Church discipline according to FBCJax

[William Thornton]

The clamor for church discipline amongst some SBCers (mainly the calvinists who have no dog in this local church squabble) sometimes finds expression that looks awfully sub-Christian to me, an example of which might be FBCJax's recent public flogging of a former member. That's right, a member who cannot be kicked out because they have already left. It was done in an FBCJax conference without naming names.

To summarize with extreme brevity: Church member blogs critically of the new pastor; church reacts in various ways culminating in taking legal action against the alleged blogger in the form of a no trespass warrant; church staff summon the alleged miscreant to a Sanhedrin of deacons; alleged blogger agrees to appear but only with conditions which are rejected by deacons; alleged blogger MOVES HIS MEMBERSHIP; church, not to be denied, goes to a Wedensday congregation with a resolution.

Baptist Planet summarizes the whole business with numerous links .

The resolution against the FORMER member by the Sanhedrin, er, Deacons is .

FBCJax Watchdog, who has consistently denied being the person called before the church, blog is found .

To me, this process sounds less Biblical than it does medieval where someone who offended the king commits suicide rather than submit and the king insists that the body be drawn and quartered and displayed for all to see.

[Dave Roberts]

I read the resolution. The most intriguing thing was that the first cited consequence to the church was listed as "financial" not "spiritual." I wonder how Dr. Freud would view that?

[Haruo]

Actually, one the wording is fully parsed, I think it may be that the wording is fully circular, and that all the people voted on was a motion affirming the importance of adopting a motion...

Has there been a poll on how many people think they caught the right guy?

[William Thornton]

[Steve Wilcox]

First of all when you become a born-again Christian you are in the church regardless of the physical building attend or denomination to which you belong, therefore, "church discipline" is applicable to someone who leaves one church to attend another.

Why? Because the conflict is not resolved by the person simply attending another church.

The bloggers have been asked on their blog to stop and instead meet face with those they disagree. They would not.

The bloggers have been asked to send a signed letter to those they disagree. They would not.

When it was discovered who they were they were contacted for a meeting, but refused to meet.

Then they simply left and when to another church, where, IMO, they will continue on in their unrepentant sin.

Therefore, a former church has a biblical duty to remove them from the membership of the church. They also are to inform the next church they attempt to join (when asked by the new church) of the condition of their departure from the former church. Of course it is then up to the new church whether to accept their membership. At that point the former church should simply drop the matter and leave it up to the Lord to deal with both sides of the conflict.

Personally, if I was a member or staff person of the new church I would seriously question the offering of church membership to someone with the history they have.

If you guys want to label me as a Pharisee, then oh well, have fun with it.

But I think it is high time some pastors, staff and church members stop putting up with unresolved conflicts and mediate the matter with the parties involved and if they includes voting on their membership or the pastor's jobs then that is what needs to be done.

I am sick and tired of hearing how pastors get run off and the ones involved get off scott free.

Finally someone has stood up to those that spread discord.

Way to go FBCJAX!!!

(Oh and Hi to the watchdog. You do not have my permission to cut and paste this to your rag of a blog, but feel free to contact me personally to discuss my comments and thoughts. Although I doubt you will do so, nor will you honor my request not to cut and paste.)

[Steve Wilcox]

[Ed Pettibone]

[William Thornton]

[SLyons]

Steve - your characterization of the events at FBC Jax is just not completely true. I know you'd like it to be just as you say, but it just ain't so.

The bloggers have been asked on their blog to stop and instead meet face with those they disagree. They would not.

So what. Must the bloggers comply with the blogging police at FBCJAX?

The bloggers have been asked to send a signed letter to those they disagree. They would not.

So what. Must bloggers stop blogging anonymously and send a signed letter because someone at FBCJAX said they should?

When it was discovered who they were they were contacted for a meeting, but refused to meet.

Totally false. The man who was accused, assuming he is the blogger, was served a trespass paper with his wife, and there wre commanded to meet with the deacons or else they could not come back to the property. And if you read the blog Steve, you'd know that the man agreed to meet with them on multiple occasions but in the arrogance of the men running this process they wouldn't agree to meet very basic requests for such a meeting. So to say they "refused to meet" is a lie. Do you like to deal in lies Steve?

Then they simply left and when to another church, where, IMO, they will continue on in their unrepentant sin.

Steve, you leave off so many details that are pertinent. They were banned from the church under threat of arrest. Thus they began a search for a new church. They found one. After they joined, the FBCJAX deacons went after him again. Wouldn't you love it, Steve, if the blogger keeps on in their "unrepentant sin"? Would that help you justify the actions taken against him by FBCJAX? The fact is Steve, trust me, I know...the accused has met and explained completely the situation he is coming from.

Just trying to help you understand the facts, Steve, and to prevent you from confusing the issues.

A few questions for you Steve: are you proud that FBCJAX, once they used some sort of court order to find the blogger (are you glad they did that?), are you proud that their VERY FIRST ACTION was to deliver trespass warnings and demand a meeting? Or do you think that they should have met with them first? Should the pastor have called?

I think you really need to look at the facts Steve before you throw your full support behind FBCJAX in what they've done. You sound like one of the bullies down there, that serve trespass warnings to the wife of a man suspected of running a blog that the pastor doesn't like.

Don't worry, Steve, FBCJAX members have tried to alert the new church about the accused. But you have to remember...people outside of FBC JAX that are looking at the mess there, don't necessarily give much creedance to people from FBC JAX complaining about bloggers! Some people might actually say : "Good, I'm glad someone is standing up to these abusive churches and their pastors and their bullying tacticts." Did you ever think of that, Steve?

[Ed Pettibone]

[Steve Wilcox]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Steve Wilcox]

Ed,

I guess you think I am committing murder in my heart towards the bloggers. I guess it is OK for you to judge others, but if someone else makes a conclusion about 2 years of constant badgering, complaining, unloving writings then they doing something wrong.

It is interesting that you insist in using these verse to attempt to condemn or correct me, when the context of the verse clearly shows that when we have a problem with someone we are to go to them and try to work it out.

What you do not know is when I was still attending FBC Jax I tried to get the first blogger in Feb 07 to contact me, write back, do something other than what they were doing because it was the improper manner to work it out.

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.

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. 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. Then they are very very good at twisting peoples comments and making them seem as if they are the bad guys.

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."

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.

The context by which I was using the word "fool" was not malicious it was from the examples in scripture of people that know better but do the wrong thing anyway. Search through Proverbs, Ed, and you will see it used over and over.

The bloggers have shown NO desire to follow scripture regarding this in any way shape or form.

The bloggers are the ones with the anger.
The bloggers are the ones with the contempt.
The bloggers are the ones with subject to judgement.

Again, I tell you GO TELL THE BLOGGERS ABOUT MATT 5:22. But be careful because they will throw it back in your face.

[William Thornton]

[Steve Wilcox]

[William Thornton]

[Steve Wilcox]

[SLyons]

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.

[William Thornton]

[William Thornton]

Slyons, Steve expressed his opinion. He has a right to do that.

[Steve Wilcox]

Do you see how they operate William?

[SLyons]

Do you see how they operate, William?

Steve comes here to bash the bloggers, call them liars, claim what they knew and when, and what their motives are, even uses a Dark Knight analogy. And when challenged on his points he rolls his eyes and says "See how they operate?"

We see how YOU operate, Steve. Avoid facts, give half truths and misleading information to people on this forum.

[William Thornton]

I would prefer if both of you would take your dispute private. The only reason the FBC Jax thing is on this forum is because it represents a new arena for church conflict. Some condemn the blogging. Some say it has merit because of the failures of the church to provide appropriate avenues for dispute resolution and feedback. You've both made your points. Let's move along.

I agree that the last word hasn't been heard from FBCJ.

[SLyons]

Will do William. I am not trying to be the antagonist here...but read Steve's comments in this thread. He expresses glee over the deacon resolution, and says very ugly things about the bloggers that are not true. I believe Steve's comments were deserving of a response, since many of the readers here may not be in tune with what has transpired over at the FBCJ blog. He calls it a "rag of a blog", calls the blogger a "fool", and many other negative comments about the blogger. I was merely trying to set the record straight in response to Steve.

It looks to me like Steve is busy here on this site, doing to the bloggers what he is falsely accusing the bloggers of doing at the FBCJ website.

Steve is the angry one, I'm afraid.

[Steve Wilcox]