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

I'VE OFFICIALLY BEEN DEMONIZED

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***

***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?

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

***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

***** 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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.”