To those people at FBC Jax who refuse to read this blog because someone at church has told you that it contains "lies, slander, and innuendo" about the wonderful Mac and Debbie Brunson: if you've never read this blog, or if you know people who refuse to read it, read or send this one article and tell them if they don't read anything else, they should read this article.
After the Deacon's meeting 2/23 and the FBC Jax Mayor A.C. Soud's pious speech Wednesday 2/25, the question on this blog now has become:
To what lengths will Pastors Mac and Debbie Brunson, and their President of the Trustees A.C. Soud go to shut down this blog? To what lengths will they intimidate, or even slander a person, to get them to shut this blog down?
Whatever you think of this Watchdog blog, this blogger has a legal right to own and operate a blog site that offers opinions and analysis, and even parody, of Donald M. Brunson and the goings on at First Baptist Church. If there is slander that has occured on this blog, then by all means get a court order and force the Watchdog to remove it.
But the Watchdog has a right to own and operate this blog. Yes, a legal right. Just like Mac does to stand in his pulpit and preach without threat of someone trying to shut him down or shut him up, so does this blogger have a right to blog. You have a right to read it or ignore it. Many thousands of people have chosen to read it, even though its an anonymous source. And this bugs Mac, Debbie, and A.C. They're used to controlling the messages. They hire consultants in Nahsville to carefully craft the marketing messages that go out to the masses. But they can't control this blog. They don't want people to read it. A.C. Soud apparently views this blog as an "attack on the church of the Lord Jesus Christ", and of course if this blog is doing that, then who could argue with the most noble cause of shutting it down by all means necessary to defend Jesus Christ.
I'll put it this way, to use a Mac-ism: "The last time I checked, the Federal Government says I have a right to own and operate a website, even if it is critical of Mac Brunson and First Baptist Church." (Click here to hear Mac's version)
Its time for the good people at FBC Jax to consider what is being done by the leadership of our church in response to this blog. How are they going to deal with it? Will they be more open and transparent? Maybe address some of the valid issues raised here? Or is the Brunson Doctrine: "Shut 'em Down" at all costs?
Well, sad to say, the reports are swirling that the FBC Jacksonville deacons were told Monday night 2/23 that the person who has been accused of owning this blog - the man that A.C. "Anti-Criticism" Soud was piously denouncing in his edict last Wednesday - was accused in the meeting of:
- stalking or photographing or filming Mrs. Brunson while she was jogging;
- stealing, or reading the Brunson's mail or email; and
- and that the church obtained a court order from a judge to allow them to force Google and/or Comcast to tell them the name of the owner/administrator of this blog.
If it is true that the Deacons were told this about the accused, and if its true that a court order was obtained to find the identity of the Watchdog, there is a major issue brewing at FBC Jax that's about to get very ugly. And possibly public.
The man accused of owning the blog has never stalked or photographed or violated the Brunson's privacy in steaing their mail or email...PERIOD...and those of you who know this man's identity should know better than to believe such absolute rubbish. And if any of you believed that information as a basis for signing trespass papers without demanding any proof or explanation, SHAME ON YOU. You've drunk the Kool Aid if that is the case, and you need to open your eyes. And if this lie was spread to the deacons and then to the church members and to the new member's church to harm him and his family, well, one can only imagine where that will wind up....especially considering the accused told John Blount very clearly on February 13th for him and the discipline committee to leave him alone.
Even if you think the Watchdog to be a wicked fool, surely it must bother you that your church leadership is involved in getting court orders from a judge to find out the identity of a blog that they don't like. If we're Theology Driven, where in scripture does it say that is a tact to take? Or trespass papers? If the person who was obtaining this court order from a judge was given emails and IP addresses from Google concerning this blog site, then perhaps he also forced Google to give him IP addresses of those of you who have POSTED things that he thinks are "unjust criticism". Maybe they want to know who posted certain anonymous posts, and they'll come after YOU and put the fear of God in you!
The accused has reached out to several deacons for the purpose of finding out FIRST HAND what was said about him in the Deacons meeting, and what was said about what lengths the church went to find the blogger's identity...but nothing. They won't talk to him and tell him. Since the November 28th letter was delivered to the accused, he has asked on numerous occasions: WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGATIONS. They won't tell the accused, but apparently they told the deacons. And the deacons won't tell the accused. That would be "gossip" I suppose. In the name of the "church of the Lord Jesus Christ", don't tell the man what the accusations were against him!
The name of the accused is out - those of you who WERE at the deacon's meeting, or the wive's or close friends of deacons - you know the man's name. Would there be any of you who would have the integrity to tell the accused exactly what was said about him and stalking and stealing mail, and what the basis of the allegations were? You can find the accused's phone number very easily.
Give him a call.
And read Wade Burleson's blog, as he has written an article on "Spiritually Elite Leadership", with another article on the way regarding more detail on the FBC Jax saga.
62 comments:
T, you have moved your membership. Why not move on with your life? Your continuation of this blog does morning for the Gospel!
Blessings.
God bless you Watchdog. I have posted some comments on Wade's blog here and here.
WD:
My understanding of Google Privacy Policy is, they are to also notify you, if when a law enforcement submits a subpoena to identify users.
NYT: One Subpoena Is All It Takes to Reveal Your Online Life
Google Privacy Center
EFF: EFF Applauds Google Resistance to Government Subpoena
-----------------------------------
I think I know how they identified who the WD is.
1. My best guess is, they approached either comcast or bellsouth with a subpoena to reveal the identity of a customer of a given ip address valid on certain date.
2. How did they get WD's ip address? Several ways ...
- One is they can easily embed or watermark one's ip address through the video and audio streams and downloads from fbcjax/316 networks.
- Cookies and malicious scripts that reveal your identity and your hard disk contents, that can be selectively targeted for certain users (based on past habits). This can also be easily done, if WD's browser has not disabled scripts, when visiting questionable sites ... say like most of Maurilio's web properties in question.
3. About WD stalking Debbie Brunson and trying to read their emails, is only a ruse ... a dirty opening to extract or reveal your true identity to get a subpoena issued.
I personally think there are lot more clever ways they could have used to find who WD is, but given their lousy technical help, this is the best they could do.
anon 8:14 a.m. - why don't you post your name to your comments? And how can the WD "move on now?" People have contacted his new church home! No, the church, like Barney Fife, continues to force this man to continue blogging.
And you must know, don't you, that the church may have violated Federal privacy laws to discover his identity, and may have used fabricated accusations such as stalking and mail stealing to get his ISP provider to give up his name. If a subpoena was given, which judge signed it and why was the accused never informed of this by his internet provider?
No, something big really stinks and this blog is just now getting very relevant to some misdeeds at the big downtown church.
The church had a chance to get this blog stopped by addressing some of the concerns on it. Or at least by following Matthew 18. They just couldn't and wouldn't do it. Now they want the blogger to "move on with his life?" I don't think so. In fact, the opposite is now true. :)
It amazes me the shear ignorance of people like Anon 8:14am...Since you appear to agree with whatever Pope Mac is doing;:Maybe you can answer some of the question and concerns Dr.Dog and others have concerning this INTERLOPER(Mac)actions,seeing he not going to answer about anything...And if you can satisfactorily answer the concerns posted by Dr.Dog;:Then maybe this blog and Dr.Dog will go away!!!
Im so confused.. I was in attendance on Wed and I thought they were going to do this big ceremony to excommunicate these people, but yet I heard nothing about that. So have they been kicked out or not?
I don't believe that WD is the person they have chosen to kick out. What a great testimony to our church.. Come down to FBCJAX and as long as you drink the Koolaid you are accepted..
By the way, I did not stand in approval of the resolution.
Anon 11:34,
The accused man said he and his family joined another church on February 1st. It's kind of hard to kick someone out of a church they've already left, but doggonit, WHEREAS we're going to put the fear of God into those of you who are still here, BE IT THEREFORE PROPOSED that any of you who, in the future, don't put up and shut up will be dealt with harshly (according to the "biblical pattern of church discipline, reconciliation, and restoration," of course). And three-fourths of the people present stood and applauded. Can I have an amen?!
I think they're afraid to mention the accused man by name because -- oops! -- they now know there's a good chance they got the wrong person, and they don't want to open themselves up to a lawsuit by mentioning names.
Is this still America? Can a church fabricate charges and just because it is a church get info illegally? Where is the proof presented in order to GET a court order in the first place. What illegal or "trumped up charges" are they going to use against the rest of us who have blogged here? Just remember men of the church handling this action, what you are going to look like to the rest of the world. This really makes this church look like a cult. It certainly is no longer the Godly church it once was. I blame the church for the "iron fisted" manner in which they have retaliated against a blog. When you "take" others freedoms away, you can eventually lose your own. One day churches will be silenced, and the same tactics FBCJ has used, will be used against them. I have no use for these men that have ruined this church. This is my opinion. Thought I better express it now, before I lose MY freedom to say it.
If they had the wrong person, do you KNOW the stink the watchdog would make about that? Some of you guys need to quit drinking the koolaid about it being the wrong person.
HOWEVER, if false accusations were used to get this info, and somehow some legal entity is involved in THAT mess, well...uh oh....is all i got to say. This is rapidly switching from the problem with the watchdog to whats going on in how they got his info.
and getting back to false accusations...they do happen in churches.
I don't care if it is watchdog. But I do care that the church would lie or fabricate false accusations, (if it is indeed false) and use position in the city (eliteism) in order to get a court order that the average person would not be able to get because we are just tax paying citizens. Where are our protections against this stuff?
Watchdog has had "PROOF" for everything he has posted!!!! I don't like this church anymore. Not the way it is being run now.
ANON 8:14 allow to play the english nazi here and I quote....
"Your continuation of this blog does MORNING for the Gospel!"
What the heck is that suppose to mean Mr. Girlie Man?
You refer to the Dog as T, do you know something that the rest of us don't know. Would you like to tell us how that info was illegally gotten....hmmmmmmm
T Rex doesn't go to this church but dog gone it, this is just tooo juicy. This isn't about baptisssss but it is about the self righteous girlie men that parade around as important and wanting to impose their will on the sheeple and when one of those sheeple lifts his head in non-conformity......Shut em down!
I smell a big fat rat.
This church was over when Dr. Lindsay died. I don't look for it to ever be what it was. I just keep my eyes on Jesus, I stay in His Word and I pray for His return, preferably while I and my loved ones are still alive.
Where was this jogging performed? If I read correctly in another county. If so, Duval county Judges have no jurisdiction in that other county. The statements and allegations would have had to be signed and so stated by the person offended and placed in an affadavit in that court which is a public record. All anyone has to do is go there and request the documents and pay a small fee for the copies of said paperwork.
These comments on Wade's blog are too good to be left there ...
-----------------------------------
Anonymous said...
All of this talk about anonymity has got me thinking. The term “coward” is sure getting thrown around a lot, and that is unfortunate. I wonder if anyone here has ever read or heard about the Marprelate tracts? They were written by (anonymous) Puritans in 1588-89 criticizing the abuses of Anglican bishops and clergy. They knew the consequences if they were discovered, but they could not remain silent. In fact, two men (both ministers) died (1 executed, 1 died in prison) because they were linked to the printing of the tracts. The printer, Waldegrave, had his press confiscated and was financially ruined. It is debatable whether or not the authors were ever really discovered. When the Anglican Star Chamber issued an edict in 1586 declaring that the Anglican church had the power to license and/or forbid all printing in the country, these men knew that they must speak out, but they didn’t necessarily want to die for it. After all, when a “trouble-maker” is discovered and dealt with (i.e. ruined by those in power that he critiques), then the criticism is silenced and people remain in the dark about the issues. Please note, there’s a stark difference between a willingness to die for the testimony of the gospel, which I would do, and a willingness to die criticizing an institution. Most of us would rather live and go on criticizing the institution, seeking to make reform than to die and have our voices for reform snuffed out. I love the SBC and want to see it reformed for instance, but I will not die for it. That’s a privilege reserved only for my sweet Savior and family.
Add to that list of contemptible cowards names like John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, men who published anonymously (OK…they used the pseudonym Publius) the Federalist Papers, called by many the most important political documents outside the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in our nation’s history. Cowards they were… discard their ideas.
Also add to the mix more contemptible cowards like Thomas Paine (Common Sense was anonymous upon publication) and the dozens and dozens of revolutionary war era and anti-slavery tracts published anonymously (see Gutenberg.org for a list). Also discredit the information of historical figures like the anonymous (until his death) “Deep-throat” who let the nation in on major political scandal and corruption in Washington D.C. Guess he was a coward too. Also there have been numerous corporate whistleblowers who have anonymously helped bring justice to out-of-control corrupt companies. Cowards each one...
Incidentally, just this morning in the latest issue of Discipleship Journal, I read a touching testimony about a man ministering to his son in the midst of a drunk-driving incident. The article was signed “Clive Wellington” with the note that this was a pseudonym for an unknown author, probably in order to protect the reputation of his son and his son’s ability to heal and move on with life. I should have been enraged by the article, questioned its truthfulness, and immediately ripped it out of DJ, calling upon them to either print the name or retract the story! Puhleeaze!
A few years ago, I attended a Voice of the Martyrs event where a former Pakistani Muslim who was now a Christian spoke against the evils of Islam. He had to travel, write, and speak under a made-up name to protect himself and his family. I guess without knowing his real name, I should be suspect about his claims. I cannot call his Imam in Pakistan and verify his claims, so he should be discredited…right?
Basically, the history of anonymity in writing is long and rich. Usually (almost always) anonymous writing is done by those NOT in power rightly criticizing those IN POWER who are in a position to shut-up and shut-down the anonymous source, thus putting an end to the public’s knowledge of the corruption. Those of you who are so quick to call others cowards can do so precisely because you support those in power or have nothing to lose (i.e. you’re not in ministry at a SB church or institution!). It’s OK to put your name on your criticism of Wade or Watchdog, because if some of the “higher-ups” look you up or run into you at the state or national convention (and believe me, they do!), they’ll thank you and pat your back! NOT take you to task or blacklist you like they have others!
I personally know a student at one of our seminaries working on his dissertation who was told (off the record) by more than one prof that he had better stay away from blogging or commenting or signing his name to anything critical that could be used later against him if he hoped to have a future at all in the SBC! At times, he has been scared of being kicked out of his program because of being critical of leaders, pastors, etc… during open discussions. Now he just sits quietly and withholds any criticism until he graduates.
Wade is in a unique situation…and I thank God for him. He has the strong support of his congregation and the knowledge that he will continue to be employed in the face of what he writes. They know and trust his character and integrity because of many years of ministry. He knows he will not lose his job by speaking out. He also knows (from experience) that he is not on anyone in the SBC’s list of “up and comers” for future leadership in SBC life. He walked those halls for a while and found out what happens when you refuse to “play the game.”
Many others are not in the same position, and thus, remain anonymous. In itself, that is no reason to discard what they write. Staffers at a mega-church led by a superstar are powerless. Speak out and lose your job, plain and simple. Lose your benefits, pack your bags, and plan to relocate…IF you can find anyone else to employ you after being fired by one of “the boys.” Likewise with seminary employees, agency employees, etc… SBC life is a very small, tight-knit community with lots of nepotism and inside-talk. Many of the mega-church leaders and inner-circle guys preach for each other regularly, defend one another publicly, speak at all the seminary chapels, serve on the same boards, room their kids together at the same schools, and on and on it goes. If you are critical and you make yourself known publicly, you will be shut out from future impact in the SBC.
Those of you who want to throw the term “coward” around, open your eyes to the reality of what’s happening. Look at what happened to Wade. Read the reports at fbcjaxwatchdog. Look at the facts. This man (whoever he is) was a loyal member of the church for MANY years under Lindsey/ Vines; why would he just “snap” when Dr. Brunson came on board? Could there be some substance to his accusations? You’ll never know because you don’t want to.
If you don’t want to believe what an anonymous author is saying, it wouldn’t matter if there was a name attached to it or not. Even if their identity was known, you still wouldn’t believe it. If there’s truth to what they are saying, then who cares if you know their name or not? Will those being criticized answer the criticisms with substance? I hope Dr. Brunson calls Wade back and clears the air, but I don’t foresee that happening.
It’s easy to sit on the winning side and take pot-shots at the whistle-blowers. It’s easy to call them cowards and discredit their work so readily. It’s much tougher to admit that these MIGHT just be honest Christian people telling the truth. It’s much tougher for many in the SBC today to admit that their heroes might be flawed.
Still anonymous…
Mon Mar 02, 03:24:00 PM 2009
-----------------------------------
Wade Burleson said...
Still Anonymous.
Probably one of the finest comments on this blog in three yeras. With your anonymous permission :), I would like to use it as the topic of a post this week.
Blessings,
Wade
Mon Mar 02, 03:57:00 PM 2009
-----------------------------------
A.C. Soud and Mac Brunson are Hypocrites! Why do I say that? Because they did not, or could not, even mention the man's name in the church service (for whatever reasons), yet they DID tell the deacons his name and the deacons promptly spread the word and one man even called the accused's new church! Outrageous. They knew it was not wise to slander him from the pulpit, but they allowed their deacons and trustees to do so privately.
Too bad that as far as we know, NOT ONE deacon has called the accused to get his side of the story. And you wonder why we call those guys Kool-Aid drinkers. Not one to call him and say hey, friend/brother, is this true? "What are your responses to these charges?" No, no one.
But the Bible says, "there are NONE righteous, no NOT ONE!" Prophetic about FBC Jax staff, deacons and trustees. I didn't say it, the Bible did! Take it up with the book! (stomp)(amen myself)(take off glasses and glare)
Some more good comments on Wade's blog ...
-----------------------------------
Anonymous said...
No one can understand the price of speaking out until they have done it and been ruined. As a single mom, I did it and have lost everything. Ruined by a mega church with deep roots in the community. My child has no financial future and we are ruined even losing our home.
I wish I had been a coward. It was not worth it. People do not care and will work hard to protect those in power because they do not want to admit they have supported such people.
Going anonymous from now on because there are few real Christians out there anymore
Mon Mar 02, 07:48:00 AM 2009
-----------------------------------
johnjaxthebaptist said...
Whatever the Watchdog is blogging about now pales in comparison to this question: Did his church use/abuse their power and authority to violate his privacy to discover he was the blogger? It is my understanding that Federal privacy laws may have been violated to find out who the blogger was. And after years of not being able to find any dirt on this blogger, they may have resorted to fabricating stalking and mail stealing charges to get this information released to their president and trustee, A.C. Soud, Jr. If so, this is much worse than any of the abuses being blogged about so far.
Also, the church should be disgraced and embarrassed by their banning of the man's sweet, Christian wife who was forced to set in her car and cry while her daughter sang for the Lord inside. There were no accusations against her at all, except that she "associated" with her husband. Yes, these men bullied this lady who had no shepherd to stand up for her and protect her. They hurt her deeply and forced her to move her entire family from the church they all loved. All of her kids were raised from kindergarten to their current grades there and she served in various ministries there for decades. Then she was banned and now her name is being slandered. Shame on them. Many of her friends still attend there.
And shame on those of you who would call her husband a coward. The cowards all stood in support of this non-biblical and non-loving resolution. The cowards all sit quietly while Mac runs over a sister in Christ. The cowards serve trespass warnings without ever even attempting Matthew 18, the cowards won't even confront the man with any evidence against him so he can defend himself, the cowards stomp around on stage and beat down their congregation to "put the fear of God in them" if they ever have any questions/concerns, the cowards include the man's wife in their discipline process against the man to try and divide his family and harm his marriage, the cowards secretly accept a $307K land gift three weeks after arriving, the cowards make major bylaw changes without any prior discussion or making the proposed changes readily available, the cowards live an hour from the church on an oceanfront condo for their first year, the cowards never once explained how an anonymous coward blog with no credibility could have hurt their finances, reputation, ministry, etc.
So brothers and sisters in Christ, it is Mac and the trustees, particularly A.C. Soud, Jr, who are the cowards. This lady is due an apology. But like Sheri Klouda, these men will never apologize. They enjoy feeling powerful over Christian ladies.
Mon Mar 02, 10:20:00 AM 2009
-----------------------------------
Thank You Thy Peace...That was an absolutely BRILLIANT and I mean BRILLIANT blog from this ANONYMOUS BLOGGER..That sums up the WHOLE ISSUE...Now that's HISTORY I can live with!!!
To give a little more perspective about why CEO mega pastor's can become so greedy, you need to understand how much money is actually out there in the congregation for these mega church charlatans and their marketing consultants to try and get their hands on for "God's work." For example, a $307K land gift seems like a mere pittance when you consider that a member of A.C. Soud's Sunday School class, and the man who allowed Team Brunson to live in his oceanfront condo on Amelia Island for a year for free, just gave a $21 MILLION dollar gift to the University of Florida. According to the paper, he has given over $30 million total.
I commend this great man, who I believe to be a man of the highest Christian morals and ethics, for giving such a generous gift to help others. The gift was given to an organization that can help others with his funds. It was not given to one man. It was not given out of a sense of guilt. No one had to berate or guilt him into giving, and I dare say it likely was more than "a tithe" of his income this year. These type of men of character and success, who show Christian generosity at this level, must make men like Mac Brunson and Maurilio salivate.
Check out the link if interested:
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090302/ARTICLES/903020933/1002?Title=Couple-donate-21-million-to-Shands-Cancer-Center
Maybe Mac was preaching to, and berating, this gentlemen instead of the Watchdog, after all, in all those angry tithing messages?
Man, if Mac and Maurilio could just get their hands on that kind of money imagine what "God" could do in our church. Yeah right. More money won't solve Mac's abuses. It will just make them worse.
I can’t help but find all of this very funny. It would seem that those who support and believe this blogger site, "assume" everything printed by a few people they don’t know, verses the many years of established credibility of a church and its many highly respected members and staff who are publicly known. Hundreds if not thousands of people continue to support their church and its leadership in this matter while only a few, maybe even a dozen, who knows continue to feel they have a right to claim "foul" or that abuses have or are taking place. Those in the thick of it don’t seem to think so and those on the outside, believing only the word of an anonymous blogger are certain. That just isn’t logical. I certainly see the love of Jesus all through this blog… Love and compassion for those who you claim have fallen in sin and or made grievous errors. If the blogger is right in his accusations, if the pastor of this church has done what you claim to know, why haven’t you, Watchdog, gone to him personally with your concerns for him? You say neither he nor the church has practiced Matt.18 but as I read it neither have you. You cant claim that your original anonymous emails to the churches general email address for the Pastor was your way of going personally and communicating your concerns. Why didn’t you simply call his secretary and ask for an appointment from the very beginning? Also, very enlightening, you know, no judge would have ordered an IP server like Yahoo or Comcast to reveal information guarded by “Privacy Acts” unless he had substantial physical evidence. Any lawyer would know that, now wouldn’t you? Keep your site and keep blogging, but how you cant see the wrong you are doing but cast so many accusations on others is beyond me. Beam or speck, check out what's in your eye first.
so many opinions, so little time...which of you have sat down with, maybe even had dinner with Donald M Brunson and his wife or any other of these leaders. Or made the time and taken an opportunity to get to know them. Share your thoughts and feelings and hear theirs? Hmmm, wouldn’t that be Christian and brotherly. I have, wasn’t that hard to do either. I dare say that anyone who has would have the same opinions as those who have not. There is so much that we as Christians should be doing to Glorify our Father instead of things which do not. Watchdog has stated his opinion and made his case, publicly and that is wonderful for him, but as this blog continues and those who haven’t a clue about this church, its faithful God loving members and the majorities desire to serve Jesus are now being called cult members on this site. Now that is just real beneficial to the Body of Christ, isn’t it? What is the message this site is sending to lost people who read it? Hey, be my guest; keep blogging if you see a benefit in it. But please be more concerned as some who are contributing to this site assume the very worst about FBC Jax, its members and our desire to serve Jesus and Glorify God.
Mac isnt leaving, but you have. Apparently the majority is glad he is staying and you are not. good for all. enjoy and immerse yourself in your new church serving Jesus.
if all that you claim to be true is true, it will eventaully come out. God is not mocked. whatever a man soweth, that will he also reap. enough said.
are we really to assume only the Brunsonites are liars? Not one little lie, no exaggerations or anything misleading on the blogger’s side of all of this? Please who are the naive sheep, the church or the readers of this blog?
Have you noticed how the people who screech the loudest about the Watchdog and his "sin" write in one long, run-on paragraph and won't even post using a unique screen name?
speaking of run-ons...
so what. didnt know this was a writting exam and exuse me, but are you saying all of the other post are perfectly written? surely you jest.
you people will find fault in anything. get a life.
... and some of them don't have a Shift key.
Well I guess some folks will never know for sure. I have only been a member for a short time and this is not what I want or need. This goes on in Churches and if they can keep it hid it never gets out. I am not a supporter of WD or Mac. The church should be about reaching the lost. I have read this blog and have some of the same questions, why can they not be answered? I do not know how much longer this can go on; however were there is smoke there is fire.
Of all the weak excuses I've read in an effort to defend Mac's behavior is the excuse "the majority loves Mac". That is such an ignorant answer. Unless you are still a pimple faced teenager, you have no need to be reminded that the idiots out number anyone else in this world. And also be reminded that it was the majority who thought they got their way when they wanted Jesus dead and gone.
Did more people know He was right, but were afraid to say so because of wanting to be in the comfort of the majority?
The majority in Germany during the
30's thought Hitler was right. Or maybe they didn't. Were they just afraid to say otherwise against what they were convinced was the majority? And even so, is the majority always right? Majority may give comfort, but it is a very weak argument.
I'm not saying the majority is always wrong. Not at all. I am saying that in the face of all the evidence, the "majority" argument in this instance is just embarrassingly stupid.
oc.
very mature oc. name calling seems to be a real character trade for WD friends.
Thanks for the history lesson. I would have never known that info if you hadn’t taken the time to “school me”.
Work on your reading comprehension skills. I never defended any actions of Mac by saying it was ok because we love him. The only so called evidence of misconduct has come from one man on this anoymous site. Hardly credible.
Watchdog,
I have kept up with your posts over the last few months, and for the most part have agreed with your concerns and found all your requests reasonable. I will now, however, offer a piece of advice. Watch your "tone of voice" and how bitter you sound. In your latest post you sounded like you were losing your professionalism and objectiveness. Just my two cents.
Anon 9:25,
No, you obviously are leading with your emotions. I would ask you to reread what I actually said, I believe you need to work on YOUR reading comprehension skills. I didn't call you stupid, I called your argument stupid. Because it is indeed an ignorant argument. I did not call you names. I called your argument stupid. Because it is. There is a difference.
Unless of course you relate your own being so closely to your silly argument. If so, then an argument can be made for what you accuse.
oc.
Anon 9:25 - The word is "trait" not "trade." See, some of us WD supporters do know how to spell. (And I'm in California, not Florida, so no direct knowledge of either WD or the Reverend.)
I agree with a previous poster, however, i.e., "where there's smoke, there's usually fire." A few direct answers to questions would prove most enlightening.
PS Anon 9:25,
Ignoring the evidence is no defense either. That was part of "history lesson" I was teaching you. But I guess the history lesson would have been more easily recieved coming from Mac.
Swallow hard.
oc.
"Very mature Occccccc" anon 9:25, You are beyond girlie man.
BBC, once again you bring it and the McTrolls and the McClowns can't stand it.
So true 10:01, Dog leave the good stuff to us un-professionals.
Got your back dog.
"Hundreds if not thousands of people continue to support their church and its leadership in this matter while only a few, maybe even a dozen, who knows continue to feel they have a right to claim "foul" or that abuses have or are taking place."
Again, we have the numbers defense. Spoken by folks that do not read scripture and think that the majority is always right.
When Jesus said we had to drink his blood and eat his flesh to follow Him, most turned away. A few stayed.
IF that does not convince you, then read the letters to the churches in Revelation. No, study them.
If anything, we should fear what the majority does. Most of our churches are filled with nice outward looking professing Christians who are unregenerate. If they had discernment, they would not be funding these monstrosities and falling for the cult of personality. But it is so much easier to follow a man than it is to follow Christ. The utility bill alone in these temples of entertainment could help so many brothers and sisters in need all over the world. But to even say that, I will be labeled a liberal.
I was just reading Galatians tonight and what Paul was saying about Peter and others making him promise to help the poor. And Paul was poor! How can they read about the life of those who teach us through the Holy Spirit in scripture and think what they are doing and how they are living is of Christ? It makes no sense. They have had to rationalize scripture to fit their paradigm for their lives. It is a Joel Osteen approach to the Holy Word.
Matt
OC and Anna Mae, welcome to the Dog Pound.
Light humor and witty banner drives the McTrolls and the McClowns CRAZY
The majority elected YOUR current McPresident.
if all that you claim to be true is true, it will eventaully come out.
March 2, 2009 6:44 PM
Not necessarily before J-Day. Read Thess lately?
Watchdog,
you may think you are a big, bad watchdog, but you aint nothin' but a neutered dog, hiding behind your anonymity.
i read on wade's blog that you 'feared' for your life . . . is emm scared? a real watchdog aint scared of nothing.
studdog
Welcome to the Dog Pound indeed! Esp. Matt. If you ever start you own blog (do it), I am all over it! There've been some good posters throughout the history of this blog, and a special shout-out to the astute long-timers like BBC, Wade, Thy Peace, et. all. But Brutha Matt brings it like no other, second only to the great WD himself. I think I've got a blog-crush on Matt. Can I say that?? I believe I just did! (apologies to Mac. kind-of.)
Can you give the quote where it says I feared for my life?
I didn't see it.
Look up the word "retribution"
Hello Stud-dley....I have news for you big boy, you sound just like a girlie man in drag. Do you go out in public dressed like that?
Anyway, welcome to the dog pound where McTrolls and McClowns expound then run away like brave little girls.
Anon 11:36 Spoken like a real man!
The watchdog is da man. We got your back WD.
Fred McCormick has been dead for years. T-Rex and A Dog's Dog are one in the same. How does one know? The writing style and use of verbiage are identical! What could this indicate to all of the Watchdog cool aide drinkers? Simply put, just a very few handful of folks, and yes, even just one are doing the posts. Another reason not to believe what you read online. Unfortunately, people seem to what do believe all of this. It is the human condition of voyeurism and the desire to rubberneck when there is a crash in the road.
Jerry
Readers - you might find interesting the comments of Mac Brunson that he made during his sermon at Criswell College on 2/26, the day after the Anti-Criticism Doctrine was passed - in his absence of course.
He actually does address "bloggers" and says he prays for those who blog about him, and prays for their families, and doesn't mean them harm and doesn't pray God to harm them. That is great, but why does he only make those comments to students at Criswell College? Why doesn't he directly, forthrightly, make comments like that to HIS CHURCH...like AT THE MEETING where they are asked to ratify an unbiblical process exerted on their fellow church members.
And he tells Criswell College students that he prays for bloggers, but it was quite clear his only message to his "churchmen" and "churchwomen" on 2/15, to those who steal joy by making big issues out of little things, is to SHUT 'EM DOWN. He didn't say pray for them. He said SHUT 'EM DOWN.
Listen to the entire sermon. One has to wonder what this guy is doing pastoring. Just as he did last November when he preached the SWBTS/Criswell circuit, he paints a dark picture of the trevails of pastoring people that don't listen and obey the pastor. He doesn't tell students HOW to pastor difficult people, just that they WILL and they must ENDURE it as a hardship. I was trying to find one ounce of joy that is found in pastoring people in his message.
I hope students at Criswell and SWBTS are getting a more complete picture of what it will be like as a pastor...if I went by Mac's characterization of pastoring people, I think I would be hearing the Lord lead me in another direction.
Dog you keep saying on here that you are not the one accused that it is someoneelse however on Wade's Blog he stated you are the accused and is defending you. Now one of you is lying. How can we believe all your's and his accusations when the same story does not come from both of you
T-Rex, I am the 11:36 anon and I am speaking like a real woman (LOL) since I am female. 'preciate the sentiments, though.
I don't care if Dr.Dog is My Favorite Martian,his concerns are geniune!!!
anon 10:56 - where did the dog ever say "I am not the accused?" I believe he has ignored that debate and simply asked "on what evidence did they single me out?" Whether he is the accused or not, the question is did the church act illegally to obtain the identity of the blogger, whether it be the watchdog or the accused, or you or me. Until that question gets answered, who cares about who is actually doing the blogging? If I tapped your phone, and broke into your home, or hacked your computer, and found out you were blogging about the pastor, which would concern the rest of the church and the city and courts?... your blog contents? or the fact that your phone was tapped and your home was broken into and your computer was hacked? Bloggers, people on cell phones, people in their homes, have a Federally protected right to privacy that FBC JAX, Inc. most likely violated to try and intimidate and silence ONE voice of dissent. This is gestapo like, communist China like, and will not be tolerated in our society, especially from a millionaire, CEO charlatan.
So, I applaud the WD for not responding to whether he is the WD or not. Only the hardcore yes men of the pastor seem to be concerned about that. As for Wade's blog, he understands the power of the megas and what lengths they will go to to silence dissent. So Wade seems certain the church acted illegally and by doing so have identified the accused as the blogger. We can only know for sure if the big bad A.C Soud and his trustees tell this man how they singled him out. Why won't they do that? Hmmmm. What information did they rely on and how did they obtain it. Until they answer that question, the cloak of suspicion hangs on them. All at FBC Jax should be very, very concerned about their tactics against this man they have accused. (See, you ask a question on this blog, you get an answer.) Have a nice day. :)
I do find it interesting that there are several who have come here and told us off for blogging but they post anonymously :-)
I'm thinking there is going to be a really big problem when "the accused" goes down to the courthouse and gets copies of who filed for what and on what basis. Is it public record? I believe that it is. I don't think I would even know where to start to look for that kind of information or I would just go down there myself and get the paperwork.
I truly would like to see the basis on which any legal steps were taken to obtain information from Comcast -- or whichever internet supplier is involved. Someone earlier mentioned that the internet supplier would have to notify "the accused" that their records had been obtained.
I would like to see someone who is knowledgeable in legal proceedings go down to the courthouse & get what is needed here. There needs to be proof given of what information was obtained and on what legal basis it was obtained! I hope someone will do that and report back to us on it.
The FACT is, the deacons were, at best, told only half the story in order to convince them of the horrors that the Brunsons have had to put up with and that they therefore MUST pass the resolution in order to protect the Brunson family from "the accused!"
After reading Wade's blog (with whom I very rarely agree) I must say that he has very legitimate points he makes about the way this has been handled.
I hadn't even heard the accusation before now that supposedly "the accused" was trying to obtain Debbie Brunson's mail or e-mail. How absolutely preposterous to make such an accusation!
Is it possible, WD, that they cooked that up from an attempt at tracking who was posting from the church to this blog? Coming up with the accusation of stealing mail/e-mail from that would have to be a really BIG leap from the truth! But it does appear that's what it took to get legal entities involved -- just say anything and a certain "legal professional" can make sure you get the paperwork you need!
I sure am hopeful that is not what they did, because it would make them, as Kirk Cameron answers to a lost person's claim that he's a good person, "a liar!"
Once again, had the preacher been loving toward his congregation and listened to their comments and questions and as a shepherd with his sheep, lovingly answered them, there would never have been a blog.
I didn't stand up either.
Are you having fun now Jerry, Didn't know you were a McTroll as well or do you fall into the category of a McClown?? Inquiring minds want to know.
Springer, You need to hang around and analyze all the comments on this blog and let us know who everyone is, shall we call you McJerry?
Hey all my buddies in the Dog Pound, wouldn't you know it would be a McDummy that would come in here in drag and try to teach us about voyeurism.
11:36 luv ya dear. Stick around in the pound and sit a spell. We love it when another McClueless (McJerry) shows up trying to prove how smart they are. Hey McJerry, are you a McDeacon or a McTrustee??
Got your back Dog!
Anon 11:34....love you too dear. Shall we call it McLuv???
Luv to you as well Dog!
Come to think of it, you would have to be a BIG VIP in order to obtain a no trespass warning with just "he said, she said" kind of reasons given for needing to call in the Law.
Has there been a mention of a person in this blog who would be able to accomplish that???
Wow, I just read what Wade said (from your link to his blog page)about D.B. talking ABOUT him but not TO him.
So maybe that's just how the in crowd @FBCJ has been taught to handle questions or comments that are not what you want to hear. Just get rid of any dissenters!
12:17 anon....i am very very concerned if false accusations were used to get the identity of this blogger (watchdog). Who in their right mind wouldn't be concerned? That is the story of this blog right now, not WHAT was said in this blog, but the RESPONSE that it is producing. I am concerned more than most maybe, having been the victim of false false false and ruinous accusations in the past by a southern baptist church. That's why i am watching this currently every day on the internet that Ihave access to a computer. False accusations stick. They do. For years. Im not kidding. I speak from experience. Just throw it out there and watch it stick and then watch the repercussions. Could be something that is so far from the truth that it wasn't even in the persons conception to do, but i PROMISE you, in about one minute, you can be painted with that brush for eternity. I PROMISE YOU. Especially if your accuser is a church and a pastor. I would love to write a letter and ask someone at that church (FBC Jax)if this is true that they went to this level. I would love to find out if the only church I trusted enough to join in a long long time...(i have since left) really has thrown false accusations at somebody to get their IP number. PLEASE tell me it isn't true. There is a lot of good, sound doctrine that is preached at FBC Jax. Thats the best thing I can say about it. I am sure there are a lot of good things about it. But this is getting really hairy right about now. I would love to ask questions, but I did that once before, and somehow mysteriously my email got banned from that church faster than you could say, uh, mcdonalds. And I never got an explanation why. At that time, I was still a member, and going to counseling there. No more. Cause I didn't understand, and don't to this day. Did my email get banned because I asked a question about what the pastor said in a sermon? Well, gee, what do you think is happening to people who ask a question about whats going on on this infamous blog? I wouldn't want to be a member there and have a question at this point.
Sometimes I still watch this church on TV. Last Sunday they had a man sing a song about never sayin a mumblin word. How does a trespass order and a banning of a member fit that? I wondered at the time.....(in other words, if Jesus never said a word about people who did the things they did to Him...well.....this was just a BLOG after all.)
Like I said, its not the Watchdog, his charges against the church, the Brunsons, the this or the that Im watching. It's the church's response. The churches way of obtaining info on the blogger. The churches charges against the blogger. The watchdog had problems, I'll grant you that. But if anybody thinks Im going to start calling him a stalker and a thief without PROOF, this is the wrong person to pull that trick on.
And I'd sign my name, but I have a family member at this church, and they really don't like this blog, and they don't read it, and they have specifically requested that I never use my name on here if Im going to read it, and I am not signing my real name out of respect for them. Lets just say im a TOTALLY DISILLUSIONED PERSON WITHOUT A CHURCH.
So the whole issue is this:
WHEREAS, such opinions and false statements have the potential of causing financial and spiritual risk and damage to the church and its personnel, ministries, reputation and goodwill, however and by whatever means communicated, as well as having the intent to be divisive and cause strife and disgruntlement among church members against the ministries, staff, leadership, Pastor and people...
Where does it say that anything illegal has been done? The whole resolution, which I just read on the FBC website, tells of nothing illegal that was done by "the accused." Where are the "false statements?"
Wade's blog: Lessons in Dealing with a Disgruntled Member
This post is a personal testimony. It is offered as an illustration on how to deal with a disgruntled member or member(s) of a large church. There are those who say that no church member ought to express opposition to the pastor's decisions. Some say that the pastor is the Lord's anointed, and to question his ministry, or his decision making, or his integrity is simply rebellion against God.
Not so. No pastor is beyond the scope of scrutiny. Further, it is not the questioning of the pastor that is the problem. Rather, it is the response of the pastor to the questions that is often the problem. Many pastors, whether it be for personal insecurity reasons, fear of exposure, or a false understanding of "church unity," will deal harshly with those who question their leadership. This post is offered as an example of how a pastor and church can deal with a disgruntled member in an effective manner.
Secret Meetings and Secret Complaints
There was man at Emmanuel who was not happy with the hiring of a particular staff member. He felt that the staff member displayed personal qualities unbecoming of a pastor (i.e. "impatience," "sarcasm," etc . . .), and the disgruntled member and his wife began to meet with three or four other families to "pray" for this staff member and our church. During the meetings which were held at the home of the dissatisfied member, other issues began to be discussed, issues involving me personally. The leader of the group felt that the hiring of this staff member reflected poorly on my pastoral leadership. Others began to question my salary and ask if the Senior Pastor was making too much money. A couple of the church members had heard that I was a member of the local Country Club and wondered if the church gave me that benefit, etc . . . They decided that they would meet on a regular basis, invite others to join them, and pray for our church.
Eventually someone told me about the meetings. Immediately, there was a mental decision that I had to make. Were these disgruntled members who were questioning my decisions, salary and benefits, and other matters as important to as those church members who expressed appreciaiton for my pastoral leadership? I gave an immediate "yes" to that question in my mind.
As a result, I had to ask myself a second question: How can I affirm the people who were secretly meeting and how can I encourage them spiritually, while at the same time not reacting defensively to either their attitude or their questions? The person who had told me about the meetings had been invited himself to attend, and he knew that the group was going to ask others to come and be a part the following Friday. There was obviously an intentional effort to make the dissident group larger. Yet, I had settle in my mind and heart that my goal could never be to prevent, control or dominate these people in any form or fashion. Jesus came to set people free, and that means disgruntled church members should be free to dissent and disagree with their pastor - and tell others of it! And, I should be free to accept it as from the Lord. It's a little like King David when Shemei was cursing him and Abishai, David's servant said, "Shall I go cut that dead dog's head off?" King David said, "Let him alone. God has bidden him to speak." As pastor, I see every event, even the difficult ones, as God refining my character.
Compassion, not Confrontation
I decided the best way to approach the disgruntled member was to personally contact him and let him know that I knew of the meetings, and that I affirmed all the members' rights to participate. Further, I determined that I would volunteer to meet with them, if they desired, to try to answer all questions they felt important. I also wanted to express my appreciation for their prayers for our church.
And that is what I did. Nobody else was involved. Just me. I expressed to the disgruntled member all of the above and told him I would be more than happy to attend the next meeting and answer any and all questions if he would like, believing that it is always best to communicate directly when there are differences or disagreements.
The disgruntled church member was a little taken aback. Later he told me that he was most surprised at my affirmation that he and the group had every right to meet. He also was taken aback at my expressions of love for him, especially knowing that I knew he was attempting to lead a growing group of dissidents to question my leadership. He would later tell me that this knowledge did not diminish the love and grace I displayed for him personally, and that this was what most impressed him.
In past eras a pastor would leave a church when the chemistry went bad and the welcome faded. These days preachers are taught to hunker down, surround themselves with security, change Bylaws, and fight. I used to wonder why they would fight so hard and be so willing to leave trails of ruined lives in their wake. Then I began to learn and understand the salaries, perks and benefits to which mega church pastors become accustomed.
As in all things, follow the money. Why would a politician spend $800M to win a $400K/year job? Why would a 'minister' of the Gospel get so nasty? Three words. Wealth, Celebrity and Power.
An honest Minister and Politician welcomes transparency and accountability. See if either of these applies to your pastor and politicians. If they don't - watch-out.
Frankly, this blog is irrelevant if the people blogging are not a part of FBC. Correct? The NIMBY factor is not in play here. What would WD's current pastor do if WD started blogging his new church? It does seem to me that blogging a private institution should only relate to the members that belong to the institution.
Mr.Theron...Whether we are members are not has nothing to do with defending a brother in Christ which may have been wronged...There is a universal Church of all true believer and it is the responsibility of every true believer to aid a brother in trouble FBC or not(Ever heard of Voice of the Martyr's)!!!Had they done this with Bob Gray and Darrell Gilyard then there would not have been so-many damaged sheep and maligning of the one and only way(Jesus)[2Pet.2:2]!!!
You Mr. Theron are an imposter. I knew the REAL Jimmy Theron and Peaches tells me he would agree with this blog if he wasn't in GLORY.
Just a note, Albert and Russell send their regards........
Luv you Dog!
Jimmah (Bill Collector) Theron,
We are all stakeholders at FBC by being current or former members, baptist or Christians. What goes on there is of concern to this body.
What goes on at FBC is no more private than this blog. You put it out on the airwaves and internet for all the world to see so we all have opinions and a stake.
Anon 3/2 6:29 pm:
You say "...which of you have sat down with, maybe even had dinner with Donald M Brunson and his wife or any other of these leaders. Or made the time and taken an opportunity to get to know them. Share your thoughts and feelings and hear theirs?"
Did you just arrive in town? Do you have any idea what this blog has been about? Have you read any of it? I think your answers to those questions would have to be: yes, no, no...
Post a Comment