Analysis of pt 1 Bellevue Deacon Board Member Email Exchange

***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."