 minute meeting with Mark Dougharty as recently as 4 weeks ago, I was asked to either leave Bellevue and find another church to attend or stay and be quiet and drop these issues. After further requests to bring this before the appropriate committees and members, my request was denied. I asked to be able to address the deacons last month and was told that I was no longer a deacon and that I would not be able to address the deacon body that I love and have served faithfully over the years.

JM: That's a lot of information, Mark. Maybe we can break this down and talk about it one piece at a time. First off, can you tell us what sort of decisions are made without the knowledge of the complete finance committee?

MS: The best place to start is at the beginning. While we were without a pastor and Mark Dougharty was our leader, some men who surround him decided it would be a good idea to give him a whole year's salary in the event that our new pastor didn't want him to stick around.

When I confronted Mark about this, he told me "I didn't have anything to do with that. In fact, it was their idea and I had no decision it.” I asked him if he had free will to say yes or no. In my opinion, he should have said “Thanks guys, but at this time, it wouldn't be the right thing to do. Nobody knows anything about it and it's a nice gesture on your part but I just can't take it without anyone voting on it.” You might ask yourself, "What's wrong with giving Mark Dougharty a whole year's salary?" There's nothing wrong with it as long as the church knows about it. The deacons certainly didn't know about it, and I confronted Mark about the whole finance committee not having any knowledge of it. He didn't deny that the complete finance committee didn't know about the transfer of money.

It would be nice to do this for our Associate Pastor, and I'm sure the whole church may have voted to do so. What needs to be checked is the fact that it was that easy for a large sum of money to be spent without the knowledge of the church. Not everyone has the luxury of getting this type of benefit when they loose their job. In this case, he gets it if he stays or goes.

JM: And Mr Dougharty never gave you an answer or any indication why this didn't come before the church?

MS: He would not give me a response.

JM: Mark, who were the men who made this decision?

MS: I don’t know who the men were. He wouldn’t say.

JM: All right. Well, was this the only financial decision that the congregation didn't know about and the financial committee didn't have oversight of? Were there other, or are there still, financial decisions that fall through the proverbial cracks?

MS: I wanted to touch on something that has really bothered me since the first day I heard of it. As I've said before, I believe that a man is either called to pastor a church or he isn't. If God indeed calls a man to pastor a church, I believe that compensation should not be a reason for coming or staying. God will provide for the needs of all of us. With that said, I am told that our search committee offered Steve Gaines a compensation package that was on the level of our former pastor. The offer that our church made to Steve Gaines evidently was not enough for him to live on. Mark Dougharty did tell me that he didn't think that Steve Gaines renegotiated his compensation package before he accepted the call. He believed it to be after the call. Either way, does it really matter? Without the knowledge of the church, the finance committee, and at least 70% of the search committee (I’m told), we now have a pastor that is ridiculously compensated and the structure that was changed that allows him to set his own salary. I'm told that the only checks and balances that are in place now for the pastor's salary are Steve Gaines, Mark Dougharty, and whoever is the Chief Financial Officer of the church. (I believe we are now without one.) What we pay the pastor is not as important as the process that is in place to allow something like this to happen. For being concerned over this issue, I've been demonized over and over. Why not let the church know how much we love our pastor. Why not have more faith in the membership to let them know how we take care of our pastor. The question I have been asking our leadership is this; "Would it be embarrassing to our congregation if they knew what was going on with compensation inside the pastor and associate pastor’s office?"

JM: Mark, you just said that you were told many of these things. Who told them to you? Are they on good authority?

MS: Before I blew the whistle, I had to know the information was good. This information came from the office of administration that included the finance office at Bellevue. Keep in mind, I was the chairman of the insurance committee at Bellevue, on the executive missions committee, and very involved with staff members some of whom have left Bellevue in the past 6 months. I've had one of these men say over and over again that he will be glad to come into a room with the men involved at Bellevue who are responsible for these activities as long as there are men who are ready to find the truth and get to the bottom of these issues. I can tell you that I've been stonewalled and pushed away time after time. It's very frustrating. Just because someone says it isn't so doesn't mean it isn't so. There is a paper trail that will get to the truth. I've said from the start that if these things did not happen then "Praise the Lord." The proof would take about 15 minutes to gather the documents that would put these issues to rest.

JM: So you're saying that the head of finance at the church has given you this information? This is the man who is willing to sit in a room with legal authorities and the leadership and tell what he knows?

MS: Yes. This man who is no longer employed by Bellevue has stated that if that day ever comes, he will tell state the truth in all of these matters. I know this man to be a dear man of God. Nobody can imagine the pressure a man faces when standing up for the right thing in an ocean current that is coming at you. He who controls the platform has an incredible advantage to information flow—especially in this case where every fiber of your being wants to believe the office of the pastor.

JM: So, money is being set aside that the finance committee doesn't know about; and salary control for some of the administration, as well as oversight, is now out of the hands of the finance committee according to conversations you've had with this person. Is that right?

MS: I told Mark Dougharty in our recent meeting that to my understanding, the finance committee gives to the pastor's office now a lump sum of money to distribute by department anyway they want to. For instance, let's say one department had $1,000,000 set aside for compensation. The pastor could at his discretion give one minister half of what he wanted to give another regardless of the number of years that person may have served here at Bellevue. Mark Dougharty described the new setup to me. I also let Mark Dougharty know that I personally didn't like it because there were not enough controls in place. He told me that he didn't want the congregation knowing what he made. When I reminded him that most every SBC church in America knows what the ministers make, he let me know he didn't agree with that. I told him that I believe if the Bellevue congregation knew what he and the pastor made, they would be appalled.

JM: Mark are there other financial concerns? We've heard something about credit card charges that might not be entirely proper. Can you tell us if there's any substance to those rumors?

MS: I don't know if there is or isn't. It was brought to my attention and I went to Mark Dougharty and told him what I'd been told. I told him that improper credit card charges by the pastor were brought to him in the first couple of months of the pastors calling. Mark Dougharty was asked to address these issues and refused to do so after several months. When I confronted Mark Dougharty about this, he didn't deny it. All he said was that a recent audit that was done showed everything to be in order. I reminded him that Enron and WorldCom had just had multimillion dollar audits done that showed everything was fine. Most financial people know that there are different levels of audits that are done. In this case, I told him there would obviously be a paper trail to show otherwise. Just produce the monthly statement and the reimbursements back to the church. That would take about 10 minutes to produce. He informed me that wasn't going to happen. I told him I had heard that each month there was a long list of personal expenses. Mark Dougharty not once denied it. What conclusion am I to come to after a discussion like this? I also asked about a membership to Colonial Country Club that was purchased in Steve Gaines name and he said that was so he could get away from the church and have some privacy when needed. We have a wonderful facility at Bellevue with a professional chef that cooks wonderful meals and we have some lovely fireside rooms that can be used for privacy. I shared with Mark that I believe the church needs to know about these things. Why would we not want to share this with the congregation? If we can't share it with the congregation, we probably don't need to be doing these things.

JM: You bring up the country club membership. I had heard, though never confirmed, that this was part of the package offered by the pulpit committee. Do you know if that's true? Also, do you have any idea how that committee and Dr Gaines interacted before, during, and after he was called? In other words, were there "negotiations" about compensation?

MS: I can't answer that. This is a question for a member of the search committee. All I know about the interaction between Steve Gaines and the pulpit committee, I've gotten from Steve Gaines and his address to Gardendale on the night of his calling. In the past month with talk about the pastor renegotiating his contract swirling around, I've heard that the renegotiating went on after he accepted the call and not before. I still don't understand why a package similar to what our former pastor was making would not be close to enough for Steve Gaines to live on. That is worrisome.

JM: Thank you for not answering something that you don't feel you've got enough information to comment on.

You say that you've brought these concerns before the leadership for months. We know you've talked to Mr Dougharty, but were there others to whom have you talked--Dr Gaines for example--and can you give us an idea of how many times?

MS: I've talked to Dr. Gaines on two occasions in person and several more times over the phone. I've talked with Mark Dougharty, Chuck Taylor, and numerous other current deacon officers. I've talked so many times in person and on the phone with these men that I honestly can't remember the exact number. I believe at least 15 times in the past 4 months collectively.

JM: You say that during some of these meetings, you've been told that you should simply leave the church. Is that correct?

MS: That is correct. Two men have said that to me numerous times. Steve Gaines and Mark Dougharty. In fact, Mark Dougharty said the only way my family should return to Bellevue is for me to drop this stuff and act like it never happened. He said also that "I know this statement looks like I'm just trying to protect myself."

JM: Have you asked to take your concerns to the deacon body?

MS: Yes, I've asked that I have the opportunity to take these issues to the deacon body. They have refused to allow me to speak to the deacons. The deacons at Bellevue really don't have any authority. To the congregation, it may appear that they do but at Bellevue, the deacons are there to serve. Their main function is to counsel at the services, serve the Lord's Supper, and man the phones when people call in. To the average member of Bellevue, they need to know that outside of that, there really isn't any authority in the body that the current church government allows. I believe a lot of decisions inside the church are made hiding behind the deacon body. To the church, it looks like deacons approve everything when in fact they don't approve anything.

JM: I understand. Let me ask you another question, have you considered taking this to the congregation itself?

MS: The only reason I'm doing this interview with you is to give the congregation a way of hearing this. I believe the membership of Bellevue has a right to know these things and demand accountability. The accountability may come from the congregation and not the deacon body. It's hard for a man to take a stand when he is facing losing something but I came to the point where I was convicted to be more concerned with what God wanted me to do instead of what man could do to me. As I said earlier, this is one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. Nobody in their right mind would do this unless they knew for sure this was the right thing. I've got nothing to gain from this. In fact, my family feels like we've had a death in the family. Our church has been hijacked and nobody is willing to stop it. What my family has had to go through the past 4 months has not been easy. You have to remember Bellevue has been our home for 17 years. We were here long before Steve Gaines came. I've heard from so many members who have called us or sent cards in the mail echoing these thoughts. A lot of people know something isn't right but they know there is something out there.

JM: I'm so sorry to hear that Mark.

Thank you again for coming out with this information. I know you say that the deacon body doesn't hold much power. Do you think the deacon body will do what they need to do to build accountability into the system?

MS: I don't believe so. I love everyone one of these men. They really don't have any authority. Unless they hear from the congregation, I don't believe that will happen. Being leaders, they could wield some authority in the church but I'm not sure how many of them want to take a stand. It's hard to explain but I've been amazed at the men who I consider strong leaders just sit on the sidelines and do nothing. A person can either want to know the truth or not pursue it. I guess the easy road is to not know sometimes what the truth actually is. I don't believe God wants us to accept anything but the truth. I know that God is not going to honor any body of believers that participate in sweeping truth under the rug. I am praying that there are deacons that will rise up and search for the truth. I've said it before but these issues may not be valid but coming from the folks that are in these trenches and knowing that I've confronted these men and they haven't denied most everything I'm sharing—all of this leads me to believe there is truth behind these concerns. There is so much out there, it takes a while to let everything sink in because it's so bizarre when compared to what we have been used to here at Bellevue. Because of that, I think time will allow this information to sink in and men will start to get to the bottom of these issues. If not, I pray the congregation does. We've been operating for years with a pastor that had an incredible amount of integrity. He was a self-disciplined, self-controlled man you could trust. I don't ever recall an instance where he made me question his integrity. Our deacon body has operated for a long time with this level of trust for the office of the pastor. It's hard to not feel the same way.

JM: Well, I join you in praying that all of these rumors can be dispelled by the light of truth. I’d like to recap for a moment: Basically, what you have said here tonight is that you've found from the former head of finance at the church that large amounts of money have come under the direct control of a small group of men who are held accountable to no one other than the congregation (not the deacons and not the finance committee). These men refuse to disclose information about expenditures to that same congregation. When two were confronted, they told you that you should leave the church or be quiet. When you asked to take this information to the deacon body, you were denied the opportunity and told that you were no longer a deacon. Is this correct?

MS: Yes

JM: I think that information should probably startle the Bellevue membership. Let me ask you about something else. There’s been a lot of talk about losing staff members and gaining new ones over the last year. Rumor has it that these new staff members are coming in at significantly higher pay than the ministers that were already here when Dr Gaines took over. Can you shed any light on this?

MS: I asked Mark Dougharty if any laymen saw the mega-church compensation survey prepared in 2005. The survey had been done to provide direction for the 2006 Budget Planning Committee. I asked if any laymen knew how Bellevue's compensation compares to Southeast Christian, Willow Creek, and Saddleback (churches with larger budgets and attendance than Bellevue). The survey shows that employees at the highest level at Bellevue make considerably more than comparable positions at other mega-churches. I asked what was the justification to start Jamie Parker at the same amount of compensation that Jim Whitmire was receiving when he retired (after 30 years of service to the church). I also asked how Steve Gaines could bring Bill Street (former college roommate to Steve Gaines, son-in-law to a member of the pastor search committee, and on-staff minister at Gardendale) and Ken Hatley (former member of Gardendale) on board at salaries over $80,000, bypassing loyal staff members who have been serving for years. I also asked Mark Dougharty why Bellevue gave one of the smallest pay raises in the past 10 years (while giving is up) but three people didn't fall under that umbrella; Steve Gaines, Mark Dougharty, and Jamie Parker. When I asked this question, once again he didn't deny it happened. Bill Street and Ken Hatley I'm sure are great men but why can't the church know of their hiring before they are hired. Is it wrong to ask about these questions? Is it right for the church to relinquish any knowledge of new hirings?

JM: Mark, does Dr Gaines now have sole authority to higher and set salaries?

MS: I can't say what changes have been made if any these past several months but according to Mark Dougharty, there isn't any written guideline for establishing Bellevue guidelines for hiring and or firing. The salary deal is like I stated earlier. The pastor has the ability to pay anyone he brings in at any salary he wants as long as he doesn't go over the pool of money set aside for a certain department. Let's say the pastor says we don't need 5 ministers in this department any longer and we can do it with three. Then there would be a lot of money in the pool to pay someone new coming in. Mark Dougharty told me nobody on the finance committee knows what the pastor, associate pastor, minister of music, or any new hire makes. This information is from Mark Dougharty himself.

JM: That's incredible

Let me ask one final question: Have you been intimated by any member of the administration?

MS: That's a good question. Last month, after repeated attempts to have the opportunity to deal with these issues behind closed doors, a group of concerned members of Bellevue prayed about getting together to discuss these issues and see what God would direct us to do. When word got back to the office of the pastor, Steve Gaines, Chuck Taylor, John Caldwell, and Mark Dougharty paid a visit to my home. I live in a gated community with a "no trespassing" sign at the entrance. They came to my neighborhood unannounced and uninvited. I believe when you have 4 men come see you and climb over a fence when they could have called my home to open the gate that it's intimidation. After they could not catch me at home, Steve Gaines called my home at 11:08 one evening and told me I was "Hezbollah" and that I was going to personally be sending people to hell if I went to this meeting. I informed him that I didn't have the power to send anyone to hell. Standing in my kitchen with my cell phone speaker on, my wife heard the conversation as did my neighbor. I have to admit, I was shaken by the words I heard my pastor speak to me. I was shaken to the bone but reminded that these were not the actions of a pastor. I don't have to fear what man can do to me, but I do fear what God will do to me if I don't do what the Holy Spirit prompts me to do. I know this information is going to be hard for people to hear but God is my witness that I'm not making anything up. I pray for our Bellevue and the leadership that knows what the right thing to do is. I pray for the congregation, that God will raise leaders up who have had a check in their spirit for some time now and do the right thing which is seek the truth.

JM: Mark, I'm sorry that it came to that, and I think that should always be our prayer for ourselves and our leadership. Do you have anything else you want to add tonight?

MS: Josh, On behalf of the congregation that wants to get to the truth, we say thank you for the forum you've provided. Nothing else needs to be said other than pray for Bellevue, pray for Steve Gaines, pray for Mark Dougharty, pray for Chuck Taylor, the leaders of the church, and the congregation. Pray that nothing be accepted other than truth. Pray for people to do the right thing. One thing we don't have to worry about is the truth. God is Truth and I believe god wants the truth to always be known. I talk with you this evening able to say that every thought I've uttered has been the truth as I know it. I pray for anyone who has spoken about these issues if they knowingly made false statements or they don't want to get to the truth. For anyone who is a Believer, the Holy Spirit is convicting. Conviction can and will get deep into any Believer to where it's very uncomfortable if they run from it. I pray for all of these men tonight who are my friends. May God have mercy on our church.

JM: Mark, again, I thank you for coming forward with this information. Since it seems that you’re not being allowed to directly air these concerns to the church, this seems to be next best (though still entirely inadequate) medium for finishing out the mandate of Matthew 18 and 1 Tim 5.

Thank you for sharing with us from your knowledge. Thank you for your honesty and transparency. May God make us all men who will stand up for what is right. This information is now in the hands of the church. They may do with it what they will. May God have mercy on us all.

News from Bellevue Employee Meeting

2006-09-10T14:28:00.000-07:00

Below is an open letter from Mark Sharpe reporting on a church staff meeting that took place this week. Apparently, during the meeting, Dr Gaines acknowledged having made certain statements about Bellevue Baptist Church to his congregation at Gardendale. He also spoke to the issue of the dream that was raised earlier this week.

Please be in prayer for Mark and myself as we begin our second interview this evening. Pray that God’s will would be done, that the right words would be said, and that we would be able to finish this evening.

Below is Mark’s letter:

Josh,

I wanted to give you an update on a meeting held this week for Steve Gaines to address the employees of Bellevue. This meeting raises additional issues I'd like to share with the congregation. I've been told by a deacon brother that Steve Gaines made several statements of interest.

Steve Gaines admitted saying the things that were reported on the internet (at savingbellevue.com) last week when he addressed Gardendale First Baptist the night he accepted the call to be Bellevue’s pastor. The portion of the video was available on the website for anyone to see but at the request of Gardendale, the video clip was removed. He told Gardendale that on the last meeting he had with Bellevue’s pastor search committee that told them all of the changes he was going to make at Bellevue. He told the committee everything he didn’t like about Bellevue and all of the things Gardendale was doing right. He also told the Gardendale congregation that he tried to “tick” the committee off to see if they really wanted him. He told the Bellevue employees he was sorry for the statements made.

I’m told that he also made a statement that (paraphrased according to the source) he never had a dream about this man. He said his wife and family was just now finding out about the dream and got very emotional at the employee meeting. (If readers haven’t seen the interview last week dealing with the dream issue, they can read it at: http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/sharpe-interview-still-on-blog.html )

As I heard the account of what was said by Steve Gaines in the meeting, several thoughts came to mind which I’d like to hear Steve Gaines address:

· Why did he confess to the employees the statements made to Gardendale? If he was asking for forgiveness, perhaps he will do so today in church to the congregation.

· Did Steve Gaines actually tell the committee he was going to be making the changes? If so, why didn’t the committee tell the congregation before we voted?

· Did Steve Gaines ask Gardendale to pull the video clip off of the internet?

· Since Steve Gaines has been confronted over his statements earlier in time, why is he just not asking forgiveness? Is it only because He was exposed?

· On the dream issue, would Steve Gaines explain why or how Mark Dougharty told other staff members that he had a dream and described it in detail?

· If his wife is just now finding out about the dream and Steve Gaines was confronted about the dream issues back in May, why is she just now finding out? This issue has been brought to Steve Gaines, Mark Dougharty, Chuck Taylor, and at least two other deacon officers as far back as May and June of 2006. If I was accused of such a bizarre story as this, I think I would share it with my wife and quickly deny the story.

· Why was the early request in May/June to bring Steve Gaines, Mark Dougharty, the staff members, and the member who was asked to be quiet into a room together to find out the truth refused?

· We have a problem because there are men whose lives have been affected. Someone is not telling the truth. We have men who have been compromised and now we have a pastor who says it never happened but refuses to simply find out who is not telling the truth.

· Why did Steve Gaines not bring this member of Bellevue into his office and ask him to stop saying Amen instead of dispatching others to take care of it?

· Do we not care about this man?

· Is this a cover-up?

Josh,

I appreciate your time today on this very sensitive and alarming matter. I am saddened by what is taking place but as I’ve said before, the truth is always the right direction to follow. Sometimes, it’s very difficult to deal with but it’s always the best.

Sincerely,

Mark Sharpe

Bylaws Progress! Good job Bellevue!

2006-09-08T22:22:00.000-07:00

Many of you will remember that last week I sent a letter to Mark Dougharty, requesting a copy of Bellevue’s bylaws pursuant to the Tennessee state code. Today was the church’s deadline to respond. This morning I called the church, Mark Dougharty’s office confirmed that the bylaws were ready, and by this afternoon they had been picked up.

I want to take this opportunity to wholeheartedly applaud the leadership for this step toward transparency! Well done! I would like to take this as an indication that we are both heading in the right direction. I’m still not sure why requests dating back to March for these documents did not yield results, but at least information is starting to flow. Allowing the membership of Bellevue access to the church’s governing documents is the right thing to do.

Now that the administration has taken this first step, I would urge them to continue. There’s no reason why their show of trust in the congregation should stop here. I urge the church’s leadership to begin answering the numerous questions surrounding hiring and firing practices (after all, those who have been removed and those who have replaced them, are people who are to minister to us as a church body—should we have no say in who they are?). Further, I would urge the leadership to answer questions about undisclosed financial information—the congregation does have a right to know if its tithe and love gifts is being spent wisely in ALL AREAS, NOT JUST SOME.

Finally, I would urge that the administration carry out this first step to its fullest potential, and cease their opposition to holding a meeting of the congregation, at Bellevue, to discuss the direction of the church, answer questions from the floor, and put to rest damaging rumors. This is the congregation’s right, and it should not be forced to abdicate its role of self-governance to the deacon body whose job is not necessarily to lead, but to serve. Nor should it abandon that role and allow its leadership to operate without accountability and disclosure to the people in general. Leaders should only fear answering to a congregation if they have something they wish to keep from that congregation. We sincerely want to give the leadership the benefit of the doubt, but as secretive as they’ve been, it is difficult to do so.

Again, my sincere thanks to the leadership at Bellevue for, after six months of efforts, producing a copy of the bylaws. You’ve done the right thing. I’m truly proud of you. Now let’s keep doing the right thing!

Note: Now that a copy of the bylaws is available, I will work to give you all a summary of how they work to govern our church. Hopefully that will be available by the end of next week. I also hope to have the second Mark Sharp interview ready by very late tomorrow night, but it may be a tad later due to scheduling conflicts. I promise we'll have it up as soon as possible.

Letter to Chuck Taylor from a Concerned BBC Member

2006-09-07T14:26:00.000-07:00

Response from Chuck Taylor to a Concerned BBC Member's letter below.

Josh,

I received an email from a “concerned member of Bellevue” and I believe you posted it on your blog site. I thought I would email you my response as well.

Dear Concerned Bellevue Member,

I know you are sincere in your comments and truly grieved in your heart. When one member of the body hurts we all hurt. It grieves me to know how you feel but my answers to your questions will not change your mind. We are all grieved by the things going on in our beloved Church but for very different reasons. You don’t understand why I don’t see what you see and I don’t understand why you don’t see what I see. You state that you have lost confidence in the Pastor Search Committee and that grieves me. When I think of the 9 people I had the privilege of serving with on that committee, they were the most humble, Christ-centered, servants of God I have ever been associated with. They gave up 8 months of their lives to seek God’s man for our Church. I guess when you say you lost confidence in the Search Committee because of the man we called, you’re also saying you lost confidence in Dr. Rogers since he said he knew all along Bro. Steve was the man. You refer to the search as “hush, hush, rush, rush”. It was “hush, hush” because we wanted to keep the rumor mill down at Bellevue and the Churches we were visiting. As you can see from recent events, the rumor mill is very strong at Bellevue. We were also following the same protocol used by the Search Committee that called Dr. Rogers 32 years before. To this day they won’t tell you where they went and who they looked at. As for “rush, rush”, there was no rush. We waited on God for 8 months until He revealed His will and, Scripture teaches, when God reveals His will you respond immediately. Was it a rush to give the congregation only one week notice he was coming to preach in view of a call? Maybe but we discussed the chain of events and their timing with Dr. Rogers and he was in agreement. Also, don’t forget one of the committee members was the previous Associate Pastor of Bellevue for 25 years and he was in agreement as well.

Another issue that grieves me greatly is your insinuations about John and Pat Caldwell. You obviously don’t know either one of them! They have served our Lord and Bellevue Baptist Church so humbly, faithfully and sacrificially. Your questioning their character is a perfect example of how evil this campaign is. All I can say with civility about that is you should be ashamed of yourself!

You are right a Church shouldn’t blindly follow the leadership of a Pastor but, according to scripture, it is unwise to oppose his leadership on grounds of personal preferences. If the Pastor was teaching heresy or had moral failures or was lazy and not fulfilling his calling, then you have a scriptural reason for opposition. But even then, you don’t go into the public arena and voice your concerns. That just gives the enemy the opportunity to discredit the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ before a lost and dying world. The issues you have with Bro. Steve are either based on your personal preferences or misinformation. Let me give you the truth about some of the accusations swirling around.

Lie #1, He has been accused of credit card abuse – A lie – Chip Freeman, the head of our Church Finance Office, reported to the Deacons there has never been any misuse of a credit card by Bro. Steve. Chip is the only one who would know if there was or not and he said absolutely not.

Lie #2, He has been accused of saying he had a dream about stopping a member of Bellevue from saying Amen – A lie – He told our Associate Pastor he woke up thinking about this gentleman that says Amen a lot and asked that he talk with him to tone it down some because it was distracting. Our Associate Pastor in turn talked with two other Staff members who knew him and asked that they go to him. Somewhere in that exchange they said he had a dream. If you want to know how Pastor Steve feels about dreams, read his comments about dreams in his daily devotional book for February 2^nd.

Lie #3, He didn’t like the way Bellevue worshipped and set out to change it to be like Gardendale. This lie came from a 3 minute clip out of a 50 minute video of Bro. Steve telling Gardendale goodbye. If you watch that video in its entirety, you’ll see how much Gardendale loved their Pastor and he loved them. If he was a conniving, money hungry, angry person like some Bellevue members have made him out to be, Gardendale wouldn’t have loved him so much and hurt when he left. Yes he preferred their format at Gardendale to ours at Bellevue but why should that be a surprise to you?

Lie #4, His income is excessive, some say $500,000, others say twice as much as Dr. Rogers. I have first hand knowledge of this and it’s not close to that.

You ask about the covenant relationship between Bro. Steve and Jamie. Yes, the Search Committee was told about it and it was no surprise to us. My personal opinion is God put those two together like He put Adrian Rogers and Jim Whitmire together or Billy Graham and George Beverly Shea. It’s very common for a Pastor to serve with the same Minister of Music throughout his ministry.

A lot has been made about 4 of us climbing over a fence to go talk to a leader in this opposition. It happened on the Monday (during daylight hours) before the Friday night meeting. We went out of love and concern for him and our Church. Matt. 5:23 is the scriptural basis for what we did. If he wants an audience with the leadership of the Church, he had the Pastor, Associate Pastor, Chairman of the Deacons and another Deacon leader on his doorstep. I repeat, we went out of love and concern for him and our Church. We tried to set up a meeting with him on that Wednesday night but he backed out saying he couldn’t get his group together. We had all the Chairmen and several members of the Pastor Search Committee, 2006 Finance Committee, 2005 Finance Committee and Board of Directors ready to meet with him but he said he could get his group together so he declined the meeting. If we knew then what we know now we would never have climbed over the fence and we regret any embarrassment that may have caused our Church but we didn’t have the benefit of hindsight at the time.

What is our Pastor’s vision for Bellevue? Win souls to Jesus and strengthen the Body of Christ. Maybe you haven’t noticed what is happening at Bellevue People are getting saved and growing in the Lord. It’s remarkable that some want to discredit or disregard the growth we’re experiencing: Worship services are packed, Sunday School is growing again, Women’s ministry is growing, I2 is huge and the soon to begin Thursday morning men’s Bible study already has 600 men signed up for it. All falls within the vision of Winning Souls to Jesus and strengthening the Body of Christ. How can you find fault with this?

I am sure you and I love Bellevue equally but we must remember it is not OUR Church. The Church belongs solely to the One who died for it and He has the right to put whoever He wants as the under-shepherd of His flock. I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt, Brother Steve is the one God gave to us for this time. If I knew who you were, I don’t even know if you’re a brother or a sister in Christ since you sent this to me anonymously, I’d pray with you about all this. I believe God will bring good out of this if we stay pure and focused on Him. That is my hearts desire and I believe yours as well.

Chuck

The following letter comes to me from a concerned Bellevue Member whose veracity would be unquestioned in the church and whose reputation is completely unimpeachable. This person's reasons for not signing is that the person does not want to quench any flow of private information coming to this person as this person continues to seek the truth. I respect that position and will honor this person's request. I find no fault in such a request, only shame that we have come to the point where it needs to be made.

Dear Mr. Taylor:

I have been an active member of Bellevue for over 25 years. I loved Dr. Adrian Rogers but I knew his retirement would bring changes and change can be a good thing. I prayed for the pastor's search committee and looked forward to the day we would once again have a pastor. I believe most of us were excited about Steve Gaines coming and welcomed him with open arms ready to love and accept him as our own. I was concerned about the way his coming was announced but I had confidence in the committee. We were a grieving church. We had gone thru Dr. Roger's heart attacks, retirement, colon cancer and untimely death. We needed someone to put their arms around us and help us heal. That did not happen. Almost from the beginning I had a check in my spirit about the things that were happening at church. It was not just the changes but the attitude and the arrogance of those changes.

I have checked four commentaries regarding the responsibilities of the pastor and the church in response to the pastor. I used the same scriptures you have used in email correspondence to others. It is not an implicit obedience, or absolute submission that is required, but only so far as is agreeable to the mind and will of God revealed in his WORD and when ministerial instructions are agreeable to the written word, they must obey them. They have rule over the people; their office, though not magisterial, yet is truly authoritative. They have no authority to lord it over the people; but to lead them in the ways of God, by informing and instructing them, explaining the word of God to them. They are not to make laws of their own, but the people must search the scriptures and receive them not as the word of men but as the word of that work effectually in those that believe. THIS DOES NOT MEAN WE FOLLOW LEADERSHIP BLINDLY.

Because I no longer have confidence in our pastor's search committee and many of our church leadership there are several questions I would like you to answer.

Why was there so much secrecy around Dr. Gaines coming? Why were the deacons and staff not told before the news was given to The Commercial Appeal?

If Dr. Gaines was a strong candidate from the beginning, why was Pat Caldwell on the search committee? Her son-in-law was on staff at Gardendale and is now on staff at Bellevue. What is his position and did you know of his coming from the beginning? It is interesting that her husband John is one of the fence jumpers.

Why was the church not informed of his coming in time to question Steve Gaines and why were we not given a biographical sketch?

Why was his coming such a hush hush and rush rush?

Why was his church protected more than ours?

Did the search committee know his leadership style was like a CEO and he would make decisions without congregational approval?

WHY WAS THE CHURCH BODY NOT TOLD OF THE COVENANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STEVE GAINES AND JAMIE PARKER YOU REFERRED TO IN DEACONS MEETING? We had no idea that the hiring of Steve Gaines would mean the firing of Dr. Jim Whitmire. Did you consider his children and grandchildren and the effect it would have on these families?

In what context did Dr. Rogers use the term follow and swallow?

What is Biblical about threats and intimidation to members who ask questions and attend a meeting regarding a church they love?

What information does Mark Sharp and others have that Dr. Gaines, Mark Doughterty, John Caldwell and yourself would break the law by climbing a fence with a no trespassing sign? Did you compare the fence jumping incident as no more than an EE visit?

Why did Dr. Gaines redecorate Dr. Roger's office when it had been redone shortly before his retirement? How much money was spent and who authorized it?

Did the pulpit committee inquire of Steve Gaines what his vision for Bellevue would be as pastor? What did you know of his vision and why didn't you inform the church before you asked us to vote on a decision that had already been made?

By the way what is a covenant relationship between two men?

This is an integrity issue and I would appreciate your prompt response.

A concerned Bellevue member

Cleaned Up Comments Pages

2006-09-07T14:11:00.000-07:00

Ok guys, I've done what I could to clean up too-rough comments out there. I started to just purge them all, but then decided that they do provide a valuable resource. So, some of the earlier articles will have a lot of missing comments (some good, some bad). The later articles, however, should have basically a whiddle down version of the comments page, sans what I considered to be objectitonable ones. Don't worry, there are still lots of anti-blog posts to keep things equitable.

As for the idea of creating a best-of-the-comments post for the front page, I threw that around, but now that I'm trying to just keep an archive of the comments, it seems unncessary, especially given space constraints.

One final thing. If stuff cools down, we may turn comments back on and see how folks behave. But I just flat out can't have my inbox clogged with comment requests, many of which just let me know that people hate me before they even read what's written on here. So, let's see how things progress and maybe we can get back to some civilized debate in the days to come.

All the best,
Josh

COMMENTS ARE ENDED

2006-09-07T08:06:00.000-07:00

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

After much consideration, prayer, and counsel, I’ve decided to pull the plug on the comments option for the blog.

The original intent of allowing comments was to give people a forum to civilly discuss what was posted here. To compare notes. To sharpen each other. To exhort one another. But I suspect many are now logging in simply to watch the muck slinging. This forum was never meant to become an outlet for what I would call “spiritual internet pornography”—the ability to log on, sin anonymously, and no one ever know about it. Such is counter to the accountability we want to foster in the family of God. I did not anticipate this turn in events, though given our fallen human nature I should have. This has been a failure on my part, and I apologize sincerely.

Some of you have adhered scrupulously to the original intent of the comments section. To you, I say that whether you be against this blog or for it, you have my deepest, most heartfelt thanks for conducting yourselves with integrity, uprightness, and Spirit-filledness. You, on both sides, have encouraged and sharpened me. I bless you in the name of Jesus, our precious Sacrificial Lamb and Coming Savior.

But some of you have not held to these ideals. You have delved into the muck and mud of the world, using crudities, personal attacks, and vitriol in your posts. This became abundantly clear yesterday. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You know better—you’ve been under biblical teaching, you profess to be Believers, and you know what Scripture says about our conduct. To you, I rebuke you in love as a fellow journeyman with Christ.

On this note, I must apologize to my audience for allowing some of these comments to slip through. After reading pages of vitriolic comments I reject, some comments that still contain things they shouldn’t, appear rather mild and make it through. I learned this after hearing over the phone of two comments I didn’t even know had made it out. Further confounding the situation is the fact that I simply do not have time to completely read hundreds of comments. These two factors, however, do not excuse my allowing certain things to get through which should not have. And for this I beg your forgiveness and pardon.

Finally, all of this said, I will be deactivating the Comment feature presently. I will save certain of the more outstanding comments (please don’t be offended if I don’t take yours, it’s just that we’ve got limited space on the front page), and display them in post form on the front page. These will be standards to look to as we discuss in the church and amongst ourselves the recent goings on at Bellevue.

This blog will continue to host interviews, updates on correspondence, and other relevant materials—updated as frequently as it is now. It will stay above the board, filled with integrity to the best of my ability, and Christ-honoring. What’s been happening in the comments section has not done these things, and that ends now.

Deacon Board Member Denies Request

2006-09-06T11:44:00.000-07:00

The Bellevue Deacon Board Member I’ve been corresponding with has denied my request (see below) for his permission to post his emails containing answers to my questions. His denial was based on the fact that he is extremely opposed to “what you’re [I’m] doing” and the “discord you [I] am sowing amongst the brethren.” He also conveyed to me another “warning” that I’m not involved in a game.

I will continue to post commentary with necessary quotes from our conversations, but refrain from posting his correspondence in whole, this because the leadership's ideas on church governance must be made public knowledge and I wish to respect his wishes as much as possible while continuing to provide needful information to the Bellevue family.

Again I would ask why these men do not want their ideas known on church governance? Why should we not know what these men who lead us think?

As a final note, this Deacon Board Member suggested that I take the time I’m spending to blog these things and instead go win souls for Jesus.

To this I responded saying,

From: Joshua H. Manning
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:31 AM
To: ******
Subject: RE: Permission

Dear Mr *****,

I understand your position and regret that I won’t be able contextualize your quotes. As to the winning people to Christ comment, you know that’s as hollow as saying, “Instead of reading your Bible you should go win the lost.” Like reading the Word, Scripture commands us both to exercise church discipline and win the lost. As Pastor used to say, when you take part of the truth and make it all of the truth it becomes an untruth. I’m not accusing you of lying in any way, just using a bad argument.

Sincerely,

Josh

My original request for permission to publish this Deacon Board Member’s answers to my questions:

From: Joshua H. Manning
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 11:33 PM
To: *******
Subject: Permission

Dear Mr ******,

I would like to ask your permission to post the other two email correspondences we had, dated 8/30 and 8/31. I am preparing statements concerning those correspondences and would like to post your emails with them to, again, prevent me from taking anything you said out of context.

Sincerely,

Josh

SHARPE INTERVIEW STILL ON BLOG

2006-09-05T19:02:00.000-07:00

Mark Sharpe's interview about firsthand information is still available. Either scroll down this page or click the link below. The next interview is scheduled for late this week.

http://bellevuetruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-record-firsthand-information.html

Answers to Objections to this Blog

2006-09-05T18:40:00.000-07:00

Ok folks, the objections to this blog I’m hearing more than any other right now are that Dr Gaines may not have wronged me personally and that this blog is airing our spiritual dirty laundry before the world. I'm afraid some folks have erred in the truth, wishing truly wonderful things about keeping this quiet; but not realizing the necessary negative counter-parts of those wishes. Let’s take a look at those:

We know from Matthew 18 how we are to go to a brother who has wronged us. The men who claim to have been wronged by Dr Gaines (their claims of his sin against themselves and others of his congregation) have tried to deal with these issues straight down the line of Matthew 18. I will point out that the last verse (17) of that passage says, “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” These men have been unable to tell it to the church because the leadership at the church will not provide the forum to do it.

Now the question comes: Have I been personally wronged by Dr Gaines. That question is a non sequitor when used as an attempt to discredit my hosting of this blog. To condemn me and the blog for hosting this information when I’ve allegedly not been wronged would be the same as condemning a man under the same circumstance for offering his home as the meeting spot for these men to address their concerns to the church. Perhaps he was not wronged himself, but nothing scripturally precludes him from offering to host the church to hear what the men claiming to be wronged have to say. Going further, it may be argued that by refusing to answer these charges, the administration has sinned against the entire flock—myself included. I do not at this point allege this.

Of course, the next step in arguing against the blog is to say that I am airing our dirty laundry for the world to see and that that is wrong. I will ask a couple of questions here and then make a couple of direct points:

Question 1: If this blog could be restricted to only Bellevue members, would the information contained on it be kept within that circle? I believe the answer to that is “not a chance.”

Question 2: If this were not a blog but a meeting of the entire church in the church building, would the information distributed here be contained within the body present at that meeting? Again, absolutely not.

But we do know that holding such a meeting would comport exactly with Matthew 18. I submit, and will continue to state, that this blog simply constitutes a meeting place for the people of Bellevue. We know that if we had a churchwide meeting at 2000 Appling Road (which by the way was forbidden by the leadership weeks ago), members of the world would get in there too. We would not be able to call roll. We would not be able to ensure that everyone was a member. This forum is no different.

Statement 1: I have made every effort to conceal this blog from those who should not be near it. The blog is not registered on the normal blog lists so by far the easiest way to get to it is to either type in the address directly or click the link on savingbellevue.com.

Statement 2: The only scripture I can find that would speak to not allowing these things in the public is that of 1 Cor. 6:1-8. I truly believe this Scripture does not forbid the coincidental revelation of church discipline issues into the world (after all, should the world never know how we deal with those who transgress without repentance?) but it does forbid the church to allow a secular person to render judgement (legal judgement) in church matters. This, I believe, an incorrect point people both draw from this passage and are using to question the legitimacy of this blog. I believe the point being incorrect is validated by 1 Cor. 5:12-13; 6:2-7. You may disagree, but I believe this interpretation is within the normal parameters of legitimate scriptural interpretation (ie there’s nothing heretical there, only debatable). Further, I am not condoning actually outsting someone form fellowship via this blog. That would clearly be contrary to 1 Cor 5:4-5.

Going furter, I would point out that the onus isn’t placed on the church to avoid discipline so that our reputation will be preserved in the view of the world (1 Cor 5:1-11: does anyone think that after the exercise of what’s prescribed in that passage, the world wouldn’t find out?) (And again, should the world think, having never seen it, that we do not discipline our own?). However, the onus is placed on individual believers to avoid sin so that their behavior will not hurt the church in the world’s eyes (Titus 2:7-8). Make no mistake: It is not the other way around.

That said, we should never sacrifice obedience to preserve our reputation to the world. Nor should we ever worry that our obedience will put off the world. Isn’t that what any number of men whom have filled Bellevue’s pulpit have always said: we are to be a different people?

One last note: 1 Tim 5:20 give us certain conditions and once those conditions are met, we must rebuke elders who sin “before all.”

Now, some thoughts on truth from the man, along whom with my father, I most respect in this world:

It’s better to be hated for telling the truth than to be loved for telling a lie.
It’s better to speak the truth that hurts then heals than falsehood that comforts then kills.
It’s better to ultimately succeed with the truth than to temporarily succeed with a lie.
It’s better to stand alone with the truth than to be wrong with the multitude.

And it's time for a latin signoff for the evening that relates to these objections: Manet Mansuraque Est: As it is, It shall remain!

Contextualized Cited Scriptures:

Mat 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish. 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. 18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote
unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether 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 a 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.

1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Titus 2:7 In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, 8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you. 9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; 10 Not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.

1 Tim 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. 22Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

Dr Gaines' shares his thoughts on blogs

2006-09-04T21:17:00.000-07:00

Below is an audio clip from Sunday Evening's (9-3-06) service at Bellevue, where Dr Gaines shared his thoughts on blogging with those present. Make of this what you will. All I can say is that there are some very, very respectable people in this world who blog.

Click the play button below for clip of Dr Gaines' specific comments on bloggers and blogging

****BUTTON REMOVED FOR CONCERN OVER COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT SHUTDOWN SIMILAR TO GARDENDALE VIDEO***

***TRANSCRIPT***

"Dr Rogers used to tell me, he said, ‘Steve, you know that some people don’t like me.’ I said, ‘Some people don’t like Dr Rogers?’ Some people didn’t like Jesus. I tell you if Jesus today was here today (sic) he wouldn’t get flogged maybe but he would get blogged. I think I’d take a flogging before a bloggin, amen? And if you don’t know what a blog is give thanks! Gives every kook in the world the ability to talk ugly about people without telling who they are: that’s a coward’s way! But you’ve got to forgive people."

Full Sermon: Click here. Blogging comments are 48 minutes in.

ON THE RECORD: FIRSTHAND INFORMATION

2006-09-03T22:34:00.000-07:00

Finally! We have first hand information. Below is the first in what promises to be a lengthy multi-part interview series with Bellevue Deacon Mark Sharpe. I hope to have the next interview available as soon as possible, but I hope more that the next interview will be unnecessary.

In this first interview, conducted Sunday evening (9-3-06), I asked Mark to take us all back, using his firsthand knowledge, to the first incident that really impressed upon him a specific need for truth, transparency, and accountability in our administration. This is both a singularly bizarre story and the string that began to unravel the sweater.

(TO EMAIL THIS STORY TO A FRIEND, SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS INTERVIEW, FIND THE ENVELOPE NEXT TO THE WORD "COMMENTS," CLICK THE ENVELOPE, AND ENTER THE ADDRESS YOU WANT IT SENT TO.)

Mark Sharpe Interview #1 (9-3-06)

Josh Manning: Rumors have been swirling around Bellevue Baptist Church for months now. Many of you have heard whispers and concerns from people you know at the church. Well, tonight we hope to begin putting rumors to rest and bringing answers to light. To help do that I'll be speaking with Mark Sharpe.

Welcome Mark. Thank you for taking time away from your family and work to help us begin clearing away this confusion.

Mark Sharpe: Thanks Josh. I'm glad to be available but saddened that we are having to do this.

JM: Mark, before we get started, could you just share with us a little bit about yourself: how long you've been at Bellevue, what parts of the church you've participated in, and, really, I think we'd all like to know why you're willing to put your name on the line and come forward the firsthand information you have.

MS: My wife and I joined Bellevue in 1989. We have two teenage children who have both been saved at Bellevue. God has blessed our family over the years much more than we deserve. God has also blessed me by allowing me to be involved in many areas of the church. I've taught Adult Bible Fellowship for many years, been involved in EE, taught Experiencing God by Henry Blackaby for numerous years, led or gone on 8 foreign mission trips to Nicaragua, Brazil, China, and India. Our family has also had the opportunity to be involved in local missions by being part of a group that has ministered to the same assisted living home for the past 6 years, been a deacon, a deacon officer, served on the deacon nominating interview committee, served on the executive missions committee, been the chairman of the insurance committee, chaired the Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary Shopping Spree Committee, co-launched Crown Ministries for Bellevue, and many other areas of service. I say these things not to be boastful but to let you know how much Bellevue has meant to me and my family over the years and to let you know I am close to a lot of activity here at Bellevue.

The reason I am putting my name on the line is because I came to the point where I was more concerned with what God wanted me to do rather than what man wanted me to do or what man could do to me. I saw things that were not right and I had knowledge firsthand of other things that I knew were not right.

JM: Well, Mark, I don't think anyone could say that you've not been involved deeply and integrally in the life of our church. Now, let's begin to get at the heart of these issues we've been hearing about. Obviously we won't have time in one evening to deal with everything, so tonight I'd like to simply ask you about the first thing that really caught your attention. What was it that began to convince you there was a real problem at Bellevue? A problem that extended into the highest levels of the administration

MS: First of all, let me say that when we called Steve Gaines to be our pastor, I was as excited as anyone at Bellevue. We had prayed that God give us the man He wanted us to have and I believe he was that man. Within the first 6 weeks, I was getting a check in my spirit about things I was hearing with my own ears. I thought he had said a few things when he addressed the deacons at his first deacons meeting. I had also heard of some things he had told the employees of Bellevue in a meeting that went against what I thought was the role of a pastor.

My father has been a Southern Baptist Pastor for over 50 years and I've been around 100's of pastors in my life. I believe I know the heart of a pastor. A pastor is a shepherd who leads his sheep. Some of the things I heard in the deacon meeting and from the pulpit seemed to be a bit arrogant in nature, especially from someone who had just followed a pastor that had been here for over 30 years. This check in my spirit kept growing and is still growing today. Being as active at Bellevue as our family is, we have had the wonderful opportunity to get to know a lot of staff members here at the church. Some are here and some have moved on this year. Being as close to a lot of staff members, we have shared a lot of things over the years. In fact, I've been around the world with staff, prayed with them, had them in our home and been in their homes. We have laughed together and cried together as we have sought God's will in our personal and church life. It's not unusual to discuss things that are on your heart with a brother in Christ. Godly counsel is something that has been beneficial to me.

JM: That's wise. Go on.

MS: A staff member told me about the most unusual happening one day. Steve Gaines had a dream about a member of Bellevue. In this dream, this man was not of the right spirit. In fact, it was said that Steve Gaines described this man as being demon possessed. Sitting in church each Sunday for the past 20 years downtown at the old Bellevue and out here at the new location, he would utter an Amen from time to time during the sermon. In the pastor's dream, this man needed to be quieted before the next Sunday service. There was a bizarre urgency to the time line to take care of silencing him that week. Steve Gaines had gone to Mark Dougharty and asked Mark to make sure the problem was taken care of. Mark Dougharty went to a staff member and that staff member could not take care of it in the time frame needed so Mark Dougharty summoned two other staff members to go contact this man. The same story was told by Mark Dougharty to these men. That week, there was more bizarre activity surrounding the event. Steve Gaines was obsessed with the job being done before the next Sunday. The two staff members did contact this beloved member of Bellevue and he was asked to refrain from saying "Amen" anymore. The real reason of course, could not and was not told to this individual.

JM: That's very interesting. You say Dr Gaines was obsessed with the man being, well I guess I should say, dealt with, before the next Sunday. What do you mean by obsessed?

MS: I'm told of multiple phone calls daily including Saturday evening before he would preach again the next day. Steve would call Mark Dougharty and Mark would call to see if the job had been completed. Evidently this man had a work schedule that may have been shift work so his schedule may not have aligned with theirs. Why the urgency before another Sunday? I believe the threat was made to silence him by removing him from the church if he did not agree to silence himself.

JM: Two follow up questions then: I understand if names may present a problem, but can you give us an idea of who told you about the phone calls? Maybe the person's relationship with the church? Also, do you have any idea why a dream would cause Dr Gaines to want this man silenced?

MS: The staff members I am speaking of who had knowledge of and or participated in this activity are in the Office of Administration. These men were troubled then and are now. I believe the men who were originally asked by Mark Dougharty should not have carried out the pastor's order. I believe they were wrong to have done so. May God have mercy on our church.

I'm not sure what it is about dreams or out of body experiences that Steve Gaines has shared publicly. I believe that it was used to intimidate the staff but that is just my opinion on what I now know. I'm not sure what would cause Steve Gaines to believe this dream was from God.

JM: Those are strong sources you have, Mark. Can you tell us what happened next? Did the staff members get in touch with the man?

MS: The two staff members contacted the man, met with him, and were able to sidestep the truth that the pastor had actually had a dream about him. They told him his voice was very loud and it threw the pastor off his train of thought.

If that was truly the case, why make up the story about a dream and the man being demon possessed? The man agreed to stop saying Amen but he told the two staff members that the only time he ever said Amen was when the Holy Spirit prompted him to do so. This godly man was bruised by the pastor.

JM: As a quick aside, Mark, you noted earlier that you grew up the son of an SBC preacher. You've been around preachers your whole life. Could you give us an idea of how you think a pastor should tend . . . well tend his flock?

MS: Being a PK has been one of the most wonderful experiences God could have ever given me. I've had the opportunity to see pastoral life up close and personal in ways the average person would never see. I used to tell Dr. Rogers that he was my second favorite pastor in the world. He would chuckle at that statement knowing that I loved my dad not only as my dad but as my pastor growing up.

I'll tell you the qualities I continue to see in my dad which exemplify what I believe a pastor should be like: 1. A man above reproach - a man who has integrity, who doesn't give others a reason to question his truthfulness. He will not compromise. 2. A man who will listen to others. As a pastor, it's impossible to be in a pastorate and not have people with different opinions that differ with yours. A shepherd will listen to that person and discuss the issue and very kindly agree to disagree instead of "my way or the highway." 3. A man who is transparent—I believe a pastor is willing to let anyone examine the things he is involved in. A shepherd does not hide behind other people or closed doors. 4. A man who is no respecter of persons. I believe a true shepherd does not surround himself just with men of wealth, position, or class. The church is made up of the body of believers. The church is made up of rich, poor, young, old, white, black, the prominent, the unknown. A true shepherd is someone who is willing to surround himself with men who are not afraid to hold him accountable, men who are not afraid to ask the tough questions. Iron sharpens iron. 5. A loving gentle spirited man. I believe a pastor is one who tends to his sheep. Not someone who is interested in his personal gain whether it be fortune, fame, or position. A pastor loves his church he is over and stays close by. He doesn't spend time with everyone else at the expense of his own church. 6. A man who loves the Word and wants every opportunity to preach. 7. A soul winner. A man who leads by example every opportunity he has. He is burdened for the lost. 8. A family man. A man who loves his family and protects them both physically and spiritually. A pastor is very careful to not do anything in public or private that may cause others to stumble whether they be his flock or personal family.

JM: I think that's very well said, Mark. Would that God would make every pastor out there to live up to those standards. Now, back to this strange story. Did it end there, with the staff members visiting this fellow? Or is there more?

MS: It's becomes something for me that I'm terribly burdened over. As I said earlier, a pastor should be above reproach. I began to see things and hear things with my own eyes that were confirming this "check" I had in my spirit with Steve Gaines. I was not looking for this issue, this issue came to me.

A staff member who was involved came to me because he was burdened and confided in me for counsel. The wrong had already been done and I advised the staff member to go to Steve Gaines and confront him with what had been done and correct a wrong. For fear of losing their job, they did nothing.

I can't speak for anyone else because I'm not in their shoes. For me, I would hope that I would have either said no or tried to correct a wrong. Knowledge is powerful. Once you have knowledge, it generally requires you to do something with it. If the knowledge is something that doesn't affect anything or anyone, it's ok to just let it go. In cases where you believe someone has done wrong or someone has been injured, it is often necessary to take that knowledge and carry it to the next step. For example, if you were at work and you witnessed someone taking cash from the company, I believe you have a responsibility to use that knowledge to right a wrong simply because you are involved now. You may not have been looking to get involved, but you are because of circumstances you didn't create. In fact, you probably wish you had never had knowledge of what you saw.

Similarly, I prayed about this information for a while and pondered over what the consequences would be if nothing was done. A myriad of thoughts ran through my mind. What if the man was terribly hurt by this action and restitution was never made? What if the accuser was not held accountable, and he continued down the wrong path which led to deeper problems later? What about the other men involved that were compromised? What would God have me do? I felt led by the Holy Spirit to confront the accuser of this issue.

JM: That's a bold decision. With whom did you speak? How did it go?

MS: On an unrelated matter Steve Gaines called me to have lunch with him. It was at this lunch meeting that I confronted him with this issue. It was not an easy thing to do but I plainly stated what had been told to me by the staff members. He looked as if he was caught off guard when I made the statement. He then told me that never happened, at least the way it was told to me. He said there was no dream and there was no demon possessed man involved. What he said was that this man threw him off when he said Amen and that's why he asked Mark Dougharty to have the staff silence him. I was shocked at his response because it was so different from what I had heard.

JM: Well, that is a different version. And as you noted earlier, there doesn’t seem to be any motivation for the men who dealt with this to make up a different story. I know you listed a number of staff members who remember it differently from Dr Gaines. Have their stories stayed consistent? Also, has anyone in the administration confronted these men for telling a different, very different, version of what happened?

MS: When I left the meeting, I immediately contacted one of the staff to verify my recollection of the story as it was told to me. I was relieved to find out that I wasn't going crazy or that my memory was playing games with me. As bizarre as this story sounds, I'm really wondering now what the pastor was doing. Did he really have a dream? Why would he take an issue like this and not be truthful with it? If he had a dream, how did he know it was from God? What about this man, did he care about him? What happened to this man?

I found out that the next Sunday, Steve Gaines approached one of the staff members involved and in the hallway put his arm around him, looked down at him, and said there was a story going around about him having a dream about a man. Steve Gaines then said, "that never happened". When I was told that from this staff member, I thought this was pure intimidation. It really upset me that Steve Gaines would do that. Why the cover-up? Do we have at least 4 or 5 staff members that are not telling the truth and Steve Gaines is? Why would staff members try and frame the pastor over something this bizarre? I've checked with two staff members as recently as a week ago and their stories stay constant. When I say staff members, I'm not acknowledging current from former for reasons I'll share in a few moments.

The next logical step with me was to go to Mark Dougharty. Recently I had a 3 hour and 25 minute meeting with Mark Dougharty to discuss a lot of issues that continue to surround Bellevue. At one point, I asked Mark Dougherty if he recalled what happened with (man's name)? He went on to tell me that the pastor had had a dream or vision about this man. He described how the pastor wanted this man to be contacted and asked that he not say Amen anymore. The reason was that this man was not operating in the right spirit. I told him that I had confronted Steve Gaines about this episode earlier and how Steve Gaines denied he had a dream. I told him how Steve Gaines went to this staff member and put his arm around him in the hallway and tried to change his memory of the events. I told him how Steve told this staff member he never had a dream. When I said that, Mark Dougharty said "I never said the pastor had a dream." I reminded him that several minutes earlier of what he actually said. Mark seemed like a man who knew his boss would not like what he had just said. He appeared to me to be a man who was afraid of the consequences of what may lie ahead because of his statement. These staff members are absolutely sure of what took place and stand behind their story. Mark Dougharty confirmed to me what the staff members said. I believe Steve Gaines did exactly as I was told he did.

JM: This is pretty shocking, Mark. Let me just make sure we're clear here: Multiple staff members say that Dr Gaines told them he had a dream or vision about a member of Bellevue being possessed. He asked staff members to take care of the situation, some of the men confided in you about this, you confronted the Pastor, he denied have having a dream or ever having mentioned it, he tried to change a staff members mind by denying the same thing again, and Mr Dougharty in a single meeting first acknowledged that the dream and orders to deal with the man had been given and then reversed himself, in that same meeting, saying that there had never been a dream? Is that correct?

MS: That is correct.

JM: Now Mark, these are pretty serious statements. Tell me, is this account you've told us tonight where most of the worries around church are coming from, or is this more like the tip of a much larger iceberg?

MS: The worries around the church are not coming as a result of this story that I have told you tonight. I don't believe there are many members of Bellevue that have any knowledge of this incident. I have told this story to 4 of the active deacon officers. In fact, Chuck Taylor is one of them. I told him exactly what I knew had been told to me and I understand he did a little investigative work himself last month. It would be interesting to know his findings. I do know he spoke to some of the parties involved. Several months ago, I confronted him over this issue because of the answer Steve Gaines had given me, and he said he'd ask Steve about it. Steve told Chuck it never happened. My response to Steve, Chuck, Mark Dougharty, and the deacon officers is to get all of the men involved into the same room and have the church sign a hold harmless agreement for any staff member who could testify without fear of retribution. The leadership's response was no. How in the world are we going to get to the truth unless we can discuss it? What would be the motive for staff members including, Mark Dougharty, to make a story up about Steve Gaines?

The answer to your other question is yes, this is the tip of a much larger iceberg. This is not a game we are in. We called a man to lead our church. With leadership changes there will always be those out there who don't like change. What I am most worried about is not the change we are seeing. What I am concerned with could be described with two words. Trust and accountability. Leadership is based on trust. It's more important what a leader does than what he says. A pastor should be known for his honesty. When the congregation sees the pastor stretching the truth and ignoring concerns, the people start questioning his leadership.

There is a certain level of trust that comes with the office of the pastor but ultimately trust is something that's earned over time. I pray that Steve Gaines and the rest of the leadership of Bellevue will recognize the need for restoring trust.

There are so many issues I could share with you tonight but time won't allow it, and they are all really just a result of a lack of trust and accountability. I pray for Steve Gaines and our leadership to be willing to discuss the issues surrounding Bellevue. We have a wonderful church with wonderful friends who all love the Lord.

I can't find anywhere in the scripture that calls on me to follow any man blindly. I can find scripture all throughout that calls on us to seek the truth and Truth, proclaim the truth and Truth, and embrace the truth and Truth. God so loved us that he forgave us even though all of us are as filthy as rags. I believe if the leadership of Bellevue opens up to truthfulness no matter how bad it may seem the fallout would be, that the people who are Bellevue will forgive as well. Then and only then in my estimation will Bellevue be the church God will then use.

JM: I share your prayer Mark. Thank you for taking time to talk with us tonight. Thanks for starting us at the beginning of your search for what's really going on out there. Since this is only the "tip of the iceberg" and there are still so many unanswered questions, would you be willing to come back and delve into those when you have time. I know there are lots of issues competing for attention, but maybe we could do a series of interviews, each dealing with a new issue and the first hand knowledge you have. Would you be willing to do that?

MS: I will be willing to come back and discuss unanswered questions.

Thank you for your love for Bellevue. I pray that God will humble all of us at Bellevue and that we can get our focus back on Him. I am praying that God will refine the church not only here at Bellevue but across our nation. God bless you.

JM: Thank you again, Mark

Round Two: Commentary on Bellevue Leadership's Second Email

2006-09-02T21:36:00.000-07:00

Below is my take on the second round of emails between myself and the previously quoted member of Bellevue leadership. I regret that at this time I cannot post his email in its entirity. I have asked his permission to post his entire email, but it is too soon for him to have responded. In the mean time, I will go ahead and put my thoughts out on the exchange along with my end of the conversation. Hopefully I can post his part soon to assure that I've not taken anything out of context.

***EMAIL EXCHANGE PT 2 BELOW (MY EMAIL ONLY, PENDING PERMISSION TO PUBLISH LEADER'S EMAIL)***

I replied to Mr *****’s first email (previously posted) by asking the following questions:

1) Do numbers validate a ministry (this was an implied question)

2) Are questions about transparency out of line?

3) Should a congregation follow a pastor no matter what (again an implied question)

4) [I re-posed my original three questions (SEE: "Deacon Board Member Email Exchange pt 1".]

Mr ***** addressed in some way each of the top three questions listed above but again refused to answer the original three (SEE: "Deacon Board Member Email Exchange pt 1.")

I would conclude again that he believes that answering those questions directly, from a biblical perspective, will undermine his actions along with the actions of the deacon board, board of directors, and church administration.

Regarding question one (Do numbers validate a ministry?), Mr ***** refers to God adding daily to the church in Acts, attempting to use this as an example, if not a proof, of the validity of numbers in the evaluation of ministry. Of course, numbers may be used to validate, but they can be neither 1) solely relied upon to the exclusion of other measures (honesty, gentleness, temperance, etc) nor 2) assumed to reflect the propriety of an administration. If we solely relied on numbers to the exclusion of other markers and assumed that numbers reflect the propriety of a ministry, then we would be forced to conclude that Benny Hinn is one of the mightiest men of God on the planet.

Of course, Mr ***** doesn’t believe this. I’d also wager he doesn’t believe that numbers really validate a ministry (if he does, then I’ll let him make the phone calls to our missionaries in parts of the world where fewer than 10 conversions per year can be counted on). He does, however, realize that numbers are one of the only proofs of legitimacy the leadership can fall back on if their behavior does not comport with Scripture. The end result: “Well, we’re not really doing what the Bible says, but we are growing, so that must mean we’re ok! [my words]” Again, I’m positive Mr ***** doesn’t believe this, but this is where his logic and refusal to cite other indicators must lead.

On question two (Are questions about transparency out of line?), Mr ***** contends that “making staff members’ salaries common knowledge would be inappropriate” and “a committee made up of Church members that work on a budget that is approved by the Congregation each year and for two weeks prior to voting on it that Committee, the Budget Planning Committee, is available to answer any questions our congregation has about the finances of the Church so they can be informed in order to vote (sic). That’s transparency.”

So what he seems to be saying is that a committee the congregation does not appoint, creates a sub-committee from themselves that the congregation can’t vote on; that sub-committee both operates on the basis of guidelines generated by the Pastor and the Development Council (and that council is handpicked by the pastor and associate pastor) and creates a budget the congregation can’t have a say in for 50 weeks out of the year; and the budget they create and show the public does not have included the numbers for all expenses.

That is not transparency.

In addressing this same question, Mr ***** says that I accused him of saying “people who ask financial questions are being divisive.” I did make that inference, but my statement wasn’t accusatory.

He goes on to say that “those who talk of financial improprieties based on rumor and gossip and pass those lies on to others are being divisive.” I would then ask what one should do if he hears that some financial matters are possibly currently mismanaged? Apparently he should do anything but talk about it. I suppose a corollary of this is that the same person should not consider anything unless proof is produced. This is a wonderful approach as long as those who may be committing improprieties are willing to honestly answer questions and produce completely transparent numbers. Things rarely work that way with those who do commit improprieties.

Regarding question three (Should a congregation follow a pastor no matter what?), Mr ***** continues to fall back on Heb 13:17. A few nights back I ran into an interesting article on this verse and this common use for it. The article noted the actual connotation of the word translated from the Greek as “obey.” To quote Strong’s “peithō pi'-tho A primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means) . . .”

This does shed a bit of light on the passage, perhaps even implying that the congregation is to convince the leadership of the congregation’s opinion and obey them. If that is correct, I must point out that it directly contradicts Mr *****’s assertions on church leadership and followership.

Going further, he states “if a pastor has a moral failure, yes [the congregation may diverge]. If he taught heresy, yes. If you don’t like the music or who he hires or how he parts his hair, absolutely not!” Speaking to the moral failure comment, I’d note that moral failures tend to be things that get covered up, at least for a time, and without information they can stay covered up. So, for a congregation to consider divergence under Mr *****’s perspective, information would have to come out indicating a failure. Again, this makes sense as long as questions and pleas are not ignored. Otherwise, such an approach is almost useless.

Finally, I want to clarify that this is not about “change.” As I told Mr *****, change can be a good thing. I’m more concerned about the leadership’s lack of willingness to address congregational concerns and even lack of willingness to acknowledge how to biblically deal with an administration the congregation believes may be errant.

Again, I would urge readers to try to find the answers to the original three questions on (1) how the leadership and (2) congregation should respond to each other when there are questions about the leadership’s actions; and (3) what are the specifics of Steve Gaines ultimate vision for the church. Ask your leadership.

From: Joshua H. Manning
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:27 AM
To: ******
Subject: RE: Church Concern

Dear Mr *****,

Thank you for replying so quickly (and though you say it was brief, it was far more than I expected). Please let me apologize for contacting you at work. I didn’t realize this wasn’t your personal address. Because of that circumstance, I’ll try to be brief:

I understand what you wrote back, but I guess I don’t understand how it applies to what I was asking about. What I hear in your email is that the numbers at church validate a ministry, but I know that can’t be what you mean. I also take from it that those asking about financial matters are divisive. I don’t understand how that can be if they simply want transparency, which they claim to have asked the administration for and it will not grant it. Is that sort of request out of line? Also, I know you can’t mean that a congregation should follow a pastor no matter what—surely at some point it can become appropriate to diverge from a pastor—but it does sound like you’re saying one can never diverge or disagree. Do you think there’s a point when a congregation can?

I’m trying to understand what the lay leadership and the administration’s points of view are regarding the biblical way part of a congregation should proceed when it believes its leadership may be errant; and how biblically a church administration and deacon body should respond to members who ask legitimate questions and ask for transparency and accountability. I’m also curious about what you know of the pastor’s end goal for the church. What are the specifics of his vision for us?

Again, thank you for your time, leadership, and willingness to respond to a concerned church member.

Best,

Josh

I'VE OFFICIALLY BEEN DEMONIZED

2006-09-01T22:17:00.000-07:00

True to other accounts, a member of the leadership has demonized me for posting our correspondence which were in no way ever implied or said to be confidential from either participant. I regret he seems to have not wanted those correspondence opened to the public. The text of our conversation regarding what he feels was deception is below—I believe he knew the email in this post would very possibly be posted, so I do not feel this is disregarding his wishes.

Both emails mostly speak for themselves, but again I would add that I in no way ever implied that our communications would be kept to myself, nor did I expect a good leader, with a biblical view of leadership, to not want his statements to me on church leadership to be public knowledge.

From: ***** [mailto:******@*******]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 5:22 PM
To: 'Joshua H. Manning'
Subject: RE: Church Concern

Josh,

I’ve re-read your emails and can’t find anywhere where you indicated our dialogue would be posted to a blog site. You are a deceiver. This is not a game. You are touching holy things when you attack the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and His chosen Shepherd our Pastor.

Proverbs 6:16-19, “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”

You are a pawn in a spiritual battle and you better wake up.

*******

My Response, emailed at 9:17pm on 9/1/06:

Dear Mr *****,

I have not attacked the church. I asked the ***** [name of his office] questions on his view of spiritual leadership, followership, and the pastor’s vision of the church.

I wrote my opinion on your responses and decided to post that. Surely you wouldn’t fault me for sharing my thoughts on our conversation.

But I posted the emails in their entirety to show the context of everything we both said. I did not want anyone thinking I took you out of context in my opinion piece. I believe posting the emails provided you with as much protection as it did me.

I assumed you would realize I was asking for your opinion as a spiritual leader, **** [office title], and pastor search committee member—after all, we have never spoken nor met to my knowledge so I would have no other reason to contact you specifically. I believe nearly anyone would think a random email asking for a personal, not leadership, opinion would be awkward and out of sorts. I can’t imagine that you’re not aware that the emails you’ve been getting from other people are coming to you because of chance and not because of the positions you hold in our church.

Also, I’m not sure how my actions qualified as “wicked” or “mischief” since I simply repeated you, and I know I didn’t advance any lies because I quoted exactly what you said. And I don’t understand how repeating what you said, verbatim, can cause discord. How can my carrying your words exactly as they were said cause discord? If you would like to say that my posting of my opinion causes discord, it would be one thing; but again, how can my posting of your own words cause discord?

I truly don’t understand how my repeating what you said is in any way divisive. Did you expect me not to tell anyone the contents of our correspondence? If that was the case, I truly didn’t know because I generally expect that emails I send out may be discussed among others. I would certainly not have minded if you had made my emails available to the public even without my permission and without your replies. In fact, if you’re willing, I would ask you to forward my emails to the entire deacon body and Bellevue ministerial staff at your earliest convenience. If you want to include your own analysis of them, please feel free to.

Would you have said anything differently knowing that the emails would be posted?

I regret we have come to this,

Sincerely,

Josh Manning

NEWS FLASH

2006-09-01T11:48:00.000-07:00

***FLASH***

INFORMATION TO BEGIN COMING OUT ON 9-4-06

An interview will take place Sunday evening with a person who has first hand information of very questionable behavior from the administration.

I expect to have the interview blogged by Monday morning.

Late night phone calls?

2006-08-31T17:21:00.000-07:00

A couple of comments indicated that some people are wondering about the specifics of our worries. Well, I'm in the process of gathering information about specifics right now, but I'm trying not to release anything to the site until I have confirmation that true worry is warrented. This is a technique to limit and stop rumors. The information currently on this site contains only confirmed information or speculations included in letters to church leadership. But believe me, the things already chronicled here are more than enough to cause concern.

But for the folks who think this may be a mole hill instead of a mountain, I pose the same question a woman asked at the much-talked about Friday, August 11 meeting, "What is so important, so big that an emergency meeting of deacons was held last night [the night before the meeting], and what is so important that it prompted an 11pm phone call from Dr Gaines to one of the deacons holding this meeting?"

Analysis of pt 1 Bellevue Deacon Board Member Email Exchange

2006-08-31T13:00:00.000-07:00

***EMAIL EXCHANGE PT 1 BELOW***

I wrote ********** on Aug 29 asking him to respond to three, very specific comments:

"1) Your opinion, biblically, of the way in which part of a congregation should proceed when it believes its leadership may be errant.

"2) How you believe, again biblically, a church administration and deacon body should respond to congregants who ask for transparency, accountability, and real story behind so many whispered worries.

"3) The specifics of the pastor’s ultimate vision for our precious church. "

His email either fails to address any of those questions or worse, implies some truly discouraging things.

Below is the analytical breakdown (and if you'll notice his entire email is a straw-man that fails to address any of the issues I asked him about, and instead argues against issues I didn't bring into contention); but here's the summary: Mr ***** seemingly intentionally avoided answering the questions about biblical approaches on both the congregation and administration’s ends. Now this is only an inference, but I believe it is correct: it would seem that Mr ***** realizes on some level that if he answers those questions along biblical lines, those same answers will condemn the deacon board and church administration for not handling this mess under the rules laid out in Matthew 18, 2 Timothy, and Titus 3.

Analytical breakdown:

Mr ***** first appeals to tradition (and presumably the governing practices of Dr Rogers) saying that the same governing practices are in place currently as have been for the past 30 years. Appeals to tradition, however, don't especially hold up to scrutiny. I need waste no time giving examples of the numerous poor decisions made in this world on the basis of nothing more than tradition.

He goes on to state that congregational approval is based upon trusting the Pastor whom the Church approved, being run by committees that the Church approved, and for significant decisions such as annual budget and major expenditures (sic). Two things spring to mind: If this is the basis of congregational approval, where is that stated? Is it in the by-laws? Where? I truly am not accusing Mr ***** of making this up, but I do wonder where this definition of congregational approval originated. Secondly, accepting that this is a proper definition, is that truly the limit of the congregation's approval power? To select a pastor, committees, and vote on the budget and major expenditures. Have we no say in other matters? Have we no outlet to express our concerns? If we express those concerns, will we be demonized? According to recent experiences, the answer to the last question is a definitive yes (as you will see below).

Next Mr ***** quotes Dr Rogers statement that a pastor's job is to lead and feed while the congregation's job is to follow and swallow. I don't remember the latter half of that statement ever coming from Dr Rogers (and I have no doubt that he would be the first to say there are limits to what a congregation where a congregation should "follow" and what it should "swallow", but I won't dispute it. What I wonder is how far that should be taken. Is there a point at which a congregation should no longer simply follow a pastor? History and reason both tell us yes. Certainly members of congregations where pastors have fallen (and I here in no way imply that Steve Gaines has or is going to fall in any way, shape, or form) should not continue to follow. What about when a fall is impending? What if the congregation fears the pastor is leading them down a road where he might fall? Is there a point where they should stop following and beg that pastor to consider his actions? Of course the answer is yes: anything else is nothing more than an enabling action.

Regarding the use of Hebrews 13:17, it seems to me to be a non-sequitor. Who is disobeying the church's leadership? Is asking questions disobedient? Is gathering to discuss fears regarding the direction of the church and its leadership disobedient? I fail to see how it is. And going further, if circumstances were such that those things were considered disobedient, what would such a thing say about the condition of such leadership?

Mr ***** continues by saying that the Pastor's character, integrity, and leadership have been attacked. If by "attacks' he means "questions" and "the exchange of first hand information" then I suppose he's right. But those are not the same as "attacks."

This is what's known as a straw-man argument (there are a lot of those being floated by people not fond of those asking questions). Straw-man arguments get their name from the image of someone packing a scarecrow with straw and then attacking that instead of the real opponent. Those who use these arguments in debate won't argue against the original idea, but they will twist the original idea into something different that they can then attack. Used here it means that Mr ***** is arguing against attacks on the pastor because obviously those are bad. He does this instead of arguing against questions and the exchange of first hand information about the pastor, because obviously those are legitimate. Expect more of those to come in the weeks ahead.

Next he says that the whispers I referred to are in fact shouts to anyone who will listen. Again, I'm not sure where those shouts are coming from. No one is hijacking the pulpit. No one is forcing anyone else to listen to these concerns. Ironically, however, the Pastor is preaching that we should simply "drop it" if there's something between us and a brother (counter to Matt 18), that the world doesn't need to see factions and divisions (they also need to see integrity and transparency), that we should just love each other (love also rejoices in the truth (1 Cor 13:6 “Love rejoices in truth) and cares enough to confront (Heb 12: 6 “Whom the Lord loves he chastens), that we are to get our minds off of ourselves and others then there will be unity (sic) (the implication being that if we just don't worry about other's issues then we'll be unified--unified in ignoring compromising circumstances I suppose) (Evening Service, 8-13-06). And that same Sunday morning, multiple Sunday school teachers told their classes that those asking questions were not to be listened to because they were trying to stir up trouble. These are the people who are shouting from the tops of their lungs at captive audiences. It's rather cheap to try to turn that around.

As for the list of Scripture, Prov 6:19 refers to bearing false witness (something that to my knowledge has not been proven regarding the list of concerns) and sowing discord. But again, sowing discord and asking honest questions to keep people accountable are not the same thing. The James 5:9 references falls flat in this instance because no commentator would have the audacity to say that this Scripture forbids assessment of ecclesiastical practices and questions regarding their wisdom, efficacy, and outcome. Finally, the Philippians 2:14 reference seems to be a catch all for Mr *****, saying do all things without grumbling or disputing. But can this verse be used to quell a congregation asking legitimate questions that seemingly no one in the administration will answer? I doubt it. Going further, I wonder if that same verse condemns the actions described in Matthew 18 and Titus 3? Again, I doubt it.

Finally, Mr ***** appeals to numbers as a legitimization of the church's current direction. But that rubric when applied to Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, and Robert Schuller's ministries would force Mr ***** to classify each of the above as heading in "the right direction."

Deacon Board Member Email Exchange pt 1

2006-08-31T12:58:00.000-07:00

* Deacon Board Member Email Exchange pt 1 *

From: *********[mailto:********@********]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:59 PM
To: 'Joshua H. Manning'
Subject: RE: Church Concern

Dear Mr. Manning,

Let me first apologize for the brevity of my reply to your email but this is my business email address and it has been given out without my consent and even posted on a website. The concerns you have about disclosure, access, hiring, salaries and accountability are about things that have been the standard practices of Bellevue Baptist Church for over 30years. We are Pastor led and Congregation approved but that approval is not for the day to day operations of the Church. Congregation approval is based upon trusting the Pastor who the Church approved, being run by committees that the Church approved, and for significant decisions such as annual budget and major expenditures. To quote Dr. Rogers on the Biblical model for the Church, “the Pastor’s responsibility is to Lead and Feed and the congregation’s responsibility is to Swallow and Follow.” Hebrews 13:17, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” It grieves me that God gave us His Pastor to lead us, less than a year ago, and certain members of our Church have responded by unleashing a constant barrage of attacks on his character, integrity and leadership. I’m not saying that is you but the “whispers” you refer to come from them but they are not whispers but shouts to anyone who will listen. If you want to know how God feels about their remarks read: Proverbs 6:19, James 5:9, Philippians 2:14. Judge for yourself if Bellevue is going in the right direction by the fruit of the ministry: every Sunday morning the auditorium is packed, the man of God preaches the Word of God and when the invitation is given scores of people respond. The women’s ministry lead by our Pastor’s wife is astounding and i2 is bursting at the seams. You want to know where our Church is headed? To Jesus!

*****

From: Joshua H. Manning [mailto:*******@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:54 AM
To: *****@*****.com
Subject: Church Concern

Dear Mr. *****:

I write you concerned about recent events at Bellevue. For many years I’ve called Bellevue home. I’ve been spiritually nourished, wisely guided, and sincerely loved in that wonderful place. God has used Bellevue to radically and magnificently change my life, and I know that so many others tell similar stories.

Recently, however, questions have arisen regarding the administration’s conduct. Questions regarding staff members being asked to sign non-disclosure agreements. Questions regarding an unwillingness to allow church members access to this organization’s by-laws. Questions about hiring and firing practices and where precisely such authority lies. Questions about salary decisions and accountability for those who determine salaries.

I write you not out of frustration over the “changes” we’ve seen at Bellevue. Change can be a good thing—not necessarily for it’s own sake, but for a greater, agreed-upon end. No, I write out of concern for the system of checks and balances that is designed to keep our flesh in check. I fear that this system is in danger.

It has wisely been said, “A church should be pastor led, committee run, deacon served, and congregation approved.” I would offer no resistance to that. However, I fear that the last phrase has somehow been left off in recent months. Word swirls of members, both prominent and common, who are dissatisfied with policies being glossed over, truths being concealed, and dissenters being demonized, and those who express dismay being asked to leave the church. Needless to say, it is difficult for a congregation to legitimately approve anything when needful knowledge does not come to, or is withheld from, that congregation.

I write asking for three things: 1) Your opinion, biblically, of the way in which part of a congregation should proceed when it believes its leadership may be errant. 2) How you believe, again biblically, a church administration and deacon body should respond to congregants who ask for transparency, accountability, and real story behind so many whispered worries. 3) The specifics of the pastor’s ultimate vision for our precious church? I truly believe the church would be eager to change as long as we knew, and agreed on, the ultimate goal of such change. Unfortunately, right now we haven’t the faintest idea where we are headed, so any light you might be able shed would certainly not go unappreciated.

Thank you for serving our great church in such an important and visible position. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

Josh Manning

Gardendale Copyright Invoked

2006-08-30T23:07:00.000-07:00

It appears that while the overly zealous media giants of CNN and FoxNews have numerous clips on youtube.com, Gardendale's First Baptist Church in Alabama takes its copyright rights a tad more seriously.

Today (8-30-06) youtube.com pulled the video of Steve Gaines' address to FBC G'dale regarding the fact that he tried to "tick off" the Bellevue pulpit committee. Youtube.com's site says, "This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Gardendale's First Baptist Church because its content was used without permission."

In this address Gaines said that God used the Scripture telling of Gideon freeing His people from the Midianites as a sign that he should come to Bellevue (perhaps to free us from something? I'm not sure).

Gaines went on to say that his approach would be to set out a fleece of "tick[ing] off" the pulpit committee, telling them everything he didn't like about their [Bellevue's] church and everything he liked about our [Gardendale's] church; "everything they [Bellevue] do wrong and everything we [Gardendale] do right. I mean that."

A latin signature is appropriate here: Manet mansuraque est...As it is, It shall remain!

PS If you want to write or call Gardendale for the video (Evening Service July 10, 2005), you may reach them at:

First Baptist Church of Gardendale
940 Main St
Gardendale, AL
(205) 631-3710

Letter Requesting Bylaws Pursuant to Tennessee Code

2006-08-30T21:47:00.000-07:00

Below is the letter I'll be turning in at the Associate Pastor's Office tomorrow morning in person. I'll let you all know how it turns out.

******* Street

*********, ** *****

August 31, 2006

2000 Appling Road
Cordova, Tennessee 38016

Dear Mr. Dougharty:

Yesterday I requested a copy of Bellevue Baptist Church’s bylaws from your office by telephone. Your administrative assistant informed me that the church does not give out those of documents. She also informed me that I might personally view them in your offices at my convenience. While I appreciate her offer, I would still like to obtain a copy of our bylaws.

Pursuant to Tennessee Code, Title 48, Chapter 66, Sections 101, 102, & 103; and §48-67-101 & 102; I, a member in good standing of Bellevue Baptist Church, request a copy of that organization’s bylaws to be made available to me or my agent (§48-66-103a) within five (5) business days of this written request (§48-66-102a).

My request for these documents is based on a desire to review the bylaws and provide suggestions for amending those documents, this so that said documents, not having been modified in greater than 50 years, may be more in keeping with current standards. This reason comports with §48-66-102c-1, 2, & 3.

By my calculations, the date these materials are to be ready for receipt is September 8. On that date I will call in advance to ensure the documents are ready for retrieval. Appropriate reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred from cooperation with this request (§48-66-103c) will be available upon receipt of the requested documents.

Thank you,

***** *****

Bylaws and Tennessee Code Summary

2006-08-30T21:33:00.000-07:00

After the failed phone call referred to earlier, I researched Tennessee law on corporations (both religious and otherwise).

Tennessee Code states that the following must be released within 5 business days to members who ask in writing, purposing to use the material for appropriate uses:

(1) Its [the organization's] charter or restated charter and all amendments to it currently in effect;

(2) Its bylaws or restated bylaws and all amendments to them currently in effect;

(3) Resolutions adopted by its board of directors relating to the characteristics, qualifications, rights, limitations and obligations of members or any class or category of members;

(4) The minutes of all meetings of members and records of all actions approved by the members for the past three (3) years;

If you want to look at the Tennessee laws on this for yourself, you can find them at

http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

Once you get to the site, expand the "Tennessee Code" section on the left of your screen, scroll down to Title 48 (Corporations and Associations), scroll to chapter 67 (Records and Reports), and look at it and its subsections and Chapter 67 and its subsections.

Ok folks, you've got the legal info, now let's get some requests out there. Send them to:

Associate Pastor Mark Dougharty
c/o Bellevue Baptist Church
200o Appling Road
Cordova, TN 38016

Results of phoned in Bylaws Request

2006-08-30T21:31:00.000-07:00

I called Associate Pastor Mark Dougharty's office today and requested a copy of the bylaws. His adminsitrative assistant told me that those documents are not given out but that I could come in at my convinience and look them over.

I declined and asked if I could make copies myself. Again she said that copies are not given out. I thank her and we ended the call.

McClerkin Note

2006-08-30T21:21:00.000-07:00

A rumor is floating that the McClerkins were forced to resign from their Sunday School class. I have it from Pat personally that this statement is patently false. They were not asked to resign. They did so of their own accord. They will be greatly missed.

Hopefully this is a rumor put to rest.

Congregational Authority pt 7 of 7

2006-08-29T09:09:00.000-07:00

Conclusion

In summary, while the idea of opposing a pastor should only be considered with reverential fear, it should not be thought beyond the pale or pariahesque. Like other forms of church discipline, it should be considered prayerfully and applied Scripturally. In summary, I think the following conclusions can be drawn: 1) SBC churches are for better or worse, congregational in governance (and thereby more or less democratic). 2) As democracies, SBC congregations retain the ultimate right to decide who governs them. 3) Implied by the pastor’s presence in the SBC is his acceptance of the congregational nature of the church and the correlated idea that the Pastor derives his authority to govern a specific congregation from that congregation itself (he cannot simply assume the pulpit without the congregation’s invitation and continued consent). 4) The relationship between a pastor and congregation is entered into mutually and freely. 5) Either the pastor or congregation may withdraw from the relationship freely. 6) A majority of the congregation can vote a pastor out of office or overrule him. 7) This should be done with extreme care and sensitivity to the spirit, and then only as a final resort, a reasonable number of other attempts at resolution having all failed. 8) Sides of a congregation divided over the pastor’s leadership may try to convince the other side of its position as long as such attempts are made in a Biblical fashion.

These statements are, so far as I can see, not contradicted by any Scripture, either expressly written or inevitably inferred, and are incontrovertible within the context of an SBC church.

Congregational Authority pt 6 of 7

2006-08-29T09:01:00.000-07:00

Are Character Issues Dealt with Similarly?

The above approach makes sense within the context of an issue of preference—a non-fundamental, non-Biblical, and/or non-essential issue. Sadly issues of preference are not the only ones to occasionally divide church congregations against themselves and against the leadership. In cases of a pastor’s sinful or unwise conduct, the method outlined in Matthew 18 and 2 Timothy must be used to attempt to right the matter. If these avenues are exhausted to no avail, the congregation faces a series of difficult choices.

If a majority of the congregation sees the issue as one of significant gravity, it is incumbent upon it to call for, and eventually force if necessary, the unrepentant pastor’s resignation. Doubtless a minority will stand with the pastor and feel disenfranchised by the ousting, but this is natural and can be used as an opportunity to teach the Biblical principles behind confrontation of a fallen brother, restoration of that brother, and removal of a pastor who is in sin. Painful as it may be, such a situation provides an unparalleled opportunity to mature younger Christians on whom the severity of the situation might otherwise be lost.

A more complicated situation involves a minority of the congregation who see the pastor’s conduct as unacceptable on some moral level. The minority may not be able, in good conscience, to continue down the path the majority and pastor tread. If this is the case, the minority may be wisest to withdraw from the church and find another place to worship. However, the decision to stay or leave should perhaps be framed within the construct of salvagability. Is there enough good left in the church to warrant staying and reforming it? If yes, then the minority may be able to bring others around to their viewpoint given enough time. If there is not enough hope left to make salvage reasonable, the minority would most likely better off finding another, more suitable location to worship so that their spiritual health is not compromised.

Congregational Authority pt 5 of 7

2006-08-29T08:13:00.000-07:00

Pastoral Authority Should be Coupled with Wisdom

If wisdom and fear are the watchwords of a congregation opposing a pastor, then wisdom and understanding should be the watchwords of a pastor who insists on flouting the church’s will. He certainly has the authority to do so (until that authority is revoked by the church itself), but he may not be wise in continually ignoring or overruling its will. Continual disagreements may indicate an unwise pastor, a stiff-necked congregation, or perhaps simply an incompatibility between the two.

There are a nearly infinite number of issues over which a pastor and some sizeable portion of his congregation may disagree. Often churches find themselves divided between a minority of the congregation who oppose both the majority and the pastor. As seen above, the minority has every right to, with fear and trembling, attempt to persuade others of its position. But if this fails, the minority’s next move depends on the nature of the issue in contention.

If the issue is one of preference or taste, the bested-minority should be prepared to handle the disagreement in a Christlike way, reintegrate into the congregation after the dust settles, put themselves under the pastor’s authority and will of the majority peaceably. If, however, the issue(s) is of such a divisive nature, at least to that minority, that it can on longer worship in a Spirit-filled manner under the existent circumstances, reintegration may not be possible; and members of the minority should seriously consider seeking a place of worship elsewhere. But again, this refers to a bested-minority, one that has attempted, and failed, to persuade the church of its case using legitimate methods. Simply deserting a church without attempting to at least diagnose the chances of solving a problem is defeatist and foolish in that such flight does away with an essential layer of accountability for the pastor, administration, and laity.

Congregational Authority pt 4 of 7

2006-08-28T14:03:00.000-07:00

What About Open Opposition?

That said, it is certainly reasonable to argue that a church may exercise democratic authority in opposition to its pastor, as long as the opposition is made in a Biblical way. If the opposition to the pastor or his policies is legitimate, so then are the mechanisms to coordinate such opposition, as long as those mechanisms are not un-Biblically used. These mechanisms include the exchange of factual and contextualized information, group meetings to discuss strategy, and attempts to persuade others of a particular point of view. Again, all these mechanisms must be used in a Biblical manner only: the exchange of information is not to be confused with gossip, group meetings are not be accusatory sessions, and attempts to persuade are not to be based on hearsay, propaganda, or scare-tactics—truth; reason; and, above all; Scripture must carry the day.

Going further, coalition building is a necessary element if ideas are ever to evolve. Without the ability to speak amongst themselves and attempt to persuade others of their opinions, individuals would never be able to compare or refine ideas. The net result would not be high thinking piety but a lowest common denominator of thought—only those ideas coincidently shared by the majority would be considered legitimate. If this were the case, the marketplace of ideas, and with it the quality of any idea, would wither and die.

Of course, the right to exercise the powers of inquiry, persuasion, and opposition does not mean they should be exercised at any and all opportunities. Again, the pastor is God’s shepherd for His flock. He is vested with authority and leadership in the temporary physical absence of the true Head of the Church. This being the case, any opposition, and certainly any actions born from such opposition, should be espoused and executed with the utmost care. A church continually overriding a pastor’s authority would be by definition ungovernable and most likely un-submissive to the Father.

God’s proxy is not one to be foolishly and capriciously opposed. To do so is to oppose the Father Himself. Thus, ecclesiastical overrides of pastoral authority should only be used in serious circumstances and then only with great discretion and reverence. Wisdom must predominate in any instance of the church exercising its ultimate veto power.

Congregational Authority pt 3 of 7

2006-08-28T09:45:00.000-07:00

How Should We Exercise Congregational Authority?

Democracy brings direct choice, and with choice comes the dubious legitimacy of lobbying. If the will of the majority is that which rules, then directly related to majority rule is the freedom to coalition build—the freedom to majority-build. Under democracy, I can think of no credible argument to delegitimize attempts to persuade others of one’s own deeply held convictions. Again, no scripture exists to deny this. In fact, what we see in scripture are continual exhortations to sharpen brothers, hold them accountable, teach them, and unify. None of these things can occur without discussion, genial argument, and persuasion.

But coalition-building can present a sticky situation in spiritual matters, and this is not without reason. Far too often have churches seen the power of democracy used with vindictiveness and capriciousness to turn out pastors. Vocal members may rally others to their cause with false accusations, sensational claims, and dire predictions about the state of the church. After one has lived through one or two of these church power plays, he may be easily persuaded that anyone who questions a pastor’s decisions or governing style is on dangerous ground. One also tends to become hyper-sensitive to coalition building, seeing such activity as a sign that the troops are being rallied against God’s man. Once one is exposed to these sorts of power-plays, it’s all too easy to say that the abuse of power makes it necessary to never exercise such power for fear of its abuse.

This well-intentioned reluctance to exercise authority feels right but ultimately doesn’t stand up to reason. After all, Congressmen may abuse their offices, but we don’t revoke Congress’ authority. Patrolmen may overstep their bounds, but we do not disband the police. The electorate may make bad decisions from time to time, but we do not abandon our way of government. Bad church decisions do not perhaps reflect flaws so much in churches’ forms of government as in the church bodies themselves.

Congregational Authority pt 2 of 7

2006-08-27T22:32:00.000-07:00

Is Dissent Wrong?

Are changes to worship style, preaching style, or church organization legitimate grounds for dissent from, or removal of, the pastor? All of the above are, to a point, matters of individual taste since no Scripture dictates the specifics of the nearly infinite possibilities of each. That being the case, the question transmogrifies itself into the form of “Does the congregation, or some part of it, have a legitimate right to disagree with, and attempt to redirect, the direction a pastor takes in worship, financial, and/or administrative matters?”

SBC churches operate basically autonomously from each other, each selecting its own pastor, staff, and deacons; each deciding its own worship, preaching, and fellowship styles; each governing itself democratically and by its own bylaws. Those who choose to pastor in Southern Baptist churches then, be default, acknowledge the principles of congregationalism (and the democracy inherent therein) in their ministries: allowing themselves to voted in and out and subordinating themselves to the votes of their congregations. It is no accident that an SBC pastors don’t simply show up at churches and starts preaching. Likewise, it is not without reason that SBC congregations don’t simply cold-call pastors and say, “You are our new leader.” No, both sides understand that each must enter into an agreement with the other. For a pastor this means that he acknowledges the democratic nature of congregational church governance—the church’s right to overrule, and even oust, him. For the congregation, such an agreement means that the congregation recognizes the pastor’s authority, as granted him by God, to watch over itself. There is no Scripture binding a pastor to a church he believes to be out of God’s will for his life, nor is there Scripture binding a church to a pastor whom it believes may not be leading in the best way.

All of this said, Southern Baptist churches, for better or worse, hold themselves to be congregationally governed: practicing democracy and relying on checks and balances. Libraries have been written on church government and the supremacy of one form over the many others. Congregationalism, however, is what Southern Baptists use in the local churches, thus this essay will accept it as a necessary, and at best, predictable evil.

So, if democracy is the rule of the day in the SBC, and both congregation and pastor agree to abide by democracy in some form, it would seem that the majority has the right to rule. This being the case, it also follows that the majority can vote to overrule, or if worse comes to worse, revoke the pastor’s authority. To say otherwise would be a denial of the congregationalism and (non-theological) free-will that SBC churches espouse.

Congregational Authority pt 1 of 7

2006-08-27T20:49:00.000-07:00

Fear and Trepidation

To oppose or depose a pastor is a dangerous path to follow. Scripture is replete with warnings for those who would seek the harm of one whom God called or anointed. The strict statements of David regarding Saul, God regarding David, and again David regarding Ishbosheth, we see clearly that God does not take lightly opposition to, or plotting against, the ones He chooses to govern.

This pattern, however, is not as clear in the New Testament. New rules come into play regarding how we deal with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Passages abound from the Gospels to the Epistles, each laying out God’s instructions for us regarding an errant brother. And there is no Scripture that exempts pastors from these passages. In fact, pastors are held to a higher standard, being admonished that they who teach should be few because of the grave responsibilities that go with such an office.

It is obvious from New Testament Scripture that God seals and ordains certain people to lead His flock—proxies, acting in His authority. In the New Testament, however, theirs seems to be more a matter of election by a congregation rather than selection by God. God no longer verbally speaks when pastors are selected. He moves through His Holy Spirit. Presumably this movement is felt in both the heart of the would-be pastor and the hearts of his would-be flock.

Given that we rely on the Spirit’s promptings and no longer bask in the certainty of incontrovertible, verbal direction from God, sensitivity to the Spirit is paramount when a congregation decides on issues of spiritual leadership. Such sensitivity may be present, impeded, or even non-existent on the part of the congregation, pulpit-committee, and/or perspective pastor. If it is present, presumably God’s will is done and the transition goes as smoothly as can be expected. If sensitivity to the Spirit is non-existent, the chances of a successful incoming pastorate are very doubtful. After all, if the congregation (or the part of it conducting the call) is out of fellowship with the Spirit, the chances that they will elect the one whom God has for them are infinitesimally small. Finally, fellowship can be impeded: sin can be present on some level in members of any of those institutions, the flesh can predispose itself to act without regard to the Spirit’s promptings, and the enemy can work to disrupt the believers’ thoughts and ideas.

This method of election as opposed to Old Testament selection presents the obvious problems of potential uncertainty and debatable legitimacy. Without a direct word from God, anyone can claim that the congregation mistakenly called the wrong person. Defense against such attacks is difficult to mount because the validity of such calls ultimately comes to rest on the pillars of spiritual maturity and unhindered fellowship with God. These are non-falsifiable claims in that anyone who lays claim to them cannot prove that he legitimately possesses them—there is no logical or physically undeniable proof of spirituality. Likewise, those opposing the would-be pastor can claim the same qualification; and again these are non-falsifiable.

And this brings us to the real question: What does a minority of the congregation, being mature, experienced believers of no common intra-church sect or clique, do when they sincerely believe that the pastor called by the church 1) may not be God’s man for the job or 2) may have been God’s man, but has now erred and shows no desire to change direction?

What are legitimate criteria for a minority (or even majority) to make such an assertion? If a minority makes this assertion, is the minority behaving un-Biblically? Does church government allow for the ejection of one whom a minority believes to be unfit, or more complicatedly, a misfit for the office?

The question of criteria for removal is perhaps simultaneously the simplest and most complicated. Certainly in the case of a minister who falls into, or has been and continues to be, dominated by some sin is a legitimate candidate for removal. Such a statement is undeniable within the evangelical church. The question complicates, however, when the proposed criteria for removal is less than black and white.

A Quick Rundown

2006-08-27T20:46:00.000-07:00

The next few posts will address the legitimacy of a congregation questioning the decisions of, and potentially vetoing or even deposing, its pastor. This will be a series of seven posts.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes (at Bellevue Baptist Church)

2006-08-27T20:17:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, the title of this blog, and this post, can be loosely translated from Latin as "Who watches the Watchmen?" It's from the satirist Juvenal. He asked a very good question, one that we take today to mean "Who will hold the powers-that-be accountable for their actions?" I now ask this question, with all due respect, to the current leadership at Bellevue.

There's much to be said about accountability in the days of Jim Baker and Enron, Watergate and Worldcom. I'm not sure that anyone truly enjoys being held accountable--it's a prickly reminder of our fallen nature, our continual desire for power, and the near-inevitability of that power corrupting us. But an ounce of painful prevention can head off a lifetime of malfeasance and misery.

Prevention, however, may be too late; and the Cure may be doubly painful. (I will address the following in more detail in the days to come.) For weeks, a small group of men and women at Bellevue have sought answers from Steve Gaines on issues ranging from church by-laws, to financial decisions, to hiring and firing practices. They have been diverted, red-taped, insulted, and are now being demonized.

All of this is regrettable because these brothers and sisters simply asked questions of their spiritual leaders. These men and women, then, find themselves in a difficult position. They do not want to work dissent among the brethren, but they do know that their leadership must be held accountable.

In the weeks ahead, I hope to thoroughly chronicle the concerns of these people, the church administration's response to their concerns, and provide what I hope will be commentary that is in some small way helpful.

I have no agenda other than finding the truth and holding individuals accountable. I want answers to questions that are swirling around the back halls, dark corners, and administrative offices of the church. Answers to legitimate questions that are whispered in secret for fear of demonization and figurative excommunication.

In closing, I've more or less spent my life at Bellevue. I grew up at the Old Church, have spent brief (though still entirely all-too-long) stints at other local churches, and have always come back Home. I love this place. We have grown by His grace and for His glory. I pray that God will provide his people wisdom to know what action to take in the days ahead. May we always be a beacon on a hill, sending out its light to our neighbors and the nations—eternally urging them to “Come to Jesus.”

2006-08-16T19:00:00.000-07:00

The Watchman - Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

NewBBCOpenForum Link

Jefferson and the Bellevue Crisis

Regarding the Morality of Recording Conversations

Forum confusion

A New Low--Reamed with Lies by a Family Friend

Men of Bellevue, Now is the Time to Stand

Sharpe Interview Pt 2

News from Bellevue Employee Meeting

Bylaws Progress! Good job Bellevue!

Letter to Chuck Taylor from a Concerned BBC Member

Cleaned Up Comments Pages

COMMENTS ARE ENDED

Deacon Board Member Denies Request

SHARPE INTERVIEW STILL ON BLOG

Answers to Objections to this Blog

Dr Gaines' shares his thoughts on blogs

***ON THE RECORD: FIRSTHAND INFORMATION***

Round Two: Commentary on Bellevue Leadership's Second Email

4) [I re-posed my original three questions (SEE: "Deacon Board Member Email Exchange pt 1".]

I'VE OFFICIALLY BEEN DEMONIZED

***NEWS FLASH***

Late night phone calls?

Analysis of pt 1 Bellevue Deacon Board Member Email Exchange

Deacon Board Member Email Exchange pt 1

***** Deacon Board Member Email Exchange pt 1 *****

Gardendale Copyright Invoked

Letter Requesting Bylaws Pursuant to Tennessee Code

Bylaws and Tennessee Code Summary

Results of phoned in Bylaws Request

McClerkin Note

Congregational Authority pt 7 of 7

Congregational Authority pt 6 of 7

Congregational Authority pt 5 of 7

Congregational Authority pt 4 of 7

Congregational Authority pt 3 of 7

Congregational Authority pt 2 of 7

Congregational Authority pt 1 of 7

A Quick Rundown

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes (at Bellevue Baptist Church)

ON THE RECORD: FIRSTHAND INFORMATION

NEWS FLASH

* Deacon Board Member Email Exchange pt 1 *