2 Samuel 16:9,11 - "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head...let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord hath bidden him."

Matthew 7:15 - “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Matthew 24:11 - “…and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.”

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Letter to Discipline Committee - And a Fitting Irony

Below is the letter the accused has sent today to the Discipline Committee via John Blount...asking for full disclosure of all charges against the accused, including disclosure of allegations made against the accused regarding criminal action that were stated in front of the deacons. The accused is also asking for confirmation of whether a court order was obtained in order to find the identity the owner of the Watchdog. Some deacons have claimed that these allegations were made to the deacons on 2/23/09.

Would it not be ironic if its discovered that the Discipline Committee and Trustees took legal action and went to a judge to obtain a court order to confirm the identity of the Watchdog...when the church leadership, just a year earlier changed the church bylaws to declare that all members forfeit their right to take any legal action against the church.

As I have blogged before, the intent of the legal action prohibition clause in the bylaws may have been to make it extremely difficult for any member to obtain a court order to have access to financial records of the church. Amazing: members can't take any legal action against the church for any reason, but the church, in its zeal to silence a blog that the believed was hurting the church, may have used legal action to gain access into the private records of a church member - not to be able to minister and reach out to said member, but in order to know who they can issue trespass warnings to and ban them from the church. If they did get a court order, it will be quite interesting to see what legal basis was argued to gain access to the Internet records. Not to mention how interesting it will be to see WHO did this.

Meanwhile we'll wait to hear from John Blount.

And check out a new article at Wade Burleson's blog contrasting methods of handling disgruntled church members.

Here is the email:

"Hello Reverend Blount:

Now that the discipline committee has completed their investigation, made their report to the deacons, and to the church through the official statement read by Judge A.C. Soud, Jr. and ratified by the church, I am awaiting the letter summarizing the deacon's proposed action against me, which you are compelled to send me in accordance with Article XIV of the church bylaws.

As I have requested numerous times since you and Rev. King delivered my wife and I the November 28th letter and trespass warnings, I once again insist that the discipline committee explain the basis of the allegations - that is, exactly how was I singled out, and "positively identified" as the owner of fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com blog site.

I have received credible information that other totally false and harmful and potentially slanderous allegations were made against me, in addition to those in the November 28th letter, at the 2/23 deacons meeting, including:

- that I have been accused of stalking or videotaping Mrs. Brunson while she was jogging; and

- that I have been accused of stealing the Brunson's personal mail or email.

Some that were present at the meeting have said the deacons were told the State's Attorney has been contacted by the church and that the church pursued a court order to obtain our private records from Google and/or Comcast.

As former church members who have been pursued by the discipline committee at FBC Jacksonville, we believe it right for the committee to disclose all allegations and relevant information gathered by the discipline committee about us that was used as a basis for the actions taken. Since this information is now spread amongst the membership harming our reputation, we need to know exactly the nature of all allegations against us, and what person brought those allegations against us, so that we may clear our name with our friends and family at FBC Jax. We believe this fair especially considering we were not given an opportunity to speak openly and freely without interruption to the deacons that evening. We will now take every opportunity we have available, by whatever legal means necessary, to clear our name. But first we need to know the nature of all allegations, and the basis of those allegations.

We also would like to know if the trespass warnings issued to my wife and I on November 28, 2008 are still in effect, and if so what action must be taken by us to have them removed so that at some time in the future we may worship the Lord Jesus Christ at FBC Jax as the Spirit leads us.

We await your prompt reply."


Anonymous said...


You and/or the accused need to get a lawyer immediately. Have your lawyer do all the communicating with the church leaders. You likely have several valid causes of action against multiple people at the church.

You mentioned the irony of the church going to court to find out the identity of the accused even though the church tried to remove members' right to sue. It's even more ironic considering what Mac said about Sheri Klouda. Mac basically said that it's always wrong for one Christian to use the legal process against another Christian and really let Dr. Klouda have it for suing Patterson.

Anonymous said...

I would like some clarification about the "Brunson by-laws". A member is unable to sue the church, but I would like to know if a former member might be able to sue for actions done against them AFTER they have left the church and are NO LONGER members. Basically, is there a loophole?

Ramesh said...

Not to mention how interesting it will be to see WHO did this.

Based on the facts presented so far, I would say the person who filed for disclosure would be Debbie Brunson and NOT the Church. This is my educated guess.

it is written said...

FBC Jax has officially become the meeting place of the Keystone Kops..We are truly in the days of the great APOSTASY!!!!First Brunson Church of Jax has truly become ICHABOD!!!

Ramesh said...

I am wondering, if all this came about because of Debbie's facebook access. I had a premonition then, that something like this would happen. Why did Debbie not require her facebook access to be after an invitation as a friend as most facebook members do? Just a honest question. It's possible, she might be not fully conversant with her computer knowledge or privacy issues Vs. allowing access to friends and family.

Or to be truly diabolical, was all this a ruse? I doubt it. But it's disturbing.

Ramesh said...

Wade's blog: Lessons in Dealing with a Disgruntled Member

Transparency, not Terseness

During our conversation I sought to answer any and all questions he had. We talked about the hiring of the staff member and I explained the process under which he was hired and assured him that any concerns he might have about a pastor at Emmanuel not relating with church members in a gracious manner was an important concern. I shared with him how that particular issue had already been addressed with the staff member in question and how it would continue to be addressed if needed. We then discussed my salary. Our church places all salaries into one lump sum when the budget is presented, and Emmanuel's Finance Committee had made this a practice long before I came as pastor. My preference would be that all salaries be broken out individually within the annual budget, but I have been overruled by the Finance Committee members. However, it is church policy, and a wise one at that, that ANY member who desires to know the salaries of staff members, including the pastor, only has to ask. He demurred and said he really didn't wish to know, but I told him my salary and benefits anyway, believing it was an important question for him to have answered and he was just too embarrassed to ask me.

Then we talked about my membership at the Country Club. I told him that the church does pay the $300 monthly dues, but I pay all my expenses, including meals and guest fees. I also explained that I knew in Enid that some might view my membership at the Country Club as exclusive, but we had a very particular reason for the membership - the people there need Christ as much as the poor. I related how I had been able to build multiple relationships through meeting peole at Oakwood Country Club, and had been asked by many non-churched Enidites to perform funerals for family members, had been able to lead several to faith in Christ, and through my contacts, many Christian family members had become members of Emmanuel. I also told him I loved the golf course (a Perry Maxwell course, no less!).

He laughed a little with me and we discussed a few more issues, and I spent about an hour talking with him about any and all his concerns. I ended the conversation in this manner:

"I may have not been able to answer your questions completely, and even if I have, you still may not agree with my decision making. Please know that your disagreement with the pastor of Emmanuel is not only all right, it is healthy. The main thing you should know is that you have every right to question me, and even if you think I make too much money, shouldn't be a member of the Country Club, or shouldn't have led the Personnel Committee to hire a particular staff member, our disagreement will never be, in any form or fashion, an impediment to me loving you and being a pastor to you. Feel free to relay what we have discussed to those you are meeting with, and know that you have my complete support in continuing to meet. You can invite anyone and everyone you desire to join you, and if you have more questions, I will be happy to come meet with you. If, after evaluation, you feel you can't worship with us because of a disagreement, please know that you have our blessing and full support to join another sister church and we will recommend you with Christian love and grace. Bottom line, I'm never above questioning, nor are you are ever beyond my desire to see our mutual walk with Christ strengthened."

The man teared up a bit. Thanked me for visiting with him, and we parted.

When Leadership Cares About People

Two weeks later, in church, he stopped me. He thanked me for taking the time to contact him, expressing his sorrow he had not contacted me before he had talked with others. He thanked me for answering his questions and addressing his concerns and said that after listening to me preach for 15 years he should have known that I would have responded with grace and transparency to any questions he had. He then expressed his love for me and mentioned how much he respected me. He said the group was no longer meeting, and all of them voiced at their last meeting that they wanted their families to be a part of a church where leaders affirmed them, even when they disagreed.

To this day, this man and the three or four families that met with him those few times remain faithful members of Emmanuel.
Anonymous said...

This was a great post. Thanks for sharing it. I really liked the way you handled the situation.

Does the principle you're advocating for dealing with a disgruntled member include praying through and giving serious consideration to whether the person's concerns might be valid and therefore necessitate changes on the part of the leader?

It's one thing to say, "You're free to disagree with me. Here's why I and/or the church did what we did. Here's the rationale for the decisions."

It's quite another to say, "You're free to disagree with me. Here's why I and/or the church did what we did. Here's the rationale for the decisions. But you bring up some valid points that I haven't fully thought through before. We might need to revisit some of these decisions in light of what you've shared with me."

Tue Mar 03, 04:45:00 PM 2009
Wade Burleson said...


Tue Mar 03, 05:15:00 PM 2009
Darby Livingston said...
Wade, thanks for the post, it is very enlightening for those of us still wet behind the ears. One question:

When does the desire for any pastor to humbly allow for disagreement (which I agree with) bump up against his responsibility to confront sin (isn't what your dear members did gossip and slander?)

Granted, you proved the proverb true that a soft answer turns away wrath. Would you consider your private offer to answer the questions of the group a wise method of confronting the gossip/ slander? Kind of "killing two birds with one stone?" This is a sincere question, not a challenge to what you did. Thanks.
Tue Mar 03, 04:52:00 PM 2009
Wade Burleson said...

Gossip is a sin. However, the Bible says, "Love covers a multitude of sins." I do believe that meeting with others and discussing grievances about me, without coming to me first, was a sin. But, I decided to "cover" that sin and love the people anyway. What I mean by that is I considered it to be a greater evil for me not to listen to the concerns of my members than them discussing among themselves their concerns.

I did, after it was all over, encourage them to remember that next time, it would be healthy to come to me first!

They said, "Absolutely!" and assured me that they would, having no fear of how I might respond to them sharing their concerns.

Tue Mar 03, 05:19:00 PM 2009
Darby Livingston said...
Thank you. You answered my question completely. I get it.
Tue Mar 03, 05:21:00 PM 2009

Ramesh said...

Some cases where Google was issued subpoenas:

Blogger Subpoenaed

News-Star: "Holsten's Attorney Subpoenas Google"

A Bronx subpoena

Busting a Rogue Blogger

All the below links are from eff:

EFF Releases How-To Guide to Fight Government Spying

Bloggers' Rights

Free Speech


Anonymous said...

We also would like to know if the trespass warnings issued to my wife and I.
How about to my wife and me,not my wife and I.

Anonymous said...

Fellow members of the dog pound,

This member of the pound votes not to get the gub-ment involved. I know we all have problem with McDonald, McTrustees, McDeacons, McTrolls, McClowns and McJerry's however, this needs to be resolved without getting McGovment involved. I say we keep the insurgency rolling, trust God and the McSheeple will come around.

So just chill out and do not start running to lawwwwyers. Dog, reign in the pound. This is all fun and games but not a cause for legal action. We are in the right and we don't need to get a carpet baggin huckster (McLawyer) involved.

Got you back dog, keep the powder dry and all will work out. McSheeple will come around.

Peace, Love and Good Times.

Anonymous said...


Wade Burleson appears to believe that you actually are the person who has been accused and was issued the trespass warning. Are you that person? I have thought that you are not the person, based on comments you have posted at this site since the trespass mistake was made by FBC's leaders.

No member of any church ever surrenders all of his rights against that church if certain situations come up.

it is written said...

Thanks for the lesson in english "BILL"...That was a veri "POORE" blog!!!!!

Ramesh said...

New BBC Open Forum said...
Glad to hear that, Wade. However, I don't think they'd ever admit to doing anything illegal or based on false allegations. I think the accused man is going to have to dig for that information, and if the FBC Jax powers-that-be were influential enough to obtain someone's private information in that way, they're influential enough to cover their tracks, too.
Tue Mar 03, 10:52:00 PM 2009
Thy Peace said...
" ... they're influential enough to cover their tracks, too."

Lot of times, hubris causes them to make LOTS of stupid mistakes. History is littered with examples of powerful/smart/intelligent/rich people who make these mistakes.
Tue Mar 03, 10:56:00 PM 2009
Wade Burleson said...
New BBC Open Forum,

I have a background in law enforcement and know that the Freedom of Information Act should provide recourse to Watchdog to discover who requested the subpoena, which judge granted it, and the alleged criminal basis upon which the subpoena was requested from GOOGLE and Comcast.

What is interesting to me is that FBC church leadership would have had to request the subpoena before they knew the identity of Watchdog. I believe it is a very, very serious offense to allege criminal conduct for the purpose of obtaining information about a person who is writing things you do not like. Of course, it would be difficult to prove church leadership fabricated the criminal basis for the subpoena because they could always say the pastor's wife WAS being followed or the pastor's mail WAS being stolen --- but it wasn't by the man who they discovered was the WATCHDOG through the information provided them through GOOGLE and Comcast by order of the court subpoena.

But (and this is a big but; pardon the expression) - if church leadership actually did allege criminal conduct to the courts in order to obtain the subpoena, and if they did discover the identity of Watchdog through the subpoena, then church leadership might have stumbled big time if they did the following:

(1). First, they used the information obtained through the subpoena to place a no trespass order on the Watchdog and his family. They then are admitting that the basis for which they obtained the subpoena (criminal conduct) is true.

(2). Second, if they informed others, including deacons, that the person they have identified as WATCHDOG was stalking the pastor's wife and stealing their mail, then they have accused a man of criminal conduct without ever going to the man himself (whatever happended to Matthew 18?)

If those two things were done, as is being reported by some FBC Deacons who were in the meeting last Monday night, then church leadership has very likely crossed a clear boundary of the law in order to silence dissent.

And, if it can be proved that the above actually occurred, then church leadership may have much greater problems on their hands than the Watchdog's blog.

We'll see.

Tue Mar 03, 11:16:00 PM 2009
New BBC Open Forum said...
Thy Peace,

Notice I said "influential," not bright. :-)
Tue Mar 03, 11:17:00 PM 2009

Anonymous said...

I don't believe that Wade has a background in law enforcement, unless "background" is defined very loosely. Regardless, he would need a background in law, not just law enforcement to speak with any authority on this issue.

The Freedom of Information Act is a federal statute and applies only to information maintained by the federal government. A subpoena in this case, if any, would almost certainly have been issued by a Florida state court rather than a federal court. The FOIA is inapplicable. Most states, however, including Florida, have their own freedom of information laws.

it is written said...

Anon 10:14pm "I don't believe that Wade has a background in law enforcement, unless "background" is defined very loosely. Regardless, he would need a background in law, not just law enforcement to speak with any authority on this issue"......Are you calling Wade a LIAR about his background?

New BBC Open Forum said...

The anon is correct that the federal FOIA does not apply in this case. However, Florida has their own FOI laws.

Anonymous said...

Holy crap, Thy Peace. What in the name of all that is holy is your deal? Why contribute a link then post it all in the thread? Sheez you are annoying.

And what's with the incessant blabber and non-stop posts of links to other blogs? You constantly do this. Are you a nut?

Of course you are.

New BBC Open Forum said...

Anon 11:35,

You have the right to not read any comment you find annoying, including this one.

gmommy said...

anon 11:35,
Most people find the things that Thy Peace posts (on this blog and others)very helpful and informative....not to mention kind.

Unlike your post which is negative,unkind, and shows a lack of intelligence and vocabulary.

Might you also be showing jealousy?

Anonymous said...

I believe you have to identify an individual by name in order to have a judge grant an order to determine who that person might be. Otherwise you could theoretically claim anyone did anything and get the identity of anyone you wanted. A very bad practice indeed if done so.

Anonymous said...

Why not stop all of this bickering and negative blogging, which is not pleasing to the Lord? My bible clearly says to not return evil for evil. And that is wrongs or evil on both sides.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 9:16 Have you written your congress person lately? This is the real world. The light only bothers those in the DARK!!!

Anonymous said...

WD: Keep putting the pressure on team Brunson. This kind of thing needs to be exposed.

Anonymous said...

I am a fan of Thy Peace's posts for sure; but, I agree with 11:35. It bogs the thread down when you copy an outside post and have a link, too. Isn't the point of a link so that you don't have to copy and paste? Let's keep these threads crisp, unlike the hack blogs out there.

Anonymous said...


Gereja said...

I got the impression that we church members are naive--thinking that we, lay people have sin nature and the pastors are free from sin nature. Sin nature makes us lay people and also pastor like snakes justifying greed and lust and power. I have seen this among televangelists and pastors. I heard Mac preached live once before he moved to Jax--the thing that came to mind was this guy is a great actor. You can imitate a prophet but you can't produce spiritual gift. That guy is a good actor when I first heard him speak. Same as Joe Gregory when I first sit and listened to him for several weeks. Something strange. Nothing spiritual. Only a perfect scheme of sermons to please a certain people. You know: there is no power just polished public speaking developed to perfection. Baptists are succumbed to form not essence of spiritual life.

Lu Mo Nyet

it is written said...

This ridiculous notion that we are to stick our heads in the sand while interlopers abuse the Church and it's members is unbelievable::Read Christ message to the Church of Thyatira "Nevertheless I have a few things against you,because "YOU-YOU-YOU" "ALLOW-ALLOW-ALLOW" that woman Jezebel,who CALLS HERSELF a PROPHETESS to teach and seduce MY-MY-MY servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat things sacrificed to idols...It was the people of the that Churches responsibility to remove this interloper who was harming the Church and it's mission..This woman happened to be in a place of leadership and yet Christ revealed that it was their(Churches)duty to deal with her..And whether it's a sinning member or a sinning PASTOR either one has to be dealt with..Enough of this insanity that Mac can't be questioned or confronted;;He's a Man just like Dr.Dog!!!..And GOD is no respecter of person's "PERIOD"!!!

it is written said...


Anonymous said...

Anon 9:26, then get out of the dark. What in God's name does a congress person have to do with everyone stopping all of this senseless bickering? WD and others keep throwing out Matthew 18:15-17. It does not sound like WD did that at all. Matthew 18:15 (NIV) says" If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over."

To put it more contemporary to this blog: " If Mac Brunson sins against WD, WD should show Mac Brunson his fault, just between the two of them."

WD seems to think that Mac Brunson has committed all types of grievous sins. Does WD go to him, no! He chose to blog, instead of doing what him and everyone else that supports this blog has done which is to gossip and chatter about what seems to me and thousands of other folks to be WD's opinion and pontification of what WD sees as sin in Mac Brunson.

I would bet that WD never did what Matthew 18:15 says to do. It was WD and not Mac Brunson that was casting the first stones.

Frankly, after reading literally ever post ever written, even if WD aka The Accused went to Brunson, I believe that he would still blog against what he perceives as sins of Mac Brunson because he would not like the answers that Mac would give him.

It is a sad day in the Church when all people have to do is back bite and gossip, but that is strictly the human condition. I too know that posting my comments will not make a difference either, so basically, what is the point.

I do feel that WD is doing absolutely nothing to further the Gospel of Christ with this blog as a forum for people to vent. It is like the difference between My Space and Facebook.

On MySpace you can be anyone you want, anytime you want, whereas on Facebook, people have to use their correct information to have any friends on it. Blogging is the same as MySpace in that anyone can be anyone, take any position, make any accusation, be very critical, post sound bits and take things in and out of context in an attempt to spin their point as they want.

I guess that is the congressman point. We all know that both sides of the isle spin their point to benefit their stand on things and do very little of what the constituency wants as a rule.

Something in the human condition wants to believe things in written form as the gospel truth when for the most part the written word is geared towards the writers particular opinion.

Even when it comes to the Scriptures, you have those that only agree with a certain version or text. You have those that only think the greek and latin in their original language is correct. You have those who strictly take a literal view of Scripture. You have those who only take a historical view.

It must surely grieve the heart of God to see all of this pontification going on. Besides, all this talk of "God has left the building" does not match what I see at FBC. The Gospel of Christ is preached at ever service, lives are being changed, souls are being converted in record numbers.

For all of the bloggers out their who say otherwise are either sleeping in the pews or never attending any services or Sunday school classes, or they are attending other churches and just trying to stir up controversy, or they just get their kicks because they are not believers and just want to "tweek" Christians and the Church of Jesus Christ. I am sure that all of the Christians on this blog can really be proud of that!

As far as all of the men that WD has singled out and offhandedly tried to slight their character, along with other folks on this blog, claiming that not only they but all of the faithful membership at FBC are nothing more than "cool aid" drinkers and fundamentalist wackos are way off the mark. All of these men that have been railed against are their own person in Christ. Since I know the accused and his wife and three children personally, I can assure you that he does not nearly have the character, virtue and strength of his convictions as these men do. That is not to say that WD is a bad guy, because he is not. His opinions could be taken issue with and I do.

These men know and serve the Lord Jesus Christ in not only their church life, but their business and home life also. All of these men are above reproach, because I have seen most of them in all three venues. I can assure you that if ANYTHING was out of character for the Gospel that they would be the first to step in to stop it. I also assure you that they would not be blogging about it either, but would be taking very decisive action.

All of these men that WD and others have mentioned only do what is right by the Gospel and not what is right by Mac Brunson and are not cool aid drinkers. Don't anyone kid themselves for a moment that if Mac Brunson was part of some great conspiracy or sin that they would not take steps to right any wrongs.

I feel sorry for His wife and children as they are being sucked into WD's vortex of discontent and unfortunately have suffered the consequences of WD's opinions. That does not make them bad people either.

I personally have done what Matthew 18:15-17 says by going to them first by myself, and then going with a brother,and then bringing them before the church and can personally attest that if someone like WD has made up his mind before ever considering Matthew 18 except to fault Mac Brunson for not doing that does not work. When someone has become compulsive in their viewpoints and opinions they will never change their mind. Just like those who spin scripture to justify abortion, homosexuality, sexual affairs, or other things that most consider against the Law of God, when a man or woman are convinced that the rest of the world is wrong, nothing but the grace of God and the Holy Spirit can change their heart.

Again, why not drop all of this activity which is definitely not furthering the Gospel of Christ and do something positive in the life of His Church.

But what is the point anyway! WD has made up his mind, so has Thy Peace, T Rex, it is written, Wade's Blog, New BBC Open Forum, gmommy, and all of the rest of the annon's. How about everyone being a WINNER and not a WHINER. How about everyone growing up and acting like adults. How about all of those who name the name of Jesus act like it and start thinking about how many people will use this blog as their excuse when they stand before the Great White Throne Judgment and say they are going to Hell because of this blog.

How about everyone do what Jesus would do. He would not be blogging but praying for those who are despitefully used, praising the Father, worshiping with His brothers and sisters, ministering to the fold, serving those less fortunate, singing songs of praise, and building up the faithful. NOT BLOGGING!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

On MySpace you can be anyone you want, anytime you want, whereas on Facebook, people have to use their correct information to have any friends on it.

No you don't. As an experiment I set up a fictitious Facebook page and sent out dozens of friend requests and almost all were accepted. For many people Facebook is about collecting as many "friends" as they can. It doesn't matter if those "friends" are real people or not.

it is written said...

IN HIS SERVICE....When Mac begins to do the things you described in your blog.."IT WILL BE THE FIRST TIME!!!!

it is written said...

Quote IN HIS SERVICE...."It must surely grieve the heart of God to see all of this pontification going on.".....The only pontificating that I've notice is done by none other than Pope Mac himself and hsi Cardinals..

Gereja said...

Tell the leaders of Jax that they are creating this 'monster' Mac. Can you all show us from the text of Scripture all these fuss about pastors getting large houses, salaries, country club membership, TV stations, etc? The fact that all these things are NOT in the Bible is they supposed to live like believers in general. You all in Jax have created this Frankesntein that you now want to kill. Anathema you all who worship great preachers. Anathema to all who worship great sermons. It is not the man, but the message. Baptists worship their pastors and help creating monsters in the process. You Jaxs are responsible for creating this monster.

Lu Mo Nyet

Anonymous said...

Sorry I address the "Bibkering comments to 9:26. My error I meant them for Bickering of 9:16

Anonymous said...

"WD seems to think that Mac Brunson has committed all types of grievous sins. Does WD go to him, no!"

THAT is because he can't go to Mac. Do you see how he BIG-TIMES everybody?? Do you read how many people try to contact Mac and don't get a call back or an email response?! And you can forget an actual face-to-face with the man, because that won't EVER happen. Oh okay, if you are very famous and powerful, probably. But for the rest of the world, forgettaboutit.

All you Mac homers have no legs to stand on.

Anonymous said...


I really have to call bull on some items from you. Jax did NOT "create" Mac nor did Dallas. Sure they helped facilitate him, with all their riches, pastor-worship and other foolishness. But men of the flesh are not created by any church. They already come that way.

In Mac's case, as I've said in a previous post, I am of the opinion that there are Jezebel "spirits" pulling his strings. Trust me on this (as Matt would say).

Anonymous said...

I was correct. Everyone will spin whatever anyone writes to justify their own position and thoughts. What a pity.

As far as houses and lands, does my being wealthy make it a sin? I think not. I do not worship wealth and did not seek it out. It found me and that has allowed me to do a lot for the Kingdom of Christ. Maybe those who decry those who have wealth and use it wisely for the furtherance of the Gospel should read Luke 16:11 again.

Anonymous said...

AS far as having contact with Mac Brunson or any other staff members, I nor anyone else that I know have never had any problem getting a response or a personal conversation. Again, people can spin things anyway that they want.

Based on the incendiary comments I read, I think most of the respondents that I see are non members of FBC, members of other fellowships, or otherwise non church going people.

Like I said before WWJD?

Anonymous said...

Anon.11:2...IN His Service: A staff person perhaps. To whomever, that's your opinion. Most here disagree with you. Your "spiritual picture of FBCJ is not real. You are perhaps attending ANOTHER church on Sundays and Weds. Sorry you did not understand what was meant by in the Dark. The light only bothers those in the dark. When abuse is brought out in the open, those hiding it are revealed. The calling your Congressman remark, means you get just about as much response from our elected officials about our govermental concerns as we do from the church about our concerns involving this pastor and leadership. NONE. Everyone just STONEWALLS. That way they keep their position, money and never have to answer a question. Get the picture. Preachers and politicians are twins!!!! You use the word pontificate to describe bloggers, I use the word bloviate to describe Mac defenders, and that's being nice!

Anonymous said...

12:41: No one cares about your money!!!! This is something rich people or not so rich people carry around about themselves. Delusions of grandeur, so to speak. WHO CARES. Most people are not as consumed with the rich as they think. But we do care about how GODS money is used to enrich pastors who claim to be "just humble servants". RIGHT....

it is written said...

IN HIS SERVICE..Please understand that YOUR wealth is "YOUR" wealth;;But "NO" Pastor should get rich off of the backs of the congregation "NO PASTOR"!!!That's not "HIS" money it's "GOD'S" MONEY FOR "GOD'S" PEOPLE!!!Not to live in MIILION dollar houses and drive EXPENSIVE automobiles...IT'S "GOD'S" MONEY FOR "GOD'S" PURPOSES "PERIOD"!!!

it is written said...

Oh yes "IN HIS SERVICE" your opinion is just that..."YOUR OPINION"!!!

Anonymous said...

In His McService

There, I fixed you MC-B.S.

Now that you have McVented, READ the blog, read your Bible, Pray and THINK instead of being McBlind and McDelusional.

You sound like such a McHoly FBC McGroupie.

My fellow travelers, we are winning, and no Mcwhining here.

Gereja said...


The monster creation = strong man worship is rampant in big organizations. You Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. You see the SBC quarrel over Paige Patterson and his lavish lifestyle at Wade Burleson's blog (having 2 people to walk PP's dogs), etc. This has similar root cause in RC, in SBC, or in Jax. It is man worship. This is a psychological and cultural phenomenon and nothing to do with Gospel and Bible doctrine.

Association with large organizations and strong men have blinded Baptists to think that being a part or asscn with a big church and a great speaker means spirituality. This delusion is blinding.

If you check the sermons in Baptist seminary chapels and churches almost all only repeatedly talk of salvation--even in seminary chapels (emphasis only on evangelism)--my conclusion is there is very low spiritual growth in these organizations that only talk of salvation and have orators in the pulpit merchandizing their books, audios and videos. This trafficking of the Gospel is a blasphemy of the Gospel of Grace. Talk of grace and turn around for money. You can call it Jezebel spirit of whatever--this is demonic. It is all about material, power and money.

Lu M Nyet

Anonymous said...

In His (Macs) Service,

The only thing I agree with you about is the blessing of wealth. We are blessed to be a blessing NOT to amass earthy power or prestige in our local church. You know as well as I that we men of wealth are welcomed with open arms at FBC and quickly gain access to those in places of authority simply because we have wealth. I know Mac or Soud would take my call if I so choose and all because I am know as a successful, generous businessman.

Sad but human nature.

Anonymous said...

In His Service - thanks for sharing here. I would suggest you sincerely open your heart, mind and eyes to what Mac is doing. Your type of logic is what makes him be able to keep doing as he is doing. Why not ask Mac why he never contacted the accused and simply pastored him? Why was Matthew 18 not followed by the deacons or trustees toward the accused. Why was the blog not just ignored as one's man opinion, and an anonymous man at that? The answers to those questions might open your mind. The blog is presenting true facts, raising legitimate questions, and strikes a chord with people. There is no defense and Mac would never feel he owed any explanation to one powerless, insignificant sheep. The blog's credibility comes not from the name of the blogger (you have even already attacked his integrity), but from what he posts. If he merely blogged about the pastor's weight, or bald head, or color of the carpet, no one would read it or care. But he blogs about changing by-laws without any discussion or explanation, oceanfront condo living an hour from the church upon arrival, lavish wedding reception for his son whom we had never met, use of a marketing consultant to help arrange sermon topics, nepotism, receipt of $307K gift three weeks after arriving, playing a commercial in the service for the donor's family, converting 3600 sq feet of space from the children's building/school for his luxury office suite before he even arrived, etc, etc. These are the topics of the blog. NOT the identity of the WD or whether or not HE followed Matthew 18. Who really cares about that? YOU? Get real. You and the thousands like you got what you deserved. Go ahead, give to the rich pastor. Read proverbs to see what the bible says about those that "give to the rich."

Anonymous said...

It found me and that has allowed me to do a lot for the Kingdom of Christ. Maybe those who decry those who have wealth and use it wisely for the furtherance of the Gospel should read Luke 16:11 again.

March 4, 2009 12:41 PM

Ok, let's read it again before we deal with your unbiblical stance in your first sentence.

First of all, This is one of the hardest passages in scripture and one of the most abused. The problem is most folks stop reading. Keep reading. He is contrasting and comparing two situations.

Jesus calls the steward 'unrighteous'.

While staying within the letter of the law the steward was not acting in his masters best interests but his own. Even though the master
lost a lot of money through the steward’s actions, he grudgingly
had to praise him for his shrewdness. But the fact is, although shrewd, the steward was still unrighteous or unfaithful because he was using his master’s money for his own selfish ends, not for the master’s profit.

One of the key concepts of being a steward is that the steward
does not own what the master or owner has entrusted to him. That is why your first sentence is unbiblical. YOU cannot do anything for the Kingdom of God. None of us can. We can only be faithful and obedient. When we start thinking we have done great things for God, we are in big trouble and should 'examine ourselves' to see if we are in the faith. YOU cannot further the gospel. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. And God will get it done. If you go and read the following, you will understand better to never brag about using your weath for God. It may NOT be true. You could be fooling yourself and giving to something this is really NOT of Christ. Not all things that profess to be really are of Christ:

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

And in reality, statistics have consistently shown that the more someone has, the less they give as a percentage of their income.

You may want to read on in Luke 16 as Jesus now contrasts that parable with the one about Lazarus and the rich man. Not as inticing as your wealth but something to consider.


Anonymous said...

Like I said before WWJD?

March 4, 2009 12:47 PM

A good place to start would be to read Matt 5-23. And ask yourself: Do I look more like a Matt 5 believer or a Pharisee?

I did this a while ago and came up more as a Pharisee. I serve a living Savior who showed this to me and changed my life.


Anonymous said...

Dog you do need to get a lawyer and I would call Bill O'Reilly and Hannity, and Neal Boortz too.

New BBC Open Forum said...

I find all this talk about the Watchdog applying Matthew 18 to this situation laughable. Nowhere has the Watchdog ever claimed he had a personal issue with Mac Brunson. He's merely pointed out the abuses that Mac has subjected the whole church to. In other words, he was warning the sheep about a wolf in their midst.

Now, apparently Mac thinks he (Mac) has been personally offended, so it seems to me that Matthew 18 does apply in his case. Of course, if he's like Steve Gaines, Matthew 18, like the qualifications for a pastor, is just "guidelines."

Whether Mac did or didn't attempt to follow Matthew 18, does that in any way justify illegal action on the part of him or his wife or someone on staff to learn the alleged Watchdog's identity? (Has it occurred to anyone that the Watchdog's blog might not be registered under his real name or that there's more than one person running the blog?) How can they in any way justify what they had to have done to find out the accused man's identity???

Gereja said...


As I read the following about Mac "use of a marketing consultant to help arrange sermon topics" I wonder who is he going to please? What spirit behind this kind of thinking? You see the drive behind hiring a "marketing consultant". Just think of John the Baptist, the apostle Paul etc. consulting a marketing expert for sermon titles. This guy is up to no good motive. It is about numbers. It is about popularity, about relevancy, acceptance by the masses--he does not need the Holy Spirit anointing. He could craft a 'perfect' sermon according to the market and then selling them online. Imagine the apostle Paul selling his sermons; imagine the prophet Amos selling sermons online. This money hungry preachers are incurable.

Lu Mo Nyet

Anonymous said...

This entire senario is about Bad Press. The President, a mayor, a judge, and even a pastor hates bad press. It hurts their image. Imagine that!!!

Anonymous said...

You have a lot of wealth...go and do what Jesus told the rich young ruler...go and sell all that you have. Then come back and post!!!

Anonymous said...

The congregation must be afraid to open their mouths for fear of giving offense, particularly if the 'victims' are harassed in the community.

This 'church' is a phoney 'religious' dictatorship,
not a real church.

It serves to keep Brunson and team in power and stuffing their pockets.

Families need to get their kids out of there.

Anonymous said...

WD any word from Blount?

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Anon - zippo. Not a word. Not surprised.

Anonymous said...

WD, do you know if the accused has hired an attorney?

Gereja said...

Jax members are duped and morphined by mass psychology--feeling important by association with a large organization. This is a sign of mental illness. It is not about Bible or doctrine. This is herd mentality. It is brainwashing. It is plain stupidity.

Lu Mo Nyet

Ramesh said...

About links and text: The links were provided so WD can verify the validity of the text being shown in the comment. This acts as a reference. At least, this format is common in hyper linking of web pages. I have no desire to annoy anyone. Sorry for the inconvenience.
"Jax members are duped and morphined by mass psychology--feeling important by association with a large organization. This is a sign of mental illness. It is not about Bible or doctrine. This is herd mentality. It is brainwashing. It is plain stupidity."

I would disagree with this. I personally think each and every one of fbc jax members are intelligent and faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ. This includes fbc jax leadership.

Then what went wrong?

My theory is this:

Phillip Zimbardo - Bad apples or bad barrels?

Anonymous said...

ANON 8:23, you are attempting to apply Matthew 19:16-22. You might want to read it again. A certain rich man came to Jesus and asked what he must do to have eternal life. Jesus answered him knowing that his wealth was hindering him from being born again to sell all he had and give to the poor. The rich man declined. That is what it is about, not about having wealth. Also, if you read the Scriptures you will find that it is the LOVE of money that is a sin, not having it.

Anonymous said...

T-rex, sorry but you are incorrect again. In His Service is just that: in HIS, Jesus, Service. If I was in Macs Service I would have used "In his, that is macs, Service, little "H". Why such incendiary rhetoric? If you are a brother in Christ, how about treating me like one!

ANON 12:48, I am not a staff person but a layman. I know all of the men that everyone is slandering and have talked with several of them personally. Like Matt says, "I assure you" if anything that was scriptural, or otherwise, they would be the first to deal with it.

gureja, aka Lu Mo Nyet, all I can say is we on both sides of the isle should pray for you. Why all of the vitriol comments? Of all the posts yours seem to be coming from someone who has been deeply hurt by the Family of God.

It is Written: all wealth is from God and owned by God. Yours, mine, and everyone else. We are merely stewards on our sojourn on earth. I use my wealth as the Lord leads to benefit His kingdom, not mine puny temporal life on the planet. Not only should you not be impressed with anyone's wealth that also includes your wealth.

Also, why all the fuss on what Mac makes. Does anyone thing that he sets salaries? Does not happen.

Again, would all of the bloggers have been happy if Mac and his wife had stayed in one of my rental houses in San Jose? Or would the bloggers have been happy if the property given Mac was worth only $10,000.00? Will you rob the giver the privilege of giving the gift as directed by the Lord. Who gives any of us the right to question someones motives if the feel led of God to do something?

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

In His Service:

Since you are claiming "slander", can you give us maybe 3 people and the respective statements made here on this blog that have risen to the level of slander? It has never been my intent to slander. I'd like to know a bit of what you consider slander.


Anonymous said...

In His Service - I would have been happy if he lived on San Jose and only accepted a $10,000 gift, yes, IF he discloses it to the congregation and pays taxes on it and it was not part of his negotiations to come here. But he didn't did he? He lived in a million dollar, oceanfront Condo an hour from the church (and from his new job and most of his new flock) and that cost him leadership ability. Then he took a $307K land gift (and that took more leadership ability away), then he built a million dollar home on the golf course (again, hurts his credibility and motive for coming here...money, money, money?), then he became LESS open and transparent and consolidated power in himself and trustees when questions were raised, now he issues an edict that the church will aggressively go after anyone who questions anything. He is splitting the church because he makes it about him. Either you fully support all of his abuses, or you are an evil, unregenerate person who needs to be shut down and run off. And you don't see any problem with this? Not even a hint that something might be wrong? And what are your true thoughts about what we pay Maurilio and what his role is? Be honest. Thanks. May Mac continue to bless you as you serve him.

Anonymous said...

In McDonalds Service aka McServe,

There you go my friend, I stand corrected and I speak for the rest of the dog pound, thanks for correcting all us poor unhappy non-FBC Elite. McVenting make you feel better?

Gereja, You are right on, no matter what McServ says. You have seen beyond the trees to see the forest. That mean old McServ calls you bitter, I call you better.

McServ, I have known all those men for probably longer than you have attended FBC and have seen the transformation from servants of God to elite program/church/FBCJax/McDonald McServants. They NEVER acted this way when either Dr.Lindsay was there and they (the Lindsay's)were the last truly non-elite pastors at FBC. They have all become Murriiiloo (notice how that rhymes with brillo)girlie twitter men.

One last thing McServ, flaunting ones wealth is soooo unbecoming, but typical of a McServant. Last question McServ, does Mike Hogan offer an FBCJax discount on your property taxes for your vast realestate holdings? Not trying to be incendiary ole McBuddy, Rex is just having fun this morning and you give me good material.

There, I feel Mcbetter. Off to make more filthy Mcmammon!

It's a good day dog pound, God is good. Humor is of the Lord and I rejoice in an abundance of McHUMOR.

Anonymous said...

Right on 8:58, you are the Man or Lady this morning. You see the forest as well.

Me, I just like hanging out in the dog pound for the opportunity to bring a bit non-incediary Mchumor to this McDrama unfolding before our eyes.

Anonymous said...

Okay folks! I'm thinking we're going to find out what the discipline committee etc is really all about!

There are two, they will remain un-named for now, Very High Profile individuals @FBCJ who have left their families for new, apparently more attractive partners.

Let's see what the trustees & discipline committees will do with that. Are you thinking what I am thinking? I'm wagering that you are -- namely, there will be NO discipline that we will ever hear about!

Why can I be fairly confident that you will never ever hear about any discipline being dished out to the high profile offenders? Because it ain't what the discipline committee is about! The discipline committee was manufactured to deal with eradicating one thing ONLY: disagreement with the preacher!

it is written said...

IN HIS SERVICE...Since you are a great Theologian...May be you can enlighten me and the dog pound on what does the Bible reveal on the rise of false prohpets and false teachers in the last days...And while your at it please inform us pups as to what do the Scriptures reveal about their characteristics...Thanks

Anonymous said...

In reference to my 10:13 am comments. I looked at that and thought I'd better make sure no one thought "very high profile" meant someone "on staff" @FBC.

By very high profile I meant two individuals you see on the platform @FBCJ very frequently.

Anonymous said...

To: In His Service

You said:

"As far as all of the men that WD has singled out and offhandedly tried to slight their character, along with other folks on this blog,.......
Since I know the accused and his wife and three children personally, I can assure you that he does not nearly have the character, virtue and strength of his convictions as these men do........
These men know and serve the Lord Jesus Christ in not only their church life, but their business and home life also. All of these men are above reproach, because I have seen most of them in all three venues. I can assure you that if ANYTHING was out of character for the Gospel that they would be the first to step in to stop it. I also assure you that they would not be blogging about it either, but would be taking very decisive action."

Dear: In His Service,

I have to take issue with holding these men up as beyond reproach. Did you suspect our former prominent deacon, whose name escapes me at the moment, (the one who used to read the minutes on Wed night) before he ran off and left his wife? Did you think Steve Edmonds was above reproach prior to his arrested/guilty plea/conviction for molestation? Were you aware that one of the members of the pastoral search committee prior to joining FBC didn't darken the door of a church for years? But he came to FBC married into a prominent family and just happened to be wealthy. He was very quickly a deacon, then sunday school teacher and then on the pastoral search committee.

Of course you didn't and don't.

For you to state that the Watchdog doesn't have "nearly have the character, virtue and strength of his convictions as these men" is quite frankly a farce. You don't know the character of these men any more than you knew the character of the previous men I mentioned. They may be godly and they may not be godly. Quite frankly neither you nor I know. We do know however that they as well as ourselves are fallen men capable of just about anything without the help of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

For the record I also have known the Watchdog and his family for years. He has shown himself to have just as much character, virtue and strength as the men you hold up.

I don't agree believe his website is the proper way to handle his grievances. I also don't think serving trespass warnings and not following Matt 18 is the proper way to handle the church's grievances.

Anonymous said...

anon 10:59 - please be careful here. The church would love for us to actually slander someone. Your posts hint at some upcoming slander, so be sure of your facts before posting. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 12:06:

I didn't name any names, but I guess I should have said "allegedly have left their families..."

I am sure of my facts. And my whole point is that there won't be any public discipline by the trustees, discipline committee, or anyone else because the discipline committee is about scaring off dissenters, not about restoring anyone to fellowship.

Anonymous said...

anon 12:13.. What do you mean frequently on platform? Please provide clarification.. for that matter indicate whom you are talking about.

I do agree that the disciplinary committee will not address this as where do you draw the line. "He who is without sin.." If we start kicking people out of the church because of their sin, the the building should be empty. Including the disciplinary committee as well!

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:50 pm:

I cannot name names because it wouldn't be fair to the families who have "allegedly" been left behind.

The point, once again, was to say that we will hear nothing of these lousy people who have "allegedly" left their families. They will be allowed to quietly walk away without a public word from the discipline committee. There will be no "Whereas" speech from the pulpit by Soud and the "not-accused" will not have a letter delivered to their door telling them to appear before the trustees and/or discipline committee. If there's anything at all done about it it will be done quietly behind closed doors.

And I say all that to say that the way "the accused" has been treated and marched out of the church is not about restoring anyone to fellowship -- it's about scaring off anyone who would dare speak against anything the preacher has allegedly done. It's about how you "SHUT 'EM DOWN!"

Anonymous said...

"What do you mean frequently on platform? Please provide clarification.. for that matter indicate whom you are talking about."

You will know who it is in a matter of Weeks ;)

Anonymous said...

Funny thing, I think that what the church insiders (Blount, Soud, Brunsons, etc.) didn't think through is that they have now set a precedent in how the church MUST handle problems with members who have brought shame to the church. They MUST discipline these lousy excuses who say they carry the name Christian. They MUST make it public. Or else it's going to look like what it is: A trumped up charge to silence dissenters.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 1:18 -

There's more than one.

Anonymous said...

Where are the "I hate bloggers, I hate dissenters folk?" Where are the posters who have been telling us that the church is right in the discipline process which was used against "the accused?"

Please come and post your reasoning as to how the church will discipline the individuals who have allegedly left their families and have shamed FBCJ in an extremely ugly way!

There are many more than two FBCJ members who have left their families. I know personally of at least two. But let's face it, it's a closed, secretive network and they will simply quietly send these people off elsewhere to "serve the Lord" in another church.

But you won't come and post about how these adulterers WILL be publicly disciplined because it just simply ain't gonna happen!

Anonymous said...

anon 1:18

Thanks for the veiled revelation. If that is the case, I am sure there is more to the story than what has been presented.

Now for the other person?

To your point about the DC.. yes you are correct, the church is suppose to create an environment that would allow sinners, backslidden christians, hurting people, confused people come and get the encouragement, restoration, and direction in their life. Not be shunned, run out of the church, etc.

The city of Jacksonville is coming to the understanding that its hard to find Jesus at FBCJ.. which is a sad day.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Readers - I have no interest, and I hope you will respect this, in airing any sins of people not directly associated with the issues this blog is about.

We don't need to point out specific sins of leaders or members that will not be publicly decried by a "Deacon Resolution" read by Judge A.C. Soud, or that won't be served a trespass warning. We know the action taken by the Discipline Committee in seeking a court order to identity a blogger they don't like, and then beginning a discipline process with a trespass warning against the man and his wife is unscriptural, excessive, and just plain wrong - and hypocritical as a man caught in the sin of adultery or fornication likely won't suffer the same fate. But it won't be helpful at all to start mentioning names of people that have little or nothing to do with the mess here. Read the description of this blog under the title.

But, remember...those deacons who were present Monday 2/23...you know that the basis of the trespass warnings, the court order, and the harsh treatment of the accused was not just because he was accused of owning the blog, but also of video taping the pastor's wife and stealing the Brunson's mail. So there is something else very sinister going on. Fake, phony, baseless, and really just ridiuclous charges were raised against the accused. Let's hope, let's sincerely hope that the church didn't use those phony charges to obtain the court order. But hopefully it will all come out so the truth of what has been done will be known.

Anonymous said...

T-Rex, you are one funny guy! I like you humor, but disagree with some of you comments.

I have been at FBC since back in the day when Homer Lindsey Sr. and his wife were alive and well. Perhaps you have been there that or longer, but does it really matter?

You Know its So, maybe your comments are true about you as someone of wealth. For my part I do not flaunt God's wealth that I have been entrusted with. For the most part most of the people that have been subjected to liable on this blog have no idea that the Lord has entrusted me with anything other than a normal income. Also, for the most part the majority of giving that we do is anonymous for good causes here and abroad. ANON 12:41, It is beyond me how you can accuse me of flaunting anything. If that is how you took it, I humbly apologize. That was not my intent.

In truth all of this bloviating and pontification lacks any cogitation of the possibility that really only two people really know what is factual. That would be WD, aka the accused, and Mac Brunson. I point out again that it was WD who brought up the accusations and had issues with Brunson. Was it not he who was first one to say that someone (Mac Brunson) had sinned against him? Would it not also be he that would have first gone to Brunson?

The only reason that I even input on this blog is to try and bring some balance from the other side of the congregation. It is not now and has never been my intention to belittle anyone or cast light on their person, but to be a bastion of sanity in this insane discussion.

WD, I must apologize for the use of the word "slander". That was not the correct word. I should have used the proper word and that is "liable".

ANON 11:46, I new both of the males that you mentioned extremely well. I was not surprised when they did what they did because I had very little respect for either of them. WD is a far better man than these two males were and will ever be.

ANON 8:58, I still do not see why the vitreous comments. If I owned an ocean front condo and offered it for free to the incoming pastor and his family, how is that a problem. My offering would be just that. His accepting would be just that. Where were you the last 30 plus years when men who were able gave of their excess to ministers of music, and previous pastors. No one said anything then. Why? When a man has under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wants to give of his abundance, why is that a problem? And if you knew that man in question and his family as I do you would no that this is a common practice. His sons were brought onstage not for advertising, but to acknowledge the fact that they run their company the same way that Truett Cathy of Chic-Fil-A runs his by closing on Sunday and proclaiming the Gospel and family. I was there and nothing even remotely came close to an advertisement. I recently say a secular publication saying the same thing about these young men and their company. Were is your indignation on that? Why have you not pontificated on the fact that these men did not build his house but another company?

WD, again the word is liable. My bad. My concern is when this blog promotes or otherwise allows liable against these men of honor and character that I have know over thirty years and know them to be real in the profession and steady in their walk with the Lord.

Then there is all of these comments that anyone who attends FBC are either demon possessed, brainwashed, insane, tricked, crazy, ignorant, unregenerate or just plain evil is ridiculous. However, maybe the media department is broadcasting hidden subliminal messages in the service to accomplish this task.
Sorry T-Rex, I had to break into some of your McHumor.

After almost three years of blogging of all of the massive, selfish, blatant, and major abuses of Mac Brunson, why are there not thousands and thousands of McSheep responding to WD's accusations and "stepping into his light" and really just a few handful of people blogging here?

Ramesh said...

"After almost three years of blogging of all of the massive, selfish, blatant, and major abuses of Mac Brunson, why are there not thousands and thousands of McSheep responding to WD's accusations and "stepping into his light" and really just a few handful of people blogging here?"

My understanding, just from reading comments on this blog, is lot of people have left fbc jax to other churches. I remember lot of times, WD pleading with some members to stay and dissent, but they could not take the current situation.

WD only blogged about 1.5 years.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

In His Service:

Just a few comments in response:

- again, if you could point out maybe 3, for starters, 3 statements of libel on the blog, we could have a meaningful discussion.

- this blog has been very clear, at least I have, that we are not so much critical of the givers, but much more so the Brunson's acceptance of a $300,000 land gift 3 weeks after they arrived for "love and affection" from one of the church donors. Especially in light of the words of his own book which cautions pastors against accepting gifts of even much smaller size than a QUARTER MILLION land gift. This calls into question other issues like: when did he know of the gift, and was the finance committee aware of this to adjust the relo package accordingly. Does pointing out that this seems to be unethical, that it requires explanation to the congregation, mean I am jealous? Does it mean I'm petty and a slanderer? Also, would not the giver and receiver of such a gift, under the circumstances I just stated, FULLY UNDERSTAND that at some point the accpetance of the gift may very well be criticized and called into question? Or are people of wealth and stature above criticism? How dare we point out and criticize this gift, and how dare we call for the pastor to explain it to the congregation! Its these types of gifts that cause men to fall, that cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the ministry of the church. See also "Senator Charles Grassley".

- about the testimony/commercial - I have said it LOOKS LIKE quid pro quo. There is only one testimony highlighting the business of a church member that has ever been played smack dab in the middle of a bible sermon, as far as I can remember at FBC Jax. And, coincidentally, its for the business owned by the sons of the man giving a huge personal gift to the pastor. Just pointing out: looks like quid pro quo. Or are people of wealth like Brunson and the gift givers just exempt from criticism?

- lastly, about the Watchdog claiming Brunson sinned against him...no sir...actually it was Brunson who has been claiming his church to be guilty of mistreating him and being a bunch of "legalists". Paige Patterson claimed that we never gave Mac a honeymoon (how would PP come to that false conclusion?) and equated our treatment of him to "wanting to kill him" when he came here. And Mac calls us a "hotbed of legalism" behind our backs. And just a few weeks ago said disparaging things about our church to J.D. Greear. So I've never claimed he personally sinned against ME...have just said here over and over that Mac has said and done things for which he needs to give an account, some explanation. But he won't.

I hope that makes some sense.

New BBC Open Forum said...

"It is not now and has never been my intention to belittle anyone or cast light on their person, but to be a bastion of sanity in this insane discussion."

Bwahahahahahaha!!! Now, that's funny!

WD, I must apologize for the use of the word 'slander'. That was not the correct word. I should have used the proper word and that is 'liable'."

Actually the word you're trying to use is "libel." Perhaps you should use some of your wealth to purchase a good dictionary.

Anonymous said...

You should really take the post down about the personal issue mentioned since you mention not wanting to discuss it. Just my 2 Cents.

it is written said...

IN YOUR SERVICE.....I personally am waiting for your scriptual explanation on the Bible's predictions on the proliferation of false teachers into the Church and please give some of their personal characteristics.

Anonymous said...

McServ, now you got it my friend. We may disagree about McDonald and that is fine with me but we are still the same body and one day will inhabit glory together. Maybe we should get together one day, compare portfolio's and have a cold adult beverage, a McBrew (now that's McHumor!!

Anyway, welcome to the pound, stay awhile and join in the lively discussion. As a point of reference, Sr. married my parents and Jr. my bride and I so I am old school FBC. Were you there when Merv Altman ran off with the blond organists? Boy, those were the days.

To all the McDonald's out there, we luv you man and enjoy the lively banter as long as you don't get too McSerious on us.

The Dog is a good guy and is just trying to shine the light on a questionable situation. Not trying to put words in your mouth Dog just spreading a little McLuv. In the words of that noted theologian "Why can't we all just get along".

I know dog, let's have a costume keg fellowship ( McBaptist can't party, just like they can't adultrate or sodomate....more McHumor)and share some anon good times. There is much more that joins us than seperates us. Like that nappy headed bro in the white house and Maha Rushbo.

Dog Pounders, peace, love and the American Way!

Anonymous said...

" When a man has under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wants to give of his abundance, why is that a problem? "

I do not know you but you if your gift brings you favor from influential people, it would not be from the Holy Spirit. So please stop mocking God. It is when your gift can not help you in any way..say to an unknown struggling single mom ...that it brings Glory to God. She knows it was from the Holy Spirit because she can do nothing in return. And then God gets the glory. She feels His hese (kindness) through you.

Unfortuantly, many are trying to give great gifts to men of influence (I saw this all the time...trips, condo's, etc) and pass it off as Kingdom work. It isn't. There is a line to give these gifts and curry favor with the influential.

Read Matthew 6 and 7.

Then also go and read about the widow and her few mites. It still amazes me that Jesus Christ, Lord of Hosts, praised this woman in front of the influential Pharisees. And they, thinking they were so righteous with their perfect tithes.


Anonymous said...

Anon 8:15

The reason I brought up the issue of the high profile FBCJ members that have blatantly, er um, "allegedly" left their families is to prove the point that likely there will be no plan to discipline these low-lifes though they are definitely responsible for bringing shame on the church.

Anonymous said...

Matt, we are bro's man and see eye to eye on McDonald, however I will stick up for McServ. I think the dude has a good heart and while he may be a McDonald, he seems to be an humble giver. Remember his paradym has not shifted yet...(more McHumor).

Anyway Matt, your point is well taken and I agree you 99% of the time but I am willing to cut McServ some slack and I believe that I was one of the first he engaged, (besides Maha Watchdog. Wow dog, we have just bestowed on you a new Mcname....Maha Watchdog! Now that's McGood!

Are we all having fun. Everyone, sit back from your monitor, crack a cold beverage of choice and be thankful we still live in a land with a moderate amount of freedom. Viva the resistence to "O".

Tea Party anyone? Any freepers here? Maybe McDonald could make McPeace if he sponsored a McTea Party out at the McMansion?

Anonymous said...

John Blount - why no response from you to the accused's letter and email. You were quick to call him the Monday after the pastor's conference and several days after he had joined another church. You stated the bylaws "compelled" you to follow through with the discipline, yet now not a peep from you. Are you just waiting for A.C. Soud to tell you what to do next? Why not tell this man what information points to him as the blogger? Why not tell him what you presented to hundreds of deacons without allowing him to speak in his defense? Why don't you lift the trespass warnings?

What does YOUR sweet wife have to say to you about the way you treated the accused's wife? Or does your wife just understand that you serve at the whim and pleasure of Debbie and Maurilio so you best not say a thing? Do you really think the accused is the coward? OR is it YOU?

I know, I know. The market is very down right now for a laymen to find a job at another church. And the construction industry is even worse. But can't you at least reply to this brother who you have known to be above reproach for over 20 years? Come on John Blount. All of us that know you are watching YOU, not the accused.

Thanks. Have a nice day.

Anonymous said...

A.C. Soud - YOU presided over a kangaroo court, acted on secret or illegally obtained evidence and hearsay, and did not allow due process or equal protection to the accused. Then you read a meaningless and unnecessary edict to the congregation when the pastor was away. And all your life people have referred to you as "your honor." I bet that went to your head a little didn't it your honor? You should be ashamed of yourself. Show some integrity and apologize to the sweet, Christian lady that you banned with trespass warnings for "associating with her husband."

And remember all the unfair and illegal tactics used against Jesus you eloquently pointed out in your teachings on the "Trial of Jesus?" How many similarities do you see with how YOU handled the accused? These are just a few of my questions for YOU, Mr. Soud.

Anonymous said...

I'm proud to be a member of the Dog Pound. Keep standing up for what's right, Dog! We're with you!

Anonymous said...

In His Service - you miss the point on the land gift and free condo use. By themselves, under other circumstances, there is no problem. But taken as a whole, along with several other things from a NEW pastor, BEFORE he ever pastored here for even one day, he had all of this lined up. This is far different than blessing or honoring someone like Vines who had been here for 23 years. Also, the man had already taken 3600 sq feet of space from the children buildings for luxury offices, put his wife and son on staff, had a lavish wedding reception for his son's wedding where gifts were piled to the ceiling and a money tree from people who had NEVER MET Trey or Rachel, his promoting Holy Lands trips he hosted for profit, his missing sermons to finish his book, his travels to earn money preaching at other conferences and churches...ALL during his first months here when he should have come in and earned our respect and leadership. So, it is my conviction, the man came in to capitalize on the legacy left behind by Lindsay and Vines. Those men earned the trust and respect and occasional gift. Mac Brunson did not. Does this help explain it,IN His Service, or are you not willing to consider that taken as a whole, Mac Brunson killed his credibility and ability to lead by these blatant actions. Not to mention the A-group.

Please consider this post and reply, thanks.


Gereja said...


I can see that Brunson is wolf in sheep clothing--using God's name by means of his expertise for personal gain. He is a crook. The evil of using spiritual means for personal financial gain is despicable evil. It is demonism baptized by twisting Scripture. Most preachers are crooks.

Lu Mo Nyet

Anonymous said...


for the record, only my wife, my mom and my attorney know that God has blessed me with any abundance at all. Even my very best friend nor my children do not no the extent that the Lord has blessed. Mac Brunson and no one else at FBC have a clue nor will they ever if I have anything to do about it. So please be careful with your unfounded comments on my integrity. Also, for the record only the tithe goes to FBC. All other giving is very anonymous and to specific ministries and causes. I have not condemned you, so please do not condemn me.

Anonymous said...

In His Name - why do you give a "tithe" of your income to the church? Please help me understand where that is taught in the New Testament? Do you tithe on the first fruit of your crops like the Jews? Did Jesus ever tithe, or was it just farmers and those with livestock? In Malachi, wasn't it the priests who were robbing God by withholding some of the tithes and offerings the Jews had brought to the storehouse?

You sound like an intelligent, gracious man, so I am sincerely asking you, where does the Bible say we are obligated to give 10% of our income to the local church?

Anonymous said...

I agree that one of the big problems with "the land gift" was that it sure did appear to be quid pro quo when we saw that advertisement up on the IMAG.

Let's, for the sake of argument, say it wasn't meant to be quid pro quo -- didn't any of his advisors understand the meaning of abstaining from the VERY APPEARANCE of evil? No, and they didn't think anyone would notice because they think we're uneducated sheep.

Gereja said...


There is NOWHERE in the NT it is commanded to the church believers to pay tithe.

Tithing is TAX for OT system --the Levites.

The storehouse of Mal 3:10 IS NOT BAPTIST CHURCH, but a sort of IRS for Israel. Tithing to church as storehouse is WRONG, ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Lu Mo Nyet

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, WD.

Didn't we save up and pay for the Children's building with the intention of meeting the needs of the children? I just have never understood then why we spent almost $100,000 for "Team Brunson's offices" to the exclusion of the intended use of that space. I believe we were given the privilege of touring the offices after the completion but I don't recall hearing about it beforehand and a vote called to approve the expenditure. And what else would we be expected to conclude, than that the office suite was part of the deal to entice Team Brunson to proceed to FBCJ?

Now that we have a school supposedly starting in the fall, using the children's building for classroom space, where in this world will the school staff be housed? In one of the restrooms? And won't a school in session be a terrible distraction to the Brunson team? Next thing you know they will be building offices at the "South Campus." Goodness I hope I didn't scoop just such an announcement! No, I don't have any inside information -- just brains enough to know that it wouldn't be any surprise to hear such.

It would appear to me that the school location was not well thought out either. What recess/play area will they have? That little space out there by the children's building? Can you imagine what it would be like to go and pick up your child after school? We'll have to hire more police to direct traffic because the traffic down there is a nightmare to begin with, not including parents arriving all at the same time to pick up children.

New BBC Open Forum said...

Unless you're slipping cash inside an unmarked envelope into the offering plate, if you're giving money to the church in your name they know how much you're giving and whether or not you're tithing. Steve Gaines has stated the following concerning members tithing. (These quotes were from a 2003 conference in which he preached, before he came to Bellevue, but I've no doubt he's continued the practice of checking up on members' tithing records here.)

We expect every leader, deacon, Sunday School teacher, committee member (and this ought to be a prerequisite for church membership), usher, including soloists, to sign a covenant that they will try to read the bible every day, pray every day, come to church Sunday, Sunday School, Sunday night, Wednesday night...

... these need to tithe... ten percent of undesignated to the budget of the church... and we check it... the finance committee gives them some leeway...

... if they don't tithe they don't even get asked to be a leader...

... [the person who doesn't tithe] is a thief and I don't want a thief as a deacon. I don't want to hear Betty the Bank Robber warble about Jesus. I don't want some thief singing a solo.

What I've always wondered is just what lengths they will go to to "check it." I would think this could include checking property records to see the cost of your house, perhaps hiring someone to check your employer, credit records, tax records, etc. The lengths to which they could go, and it's very troubling any church would do this at all, are limited only by their budget and their consciences. A multi-million-dollar budget combined with the lack of conscience in evidence at FBC Jax and Bellevue (to name two) is a recipe for rampant abuse and invasion of privacy. There should be a law against this kind of thing (if there's not already)... and a court system to enforce it.

Anonymous said...


In the past, we left a church because the preacher said he was going to post weekly tithes, with names of course so that everyone would know who the most loyal and spiritual people were.

Can you imagine that kind of thinking coming from a preacher? We made an appointment and told him that Christian colleges teach that the preacher should not have any knowledge of who is giving what $. He lost it and thereafter would carry on from the pulpit about it.

It's tough to accept that we are again seeing a repeat of a preacher who will demand allegiance from the pulpit and attach money to it -- but I do think that's where we are at FBCJ.

Gereja said...


Regarding tithing

“Bring ye,” a hiphil imperative of the word bo, which means to cause to come and, therefore, to bring--This command is in the plural and it is to all citizens of Judah.

The word “tithes” is in the plural to indicate taxes, all the taxes of the nation.

“into the storehouse” should be literally, into the house of the treasury. The house of the treasury is not the Church, the Church does not exist until the Day of Pentecost in 30 AD. We would say today to bring the taxes to the Inland Revenue Department. In Judah the tax department was built next to the temple because the temple had the greatest strongbox of the day, so all the people paid their taxes at one end of the temple. It is a reference to the national treasury.

“that there may be meat”--The imperfect means that there will always be a need for funds to operate a national entity — “meat” should be translated “provision”--the word means a green leaf, freshly plucked foliage, and provision. It is the word tereph, and the only time it is used for food it is used for animal food, but that doesn’t have any relationship here. When it is used for human beings it is used for provision — provision to run a government, provision for a government to function is the concept here.

“in my house” is a reference to the second temple operated by the priests and the Levites who at this time were starving or begging rather than performing the spiritual functions of the nation.

However far you stretch it it is about ISRAEL and NOT about giving to church at all. Talk about twisting scripture to help God's work.

Lu Mo Nyet

New BBC Open Forum said...

Anon 12:06,


Anonymous said...

VOR said...
In His Name - why do you give a "tithe" of your income to the church? Please help me understand where that is taught in the New Testament?

2 Corinthians 8 & 9.
This is where tithing is taught. Paul refers to the Macedonians, for whom tithing was a privilage. How can you explain these two chapters IN THE NT as anything other than an exhortation to all believers to tithe? Particular attention should be given to 9:6-15as scripture that is irrefutably about giving from a thankful heart that demonstrates a real appreciation for God and all the incredible things He has done. It is about giving that indicates a sincere desire to give up something in order to actively participate in work that glorifies God and is an outward expression of how we truly feel about and respond to "His indescribable gift!"

New BBC Open Forum said...

Here is the audio of the quote I referenced above.

The full sermons/speeches can be heard here in the three-part "Preaching Points" series.

Gereja said...


That is my point,

You have to TWIST 2Cor to force tithing into the passage; you have to READ tithing into the passage. It is tragic how pastors trying to finance church by twisting Scripture.

Lu Mo Nye

it is written said...


Anonymous said...

To everyone who does not believe in tithing. Fine, there is no one looking at your giving records and trying to hold you accountable. As for me that is what I do and I am happy to do it. However, most anyone can use Scripture to justify any position that they want to stand on. We all know it.

My homosexual friends can produce all type of verses to justify their position.

Those I know who are adulterous or promiscuous can also do the same.

Those who smoke and drink adult beverages can also do the same.

Those who don't pay their just income taxes, also.

Those who steal paperclips, paer, pens, etc. from their employer and call it "borrowing" can also use scripture to justify their actions.

Those who steal "time" from their employer or funds from the government can also produce scripture to justify their position.

Those who believe in abortion are very adept at using Scripture to justify their position.

All of these things are things of the heart and not of the mind.

Anyone who wants to attend FBC or any other fellowship do not have to give a dime. However, no none profit organization, including churches, would not be able to function if there were not donors.

As far as things being old testament, I am sure that one can find churches that do not use it nor do they believe it. You can go to Springfield just north of downtown Jacksonville to a church that preaches same sex marriages and that God sanctions homosexuality. They too would not be able to keep their doors open if no one gave, whether it is a tenth a fifth, or a penny.

For decades the churches of this country were technically stealing money for the use of intellectual property protected under the copyright laws of the land. Most do not do it today, but their are those that still grumble and say that it is not right to have to pay for the use of music that someone created. After all the music is for the church.

As I said earlier, anyone can justify any position that they want to make THEIR point.

Therefore, if you do not tithe, don't start, there is no Tithe Police. If you believe in abortion, that is your right. If you think that open marriages or gay marriage is your thing, super, no one will stop you. If you want to illegally copy music, cd's, etc., go ahead, I am sure that we can find scriptures to secure your position. I f you don't want to pay taxes that is ok too, however, the US government will probably not believe your scriptural position and make you pay the taxes, penalties, interest, and they might even throw you in jail.

I am not God, and by the way neither are any of you who disagree with my position. Also, Jesus is not the only way to Heaven. At least, hundreds of other denominations, schisms, cults, religions, and non religions. For me I choose to believe the bible! If you choose to pick and choose what you want to believe, excellent.

It is Written says.....I personally am waiting for your scriptural explanation on the Bible's predictions on the proliferation of false teachers into the Church and please give some of their personal characteristics.

ANSWER: What false teachers? What are they teaching? Where have your heard any and what did they say? It is hard to give an answer without knowing any specifics.

In the End of Days, I guess we will find out who was right, and it wont be the baptists or the catholics, or the Jehovah's Witness, or the Mormons, or the satanists, or the Church of Christ folks, or the Pentecostals, or the Methodists, or the Presbyterian's, or any other group or social organization. It will only be those whose garments are washed in the Blood of the Lamb. But of course, I am being very shallow minded because as I said before anyone can justify anything with scripture that they want. Remember, it takes the heart t change the mind and that is a truth that will never change. But as Ronald Reagan would say "There you go again!"

Gereja said...


No matter how serious you feel your experience IS NOT the standard of giving in church. My amount of giving is not a standard of giving. If it is NOT taught in the text explicitly you can give 100% of your income and IT DOES NOT IMPRESS GOD A BIT. It only impress yourself and surely your pastor.

It stands absolutely clear that tithing for Israel IS NOT MENTION EVEN ONCE IN NT.

Lu Mo Nyet

New BBC Open Forum said...

"Therefore, if you do not tithe, don't start, there is no Tithe Police."

There is if Steve Gaines is your pastor and you desire any "position" in the church such as deacon or Sunday School teacher or even to sing a solo. I don't know about FBC Jax.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:15.. your point about the discipline committee is well taken and I support you mentioning this on the blog.

As you will see there will be inconsistency.. this is the new theme of this church.

By the way, I don't think you will see one of the previous offenders on the platform. Mayb the DC got to him quietly.

Anonymous said...

for the record, only my wife, my mom and my attorney know that God has blessed me with any abundance at all. Even my very best friend nor my children do not no the extent that the Lord has blessed. Mac Brunson and no one else at FBC have a clue nor will they ever if I have anything to do about it. So please be careful with your unfounded comments on my integrity. Also, for the record only the tithe goes to FBC. All other giving is very anonymous and to specific ministries and causes. I have not condemned you, so please do not condemn me.

March 6, 2009 8:13 AM

I am not condemning you. You are the one that wrote about your wealth here. It matters not what humans know your name or not. God knows it and knows what you wrote about your great giving. It is YOUR heart I am concerned about.

How do you know your wealth is a blessing. Is ALL wealth a blessing from God? Even for Brad and Angelina? George Soros? Bill Gates? Sheik Al-Fayed?

From your writing, it seems to be an issue with you. And that we know is not scriptural.


Anonymous said...

"I said before anyone can justify anything with scripture that they want."

The Holy Word is just a history book or club to beat people with UNLESS one has the Holy Spirit to illuminate truth.

Even Satan knows scripture better than most of us do.


Anonymous said...

"What false teachers? What are they teaching? Where have your heard any and what did they say? It is hard to give an answer without knowing any specifics."

You name it. It is out there. ESS, Modalism, Patriarchy, Theonomy, seeker methodology, the Law, clergy/laity lie, walk an ailse, say a prayer and poof! you are saved, Lordship salvation, etc. There are literally thousands of false teachings out there. Even in the SBC since we have thrown out the Holy Priesthood and replaced it with celebrity preachers.

One has to be a Berean. Jesus said we have ONE TEACHER and that is the Holy Spirit. Unless the Holy Spirit is teaching you through the Word and prayer, you are vulnerable to wolves and hirlings. There are lots of 'Diotrephes' out there.


Anonymous said...

"It stands absolutely clear that tithing for Israel IS NOT MENTION EVEN ONCE IN NT."

Sure it is. Jesus kept the law perfectly. Remember the coin in the fish? That was to pay the Temple tax. But look at what He told Peter about paying it. "The Sons are free". He paid it so as not to offend. He kept the law perfectly when He was here on earth. The 'spirit' of the law.

We were free from the tithe after the Resurrection. There was no reason for it. No Levite priesthood, no Temple, etc. That veil was torn in two.

However, Jesus RAISED the bar from tithing to giving. We are to give. Look at Acts 4-5. Now we are to sell what we have and give it to those in the Body in need and to carry out the great commission. The whole reason we have deacons is because the Body needed those who would distribute the offerings to those in need.

NOT TO build huge buildings we brag about and create a professional clergy class.


Anonymous said...

Matt, you are right on AGAIN. We give a "tithe" (10%)of our gross profits from our business but we have a broad spectrum of ministries and groups we give to (as well as our local church). We are free to give as we are led and not under compulsion to give to the local "building program" or other earthly Mckingdom building program a McDonald or McDeacon can dream up. Therefore I choose not support a McDonald in a McMansion.

Giving/Tithing - Of Coarse!
All to local Church - Never

it is written said...

Thanks In His Service for your none answer....Again as with Mac you have NO clue what your blogging about!...One may say that the Bible for instance supports homosexual activity but context of Scripture will clearly refute this satanic lie...CONTEXT-CONTEXT-CONTEXT...Context will never support homosexuality,adultery,stealing,killing,lying or anything else if the entirety of Scripture and context are applied!!..It's one thing to say the Bible may state something but it's another to prove it by context!!!It's the same thing with tithing;;;Why is there no direct command to the Church in the N.T.to tithe in spite of the fact that giving is frequently written about?..Is it possible the Holy Spirit forgot to inspire the N.T.writers to record it?..Tithing was a Law and there were actually three tithes not one..So the O.T.person was required to give at the least 23% or more of his fruits(incomes)!!!How come preachers don't metion the other two tithes?..And those three tithes did not included the voluntary freewill offering!!!Please Mr.In Your Service "Get A Clue"!!!

Anonymous said...

"Matt, you are right on AGAIN. We give a "tithe" (10%)of our gross profits from our business but we have a broad spectrum of ministries and groups we give to (as well as our local church). "

Brother, I am not trying to be contentious, just true to the Word. There is NO 10% in the NT. That was just ONE part of the OC tithe. The actual amount was about 37% when you added it all up. And, it was not just money.

There is NOTHING about giving a specific tithe amount to a church in the NT. You give to those in the Body in need and to those who are carrying out the gospel to other parts of the world.

The problem is how we view the structure of the church today. It is nothing like the NT church. The NT church did not have ONE pastor. There is a lot more to this but I do not have time to go into it now.

In any event, it is not in scrpture that we would pay one guy to pastor a local church. There was really no such thing. If you read closely, you will see that. Yes, Paul, Timothy and others were given shelter, food, etc for their work. But they did not stay in ONE local church for long.

Paul made tents so as not to be a burden to some churches. What a concept.

Again, I do not want to be contentious but we could even be sinning by giving a "tithe" to a church that is NOT of Christ.

Here is a radical concept: As Christians, we are ultimately responsible and accountable for the lies we believe. If we pray for wisdom and discernment, the Lord promises to give it to us.

Anonymous said...

People confuse tithing with offering. 1 Corin 9 is taught a lot as a 'tithing' passage.

Go back and read it in context in chapter 8. (Context is everything) this money was NOT given to the local church. It was for the persecuted churches. Note how Paul commends the poor Macedonians for giving out of their poverty in 1 Corin 8:

1And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. 2Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. 3For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, 4they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints

Now, explain to me how this would be a tithe that would pay for the Levite Priesthood and upkeep of the Temple? It did not even go to pay anyone in the Corinthian church. Not even Paul as one sent out.

And then there is this uncomfortable passage in chp 8:

13Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15as it is written: "He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little."

Again, I say context is everything. Some use chapter 9 as a sort of Joel Osteenish Word of Faith type of belief system. I give and I get. Quid pro quo giving. That is not what it means. It is simply those in the Body of Christ taking care of one another. And they had never even met them!

It is an example of the Body of Christ taking care of it's 'members' all over. It is not about giving to the local church at all.


Tip: Take out the chapter breaks and verses and read these like REAL letters. It helps counteract some of the bad teaching out there.

SBC pastors are notorious for preaching tithing sermons. Some even use this passage in Hebrews to teach 10%:

1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace

Spoils of war in Gen 23! Before the Law! I have heard this taught by former SBC seminary presidents. Such is the sad state of our doctrinal position these days. But it gets the money coming in.