Bott '14

[n david]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

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."

I would hope he wouldn't either, but why use "you're" after saying "I don't know which one of you guys said it" and "don't be offended?"

Was Maxwell at BOTT?

The problem is this...the explanation both here and by PO is really wordy and doesn't flow with what JA said or how he said it. He's a smart guy. He knows words and how to say things for maximum impact.

Do you really think he'd say "you're an idiot" when referring to Maxwell? Grammatically it doesn't make sense. If he were referring to Maxwell, he would have said, "he's an idiot" not "you're an idiot."

But you likely made PO's day by agreeing with her.

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by n david

I would hope he wouldn't either, but why use "you're" after saying "I don't know which one of you guys said it" and "don't be offended?"

Was Maxwell at BOTT?

The problem is this...the explanation both here and by PO is really wordy and doesn't flow with what JA said or how he said it. He's a smart guy. He knows words and how to say things for maximum impact.

Do you really think he'd say "you're an idiot" when referring to Maxwell? Grammatically it doesn't make sense. If he were referring to Maxwell, he would have said, "he's an idiot" not "you're an idiot."

But you likely made PO's day by agreeing with her.

LOL. I know it does't make sense grammatically…but have you listened to a JA sermon lately?? Pretty much everything JA says is grammatically incorrect so that wouldn't be too far a stretch…

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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.

I agree that an apology is all that is really able to be done with this situation. What has been said, has been said, and people have taken sides, regardless of the true intent of the comment.

And you are further right in that the fall-out, with damage control taking place may take some time to heal. However, most certainly as fellow believers, we should not continue to hold something against someone if they have apologized, and intend to change.

Time will tell if JA has really had a change of heart after apologizing, and stops using derogatory names in the pulpit. If that is the case, then this issue will be settled. If, however, he continues these antics in future messages and sermons... that is a different story all together.

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by n david

I would hope he wouldn't either, but why use "you're" after saying "I don't know which one of you guys said it" and "don't be offended?"

Was Maxwell at BOTT?

The problem is this...the explanation both here and by PO is really wordy and doesn't flow with what JA said or how he said it. He's a smart guy. He knows words and how to say things for maximum impact.

Do you really think he'd say "you're an idiot" when referring to Maxwell? Grammatically it doesn't make sense. If he were referring to Maxwell, he would have said, "he's an idiot" not "you're an idiot."

But you likely made PO's day by agreeing with her.

No, Maxwell wasn't at BOTT. But, every preacher I know--including myself--has spoken to a first person example with them not present. Just last night I told the grammy's, "You don't define values for me and I will not be criticized for quoting a 3500 year old book." As far as I could tell--no one from the grammy's was there, although i referred to them in first person to make my point.

[n david]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

LOL. I know it does't make sense grammatically…but have you listened to a JA sermon lately?? Pretty much everything JA says is grammatically incorrect so that wouldn't be too far a stretch…

I'll concede to that point!

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by n david

I'll concede to that point!

I really laughed out loud when I read this!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

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."

Yes, I agree. I just can't see it any other way. I can feel it when I am watching and listening. Much different feeling than just discussing it.

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.

I had forgotten how much I used to like to read your posts. Glad you popped in to comment further.

Now, I don't believe that JA would disagree with anything you have written. Well, maybe the part about going off context. He wants to stay focused on "I've got 'new' dingbats coming in all the time..." His tenure is never going to have anything to do with that - ever.

I was going to tell a few stories about some "new" dingbats, but I think I'll just keep in to myself. Good Golly, Miss Molly! Our world is a virtual reality show. I have no idea what we are going to look like in 20 years. There are so many people with tattoos, I don't think we are going to need Google maps pretty soon. It's a jungle.

[n david]

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I agree that an apology is all that is really able to be done with this situation. What has been said, has been said, and people have taken sides, regardless of the true intent of the comment.

And you are further right in that the fall-out, with damage control taking place may take some time to heal. However, most certainly as fellow believers, we should not continue to hold something against someone if they have apologized, and intend to change.

Time will tell if JA has really had a change of heart after apologizing, and stops using derogatory names in the pulpit. If that is the case, then this issue will be settled. If, however, he continues these antics in future messages and sermons... that is a different story all together.

I seriously doubt he apologized for using slang or colorful language. He always talks like that. He probably apologized for the offense in particular.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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."

It wasn't my first impression, but I agree with you that it is plausible that it could have been his intent. Reading through this, and considering his grammar "style" as triumphant1 pointed out, I can see how he could have been misunderstood. Not misunderstood in the sense that he didn't mean to call anyone an idiot, though.