BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:59 pm**

ml to wm, Monday morning, Aug. 1 -- What standard do you use to judge "leading preacher," Wm -- among moderates or among any group?

mlovell -- Does it matter that Stanley told his church (after the separation from his wife) that if he were ever divorced, he'd resign immediately?

wm to ml, Tuesday afternoon, Aug. 2: (1) Would you care to comment on twice divorced (thrice married yet?) trainer of clergy there in TX? (2) Are we into unsubstantiated gossip with JG? (3) Since you fail to take Patrick to task for his comments, a presumption that the matter is true?

(4) Stanley took his shots, but is not being paid by anyone other than his congregation. Mods used to believe in local church autonomy.

(1) I will be happy to comment on Joel Gregory and his new job as soon as you answer to my reasonable question related to your (ostensible) interest in the preaching abilities of moderates. Perhaps you weren't actually interested in preaching -- but were creating an opportunity to point out his marital history? (After all, I'd already posted a link to his going to Truett, so your motive for starting another thread is certainly open to question.)

(2) We weren't into unsubstantiated gossip about Gregory -- though your "thrice married yet?" certainly takes you there. (That's incredibly tacky . . . and pretty much leaves you no credible basis for questioning anything others have said -- or failed to say -- in this thread. Using the standard established by you here, anyone is free to speculate as to the possible cause the former Mrs. Stanley may have had for requesting a restraining order.)

(3) I have no idea whether Patrick's comment is true, or whether he can cite a source for it. I have no idea whether the former Mrs. Stanley got a restraining order, or (if so) why she did. I do have a source providing a basis for my question, which I linked -- and which, since you've not commented to the contrary, I presume is accurate.

(4) Neither the SBC nor the GBC will pay Gregory -- so why your post gratuitously pointing out (after a link to the news story had already been posted here) his marital history?

This moderate continues to believe in local church autonomy -- and also in pastoral integrity, something you are apparently unwilling to comment on in relation to Stanley.

I point out that no one here would be discussing Charles Stanley had you not decided to start a second thread focused on Joel Gregory's Truett job and his marital status -- twice italicized in your post, clearly your focus. People who lob stones at moderates should check the amount of glass behind which their own kind are clearly visible.

In fact, I don't recall anyone's mentioning Stanley in ages -- who cares? -- except in response to the stone-throwing at Gregory begun by you. If Stanley's taking his shots here once again, it's abundantly clear who initiated it.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:04 pm**

Perhaps you should take another look at the situation, Patrick -- and read the link included with my question. Pay particular attention to the 4th and 6th paragraphs, which describe the context in which the church voted.

Do YOU have a link for your statement about Gregory, or is that unsubstantiated gossip?

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:18 pm**

The leadership of the church had already asked Stanley to reconsider. That is first hand info from someone close to the situtation.

Gregory left First Baptist Dallas with secatary following behind. He was called to the carpet about the affair. Later on came the divorce. This is not hear say. People who knew Gregory at the time knew what was happening.

He will probbally be a great educater. I am glad they are giving him this chance. I have heard him preach sevaral times in years past and I loved to hear him.

We get so caught up in these trivial matters that we lose focus on the people we are talking about. I know neither personally but I am sure they are both great guys. Both had been thru tough times and are still fighting.

Gregory was in a no win battle. He was follwing a giant. Crisswell's hand just did not want to leave the helm. That was unfortunate for all involved.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:26 pm**

I understand, and always expect, you to exhibit the particular pathology that prevents you from acknowledging what you do not want to deal with and to shift focus to whatever suits your purposes. So be it, but YOU linked the story that reported him to be twice divorced. That was the first I heard of it. ABP used almost the same sentence, a simple biographical note, but left out that he was twice divorced. You may call this whatever you wish (apparently you wish to call it nothing) but it is a surprising and noteworthy matter.

I like to hear Gregory preach. I admire him for the reasons I listed earlier. He could have easily been a leading light in baptist life but for that stretch...

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:51 pm**

Wm:

I like to hear Gregory preach. I admire him for the reasons I listed earlier. He could have easily been a leading light in baptist life but for that stretch...

. . . but for that stretch . . .

- I dare say we've all had a "that stretch" in our lives. Life is tough and the things of it affects different folks different ways. And it's always easier to judge what others have done (expecially if it's different than what we've done) than to look at ourselves.
Im sorry if you folks differ with me, but what Peter did the night Christ was crucified was far worse than what gregory or stanley or anyone else has (except me) - he denied Christ. (Except me cause I did that too)

Anyone want to argue relative sins? Peter's vs. anyone else's? And yet he stood forth at pentecost and preached and thousands came to know the very Christ he denied. ( yeah - yeah - I know - he didn't become a "senior pastor" ) (just pope?)

Jeeeez . . . ! !

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:20 pm**

John wrote:Wm:

I like to hear Gregory preach. I admire him for the reasons I listed earlier. He could have easily been a leading light in baptist life but for that stretch...

. . . but for that stretch . . .

- I dare say we've all had a "that stretch" in our lives. Life is tough and the things of it affects different folks different ways. And it's always easier to judge what others have done (expecially if it's different than what we've done) than to look at ourselves.
Im sorry if you folks differ with me, but what Peter did the night Christ was crucified was far worse than what gregory or stanley or anyone else has (except me) - he denied Christ. (Except me cause I did that too)

Anyone want to argue relative sins? Peter's vs. anyone else's? And yet he stood forth at pentecost and preached and thousands came to know the very Christ he denied. ( yeah - yeah - I know - he didn't become a "senior pastor" ) (just pope?)

Jeeeez . . . ! !

wm: I wouldn't argue at all about relative sins and no judgment need be made at all. The result of "that stretch" for JG all can see. He wrote a book about it.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:34 pm**

The selective criticism that conservatives and fundies use as hot button issues to condemn their perceived enemies usually never applies to those within their own ranks who commit the same sins. It is also difficult for the cons and fundies to understand that repentance, forgiveness and grace are core teachings of the Christian faith and that it is up to God to renew and restore, not man. Why should Joel Gregory be disqualified from serving as a homiletics professor at a university? He's committed some visible sins, but has obviously repented and been forgiven for them. I'm not sure what consequences he has faced either emotionally or financially as a result. But what makes him any different from any other believer who has sinned while involved in leadership of a Christian ministry? We wouldn't expect a pastor to step down the first time he committed a sin, visible or not. Nor would we expect a Sunday School teacher or a Deacon to resign because of a sin they committed. We're all habitual sinners and we all sin. If we required everyone to stop the ministry they were called to because they had committed a sin, there would be no one ministering in the church. It is only the human standard of a position being "highly visible" that makes Joel Gregory's position any different than anyone elses. Apparently the leadership of Baylor University is willing to take Joel's word that he's straightened things out with the Lord just like FBC Atlanta is willing to take their pastors word that he's done the same.

I suspect that a lot of the criticism is coming from some concerned fundies at a particular SBC seminary in Texas who have been concerned for quite some time about the drain of students and potential students to the south, and are worried that Gregory's addition to the Truett staff might turn a small leak into a tidal wave.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:58 pm**

Wm -- (1) I understand, and always expect, you to exhibit the particular pathology that prevents you from acknowledging what you do not want to deal with and to shift focus to whatever suits your purposes. So be it, but YOU linked the story that reported him to be twice divorced. That was the first I heard of it. ABP used almost the same sentence, a simple biographical note, but left out that he was twice divorced. You may call this whatever you wish (2) (apparently you wish to call it nothing) but it is a surprising and noteworthy matter.

(1) Of course I linked it. Why not? It's no secret. Gregory has been open about his personal failures, and diligent to deal with them and their aftermath. Has Stanley?

Speaking of "particular pathologies," however, let's all note that you introduced the snide "thrice married yet?" on the basis of . . . what, exactly? And for any purpose OTHER than "shifting focus"? :roll:

Let's further note that I did not "shift the focus" by mentioning Stanley, and that my only post about him asked a question related to his integrity, not his marital history.

Pretty funny that you'd have the chutzpah to accuse anyone of "shifting focus" after beginning a new/second thread focused on Gregory's marital status. When you want to talk about divorce, bro, bear in mind there will always be more than one divorce to discuss.

(2) And your basis for asserting that I wish to call Gregory's marital status "nothing" -- in view of the fact that I posted the link to the story which included that information?

That's your attempt to "shift the focus" from the discussion of Stanley's marital status and record on reliable utterances. How come you don't accuse Norm (who's out-argued you on this subject more than once) or Timothy or Bob or Sandy of "shifting the focus"? Each of them has said more about Stanley than I did -- at least until your post to me (1) questioning "unsubstantiated gossip" when I'd posted a link to a news story (2) asserting that since I hadn't questioned Patrick's specific post, you'd presume what Patrick said "must be true" (3) and "local church autonomy" for Stanley's retaining his pastorate, while failing to "deal with" the loaded situation in which that congregation voted.

Perhaps you aim at me in order to "shift the focus" from the fact that, yet again, you've failed to answer a plain, unloaded question relevant to one of your posts. "What standard do you use to judge 'leading preacher,' Wm -- among moderates or among any group?" Perhaps you have no actual standard -- just looking for an opportunity to dis moderates. Or perhaps you believe that what you post should be accepted as truth with no questions asked. In the face of your very selective silence, who knows?

Wm -- The result of "that stretch" for JG all can see. He wrote a book about it.

Gregory did indeed openly confess his sin, and has worked hard to put his life back together since his public fall. Stanley, OTOH, has (to my knowledge) never confessed to any sin of his own relating to his failed marriage -- and continues to preach/pastor, advising others how to deal with their own sins. In fact, according to his administrative pastor, "It is my biblical, spiritual, and personal conviction that God has positioned Dr. Stanley in a place where his personal pain has validated his ability to minister to all of us." Assuming that I agree that pain can work to make believers better ministers, would I not be justified in thinking that Gregory's very public mistakes/pain would make him better able to "minister" to others? Stanley never stepped aside from his pulpit in order to put his own life together, did he?

Normally, I wouldn't speculate about what "might" have happened in another person's private life -- but should I choose to do so now, I'd be walking through the door you opened with your "thrice married yet?" innuendo. You should be ashamed of that blatant attempt to "shift the focus," though there's no sign that you are.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:04 pm**

I'm sure Stanley, myself, Gregory and whomever else would be much better people if we all followed your orders. Does the Doctor ever have any counsel for herself?

This is a yawner, ML. You have the last word, as you always insist on doing.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:05 pm**

John wrote:
Wm:

Quote:
I like to hear Gregory preach. I admire him for the reasons I listed earlier. He could have easily been a leading light in baptist life but for that stretch...

. . . but for that stretch . . .

- I dare say we've all had a "that stretch" in our lives. Life is tough and the things of it affects different folks different ways. And it's always easier to judge what others have done (expecially if it's different than what we've done) than to look at ourselves.
Im sorry if you folks differ with me, but what Peter did the night Christ was crucified was far worse than what gregory or stanley or anyone else has (except me) - he denied Christ. (Except me cause I did that too)

Anyone want to argue relative sins? Peter's vs. anyone else's? And yet he stood forth at pentecost and preached and thousands came to know the very Christ he denied. ( yeah - yeah - I know - he didn't become a "senior pastor" ) (just pope?)

Jeeeez . . . ! !

wm: I wouldn't argue at all about relative sins and no judgment need be made at all. The result of "that stretch" for JG all can see. He wrote a book about it.

I don't believe that it was/is known had anything to do with what I said.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:31 pm**

William wrote:I'm sure Stanley, myself, Gregory and whomever else would be much better people if we all followed your orders. Does the Doctor ever have any counsel for herself?

This is a yawner, ML. You have the last word, as you always insist on doing.

Whether MLovell takes the last word, I don't know, but what I do know is this, that is, the reasonableness to which she has addressed you and the ineptness of your subsequent responses to said posts portrays you in a light that does not honor the meaning of one holding the title of Christian leader. It is not MLovell that is found lacking here, William; rather in your seemingly obvious attempt to disparage Gregory and MLovell, you have, instead, disparaged yourself. We will forgive you, but by your standard, forgiveness and affirmation would, apparently, not be forthcoming in a straightforward manner.

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:48 pm**

Patrick -- Gregory left First Baptist Dallas with secatary following behind. He was called to the carpet about the affair. Later on came the divorce. This is not hear say. People who knew Gregory at the time knew what was happening.

Until and unless you can cite a source, by name, who's willing to say he knows this is true and how he knows it, it remains unsubstantiated gossip, rumor and hearsay, whether you care to call it that or not. Who "called him to the carpet about the affair"? (That could only have been done while he was still on the church staff.) What "people who knew Gregory knew what was happening"? Without some facts, Patrick, your post is, at best, rumor-mongering. (That's one thing about a public forum like this -- the standard for what you say about others is -- or should be -- higher than a chat with your friends.)

Here's part of a story about Gregory which doesn't evade facts, but testifies to God's ability and desire to use people others see as "damaged goods." Longer than average quote, from a fairly long article, hinged on his preaching in black churches.

Dr. Gregory said black churches still enjoy "pulpit oratory," his style of preaching, while in many white churches the style is now more conversational, more casual.

"We just embrace the truth whether black or white," said the Rev. N.L. Robinson, longtime senior pastor at Mount Olive. "It doesn't matter what color his skin is. He's a man of God who preaches in a way that breaks things down for anyone to understand, and as a preacher, he stands in a class all by himself. Our people love him."

"I was thinking about Dr. Gregory today, and one of the things that crossed my mind was that God had a different program for him than he had for himself," a young Mount Olive pastor said as he introduced him one evening.

"God decided he wouldn't just let him pastor a large church ... He wanted him to travel around and share his great message with many, many people." . . .

Mr. Armstrong said Dr. Bailey took a risk in reaching out to the fallen preacher.

"I said, 'You know, if you invite Joel, you're likely to get repercussions from Southern Baptists, because he's on the out list,'" he recalled. "He said, 'Yes, but Southern Baptists didn't make me. Concord takes good care of me, so if I lose a couple of invitations to speak at their churches, that's OK.'"

Mr. Armstrong said he and Dr. Bailey considered both sides. On one hand, they felt the Southern Baptists had been wrong not to heed the command in Galatians 6 - If you have something against your brother, go talk to him about it. On the other hand, Dr. Gregory had divorced and then married someone he had worked with.

He said he asked Dr. Bailey: Are you sure he has dealt with his sin and repented?

Dr. Bailey, he said, answered, "Yes," adding, "He is gifted and the kingdom needs him."

To this day, Dr. Gregory said, Southern Baptist "fundamentalists" won't forgive him for getting divorced. He accepts that.

Divorce, he acknowledged, "is a major failure for a minister, and I recognize that. And because I do, I didn't expect to preach as much as I have the last five years. I have not sought it, I have not asked for it. My covenant or understanding with the Lord was that I would not seek preaching."

He said he'll never head a church again. "I believe I am disqualified from pastoring." . . .

Dr. Leonard, the Southern Baptist historian and dean of the divinity school at Wake Forest University, said that seeing what has happened to Dr. Gregory should give others hope.

"It reminds us that we all need redeeming," he said. "Not just once, but a lot of times."

Posted: **Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:03 pm**

Wm -- I'm sure Stanley, myself, Gregory and whomever else would be much better people if we all followed your orders. Does the Doctor ever have any counsel for herself?

I've given no orders, Wm -- and my posts are there for anyone to see. As for "Doctor" -- I believe you're the one who's claiming the ability to diagnose "pathology" in others.

You threw stones at Gregory, including "thrice married yet?"

After noting Gregory's marital status, you reacted angrily to the observation that at least one divorced SBC pastor continues in his pastorate. Sauce for the moderate preacher can drape (to use the Brit term) the SBC pastor, too.

You claim I "shifted the focus" -- while at the same time you attempt to attribute to me positions I've never stated and do not hold.

It's painfully obvious now that your only standard for judging who's a "leading preacher" in any group is your overweening desire to call attention to past sins of a moderate.

Yep . . . given the clear weaknesses of your posts on the matter, I'd claim ennui and fall silent, too, if I were you. :lol:

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:12 am**

Norm wrote:
William wrote:I'm sure Stanley, myself, Gregory and whomever else would be much better people if we all followed your orders. Does the Doctor ever have any counsel for herself?

This is a yawner, ML. You have the last word, as you always insist on doing.

Whether MLovell takes the last word, I don't know, but what I do know is this, that is, the reasonableness to which she has addressed you and the ineptness of your subsequent responses to said posts portrays you in a light that does not honor the meaning of one holding the title of Christian leader. It is not MLovell that is found lacking here, William; rather in your seemingly obvious attempt to disparage Gregory and MLovell, you have, instead, disparaged yourself. We will forgive you, but by your standard, forgiveness and affirmation would, apparently, not be forthcoming in a straightforward manner.

wm: I'll try to cope with your displeasure, Norm, while reminding you that you once made a living and a name here with Charles Stanley's divorce, fully justified in that case in your own mind of course. To your credit you finally dropped the thing...until here recently.

The integrity issue rings a bit hollow when it comes from both you and ML, based on past behavior. I have no desire to thrash it all out with either of you. These forum squabbles are of little value. Perhaps you would like the last word.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:51 am**

wm -- I'll try to cope with your displeasure, Norm, while reminding you that you once made a living and a name here with Charles Stanley's divorce. . .

Can you identify a single time Norm mentioned Stanley other than in response to your own posts on divorce? (Failure to respond to this question, given your tackiness above, will be understood as "No.")

Wm -- (1) The integrity issue rings a bit hollow when it comes from both you and ML, based on past behavior. (2) I have no desire to thrash it all out with either of you. (3) These forum squabbles are of little value. (4) Perhaps you would like the last word.

(1) Classic Williamism -- a non-specific charge which implies something negative about others which William can not or will not back up.

(2) Given the number of your posts on the issue, I find your self-discipline in posting contra your desire absolutely amazing. :lol:

(3) I agree with you here -- yet you persist in initiating them. (" That he is now divorced [i[twice[/i], thrice-married yet?" -- Wm.)

(4) At least you're not once again claiming boredom as a rationale for abandoning your notably weak arguments.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:52 am**

mlovell wrote:
Patrick -- Gregory left First Baptist Dallas with secatary following behind. He was called to the carpet about the affair. Later on came the divorce. This is not hear say. People who knew Gregory at the time knew what was happening.

Until and unless you can cite a source, by name, who's willing to say he knows this is true and how he knows it, it remains unsubstantiated gossip, rumor and hearsay, whether you care to call it that or not. Who "called him to the carpet about the affair"? (That could only have been done while he was still on the church staff.) What "people who knew Gregory knew what was happening"? Without some facts, Patrick, your post is, at best, rumor-mongering. (That's one thing about a public forum like this -- the standard for what you say about others is -- or should be -- higher than a chat with your friends.)

First of all sources are sometime private. My word is good. If it isn't that is your problem. I would never spread rumors. This thread got to comparing Stanley and Gregory. I have some insight to share. Go talk to some of the people in Dallas and they will tell you Gregory's fling was known.

Here's part of a story about Gregory which doesn't evade facts, but testifies to God's ability and desire to use people others see as "damaged goods." Longer than average quote, from a fairly long article, hinged on his preaching in black churches.
Dr. Gregory said black churches still enjoy "pulpit oratory," his style of preaching, while in many white churches the style is now more conversational, more casual.

"We just embrace the truth whether black or white," said the Rev. N.L. Robinson, longtime senior pastor at Mount Olive. "It doesn't matter what color his skin is. He's a man of God who preaches in a way that breaks things down for anyone to understand, and as a preacher, he stands in a class all by himself. Our people love him."

"I was thinking about Dr. Gregory today, and one of the things that crossed my mind was that God had a different program for him than he had for himself," a young Mount Olive pastor said as he introduced him one evening.

"God decided he wouldn't just let him pastor a large church ... He wanted him to travel around and share his great message with many, many people." . . .

Mr. Armstrong said Dr. Bailey took a risk in reaching out to the fallen preacher.

"I said, 'You know, if you invite Joel, you're likely to get repercussions from Southern Baptists, because he's on the out list,'" he recalled. "He said, 'Yes, but Southern Baptists didn't make me. Concord takes good care of me, so if I lose a couple of invitations to speak at their churches, that's OK.'"

Mr. Armstrong said he and Dr. Bailey considered both sides. On one hand, they felt the Southern Baptists had been wrong not to heed the command in Galatians 6 - If you have something against your brother, go talk to him about it. On the other hand, Dr. Gregory had divorced and then married someone he had worked with.

He said he asked Dr. Bailey: Are you sure he has dealt with his sin and repented?

Dr. Bailey, he said, answered, "Yes," adding, "He is gifted and the kingdom needs him."

To this day, Dr. Gregory said, Southern Baptist "fundamentalists" won't forgive him for getting divorced. He accepts that.

Divorce, he acknowledged, "is a major failure for a minister, and I recognize that. And because I do, I didn't expect to preach as much as I have the last five years. I have not sought it, I have not asked for it. My covenant or understanding with the Lord was that I would not seek preaching."

He said he'll never head a church again. "I believe I am disqualified from pastoring." . . .

Dr. Leonard, the Southern Baptist historian and dean of the divinity school at Wake Forest University, said that seeing what has happened to Dr. Gregory should give others hope.

"It reminds us that we all need redeeming," he said. "Not just once, but a lot of times."

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 8:47 am**

Patrick -- First of all sources are sometime private. My word is good. If it isn't that is your problem. I would never spread rumors. This thread got to comparing Stanley and Gregory. I have some insight to share. Go talk to some of the people in Dallas and they will tell you Gregory's fling was known.

That isn't my problem, Patrick -- it's yours. For the several years I've posted here, hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations have always been regarded as precisely that. In repeating the rumor about Gregory, you've obviously spread it.

"Some of the people in Dallas"? Which people, Patrick? The "fling was known"? How was it known, Patrick? Your sources are private? Then don't repeat "private" information on a public forum -- any more than you'd print in a newspaper what you can't verify. If you choose to spread a rumor by word of mouth to individuals, that's your choice -- but spreading them here reflects adversely on the forum.

You've told us absolutely nothing about yourself, not even where you live. You've posted here about three months. What basis do I have for trusting your word?

I live in Tyler, have many friends in Dallas, and travel there often both for business and pleasure. I suspect I hear about as much as you do -- but I don't repeat rumors about individuals which I can't back up on this forum. Neither does anyone else here. You shouldn't.

A bit of technical help: If you want to respond to just part of what someone said (as is apparently the case with your post above), you can copy in just the part you want to reply to. If you want to insert your response in the middle of a quote, you should, at the very least, bold your own response and identify who said what, so that people can easily/accurately know who said what. As you've done it, your words appear to be mine. They certainly aren't, and that's an impression neither of us (I assume) desires. Posted as I suggest, your response would look like this:

ml -- Until and unless you can cite a source, by name, who's willing to say he knows this is true and how he knows it, it remains unsubstantiated gossip, rumor and hearsay, whether you care to call it that or not. Who "called him to the carpet about the affair"? (That could only have been done while he was still on the church staff.) What "people who knew Gregory knew what was happening"? Without some facts, Patrick, your post is, at best, rumor-mongering. (That's one thing about a public forum like this -- the standard for what you say about others is -- or should be -- higher than a chat with your friends.)

Patrick -- First of all sources are sometime private. My word is good. If it isn't that is your problem. I would never spread rumors. This thread got to comparing Stanley and Gregory. I have some insight to share. Go talk to some of the people in Dallas and they will tell you Gregory's fling was known.

Rumors aren't "insight," Patrick. They're rumors.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:24 am**

Gregory affair is also pretty much public knowledge in the baptist circles. It is no big secret.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:30 am**

I feel Gregory is one of my favorite people to hear preach. I had the chance to hear several times. I am glad he is getting the oppurtunity. I hope he makes the most of it. He has a lot of info to share. When I was in Bible college on of my favorite instructers was divorced. He was an awesome teacher.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:53 am**

Patrick -- Gregory affair is also pretty much public knowledge in the baptist circles. It is no big secret.

If that's so, why are you unable to cite a specific source for your allegation? Thus far, what you allege is merely hearsay posted by a person about whom we know zip -- and who by doing that gives this discussion board the appearance of being a rumor mill.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:09 am**

mlovell wrote:
Patrick -- Gregory affair is also pretty much public knowledge in the baptist circles. It is no big secret.

If that's so, why are you unable to cite a specific source for your allegation? Thus far, what you allege is merely hearsay posted by a person about whom we know zip -- and who by doing that gives this discussion board the appearance of being a rumor mill.

ED: "If that is so" ? Ml, as one with her finger on the pulse of BaptistLife in the great state of Texas, are you wanting to suggest that what Patrick has said here is not so? Or are you simply asking him to document his claim? I agree that we have no particular reason to accept Patricks word on this since we know nothing about Patrick. Patrick's statement may be hearsay But this board caries a publised disclaimer of responcibility for the opions expressed by participants like Patrick or even your self, who we have come to know rather well via this medium.

I am a fan of Dr. Gregory's, I did a review of "Temptation" for this board five or so yeas ago. Alas, it has been lost in one of our archive chrashes. I do not have access to the book because I never bought it, I had read a copy borrowed from the Cincinnati Library it is not in the North Creek Library but it seems he did address a relationship with his second wife that began prior to the final decree in the first divorice proceedings. perhaps this is what Patrick is talking about.

Your aparent charge that to state some thing with out providing documentaion is evidence of roumor mongering seems to me to be a bit over stated. Patrick, it seems to me is closer to engaging in gossip. And both you and I seem to have joined him.

Perhaps some one can point those interested to a definitive statement by DR. Gregory, regarding his marital problems. As for me I am willing to reconize that I have no real concept of the stain that is put on a marriage by being in a position of celbrity. Although I resonate greatly with his discription of his disapointment with chuch folk in responding to brokeness. And go from there accepting Gregoy's testimony of his repentence for his personal failing and acknowledging God for what ever positive accomplishment that have
been in his life.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:38 am**

ED -- "If that is so" ? (1) Ml, as one with her finger on the pulse of BaptistLife in the great state of Texas, are you wanting to suggest that what Patrick has said here is not so? (2) Or are you simply asking him to document his claim? I agree that we have no particular reason to accept Patricks word on this since we know nothing about Patrick. Patrick's statement may be hearsay (3) But this board caries a publised disclaimer of responcibility for the opions expressed by participants like Patrick or even your self, who we have come to know rather well via this medium.

(1) I have neither said nor presented myself as one whose finger is on the pulse of Baptist life in Texas. I've said that I suspect I hear about as much as Patrick does -- but that I don't post rumors/hearsay I can't back up. I seldom "suggest" anything.

(2) I'm asking him to document his claim, to provide some basis for it other than hearsay/rumor. Until and unless he provides an authoritative source for his statement, it's hearsay/rumor/gossip.

(3) I try to be consistent about identifying sources/facts upon which my opinions are based -- and I don't remember ever posting hearsay/gossip about someone's personal life. If I did, shame on me.

Patrick should be aware of the difference in hearsay/rumor-based opinions and views based on verifiable information. He's responsible for what he posts. A disclaimer of responsibility by BL.com may be good legal practice -- but if this kind of thing continues, the board will look like The National Enquirer.

Patrick, it seems to me is closer to engaging in gossip. And both you and I seem to have joined him.

Is it your view that to ask someone to provide a verifiable source for what he's saying is to engage in the gossip he's engaged in?

That would be akin to your apparent view that if Timothy opposes ABE's desire to limit his freedom, he's attempting to limit ABE's freedom -- which, per you, isn't Baptist.

I don't much care how well you and/or Patrick like or don't like Gregory. His marital record is publicly known, and can be documented from several sources. Patrick's allegation apparently cannot be documented; he cites as its basis unnamed people (I doubt he'd make that same allegation in a letter to the editor of a newspaper); and until he provides a reliable basis for it, he's gossiping/rumor-mongering. (rumormonger n : a person given to gossiping and divulging personal information about others)

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:21 pm**

mlovell wrote:
ED -- "If that is so" ? (1) Ml, as one with her finger on the pulse of BaptistLife in the great state of Texas, are you wanting to suggest that what Patrick has said here is not so? (2) Or are you simply asking him to document his claim? I agree that we have no particular reason to accept Patricks word on this since we know nothing about Patrick. Patrick's statement may be hearsay (3) But this board caries a publised disclaimer of responcibility for the opions expressed by participants like Patrick or even your self, who we have come to know rather well via this medium.

(1) I have neither said nor presented myself as one whose finger is on the pulse of Baptist life in Texas. I've said that I suspect I hear about as much as Patrick does -- but that I don't post rumors/hearsay I can't back up. I seldom "suggest" anything.

Ed: You may not have presentd your self as one who has her finger on the pulse of Baptist life in Texas in this thread but over the years, as I have read post with your name on them I have certianly gotten the impression that such was true. That was ment as a compliment. Do you now want folk to belive that you do not know what is going on in Texas BaptistLife.

ML[ quote](2) I'm asking him to document his claim, to provide some basis for it other than hearsay/rumor. Until and unless he provides an authoritative source for his statement, it's hearsay/rumor/gossip.

Ed: I would also like to see some support for his claim if such exist.

(3) I try to be consistent about identifying sources/facts upon which my opinions are based -- and I don't remember ever posting hearsay/gossip about someone's personal life. If I did, shame on me.

Patrick should be aware of the difference in hearsay/rumor-based opinions and views based on verifiable information. He's responsible for what he posts. A disclaimer of responsibility by BL.com may be good legal practice -- but if this kind of thing continues, the board will look like The National Enquirer.

Ed: Patrick, it seems to me is closer to engaging in gossip. And both you and I seem to have joined him.

Ml:
Is it your view that to ask someone to provide a verifiable source for what he's saying is to engage in the gossip he's engaged in?

That would be akin to your apparent view that if Timothy opposes ABE's desire to limit his freedom, he's attempting to limit ABE's freedom -- which, per you, isn't Baptist.

Ed: No Ml it is not my view that to ask some one to provide a verifiable source for what he is saying is is to engage in gossip. Where in the world did you come up with that? I have probaly asked for verifiable sources as much as any one on this board.

It seems that for the last few days you have a burr unde your saddle or some where, that interfears with your focus.

Ml:
I don't much care how well you and/or Patrick like or don't like Gregory. His marital record is publicly known, and can be documented from several sources. Patrick's allegation apparently cannot be documented; he cites as its basis unnamed people (I doubt he'd make that same allegation in a letter to the editor of a newspaper); and until he provides a reliable basis for it, he's gossiping/rumor-mongering. (rumormonger n : a person given to gossiping and divulging personal information about others)

Ed: what allegation has Patrick made that is not supported at least to some degree by the "several sources" that you point to as documenting J.G.s Marital history.

When I say that you and I have joined Patrick in gossip I am refering to our references to thos documented sources. Nither of us have sucessfully refuted what I see as patricks lose interprtaion of fact elsewhere documentrd.

I do not care about Gregory's marital record except as it bonds us to a degree as fellow strugglers. Something you and perhaps Patrick will hopefully never understand.

Posted: **Wed Aug 03, 2005 8:21 pm**

Chris wrote:
William wrote:Stanley took his shots, but is not being paid by anyone other than his congregation.

Oh! Who profits from the books, tapes, and videos that are sold on television by "In Touch Ministries" -- a separate entity from First Baptist Church.?

It seems to me that each of his television show fans who sends money to "In Touch Ministries" is putting money in Charles Stanley's pocket.

Regarding forgiveness. If Charles has indeed asked God to forgive him for the divorce (or not making his wife be submissive -- or whatever the sin was), I feel God has done so. What still bothers me is that he feels (or once did) so strongly that divorced men should not be pastors, that he said "I will resign," and then broke his promise.

I don't see where there is any prohibition for a divorced person, male or female, to be restricted from church leadership as a result of whatever sin might have led to their divorce. If someone has made things right with the Lord, in genuine repentance, and has been forgiven, God doesn't remember the sin and they are restored to a right relationship with him. Since there is no distinction between clergy and laity in this regard, a divorce should not prevent anyone from serving as an usher, teacher, pastor, deacon, elder, or any other church office. I only point to Charles Stanley as an example of a double standard held by fundamentalists who think it is O.K. for one (or several) of their own to be in leadership following a divorce, but it is not O.K. for those they don't like.

In Gregory's case, at least according to his book, the stress of trying to pastor a church that W.A. Criswell was still pastoring led to the breakup of his first marriage, and because the second was apparently founded on the rebound, it did not survive the circumstances following his departure. From his own testimony, I have to take his word that he's had a long road to follow, and has made his way back to a restored relationship with God. If Charles Stanley's word is good enough for his supporters to grant forgiveness and consider him still eligible to pastor his church, then Joel Gregory's word should be good enough, and there's nothing wrong with his teaching homiletics at Truett Seminary. I've never seen any evidence proving that Gregory had "an affair" with the secretary, that may be an assumption that isn't born out by the facts.

I realize we are Baptists and so, prefer to shoot our wounded rather than allow them to be restored.

BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Joel Gregory can only help...