FBCJax Watchdog's lawsuit

[William Thornton]

[Steve Wilcox]

William,

Those are good points to consider and honestly I think the bloggers understand this and are using it to their fullest. I say that because they bring up his lifestyle more than just about any other topic.

Your first point is well taken.

Your second point I made on both lists.

Your third point goes to getting change in the church. You have been a pastor long enough to know that you simply just do not demand change. The fact is FBCJax has not been transparent for DECADES, not just since Dr. Brunson arrived. Therefore, if you want change in that area you should seek to involve yourself in the area that can make the change. You befriend those on the committees, get involved with them, use other church cases (like this one now) to make your point and so on. Starting a blog and making demands only serves to make everyones hackles stand on end, especially when you have never been involved in the adminstration of the church.

Another weakness of FBCJax I should point out is the committees are mostly made up of deacons. I am not sure why they do this, but there is nothing wrong with having non-deacons with the spiritual gift of administration on committees.

[SLyons]

Steve says: "9. The blogger(s) failed to use proper means to invoke change in the church government."

Let's talk about how change is wrought in First Baptist Church. Let's talk about "proper means" of invoking change.

Were the bylaws changes of November 2007 the "proper means"?

As you may or may not know, the bylaw changes of November 28, 2007, significantly changed the governance of the church. They were presented to the church as being insignificant changes, minor changes, not worthy of even reading before voting on them. They were never, ever explained, or read, or characterized, or summarized to the congregation before asking them to vote. Very interesting. Judge Soud read his deacon's resolution slamming the blogger and warning potential church critics...he even DISPLAYED IT ON THE IMAGE SCREENS so the people could read along with him as he read it. But they chose NOT to read or display the church bylaw changes that were going to significantly change the member's rights in the church. You just have to sit back and admire and applaud such audacity. It is a sight to behold.

You say: "well, that is how we always did it". or "when Vines changed the bylaws in 2000 we didn't read them or explain them to the congregation". So what. Why live in the past?

But these bylaw changes in November 2007, Steve, did four things affecting the member's rights:

1. The finance committee was dissolved. The members of the finance committee were brought into the larger circle of "trustees", that are nominated by the pastor, and confirmed by the congregation by an all or nothing up or down vote. And by the way, William, there is not a personnel committee in the bylaws. The pastor makes those decisions.

2. They removed the congregation's right to call for a special business meeting with 1000 signatures - this effectively eliminates even the slimmest of possibilities that the church could call for a vote of confidence on the pastor. Now, the one and only possible way for a special business meeting to be called to call for a vote of confidence is for the Trustees to approve it - the trustees are appointed by the pastor. Not even the deacons can do it now. That is dangerous stuff, Steve - not that a special busienss meeting called by the congregation would have ever happened, but to remove that from even being a possibility can empower a pastor who happens to be power hungry to abuse his power knowing his congregation is totally POWERLESS. Having that in the bylaws served a purpose, even if it was never exercised.

3. the bylaw changes created a discipline committee that defines specifically how members are to bring grievances to the church, and defines a revised process on how church members are disciplined for misconduct.

4. The bylaw changes added a clause that all members forfeit their right to bring any legal action against the church. "All member waive the right to file any legal action against the Church ina civil court or agency".

Number 4. is interesting...they had no problem going to "civil agencies" of the JSO and state attorney to find the identity of the blogger. But if a member sues the church in a civil court, well they would be voted out for misconduct.

So Steve, you can chill on the claim that the blogger was making everyone's hackles stand on end. What should have made EVERYONE'S hackles stand on end is the manner in which our bylaws were significantly changed in a manner to minimize the knowledge of the change amongst the body. Those changes should have been read and explained to the congregation PRIOR to a vote being taken, and you know it Steve.

[Steve Wilcox]

Look at #3 on the list I made for FBCJax.

[William Thornton]

[Steve Wilcox]

The more I read the WD blog the more I am leaning towards Dr. Brunson on this, the blogger is an obsessive compulsive sociopath.

He cannot stop blogging about a church he is not a member of anymore and he is out to get Dr. Brunson.

It is not about transparency or a list of concerns anymore.

[William Thornton]

[Steve Wilcox]

Abuse of power?

No, it is not about that either, it is about getting rid of Dr. Brunson.

I was suspicious of it before the subpoenas and name calling, now I am convinced of it.

[William Thornton]

[SLyons]

William - this discussion today is exactly why defamation lawsuits are filed, and why juries award damages in some defamation lawsuits.

A very prominent person, in this case Mac Brunson, a celebrity preacher/author who has a very wide following all over the country on TV and on podcasts and on Internet streams and on worldwide networks like INSP....says something false and malicious about a person. In this case a clinical diagnosis of "sociopath". Then gullible people who trust this man's words because of his notoriety and his reputation and his position - they BELIEVE him! That is what is called "defamation".

So Steve Wilcox's confession that he believes Mac Brunson's diagnosis that Rich is indeed a sociopath, makes the point perfectly for defamation. Brunson said it, Wilcox read it, thought about it, and now expresses that he agrees with Brunson's false diagnosis.

So let Brunson and his lawyers prove that diagnosis in court as a defense. Maybe they can call Wilcox as an expert witness to judge the mental state of Rich.

[William Thornton]

[Steve Wilcox]

[SLyons]

Maybe he will, Steve. If they believe Rich has defamed Brunson by telling malicious lies then perhaps Brunson and the church should file a lawsuit. Or send a letter stating what the defamatory, offending material is on the website and ask Rich to take it down immediately and issue a retraction and apology.

Brunson would have been better off going that route from the very beginning, if defamation occured. If they sought the identity of the WD to get him out of the church, or to get him to stop saying things that Brunson believes were defamatory, a defamation lawsuit against John Doe would allow them to subpoena the identity of the Watchdog without having to use the police. This would have been above board, not secretive, didn't have to use the JSO to do an "investigation". And then they could have threatened Rich with a lawsuit unless he took down the offending material. This also would have allowed them to exercise their church discipline once they got his name through the legal proceedings.

Maybe they didn't go that route because defamation didn't occur, or that if they believed it did they didn't want to draw media attention by filing a lawsuit.

[RobertLPeeples]

I am new to this blogsite so thanks for letting me post.
My name is Robert Lemuel Peeples and I have been a member of FBC Jax since I was a newborn. I have been raised in FBC Jax my whole life and I continue to attend. With that said, may I offer an opinion or two.

SLyons said:
"You say: 'well, that is how we always did it'. or 'when Vines changed the bylaws in 2000 we didn't read them or explain them to the congregation'. So what. Why live in the past?"

It is not a matter of living in the past. But since you think it is, let's go along with your way of reasoning. Let's assume it is about living in the past. The overwhelming complaint from those who have a problem with FBC Jax and it's leadership is that the church is not being run like it used to be when Homer Lindsey Jr. and Vines were around. If that is the complaint and that is the problem that most folks like Mr. Tom Rich have, then why is it bad for our current leadership to adopt a revised version of the church's bylaws in the same fashion as Vines and Lindsey did when they were pastor?

William Thornton said:
"Most megachurches are designed to that there is no means to invoke change."

I think if the church is in unity as it should be and a majority of the congregation have legitimate concerns, proper change can be brought about.

Once again, thanks to the admins for blogging privilages. I did not know this blogsite existed until I found out about it on the FBC Jax Watchdog site, which I read on a daily basis.

[Steve Wilcox]

WOW, I did not notice but Tom Rich decided to lift some quotes off this thread and post them on a blog article.

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009 ... thful.html

Then proceeded to set me up for insults.

At least the blogger known as Thy Peace had the honestly and integrity to actually post the link to this thread.

Then in another blog article he apparently attributes some comments he did not like to "Steve", then someone assumed it was me and Tom did nothing but let them insult "steve wilcox that posts over at Baptist life forums". He did not claim he knew for sure if it was me, just posted the insulting comments.

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009 ... loves.html

Just charming.

Slyons you have a PM.

[SLyons]

Steve - what's the problem? Are you ashamed of your words here on BL? You followed Brunson and declared me, the Watchdog, as being a sociopath here, using a post on BaptistLife. Am I to get your approval before I quote you on a blog? Is it wrong to "lift" someone's words here on BL and put them on a blog? You were "set up for insults" because you were quoted on a blog? You sound paranoid, Steve. You were not "set up" for insults. Your defaming words calling me a sociopath were just quoted on the blog for others to read them, that's all.

Wilcox believes that I, as a person who has changed their mind and continues to blog about my experiences at the hands of a mega church, my viewpoints on megachurches that have been shaped by my experiences, and my willingness to speak out about wrongs at my previous church - that this makes me a sociopath. It is absolutely, utterly amazing. I was called a "coward" because I chose to preserve my identity. Now I continue to blog with my identity known, and that makes me a sociopath. Wilcox, I really, really, hope you can overcome your hatred and bitterness of me. I harbor no hatred or bitterness toward anyone at FBC Jax. Its just that I am going to stand up for what I believe is right, and I won't quietly go away, I have experiences and opinions that I am going to share on my blog, and you and others who don't like that will just have to deal with it. And I hope you can learn to deal with those you disagree with, or who are doing things you wouldn't do, that you think are wrong...without calling them terrible names like sociopath.

Here is what Steve refers to at the WD blog:

Another gem from Steve Wilcox, a Brunson defender who posts regularly over at BaptistLife.com:

"The more I read the WD blog the more I am leaning towards Dr. Brunson on this, the blogger is an obsessive compulsive sociopath.

He cannot stop blogging about a church he is not a member of anymore and he is out to get Dr. Brunson.

It is not about transparency or a list of concerns anymore."

It never ends. So a person who blogs about what they perceive to be church abuses, and that Wilcox doesn't agree with, is an "obsessive compulsive sociopath."

I used to think you were an OK guy, Wilcox. First you threatened that the blogger would die of a heart attack, and now you're joining Brunson with the slander machine against someone who blogs in a way that you don't agree with about things you don't like.

[Steve Wilcox]

[SLyons]

You don't know my intentions, Steve.

My intention was to post an article on my blog to give examples of quotes from anti-WD and/or pro-Brunson posters on the Internet.

So I chose to pick the one of you calling me a sociopath, since that was a prime example of what my post was about.

If you were set up for insults it was your own words defaming me, calling me a sociopath. Do you care, that you committed defamation, with an outright lie, calling me mentally ill? Does your conscience bother you, Steve?

You then send me a private message confirming, givng me specific reasons, why I am a sociopath, as though you need to convince me of my mental state when you know nothing whatsoever about me.

How can you be so blind, Steve? How can you dare to publicly call me mentally ill, then send me a private message even defending it, and then complain when I put it on the blog for others to read.

You sir, need to look at yourself. You have become obsessed with a blog about a church...GET THIS BL READERS: That Steve is not a member of. You CHOSE to not be a member there...and yet you are obsessed with me who chooses to blog about my experiences of being expelled from my church with a trespass warning against me and my wife, and a deacon's resolution and the pastor choosing to defame me in the newspaper. Yet you criticize me for blogging about a church that I am not a member of, when you aren't even a member of the church either.

Sorry, William, for this private argument on your forum, but I think its instructive for people to read the two sides of this WD/Brunson fiasco as expressed by myself and Wilcox.

[Steve Wilcox]

[SLyons]

LOVE IT!!!

Says Steve Wilcox, our resident BL psychologist:

"I think you think that a sociopath is someone like a serial killer or something like that, but really it is less dangerous. I checked it a a little more and I should not have agreed with the label of sociopath and for that I apologize and ask your forgiveness."

Can I take the liberty of interpreting this?

"Hey, Tom. What are you so upset about, that I called you a sociopath? Obviously you don't even know what it means, Tom, else you wouldn't be so upset. Its not that big a deal to be called a sociopath. Let me educate you on what is a 'sociopath'. Its not as bad of a label as you think! No, don't worry, it doesn't mean you are a killer (at least not a SERIAL killer). You aren't TOO dangerous, Tom! A sociopath is a little less dangerous than a full-blown 'psycopath'. A sociopath techinically just means you're a little nuts, a little dangerous. But , OK, I'll agree that I shold not have used that label. You might be one, probably are, I'm just sorry I used that little 'label' of sociopath. Please forgive me."

[William Thornton]

It has been revealed that the "SLyons" who has been posting here for a couple of years is actually Tom Rich, better known as the FBC Watchdog. While BL allows for some anonymity in posting if there are sufficient reasons for such, the idea of Rich continuing to defend himself under a pseudonym after his identity was made known was improper.

He has agreed to no longer post on BaptistLife.

[Mark]

[JaneFordA]

[Steve Wilcox]

[Haruo]