Round Two: Commentary on Bellevue Leadership's Second Email

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