"...When He [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." Matt 9:36

"Do not rob the poor, because he is poor... for the Lord will take up their case and plunder those who plunder them." Proverbs 22:22-23

Saturday, January 31, 2009

By-Law Changes Part 3: Minimizing Pastoral Accountability

Here the Watchdog is continuing his articles describing and analyzing the FBC Jax by-law changes that were voted on and approved November 28, 2007. These articles would not even be necessary if the church leadership had been open and honest with the congregation - if they had AT LEAST explained the nature and purpose of the changes - prior to asking the congregation to vote. Perhaps these changes were necessary - maybe there were valid reasons for them - but if so, one would think at least the pastor and trustees would have enough integrity, enough respect for the congregation, to stand and explain them prior to a vote.

In this article on the by-law changes of November 2007, we will look at how the Pastor has ensured that his accountability to the general laity, the congregation as a whole, has been greatly minimized.

Two changes made in the November 2007 by-laws that minimized pastoral accountability to the congregation:

No Congregation-Called Special Business Meetings

In the by-laws that were approved in 2000 under Dr. Jerry Vines, there was a provision allowing the congregation to call a special business meeting. A special business meeting could be called by a written request of not less than 1500 members. These kinds of clauses allowing the church body to call business meetings are very common - they often are expressed in terms of a percentage of members required to call the meeting. They are put in by-laws as a check to power - that the pastor knows his congregation could, if they desired, call a meeting to address concerns they have even if such a meeting is NOT desired by the leadership. This clause was never exercised at FBC Jax, but its mere presence in the bylaws has a valid function - it serves as a reminder to the pastor: you ARE accountable to the people who pay your salary, and they DO have the right to call a meeting to discuss your misdeeds.

Along with removal of this provision, one was added stating the only way a special business meeting is called is by the pastor, or by 3/4 vote of the Trustees. That is it. No other way. Not even the deacons can call a special business meeting. And of course, the Pastor selects the Trustees. If the Pastor has just 1/2 of the Trustees on his side, a special business meeting can't be held. Not a problem under most circumstances - but if the pastor is abusing power and the congregation seeks to hold him accountable in a business meeting or to even hold a vote of confidence, it CANNOT be done without the Pastor's trustees overwhelmingly approving it. The new bylaws also were modified to say that the pastor's services can be terminated only in a special business meeting - which of course would have to be called by the pastor himself or 3/4 of his trustees.

Valid reason for those changes? Maybe, but a reasonable person would conclude that such changes should be explained to the congregation.

Church Discipline as It Relates to the Pastor

One of the most significant changes to the by-laws was how church discipline is carried out. In the previous by-laws, there was no distinction between how discipline was to be carried out by different positions in the church - that is there were just "members" - and all "members" are to bring about reconciliation in accordance with Matthew 5:23-24 and 18:15-16. Any "member" who is accused of wrongdoing worthy of discipline would be investigated by the Deacons. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that all "members" are equal in this case - whether it be senior pastor, associate pastor, secretary, or layman - all must seek scripture reconciliation followed by Deacon investigation and report to the church. All persons including the pastor could be investigated and subjected to church discipline by the deacons.

Not so any more.

In the new bylaws, there are two distinct processes defined for church discipline: one for the pastor and other clergy, and one for everybody else. If a member has a grievance against the pastor he/she must seek reconciliation through Matthew 18, and still if no resolution is reached, and the church agrees, mediation with the Florida Baptist Convention will be used. Sounds reasonable, but the end result is this: the pastor is not accountable to any lay body for misdeeds he may commit! Its the offended party seeking reconciliation, and then arbitration with an outside body IF the church approves it. That sort of process would have worked great for Bob Gray, wouldn't it?

Contrast that process with how accusations against a member are handled. There is a a Discipline Committee process that is used, and this process by definition exempts the pastor. It exempts the pastor because the first step of the discipline process as defined in the bylaws is for the the Discipline Committee to meet with the pastor to determine if the accusation rises to the level of scriptural church discipline!

This church discipline process does call for the accused to be "offered" an opportunity to meet with the deacons regarding the accusations. However the Watchdog would point out that there is no mention whatsoever that those accused can be FORCED to meet with the deacons as a condition of continued attendance, or that trespass warnings will be issued until such time the party agrees to meet with the deacons. So one wonders on what authority that trespass warnings were issued to the two accused members last November, and that attendance at a meeting with a Discipline Committee was a condition for their continued access to church functions.

One other smaller point: the old by-laws specified a quorum of 2000 members to conduct church business. This number was reduced to 1000 in the new by-laws. However, it is quite a stretch to say that there were 2000 members present to vote on the bylaw changes during the Wednesday night service of November 28, 2007...so likely the bylaw changes are not even valid if there was a challenge brought forth.

So those are the two bylaw changes that served to move power from the congregation to the Pastor and Trustees, and to minimize accountability of the Pastor to the congregation. No doubt the men who oversaw these bylaw changes have good explanations for them - its just a shame that more respect wasn't shown to the lay people by having these changes humbly explained by their pastor prior to the vote.

Another example, the Watchdog believes, of the general contempt that our church leadership has for the lay people. We just aren't discerning enough, we aren't intelligent enough - or as Jim Smyrl says we haven't been trained in "critical thinking" - to understand the reasons for significant bylaw changes. We just can't handle the truth.

So the Watchdog is more than happy to help explain these changes here, and welcomes any additional comments or clarifications regarding the bylaw changes and their nature or purpose.

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to Mac. Upon his selection as pastor, he quickly seized power, as does any despot, taking it from the people. By a vote of the people (which is an irony), the congregation ceded its authority to the pastor. The by-law change essentially centralizes decision making, transferring it from the people to the leader and his hand-picked advisors. But it needs to be noted that the distinction of Baptists, as well as other free churches throughout church history, has been the decentralization of authority. Without carefully thinking through the ramifications, the church by vote of its congregation is no longer a Baptist church with regards to its church polity. As with the Roman Catholic Church, FBC of JAX has established a magisterium (trustees) and Pope (pastor). Don't feel badly. FBC of JAX is merely following the growing trend in Baptist life. The trajectory for Baptists in the past decade is a movement towards hierarchial governance. Why? Because it works! Granted, local church autonomy is clumsy and time consuming. The corporate world has demonstrated that the consolidation of decision-making is an excellent business model. The pastor as President and CEO and his Board of Directors can get things done much more quickly (particulary if the President selects his Board). And so, it works. New ministries (products) can be developed, funds can be allocated, staff can be hired or terminated, etc., without the hassle of taking matters to the church for discussion, critical examination, prayer and vote. It's far more efficient to transfer these aspects of decision-making to the top level of the corporation. Once decisions are made at the executive level, the congregation or shareholders can affirm and endorse the decisions, provided the voting process is essentially "rubber-stamping" decisions that are already made and in some instances already implemented.

The arguments for the centralizing of authority are compelling as a business plan. So, again, congratulations, Mac. You win. You have with minimal bloodshed staged an effective coup. You are now in charge. The people should be euphoric if FBC of Jax were a business and not one of those autonomous local churches that Baptist martyrs gave their lives to defend in the face of a catholic (little "c") church that was intent on eradicating those who threatened their authority.

To be honest, the President and Board should rename First Baptist Church of Jacksonville as First Church of Jacksonville, Inc. Just a thought.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

One must also wonder why Mac was blasting the deacons if they are so powerless after the bylaw changes! Why would he comment about "worrying" deacons that they should "not be put on the deacon board" since they "don't trust Jesus". And why after the most recent ordination service did he scream that they are not "businessmen"? Who said they were that would cause him to lash out like he did? The deacons have no power or authority in the church now - they had very little BEFORE the bylaw changes, now they have none.

Thy Peace said...

Anon 11:50am:

Well said.

This whole aspect of bylaws changes without proper informing and debate of the church is a sad state of affairs. It reflects the true nature of the current leadership.

All to overcome inefficiencies of democratic church governance and other hidden factors. What a waste!

The sad thing is, Pastor Mac is such a gifted speaker. With little patience and education of the members, he could have done this the right way.

It was all done underhanded. Just meeting the bare minimum of public display and notification of bylaws changes.

The lawyers who took part in this endeavor should be ashamed too.

Anonymous said...

First Church of Jacksonville, Inc. is the full name of the corporation.

Anonymous said...

Go to sunbiz.org and on the left click document search, then click inquire by name and put this for the name : First Jacksonville Foundation Inc
then when the details page loads scroll down to the link for "name change" 3/19/2008 and click to view the image in pdf format.

You will see that the name was changed for the foundation and on page 5 the box is checked to indicate that no members are entitled to vote on the name change.

Look and Live inc is still listed as active if you search that name at the sunbiz site.

Where is Inlight Ministries to be found?

Weren't we told the name change from Look and Live to Inlight was merely a formality?

Anonymous said...

This church has been handed over and taken over totally by special interest. We have the selection committee, Dr. Vines who wanted Brunson to take over, and the current trustees, to thank for this. It certainly does make one look back and see what great preachers the Lindsays were. They "took care" of this church. They "did no harm" during their ministries. Both of these men could eaisly have taken advantage of the church, as they were so trusted and loved by the people. But it was not their desire to do this. They had their eyes on Jesus and on leading as many as possible to salvation through Jesus. They just preached the Bible. God blessed them and in turn blessed us. One thing we see more than ever, is the integrity of these two men. It just points out how great they really were, and above all how sold out to Jesus they were. Sadly, it appears those days are over.

Anonymous said...

MAKE OVER

SO WHY WORRY OVER A FEW BYLAW CHANGES?

Don't you know that TRADITIONAL churches don't work anymore? We just need BIG churches; like Joel O and Rick W. Big money is the most important criteria for a successful church. It is a numbers game nowadays. So who cares if there are a few bylaw changes as long as the corporation can grow? [After all did God really grow those old TRADITIONAL CHURCHES?]

With the bylaw changes, with complete control, Mac and all of the other NEW PARADIGM churches can bring in all kinds of people. Well,who will come to these NEW PARADIGM churches and what are the characteristics of a NEW PARADIGM church?
You are a NEW PARADIGM church if you have:

small groups
rock band
seeker friendly
contemporary service.

And who will come to these churches?:

pentecostals
liberals
secular humanists
TPF-[THEOLOGY OF PERSONAL FULFILLMENT] seekers

Oh, some will be saved in all of this but you will have a new core structure of mostly lost people in the church. Instead of church MEMBERS you will have church ATTENDEES. You will have people come to your church because they are ATTRACTED to the church rather than DRAWN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Part of this CHANGE OVER will be a name change. FBC JAX IS NOW FIRST baptist Jacksonville. Actually, they are no longer BAPTIST. They are becoming more nondenominational.

Hey!!! But so are many of the other SBC CHURCHES.

What a shame!!!

SO WHAT OF A FEW BYLAW CHANGES?

Let me be careful here, I could be completely wrong in all of this. The Holy Spirit could be making these changes because some of the old TRADITIONAL churches are no longer SPIRIT LED. They may be dead as a door nail. But make no mistake Saints, there are major changes taking place on PLANET EARTH. We better make sure that we stay VERY CLOSE TO THE LORD.

Anonymous said...

Well, since I am not so sure about all of this, I think I will just scrutinize the pastor's life a little bit to get my own answer. What kind of man, personally, is he? Does he live a life of a servant? Has he sacrificed and suffered due to following Christ like the disciples? Since I don't know him, I can only look at his actions. They speak louder than words, right? Let's see: accepted a $307K land gift, put wife and son on staff, took prime children's building space for luxury office suites for himself, drives expensive cars, lives in million dollar home, travels the globe in luxury, uses church funds to promote his brand, does not live what he wrote in the pastor's guidebook, criticizes anyone who questions him, consolidates power in himself, hires a church marketing firm, sells "recognition" from the pulpit for cash, plays a video promoting a private business in the church service. Now, I need to weigh all of that against what others are saying. Hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:18

Mac Brunson stands on his track record. We know him for what he does. Let me add one more thing. He appears more concerned about church growth that CHURCH MEMBERS. Didn't I read here that FBC JAX has cut back on funding church programs and has increased funds for advertising? Was it $ 1,500,000 that was given to advertise the church growth programs?

How many people were saved last year? How many church members were trained to be soul winners? How many people were washed in THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB. How many were JUSTIFIED? How many are filled with the Holy Spirit at FBC JAX?

In short, are you getting your monies worth out of MAC BRUNSON? If Mac is not preaching the gospel, what good is he? Who cares how big FBC JAX gets if souls are not being saved.

Can anyone tell us how many people were saved last year? I don't mean how many professions of faith, I mean how many were actually saved at FBC JAX ?

" Let me tell you something, listen to me" all of that means nothing if souls are not saved.

Anon your list of what Mac Brunson does is long. The question for FBC JAX is how long will that list get before its Deacons wise up and does something about it?

Anonymous said...

We love fbc jax, but I am not sure how much longer we can stay under the negative, dark, sarcastic preaching of Dr. Mac Brunson. One need not be sarcastic, and dark, and angry to warn people about sin and modern, new age thinking. Dr. Brunson is consumed with the idea that his congregation are spiritual morons.

Today the sermon has just one point, that Jesus can enter our dark periods of life. He did tell us that all tragedies are not the result of sin. That was it. That was the point. The rest was an accumulation of attacking Oprah, Dr. Phil, Katie Couric, Depac Chopra, Darwin, John Travolta, Tom Cruise, Cosmopolitan Magazine and other 'new agers'. The preacher again declares that 'vast numbers' of us at fbc jax have bought into the idea which says Jesus is not the only way to heaven.

He is so consumed with telling us what NOT to believe - who not to listen to - what not to watch - what not to read - he doesn't have time to explain scripture. I wish he would preach the scripture verse by verse and feed us the sheep. He explained the false teaching of infant or embryo sin, transmigration, and something about 'iso-Jesus'. Told us that there was some author (I don't remember his name) that we shouldn't read because his teachings are "outta hell" and we dare not touch them.

He twice anrily tells us to get our bibles and a pen and paper and write down the points to his excellent sermon.

It is all getting to be too much.

Anonymous said...

WD - tonight Mac told us that the bible is 99.9% accurate. He said the parts that aren't accurate don't matter.

I thought that was interesting since I never heard a preacher put a percentage on how much of the bible is accurate.

So the bible is 0.1% inaccurate.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

If he really did say that (I'd have to hear it to believe it), I'm sure he will be able to point out to us the 0.1% that is not accurate.

I assumed that Mac thought that the Bible was 100% true and accurate.

Maybe he believes only the original manuscripts are really the Word of God, and thus one must be trained in Greek and Hebrew in order to truly be reading the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:00,
Mac said that the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts that we have are in 99.9% agreement with each other and that the 0.1% that the variant texts differ on are on things that are not significant issues. He said therefore the Bibles we hold in our hands are at least 99.9% is consistent with original texts (ie accurate). What he said is reasonable...

Anonymous said...

That might be what he meant, but not what he said.

I jotted it down. We can listen to it maybe when they post it on podcast.

I believe this is what he said: "no matter what version of the bible you hold in your hand it is 99.9% accurate of what we know to be the word of god."

So I guess all versions are equal to Mac. NIV, KJV, NASB, Living Bible, all of them. I interpreted what he meant is that no matter which version I have it does have minor inaccuracies as compared to the true word of god, which are the manuscripts.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:04,
You might be correct I can't recall the quote. My understanding is that there are several original manuscripts for some portions of the Bible but for other there may only be a few manuscripts and maybe even one for some portions of scripture. It follows that the Bible versions differ some for alot of reasons but one reason being they each use different manuscript versions which is why some Bibles (eg NASB, KJV, etc) differ on a few words here and there. What Mac 'meant' in my opinion is that our Bibles are at least 99.9% accurate but that we will never know which translation (KJV, NASB, etc) is accurate because it is possible that the 0.1% difference in the manuscript may or may not be the accurate portion. In other words, it is possible that where most of the manuscripts agree and where one manuscript disagrees it is possible that the one that disagrees is correct.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again another outright Lie! Mac knows quite well that there are many differences between NIV, NEW ENGLISH, NASV, AND NOW THE NEWEST [BROADMAN BIBLE]. ANYONE WHO HAS HALF A BRAIN KNOWS THIS TO BE TRUE.

Why do you think that we have so many bibles in the first place? Every Tom Dick and Harry [Doctor of Theology] has changes that he wants to make in the bible. None of those self infatuated guys are satisfied with the bible.

And by the way there are over 5000 changes from the KJV TO THESE OTHER VERSIONS.

Mac Brunson even said we should look at all of these different version to get a TRUE MEANING OF WHAT GOD'S WORD REALLY MEANS.

Rick Warren referenced most of them in his Purpose Driven Life book. He didn't even know which bible was God's Word. And, if all of these bibles agree within 99.9% of each other why did he have to reference all of these different bibles and paraphrases?

All of these new translations came from as few as 10 extant sources. While the KJV CAME FROM THE MOST WIDELY USED SOURCES IN THE WORLD.

Just because the 10 sources were the earliest written {prior to 500 AD] THESE GUYS THINK THEY WERE CLOSEST TO THE TIME OF CHRIST AND THEREFORE ARE THE MOST ACCURATE.

So you have to believe that God kept his word hid from us for over a thousand year. GIVE ME A BREAK!! I told you before, Mac Brunson does not know which bible is God's Word. You can't believe him.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:41,

Where does God authorize the KJV as the closest to the original manuscripts? He doesn't.

Since God doesn't authorize the KJV it is possible that one or more of the 10 external sources that are older than the KJV manuscripts be correct.

I like the KJV but inform me where God himself has said that the manuscripts that formed it are the perfect ones...why can't some of the older ones (manuscripts) be accurate?

God didn't keep His word hidden from folks for 1000 years... they were using the manuscripts of the day....and some folks probably had access to the 'older transcripts' before 1600 (the KJV) and used those because they obviously they existed and someone had them. In other words, just because the older manuscripts weren't available when the KJV was put together it doesn't mean that they were not being used between 0 AD and some time before 1600.

Anonymous said...

There are 823,156 words in the KJV bible. That means there are, according to Brunson, 8,231 words that are wrong in the bible. Which words would that be Mac?

The NIV leaves the BLOOD OUT quite often. Maybe we are not redeemed by the blood! You get the point?

The Devil has these guys running around like chickens with their head cut off.

By the way who is making the profits from the sales of these new bibles?

Men the KJV SAYS THAT ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPERATION OF GOD... THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PERFECT, THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.

Is that not so? Or is this part of the .01%

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:14,

Matthew 12:40 says ....so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Maundy Thursday was the Last Supper, Friday was the crucifixtion and burial, and He rose on Sunday morning...right?

So Christ was 'buried' for Friday night and Saturday night...that's two nights....so is Matthew 12:40 correct? Seems like an internal consistency to me. There are many instances like this in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:14,

10% of 823k is 82k. 1% of 823k is 8K. 0.1% of 823k is 800.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:14,

Here are some apparent inconsistencies...maybe these are part of the .1% Mac was talking about tonight.

Matthew 21:19-20 contrasted against Mark 11:14, 20 and 21.

In Matthew the cleansing of the temple occurs and the next morning Jesus curses the fig tree and it withers immediately and the disciples comment on it. But in Mark, Jesus curses the fig tree on the way to cleansing the temple and it is in the next morning after they passed the fig tree a second time before the withering is noticed and commented on.

This is a clear example of an inconsistency in my book...I think Mac was only refering to external consistencies tonight not internal inconsistencies however they are both relavant to the inerrancy doctrine.

However, notwithstanding the above, the Bible is still profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, etc.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:14,

Here's one more inconsistency in the KJV for you to consider.

In Luke 8:42 it says Jairus's daughter is dying and later in verse 49 someone comes and tells them that the daughter has died.
However, in Matthew 9 a slightly different version is told. Jairus comes to Jesus and says my daughter is dead in verse 18 and they never meet up with the person that is mentioned in Luke. Also, the Gospel of Mark agrees with Luke...that she is 'dying'.

These are clear inconsistencies in the story.

Are these some of the 0.1% manuscript differences Mac spoke about tonight. There are numerous inconsistencies like this...I can bring up several more.

Anonymous said...

You idiots spend your time trying to prove ANY part of the KJV as faulty. I will spend l00% of my time believing every word of the KJV correct!!! If you are looking for ORIGINAL manuscripts forget it. They were burned up by age years and years ago. Do you think God would give us an incorrect Bible? Even.01%? The errors in OTHER bibles (NIV NASV ETC.) fill volumes. WHY DO YOU THINK WE HAVE SO MANY BIBLES TRANSLATIONS? THEY MAKE MONEY ON THEM. All versions except the KJV are copyrighted. Get it! They make money on these other translations. The KJV is NOT copyrighted. Mac is right about one thing if people don't educate themselves about the bible then they will believe anything he and other so called scholars tell them. Remember..... "I would not have you ignorant brethern"... and "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away". Matt: 24:35. That makes Gods word 100% accurate!!! Keep listening to these SCHOLARS (Mac and Co) that's how you got in this shape to begin with!!!!!

Anonymous said...

For all of you men who are attempting to find fault in your bible, you are no different than others before you. I myself had difficulty explaining things. Dr Vines on occasion said "I don't understand it but I believe it". Over the years, as the Holy Spirit gave me grace, some of those gray areas became clear. There are still areas that my small brain is unable to explain but I have learned that the WORD OF GOD IS SIMPLY THAT, THE WORD OF GOD.

We need only spend a little time and look into who is making these new translations and by what method they used in resolving the questioned areas; to see that they are a problem in themselves.

Ten manuscripts looked at by ten men to make God's word right?

How bright they are!!!

I will continue to read my KJV and you can use your PARAPHRASED VERSIONS. Selah

Anonymous said...

1. FBCJ was NOT the congregation many of you thought it was; apparently, there were influential members among you who thought major changes needed to be made, and those changes would be made even over your dead bodies (so to speak); you thought they were your trusted friends in the congregation;

2. you got what you deserve if you didn't do your due diligence as the legal members of your congregation/corporation--and you got what you deserve by not accepting/seeking leadership roles and/or by not participating in business meetings as you could prior to bylaw changes (which, as described at this blogsite, cannot stand legally);

3. reflected in this thread is the typical view of the typical layperson regarding versions of the Bible and supposed inaccuracies in the version you hold in your hand (for your benefit, review the United Bible Societies' New Testament--it contains only the Greek and includes a "critical apparatus" showing the variant readings where they are known to exist today; 800 variant readings may be a good estimate--each of which cannot be the one-and-only original reading; count them for yourself, and then don't worry AND certainly don't blast English versions of the Bible that you don't like OR even understand);

4. keep telling the truth as you know it and asking the questions you do--there's no way that GODLY leaders can fail to answer, without God Himself getting into the middle of this mess!

Anonymous said...

We can see that reading only the KJV of the Bible has done Anon 9:16 A LOT of good! Congrats 9:16 for being so transformed by your Bible.

Anonymous said...

I will continue to spend my time reading the NIV and ESV, and praying God gives me the wisdom to interpret it correctly.

Meanwhile you KJV only defenders can continue to call people names because I guess we aren't as smart as you and also continue to use your dogmatic approach to everything church related.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

To the Anon from the previous thread:

No, have no idea what the PC registration numbers are. They will likely be down from last year because of the economy. Mac doesn't tell us. He did say wives' registration is at a record pace.

About the KJV argument...that is not relevant on this blog. The Watchdog doesn't care that Brunson preaches out of the NASB or the KJV. I do respect that it is a concern to some, but not the Watchdog. The concerns about Brunson are many, but not the KJV my opinion. Some of Brunson's supporters will try to characterize his opponents as being KJV, "dogmatic" legalists, but it just ain't so.

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify, I am anon 12:09 and my comment about dogma, etc. was not directed at Watchdog or anyone with issues about the way things are being done in an administrative fashion at First Baptist. Only in reference mainly to the very abrasive comments made by others in relation to the KJV.

it is written said...

Anon 9:18am...The last time I checked the Scriptures where recorded by inspired men in the languages of Hebrew,Greek and a little Aramaic not in 1600's English...Therefore I guess that makes the KJV a translation!!!!

Anonymous said...

You are all getting off-track and that is what Brunson wants.

Re-evaulate your purposes.

Thy Peace said...

To me, this post points out the most egregious acts done by Pastor Mac that is really bad. The next bad thing, in my view was what he said about Sheri Klouda.

I did not care about the money aspects, for I always felt they were secondary.

But the above two instances pretty much paint a very bad picture of Pastor Mac in his "takeover" of fbcjax.

But in all things, when one uses love, they reap lots of love. When one uses force and non-love, ...

I pray for fbcjax and hope God brings healing and shows His mercy to ALL of us.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

To the poster of the issue at another local church...I won't post that here as I don't wish that to be a topic on this blog....but if your church has a personnel committee of lay people, and they made the decision to keep the person on staff, and the church body was notified of the committee's decision, and there is a process by which members are selected for that committee, then that is about all you can ask! That is how most SBC churches operate. Contrast that with FBC Jax does not have a personnel committee - if an indiscretion comes to the attention of the pastor he alone can decide to not disclose it as there is no personnel committee.

Anonymous said...

My church:

1. personnel policies in place--and senior pastor considered another at-will employee who can be dismissed for good/bad/no cause (though a process is described by the policies);

2. elected personnel committee in place, and used (members of nominated by a committee-on-committees, elected by the membership; senior pastor may give input if he desires);

3. elected church relations committee in place to do specifically with church-staff related issues which may arise ever (members nominated by a functioning church council; elected by the membership; each ministry staff member can give input to nominees if desire);

4. all is mostly well among us--just need to do more evangelism and discipling, like FBCJ!

Anonymous said...

One quick comment here: To say that one is not interested in the accuracy of a bible used in the pulpit, is folly. Just because its is called a "bible", means nothing. Do some of you remember Dr. Lindsay saying "suppose your wife were 99% faithful, would you be happy with that?" Well, same thing here. To say that your bible is 99.09% accurate, is to say there are erors in the bible which is supposed to be the word of God. Maybe the preacher means "his" bible, the NASV. I find many more errors than that in the NASV. But after all the word of God that is INSPIRED is not important.....is it?

Anonymous said...

1. I doubt the average layperson can find ANY errors in ANY version versus another version; laypeople typically don't translate Greek or Hebrew--or understand much about the grammar of their own languages, for that matter;

2. the better way to say it is, "99.9% of the readings of extant New/Old Testament Greek/Hebrew manuscripts are IN AGREEMENT with each other"--not that any version of the English Bible is "inaccurate" (but, cf. the Cotton Patch Bible--goes 'way too far in its effort to be content-oriented; if there exist varying readings of a word or phrase, though, all but one must not have been in the original);

3. trust your Bible; read it--and let IT read YOU; share all the parts you understand with someone who doesn't own/read one!