If you haven't already, visit this site:
Mac Brunson Interview at SBC Today
and you'll hear an interview of Mac Brunson conducted by SBC Today's Tim Rogers during the Pastor's Conference in February.
"How do you deal with blogs that are set up to harm the ministry?" asks Tim Rogers.
Fast forward to the 4:55 mark to hear this question and Mac's response that most blogs are nothing more than women gossiping in a beauty shop. Wow, talk about "living in the past", Mac, you definitely are there. Mac also claims he never reads these blogs.
"What does the next Southern Baptist President need to focus on?"
Fast forward to the 10:00 mark to hear Mac say that the next president needs to "save his hide" because "they" are going to be "draw and quarter him". According to Mac there are two main issues he's worried about in the SBC:
1. The way pastor's treat each other, and "hurting pastors"...and he uses of all people Darrel Gilyard as an example of a hurting pastor. He then sets up a straw man to defend Patterson ("Dr. Patterson didn't make that man do that, he sinned on his own.") and then he says Patterson and Vines didn't cover anything up (in reference to the Gilyard story) because "they'd enjoy exposing it too much." It is a strange thing to point to Gilyard as an example of how pastors are hurting. I'm sure he must regret using that as an example.
2. "Massive egos that are out there....its sad because its no more about Jesus its about the personality." Tim Rogers showed great restraint in not laughing out loud as Mac called the kettle black. But one thing is for sure, Mac hit the nail on the head with that comment; only problem is he's also talking about himself.
"How do you and Debbie follow God's call..." relative to deciding where God's call is to a ministry.
Go to the 6:30 mark and hear how Mac explains that he consults with his wife and that a man and wife should be of one accord in important decisions. Then Mac says again what he has said multiple times from the pulpit: "Why is a woman more sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit than men are? I think they are. I really do. Now I can't prove that in scripture but I really believe they are. If the Lord confirms it [the decision] in her heart, then its kind of a word to me."
I've really thought about Mac's view that in general women are more sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit than men, but the more I think about that the more disturbing I find that Mac believes that and has said it multiple times to us. Sure women are more "sensitive" to many things that men are not, but as a blanket statement "women are more sensitive to the Holy Spirit than men are" is absurd. As much as I find it disturbing, I also find that knowing Mac believes this helps me understand some of the decisions made by Team Brunson during their first two years. More on that later. He also says at the 22:00 minute mark about taking a special office or position in the SBC - he whispers "I don't think my wife would let me do it" - and he wasn't joking.
At the 19:45 mark Tim Rogers states: "There seems to be this persona out there that you have got to be this huge mega church pastor...this celebrity status person to be able to invest your life in others..."
Mac responds: "We have got to get away from this concept of celebrity status. God saves us from that. We are not celebrities. We worship the only 'celebrity' - that's Christ. All ground is level at the foot of the cross. God doesn't love me any more than he loves any other pastor."
Wow. I'm glad Mac cleared that up for everyone: God loves pastors at smaller churches as much as he loves the mega church pastors! I wonder if Mac came to this conclusion about how we have to get away from the "celebrity status" AFTER accepting the $300k land gift, since that is what celebrities get - they get love and affection (and gifts) from people who don't really know them but are impressed by their name and their positions of power. Many decisions Mac has made since coming to FBC Jacksonville contradict this statement. If Mac truly believed this, what a statement it would have made for him to refuse the land gift but instead announce to the church that this gift is going to the school, or to some other ministry instead of purchasing him land and enriching himself by $300k at the stroke of a pen.
Lastly, at the 22:00 mark, Mac said his joy is watching his children blossom into ministry. He says: "I have one son here with me, who ran this whole conference; this whole conference was on his shoulders." Unbelievable. I'm certain it was a great conference, and that Trey did a wonderful job organizing it, but this points to the dangers of nepotism especially involving a leader's children. Its difficult for parents to realistically assess their children's performance - that "whole conference" is not on Trey's shoulders. The conference is what it is because of what it has been in the past, and the reputation our church has that still draws people to our church's ministries. Furthermore there were hundreds and hundreds of volunteers that made the conference a success, and many of our ministers organized the pastor's conference for 20+ years long before Trey came - and these ministers juggled their other ministry responsibilities along with the PC. But Mac gives credit to his son and never mentions his church. Another example of celebrity mentality.
99% of the time you don't know what you are talking about.
Please stop this blog and stop hurting and slandering all of these people-husbands, wives,moms, dads, friends, teachers, and children. Please.
You're no more than a woman in a beauty shop. I can see it now, you're sitting there getting your hair permed with your laptop in your hands blogging away like there's no tomorrow.
No, in all serious....I just finishing listening to the interview. After listening I must say, I have a greater appreciation for my pastor and I am very thankful to have him. He truly is a man of God.
WD - I am continually surprised at the posts which attack you personally and claim you are hurting people, hurting the church, hurting Christianity, etc. Whether those things are true or not -- and I do not think they are -- is not the point. So to those who post here, I would suggest the following:
Address the issues raised. WD didn't start a blog to discuss his hurtfulness or poor judgment. Instead, (s)he raises specific issues and seeks comments, questions, answers, etc. When you disagree with someone and attack them personally, your arguments lose any weight they might have had. It gives the impression that you cannot argue your case on the merits, so you resort to personal attacks. These are the kinds of tactics that continually get negative ratings in the political polls -- because they do nothing to move toward a resolution of the issues at hand.
If you believe the issues are so trivial and minor and non-existent, then state that, and back it up. For example, if the complaint was about a $500 loan from the church to the school you would have a decent argument that as a percentage of the budget, this isn't worth arguing about. (Of course, that is not the situation in the case of the loan -- just an example.)
As a former member of FBC Dallas, who was there during Mac's entire tenure there, I assure you that the issues raised here are not trivial, but a continuation of a pattern that Mac and his family have exhibited in the past. FBCD members saw many of these same concerning actions: anger from the pulpit, inaccessability, victim mentality, questionable handling of votes on major issues, determination to proceed with plans regardless of voiced opposition, etc. This history lends support to the argument that these are valid concerns for FBC JAX members as well.
If you have legitimate reasons to support the concerning behavior raised here, then I am sure that WD would welcome your reasoning. But the continual personal attacks are silly, and give the impression that you really have no reason for your support of the questioned behavior.
Just the opinion of one dissociated observer.
Please check Acts 20:28;"Take heed therfore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed the church He hath purchased with His own blood".This verse was Paul's charge to the elders at Ephesus.
II Peter 1:21 " For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".
In my bible, God always worked through men. God always refers to the male gender when dealing with authority...God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
2. The prophets were men
3. 12 disciples were men
Mac's statement that women are more sensitive to the Holy Spirit than men is not biblical.
God has always chosen men to be the preachers and head of the church. Churches that use women in these capacities are not scriptural. Eve was created to be Adam's help meet not his spiritual superior. God said He was the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. He would not have chosen men throughout the bible if women were more sensitive to His leading.
Robert - what makes you say that Don Brunson is "truly a man of God?" What does that mean? Where in the Bible is the office of pastor (shepherd) referred to as someone being "God's man?" Isn't any man that is trusting in Christ "God's man" in his home, in his job and wherever he serves? Have you made an idol out of the biblical office of pastor/teacher? If so, I encourage you to Google Bob Gray at Trinity, Darrell Gilyard, Bob Reccord, Frank Harber, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, and you will quickly see that those who insist they are "God's man" are usually better able to use that designation to fleece the gullible sheep who place the office of pastor/deacon on a pedestal. Mac has the spiritual gift of preaching and teaching. He is NOT a pastor/shepherd in the Biblical sense. So, no need to declare him "God's man" and put yourself dangerously close to a position where you would drink some Kool-Aid offered by "God's man." Watch your wallet once you have done so.
Just sayin... :)
I have no doubt that much of what you say about Mac Brunson and the changes that have taken place in the church since his arrival are true and accurate. However, the tone and manner in which issues are presented on this site saddens me. Regardless of whether Mac Brunson is the monster you say he is, the reality is that he is a created being...made in the image of God. He and his family and every other human being deserve respect based on that fact alone. He may not be worthy of the love and respect of his congregation, but we aren't worthy of the love God has shown us through his son Jesus Christ. Our sole purpose on this earth is to love God and love people. I admire your desire to stand up against something you believe is wrong, but it seems that at some point you need to walk away knowing that the God we serve is so much bigger than the Mac Brunsons of this world. He is always just, righteous, fair and on time. And He will remain so in his judgement of Mac, you and me. I believe that if we can't respect the leadership of the church we attend then we need to find a new church. There are many great ones out there and it seems like what would most glorify God would be to find one where we can grow and move on to the bigger and better things God has for us. I am afraid we might regret spending so much time talking about this man Mac Brunson rather than using our time to make much of the only One worthy of so much time and effort.
O.K. I've got to chime in. I've been following this blog for a while now and have to say "Lay off the Dog!"
Maybe some comments made by WD are a little rough but the only thing being done here is communicating some questionable actions by the leadership of our church.
I've been here since I was a teen and have never seen the rampant discombobulation in this church that affects so many areas.IMHO FBC has always had the reputation of being "the best". Meaning no corners were cut in providing any and all resources needed to reach the lost for Christ and minister to and disciple our members.
Since the "Team Brunson" era, our Wed.night meals have increased in cost, trips have been taken from our kids, bylaws have been changed and as of late, the cost of camp for our kids have increased significantly.
We have to ask questions and keep leadership held accountable for these changes. In the past we have followed passively because we knew our Pastors had no alterior motives. Is this the case now? We don't know and I'm not speculating...however, what the WD has done is bring these issues into the forefront of the church.
Apparently the Pastor isn't going to answer the tough questions(because they aren't being asked, I guess church discipline and all), so we need to get our heads out of the sand and make leadership(the Pastor,Deacons,Comittees)accountable to US and let us know what's going on COMPLETELY!
I for one am tired of being told half the story!
Go Dog...keep reporting...but, let the land thing go. It's done dude and nothing we can say or do is going to change it.
All I have to say is Moses, Shamgar, Joshua, Joseph, David...etc. Get in the Word sir and you might find your answer to your question about who is considered "God's Man". Blogs with misleading information authored by backsliden church members won't help you with that question.
As to Mac Brunson, I will once again say: He is truly a man of God.
Thanks for your post. I hear a desire for resolution from you that I do not see from the Dog. I would like to state my opinion on a few of your comments.
"Address the issues raised."
The biggest issue raised is dissention in the church. Backbiting, gossip and murmurings are biblically based arguments. There is to be none of it in the Body of Christ. So fundamentally, the method by which "WD" seeks answers/resolution is fundamentally flawed.
"WD didn't start a blog to discuss his hurtfulness or poor judgment. Instead, (s)he raises specific issues and seeks comments, questions, answers, etc."
Please note that every post of the "WD" assumes a flaw or error in our Pastor. As Christians we are all flawed. But that does not give a congregation member the right to make such allegations against our Pastor.
"When you disagree with someone and attack them personally, your arguments lose any weight they might have had. It gives the impression that you cannot argue your case on the merits, so you resort to personal attacks. These are the kinds of tactics that continually get negative ratings in the political polls -- because they do nothing to move toward a resolution of the issues at hand."
And you are exactly right. This is the exact reason this blog should not exist. If he wants answers he can get them without attacking our pastor. I, and the majority of the congregation have no problem accessing our staff. Our Pastor is busy and is sometimes hard to get a hold of, but always responds to my e-mails. I know several people who regularly meet with our staff.
Take that for what it's worth. I don't know about the circumstances at Dallas, but the issues here are different and for different reasons. The voting thing, for one, has been going on for decades and has nothing to do with our Pastor.
A Brother in Christ
Someone is confused! God personally chose Old Testament prophets whereas today seminary graduates have most likely selected their own vocation as well as their own church. Dr Lindsay said one time that as many as 2,000 pastors quit. Obviously, could it be they wern't really called by God?
Mr. Peeples please don't enlighten us any further, your intelligence is truly staggering.
Let me get this straight....Trey was responsible for the success of the Pastor's Conference this year, all by himself. The SEASONED VOLUNTEERS, that worked so tirelessly all these past years had little or nothing to do with this past year's conference.
This will be news to them, as many of them have helped perfect the conference for years. It will be interesting to see how it will go next year after they quit. Good luck Trey.
I have yet to meet a person who is not a pastor who can come close to comprehending the life, ministry and call of a pastor. Pew people are clueless to this dynamic of God in a person's life.
Of course I have met many who believe they know what a pastor is to be, how a pastor is to act, what a pastor is to look like, say, think, behave... I've met the absent pew sitters who showed up to vote the disliked pastor out. Believing fully that the pastor is a scoundrel.
Of course I also believe God gives the church the pastor they deserve.
There were lots of people walking around in the company of Jim Jones and calling him "truly a man of God." And please let us not forget that locally Darrel Gilyard STILL has people rallying around him and calling him "a man of God."
"...most blogs are nothing more than women gossiping in a beauty shop. "
That about sums this one up.
The people who keep telling us that we are like women gossips in a beauty shop are the ones who run around saying that it's none of our business what goes on at the church. They are wrong because it IS our business.
We are to hold those in authority accountable. And as far as I can tell the days of accountability are gone at FBC. Dr. Brunson makes decisions and then expects all members to continue giving sacrificially to whatever he deems appropriate. We haven't seen any accountability from him and so it ain't gonna happen no more!
None of us should be handing money over to anyone/everyone who asks for it! Why? Because not everyone is accountable for the use of the money we give. When there is some accountability in place the budget shortage will be corrected.
to anon. 4/1/08 2:55 pm:
99% of the time? What if that was truly the case? What then about that 1%?
I haven't seen anywhere here where anyone is "hurting and slandering" anyone.
Slander is saying something that is not true. Concerning the "hurting" part -- the old adage says: if the shoe fits, wear it!
Robert, don't sweat people who just takes stabs at you. I'm glad that you speak up for your pastor when people just shoot at him and justify doing it.
Here's something to think about:
So many people have posted here that this kind of blog hurts the cause of Christ.
What hurts the cause of Christ is the weak defenses that are made here to defend the pastor and his actions. The world IS watching this blog, and some who are in Christian and secular media. If you're going to come here to defend the pastor, do so by addressing the questions raised and facts presented. To call us "women in a beauty shop", and to just throw around the words "gossip and slander" without pointing to what specifically is gossip or slander, just feeds people's misconception that Christians (especially those at FBC Jax) are blindly following their pastor.
I can tell you that those outside our church watching this blog would agree that the actiosn taken by Brunson should raise the concern of every church member.
"What hurts the cause of Christ is the weak defenses that are made here to defend the pastor and his actions."
There is nothing weak about the truth. No shady land deal. Our church has regularly and historicaly hired family members. Trey is an asset to our church. Pastor Brunson is an excellent leader who has enabled many in our church to step up into leadership roles to serve in ministry.
"The world IS watching this blog, and some who are in Christian and secular media."
Which is more reason for you to get answers to your questions. And the "world" knows that you can go to staff members. You just choose to not do that.
"If you're going to come here to defend the pastor, do so by addressing the questions raised and facts presented."
You need to go to the source.
To call us "women in a beauty shop",
I guess I'm sitting under the hair dryer next to you and I'm willing to admit my sin!
"and to just throw around the words "gossip and slander" without pointing to what specifically is gossip or slander"
1. idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others
"just feeds people's misconception that Christians (especially those at FBC Jax) are blindly following their pastor"
Our eyes are wide open and we love him!
"I can tell you that those outside our church watching this blog would agree that the actiosn taken by Brunson should raise the concern of every church member."
So not only do you know the hearts and minds of our church, but now you speak for "those outside the church"?
The truth is that many, like myself, get caught up in gossip. The Enquirer makes a fortune off of it.
Just because people don't listen to every word you say, doesn't mean that they are wrong, "WD". You portray them as such. Maybe, just maybe, we have asked questions (from staff members) and gotten answers. Many have tried to tell you this, you simply don't believe them.
My hair is dry now. Catch you later....forget it...I just need to shave my head bald and get out of this hair parlor.
"There is nothing weak about the truth."
Agreed. We wonder why we don't get more truth about what is going on in our church from our pastor. We get half-truths or no truths.
" No shady land deal."
Yes, shady land deal. By "shady" I mean - a deal that stinks, that in any other organization would be viewed AT BEST as questionable demonstrating poor judgement, and AT WORST a gross abuse of one's position to take such a gift from a donor of the non-profit organization that is already handsomely paying him. It was a terrible mistake to accept it, and in time our church will regret that this transaction ever took place.
"Our church has regularly and historicaly hired family members."
You're confusing "hiring family members" with "nepotism". Has any previous pastor put their wife and son on staff with no stated position as soon as they were hired? And as I've said before, I'm not being critical of "hiring family members". We're talking NEPOTISM. Look it up. Read about it. Read about how it has the potential to harm organizations. Of course those in the "family" who are enjoying the benefits of the nepotism won't be able to see it themselves, but those that work with them see it.
"Trey is an asset to our church."
Yes I'm sure he is. But are his qualifications and experience matching of his roles and responsibilities in the church? We might guess at that, but the church is not told what his official capacity is. Again, look up the issue of "nepotism". We can add that Trey is also an excellent fund raiser, as he raised $100,000 for the Pastor's Conference - nearly twice his salary as Mac said.
"Pastor Brunson is an excellent leader who has enabled many in our church to step up into leadership roles to serve in ministry."
I disagree. He has demonstrated poor leadership skills at our church, as has been chronicled on this blog.
Trey Brunson is the Director of Projects and Developments. The church has mentioned this a few times. Get your facts straight.
Why don't you ever discuss important things like how your church feels about the war, or the crashing economy, or all the people who are fixin to become homeless, how you feel about the fact that a lot of you probably voted in the current President, and maybe you should spend a little time thinking about things like THAT instead of about the people who work in your church. Like, start thinking about the horrors that are right outside the door of your church and how you can help.??? Just wondering.
"You're confusing "hiring family members" with "nepotism". Has any previous pastor put their wife and son on staff with no stated position as soon as they were hired?"
His position was stated. And do you really care about a title? Do you ask the title for every person hired? Does the title matter? Don't our staff members regularly change "titles"?
"Yes I'm sure he is. But are his qualifications and experience matching of his roles and responsibilities in the church? "
Why dont you ask? Because you are intimidated? And if he is an asset, as you concede, why do you care about the technicalities of his qualifications to responsibilities ratio?
I don't think you are "just asking questions" here, WD.
In regards to leadership abilities..."I disagree."
Then you will never be able to follow him. Why go to a church where you won't follow the leader?If you will, I believe its because you love the church as you have stated before. Well if you do love the church, then that means as a whole, you love the members. If you love the members, then maybe you should take their (those who disagree with you) opinions of the Pastor into account.
These issues can be resolved.
"He has demonstrated poor leadership skills at our church, as has been chronicled on this blog."
That is your opinion. We all know that. A blog chronicle is not a basis for fact. It would never be used in a court of law, because it is one (or more) man's opinion.
My opinion is that he is an incredible leader. We have opposing views. Big whoop. My point is that your "questions", often lead to slanderous statements (arrogance, ect).
Could you please tell everyone why you refuse to ask staff members your questions? Are you afraid of your own leadership? I think your answer is that they intimidate people, right? Why on earth would you feel that way? How on earth is a blog a means for obtaining information? And if it is not a means by which one should/could obtain information, then you just aren't "just asking questions".
And round and round we go.....
Look. Get some answers.
Anon - if it were only about getting some answers from staff. Its beyond that now. The bloggers first started by wanting questions answered. But now its not about answers to questions, because the pastor's abusive behavior has continued. No questions...just observations.
What needs to happen is not questions answered to satisfy some blogger, but actions stopped and reversed and in some cases actions publicly explained and perhaps repented of. You can ignore this, but it won't go away. There is growing discontent in the church, the giving will be reducing as it already has, because the pastor's own words and actions and emotions have harmed his ability to lead our church. This has nothing to do with a blog, it has to do with the pastor - the pastor and defenders fo Team Brunson will likely blame this on "the blogger", but instead it is because of Mac Brunson himself.
You want this blogger to answer your questions. Your last paragraph asking me why I don't go to staff - I have no questions for them at this point! You think I AM trying to get information on this blog? Quite the opposite, this blog is a place where the words and actions of Mac Brunson are being discussed.
You say "Get some answers."
I say to Mac Brunson: "Stop abusing our church."
You said the following:
"What needs to happen is not questions answered to satisfy some blogger, but actions stopped and reversed and in some cases actions publicly explained and perhaps repented of."
What actions does Pastor Brunson need to repent of?
Hey I thought of this Watchdog. You are not only a woman gossiping in a beauty shop but, you are the K-9 Watchdog for the Preacher Police Department of FBC.
wd: For some unknown reason there is a problem with your bringing up nepotism. I would suggest everyone interested in the definitive story to read the following websites which will bring some information that we all need to know....
"Nepotism Its' What Ails Us" which you will find at...baptistblog.wordpress.com 6/05/06.....
www.abpnews.com...when you click on this site retrieve under the search block the following: Southern Baptist Messengers strip much of anti-nepotism motion.(11-30-99).
Just read and judge for yourselves
what is going on with the SBC. You don't need to criticize WD for suggesting that nepotism can be harmful to any institution. It can,will, and does.
To those who say they can get answers from the pastor, please stop lying to all who read here. I have asked these questions face to face, man to man and was told one of the following, depending on which question I asked:
"That is none of your business"
"Why do you want to know"
"You have to ask (fill in name of committee here) for that information."
Or, I have received trite, non-related responses like politicians give which made me feel like I am not worthy of a detailed response.
And on the rare occasion I had follow-up questions (like when I was told the land was a gift), I was not answered at all.
And some questions I did try to ask anonymously (yes, I am concerned about being lied about and blacklisted by zealous supporters...I know how these leaders operate when someone dares question their authority) and in those cases was told I must sign my name before they would answer. I didn't feel comfortable with that. I also wanted to see the proposed by-law changes but was told I had to sign my name to even see them. Again, I felt uncomfortable with that.
Right or wrong, those are my experiences and perceptions. So please don't come on here and maintain that your questions are easily answered. We know that is not true.
Thank you Anon 8:53 for telling your experience. There are others who have posted here in the past with similar experiences from both face to face and email meetings. Several members have emailed me copies of responses they got back from the "pastor" - and they were obviously written by different people and some of the responses were as you said "trite", a few I might even say rude.
But let the defenders defend in vague terms, let them ignore the issues raised here, let them accuse of slander and gossip, let them engage in name calling...this will only serve to damage their cause in the end.
...and thank you John Sullivan for a wonderful Bible sermon tonight. Its great to be fed by a called preacher who has no agendas or axes to grind, and just preaches the word, and reserves his emotions for expressing his love for Jesus, for scripture, and preaching against sin...rather than using his emotions to lash out at the congregation. Sometimes we don't realize what we're missing until we experience the real thing every once in a while.
Anonymous of 8:53 my family had exactly the same experience when we asked questions. Needless to say tithing at FBC is no longer my priority.
This nepotism thing really reeks! At first it didn't set well, but coupled with all the other "offenses"; obvious display of wealth, gifts of land unexplained, cars, trips, etc; on and on, I wonder that anyone attends any church anymore.
It makes one wonder also; why do people really attend? I hope it is not for shallow reasons like, to "see friends", "because I have always gone there"; "who will have my funeral",; "where are we going for lunch", etc.
Back to nepotism...; do they have a class in seminary now titled "Nepotism 101"? When I hear any preacher now I question if they are really called of God. And don't tell me I can't question, it is part of having spiritual discernment. How can a man say he is called of God and be so ruthless in his behavior to the very people he is supposed to minister to? I guess he just ministers to those that pander to him. This is addressed to all preachers.
To borrow from someone you know well, if you watch Fox News; I see a lot of Pinheads.....I am looking for the Patriots. Watchdog could just be the one Patriot on the horizen.
Dr Sullivan is a great preacher in my opinion.
Hey here is a novel idea, instead of reading this blog which offers no solution, why don't we fall on our faces before the Lord and lift up our church in prayer. His eyes see all and hear all. I think time with the Lord is a much better use of our time. My first and last time checking out this blog...why don't you join me in prayer.....
To the anon who is claiming Doc Brunson is an "excellent leader". Would you be able to cite specific examples of his stellar leadership since being at First Jax?
This is overwhelming to me as a long time FBC member. The by-law change,the A- group, the separate 501(3)c organization,the school and the nepotism are getting old.
We need to wake up. We are being fleeced. I have been a faithful tither. I will continue to tithe because I am a member of FBC. Once we give our tithe it is up to the pastor to do the right thing. If we as a church are not using the funds properly the Lord will deal with him and us in time.
Me and my family will remain steadfast until the "yes men" approve millions of dollars in loans to continue the empire building.
I am a little fish in a big pond. We are not allowed to see the salaries like we could under Pastor Lindsay. He was a modest man with a modest lifestyle. The Brunson's are drawing at least
500k in wages between the three of them. This seems excessive to me. No, I am not jealous, my family has been blessed beyond measure.
When you add up my annual tithes it is not enough to make one of our pastor's house payments. Maybe he brings in enough from the sales of his "intellectual property" to support a millon dollar home. Go figure.
Pastor Brunson seems to move to a different ministry every five or six years.
I hope we as a church can last that long.
You have now completely changed your argument and possition. I don't know how many times you have stated, "I'm just asking questions." You have on more than one occasion demanded questions of those defending the pastor. And now this?
"No questions...just observations.
What needs to happen is not questions answered to satisfy some blogger, but actions stopped and reversed and in some cases actions publicly explained and perhaps repented of."
So now your just making observations? If these were "just observations" you could not demand the reversal of actions and appologies. Your demands are based off of allegations. And now these allegations have proposed solutions where you are the judge and jury. You've even given suggestions as to how he might serve his term! And now you are even admiting to not wanting answers!
Holy cow, somebody pass me the curling iron!
You noticed it too? How the salaries are meshed in with all kinds of other things so that we can't tell what the salaries are for Dr. Brunson and family -and all the staff he brought with him.
I wonder with you: Can we outlast his 5-6 yr. stay? Will there be an FBC after we are all thoroughly fleeced?
It's very sad that Dr. Brunson will not just put aside his pride and come clean before God and the congregation. When he first came he said that he just loved to hang out and eat Krispy Kreme(sp?) donuts and we all thought he was just so sweet! It's apparent the donut thing is for real but the talking part is not -- unless you maybe want to talk about his favorite team or something like that.
God help us all as we keep on praying for our church and for Mac Brunson to allow the Holy Spirit to deal with his negative and abusive attitude toward God's people.
BTW, since when has it become okay for a pastor to be set up in a lifestyle fit for royalty? Some come to this blog and complain that the whole world is reading this and what a bad testimony it is. Do those people really think it's a good testimony when the whole world sees TEAM B living like royalty? You don't think that's a bad testimony? It's been slammed at us when we've been talking to lost people!
I used to be able to defend FBC when people made statements about FBC's pastors living high. "No, not at all. Dr. Lindsay lives in an old Arlington neighborhood and Dr. Vines lives in The Woods neighborhood." But I'm sorry, I have no defense to give when the pastor at FBC is living in a 5,000 sq ft house in Deerwood where the value exceeds the COMBINED salaries of one-fourth of the congregation.
I don't believe he has to live in shabby surroundings, but I think a pastor should not be living in a one mil. plus house. Does he really think he has the respect of his current neighbors? Doesn't he know that they are thinking how he's probably just a mega pastor who feels free to fleece the congregation so that he can continue to live there?
Anon - since Team Brunson has come on on the scene, I believe we have finally become a church that many people believed that we always have been. People used to talk about how people blindly followed the pastors, that it was a church of the rich. Now I see that it is true, so many are willing to defend the indefensible in Mac Brunson and Team Brunson and not hold him accountable for his abusive behavior. And the lavish living, the abusive sermons...you are right anon, even though Vines for sure could have bought a huge house because of his books, he instead chose to stay in his modest home in the Woods. He was very wise and knew it would be a terrible testimony if the people here in Jax saw him living in a million dollar home, especially given that in his last years at Jax he was an empty nester. Even his home outside of Atlanta is very modest in size and price, certainly not a 6 bed 5000+ sq foot mansion for he and Janet.
But now we'll wait for the posts to come in to say how jealous we all must be, that "God's man" is worthy of double honor...even one person posted last year saying "maybe God placed Mac there in Deerwood because rich people there need Jesus too."
I've been reading this blog for quite some time. I used to be a member of FBC Jax... and it saddens me to read these events. However, many of you are saying that you can't get answers from the pastor. So I have a question for all of you. Why aren't you contacting the chair of the deacons, one of the associate pastors or someone in the Southern Baptist Convention about all of this? So if you can't get answers, and you are suspect of your pastor behaving unethically, there MUST be someone he has to answer to! It sounds like things are going downhill fast. Go beyond this blog... to SOMEONE and try to get some investigating done on a more official level.
Mac isn't going anywhere. He's backed by the trustees who are helpless, the SBC who does the same thing on a larger scale. And don't forget he gave himself power in the bylaws which you have never seen. I am glad I am not buying a used car from any of these people.
to Anon. April 3, 2008 11:12 am:
"So I have a question for all of you. Why aren't you contacting the chair of the deacons, one of the associate pastors or someone in the Southern Baptist Convention about all of this? So if you can't get answers, and you are suspect of your pastor behaving unethically, there MUST be someone he has to answer to!"
The chairman of the deacons is a "yes man" like you've never seen in your life. And as someone else here said, apparently even the trustees can't or won't do anything to stop him from destroying FBC.
Apparently there is no one who can stand up to him -- or who will stand up to him. He holds a great deal of power and I was told that he's apparently powerful enough to stop a well-researched article from appearing in the Baptist Witness.
Also the SBC is complicit in allowing for "anything goes" to be the prevailing way of doing things in the convention.
So, we can only hope Dr. Brunson will soon come to the realization that the way he's handled things thus far is WRONG.
Anon 3:55 - if you know something about a pending Baptist Press article on Brunson, can you tell us what the story is about? On what basis do you make the claim that Mac Brunson was able to stop it from being published?
To all the readers of this blog. I hope you are praying for our church..I Thessalonians 5:17 Pray without ceasing. God is in control
The article wasn't specifically about Dr. Brunson. It was an article about the problem in the SBC and FBC concerning the lack of research into people who come in to "minister" to Southern Baptists. In one case, it turned out the performer was a preacher from a cult religion -- namely 7th day adventism. He is the pastor of a 7th day church in Florida and came to FBC to "minister" to us. His name is Wintley Phipps.
The writer was told that though his research was very extensive, it didn't matter because the SBC mission board does not officially consider 7th day adventism to be a cult -- therefore it ain't one. (About 10 minutes of research on the internet will tell the average person that 7th day is most decidedly a cult.)
The person who researched and wrote the article was slammed by several deacons and the chairman of the deacons was sent to give a message -- and the message was that the writer of the article was basically told to cease and desist.
So much for the directive of several people in this blog who say the simple answer is to go directly to the preacher, deacons or finance committee with your concerns. The only time that would do any good is if those above-mentioned parties were in complete agreement with someone's perspective on any given topic. There certainly isn't any room given for discussion. The style of rule at FBC: My way or the highway!
Thanks for sharing that. I know there were some people aghast that we had Wintley Phipps in to sing...not that he was a bad man but that he was a member of a what for many years has been considered a "cult" (and still is by many), that had harmed people whose parents were members of our church. Whether one thinks that SDA is a cult or not, having a preacher from that "denomination" come minister to FBC Jax is just poor judgement, plain and simple, knowing that he represents what many DO think is a cult. And yes there were deacons who went out and were, well let's just say "overly agressive" in trying to squelch any discussion about Mr. Phipps coming to FBC Jax.
I had forgotten about the Wintley Phipps issue...it fits into the pattern we've seen over the last two years of "unwise decisions" on the part of Mac Brunson.
I left that church years ago, I won't go back. Lindsay was your last best preacher. If you do nothing, deacons and trustees, don't stand up for your church, then nothing will change.
Talk is getting you nowhere, where are the MEN? Your church is becoming and eventually wil be a memory of what it was.
So now the SBC Mission Board (friends of Mac) control the Baptist Witness. Ha! Its just hopeless isn't it? Are you all getting the picture? And, the yes men just sit there.
If you read the Baptist Witness Editorial Policy it states the objective is, to exercise maximum and responsible freedom in reporting. I guess thats until they are bullied. So much for freedom of the press.
I would have loved to have read that article.
I disagree Anon. I believe Pastor Brunson is God's chosen man for our church. Pastor Brunson is a great preacher, pastor and leader. God has chosen him to be the next preacher found in the great heritage of our church.
And also Anon you have to realize that Watchdog's goal is not to influence our church and correct what he thinks is wrong at FBC
but he wants to see Pastor Brunson go down hard, which I guarantee you, will not happen. There have been other blogs written by people in our church regarding many questions raised on this blog. Those authors went and got answers and discontinued the blog. If Watchdog really wanted to help our church with the problem that apparently exists, he would get answers, pray for our church(rather than blog about it) and would show support for the leadership and let God handle certain issues. But like I said, who on here is really blogging with the intentions of helping the church....
The Wintley Phipps thing is an example of how Mac looks for himself first. Phipps is a good friend of Mac's and that is fine. But for TB to then bring him into his church without giving the careful thought that it might offend some in his congregation shows how careless TB can be. And TB's view is that if you have a problem with Phipps, its YOUR problem not theirs. Any pastor looking out for his flock would realize there is no reason to risk offending some sheep who have been personally harmed by the SDA by bringing in a representative of the SDA to minister when there are a multitude of other options. But maybe it wasn't Mac's decision...remember: "women are more sensitive to the holy spirit than men." Just who is running FBC Jax these days?
Haven't you wondered why you are losing long time church members? Since the church is going the way of the world (leadership), why not get together some " Super Delegates", bypass the anemic deacons and trustees: impeach the preacher and take back your church.
Keep going watchdog...You are our only forum to voice our concerns. THANK YOU. Ask them questions you must be kidding. You haven't been on the receiving end of the controlling party.
FBC marks all who disagree. After all if they can stop the Baptist Witness what do you think they can do to you dissenters. We have no freedom down there they mark all who disagree. It was our church before it became their church.
Brining in Phipps is exactly one of the reasons Pastor Brunson is a good leader. He is not afraid to bring in a man who loves Jesus, dispite what dissenters will say. Our convention is so ready to take a stand against other denominations. When are the members of the Body going to stop slicing each other? Pastor Brunson showed that all that matters, fundamentally, is whether or not a man is a man of Christ.
He is leading our church and the people love it. There will always be grumblers and that is ok.
Pass the comb, please. My hair is dry.
Wow! All this talk about your church, our church, their church, and all the while I thought it was Jesus' church. At least that's what HE said, upon this rock I will build MY church and the gates of Hell will not prevail. Wonder if that might be some of the problem? Could it be that we have met the enemy and it's US! Just a thought!
Amen to both ANONS!!!
You got any shaving cream?
I simply do not believe your assertion that the former blog operators "went and got answers" and that's why they closed their blog site.
I'm sure they decided that running the blog was too much to continue on a long-term basis. I am guessing that it is an extremely tiring thing to keep up with.
To anon 4/4/08 10:36 am:
Okay then!!! Bringing in anybody and everybody because they are your friend -- no matter what that person stands for??? That's the mark of a great leader??? We're in worse trouble than we thought folks!!!
So, I guess Anon was saying: let's bring in some Jehovah's Witnesses! Yeah! And some Mormons, too!
As I suggested earlier, do a little research on the internet -- about 10 minutes should do it! -- and you will discover rather quickly they are a cult. One harmless little thing 7th day teaches is that Jesus is in Heaven right now deciding who - starting with Adam and Eve - has done enough good to make it into heaven! No, I am NOT kidding about that!
C'mon, wake up!
Anon 10:36 - thank you, thank you...finally a person that comes here to defend Mac Brunson using sound logic, mixed with a small dose of humor. I really do appreciate it. Now if some others could use this same approach and maybe rationally, logically, clearly explain how Mac's decision to take a $300k land gift makes him a great leader or demonstrates wise decision making. :)
But Anon I do disagree with you on the Phipps issue. Mac is a pastor. He must carefully guard his pulpit and church, and to bring in a man who is a minister of the SDA, when Mac knows that the SDA is believed by many to be a cult, and knowing that SDA has harmed many people including family members of our church...its extremely poor judgement. Just as it was extremely poor judgement for Vines going to preach at Gilyard's church recently knowing that Gilyard had tried to seduce one of Vines' own sheep in the late 80's!! And please spare me the "all that matters is whether the man is of Christ" explanation...that is so disingenous and you know it. That is NOT all that matters when we determine whether a performer is brought into our church. There are many performers who are "men of Christ" who Mac will never have in...unless perhaps they're good friends of Mac, right?
Mac knew full well that brining in an SDA minister to our church would be controversial. He weighed his desire to have his friend here against the controversy and the potential hurt it might cause some of our members, and we know what his decision was. This decision was a terrible one for a pastor to make, and its one of many that he has made since he came here. But maybe this wasn't his decision but someone else on Team Brunson.
Anon 10:36 your comment about Mac bringing him despite what dissenters might say is exactly why Doc Brunson is a poor pastor. He views those of his sheep who might be hurt by something he does and might express their hurt as dissenters to be silenced. I liken it to the comments made by Rev Smyrl about ties in church. There are some old timers who do prefer the pastor to have a suit and tie in the pulpit out of respect for the Lord, but Rev Smyrl belittles them actually daring to say these people are more concerned about ties than lost people at work. Its just carelessness on the part of a pastor the likes of which we haven't seen. Vines and Lindsay viewed themselves as shepherds of the sheep to care and love and feed and gently nurture. Oh that we had such a pastor again and not one that seems to like to verbally beat his sheep into submission.
to Anon. 11:13 am:
I remember Jim Smyrl saying that. And at the time I thought "What in the world happened to Smyrl while he was gone?" Why would a preacher say something like that? It doesn't even make any sense. He used to be a good preacher before someone got to him and perhaps told him he wasn't mean enough?
Oh, I forgot -- Shut Up and dress down or we will all know you don't REALLY love God!!!
OK church: Lets write our own bylaws. Why can Team B pass bylaws through a sham vote that no one has read? We need bylaws to protect our interest (the church) since the deacons can't protect the church. But in all fairness to them, they are controlled like we are, but they volunteer for it. If we set up a committee to defend our church as financial supporters, workers, and just plain members,then maybe we can get something done. Otherwise, sit there and cook like a frog in the pot. In the meantime, watch out for the dreaded discipline police. By the way, we won't make Team B sign to read our bylaws we will give them a copy.
Its really comforting to know that Mac runs church matters through his more "sensitive to the spirit wife". What does that say about him? And, it is also comforting to know many people down here were tithing and working in FBC before these "spiritual giants" were born.
Anonymous of 10:36...Obviously, you're not, "dry behind the ears". Baptist don't believe every wind of doctrine.....that includes SDA; Cavinist, etc. I beg to differ on the SBC issue. It is so Calvinistic you won't believe it. Obviously, you haven't researched anything. SBC=Ecumenicalism. You know the old adage; "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". Safe landing!!!
p.s. How many Presbyterians, Catholics, Methodist, SDA, Church of God, etc., allow Baptist preachers to deliver Baptist doctrine in their church? Don't forget where our Sunday School material is now from: two Presbyterian preachers/speakers.
I remember when Team Brunson arrived; remember how they made the poor ushers and deacons wear aprons. How pitiful was that.
Of course, it was a test to see who would be controlled---drink the Kool Aid and who would not. How spiritual the aprons were, don't you agree????
I have a few questions for you bloggers in the know:
Did our previous pastors ever assemble the deacon body to vote on the pastor's proposals? I always thought they were a group of servants and did not have voting responsibility in the church.
Did the bylaw changes include a change that now called for the deacons to be a body having voting authority in the church?
Have the deacon body votes like the bylaw changes and the 500k loan been unanimous? Are the votes verbal or ballot?
Does the pastor share information in advance of votes of important issues to allow the deacons to analyze and pray over in advance of the vote? Or is it a one time meeting where the proposal is presented and then voted on?
That post W just proves the discredibility of this blog.
I always get a good laugh everytime I read the blog.
Robert - please go anonymous...trust me, you want to post your deep thoughts anonymously.
You know I'm right though...
Robert - yes, in your mind you are right.
Yes, you are right. I have found that it is hard convincing people of the truth when they don't want to hear it, nor accept it.
Ok W, here is a deep thought for you:
Much of this blog revolves around money in the church.
I am brought back to Malachi 3:10 "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse.." and this verse has played a key role in my opinions concerning our church and Pastor Mac.
When we tithe we essentially our saying "God, this tenth of my income is really yours and it belongs to you." In essence everything we have is God's but he is gracious enough to allow us to keep 90% of what we make for ourselves. What an awesome God we serve! Since our tithe is God's money it doesn't belong to us, it is God's. Unfortunately, many people think we are giving our tithe to a "CEO". We are not. We are giving God's money to God.
Now, you say there should be accountability when tithing as far as the pastor and staff and how they manage the tithes that the church brings in. I agree that there should be accountability but not on the terms many people tend to think. Tithing Accountability is a two-fold relationship between the tither, his church and God. The tithers are accountable to God for tithing 10% of their income and the church is accountable to God for the tithers 10% and what they do with that 10%. No where in there do you find that the tither tithes to the pastor and the pastor is held accountable to the tither. Many people tend to tithe with this mindset therefore creating the common "Business/CEO" status quo found in many churches today. So when you tithe, do not worry about how the pastor will spend your money. It's God's to begin with. Let him worry about it.
When you get to heaven is God going to ask you: "In your life, did you make sure your pastor made the best financial decisions with my money?"
Or is he going to ask: "In your life, did you faithfully give me back 10% of the money I loaned you every two weeks?"
Something to think about.
Thanks Robert. Great advice for everyone at FBC Jax:
"So when you tithe, do not worry about how the pastor will spend your money. It's God's to begin with. Let him worry about it."
Well said, I couldn't have said it better. Good advice for us all to live by.
For the love of God, anonymous, Robert. Anonymous.
Please stop posting under your real name. We know you're sincere but you're not even aware that you're embarassing yourself.
You brought up the business/ceo relationship. That's exactly what a big part of the problem is at FBC.
And you're incorrect on the 10%/90%info. God didn't tell you to "keep 90%." The 10% is only a starting point.
And remember God's Word tells us that in all we do we are to be honorable before God AND men...
If that was the attitude coming from the pastor's office @FBC then there would be no blog.
Well...I am no theologian by far and I may not convey my thoughts in my posts as well as you do W, but my intentions are right. I'm afraid I can't say that about you.
This morning when I looked at this wonderfully informative blog, I noticed there were 43 posts - over the course of a few hours when everyone is supposed to be at work, there have been over 30 more posts. How about everybody work at their jobs, and leave God to handling His Church. If you think Dr. Brunson is so bad with handling finances, I tend to think you're bad with handling your time. However I can't start a blog about all of the terrible things I perceive you doing because WE DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE! It's easy to criticize someone else when you're standing behind shadows, and when no one knows of the things you do on a daily basis.
Dr. Brunson WILL answer your questions, YOU are too pansy to walk up to him and ask him.
How about you worry about your time, we'll worry about ours.
And you CAN start a blog about the bloggers. You don't have to know who the bloggers are to start a blog about them. Its very easy, you can set it up in just a few minutes. There have been a few that have started a blog about the bloggers, so why not do it?
to anon. April 4, 2008 1:40 PM:
You're hysterical! We couldn't help but notice you wrote your comments under "anonymous."
Whut??? Are we supposed to pretend we didn't notice???
And concerning walking up to Dr. Brunson and asking him questions --You're new here, aren't you???
To: April 4, 2008 1:40 PM
I love asking Pastor Brunson questions! He gives face-to-face answers! I've loved sitting in his office discussing a lost friend of mine. His advice has always been wonderful.
Robert, keep posting with your name (I know you don't need my encouragement though!). It means you are willing to stand behind your words. I'm proud of you.
Frankly, I don't do it because I've already seen WD throw my name around here as if he knows me! There is enough mud in this slingfest....like mud-masks...beauty salon....I digress.
And yes, we are to give at least 10%. As a matter of fact, Jesus told us to give ALL we had.
And yes, we are supposed to trust those in authority. And if you can't give to your own church then go to a church that you support. It is really that simple. I look forward to our school and am glad our resources will be put to good use.
WD: What I don't understand is how you can't see Pastor Brunson's decision to bring in Phipps and Jim Caveziel as a move forward. It's simple, our Body is divided. It will take a mature church (like ours, I hope) to show the world that we are not divided. It is EXACTLY what Jesus called for us to do. "That they may be one" as Jesus is to the Father. It's an almost impossible call to unity. We are required to work past division to the unified message of Jesus Christ.
And that extends a lot closer than just denominational or theological lines. Those are debated to death. This call requires the same unity in the church. FBC included. This includes our relationship as a congregation to our pastor.
Wake up and smell the perm!
Anon - I don't "throw names" around here, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Never mentioned Caviezel, so not sure why you're throwing that in. Caviezel is not an ordained minister of a cultic denomination, that has harmed people in our church. Sorry that you can't differentiate between having Jim Caviezel here and an ordained minister from the SDA. There's a big difference.
When you next talk to Mac, tell him hi.
I don't speak for you or anyone else. You need to say hi to your pastor. But, whatever.
I know this is just going to get on your nerves, but if you really don't think you throw names around, read your blog.
You don't think he might belong to a denomination that hasn't hurt someone? Brother, every denomination has hurt someone. That is the point. We all are guilty. All. Not a single church, or denomination is innocent of hurting people. That is exactly why you have to see what many people are trying to say to you. This blog is primarily dedicated to shooting at our pastor. If not our pastor, then the SBC or other pastors. Apparently, in your eyes the church is perfectly capable of handling things, thank you very much.
Jesus called us to unity. Do you not know that? Are you exempt from that call? Nobody is. All Christians are called to love their brotheren. If you don't agree with your church, then don't support it (the tithe is between you and God).
Pray over it. But if you have a problem with a brother, tell him. That is biblical. Not sharing your "beefs" with the whole blogsphere.
Honestly dog, I'm trying to work with you here. You and I and all these "anons" are supposed to be believers, right?
Let's get back to basics for just a sec.
to Anon. April 4, 2008 2:48 PM:
It seems pretty obvious that if you think that Jesus told us to be ecumenical, you have definitely been smelling too much of those perm chemicals. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.)
So we can guess you're also in favor of inviting in the mormons etc., to minister to us as discussed earlier?
What can you tell us about II Corinthians 6:14? (what fellowship does light have with darkness...) Or II Corinthians 6:17? (come out from among them and be separate)
What about Matthew 7:21-23...many will say to me... Lord Lord have we not prophesied in your name and I'll say Depart from Me, I never knew you...
I am not necessarily saying there are no unsaved people in some other denominations. That's not the point I was making at all. It's the cult teachings of the SDA church that's the problem I was referencing.
And you don't invite someone in who is an ordained SDA pastor and have him minister to your congregation. You don't, as a matter of fact, invite anyone in who is of a different denomination to minister to your Baptist congregation. That's just craziness. And if you can't see that, then you're in for some very rude awakening in your future.
Please Anon, not the "unity" call. Maybe you should say "Can't we all just get along?"
If you're going to come here and preach "unity" to those here discussing the problems at our church, then please during your next friendly session with the pastor can you preach unity to him as well? I say unity starts with the pastor, the shepherd of the church. Tell him that its about "unity" in the church. And unity does not mean bringing in an SDA performer when many sheep under his care have been very deeply hurt by that organization and at best the SDA is a questionable denomination, at best borderline cult. Can you please exlain where is the unity in that? There is only disunity in the decision to bring an SDA minister into our church. To Mac Brunson the unity he wants is for people to go along with his poor decisions and poor leadership - that is the only unity he is looking for when he should use better judgement in seeking out unity and not going out of his way to create disunity.
And ask Mac in the next chat session you have where is the unity in blasting your congregation because God didn't move in the hearts of more than 50 men to pray with the pastor? Where is there unity in holding an unannounced special business meeting to get 500,000 dollars from the church to start a school, with the justification being we need a school to reach our city? You have the nerve to preach unity to me? Where is the unity in ramrodding bylaw changes through? Does he not know that these actions he has taken most certainly will create disunity among the people he is charged with loving and leading? I would submit to you my friend that the disunity if there is any comes from the top, the preacher and his actions which are fostering a climate of disunity in his church. I know you and many others will for a long time point to this blog as being a source of disunity when in fact its the pastor. So perhaps this blog is a blessing to you, as it will give you something to blame as the pastors actions cause more and more disunity amongst the believers.
About Whitney Phipps. He has sung at First Baptist Orlando a few times and I don't remember any blowup about it regarding his denomination or whatever. I do think this is much ado about nothing and I will tell you why. You really don't know what he believes as far as being a seventh day adventist. If his theology of things that matter is in line with what FBC believes, I don't see what the problem is. If you didn't question the man, then you would have to believe the leadership did. That leads to the next point, if you didn't check him out yourself through research (not his denomination....HIM), then you would have to defer that decision to the leadership of your church. If you cannot defer, and/or you do not trust it, then why are you there? Honestly, I don't get it. If it has come to this, that you don't trust the people in power then why are you there? You are supposed to be getting spiritually fed there, and if you don't trust those who are responsible for doing that then I really don't get why you are there when you have several other choices in this stupid city of places you can go.
Robert, to one of your earlier post saying something proved discredibility of the blog. Same principle applies to you, why are YOU here? If it is discredited, why do you feel the need to repeat stuff like that over and over and not bring anything new to the table. It's as if you are just trying to convince yourself it is discredited.
Back to the denominational thing for a moment, the reason I say you need to ask HIM is he may have been raised seventh day adventist or maybe even believe enough of what they do to attend their services. But that doesn't make him gung ho Seventh Day anymore than going to a church in the Southern Baptist Convention makes that person side with everything they believe or even what that church believes. I guess I am a little more contemporary and moderate in that thought process. I would have never had a problem if Dr. Vines had ever had Dr. D James Kennedy speak for whatever reason, in fact I would have loved it.
To: April 4, 2008 3:36 PM
"It seems pretty obvious that if you think that Jesus told us to be ecumenical, you have definitely been smelling too much of those perm chemicals. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.)"
That was funny, for real. But no, that is not what I mean. I don't suppose that Christianity should broaden it's terms to suppose the inclusion of Islam or Judiasm (if that is how you define ecumenical).That would be absurd.
Your text, the Bible (thanks for using it, WD usually does not) is correct. In addition, we are to test the spirits. But my basic assumption is that our pastor knew Phipps. And if you were at his visit to hear Phipps for yourself, I would hope you would agree that his message was clear, the love of Jesus Christ. So with that in mind, I think Phipps does a heck of a lot more of a good job of spreading Christ's love than say, you or I on this blog. Could you pass the mirror, please? (now THAT was good)
"I am not necessarily saying there are no unsaved people in some other denominations. That's not the point I was making at all. It's the cult teachings of the SDA church that's the problem I was referencing."
And Phipps did no teaching at our church. And let's please not assume all Baptist teachings are correct.
So, if he is a Christian and he can be used by God to minister (and He does), than what is the problem?
I'll answer that. Because here is what I think many are going to say. Because they don't believe all of our teachings, point by point. And some, as we presume, are worth dividing over. Right?
But if a born again believer believes something untrue, does that give us the right to draw the line? Keep in mind that Phipps did not teach and that makes a big diffrence.
"Please Anon, not the "unity" call. Maybe you should say "Can't we all just get along?""
Please dog, don't do that. I actually thought you'd be big enough not to go there. This is a simple argument. Jesus told us to be one, I hope you don't argue with Him.
In regards to our pastor "blasting" us. He has never "blasted" me. God calls preachers to repremand the people when it is needed. I for one, appreciate it when he calls me out on something. I take it like a man and deal with it. Right now, our local church is not "being sweet" as our pastor tells us to do.
WD, you know what is scary? The last anon post you just responded to had a point. That point is that believers need to work towards Christ's greatest command that we love God and one another. You turned that to blast the pastor. What is that about?
For real, why can't you for just a second concede the point that you, I and every blogger here should fundamentaly work towards God's command in our lives. Are you afraid to sing Kumbaya? I'm kind of kidding here, but man you really need to think about this.
The hair salon should be a place where everybody knows your name.
(man I'm having fun with this one)
I give up on the Phipps issue, but make one more try.
The very fact that we are debating this here, and the very fact that there were families in our church very hurt over Phipps singing in our church is evidence of our pastor's poor judgement in having Phipps come to our church.
A wise pastor, one that has foresight and sensitivity to the needs of his congregation, one who puts the needs of his congregation before his own wants and desires, would say the following when considering having Phipps here:
"Even though Phipps is a godly man, and even though I know him to be a rock-solid believer, I know there are many under my care that view the SDA as a cult. I myself have some reservations about the SDA and its beliefs even though in recent years it has become more mainstream. So even though Mr. Phipps is very talented and I myself would love to have my friend Mr. Phipps perform at my church, I have to use better judgement and put my desires aside and realize that his presence could be a source of great hurt to some of my sheep who have been hurt by Phipps' denomination. In fact the last thing I would want to do is use my church to be a platform of respectability for an organization that may very well be a cult - even though I know Mr. Phipps' is a Christian himself he has chosen to associate with the SDA and sadly for the time being he can't sing at my church. As badly as I want him to perform, for the sake of unity in my church, and to avoid hurt amongst a few in my congregation, and to also avoid even the hint of me endorsing what might be a cult, I'll pass on Mr. Phipps and go with one of the many hundreds of other Christian performers that we can bring in"
That would be wisdom. That would be showing discernment.
Too much to ask I suppose, those days are behind us.
to anon. April 4, 2008 4:28 PM:
I understand what you are saying but I believe you are missing the main point.
WP is an ordained preacher in the SDA church. The only reason anyone knew about that was because someone researched him when they heard he was coming to FBC. If there was no problem with his denominational ties then why was it not announced that SDA preacher WP is coming to FBC!
Frankly, though indeed he has a beautiful voice, I doubt WP's salvation. God's Word says we are not to add or subtract from His Word. Have you studied the SDA beliefs? I challenge you to put his name or Seventh day Adventist beliefs into a search engine. You will learn very quickly that it is not Jesus Christ alone that they preach for Salvation. They may say they don't add -- but I'm telling you they do because since SDA was brought up in an earlier blog I have done my homework! You cannot adhere to the SDA requirements and be saved. It's as plain as the hair on your permed head!
to anon. April 4, 2008 4:28 PM:
Now you really have my interest. Which of the Baptist teachings are incorrect?
What is scary is that we have a pastor that is so careless with his flock so as to bring in an SDA ordained minister, when the facts bear out that a wise pastor would pass on having Phipps in their church. There is a reason that most Baptist churches don't bring in Phipps - unless he is the pastor's friend and he let his friendship with Phipps keep him from seeing that it was not wise! And you won't see him singing in any chapel services at Patterson's SWBTS anytime soon. No one here has argued that WP is a bad man, a false teacher, or anything other than a great singer. But the lack of discernment in having him in because of his association with the SDA is remarkable.
WD... I see some eight grade mentalities at work here in some of this drivel. When I see childish responses I just skip over it. I like the way you, Watchdog keep the focus on the real problem. I think the children are just trying to divert attention off the real subject of arrogance, entitlement, mismanagement, generally bad leadership, nepotism,etc.
Attn: Paul: "This stupid city"? You can't ascribe a personality trait such as stupid to an inanimate object such as city. Do you live here? If so, and you don't like "this stupid city" ( your words) why don't you take your own advice and move.
Watchdog...you make an excellent point about Whintley Phipps. I was absolutely shocked when I saw him at our church. I have a question...Brunson and Jim Smyrl felt that 'cults' are so dangerous that they had to get up in the pulpit and blast members of the Mormon faith several times leading up to the election. If Mac feels its so necessary to rant before an election so that his dumb congregation that can't think for themselves wont vote for what he feels is a cult member, then why would Mac invite someone who is a member of a denomination that many in his congregation believes is a cult member in our church to sing? Which is it Mac....are Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists ALL cult members, or are they ALL members of the body of Christ? You can't have it both ways...
Concerning SDA...Believe me they have some strange doctrine when compared to Baptist. Acts 2:17: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;
A couple of points here...The last days spoken of are the end times spoken of in Revelation. The church will have already been raptured at that time. Signs and wonders such as prophesying and visions are to the Jews only not to the church since it is gone at that time. Signs and wonders have always been to the Jews. Since this is end time doctrine I doubt that it was give to Ellen White since she died in 1915..97 years ago, hardly end times!!!
Check out www.adventist.org...look up Fundalmental Beliefs..Check out www.whitestate.org...click on Who was Ellen G White.Read entire articles and you will see why SDA have few commonalities with Baptist doctrine.
Watchdog - you are so right, if our pastor had an ounce of discernment he would have passed on W. Philps for reasons you stated. Instead of the logic you offered that most pastors would use, I'm sure his decision process was more like: "He's my friend, he's a believer, and I'm the man."
In the point made above regarding end time doctrine, I forgot to mention that misapplying scripture, such as in "end time doctrines" this is how cults get started. When Jewish doctrine such as signs and wonders is applied to the church it always causes problems and sometimes cults. Jewish doctrines do not apply to the church. Notice I did not say the Old Testament doesn't apply to the church as long as it does not conflict with the Pauline epistles. Otherwise it is strictly Jewish doctrine to the Jews.
All I can say wdawg is you is in the minority! The place loves Mac, gave him a standing "O" to go with his fat check for his 2 year anniversary. That was confirmation I think that the people love him, save for a few backsliders here in this blog.
Yes, I am in the overwhelming minority I'd say.
I think all of us can agree that "fat check" was given by people who believed it to be "God's money" and that they were in fact giving it "to the Lord." But somehow the scripture gets twisted and God's money ends up in Mac's pocket. What WILL Jesus say when WE give an account of OUR stewardship.
And yes, Mac seems to have the appoval of MEN. But does he have the approval of GOD? Time will tell.
Anon - I saw Joel Osteen get an even bigger ovation today. So by your logic, he must be even more loved. And he has more material wealth and success too, so he also must be God's man and even more so. Just look at the approval of his congregation. I believe Benny Hinn and R.J. Washington, and well you fill in the names, get standing ovations and fat checks,too. Where do they get all this money?
To Whomever Owns the Blog,
My name is Tim Rogers. I ventured over here because I noticed an unusually high volume of traffic from this site over at
We received 12 comments on our post concerning Dr. Brunson. These comments came from people that either liked Dr. Brunson or did not particularly care for Dr. Brunson. In each of the comments, except one, there is an identifiable person commenting. The one is someone that is known by the 5 collaborative blog owners.
On this one post, there are 97 comments as I am writing at 3;44pm 4/7/2008. Of the 97 there is one clearly traceable person. At most there are 6 people that are identified by nickname, that may be known by the blog owner. There are 90 people that have posted comments that do not have the backbone to stand up and be counted. I have some of Dr. Homer G. Lindsay's tapes of his sermons. Dr. Lindsay would have some unsettling words for people that write castigating letters to pastors but do not have the backbone to sign their names.
Whatever position you take with Dr. Brunson is your business. However, have the backbone to sign your name. After scrolling down this list of comments I am sickened that I was part of something that allowed you to openly take shots at your pastor. To those that have posted here and will not sign your name to your words, you are cowards.
I release you into the hands of our Heavenly Father who judges all hearts.
Post a Comment