Bellevue's Deacon Loyalty Motion

[ET]

I'll take issue with my fellow member's (Mr. Bratton) characterization of those asking the questions as "anti-Bellevue". We are anything but that. This whole broo-ha-ha started about 9 months ago when a couple of deacons met with the pastor to bring up concerns that the failure of the church to put certain measures in place could possibly set up the pastor for failure.

The church had been guided by a man of impeccable integrity for 30+ years and really never needed them because of the man in the pastor's office and the trust he earned. However, whoever followed that man was ripe for trouble as there were no hard guidelines in place for governing the church (at least as far as my understanding of the by-laws goes).

This all could supposedly be resolved with a meeting of the two side, but the deacon I met with a month or so ago said the pastor believes he's protecting the church by not allowing such a meeting (not of EVERYONE expressing concerns, but the guys who are at the epicenter of all this). However, given the current situation, I fail to see how not allowing such a meeting is less damaging than allowing one.

[William Thornton]

[Mike Bratton]

[William Thornton]

[Mike Bratton]

[Grump]

[Haruo]

[Grump]

[Haruo]

[ET]

[William Thornton]

[Mike Bratton]

[Norm]

Mike: ... Thank you for encouraging those folks to abandon the use of lies, half-truths and slurs as tactics; I hope they'll listen to you.

Can't condone lies, half-truths, and slurs, no sir; surely lack of information can create a mess of misperceptions, among other things. Perhaps leadership, too, will listen concerning transparency? From this outsider's perspective, this is NOT a problem concerning one party. If leadership wishes to heap coals upon the heads of the problem-makers, it could share Gaines' compensation structure, thus reveal its believed reasonableness.

[fox]

[ET]

[Jonathan]

[ET]

[ET]

[Robert Kurtz]