Group Opposed to Bellevue Leadership Forms a Board of Directors
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, January 29, 2007
- Viewed 208
- (66) comments so far
We’ve talked about the Bellevue situation numerous times (here, here, and here) at MMI. We’ve also talked about the growing propencity of people to air their grievances with church leadership over the web through websites and blogs.
Again, someone ups the stakes with an official, chartered group within a church taking their fight for ‘integrity’ public. How will churches deal with individuals who feel “compelled to sound its voice, take necessary measures, and use all available resources for seeking the truth concerning questionable events and actions”
Admirable goals, I guess. But to do so publically… I’m not sure.
More from their website:
Integrity Does Count, Inc., (IDC) consisting entirely of Bellevue Baptist Church (BBC) members, announces its charter and aims to bring truth to both the unanswered questions as well as to the non-disclosed facts and records of the current administration. Members of IDC, Inc. have been carefully following the events as they have occurred over the past 18 months at Bellevue Baptist Church under the leadership of Senior Pastor, Dr. Steve Gaines.
Integrity Does Count, Inc. will hold a church-wide meeting away from the campus of BBC on or before February 16, 2007, where it hopes to address the above concerns as well as to establish a congregation-approved framework for church governance that will include up-to-date bylaws and regulations. An attempt was made to seek approval for an on-campus meeting. A further attempt was made to obtain a mailing list of church membership in order to inform each member of the upcoming, church-wide meeting. Both attempts were futile, and IDC’s requests were denied by BBC staff members.
The church administration has willfully neglected to uphold the State of Tennessee Statute, T.C.A. 48-66-101 et. seq., that governs Not-For-Profit organizations and leaves this incorporated group of BBC wondering what the church administration stands to gain by locking its doors and closing its books.
Realizing the necessity for following God’s design as illustrated in Matthew 18, and missing the fellowship of faithful members who are choosing to worship in sister churches, Integrity Does Count, Inc. is even more compelled to sound its voice, take necessary measures, and use all available resources for seeking the truth concerning questionable events and actions within Bellevue Baptist Church in Cordova, Tennessee.
A few questions, I have…
1. When does this kind of thing (if ever) become necessary?
2. When is it time to just let go and leave?
3. How, particularly in a Baptist, congregational rule church, does a group all of a sudden become convinced that nearly every leader in their church (most of whom they’ve elected) are all evil and lack integrity?
4. If you’re a member of the leadership in this church, what do you do with members who go on the record and start a splinter group from within the church to fight your leadership?
5. Is anything EVER gained for the cause of Christ through this kind of exchange?
Please understand… I am by no means saying that all that has happened (particularly with the recent staff firing) was done correctly or incorrectly; and I’m not taking sides on which side is actually correct… my question is more: how far should a congregant (or a group of congregants) go to get the outcome they feel is correct? And how much of this is fueled by a ‘this is MY church’, ‘this is OUR church’ type thing?
Please… help me understand better be telling me what you think? Take a few minutes to answer the above questions. I think it’s valuable to do so, if only because this very well could happen in your church in the near future. It seems to be a growing trend…
Thanks,
Yes, that's correct... there is now a group of members of Bellevue Baptist that has formed it's own group officially opposing the church leadership. On their new website (integritydoescount.com) they say... "It is not uncommon for leadership changes within a church to result in some discontent and even discord within its membership. But, for a group of members inside a church of 30,000 to incorporate themselves, form a board of directors, and set out for the sole purpose of instilling accountability in its own church government and leadership is unusual and perhaps unprecedented."
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
gib on Mon, January 29, 2007
I think question 5 is really all that matters in the discussion. There is no way this accomplishes anything for the cause of Christ because how can he be glorified through division? If Christ can’t be glorified, how can it be “right”.
I think a fundamental issue that exists in situations like this is the issue of who is in charge. As long as someone believes that either the staff or the congregants are in charge, they are doomed to repeated these mistakes. If somene believes that Jesus Christ is the head of the church, and he will ultimately judge both leadership and congregant, then you are freed to take your hands off the issue. The battle belongs to the Lord.
Leonard on Mon, January 29, 2007
If the Apostle Paul were alive he would write another letter called First Bellevue. Maybe someone there could read First Corinthians and exchange the name.
Chet Thomas on Mon, January 29, 2007
I do not know enough about Pastor Gaines’ actions to know whether or not he has handled this properly. While I have some doubts, there are too many unknowns for me to have an informed opinion concerning this. Having said that, I have to take real issue with the church members that have formed this splinter group. If you don’t trust your Deacons or your Pastor, elect new ones (this being a Baptist church). If that doesn’t satistfy you, or if you are unable to do so, you always have the option to go elsewhere. This whole sorry mess is a disgrace to the body of Christ.
Wendi on Mon, January 29, 2007
To question #2 – it’s time to leave when you know that you can no longer submit to the leadership. I can’t see how forming an independent group to bring about leadership change or accountability is ever biblical. That’s not to say that accountability and change aren’t biblical – of course they are. But the leaders in our churches are anointed by God, even the ones that fail and fall. If David refused to lay a hand on Saul, “God’s anointed leader,” even when the opportunity to do so might have persuaded him otherwise, can’t we simply find another place to worship and serve the Lord when we disagree? Heck, no one from Bellevue’s leadership is gathering an army to try and murder the unhappy congregants.
To question #5 – I agree with Gib, but think it’s worse than “nothing gained for the kingdom.” The lost world watching us is supposed to “know us by our love.” Such behavior, I think, causes outsiders who watch us to think we’re self-centered, prideful, and bickering babies who aren’t one bit interested in what is happening outside our front doors. And I also think their perception is often correct.
Wendi
Richard on Mon, January 29, 2007
1 - I am not familiar with the Baptist by-laws but surely when they joined they commited to a government model that covers conflict. It is hard for me to see any church government model that allows for confederate members to cause such discord that is condemned in Scriptures.
2 - It is time for them to leave in my opinion. Why destroy innocent lives by causing such an uproar in a congregation. What can the possibly gain from a firestorm except burn down the grocery store and then beg for food.
3 - This smells like a power struggle from those who want their own way regardless of the cost to the whole. It has to be people with money and influence or they could not get such a forum started. Also it has to be people who demand their way is right and want a public protest to cause suspicion of leadership. Leadship is put in a position to protect some things because of both legal and scriptural boundaries.
4 - Again this is a church government question. What does the covenant this people made when they joined the church say. If it does not handle this type of conflict then they should make sure it does in the future. Also maybe they need an outside arbitrator who is a professional in conflict to come in and see if they can settle this down without further loss.
5 - This is an ugly divorce in the making and has reached a level that will hurt everyone if not stopped. There is nothing to gain and their purpose at this point is not to gain but to punish.
Russ on Mon, January 29, 2007
Sad. Very, very sad. I totally agree! This does not help the cause of Christ at all.
Pastor Steve Nestor on Mon, January 29, 2007
It is a sad day for God’s church when we begin to develop groups within groups. This in no way can further the mission of the church, only cause deeper rifts and may never prove to solve the underlying problem. It seems to me that there must be a little compromise on both sides. The current leadership of the church has an obligation to it’s members and faithful supporters to explain its actions. If a staff firing is at question, perhaps it was justified under the by-laws of the church. If it was done to “rid of” those not in agreement with the Sr. Pastor, then it is wrong. I am not convinced that forming a special group is the answer. I personally believe that Satan himself is the master of division in the church, and he is loving this one. Maybe a little more time on their knees and less time on the internet is needed.
Paul Reaves on Mon, January 29, 2007
Having served a church that had an unofficial opposition party, my reaction is a broken heart. As in any disagreement, “it take two to tangle.” Leaders can easily fall into the trap of thinking that they are the purveyors of truth and that they are accountable to no one. They often assume that church members will accept their leaders’ direction without question. It is a dangerous trap. On the other side of the coin, though, church members can fall into the trap of believing that the church belongs to them and that their desires and preferences are of the greatest concern. Change is often not tolerated to the point of forming groups to oppose the change. My experience has has demonstrated to me that in-fighting situations are often a blend of the two - leader intransigence and member insistence on having things their way. The element farthest from the minds of people, in many cases - not all by any means - is the Kingdom of God. In my experience, in churches where seeking the Kingdom is the top priority, leaders submit to being accountable to the members to remove all appearances of arrogance while members encourage the leaders to lead as under-shepherds in the service of Jesus Christ. Where Bellevue, both leaders and members, stands in terms of seeking the Kingdom is not clear from reading the articles in this blog. I fear that there is too much “seeking the kingdom of Bellevue” and not enough seeking the Kingdom of God. The recent events there can do nothing but tarnish the reputation of Southern Baptists in particular and Christians in general. And it adds fuel to the anti-church and anti-Christian arguments for those in our secular culture.
Pastor Dan on Mon, January 29, 2007
Such a sad situation. Dr. Rogers would be heartbroken if he were still here. Maybe God was gracious in taking him home earlier than any of us wanted.
surfdog on Mon, January 29, 2007
Ephesians 4:11 outlines the leadership jesus established for the local church in the form of the pastor/shepherd. Jesus is the head over the church, he established the pastor to oversee the local congregation. YOu may not agree with all the decisions pastors make, but you are still required to submit to leadership. Right or wrong, ultimately the leadershp must answer to the Lrod Jesus themself. When you manifest traits challenging pastor leadership you are not only insubordinate to the local pastor but you are also being insubordinate to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus himself. Everybody involved in this nonsense of dividing within the church needs to read Romans 13:1-2 It makes it very clear who establishes authority and who removes authority. God and He doesn’t need any help from us.
Clearly this picture of Bellvue is not the church that Jesus died for. The church that Jesus died for at Calvary was a church making a difference, a church of power, of anointing, producing life changing fruit and maturity.
IF the folks at Bellvue cannot submit and support the local leadership, right or wrong, they should take their dog and pony show on the road and get out of that church while there is still time to savlage the great work that was started there.
surfdog
Lori on Mon, January 29, 2007
Having been a Southern Baptist for most of my life, I have seen both sides of the fence. One side where a staff member needs to leave and won’t, and on the side where without cause, some unmercilessly persecute the staff. Let me address the above questions:
1. In a SBC church with constitution and by-laws this kind of thing is never necessary. There are Associaitonal and State resources to help deal with a situation where a church needs to fire a pastor who is unwilling to leave, without ugliness.
2. If these people feel that the whole (55 staff members) staff lacks integrity, then it’s time to find a new church.
3. This is this important question. In every church there are “warlords” - people who would love power at any cost. They often lay low in a healthy church, but when a crisis of any kind arises (even as simple as a pastoring retiring and new search in place) they rise to the surface and stir up trouble. While I have read what is going on at Bellview, and don’t know if the pastor did the right thing in a timely fashion, this group has gone over the line in calling into question the entire staff. BTW, asking for the kind of meeting they wanted on campus, a uncalled business meeting, and asking for the membership list does go against the by-laws. Also, their claim of not knowing what is going is laughable since on Belleview’s home page are the Personnel Committee and Investigative Committee’s reports for all to see. It is important to realize that every SBC church has a process for the membership to fire staff. Usually they don’t want to follow this process because it makes people uncomfortable and it is usually a minority of people who want to take this step. How much easier to make the staff’s life a living nightmare and force them to resign.
4. For the leadership, well all I can do is pray. Every staff member/pastor I have seen try to deal with this kind of dissension, has been on the losing end. If these people won’t leave (which they should) and if the rest of the body doesn’t stand up against them, then in the end they probably will win. Unfortunate.
5. This never does anything good and only harms the cause of Christ. Godly people leave and serve elsewhere because they get hurt, warlords stay and hurt the remaining church, good staff leave and are terribly wounded and hesitant.
Dr. James Merritt, faced official opposition when he became pastor in Snellville, GA of a mega-SBC church. However, when he stood up at the business meeting he thought he would be fired at, and told them he would go if what’s they wanted but if they wanted him to stay, they were going to stop undermining him, the congregation so overwhelming supported him. Come to find out, it was a very vocal, high in lay leadership minority that was in opposition. They’re problem - they couldn’t deal with the grief that the 30 year tenured pastor had retired. It had nothing to do with Dr. Merritt. It does happen sometimes with a positive outcome - but not very often.
My heart is broken.
Dan Moore on Mon, January 29, 2007
This is so sad but it happens in the American church because our culture has invaded. It parallels the political landscape. In our recent elections when a political party loses, it will take every measure to try to turn the results around. There is no grace. It seems that the same mentality exists at Bellevue. We no longer respect order and authority in our nation. If we don’t get our way, we fight.
I don’t know all the factors of Bellevue but it does have a Constitution and By-laws, Christ as the head, the Bible, and the church has pastors and deacons. Accountability is there…did they use it biblically and in grace?
It appears this group, by forming a corporation within the church may be in violation of state law as well.
If the church had a meeting where the grievances were heard per their by-laws and this group was not satisfied, they should leave in grace. Their actions appear to me to be sufficient to ask each person among them, “Where do you want the church to send your church letter to?”
If Paul were alive, he would not put up with this group. He would not bother with sending them to other congregaitons…he would put them out fo the church. In the early church, the pastors and deacons were gentle, humble but FIRM. They did not care about popularity and getting votes or pleasing men. They served Christ!
Lane Douglas on Mon, January 29, 2007
While I completely agree that the Scriptures call for a complete and wholehearted pursuit of unity, I find it intriguing and bordering on the hypocritical when Protestants denounce the concept of church leaders being formally and publicly questioned. We owe our existence and theology to the very process we are claiming is un-biblical. The very name “protestant” comes from the notion that Luther’s followers “protested” the church leadership. So while I am not cheerleading further division… I am simply saying that if we believe that this process is “always wrong,” and “all the time,”… we should return to catholocism.
Paul on Mon, January 29, 2007
#1 - It becomes necessary once the church leadership thinks itself more then the flock. In doing so, makes itself unaccountable or secretive or unverified in behavior, action and spending.
#2 - It is time to leave once the leadership has lost its credibility, however, this does not mean that your responsibility for those still in the congregation is ignored. If your neighbor and you are in a burning house, you are not only responsible to get yourself out, you are also responsible to your neighbor.
#3 - Easily, the leadership is usually assembled by the senior pastor and then the training from the senior pastor slowly twists those below him to adhere to his point of view on the management of the church. Some go quickly and willingly, some take more time, but in time you can almost hear the parroted words of the senior pastor through the rest of the leadership and they earnestly believe what is said.
#4 - Did they follow the scriptural approach for dealing with conflict or not? Did they approach the leadership one-on-one, then with a brother, then in front of the congregation. Do they have a point? I would hope the first reaction, to the one on one, would be serious prayer, openness and forthright disclosures. Are you giving the appearance of immorality or being unaccountable? Pastors, in the church model in the USA, have terrible power - and some use it incorrectly. The flock must follow the biblical standard in dealing with these issues and if the pastor is offended or persecuted when they do, then he needs to check himself. If they don’t, the pastor is still bound by biblical response, but he does not have to tolerate such in his flock and if the offended ex-flock make a public display, the pastor should detail the biblical conflict resolution plan and how it wasn’t followed.
#5 - Is there ever anything gained? Well, yes. If the pastors have transgressed and think themselves unaccountable or “above” the flock - and a large portion of the flock unaware of this behavior, they would believe that this behavior of the pastor is acceptable and God-approved (in a recent email I read from a member under such a pastor, it was equated that even questioning the pastor of that church was equal to a slap in God’s face). The leadership can use these opportunities to shine the light of Jesus to the world in dealing with these problems. To clam up, seal up and put up walls and make defenses makes the organization look no different from Enron.
My guess would be almost all of these issues are in two categories, money and immoral behavior. Both are serious problems that cannot be ignored. Why should the members of the flock permit such a leader to prey on others by leaving and saying nothing? Would we, after escaping a criminal, merely be OK letting the criminal continue to exist without doing something? A criminal can only kill our flesh, pastors can lead people down the wrong path and to destruction, eternally. How much more of a responsibility is due to ensure the health of the body as a whole then to correct errant leadership?
I’m not speaking of the Bellvue issue as I am not versed in the details of that issue, this is just a generic response to the asked questions.
Tye Male on Mon, January 29, 2007
Leadership is flawed because leaders are flawed. If the leadership has attempted to “lead like Jeus” with a commitment to servant leadership, then there is nothing else that can be done. For me, the answer is servant leadership.
A group of 10 people at a church I served at called for a business meeting because they disagreed with a decision that was made - a big decision. The deacons (think Elders) met with them to answer their concerns instead. I felt that a meeting like this would be like throwing gasoline on a raging fire and no one would benefit. I was probably right, but also wrong too. Their “right” was to have a meeting because they met the stipulations of the constitution, so they should have been afforded the meeting.
Question - why would a church have such a stipulation? Regrettably many of them left the church. In the end, no one “won” and the cause of Christ was dealt another black eye.
Let’s pray for the leaders of Bellvue. This is not about decisions or groups, this is about the cause of Christ and HIS church.
Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Post a Comment