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 here.

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

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

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]

The deed has been done, the alleged blogger out of the church (by choice) and the deacons and staff on record with a resolution against such blogging adopted by the church.

So, what could possibly be left? Apparently, plenty.

Seems the alleged blogger hears how this may have been handled by the FBCJax deacons (source here):

Well, sad to say, the reports are swirling that the FBC Jacksonville deacons were told Monday night 2/23 that the person who has been accused of owning this blog - the man that A.C. "Anti-Criticism" Soud was piously denouncing in his edict last Wednesday - was accused in the meeting of:

- stalking or photographing or filming Mrs. Brunson while she was jogging;

- stealing, or reading the Brunson's mail or email; and

- and that the church obtained a court order from a judge to allow them to force Google and/or Comcast to tell them the name of the owner/administrator of this blog.

...and the matter has been elevated (there are over 100 comments on his blog) to the level of having Wade Burleson involved and blogging about it, The Untouchables: Spiritually Elite Leaders and the Unwillingness to Be Held Accountable

He [FBCJax Watchdog] told me his compelling story, details of which are startling, because he said he trusted me.

Seems WB has somewhat of an axe to grind with the Brunsons:

According to a former staff member at First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Debbie Brunson, an IMB trustee herself at the time, told the staff at FBC Jacksonville that I was promoting the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and was a liberal. Debbie was herself an IMB trustee leader at the time, but never approached me personally about any of her concerns. Yet, she felt comfortable talking to members of her own staff about me in order to seek to make the issue about me personally and not the questions I was asking

Burleson says:

I called FBC Jacksonville last Friday and will be calling the church at 10:00 a.m. in the morning to speak with both Pastor Brunson and Mrs. Brunsons if she is available. The purpose of the phone call is to ask them several questions that pertain to a very specific post about that will go up later this week.

The personal stuff aside (and how WB has time to pastor a church I don't know), I share WB's view on the following:

However, it is my belief that there has risen a culture in the SBC, reinforced by training received at many of our seminaries (not all), that emphasizes pastoral authority and seeks to convince people that they are not to "touch the Lord's anointed." It's as if some leaders in the SBC expect to be treated as kings, and everyones' calling in life is to serve the king and tell him how wonderful he is. CHRISTIAN ministry should be just the opposite.

Because of the internet and little people having quite loud voices thereby, the age of higher scrutiny for leaders is here. Pastors and denominational employees are going to have to deal with it. FBC Jax doesn't seem to have dealt with it wisely. I'm sure the story hasn't ended...

[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]

FBC Jax doesn't seem to have dealt with it wisely.

Sure they have.

The bloggers are the fools.

[Ed Pettibone]

FBC Jax doesn't seem to have dealt with it wisely.

Sure they have.

The bloggers are the fools.

Ed: Matthew 5:22 (New International Version)

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[b]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

[William Thornton]

FBC Jax doesn't seem to have dealt with it wisely.

Sure they have.

The bloggers are the fools.

You are prepared to justify all of the actions of FBCJax?

I think we will clearly see in due time who have been wise and who have been unwise here.

[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]

I think everyone is going to have to live with the fact (sometimes for good and sometimes for ill) that anyone can create a blog and pretty much say anything that is on their mind about anything. It isn't always wise. It isn't always right. But, that's the way it is. And, FBCJax isn't going to get that genie back in the bottle. You can pass 100 resolutions telling church members that they have to agree to give up their legal rights but, in a court of law I'm willing to bet that none of them would be binding.

One example of this is that we have parents sign release forms when youth go on trips. But, I have it under good legal counsel that this in no way saves the church from being sued if the youth leadership were to do something unsafe or inappropriate because the parents have a reasonable expectation that when they sign a release we'll take good care of their kids. If we don't no release will keep us from being sued.

Ed: Tim I think that last paragraph needs wide distribution, perhaps you could tweek it a bit and post it to both The Baptist Faith and Practice board and the ABC life board.

[Steve Wilcox]

FBC Jax doesn't seem to have dealt with it wisely.

Sure they have.

The bloggers are the fools.

Ed: Matthew 5:22 (New International Version)

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[b]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

If you read the blog you will see the anger and contempt is coming from the bloggers. Go tell them about it Ed.

[Ed Pettibone]

"Ed Pettibone"]:

FBC Jax doesn't seem to have dealt with it wisely.

Wilcox

Sure they have.

The bloggers are the fools.

Ed: Matthew 5:22 (New International Version)

22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[b]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.[/quote]

S.W.

If you read the blog you will see the anger and contempt is coming from the bloggers. Go tell them about it Ed.

And S.W. you are the one here calling people fools. I have no dog in the FBC Jax fight.

[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]

To be fair on this, most of the info coming out of FBCJax is from the watchdog blog, part of the reason for my saying that the church and pastor has handled this poorly. The church should have been completely open and transparent with their members about pastor pay, employment of family, gifts to the pastor, by-law changes and other things. Instead, they have stonewalled and exercised some degree of heavy- and ham-handedness in the whole process.

Nonetheless, Steve Wilcox is far closer to the situation than anyone else here and his opinion counter to mine and others is certainly welcome. My opinion is that he has some blind spots with respect to the church and pastor's behavior. I am unaware of any facts put out by watchdog that have been found to be untruthful. The guy is harsh in his opinion and some of his issues do not have the importance that he gives to them.

But Steve, you said:

I also spoke with someone involved with the finances of the church and was also on the pulpit committee about the bloggers concerns.

What was the question and what were the answers that had to do with church finances?
What was the answer you got from the person on the pulpit committee?

[Steve Wilcox]

To be fair on this, most of the info coming out of FBCJax is from the watchdog blog, part of the reason for my saying that the church and pastor has handled this poorly. The church should have been completely open and transparent with their members about pastor pay, employment of family, gifts to the pastor, by-law changes and other things. Instead, they have stonewalled and exercised some degree of heavy- and ham-handedness in the whole process.

Nonetheless, Steve Wilcox is far closer to the situation than anyone else here and his opinion counter to mine and others is certainly welcome. My opinion is that he has some blind spots with respect to the church and pastor's behavior. I am unaware of any facts put out by watchdog that have been found to be untruthful. The guy is harsh in his opinion and some of his issues do not have the importance that he gives to them.

But Steve, you said:

I also spoke with someone involved with the finances of the church and was also on the pulpit committee about the bloggers concerns.

What was the question and what were the answers that had to do with church finances?
What was the answer you got from the person on the pulpit committee?

William, I am not sure what makes you think I am going to post that on this forum.

I am not posting responses I received to my questions due to the friendship I have with the person I asked and the way the bloggers will cut and paste it from here then post it on their blog and then proceed to dissect it, alter it and act as if they got no answers or there is some kind of consipiracy to "fleece the church".

[William Thornton]

William, I am not sure what makes you think I am going to post that on this forum.

I am not posting responses I received to my questions due to the friendship I have with the person I asked and the way the bloggers will cut and paste it from here then post it on their blog and then proceed to dissect it, alter it and act as if they got no answers or there is some kind of consipiracy to "fleece the church".

I didn't think you would and wouldn't expect you to if your conversation was private and needed to be kept private; however, this illustrates part of the church's problem. If you stonewall and hide things, people assume more than the worst. Why any church would not be transparent with their own members is a mystery to me.

FBCJax Watchdog would be defanged in ten minutes if the church were open and transparent rather than (what appears to be) closed and vindictive towards members who have questions.

[Steve Wilcox]

I didn't think you would and wouldn't expect you to if your conversation was private and needed to be kept private; however, this illustrates part of the church's problem. If you stonewall and hide things, people assume more than the worst. Why any church would not be transparent with their own members is a mystery to me.

FBCJax Watchdog would be defanged in ten minutes if the church were open and transparent rather than (what appears to be) closed and vindictive towards members who have questions.

How do you respond to anonymous people?

I realize we have email and you can simply click on reply, but how do you know it is really a church member in good standing?

Would you reply to such an email?

How else could anonymous requests for information be answered?

Furthermore, the watchdog would not be defanged with answers but simply grow another set of larger fangs. I know this because of the way they have treated answers to their questions.

Ex. #1- They were questioning the salary of the pastor. They eventually got their answer, but then changed it to questioning his compensation package.

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.

They don't want answers, they want Dr. Brunson GONE!

BTW, I know someone that found out in the first few months what the pastor's salary (not compensation) was and they did not think it was right, so instead of putting up a fuss and whining about it, they simply left the church. I think they understood that one person was not going to change it and what was done was done. There is nothing wrong with that and sometimes that is all you can do.

[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]

How do you respond to anonymous people?

In a church you would create an atmosphere where feedback would be welcomed without ire and people would feel that they could get answers to their questions.

Ex. #1- They were questioning the salary of the pastor. They eventually got their answer, but then changed it to questioning his compensation package.

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 salary figure for most SBC pastors is a meaningless figure given alone. Any member should have the right to know the pastor's complete package. It's their money but we've discussed this before.

I told watchdog that he was off base on the gift of the lot. Barking up the wrong tree on that one.

[

[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]

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.

William you should understand that I have not responded directly to anything Slyons has posted.

I have responded only to you and Ed.

I was thinking about this last night and I am sorry I even got involved in this, it is not like I alone am going to change their minds.

I have to leave it up to the Lord to sway whomever needs swaying through the Holy Spirit.

It is His church and if he wants to allow an unresovled conflict to continue, then who am I to try to inject myself into it?