Re: Bott '14
 

Your point? Do you see the video posted?

Re: Bott '14
 

Yes we have, and others have agreed that he wasn't referring to Maxwell or the quote made flesh. :nod

Re: Bott '14
 

I'm not going to rat you out, but you're being disingenuous.

Re: Bott '14
 

YES, better, because calling someone a liar is a serious accusation, since it implies malicious intent on their part. Misrepresented leaves room for them to have been genuinely mistaken.

Re: Bott '14
 

I'm not being disingenuous. What was my quote again?

Here's full disclosure for you, since you're an admin I figured you could see deleted posts. I did post the video, for about 5 seconds, then deleted it.

Not being disingenuous. :nah

Re: Bott '14
 

Just a little bit, IMO, but thanks for the disclosure. :thumbsup

Re: Bott '14
 

Misrepresented can also mean it was done with intent, per Webster's.

Re: Bott '14
 

I just about posted it for spite just for that, but I didn't. I could have! :lol But I didn't.

I need to take a walk. :nod

Re: Bott '14
 

Maybe so, but do you really think it was?

Re: Bott '14
 

I'd like to think it wasn't. Then again, I'd like to think JA wasn't openly attacking a fellow minister from the pulpit.

Someone mentioned his "passion" in a previous post. Maybe in his passion he wanted to make a point, and did so by misrepresenting what SG said. He knows what SG said. Whether it was intentional or just out of passion.

Time for lunch. I need to walk.

Re: Bott '14
 

BOTT 2014 DVDs ordered...will take a few weeks to get them.

:happydance

Re: Bott '14
 

The bottom line is that JA's behavior is often indefensible and this is one of them. He is way too old and has been in the church way too long to be as crude as he is. He got away with it 30 years ago but it is now about 20 years past its "buy by" date.

Re: Bott '14
 

CC1, There are a lot of people here, including you, that have made fun of the UPC, made fun of the women (who termed "Blue Denim Whale"?), made fun of how the youth dressed at conferences posting photos, photos of hair-dos, etc. Is that behaviour indefensible?

Re: Bott '14
 

Thank you! At least you answered the question. PO won't even answer that simple question!

Very likely

Re: Bott '14
 

I'm not twisting anything. You're the one spinning like a top.

JA's referring to Maxwell...no, he's referring to the quote made flesh...scratch that, it was a typo...he's referring to Maxwell.

Round, round, spinnin round, she's spinnin round...

Re: Bott '14
 

I agree, his behavior isn't as funny or acceptable as it might have been in previous decades. However, the bottom line for me is that he apologized. Around here we require apologies for the word "idiot" (like at the Hoover house), and we also require that apologies be graciously accepted. :)

Re: Bott '14
 

Cause, you know, that totally compares to calling a fellow minister an idiot who needs brain surgery during a message at a well known, crowded, church leaders conference. :lol

Re: Bott '14
 

Since an apology has apparently been made, I think we should christen tomorrow, January 31st, "JA Appreciation Day." We can celebrate it by calling each other dirtbags, scumbags, jerks, fools, idiots who need brain surgery, and other affectionate terms of endearment.

:thumbsup

Re: Bott '14
 

I know it sounded like he did call SG an idiot, but I've listened to it several times. Let me write it out to discuss it and why I am not 100% certain he is calling SG an idiot. Being that he apologized, it really is a moot point, but I can't get away from how I feel when I hear it, and of course, I could be very wrong being the consensus is that he did insult SG.

"And I don't know which one of you guys said it, and I know that came from John Maxwell because I heard it. Whoever it is, don't get offended, but that junk I heard today about, 'Well, if you have a bunch of hell and chaos and crises in your church, after 3 years being there, it's your fault.' You're an idiot. I've got new dingbats coming in all the time. I'm not responsible for those wackos."

When I hear this, I hear louder than anything - JA establishes that what he is about to say is referencing who he knows said it in the first place. "I KNOW that came from JM". So, he is attributing the quote to someone other than the pastor.

He goes on to quote the quote that had been given that day, "Well, if you have a bunch of hell and chaos and crises in your church, after 3 years being there, it's your fault. You're an idiot."

Now, with him stating that he knows where the quote came from, asks whoever said it not to be offended, and then quoting the statement. Is he calling Maxwell the idiot or the minister the idiot for repeating it?

When I hear it, he is calling Maxwell the idiot. That's just my take.

And of course, being that an offense was taken, which he apologized for, I am not trying to gloss over him insulting either man in public. I just can't be 100% who he is talking to. So, in that, I agree with Sis. Alvear, who was also unclear.

Re: Bott '14
 

Um...it completely compares. That was a terrible thread, and there were a lot of liberals who felt at liberty to insult Apostolic women in an ugly manner to their heart's content. Without ever a retraction or apology, I might add.

I'm glad that thread was never recreated here.

***Correction: Apparently "Nahum" tried back in 2007, but it fizzled out after 3 pages. The thread at FCF was much longer than that, and far more malicious.

Re: Bott '14
 

David, Again, get your facts straight. This is Jason's quote to me, that you are referring to.

He is responding to my post where I am not 100% sure who JA is referring to. I haven't changed my story, which is what you are accusing me of doing, which is a lie on your part.

I refuse to respond to you further as you are not being honest.

Re: Bott '14
 

Now you are acting like an idiot. :smack

Re: Bott '14
 

I have some very mean, and hateful things to say. I write them down on a piece of paper. I take the paper to a top of a mountain above a village where many people live. I tear the paper into pieces, and then I throw the torn papers to the wind. As I watch the wind catch and carry the pieces of paper, suddenly I have a change of heart, and in a panic, I begin to run around and try to gather up the pieces of paper that I had just thrown to the wind. In vain, I realize that the wind had taken the things I had said much further, and farther than I ever intended them to go, and no amount of effort on my part would ever undo the fact that now my words were scattered forever, never to be taken back.

The above is a parable worthy of consideration in this discussion, I believe. Yes, you may apologize regarding something said in a public place, yet a simple apology does not undo the damage that the words have caused. It is impossible to go around to each person who heard, and make right the damage. It's like trying to retrieve torn pieces of paper from the wind.

Re: Bott '14
 

:hmmm Only problem is saying he's talking about Maxwell blatantly ignores a major part of the quote:

He not only addresses people in attendance, but after the little tidbit about JM, he reaffirms by once again addressing the one's on the platform.

Was Maxwell sitting on the platform? It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Why would JA say "you're an idiot?" "YOU'RE an idiot." Not, "Maxwell's an idiot," not even "he's an idiot."

Had JA said, "HE'S an idiot," I'd be somewhat more inclined to believe it could be Maxwell, even though he was addressing people on the platform. He didn't. He said, "you're."

Unless Maxwell was present, sitting on the platform, he was not talking about Maxwell.

Re: Bott '14
 

That's weird...I never mentioned Jason or his post there, did I?

:bigbaby

Re: Bott '14
 

KBTW,

I agree, often the damage can't be undone. Jeff has told our kids a similar story about feathers and a feather pillow many times. However, the damage also shouldn't be magnified purposely by anyone--for any reason, and IMO that is what was done with the immediate public sharing of the video on youtube and the Facebook uproar by non-interested parties that followed. "Exposing" people for wrongdoing isn't our job as Christians. Restoring people who are "taken in a fault" is.

Further, while an apology doesn't necessarily negate the damage done by careless words, it also is pretty much all that can be done after the fact. We aren't supposed to purposely hold onto a grudge to teach people about the "damage" they've caused. That lesson comes more organically, in other ways, and shouldn't be at our hand, purposely, ever.

Re: Bott '14
 

That's weird, how easy was it to find the post that stated - spin like a top to know who you were referencing. :heeheehee

You are being pitiful today.

Re: Bott '14
 

Who's talking about a thread? PO mentioned making fun of UPC, making fun of the women (BDW), making fun of how youth dressed at conferences...

I don't see a reference to any thread. I see things mentioned by PO, which IMO, do not compare to a minister publicly attacking a fellow minister.

People make fun of each other all the time...even PO does with her politics!

Re: Bott '14
 

Why would he say that? IMO, he says it because he set out that he identifies the original statement did not come from the minister present, then encourages the minister not to be offended when he insults Maxwell's quote.

That is how I am reading JA. But since you are on a witch hunt, you may have another perspective. I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, having heard him enough to know his style and how he responds to things, that is the only way I am able to view JA on the clip.

Someone gave me several of his books and a CD case with, I don't know, 15 or more sermons. I listened to all of them twice. He has a debt of experience I respect. Just not going to bash him. His faith in the miraculous is inspiring.

Re: Bott '14
 

Really? So why are you mad at JA? :heeheehee

Re: Bott '14
 

So "spinning like a top" is trademarked by Jason? Before he posted that I was writing that you were changing your story over and over.

Hear ye, hear ye....do not use the words or term someone else has used. Ever. Even if you're not referring to that person's quote at the time you use their words or term. Thus saith PO.

Re: Bott '14
 

And now you are spinning.... Why don't liars pants really catch on fire?

Re: Bott '14
 

Sis. Alvear, could you clarify what you mean here? Thanks.

Re: Bott '14
 

Seriously? Are you claiming that I didn't write about you changing your story before Jason posted his "spinning like a top?"

You should go back and read the thread. I wrote you were "changing your points" "moving the goalposts" and that we were "going round and round and I'm getting a bit dizzy and bored."

Again, are you claiming that I wasn't saying this before Jason's post? If so, you're wrong....again.

Re: Bott '14
 

Makes. No. Sense.

He didn't insult a quote. Unless the quote was made flesh and was sitting on the platform, he wasn't insulting the quote. And unless Maxwell was sitting on the platform, he wasn't insulting Maxwell. It's basic English.

You're the only one that doesn't think JA was insulting SG. I know you posted something vague from Sis. Alvear:

Hopefully she'll come back and say what she meant, because we don't know what she meant by that statement.

Re: Bott '14
 

David, Stop talking to me. You have misrepresented some of my posts and haven't been honest here. I don't want to talk with you any more. You're in the dog house. :dogpat

Re: Bott '14
 

You're wearing pants? For shame!


:slaphappy

Re: Bott '14
 

:lol Don't respond to my posts then, or put me on ignore. That's your prerogative.

I haven't misrepresented your points. You're just upset cause I've re-posted your posts showing your inconsistent statements. I have been honest.

:bigbaby

Re: Bott '14
 

First, I think it is plausible for JA to come back saying, "I meant the original author of said comment was an idiot and not the preacher who quoted him." I don't personally believe that JA would call SG an idiot…I truly don't. Did he use a poor choice of wording…yes. Because his choice of wording can absolutely be taken wrong.

When he said, "Don't be offended" I think he didn't mean "Don't be offended that Im about to call YOU and idiot." I think he meant, "Don't be offended that I am going to refute the idiot you quoted."

Second, I have read a bunch of Maxwell stuff. I have sat in Maxwell seminars in person on several occasions. I have several Maxwell video training sets that I have personally used. I have never heard Maxwell blame any leader for people taking their clothes off, adultery, or any of the other stuff JA put in the context of the quote.

Here's my Maxwell experience. As a leader you have to own your domain. Stand up and take charge. Ultimately, the health of your organization depends on you taking responsibility.

I do remember being taught by someone from this genre that the first three or so years for new leadership has with it an element of taking care of issues that were there before you were--but at some point--usually after three years--the issues you deal with are no longer attached to a predecessor. This teaching was about tenure--not about assigning blame.

At the same time I also know that Maxwell (and the others) have taught that after some time you are no longer dealing with the problems created by leadership blunders from the former administration. Hopefully this is clear…in that context the problems created by poor leadership skills are definitely the current leaders fault.

That is where I think JA goes outside of context. Not that ALL chaos in people's personal lives is the leader's fault but that the chaos created by his poor management as a leader within the organization is his fault by default. JA tied the quote to the personal lives of individuals and that would be inconsistent with any Maxwell material or teachings I have read or sat under. Corporate chaos is another thing all together. Obviously, there would be no need for leadership teaching and training if bad leadership didn't create corporate chaos. In that sense, the chaos is the current leader's fault once the leader has been there long enough to have weeded out the chaos created by bad leadership before he got there.

At some point I can't blame corporate church issues and staff issues on my predecessor. I have to own the fact that I could have done it better. I have to accept responsibility that I may have dropped the ball. Or I have to accept the responsibility that I did it just right but someone didn't like it and went viral.

Either way, I have to own the current circumstance in the church I pastor because the buck stops at my desk and because I have been here long enough that no one even remembers my predecessor was here. How can I blame him when no one in any leadership capacity served under him and most of the congregation has turned over. I don't pastor the church he pastored so i can't blame him.