This past Sunday, once again we were treated to the historical exaggerations and misrepresentations of Mac Brunson. Its hard to believe that this is coming from the "holy desk" of First Baptist Jacksonville, once the flagship church of the Southern Baptist Convention where the Bible was faithfully preached and care was taken to proclaim TRUTH. Mac uses the sacred desk to tell a lie about one of his own sheep, perhaps to help bolster the image of his friend Paige Patterson among those at FBC Jax. He now I think has demonstrated that he has a harder time dealing with historical facts than Hillary Clinton - and like Clinton he thinks that just because he says something we're all going to believe it is so.Sunday night Mac Brunson preached a sermon on church discipline from 1 Corinthians. In the first 2 minutes of his sermon, Mac commented on 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul describes one of the problems of the church in Corinth being that of legal disputes between believers. While not the central verse of his message, Mac said this was an example of just how low the Corinthian church had sunk - that Christians were suing Christians.
But as only Mac can do, he had to take it one step further. Without giving any names he explained that in our Southern Baptist Convention we had a "famous lawsuit" where "one
Christian was suing another Christian and an instutition". Mac was referring to the case of "Dr. Sheri Klouda vs. SWBTS and Paige Patterson". Sheri Klouda was a seminary professor hired by the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) trustees in 2002 prior to Paige Patterson taking over as SWBTS president in 2003. Paige Patterson eventually told Sheri Klouda she would not be recommended for tenure as she was not suitable to be a professor of theology because of her gender, and scripture forbade her from teaching men. This ultimately resulted in Sheri Klouda bringing a lawsuit against Paige Patterson and SWBTS for gender discrimination. My intent here is not to argue whether the lawsuit did or did not violate precepts in 1 Cor 6, but to point out a lie that Mac perpetuated from the pulpit about Sheri Klouda. But if interested, click here for a good overview of the entire case, written by Wade Burleson. If you do just a little bit of research on this you'll see that Dr. Klouda and her family suffered terribly from this entire ordeal. She is now a professor at Taylor University in Indiana.But back to Mac's sermon. Mac said Sunday night that the lawyer that tried the case (actually the defendant's lawyer) traveled with him to Greece recently, and Mac says the following (click here to listen to the audio yourself):
"He [the defense attorney] had this person [Sheri Klouda] sit in the witness chair, he gave that person a copy of God's word, and had that person open it to the 6th chapter of 1st Corinthians and he had that person read that [scripture] into the record and he [the defense attorney] asked that person 'now in the light of God's word were you wrong to bring this lawsuit?', and on the record they [Sheri Klouda] admitted they were wrong to bring the lawsuit"
Only one problem. That's a lie. That totally misrepresents Sheri Klouda's testimony in the case. She did NOT admit she was wrong to bring the lawsuit. As anyone who followed the case knows, Sheri Klouda has stated in her testimony in the court and outside the court that the conditions of the situation warranted her taking legal action as she did and that it was not a violation of 1 Cor 6. Its also safe to say that she did not lose the case on the material facts but the court's unwillingness to intervene in church or religious disputes.
Very interesting that Mac chose to lie about this. He didn't have to - the fabrication he told, even if true, wouldn't have shed any light on lawsuits and believers - the lie was completely gratuitous. He could have made his point and used the Klouda case as an example of 1 Cor 6 lawsuits - even saying that he thought Sheri Klouda was wrong in bringing the lawsuit. Many people hold that position. But no, he had to go further. People post here wanting to know my motives - what are Mac's motives in telling a lie about Sheri Klouda and misrepresenting her testimony? Could it be that by telling this story in the fashion he did that it makes Sheri Klouda look less of a Christian (bringing a lawsuit against Patterson then supposedly admitting on the witness stand that she was wrong?) and helps to put Paige Patterson in better light? Would we dare call that slander to use his pulpit to say this about Sheri Klouda?
You say "Mac was just telling us what the lawyer told him." OK, but did Mac pick up the phone and talk to Sheri Klouda as he prepared his sermon to make sure that the lawyer was right and that Sheri had admitted on the witness stand that she was wrong? Why wouldn't he check his facts? For crying out loud, Mac Brunson was Sheri Klouda's pastor when he was at FBC Dallas - wouldn't that alone make him want to get the story straight and make sure that he doesn't malign Sheri Klouda?
There you have it FBC Jax. Yet another example of careless preaching, by an arrogant out-of-control preacher who has a problem telling the truth. And this time Mac's lie maligned one of his own sheep from FBC Dallas to throw a bone to one of his buddies. Sick.
But no one at FBC Jax seems to care. Mac is "God's man". He can do and say as he pleases.
Sorry, but I still say: the King has no clothes on. And it ain't a pretty sight.
59 comments:
WD: as he preached Sunday night - "there's sin in the camp. If we want God to be walking amongst us, we need to get rid of the sin in the camp."
Yessir, there is indeed sin in the camp, and the location seems to be very close to the pulpit.
For the record, Klouda was offered the same salary and benefits in a different position. She refused, thus causing her own tough times.
She could have stayed on with the same pay/benefits until she found something more to her liking at another institution. But, again, she refused, so her tough times were no one's fault but her own.
So enough of the boo-hoo story on Sheri Klouda. Her case was thrown out, also, as it should have been.
I have no dog in the Brunson fight. I just thought readers should at least know more facts than are listed in your blog concerning Klouda vs. Patterson and SWBTS.
One side note: Referencing Wade Burleson, Ben Cole and David Rogers is hardly a good source for quality SBC reporting, especially Burleson and Cole, who's admitted vendetta against Paige Patterson was a pathetic display to behold.
Do you have anything better to do with your time other than making mountains out of mole hills? Get a life.
Integrity, accuracy, being forthright is a mole hill? If that's what you believe, I pity the moles! What a pastor says and how a pastor says it matters!
You are assuming that is the lawsuit he was speaking of. You have no proof yet you say he is lying. WOW How can you say you are trying to speak the truth? You are making a guess and treating it as fact.
Wade Burleson, who is likely much closer to Dr. Klouda than "anonymous 8:41" wrote in comments here:
According to Dr. Klouda, the assertion you make that she was 'offered' another full time job at SWBTS is patently false. Had the 'offer' actually been made, she would have jumped at it -jumped with a capital J - to accept it because of her husband's medical condition (his specialist was in the metroplex), her daughter's schooling (she loved her school), and the situation with the Klouda's house (they had just bought it).
Dr. Klouda, due to family considerations, would have been a custodian at SWBTS in order to stay in the metroplex. I am sure this descrepancy in alleged 'offeres for employment' will be adjudicated at some point. When it comes to a 'he said,' 'she said,' disagreemnt the scales of justice will tilt toward the person with the most believablity. I can assure you that Klouda tells a gripping and compelling story that will cause anyone who hears it to not question for a moment her veracity. On the other hand, it would seem to some that authorities at SWBTS would have every reason to cover the institution's proverbial backside by alleging she was 'offered' another position.
It would be interesting to know who at SWBTS would swear under oath that they were present when this 'offer' was made to Dr. Klouda. In addition, if there is any 'documentation' that the offer was actually made to Dr. Klouda, it would be interesting to track down the author (or typist) and ask one simple question:
When did you type the document that contained the offer to Dr. Klouda and was it post dated? Or, If the date on the document is correct, do you know for a fact it was ever presented to Dr. Klouda?
Again, those questions assume documentation exists. In SWBTS very thick appendix to their motion for summary judgment there are all kinds of documents that verify SWBTS arguments - but not one email, one note, one letter that supports the alleged job 'offer.' I don't know that any of us knows the truth of this situation, but we can be assured that discovery, adjudication, and an independent jury of peers will help bring about a just resolution. Once the jury (or judge) decides a proper verdict, whatever they decide, nobody should complain.
And this:
Bart and Peter,
Both of you seem to miss the point I am making. If you have one sworn statement that 'another' permanent job at SWBTS - besides teaching Hebrew - was offered to Dr. Klouda, and a sworn statement from Dr. Klouda that there was no 'permanent' job offer given to her, then the burden of proof resides not upon the person who denies the job offer was made - BUT THOSE WHO ALLEGEDLY OFFERED IT.
Where is the documentation? Of all the emails, letters, etc . . . that have been filed with the court by SWBTS, there is not one filing that gives evidence that a permanent offer was made to Dr. Klouda.
I have not stated anybody at SWBTS has altered any document. I have simply asked where is it? If it were to suddenly appear, then questions would have to be asked regarding when it was written, who presented it to Dr. Klouda, etc . . . But I said IF documentation exists THEN those questions would need to be asked.
Both you men need to understand the difference between an 'allegation' and a hypothetical. I never alleged anyone falsified documents because, again, I don't know IF documents even exist. I said until 'evidence' is provided that a job offer was made, then the burden of PROOF is on you that Klouda refused to take it.
So, let me take your tactic in this stream - without calling it godless or immoral - and ask you the question you seem to deem so important:
Bart and Peter - "WHERE IS YOUR DOCUMENTATION THAT KLOUDA REFUSED TO TAKE A POSITION AT SWBTS?"
If you say an affadavit or sworn statement, then I can assure you that the affadavit and sworn statement of Dr. Klouda will say something different. Neither is proof of truth.
There is a saying in law, nursing and other important professions:
"If it is not documented, it is not done."
I'm asking you both to provide the documentation that asserts Klouda refused to take another permanent position when the person in question says that the offer never occurred. Prove it Peter. Prove it Bart.
Until you do, both of you ought to stop casting dispersions on the character of Dr. Klouda.
That is my gentle correction for the both of you.
Perhaps such a document was later found, but a Google search doesn't reveal it. I'm sure if it did exist, Paige Patterson's supporters would have plastered it all over the internet.
Excuse me Anon, but if that is your explanation of this: that since he didn't give names we don't know for sure who he was talking about...YOU HAVE YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND.
THERE IS NO QUESTION, ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER that Mac Brunson Sunday night was discussing the Sheri Klouda case.
Mac Brunson owes Sheri Klouda an apology for misrepresenting her testimony to the wonderful people of FBC Jax. I can't tell you how sick I am of our pastor treating us like stupid, guillable sheep that are so brainless that we'll swallow any story he tells us as truth. Well, we're not as dumb as he thinks, and the congregation is getting fed up with his nonsense. Just look at the low turnout on Sunday nights and Wednesday nights. The man is a master of the "one for two" style of preaching - take one sermon and stretch it into two sermons...and people have voted with their feet on Sunday nights...I hope now they vote with their pocketbooks to show the lay leaders that the direction Mac has taken us is unacceptable.
He is caught in another lie, another misrepresentation of facts, this time hurting one of his former congregants, and you come here and have the gall to say I have no proof.
Who knows, maybe Sheri Klouda herself will post here to explain for herself that Mac lied about her testimony.
WD -- Not only was Dr. Klouda a member of FBCD while Mac was pastor there, she faithfully taught youth Sunday School on a weekly basis for several years. I bet Mac conveniently left out the fact that she served in a position of leadership under his watch...
I was once very naive. I believed everything a preacher said because I thought he was God's man. I am now "cured" of that notion. And have been so, long before any blog existed. My own experience with them have taught me "buyer beware". I am glad I was saved years ago. I think it would be difficult to trust a preacher today to tell the truth, unless it served him. And I am not refering to anyone mentioned in this blog.,directly.
CALLING ALL ANONS!!!!!!
Where are you? Those defenders of Mac Brunson, where are you? Come on Jon Estes and the rest of you! Defend Mac Brunson from my "slander" of him, accusing him of something wrong, how I have my facts wrong. I really do want to hear your defense.
Is the best you have the Anon who says I have no "proof" that Mac was referring to Sheri Klouda? Is that our only defense?
Where are you Robert - what is your defense of Mac lying about one of his own former church members and sunday school teachers?
Is the defense "no one would know if you didn't put it on the blog?"
Or is the defense "what are your motives watchdog?"
Is Mac ever right. We have sin in the camp. His name is Mac Brunson.
I'll concede Jon Estes: two brothers need to go to Mac Brunson and confront him with his sin of lying. And if he won't repent, we need to bring him in front of the discipline committee.
Who will it be?
Half truths misrepresentations and whole lies:
Mac said that we are not going PURPOSE DRIVEN.
Mac said he could not turn down the music volume.
Mac said he was not going to do any of the PD growth program. He held the BASEBALL DIAMOND GET TOGETHER. WHICH WAS RIGHT OUT OF RICK WARREN'S WEB SITE.
We have SMALL GROUPS ALL OVER THE PLACE WHICH IS BIG TIME PURPOSE DRIVEN.
How many lies will we allow him to make before the Church takes action against him. The lawyers and judges on the BOARD OF TRUSTEES hear these lies. WHEN WILL THEY GO TO HIM. The deacons hear his lies. When will they lose respect and take action.
NOW THIS!
When???
How much longer?
Anon 1:38 - Mac didn't tell us that about Sheri teaching. He probably forgot that she was even a member of his church.
Mac's treatment of the facts of Sheri shows what a hypocrite and legalist he is. Let's just consider Mac's lie about Sheri Klouda from this standpoint:
His sermon Sunday (I use that singularly, as he stretched his one sermon to cover two services - I've never known a preacher to do that on a regular basis like Mac - one sermon with three points - give you two on Sunday am. and one on Sunday night) delivered the message: be kind and forgiving and understanding to the lost people in deep sin that we may win them to Christ...but deal harshly with those who profess to be Christians but show themselves not to be.
That was his theme. Love the non-Christians, but throw the dirty rotten scoundrel pseudo-Christians living un-Godly lives (like those suing other Christians) out of the church and don't even associate with them. Associate with non-Christians, but separate from the bad, not-really-Christian Christians.
Given his theme of the day, and the careless way he handled the truth regarding Sheri Klouda its apparent that he considers Sheri to be one of those troublemakers in the church that we should not associate with. Whatever one can say about Sheri and the lawsuit - one must consider this: she is a very solid Christian with high morals and character else she would never have been hired by SWBTS. She was conservative in her doctrine. Her only "sin" that got her removed from her position by PP is that she was a female teaching male seminary students. She wasn't a pastor, wasn't an ordained minister. She was a teacher. Of male students. Therefore she was wronged by Paige Patterson, and she believed she had scriptural grounds for taking the steps she did as she explained in her testimony (contrary to Mac's lie). Now one can disagree with her on bringing the lawsuit in light of 1 Cor 6, but a person's (like Mac's or PPs) disagreement with her on the lawsuit doesn't make her wrong and them right. Just read the blogosphere in the past couple of years on this issue and you'll see decent Christians have been on both sides of Sheri's lawsuit.
But Mac chose to put forth a lie that Sheri admitted she was wrong about the lawsuit, to prove that she was indeed wrong and was part of the "mess" in Christianity today.
No, Mac...YOU...YOU....are part of the mess in Christianity today. Preachers using out-of-town millionaire marketers to tell us how to reach people...lying in the pulpit...twisting scripture...treating God's people with disdain from the pulpit...accepting gifts from God's people to enrich yourself even more than you have through your salary and bennies...giving jobs to family...and on and on and on.
So no, Sheri Klouda is anything BUT the problem in Christianity today. She is part of the solution - a conservative theologian equipping ministers. It is preachers like Mac that ARE PRECISELY THE PROBLEM. Setting a poor example for other pastors that will only hurt Christianity in the next generation.
I used to say Mac's pastorship at FBC Jax was salvagable...that he needed to "come clean" and start being humble and open and honest with his congregation. I no longer believe that. This past Sunday showed me that he doesn't have it in him. And it is HE that should be disciplined by the church and if he doesn't repent he should be thrown out of the church.
I just have one question. Why in the world does FBC Jax put up with this?
Anon: Easy question to answer. Mac's behavior is tolerated by his hand-picked trustees because of one reason and one reason only: THE CASH KEEPS COMING IN.
This is why I have called for Christians at FBC Jax to stop giving their tithe to their church, and give it for the meantime to other legitimate Christian causes.
If the giving drops 10, 20, maybe 30%....that would get the attention of the trustees real quick.
But one thing for sure...if the money keeps coming in, nothing, and I mean NOTHING will be done. Mac will continue his careless ways.
Dog,
I have stated previously that my intent is not to come here and defend anyone, including Mac, but to question those things which are posted that are not being honestly presented.
Your inference that I defend Mac is incorrect. I don't think you meant to present such a falsehood, nor do I believe you intended to lie and say my intent has been to defend Mac.
I guess even you can get it wrong on occasion, right?
There may be hope:
The Board of Trustees are God Fearing men. They will tolerate this to a certain point then they will take action.
Just like the Elders at Maurilio's previous church tolerated their pastor just so long and removed him and Maurilio.
However do not try to remove the Pastor by suing him. The new bylaws prevent you from doing this.
The members waive their right to sue the pastor his staff or other members.
Splitting hairs, aren't you there Jon? I didn't say anything about your motives, just that you are one of the posters that tends to post messages that are supportive of Mac Brunson. I want to hear what you have to say about Mac's latest lie. Anyways, would there be something wrong with being a "supporter of Mac Brunson"? Maybe that would be slander, for someone to label you as a supporter of Mac?
Anon is correct. I've heard from several sources that one change in the bylaws was that member waive their rights to sue the church, that they instead agree to have any and all disputes settled by arbitration of the SBC.
So note to you parents with little ones: you might want to inquire with the pastor about his secret bylaw changes that will prevent you from suing the church for their negligence should your child be bodily harmed while at church, or God forbid there was some molester at the church who abused your child. By your membership you have waived your right to sue the church.
Somewhat relevant point in this discussion of the Klouda case, don't you think?
Why are women allowed to be ordained in the SBC, and Ms. Klouda was not allowed to teach? I know each church is autonomous, but it's still allowed in the SBC. I guess because they contribute to the cooperative program, right? Funny how money effects circumstances, isn't it.
Women can also be on a pulpit committee to choose a pastor. Wouldn't that be a contradiction? Wouldn't the pastor have to accept the conditions set out by the woman (woman ruling over a man pastor)in selecting him as the pastor and especially if she is a participant of the committee. Wouldn't he have to answer questions to her satisfaction in order to get her vote??
Time for a mid- course directional change
Friends,
In thinking thru the ongoing saga at First Jax and Bellevue (Memphis) and other Mega –churches, I offer you this Pastor’s perspective.
1. Blogging, is here to stay, this means of communicating provides a forum for legitimate concerns, and make no mistake about it…there are legitimate concerns being presented.
2. Blogging often leads to deeply critical, caustic and harmful criticism. Legitimate critics…often yes, but more often blog criticism deeply wounds the one being blogged about.
There is a better way. Take the high road; share legitimate concerns…the priority must be to follow Biblical instruction (Mathew 18) to privately to seek resolution. I believe most blogs exist because for whatever reason there is no freedom or forum to address concerns.
3. Bloggers, blog because conventional means of addressing concerns business meetings, one on one communication, open forums where legitimate issues can be discussed are often discouraged or non-existent in the majority of large churches.
4. Some mega church Pastors not all ( Dr. Adrian Roger’s comes to mind as an example of grace and warmth,) seem to carry an aura of superiority and entitlement that further creates a chasm between them and the people they are called to serve.
5. Servant leadership modeled by our Lord Jesus Christ must be the priority of ever Pastor in any church in any place!
6. Everything should be done with dignity and grace and Christian decorum. Pastors should lead like this, and God’s people should demand Christ-like leadership….and Pastors should expect to be loved and cared for and provided for by our Lord through His church.
7. Salaries should be appropriate, but not lavish. What is appropriate? That’s difficult to assess…but $150,000 for a Mega church pastor while a great deal of money to those who Pastors smaller churches (It takes a big man to Pastor a small church) seems to me to be more than adequate.
Final thought-
In listening to Dr. Brunson’s recent sermon where He references the young man who recently died, a young man the Brunson’s had mentored I heard a tenderness, and a warmth in His voice that ( For Me) showed a great heart, who can be greatly used in the days ahead.
Praying that we will all lay our hearts, attitudes, perceptions and concerns at the feet of Jesus…then after a time of soul-searching follow the direction of the Holy Spirit, who would want us to return to what really matters…loving each other, loving others….and most importantly loving the one who first loved us!
In His great love,
Dr. Mark
The bylaws state that anyone who causes strife in the church should be disciplined.
My question to the lawyers and judges is, does this apply to a pastor also?
If the following causes strife among the members should a pastor be disciplined?:
Questionable financial transactions with members of the church.
Telling another church that your church is a hotbed of legalism.
Causing the staff to leave, for whatever reason.
Hires a company who aids in the practice of causing strife.
Forces deacons and ushers to wear aprons for nine weeks.
From the pulpit misrepresent, tells half truths or plain outright lies.
If a pastor is guilty of these should the pastor be disciplined or should he leave?
For clarification to our out of town readers on Anon's comment:
"Forces deacons and ushers to wear aprons for nine weeks. "
I think it was just the ushers, but one of Mac's first sermon series that he did, after he signed the deed for teh $307k land deal and got the construction contract inked....was a sermon series called "Fresh" on the fruits of the spirit...you can see the "Fresh" on Maurilio's Agroup Website...thank God Maurilio was able to come up with that title to the series and the incredible artwork. Sorry, I digress.
But the aprons was a bright idea of either Deb or Maurilio that since we were talking about "fruits" of the Spirit, that the choir should all wear "fruity" (as in feminine) pastel colors and not those traditional old-fashioned robes. And the ushers all had to wear full length aprons as though they were fruit vendors.
Some of our ushers are, well shall we say, a bit "round"...and I still am going through therapy to erase from my mind the images of some of the deacons with these white aprons stretched as tight as a drum over their large, protruding stomachs. Praise God I never saw Mac wearing one of those aprons...but the image of Mac's belly in a tee-shirt with the Jacksonville Suns Uniform unbuttoned half way down has caused me major problems in going to Suns' games...I just can't go without bringing that image back to my mind.
Just trying to lighten things up a bit... :)
You have got to be kidding.
I wonder what Mrs. Brunson thinks about Sheri Klouda being deemed unfit to teach as a professor at SWBTS because of her gender?
gee, kidding or half truth and lies. Calling the kettle black? I know, the blog can hardly be compared to the pulpit and anon or WD comments to that of a Pastor, but these last couple of posts were full of exaggerations, errors, half truths conjecture, and personal opinion and not entirely true, all for the purpose of getting our attention, making a point or just getting a laugh. We all do it from time to time, but really? Example; It wasn’t nine weeks, they weren’t full length (indicating to the floor) and just because you are too insecure about your manhood, I wouldn’t say that the pastel colors exhibited femininity anymore than the aprons did. As usual, some of you have difficulty grasping "object lessons".
Again, don’t freak out, the Pastor in a pulpit must succumb to a higher standard than a blogger, but can you see my point, even a little?
Gotta love it!
Instead of discussing the very serious issues of the pastor lying in the pulpit about one of his former church members who suffered a great injustice at the hands of Paige Patterson, or about Mac lying about historical facts, you want to talk about whether the aprons were full length!! That is just precious!
you opened the door.
gotta go, see ya at church:)
Hey Anon - can you help some of us liars and slanderers...and give us an example, just one, of each of what you are saying are:
"exaggerations, errors, half truths, conjecture, and personal opinion"
Thanks buddy.
Injustice? Have you read the court transcripts? I didn’t think so. All you have is "he said, she said" from several points of view. But unless you have the actual transcripts (or read them) or you were there personally, you’re guessing and assuming! So now you are going after Dr. Patterson, man God must have really taken a long nap and missed all of this. Glad to know He has you to take care of all of these things for Him. Next time you are doing a little Bible research, try looking up the word SOVEREIGN.
ps. I love how you change issues when bloggers grow tired of the Important Issues that you must share. when your replies stop coming in, you find something else to complain about, but if people continue to reply, then you stay on that "soap box". ex. great points about childrens Baptism and one of your posters asked some very important questions that you could have taken the time to research and answer, but alas, it wasnt juicy enough and didnt drag anyone through the muck.
your kidding right? there are all through your recent post as well as old ones, you (WD) and many of your bloggers are so deep in it, its not even funny anymore. You all constantly mix your facts with opinions and heresay. Please, get real. Stick to the facts or at least seperate your facts from fiction as you ask your Pastor to do.
Anon 5:45
It was nine weeks! Initially it was going to be thirteen weeks. Many of the deacons down front did not wear aprons.
Have you ever in your life seen a deacon wear an apron in church?
Anon:
Step 1: Pull head out of...sand
Step 2: Wash eyes
Step 3: Remove sand from ears
And please, lay off the Kool Aid.
Court Transcripts?
No, those are about as hard to get my hands on as Mac's secret by laws.
Is there anyway to hear the sermon Mac preached on Sunday? I tried the church website and cannot find it. The boy he was talking about on Sunday was buried today at FBC Dallas. There was a video sermon from Mac. It was excellent. He was really moving and good. My only concern is that this boy was refered to by many as Will's best friend. In the video, Mac tells how much this boy lived at his house, traveled with them etc. How they went to his wrestling matches. His mother was a widow so I was glad Mac connected. My concern is what in the world if they were so close kept Mac from attending the funeral? He travels all over at the blink of an eye and cannot go to a funeral of a boy that he himself loved as a son? The video was excellent but I just wondered what was going on the kept him and Wills away.
Anon: You can hear Mac's sermon at his 501(c)3 website:
www.inlight.org
How was Smyrl's sermon tonight?
Fresh:
When Mac came here he came bent on makeing FBCJ a PURPOSE DRIVEN CHURCH.
The series on Fresh was right out of Rick Warren's PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE book. Mac linked the FRESH SERIES with bringing in all of the BIBLE TRANSLATIONS.
Both Brunson and Warren said that the different translations were use TO AVOID MISSING NUANCES AND SHADES OF MEANING. ALSO, THEY SAID IT WAS USED TO"SEE GOD'S TRUTH IN NEW AND FRESH WAYS".
My opinion, all of these different translations are nothing but PARAPHRASES.
The Southern Baptist Convention, since joining hands with THE PURPOSE DRIVEN movement has seen BAPTISMS DECLINE, AND A HUGE LOSS OF MEMBERS.
It is so bad that at the CONVENTION this year the preachers were encouraged to go out and try to bring back some of it's DEPARTED MEMBERS.
Those departed members were called, by Rick Warren," BLESSED SUBTRACTION".
SO YOU WANT TO BE PURPOSE DRIVEN?
WWW.sacredsandwich.com/warren_scripture.htm
WD - your analysis of Mac's advocating associating with non-Christians while throwing "troubled" believers under the bus sparked something in my mind. Isn't this the same approach John McCain uses -- reaching "across the aisle" to "get things done", but distancing himself from members of his own party any time any one of them says something that might not be the most popular opinion? (See, most recently, Phil Gramm or Mitt Romney.)
Just an interesting similarity I noticed. Robert, I know you are a political junkie like myself -- any thoughts on this? Or are you drinking the McCain kool-aid too...
12:39 AM: Talk about Kool Aid!!! Anyone listening to the Purpose Driven Drivel at church is drinking Kool Aid. And they call it preaching from God!!! Please don't blame God with this stuff. And as to being a political "junkie", I would say you are full of political "junk" if you don't like McCain. (I know what a political junkie is, just for the record).
and people tell us to 'go talk to the pastor to get answers to your questions'
Why would I do that when he lies right to the face of thousands of people how could I believe he is going to tell me the truth in his office? A guy who lies at his pulpit will lie in his office.
Just an observation concerning the Klouda case. If she is denied to teach shouldn't all those men that she taught have to retake those courses? Otherwise, when they make statements that they learned from her WOULDN'T THAT BE WRONG? I suspect that her "gift of teaching" was taken away from her.Mrs. Klouda was not teaching religion or any theology based course, in a church. She was teaching language in a seminary-college level setting. Many women teach men in colleges. The president of my own college was a woman.
Odd, that the former president and trustees thought she was perfectly fit to teach Hebrew and Aramaic when she was hired and placed on staff!!!Why didn't they see a problem then?
Some of my best teachers were women. I cannot believe anyone teaching at a university (any of them) would desire to remove her on "pastoral authority". Isn't it strange that Paul accepted Timothy just the way he was grounded and perfected in the faith taught to him by LOIS AND EUNICE????
If a pastors wife on staff of a church, gives any orders or directions to men on the staff or ushers & deacons regarding any matter of the church, would she be violating the same principal as Ms. Klouda was accused of?
An interesting angle...
There are credible reports that our church has modified the bylaws of the church to read that all members agree not to file a lawsuit against that the church and agree to have disputes settled by arbitration or with some kind of committee within the church or the SBC. These may have been part of the changes in the December 2007 vote to change the bylaws which were never explained by the pastor, and were not widely disseminated to the members.
I'll admit to all you "WD accountability seekers"...that this an assumption, not putting it out as "TRUTH"...but its all we have at this point. No copy of the bylaws. And I won't ask the pastor what is in the bylaws or what his interpretation of the bylaws or their impact on me, because I wouldn't believe him if he told me - he doesn't handle the truth very well. I won't have lunch either with anyone...I want to see the bylaws, and I want the membership to have open access to them.
One of the possible ramifications of this bylaw change would be how it impacts a members ability to sue the church should their child be harmed at camp due to the full or partial negligence of FBC Jax. Would this mean if my child is harmed while at summer camp at the negligence of the church, I have forfeited my legal right to sue the church?
I can hear the chorus from Mac and his band of merry lay leaders dancing in unison in their "Fresh" aprons: "Oh Mr. Recalcitant, not at all, this has to do with just disputes within the church, and why would you want to sue your church anyways? If you'd open your Bible and read 1 Cor 6....." and you know the rest of the story. I wouldn't believe them. I WOULD believe my attorney if I had a copy of the bylaws and he interpreted them for me. But I do not have a copy of the new and improved bylaws.
Bottom line:
I believe that if any FBC Jax parent is sending their child to camp, unless the church decides to allow free and open examination of the bylaws parents should reserve their legal right to sue the church should he/she be harmed through the negligence of FBC Jax.
How should we do this?
Its so easy.
Email the church's pastor, and John Blount, Jr. asking that your membership be ended. Revoke and renounce your membership. Be sure to state it as total revokation of membership and all the privileges that it affords you.
Drastic? Ridiculous? Well, which is more drastic and ridiculous - the church leadership possibly revoking your legal right to seek damages from a church that has harmed you or your children (churches have never harmed children have they??) WITHOUT CLEARLY TELLING YOU, or you in return revoking your membership to protect your family's rights?
If the church leadership is going to play so loosely with the "rules" as to propose MAJOR by law changes and not explain their ramifications to the members, then we must in turn we wise as serpents as well...and do what is in the best interests of our children.
Make sure that you are NOT a member of FBC Jax if your kid goes to summer camp.
If you want to join again, walk the aisle in August after camp...I'm sure our church can use the numbers.
Would not this case of Ms. Klouda and the action taken by Patterson and the seminary smack of LEGALISM? The school had no problem placing her on staff and allowing her to teach for 6 years, approaching tenure. Why at this point (approaching tenure) did they suddenly have a problem? Are they saying it took them 6 years to suddenly "realize" that she should not teach men? I suggest other reasons such as tenure was the impetus of this gross injustice.
What if someone will only share the bylaws with you through a lunch meeting? Will you go to lunch with them then?
Great idea Robert.
You scan them, email them to me, and I'll eat my ham and cheese while I read them, then we can blog back and forth here about them.
Send them to
fbcjaxwatchdog@gmail.com
I'm waiting!
Keep in mind: if you send them to me, they will be on the blog for everyone to read faster than you can say "Let me tell you something".
I don't have a copy of the Bylaws, nor do I want one. I trust my church and the leadership in the church.
What if someone does not have a computer or a library card? Then they cannot fax a copy to you.
As for the Anon who asked about political analogies....the only thing I can come up with is that Watchdog tends to be flip flop back and forth on issues like Kerry did back in '04.
If anyone now joins FBCJ, they are ruled and governed by a set of by-laws they have never seen, and most likely do not know exist. Should they not be presented at the time they join a set of by-laws and have them explained to them. Then ask the new member if they want to be goverened by same by-laws? Not to tell a new member about the rules they are governed by, is misrepresentation of the church. How can someone agree and accept "terms" they are not aware of. I don't think this would hold up in court. At the very least it is "sneeky" on behalf of the leadership. You have a great portion of membership now that do not know the "terms" of their membership.
The civil law says one is not excused because of ignorance of the (civil) law. This does not hold true for a church that doesn't inform anyone of the content of by-laws they are under.
I do not believe FBCJ by-laws supersede the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Each citizen is "guaranteed" equal protection under the law.
Robert - anonymous. Anonymous. Do yourself a huge favor, stay anonymous.
Agree with anon 10:27 -- if no notice of the bylaws is given to members, they cannot be held to abide by them if they wish to sue. Mac can waive them all he wants as a defense to a suit, but that will get him nowhere.
I once esteemed ministers of the faith, preachers, God's man. I was confident they would certainly live up to what they preached. Surely, they would not dare preach something to their congregants that they did not do themselves. Certainly they were above pettiness. And would never manipulate facts or circumstances for their own edification or gain.
Surely, a preacher would never use the church as a stepping stone to personal wealth, or play "church politics", giving favor to the rich and elite over the average member that can only do him the honor of praying for him. Surely, there are not "preachers" like that. And surely, they would always be TRUTHFUL.
Well, you learn something everyday!!
To be fair, there are still some very Godly men serving the Lord, and their fellow man somewhere.
Most of these men are unknown. They don't "blow" their own horn. They make little money. But the Lord knows who they are, and their crowns await them in heaven!!!!
God bless you "real" preachers!!! Well done good and faithful servants.
By the way I have known and been blessed by some "real" preachers.
Anonymous: July 17, 2008 10:27 AM said:
"The civil law says one is not excused because of ignorance of the (civil) law. This does not hold true for a church that doesn't inform anyone of the content of by-laws they are under.
I do not believe FBCJ by-laws supersede the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Each citizen is "guaranteed" equal protection under the law."
July 17, 2008 10:27 AM
Ask Sheri Klouda if this worked for her?
The by-laws are not binding on the members of the congregation in the real world. Period. If you are injured in any way at the church or by the church, those by-law limitations are worthless in a court of law. However, they are useful in trying to persuade or intimidate a poor helpless gullible sheep into believing he cannot sue for reimbursement of his losses suffered at the hands of a negligent church staff or leader. No court would hold anyone to some terms in a document they never read, never agreed to, and never signed. Period. No more need to waste time discussing that.
Watchdog Said:
Its so easy.
Email the church's pastor, and John Blount, Jr. asking that your membership be ended. Revoke and renounce your membership. Be sure to state it as total revokation of membership and all the privileges that it affords you.
Great Idea W.D. Lead the Way!
Note to Mac Brunson: If you're going to lie about someone, lie about a person or case that's not immediately able to be checked. This Klouda case may be the biggest event in the past five years in the SBC.
You need to lie like Paige Patterson: he said he got such information from students but NEVER wrote any of it down, so of course it can't be checked (unless some graduates want to see their preaching jobs disintegrate.)
Then Patterson lies about a job offer, but it is not written down anywhere, so of course it casnnot be checked either.
THAT's how good liars lie, Brunson. Maybe you should start attending the IMB board meetings to pick up some pointers.
I'm sleeping real good these nights, Mr. Brunson. How're you sleeping?
Welcome from Hoptown, Ky.
Steve
I WILL REITERATE:
Rick Warren of the PURPOSE DRIVEN MOVEMENT, has twisted scripture so much it has become normal for anyone in that movement to do likewise. Once you start telling half lies, it becomes easy to tell whole lies.
When you have compromised once it is easy to continue to compromise. It goes on and on and on.
First individual scriptures, then the intire word of God. Advocates of the many paraphase bibles say they believe in the inerrancy of the scripture but they have trouble with the authority of the bible. They can not even tell you which one is God's Word. Many do not even believe it is God breathed Word.
More compromise; they want to be in the world but not of the world but they bring the world into the Church. (small groups, rock bands, contemporary services, pentecostal music).
And you wonder that they can not tell the TRUTH FROM A LIE!!!
We could use a lot of scripture to prove a point but we all know the scripture.
We need to recognize who is behind all of this. It isn't Mac, It is't this Blog. IS IT?
What we need to do is get back to what has always worked and get on with serving the Lord.
Dr Vines once said " If it is true it ain't new, and if it is new it ain't true."
GOT IT???
anon 9:31 stated: Dr Vines once said " If it is true it ain't new, and if it is new it ain't true."
Since you use in your same post the idea of bringing contemporary stuff into the church and portray it as wrong how do you justify the things brought into the as we moved away from the primitive baptists. Things like: backs on our pews, pianos, updated songs, even pew fans (something considered by the primitive baptists as removing the suffering - and suffering is something they saw as good and the fans removed that).
Change will come and the bottom line ought not to be the difference in the presentation but the biblical foundation upon which all is being done.
Can we be biblical and use a rock band? I think so. Can we have contemporary services and honor God? Absolutely. Can we do the things of old like we are use to and still not worship correctly? You bet.
Making an argument over style says a lot about our willingness to not reach a lost world, except on our traditional terms.
You may not realize it but my generation does not want to do church like grandma, all dressed up in our 1950's style. If you remain there you will lose the next generation. I don't think that is what you want but be honest with reality. The upcoming generation is not as interested in doing church as we are in being the church.
Out with the old in with the NEW. So lets see whats needed in the church today:
1. Rock Band
2. Contemporary service
3. No more grandma stuff
Well, I got news for you. You just keep bringing that new stuff into the church and you won't have a church...you will have a NIGHT CLUB. Before long you will have a bar serving beer and wine. Next, you want even open a BIBLE. Once you start down that slippery slope you won't be able to stop it.
No I'm for that Old Time Religion. I'll take the piano, the fan (that went out with air conditioning, and some old hymns that bring one closer to the Lord. Rock Bands are loud and do not, I repeat do nothing to bring glory and honor to Jesus Christ. You have by your own admission decided that the ways of the past are old fashioned and do not work. Kinda like Dr Spock's theory in not spanking a child. Guess what that got us??
Its a shame you were not around 50-100 years ago like a lot of us older folk. It worked then and will continue to work if the pastors have any backbone. Try this for 50 years and then see a lot of former church buildings no longer doing church but selling antiques or converted into museums or torn down for the construction of new buildings.
The bible declares that there is nothing new under the Sun. Stay faithful and forget bringing the world style into a church that is to be effective in winning souls. You can fill Alltel stadium every night with a good act but the entertainment dies off real fast.
A strong sermon on a burning hell, a resurrected Christ will last forever. What are you attempting to satisfy the body or the spirit? Take your choice. Obviously a lot of these younger people also want watered down gospel. You know one must be modern and up to date. Don't upset anyone we just want to have fun and enjoy each others company.
Hybels has already admitted that the way they did it was wrong. So much for PD. It did not work and will not ever work.
The road to HELL is paved with many a good intention.
You forget one important fact. God gives all men a measure of faith. If they hear from the Holy Spirit that they need Jesus Christ they will come to Him and they won't be stirred by a rock and roll show or a comptemporary service. How many souls were led to Christ by the Beatles, Elvis, or Madonna?
Maybe you have not read about the coming of the END. Its called the end of days, last days, etc. We are in the Laodicean church age. Niether hot nor cold..just lukewarn.And why we are at it lets just get rid of that "ole" bible. After all grandma read that.
I Cor:l4:vs 33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
anon,
I am not knocking how you worship and believe you enjoy the way you were taught and how the Spirit leads but I don't think, even you would limit the working of the Holy Spirit to worship in only a manner you find acceptable.
I have served overseas as a missionary and know through first hand experience that many people of different cultures worship God in Spirit and Truth and never have experienced the things you mention, such as the "old time religion". Do you believe God is mocked when people in the villages along the Amazon worship God with drums, dance and high energy type styles? I don't.
How quickly we forget God is not a white, American born, grit eating southern God who despises those not like us. Of course I guess there are some who would like for Him to be.
Post a Comment