The Charges Against the Watchdog - Part 2

In the previous post we looked at the first four accusations made against the Watchdog by the "Discipline Committee" in their letter dated 11/28/08 sent to the man and wife they are wrongly accusing of being the owners and controllers of this blogsite. The letter contains specific accusations lettered "A" through "P". We will look here at the next 5 accusations.

"E. You have charged First Baptist Church of the manipulation of financial and ministerial responsibilities for personal gain."

Not sure how they would define "manipulation of financial and ministerial responsibilities"...sounds like some lawyer speak there. While this committee is very vague in their accusations made against the Watchdog , the Watchdog has been very specific in accusations against Mac Brunson to which they may be referring: Mac Brunson accepted a $300,000 land gift from one of the church donors just weeks after he arrived, he has displayed nepotistic tendencies in placing wife and son on staff in newly created positions of which the church has not been told what their ministerial responsibilities are...Mac has used the FBC Jax website to advertise for his "Holy Land" trips...he has used one of our most highly attended Sundays (Easter Sunday) to hold a special offering to raise funds to put his sermons back on nationwide TV (which by most reasonable standards is a budgeting issue and a recurring cost not subject to "special offerings). That's just a few. If pointing out those abuses of power is what they mean by "charged the First Baptist Church of the manipulation of financial and ministerial responsibilities for financial gain"...then the Watchdog is guilty as charged for pointing out those abuses.

"F. You have argued that First Baptist Church members should disregard and defy the decisions and policies of the clerical and lay leadership of the church"

Which "policies" and which "decisions" are they referring to? Very vague. Perhaps they are referring to "decisions" such as starting a school, or decisions such as starting a satellite ministry, or decisions to change the bylaws while keeping the congregation in the dark about what those changes were. In a church of tens of thousands of people, not everyone will agree with all of the "decisions" of the pastor, and some people will choose not to support those decisions with their money or their time and talent. The Watchdog has given his views of those big decisions made by the pastor, as well as smaller decisions: such as decisions to raise money for his TV ministry, decisions to utilize "church marketing firms", decisions to advertise Holy Land trips, his decision to call us names and belittle us from the pulpit, and a whole host of other decisions made by the pastor. As to which "policies" the Watchdog is accused of telling members they should disregard and defy is uncertain.

"G. You have held First Baptist Church's leaders in contempt before its own congregation and the world without restraint"

To hold someone in "contempt" would mean to belittle them, or to scorn them or to disrespect them. If pointing out abuses of a pastor and voicing an opinion on them is holding them in contempt, then perhaps the Watchdog is guilty. I would point out that the pastor himself is guilty of the very thing of which the Watchdog is accused, using this same standard, of holding the entire congregation in contempt as he belittles them on a regular basis with his condescending, looking-down-the-nose attitude, and he has done it without restraint as he continues this behavior. He has also shown contempt for Sheri Klouda in lying about her and not apologizing, and contempt for the memories of the late Mrs. Criswell and Mrs. Truett, as he has said disparaging remarks about them while functioning in his role as "pastor" of our church.

"H. You have questioned, without a factual basis, the legitimacy of the ministerial and operational policies of First Baptist Church."

Sounds like a repeat of letter F. Again, very vague.

"I. You have discouraged the success of the 23rd annual Pastors Conference and have repeatedly cast doubt on the integrity of its operations and objectives"

The Watchdog has expressed several concerns about the Pastors Conference - the latest of which is the charging of unusually large fees for the use of our facilities by other ministries - such as $750 for a display table, and up to $12,500 to display videos, banners, and to mention the ministry from the pulpit. The Watchdog has been VERY critical of transforming our Pastors Conference into a marketing bonanza where funds have been raised through the selling of promotional time. Our church facilities were built using the monies given by the people of God for the furtherence of the gospel - NOT so they could be used by Team Brunson and their marketing and promotions firms to raise revenues by charging access to non-profit ministries for the privilege of using the building. The Watchdog has also been critical of the decision to charge members entrance to portions of the conference. The Watchdog has also been critical of the pastor using the conference to give sole credit to his own son for its success, even going so far as to crediting his son for "raising $100,000, which is more than twice his salary" in front of the pastors and Dr. David Jeremiah who was on the platform. So yes, there has been much the Watchdog has said about the Pastors Conference. If shining light on these terrible decisions and commenting on WHY they are terrible decisions - if this harms the Pastors Conference - blame Team Brunson, not the Watchdog.

Here's a thought about "operational policies" of FBC Jax. Can someone please explain the role that Mrs. Brunson plays in our church? If she is on paid staff, and in the pastor's suite...and if she attends staff meetings...what is her position and role in defining the direction of our church? Is it defined in the bylaws? Is she a "co pastor"? What is her title, and what is her job description? Is her salary commensurate with her education, qualifications, and experience? No accusations. Just questions.

Tomorrow: Items J. through M.

The Charges Against the Watchdog

As we start off 2009, the Watchdog will comment on the "A. through P." charges levied towards the man and his wife who are accused of owning this blog outlined in the 11/26/08 letter from the FBC Jax discipline committee. This letter was meant to be directed to the vile, recalcitrant "FBC Watchdog", so let's take a look in a few posts what they are accusing the Watchdog of. Are these legitimate charges to bring against the Watchdog? Let's look at the absolute hypocrisy in many of these charges - accusing who they think is the Watchdog of things that pale in comparison to what Mac himself has done to the good people of FBC Jacksonville.

Just as background: a man and his wife, longtime members of FBC Jacksonville, were served with a letter and trespass warnings on the eve of Thanksgiving in November 26, 2008 as the pastor and trustees wrongly believe these two people are owning and controlling the blog. The letter was served by two ministers of the church - one of which was the man's Sunday School teacher for many years. According to the accused, the men gave no explanation, just presented a sealed envelope and told the man to read the letter and contact them the following week - and no prior contact was made about the blog prior to the issuance of the letter. The letter bans this family from the church until they meet with 6 men on a "discipline committee".

First their overall indictment of the entire blog given before the "A" through "P" charges:

"Your content, statements, opinions, advocacy, and editorial commentaries and arguments are in violation of Scripture and the spirit and letter of the Bylaws of the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Inc....Your blog postings have been intended by you to be derogatory, divisive, destructive, and demeaning to the ministry of First Baptist Church"

Wow. Pretty sweeping, all encompassing indictment of everything said here. Perhaps they are claiming that this blog's existence itself is in violation of Scripture. Can't say much about the bylaws, since members are not given copies of the bylaws, and the bylaw changes of December 2007 were never explained so maybe the bylaws state that members shall not blog. The blog postings have been made to be informative and thought-provoking - trying to get members to open their eyes to important issues occuring at their church since a change of leadership in March 2006. If there is anything about this blog that is derogatory or divisive or destructive or demeaning to the ministry of FBC...it is the actions and words of the pastor and lay leaders themselves that have been blogged about. Looks like a standard operating procedure in the SBC: accuse those who call out the wrongs at a church or SBC agency, in a medium not approved by the church or agency, as being "divisive" and "demeaning" and worthy of expulsion.

"A. You have demonstrated and advocated to your readers a defiance of Biblical Authority believed by Baptists generally and First Baptist Church specifically;

B. You have encouraged First Baptist Church members to follow that same defiance to Biblical Authority to the local church."

Quite interesting. Very vague. Just what sort of "Biblical Authority" (notice its capital "B" and capital "A") are they accusing the Watchdog of defying, and recommending others to defy? Could it be the matter of tithing? Or is it that they believe the blog in and of itself defies their definition of "Biblical Authority" because the Watchdog has not done what they want, and has found a way to communicate with Christians at their church that Mac and Honey and Trey and Maurilio and the trustees can't control? Or are there so many sins in this blog: lying, slandering, gossiping, etc that they all fall under "defying Biblical Authority". Interesting, because those are things the Watchdog has pointed out that Mac Brunson himself has done, all from the pulpit of FBC Jacksonville and at Southwestern Seminary and Criswell College and at other preaching gigs. There the Watchdog goes again, defying "Biblical Authority". But seriously, perhaps someone reading this will comment on how this blog defies "Biblical Authority", with a capital "B" and capital "A".

Now the third charge:

C. You have accused First Baptist Church members of dishonesty and lack of good character, without factual substantiation.

Hmmm....which members has the Watchdog accused of "dishonesty and lack of good character". The Watchdog has said that Mac Brunson has lied from his pulpit. The Watchdog has said that Mac has displayed a "lack of good character" in accepting a $300,000 land gift and then telling us "I'm paying for that house" as an explanation while his pastoral guidebook cautions pastors against accepting gifts...and other general things about Mac that display "lack of good character". That is true, the Watchdog HAS done that. But as far as "factual substantiation" (sure sounds like lawyer-speak, and not very "ecclesiastical") this site has provided "factual substantiation" through the words of Mac Brunson himself, and publically available documents. Are there other FBC Jax members that have been accused by the Watchdog as being dishonest without factual substantiation?

D. You have accused First Baptist Church members of ignorance because they did not and do not adhere to your view of things.

Help us out here, readers...what does this mean? That heated debate on a blog is sinful? Mac himself from the pulpit regularly accuses HIS OWN MEMBERS of being ill-informed and ignorant, not knowing when to "amen", too stupid to be able to handle a raise...he even said we were a "hotbed of legalism" - even suggests that we shouldn't read many of the books he himself reads because they get us scared. For Mac and his discipline committee to bring a charge against the Watchdog for demeaning things said about FBC Jax church members is absolutely laughable, when taking into considering the things Mac himself has said about his own sheep from the megachurch pulpit heard around the world on TV and the Internet - and when Mac preaches out of town when he THINKS we aren't listening.

That's a starter. We'll look at the rest over this weekend and hit the ground running next week as we discuss the FBC Jax bylaw changes of December 2007.

Happy New Year Everyone!

Closing Out 2008 - A Look Back...

As we wind up 2008, I wanted to list what I think were the top 10 most important Watchdog posts on this website this year - but the list grew to 20, chosen from its inception about 1 1/2 years ago. They are listed chronologically - and ones that as we head into 2009 discussing the bylaws of FBC Jax I would recommend re-reading.

The Watchdog wishes all of you a very happy, healthy, and prosperous 2009.

"Paige Patterson: Mac Never Got a Honeymoon" - 10/8/07

"Good or Best" - 10/23/07

"FBC Jax Beware: The Major Fleecing is About to Begin" - 11/25/07

"What Changes Were Made to the Bylaws?" - 12/10/07

"Mac Strikes Back" - 2/3/08

"Does Mac Follow the Holy Spirit of the A-Group" - 3/23/08

"Its Enough to Make One Feel Sorry for Mac" - 4/6/08

"Mac Brunson: Jacksonville is a Hotbed of Legalism" - 4/12/08

"Two Rivers Baptist Church - Lessons for FBC Jax" - 5/15/08

"Pastor's Guidebook - Do as I Say and Not as I Do" - 5/31/08

"Let's All Go to the Holy Land" - 6/4/08

"Mac: Don't Accept Gifts..." - 6/7/08

The Lie About Sheri Klouda - 7/15/08

The Response of Sheri Klouda - 7/17/08

Christians in the Hands of an Angry God - 8/6/08

"Welcome to Maurilio (Takes a Swipe at the Watchdog)" - 8/9/08

"Fleecing the Sheep: Mac Needs a Million Dollars" - 9/21/08

Deacon Worriers - 11/3/08

"Questions for FBC Academy" - 11/25/08

"What Would Jesus Blog" - 12/7/08

"Church Discipline - Part 2" - 12/24/08

Church Discipline - FBC Jax Style - Part 2 - Memo to Bloggers: "NO TRESPASSING"

Well FBC Jax, below are the hyperlinks of letters and trespass warnings blogged about the last month. The accused members still have not been provided a copy of the bylaws - but they were told they could swing by the church library at a predetermined time, and for that visit to the library the trespass warning would be temporarily lifted, so they could read the bylaws - but no copy would be provided. Trespass warnings are STILL in effect he says, on both he and his wife, and will be until such time as they agree to meet with the discipline committee with no representation, and without being give a copy of the bylaws.

Two of the letters are from the Discipline Committee to the member of FBC Jax and his wife - a member in good standing who he and his wife have served in the church for many years. One of them is the reply letter from the church member. He is accused of being the owner or controller of this particular blog. When you read the list of 16 sins ("A" through "P") it sounds as though they are accusing the owner of this blog of single handedly destroying the ministry of and fellowship at FBC Jax.

Letter #1: The Indictment of the Watchdog

This 11/25/08 letter accuses the man of owning and controlling the blog, and lists 16 specific sins which are "derogatory, devisive, destructive, and demeaning"...reads almost as a Jerry Vines alliterative 4-point sermon outline. According to the accused, the letter was hand delivered on the eve of Thanksgiving, by two long-term staffers who first called and hung up on him to ensure he was home, rang the doorbell, refused an invitation to come in, and pulled out a sealed envelope and gave it to the accused man and left.

According to the man who received this letter, this was the FIRST and ONLY correspondence or notice or communication in any way of this matter. Very interesting if this is true, since the letter claims that the committee is acting in accordance with Matthew 18:15-20; which it most certainly is not if the FIRST action was to drop off a letter and trespass warnings. Greek scholars are pouring through the text to find the discipline process in scripture where step one is a crank call, step two is to drop off a letter at the man's house, and step three is to ban the members from the church property until the accused comes to meet with a committee. So far no luck in finding that process in scripture.

This letter makes the accusations, and then informs the accused that he and his wife are forbidden from coming on the property ever again until they meet with the "Discipline Committee", and that failure to meet with the Discipline Committee within 10 days will result in expulsion from the church. Another reason why the December 2007 bylaw changes have significance: did the bylaws grant the authority to this new Discipline Committee to vote members out without the approval of the congregation?

The letter has been signed by the six members of the Discipline Committee: the Chairman of the Deacons, the Vice Chairman of the Deacons, and four other members of the committee - one of them which also is the President of the Trustees of the church. So who in the world would he speak to at the church to protest such treatment? The pastor? He appointed the committee members. Certainly not the Chair or vice chair of the deacons - they are committee members. President of the Trustees? Nope, on the committee. And without a copy of the bylaws (as of Friday last week no bylaws have been provided as requested) it is impossible to know if they prescribe some sort appeal process as was outlined in the Bellevue Baptist Church bylaws that also provided for an ad-hoc discipline committee. According to some posters here, the old bylaws DID contain a type of appeal process where an accused could call for a hearing in front of the church, but that the new bylaws have removed that - this story on the bylaws is developing. Names and signatures of the FBC Jax discipline committee have been removed as requested.

Trespass Warnings

Here are the trespass warnings issued which I believe were attached to the 11/25 letter: one for the man and one for his wife. These forms were shown to a law enforcement expert, who confirmed these forms prove the persons have been warned to stay away from the premises, and thus the two members could be arrested for trespassing if an official at the church wanted to report them as trespassing. The forms had the man and his wife's name, address, date of birth, weight, height, race, sex, etc. The reason stated on the forms for the warning issuance was: "willful misconduct of a church member" for the man, and "association with member engaging in willful misconduct of a church member" for the woman. So based on this its clear to me that the woman is not being accused of owning the blog, just that she is accused of "associating" with her husband who is accused of owning the blog.

Reply Letter

This 12/1/08 letter is the man's response to the accusations and trespass warnings. He states his intention to meet with the committee, but requests a copy of the bylaws, states his intention to tape record the meeting and to have counsel present, and also asks that the trespass warnings be lifted so that he and his wife may attend church services on 12/3/08 to watch their daughter sing in the choir. He also is asking for the basis of the accusations.

2nd Letter from Church

This 12/3/08 letter is the committee's response to the accused's 12/1/08 letter. This letter ignores the request to provide the bylaws, and states that the committee will never allow the man to have representation in any meetings with the committee because of the "ecclesiastical" nature of the meeting. The committee acknowledges that the man and his wife have a desire to see their daughter perform in the 12/3/08 service but insists that the man and his wife must first submit to their demand to meet with the committee prior to the service else the trespass warning is "in full force and effect". They state:

"Your non-response, unwillingness or unavailability to meet at this time will prevent you and your wife from being granted permission to attend this evening's service."

So this committee apparently has been granted such power by the church's bylaws (or by the pastor or pastor's wife's decree) that they can dictate the terms to members by which they are allowed to attend worship services. Its worth noting that attendance at the 12/3/08 meeting would not have lifted the trespass warnings, but would only permit attendance for that one service: "...the committee...is willing to allow you on the premises, for tonight, if you have an initial meeting...this evening."

A church like FBC Jax that allows its bylaws to be significantly changed by just a few men and a pastor with no explanation or discussion of the changes, especially the addition of a discipline committee, is asking for trouble - now we have a committee deciding the terms by which members of the church can and cannot attend worship services. We were warned here, here, and here.

The man says he did send a response to the 2nd reply from the church, and says he has decided to not make that one public, at least not at this time.

What is next? His wife has been removed from her Sunday School email prayer distribution list. For the time being the man and his wife have trespass warnings against them that are "in full force and effect" and he says they will comply and will worship elsewhere and don't plan on coming back. He tells me his wife is taking it all pretty hard but is coping well. The worst part he says is the total silence toward his wife - only one staff member called her - he is one of the young, very humble ministers at the church who did not know why she was not able to fulfill her ministry anymore at the church. Apparently not all of the staff had been informed of the trespass warnings.

So it appears to be a stand-off since the committee requires a meeting under their conditions only, and doesn't seem to want to meet what seem to be reasonable requests of the man and his wife prior to a meeting. If there are any "appeal" processes or procedures in the bylaws for members who are being mistreated by the committee, they are unknown to the accused as the church still has not complied with his request for a copy of the bylaws or even an explanation of the basis of the accusations. The man says its likely that the committee is following through on their threat to revoke their membership unless they meet with the committee.

So there you have it: Church Discipline - FBC Jax style. Not according to the Bible. Matthew 18 church discipline? Not even close. Its church discipline according to Team Brunson.

These events should concern every single member of FBC Jacksonville. Lest you think Mac is a disconnected party to all of these shenanigans, consider this: Mac preached Wednesday night 12/3, the very day that Mac's committee tried to force the man and his wife to meet with them without representation as a condition of seeing their child perform in church, Mac stated that scripture teaches that one function of a pastor's "dealing harshly" with sinning church members is to "put the fear of God in YOU [the congregation]". I don't find this in scripture that a pastor is to "deal harshly" with sinners, or that church discipline is designed to put "the fear of God" into people. But that is Mac's view and intent in all of this: to put the FEAR OF GOD IN YOU, THE GOOD PEOPLE OF FBC JACKSONVILLE. Just a coincidence that he makes this statement on that particular day that the man and his wife were refused entrance into the church? I don't think so.

So FBC Jax I ask you: Is Mac successful in putting the fear of God in YOU? Or is it time perhaps for the congregation to put the "fear of God" into Mac and the discipline committee and demand that they stop their abusive ways?

Celebrity-Preacher Driven Ministry

As a follow-up to the previous post, I want to offer one more ministry model that Jim Smyrl left off his article on TDM...its called the "Celebrity-Preacher Driven Ministry". Yep, CPDM.

When Mac first came to FBC Jax, his mantra for the first few months was "We don't come to church to worship a pastor or to hear from a preacher, but to worship and hear from God." Fine and true, although one might assume he said that to tell us that was what we WERE doing before he came along. And now that he was there he was going to put a stop to the evil of preacher-worship and celebrity preachers at FBC Jax.

Only problem was we really did NOT worship our pastors, and they did NOT behave as celebrities. We really DID come to church to hear from God - fortunately our pastors were preaching the Word of God every single Sunday.

Three years into Mac's tenure, we can look back and see the obvious contrasts - that while our previous pastors were NOT celebrities, Mac really does behave as though he is a celebrity, in many ways.

I suppose Vines and Lindsay were "celebrities" if by that you mean "beloved pastors". The people loved these men. Not because they were perfect, not because they had the title of "Pastor, FBC Jacksonville". And not because they expected or demanded special status. They were beloved because they proved themselves over many years to be loving toward the people, faithful to God in their call to preach Jesus and the Bible, and faithful to do right by the church called FBC Jacksonville. They were hard on sin, soft on people...and people loved them and God blessed their ministries.

Whatever love and admiration the people of FBC Jax gave them, they earned - they didn't have to demand it. They didn't come riding into town with a $300,000 land gift in their hip pocket, jobs for the family and a brand new $100,000 "pastor study" in the choicest of church space...and neither Vines nor Lindsay came into town to staying at Amelia Island for a year in an ocean-front condo while they built their million dollar mansion as Mac has.

So really, who was/is the "celebrity" preacher?

Mac has come here and used his position to give special status to his family, as though they are the "first family". We now have a 24 or 25 year old Director whose primary qualification is that his last name is Brunson. His wife also has a special position in the church. Some of you might say that Homer, Sr. gave Homer, Jr. a job - that this was nepotism. No, Jr. went away to seminary, earned his doctorate, and "earned his stripes" so-to-speak as a pastor before coming to Jacksonville. Hear me: Homer, Jr. didn't seek out this position, he didn't negotiate a deal for he and his wife and son...in fact his dad had to convince Jr. to give FBC Jacksonville a try.

Homer or Vines never held a "special offering" to raise money not in the budget to put themselves on national television.

Homer or Vines never used their position as our pastor to advertise for "Holy Land" trips on our website. Vines did travel and preach on "Christian cruises" once per year, but he never advertised them to us on the website or in the church bulletin! Even when Vines retired he was very careful to not use the pulpit to promote his "Jerry Vines Ministry" launch - with 20+ years at the church he could have and no one would have said a peep, but he knew how unbecoming it was for a pastor to use his position as pastor of a mega church to sell and promote and advertise themselves or their ministries. Vines had wisdom. Vines had class.

Once the transition to "celebrity" is made, the next logical step is to view events as promotions and revenue opportunities. And then to advertise to SELL the promotions packages - what arrogance - sure, we're going to charge you money to put you on our I-mags and to mention you on the "stage" - we can sell you a little bit of "celebrity" status if you have have the money to pay for it! Homer or Vines never sold advertising and promotions to our Pastor's conference - such a thought would be very foreign, to charge ministries $750 for a table and $12,500 for a "platinum promotions package" including "emcee recognition" and video displays and "banners in prominent positions" and "premium booth space". I would submit that doing such things would not even be a consideration for a "Jesus driven" ministry, but in a celebrity driven ministry, why not sell a little bit of "celebrity"?

For Brunson, envelopes with requests for money were passed through all the Sunday School classes for several weeks to collect money for a "money tree" for his newly married son before we even got to know Mac OR his son.

The birthday cards sent to members have Mac's entire family even though his children are grown and have families of their own. I'm glad he has a wonderful family, but one must think they are a celebrity in order to put their out-of-town daughter and son-in-law and grandchild on birthday cards going to members of FBC Jax. I mean really...does son-in-law Barry really need to be wishing FBC Jax members "Happy Birthday"? Get real.

We held special baby dedication services for Baby Broc. We held a special ordination service for Mac's son-in-law. Celebrity status - you get special baby dedications and ordinations. Never would other staff members, and certainly never would the plebe - ever get a special baby dedication or ordination service for their relative. But if your pastor is a "celebrity", it makes perfect sense to do that! But wait, maybe we can market this, and for a handsome donation one can get a special Sunday morning baby dedication.

Now again we are treated to the Brunson's including their extended family on their Christmas greetings, featuring a picture of "the Child", Baby Broc. I'm happy for Mac that he has a grandson. I'm also happy that he's proud to be a grandfather...but are members of FBC Jax to be overjoyed at the sight of his grandson who lives in Kentucky? Is there something special about HIS grandchild that he should be featured on our church website? The greeting makes it seem as though its Mac and Deb's 4th child, for crying out loud. Mac is our pastor. He has a wife. Wouldn't it be enough for Mac and his wife to give us Christmas greetings?

What empty nesters their 50's and 60's that has grown children and grandkids sends Christmas cards out that includes their grown kids, their kids' spouses, and the grandkids names on it? I have never in my life ever seen such a thing. And what is with the "Doc" and "Honey"? Let's see, Sleepy, Dopey, Doc....and "Honey"? Isn't it "Mac and Deb"?

But the Brunson's do it. Perhaps they view themselves as "celebrities". Just a guess, but I will bet this was not Mac's idea, if you know what I mean. But since women are more "sensitive to the Holy Spirit" as Mac says.

The Lindsays and Vines knew that while they were beloved, they didn't abuse that love by showcasing all of their family members in our church or promoting their families! They kept their families private.

I love babies in general, but like most members at FBC Jax I'm not all that interested in "Baby Broc" in particular. If they are presuming that we care to see Baby Broc and are filled with joy at his sight, they must assume they are celebrities, and that anyone associated with them is of interest to us. Like the baby of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie - we don't care anything about that baby but that its parents are celebrities! Oooh...let me see the little baby!

By the way, I found it a bit uncomfortable Sunday when Mac declared to us that his daughter was expecting another child, and he said "...its another boy, thank GOD, we got another man coming...the 'man-child' is coming".....as though there is something inherently wrong with a girl baby?