Joel Gregory can only help...

[mlovell]

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.

[Ricky P.]

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

[Ricky P.]

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.

[mlovell]

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 Pettibone]

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.

[mlovell]

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)

[Ed Pettibone]

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.

[Sandy]

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.

[mlovell]

Ed -- 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?

Sigh. I "came up with that" from your quote posted immediately above my question. (Why did you think your quote was there?)

Ed -- 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.

To quote what's obviously been stated here several times . . .

Patrick -- You compare Stanley's divorce to Gregory's is actually quite jovial. Stanley did not have an affair with his secatary. The issues are a little diffrent. . . .

Joel decided jis secatery was more important than his wife. . . .

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. . . .

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. . . .

Gregory affair is also pretty much public knowledge in the baptist circles.

If Patrick has a source which supports his allegation that Gregory had an affair with the church secretary, he's mighty slow to identify it.

Ed -- 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 don't generally view citing a "documented source" as gossip.

I feel no pressure to refute something Patrick hasn't been able to support. The fact that his statement is thus far unsupported speaks for itself.

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

If by that you mean that I've pointed out your inconsistencies and your failures to focus long enough to retain the information offered in the very thread you're posting in -- then I'd have to say that "interfering with my focus" is an extraordinarily odd and self-serving way to describe my posts.

[William Thornton]

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.

wm: I'm not sure which 'fundamentalists' you are speaking of here. Almost all of the conservatives I know are not 'OK' with divorced pastors but recognize that an autonomous church can do what they wish here. If the complaint of moderates is that some associations do not expel churches for having divorced male pastors while doing just that for having female pastors, then so be it. We will have to live with those complaints.

wm: Again, when you say that 'Stanley's word is good enough for his supporters to grant forgiveness and consider him still eligible to pastor his church' of whom are you speaking? His congregation would certainly fit in that group of supporters, but who else? I think it a mistake for moderates to compare JG and CS. The differences are substantial.

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

wm: Sadly, I agree, though to be 'restored' need not mean to a seminary faculty position or pastorate.[/quote]

[mlovell]

Wm -- I think it a mistake for moderates to compare JG and CS. The differences are substantial.

You cite one difference -- pastor chosen by congregation vs seminary professor. Given that you speak in the plural, will you identify others?

[William Thornton]

Wm -- I think it a mistake for moderates to compare JG and CS. The differences are substantial.

You cite one difference -- pastor chosen by congregation vs seminary professor. Given that you speak in the plural, will you identify others?

wm: Two marriages, two divorces. More? You objected to my use of the term 'thrice.' Is JG now married?

[mlovell]

wm -- Two marriages, two divorces. More? You objected to my use of the term 'thrice.' Is JG now married?

I don't know whether or not Gregory's married. I doubt it, given that the story I linked mentioned his prior marriages/divorces and identified his sons, with no mention of a wife.

So . . . those "substantial differences" are entirely the number of marriages/divorces? Nothing else?

I didn't object to your use of "thrice," but to your near-obsessive interest in the details of Gregory's private life. Must just be moderates' private lives that absorb you, since you had nothing to say about the multiple marriages of others who hold highly visible positions of responsibility in Baptist life.

NOTE: I've answered your question and explained my objection. Will you answer my question?

[Ed Pettibone]

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.

wm: I'm not sure which 'fundamentalists' you are speaking of here. Almost all of the conservatives I know are not 'OK' with divorced pastors but recognize that an autonomous church can do what they wish here. If the complaint of moderates is that some associations do not expel churches for having divorced male pastors while doing just that for having female pastors, then so be it. We will have to live with those complaints.

wm: Again, when you say that 'Stanley's word is good enough for his supporters to grant forgiveness and consider him still eligible to pastor his church' of whom are you speaking? His congregation would certainly fit in that group of supporters, but who else? I think it a mistake for moderates to compare JG and CS. The differences are substantial.

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

wm: Sadly, I agree, though to be 'restored' need not mean to a seminary faculty position or pastorate.

[/quote]

ED: Indeed restored need not mean to a seminary faculty position or pastorate. But neither should these possibilities automatically be precluded. I have said before and still maintain that the innocent party is an extreme rarity among divorces. That being said the question of qualification must in my opinion hinge on repentance and forgiveness. And must be judged on a case by case basis.