by SLyons » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:10 pm
William - Steve speaks as one having all the answers and intimate knowledge of the bloggers. He does not. He is speaking in very vague terms to try to cast the bloggers as being evil, recalcitrant and vindictive...he is spreading misinformation here about the bloggers and is in fact doing to the bloggers the very thing that he wrongly accuses them of doing. So please, don't buy his word as the truth on these matters. He is giving a very biased, one-sided opinion of what has happened at the church.
Unlike Steve, instead of just calling him a liar, I'll try to deal with Steve's specific comments and try to correct them.
"I also spoke with someone involved with the finances of the church and was also on the pulpit committee about the bloggers concerns. I tried to convey that to the bloggers, but all they do is doubt the answers, cross examine you, insult you and come up with more questions. If you dare use your actual name and they don't like what you post then they use the past posts against you too, even if you apologize for something you realized was wrong."
Steve doesn't give examples. Maybe he can give just one example of how he was "cross examined". And how does one "cross examine" someone on a blog? And what is wrong with "coming up with more questions"?
"The bloggers were asked many times to work it out face to face, but they were afraid someone would not like them for bringing up something they did not agree with."
What Steve doesn't tell you is their fears were realized. There was one voice of dissent. One blogger. One guy blogging on the Internet. There was just ONE GUY who was offended that Brunson lied about Sheri Klouda in a sermon. Just one guy who called his accepting of a $300,000 land gift unethical. One guy who said the bylaw changes were a farce. But they couldn't stand not even ONE guy dissenting. And thus all the powers of the big church in downtown Jax were unleashed to identify him by getting access to his private Internet records from his ISP, issue him a trespass warning, and to humiliate him by having a judge stand and read an edict condemning him and warning others. It really is quite amazing that they HAD to silence one lone voice of dissent. One voice who dared to comment on the abusive words and actions of the preacher, and he had to be shut down, culminating in an edict read by a judge warning others of the same fate.
"They do not have a problem embarrassing others, being rude and insulting to others, lying, stealing peoples reputations, being arrogant, haughty, thinking they are wise in their own eyes and unloving."
Wow. Embarassing others. Yes, it was mostly embarrassing to the pastor, no doubt. Rude? Perhaps. Insulting to others? Mostly to the preacher, whose words and actions were analyzed. Lying? Maybe Steve could give one lie. Stealing people's reputations? Not sure what that means. Arrogant, haughty, unloving. Pretty sweeping indictment Steve gives of a blogger who blogged about the pastor's words and actions.
"Then they are very very good at twisting peoples comments and making them seem as if they are the bad guys."
Steve doesn't give any examples. Maybe he could give an example.
"You know right now I am having thoughts of the movie the Dark Knight. Batman and District Attorney are supposed to be the good guys, the Joker is supposed to be the bad guy. But anytime Batman or the DA make a mistake, the Joker is there to let the world know about their mistakes or expose their weaknesses, thereby making the public think, "Why bother trying to do good when our good guys can't even do good."
Hmmm...maybe the Dark Knight analogy might work, but in reverse. One guy who wishes to stay anonymous, points out abuses at the church at the hands of the pastor....this creates a problem, just one anonymous guy who tries to expose abuses and he and his true identity become the focus....people demand to know the identity of the anonymous scoundrel because it is HE who is causing so much trouble...if we could only expose him, and shut him down, things would be so much better! Don't focus on the Joker, focus Instead on the anonymous scoundrel...blame the problems on the him and his anonymity. Not a perfect analogy for sure, but I think mine is more fitting than Steve's.
"So the bloggers took the cowardly way out and decided to slander the staff, the deacons, and a few of the members. How did they slander them, you ask? By not sticking to the issues and exaggerating and making up stuff like "Dr. Brunson is fleecing FBCJax", insulting people and the like. I have copies of the first year of the blog so I know what was posted."
Steve is so vague. He gives only one example of supposed slander: "Dr. Brunson is fleecing FBC Jax". This is an opinion, based on certain observations made and arguments made on the blog. Maybe Steve could give us examples of slander against the deacons and staff.
"Ex. #1- They were questioning the salary of the pastor. They eventually got their answer, but then changed it to questioning his compensation package. "
100% False. Steve is either maliciously lying, or he is repeating a lie someone told him. The bloggers have never been told the salary of the pastor. When someone raises issues of what the pastor earns, they mean "total compensation", since salary and the other "allowances" must be taken into account. If Steve is referring to Brunson's statement to a news reporter that his salary "isn't anywhere near $300,000", well, that is not an admission of what his salary is, and the issue has ALWAYS been total compensation. Steve knows that ministers compensation, especially the mega church pastors, is broken up into salary and allowances, and allowances are a very substantial portion. Thus for a pastor to tell a reporter his "salary" is below a certain number but his allowances put him way above that number is, well, deceitful.
"Ex. #2 - They were told the land was given to the pastor out of love (as stated on the deed). Then they question why he took it and why he still lives there. Then question his integrity and character."
The bloggers knew from day 1 it was given to him for "love and affection". The point on the blog was that it is unethical for a leader of a 501(c)3 organization to accept a quarter million dollar gift from one of the donors to the organization, especially within 3 weeks after arriving, from someone he barely knew. There was never any question as to "why he still lives there". The question is: Why did he take such a large gift when his own guidebook for pastors cautions pastors AGAINST accepting large gifts. Steve skirts the issue on this one. And the bloggers raised the issue of why the pastor aired a testimony about the business owned by the sons of the gift giver...right in the middle of his sermon. That looks like quid pro quo.
"They don't want answers, they want Dr. Brunson GONE! "
It is wonderful that Steve knows the intentions of the bloggers.
And by the way, Brunson won...he got the bloggers kicked out of the church, AND he has a deacons resolution proudly posted on the church website that tells all members that if they start a blog they will come after them as well.
And Steve does not address my previous question about the unbiblical method of discipline exercised against the blogger: issuing trespass warnings to man and wife as a first step. Maybe Steve would offer his opinion on that.
Imagine. One blogger. One computer. One keyboard. No staff. No budget. No advertising. Just one anonymous blogger, blogging about what he saw and heard at the church. And he had to be shut down at all costs.
One last thought on this William: there is much more to this story to come out. In the legal realm. Stay tuned. And we'll all wait for Steve's expert analysis and interpretation when it does.