Here is the latest story regarding this blog and the investigation:
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-04-25/story/woman_accepts_her_blogs_role_in_church_investigation
The Times Union article is edited and rewritten a few times before going out, so there are other things that I said that did not make it into the final article and may come out at another time. A few of those things I would like to address here:
1) One thing I stated is that I am still not in full agreement that there was ANY need to "look at" or "verify" my blog. As far as I know, they only verified ownership with the subpoena (though I will always wonder). IF I find out during this process that more than this was done, then I will deal with that appropriately. Right now I can only go by what I am told and the facts that I have looked into. The reason I spoke out and also posted previously is that I do not feel Detective Hinson did more than this, I have a reason for believing that (reasons that I cannot share at this time).
The second reason is that I feel that Detective Hinson was "being thrown under a bus" and the others involved at the church were apparently not going to stand up for him. There are other facts that play into this decision and I feel that FBC has some explaining to do. It was the "pass the buck" scenario from the church admin. all the way from the top - "I didn't have anything to do with this, it was him." then that person says "No it was actually that guy over there" and eventually the trail went all the way down to resting on Hinson's shoulders and that is NOT the truth. He should not lose his job or credibility, face public rage, internal affairs investigation etc. if there is more to the story, don't you agree? I do not feel he abused his power or did favors. I know a few details about this situation and I feel it was his job to investigate based on what he was given, he did not act alone. That is why I did my own research and made my own decision. I could be wrong, but I would rather be wrong after a knowledgeable decision than a hasty one made on emotion.
2) Another thing that wasn't printed in the article is that for the last month I have been on my own "fact finding mission" and have talked to many different people, compared different people's version of the events and statements, talked to Deacon's (hearing FBC side of things), hearing Tom's version of events along with his evidence of things, attempted to meet with Pastor Brunson, John Blount and any others they deemed relevant, talked with my family, evaluated the impact of my involvement, lost sleep, prayed, laid out all of the facts that I learned. I have been very frustrated and bothered by it all, and my spirit is restless about it all. I have tried to make decisions based on what I feel God would have me do vs. how I feel (because I was really angry about this) and not wanting to add fuel to an out of control fire. I feel that the full truth has not yet come out, but I am confident that it will. And I am praying for that to happen as well. I want to know the truth and it is very hard to find it right now because everyone is trying to cover for themselves.
One thing I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that this was not handled correctly - period! Not humanly right, but definitely not spiritually!
God's word is alive and active, it is relevant and applicable to everyday life - it is not only applicable to those we want it to apply to, but for the other side as well. We cannot use scriptures against Tom and his blog, cursing what he is doing and then not do the same for the reaction of the church, the Pastor, the Discipline committee, the Deacons, the police and S.A. office. You cannot single only one person out, the Bible applies to all other than the fact that the State (law enforcement) is not bound by God's law. The church brought the State and law enforcement into this by asking for an investigation, asking for information and receiving it (Tom's name), asking for a tespass warning and issuing it by men at the church and then officially by law enforcement, then the final blow, calling Tom names in the public newspaper. Where is the line drawn that says, "Tom did this and it's wrong in our eyes, but anything that happens from this point is just his punishment and our hands are washed clean..." Who decides that ? Are we now judge and jury? What in the world happened to the rest of the scriptures?
"A hot-tempered man stirs up dissension, but a patient man calms a quarrel." Prov. 15:18 "A man finds joy in giving an apt reply and how good is a timely word." (vs.23) "He who listens to a life giving rebuke will be at home among the wise. The fear of the Lord teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honor. (vs. 31-32)
"The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: they will not go unpunished. Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil. When a man's ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him. Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice." (16:5-8)
Many of you want to be angry with Tom Rich for blogging in the first place. Well, go ahead and be angry, but sin not. That is Biblical! All day long you can blame this on Tom, but you will be wrong. Pastor Brunson has many critics, all Pastors do, should he handle it differently than a regular man? Yes, because he has a higher calling and role. He has to handle it with grace and humility and he really should meet with the person at least once before deciding what needs to be done from there. If it is an unreasonable person and he sees no way of reconciling the differences, then certainly tougher choices need to be made, in love, with grace and humility. But if it all comes down to agreeing to disagree and asking the person to handle things differently, then he is showing love and grace and humility. And in the best case scenario the persons fears, problems or qualms are settled in this meeting and restoration happens. No matter the outcome, the Pastor would have tried. Tom could have had his questions answered, his fears or qualms resolved and then the blog would be shut down. Or he may have met with him and discovered that he felt he still needed to keep blogging, but the Pastor's accountability would be covered. The Pastor has to answer for how he handles things just as Tom does. Obviously, we are all accountable as well.
We all are fallible and make mistakes and now there is this mess. The church should have had a meeting with Tom, it shouldn't have been only granted based in their rules and regulations being agreed to (that isn't fair) it should have been gracious, loving and available. If there was a threat on the church or Pastor, then I would be saying something different. The only threat was Tom's words and opinions and that is a constitutional right. We cannot use a separate set of rules for the church and then bring in the government (police and SA) but then say "separation of church and state" it is one or the other. We want separation of church and state for our own religious freedom - if the church isn't careful, we will have more situations like this one and lawsuits and then eventually the gov't. will intercede, little crossovers like this can lead to many things that are not in the churches best interest.
3) With that being said, I do not believe that Toms's name should have been released to the church under these circumstances. There was not enough concern gained during the "investigation" to keep it open, meaning actual criminal behavior, so there was no reason to "warn the church" as the Sheriff states. If they linked Tom to some threatening email, or stalking the Pastors wife, then certainly I can understand where they would need to be aware and warn "watch out for John Doe and call if you see him around" type of thing. But this is not the case! Their own report says such. If this is JSO's usual policy, then it needs to be re evaluated based on this case. After all, look what was done after identifying him to the church. Isn't this exactly why he blogged anonymously in the first place? What if the church didn't agree with me blogging about the crimes of Gilyard? Could they go to the JSO and tell them that things are happening to them and I might be to blame? Would that be reason to investigate me?
Do we really need to involve the authorities on a hunch? Or worse, an emotional decision based on our dislike of someone? After all, the blog was just an opinion, no direct threats, no reason to allege he may be stalking, the stalking supposedly happened long ago anyway, why the sudden concern? It just isn't right. But even if they were fearful, there are certainly many people that should have been on the radar other than just Tom Rich, myself and the BBC.
Unfortunately, there may be further consequences for not doing things God's way.
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-04-25/story/woman_accepts_her_blogs_role_in_church_investigation
The Times Union article is edited and rewritten a few times before going out, so there are other things that I said that did not make it into the final article and may come out at another time. A few of those things I would like to address here:
1) One thing I stated is that I am still not in full agreement that there was ANY need to "look at" or "verify" my blog. As far as I know, they only verified ownership with the subpoena (though I will always wonder). IF I find out during this process that more than this was done, then I will deal with that appropriately. Right now I can only go by what I am told and the facts that I have looked into. The reason I spoke out and also posted previously is that I do not feel Detective Hinson did more than this, I have a reason for believing that (reasons that I cannot share at this time).
The second reason is that I feel that Detective Hinson was "being thrown under a bus" and the others involved at the church were apparently not going to stand up for him. There are other facts that play into this decision and I feel that FBC has some explaining to do. It was the "pass the buck" scenario from the church admin. all the way from the top - "I didn't have anything to do with this, it was him." then that person says "No it was actually that guy over there" and eventually the trail went all the way down to resting on Hinson's shoulders and that is NOT the truth. He should not lose his job or credibility, face public rage, internal affairs investigation etc. if there is more to the story, don't you agree? I do not feel he abused his power or did favors. I know a few details about this situation and I feel it was his job to investigate based on what he was given, he did not act alone. That is why I did my own research and made my own decision. I could be wrong, but I would rather be wrong after a knowledgeable decision than a hasty one made on emotion.
2) Another thing that wasn't printed in the article is that for the last month I have been on my own "fact finding mission" and have talked to many different people, compared different people's version of the events and statements, talked to Deacon's (hearing FBC side of things), hearing Tom's version of events along with his evidence of things, attempted to meet with Pastor Brunson, John Blount and any others they deemed relevant, talked with my family, evaluated the impact of my involvement, lost sleep, prayed, laid out all of the facts that I learned. I have been very frustrated and bothered by it all, and my spirit is restless about it all. I have tried to make decisions based on what I feel God would have me do vs. how I feel (because I was really angry about this) and not wanting to add fuel to an out of control fire. I feel that the full truth has not yet come out, but I am confident that it will. And I am praying for that to happen as well. I want to know the truth and it is very hard to find it right now because everyone is trying to cover for themselves.
One thing I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that this was not handled correctly - period! Not humanly right, but definitely not spiritually!
God's word is alive and active, it is relevant and applicable to everyday life - it is not only applicable to those we want it to apply to, but for the other side as well. We cannot use scriptures against Tom and his blog, cursing what he is doing and then not do the same for the reaction of the church, the Pastor, the Discipline committee, the Deacons, the police and S.A. office. You cannot single only one person out, the Bible applies to all other than the fact that the State (law enforcement) is not bound by God's law. The church brought the State and law enforcement into this by asking for an investigation, asking for information and receiving it (Tom's name), asking for a tespass warning and issuing it by men at the church and then officially by law enforcement, then the final blow, calling Tom names in the public newspaper. Where is the line drawn that says, "Tom did this and it's wrong in our eyes, but anything that happens from this point is just his punishment and our hands are washed clean..." Who decides that ? Are we now judge and jury? What in the world happened to the rest of the scriptures?
"A hot-tempered man stirs up dissension, but a patient man calms a quarrel." Prov. 15:18 "A man finds joy in giving an apt reply and how good is a timely word." (vs.23) "He who listens to a life giving rebuke will be at home among the wise. The fear of the Lord teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honor. (vs. 31-32)
"The Lord detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: they will not go unpunished. Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil. When a man's ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him. Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice." (16:5-8)
Many of you want to be angry with Tom Rich for blogging in the first place. Well, go ahead and be angry, but sin not. That is Biblical! All day long you can blame this on Tom, but you will be wrong. Pastor Brunson has many critics, all Pastors do, should he handle it differently than a regular man? Yes, because he has a higher calling and role. He has to handle it with grace and humility and he really should meet with the person at least once before deciding what needs to be done from there. If it is an unreasonable person and he sees no way of reconciling the differences, then certainly tougher choices need to be made, in love, with grace and humility. But if it all comes down to agreeing to disagree and asking the person to handle things differently, then he is showing love and grace and humility. And in the best case scenario the persons fears, problems or qualms are settled in this meeting and restoration happens. No matter the outcome, the Pastor would have tried. Tom could have had his questions answered, his fears or qualms resolved and then the blog would be shut down. Or he may have met with him and discovered that he felt he still needed to keep blogging, but the Pastor's accountability would be covered. The Pastor has to answer for how he handles things just as Tom does. Obviously, we are all accountable as well.
We all are fallible and make mistakes and now there is this mess. The church should have had a meeting with Tom, it shouldn't have been only granted based in their rules and regulations being agreed to (that isn't fair) it should have been gracious, loving and available. If there was a threat on the church or Pastor, then I would be saying something different. The only threat was Tom's words and opinions and that is a constitutional right. We cannot use a separate set of rules for the church and then bring in the government (police and SA) but then say "separation of church and state" it is one or the other. We want separation of church and state for our own religious freedom - if the church isn't careful, we will have more situations like this one and lawsuits and then eventually the gov't. will intercede, little crossovers like this can lead to many things that are not in the churches best interest.
3) With that being said, I do not believe that Toms's name should have been released to the church under these circumstances. There was not enough concern gained during the "investigation" to keep it open, meaning actual criminal behavior, so there was no reason to "warn the church" as the Sheriff states. If they linked Tom to some threatening email, or stalking the Pastors wife, then certainly I can understand where they would need to be aware and warn "watch out for John Doe and call if you see him around" type of thing. But this is not the case! Their own report says such. If this is JSO's usual policy, then it needs to be re evaluated based on this case. After all, look what was done after identifying him to the church. Isn't this exactly why he blogged anonymously in the first place? What if the church didn't agree with me blogging about the crimes of Gilyard? Could they go to the JSO and tell them that things are happening to them and I might be to blame? Would that be reason to investigate me?
Do we really need to involve the authorities on a hunch? Or worse, an emotional decision based on our dislike of someone? After all, the blog was just an opinion, no direct threats, no reason to allege he may be stalking, the stalking supposedly happened long ago anyway, why the sudden concern? It just isn't right. But even if they were fearful, there are certainly many people that should have been on the radar other than just Tom Rich, myself and the BBC.
Unfortunately, there may be further consequences for not doing things God's way.
33 comments:
"I do not feel he abused his power or did favors. "
Tiffany, the only problem I have with this is that there is no documentation of the investigation. We have no idea what they mean by 'internet incident' as they never say. There are no police reports about the stalking or mail theft (post office investigates that). There are also many other blogs that Tom links to --to investigate. Why yours and BBC's?
With all this in mind, Hinson seems to be hiding something. It just does not add up.
It would also be more transparent if the JSO told us whether or not Hinson is paid by FBCJax as part time security. That is an important detail. He would be serving two masters and we all know how that works out. Does he volunteer or is he paid?
If he volunteers he most certainly should have said no to some of this. Esp the subpeona's on yours and BBC's blog. Some things are not adding up.
Tiffany, this comment was on the newspaper article website and makes a very good point:
Time line:
11/13/08 - Det. Hinson Closes investigation.
2/11/09 - Blount informs WD, that this matter will be disclosed to the deacons.
Number of days between 11/13/08 to 2/11/09 (91 days) [Inclusive count].
Det. Hinson destroys his investigation gathered material after 90 days.
Coincidence?
Isn't 90 days the amount of time they have to leave it open before destroying? I am not so sure you should believe everything the JSO tells you.
What if the church didn't agree with me blogging about the crimes of Gilyard? Could they go to the JSO and tell them that things are happening to them and I might be to blame?".
Errr... I think this may have been what happened!
Lawsuit coming:
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/
Tiffany - there was no "investigation." How do I "know" that? Because any investigation of Tom Rich would have at least included Detective Hinson talking with Mr. Rich. That never happened. The church used the JSO and SAO to out the blogger. Then when deacons and some of their wives got the word back to Tom about subpoenas and innuendo about stalking and mail stealing, the cat was out of the bag. The church and Detective Hinson NEVER thought in a million years they would be found out. I mean, they waited 90 days and destroyed the documents, right? And how would Tom ever find a file without his name on it? Hmmm. So, when Hinson was contacted and asked about the investigation and to explain it, he was caught with his pants down. He knows it, the JSO knows it, and the church knows it. So they all ent into full spin control. Statements from the church, from Mackesy, from Rutherford, from Angela Cory, and others show the city is waiting on a lawsuit. They know they are in big trouble and the entire city is all over this story. Why? Because every citizen, whether they hate anon bloggers or not, know the greater harm here is the abuse of state and church power.
There is not going to be a happy ending to this mess for the SAO, JSO or FBC Jax.
And thanks to Jeff Brumley and the Times-Union for having the integrity and professionalism to run with this story on the front page. And that "sociopath" quote from Brunson...priceless. His words speak for themselves regarding that guy.
Anon 9:57 is correct. The only "investigation" was conducted to learn Tom's identity (and then mine) and I can only presume to intimdate Tiffany. If the original complaint was indeed "suspicious criminal overtones" (whatever that means) on a blog (or blogs), the proper procedure would have been to read the blog(s), make the determination there was nothing "criminal" about it/them, and to close the investigation and report back to John Blount with the simple statement, "No evidence of criminal overtones exists. The investigation is closed." There would have been no subpoenas.
If the original complaint included someone photographing the pastor's wife two years ago, the logical response would have been, "Why are you just now getting around to reporting this?" If the complaint was stealing mail, the proper response would have been to tell the complainant to notify the USPS (or put a lock on his mailbox).
If there HAD been evidence of "criminal overtones" on Tom's blog, THEN and ONLY THEN should any attempt have been made to learn his identity. But we know no evidence was found. So why were subpoenas issued to Google and the ISP, not only for Tom's private information, but for Tiffany's and mine as well?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven!
This is great summary! Thanks for posting your thoughts BBC...you are right on target as to the "investigation" and how it should have been handled.
Well, it ain't exactly rocket science.
New BBC - well said! Also, John Blount even admitted that he contacted the JSO (aka his long time personal friend Robert Hinson) only after "increased vitriol" on the blog. (ie: posts saying not to give to Chest of Joash offering until more transparency was shown). He wanted to see where "this" (the vitriol) was coming from. Nothing about stalking or pictures or mail. No threats. Just increased vitriol from the blog. Why? So they could find out who he was, intimidate and harass and hurt the man and his family, and "shut em down" like Mac had just recently preached.
Just how stupid do they think ALL the sheep are that we can't see this? More importantly, how stupid do they think a jury will be when they see the timeline of events and are played video of Mac's sermon where he directly commands to his congregation that if anyone raises questions churchmen and churchwomen are to "shut em down." That sermon alone will meet the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof as to why any so called "investigation" was opened by the JSO.
They would have gotten away with it but for a few things:
1.) Some of the deacons at the meeting, and their wives, (even though they had to sign an attendance sheet to intimidate them into silence) had the courage to call Tom and tell him about subpoenas and state attorney involvement. (not just an ecclesiastical matter after all, huh "Reverend" John Blount and your Discipline Committee?)
2. Tom had to get his hands on the criminal investigation report and the subpoenas. The JSO thought those had been destroyed and since Tom's name was not on ANY of those documents, that he could never find them.
3. Mr. Rich actually had conviction and was not going to quietly go away like the rest of us. He decided to take the abuse and risks and pay whatever price it took to continue to blog his concerns until someone at the church finally demanded some transparency on these issues.
4.) The arrogance of Judge Soud and that troublesome resolution that is clear evidence of what their motives were all along. (Proudly displayed with a prominent link on their website until they realized Hinson had been found out!)
Now, the whole world will be watching their desperate and pathetic and un-Christlike attempts to cover themselves at all costs. Even their efforts at making up some valid reason for obtaining subpoenas only gets them in further trouble. I wonder if they ever considered confession and repentance like the Bible says? No way. You will see in their defense just how much these folks actually believe the Bible is relevant to them.
The emperor has no clothes...and it just made front page news.
Whatever your opinion is on these matters, one fact remains undisputed. Team Brunson (and the A-Group/Maurilio Amorim) have lost their ability to lead this congregation in this city. For the good of all and for the sake of the Lord Jesus whom they claim to love, they need to resign and move on. Please Team Brunson. Don't leave this up to the WD to do the right thing. YOU move on. Now. Or would you rather wait until all depositions are taken and even more garbage is uncovered about FBC JAX before you take the money and run? Please leave now. Counting the land gift and book deals, you will leave town with hundreds of thousands in profits and might still even be able to find another congregation. Please leave now without causing further harm. Thank you.
" I wonder if they ever considered confession and repentance like the Bible says? No way."
If the sheep don't follow enmasse, don't count this out as a desperate attempt to keep his position until he can make other arrangements. Most mega church pastors are performers.
I'm sorry Tiffany,love you too life!.But everything about this whole incident cries of cover-up.I respect Det.Hinson he coached my son in the upward basketball league. But what was done and how it was done was not right! Mac has abused his position and power for his own betterment and as far as I am concerned Det.Hinson is nothing but another victim of Mac's along with WD!. This whole thing is nothing but a cover-up,they(FBCJ) just were'nt expecting the fall-out!
Tiffany,
There is a huge difference between your blog (which has truth and validity) and that of Tom Rich and the still anonymous woman in Memphis. Their blogs are nothing but opinions, speculations, and a bunch of whining.
Tom Rich was invited to come to a meeting with the church authorities and declined. Regardless of the rules (which are their's to set), the fact exists that he did not attend so he can't cry foul now.
Tom Rich got exactly what he deserved and I respect the church for removing him from their fellowship. Hopefully, the same will happen in Memphis.
Tiffany,
"There is a huge difference between your blog (which has truth and validity) and that of Tom Rich and the still anonymous woman in Memphis. Their blogs are nothing but opinions, speculations, and a bunch of whining.
April 27, 2009 8:25 AM"
Anon whether you agree with WD are not he has raised legitmate issue and questions that Mac and FBCJ refuse to answer!.If any organizations should be transparent it is the Church.And since you state that WD blog is nothing but "opinions,speculations and a bunch of whining",why have they gone to this lenght to out this man over none issues?.Maybe you can answer some of the questions asked since Mac and FBCJ ARE NOT GOING TO ANSWER THEM!Are you a member and serve in some capacity with FBCJ which allows you to jugde that these allegations are nothing more than opinions?
Rod,
And to whom do they owe an explanation? They have no obligation to explain a thing to anyone who is not a member and Tom Rich employed the wrong methods when trying to find his answers. Since noone on Tom Rich's blog knows the actual truth about Mac's salary and/or benefits, they are just blowing their own Phariseeical horns.
"Rod,
And to whom do they owe an explanation? They have no obligation to explain a thing to anyone who is not a member and Tom Rich employed the wrong methods when trying to find his answers. Since noone on Tom Rich's blog knows the actual truth about Mac's salary and/or benefits, they are just blowing their own Phariseeical horns.
April 27, 2009 10:45 AM
They as a matter of fact have not explained anything to anyone including WD when he was a member!Other members have attempt to get answer from Mac to no avail!Let me ask you this.Do you see anything that would cause alarm about how Mac and FBCJ are doing business?.What about Mac's "sociopath" remark in the newspaper?.What about all the secrecy surrounding many of Mac's decisions?
And to whom do they owe an explanation? They have no obligation to explain a thing to anyone who is not a member and Tom Rich employed the wrong methods when trying to find his answers. Since noone on Tom Rich's blog knows the actual truth about Mac's salary and/or benefits, they are just blowing their own Phariseeical horns.
April 27, 2009 10:45 AM
This sounds like the answers folks got in the old Soviet Union. Strange how they explain nothing to their own members and if it was no big deal then why did they go after Tom? Perhaps they did not like the questions?
I love the excuse that 'you did not ask right' so you get no answers. This one always cracks me up because there is NO way to ask right in a mega when it comes to finances.
Rod,
I'm sorry but there are plenty of people who know everything that is going on at FBC, Jax. The key committees and their members know the facts. Tom Rich didn't get his answers because he asked/demanded anonymously and no preacher should even respond to that kind of trash. He also had an opportunity to meet with leaders but turned it down so his excuses fall on deaf ears.
I have some reservations about how things are supposedly being handled but then I'm sure we are only getting one side of the story. Its strange that there aren't a lot of genuine facts being presented on either side of the issue.
I also have no problem with Mac saying Tom Rich is a sociopath because he is.
"The key committees and their members know the facts."
So you are either of Apollos or Paul.
Blind followers. If your leaders have not proved to you that they are not of Christ in their behavior to date in this matter, it will take a personal crisis for you to seek truth.
"I have some reservations about how things are supposedly being handled but then I'm sure we are only getting one side of the story."
And why do you not know the other side of the story? Do you really believe there are facts that will make it ok for Mac to use the civil authorities to out the blogger and get subpeona's?
Where are the police reports. Why the convenient timing in closing the investigation so they could destroy documents?
You are a blind follower. There must be kool aid in the communion cups.
I also have no problem with Mac saying Tom Rich is a sociopath because he is.
April 27, 2009 11:51 AM
That is pride talking. Just like Brunson. It is scary who people will imitate and think it is Christian behavior for a pastor.
"I also have no problem with Mac saying Tom Rich is a sociopath because he is.
April 27, 2009 11:51 AM"
Anon I have been studying up on the definition and explanation of what a sociopath is.And based on the description Mac it appears is the one who displays socipathic behavior!
Tiffany,
You wrote "He has to handle it with grace and humility and he really should meet with the person at least once before deciding what needs to be done from there. "
Just wondering, how do you arrange a meeting with an anonymous person?
Then after his identity was discovered do you think T. Rich would have really wanted a meeting? Or would it have been a serious of questions asking how he was discovered?
So you think that if the FBC, Jax committee members know all the facts and follow their pastor's leadership then they are blind followers. What that tells me is that you aren't in any position of authority/leadership and are consumed with ambition and jealousy just wanting to be on those committees. There have been people like you for ages.
You might also read Tiffany's blog a little closer because there was indeed a police report filed. Whether or not you get to see it is another story. But then, you will say the police authorities are blind followers.
"So you think that if the FBC, Jax committee members know all the facts and follow their pastor's leadership then they are blind followers. What that tells me is that you aren't in any position of authority/leadership and are consumed with ambition and jealousy just wanting to be on those committees. There have been people like you for ages."
And I'm sure there were many men who wanted to join the Sanhedrin after Jesus reproached them in Matt.23! Your comment again reveals a lack of spiritual discernment! Just because someone criticises Mac doesn't mean they would like to join them. As a matter of fact I want to be as far away from them as possible. The Apostle James states that everyone should not wnat to be teachers for there judgment will be more severe![Jam.3:1].Please since you appear to be a supporter of Mac maybe you can answer some of WD question?.Would you please humor us?
Jacksonville Times-Union > Blogger sues after Jacksonville cops out him to First Baptist.
A Jacksonville blogger filed a lawsuit Monday claiming police and state prosecutors violated his constitutional rights to anonymity and free speech in a 2008 criminal case “fabricated” solely to uncover his identity for First Baptist Church.
The lawsuit also claims the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office and State Attorney’s Office violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause by disclosing the blogger’s name to the downtown megachurch. Doing so amounted to taking sides in a religious dispute between the blogger, Thomas Rich, and the church, according the suit.
The suit does not name First Baptist as a defendant because only government agencies can be held accountable for the violation of citizens’ free speech rights, said Rich’s attorney, Michael Roberts.
The suit seeks damages of at least $15,000 — the minimum required to file a case in Duval County — for what it describes as the ongoing “emotional anguish, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life” as a result of Rich and his wife being barred from the church they had attended for 20 years. The couple joined another Southern Baptist church as a result.
Rich launched his blog in August 2007. In it, Rich chastised Pastor Mac Brunson and other First Baptist Church leaders on everything from salary and housing to fundraising priorities and ministry objectives.
Rich said Monday he wanted to remain anonymous partly to keep the focus on the issues and he feared retribution.
The suit rejects police’s assertion the investigation was meant to protect the congregation’s safety.
“The criminal investigation was fabricated to create the illusion of legitimacy but was, in fact, a mere pretext for the disclosure” of Rich’s identity to the church, the lawsuit says.
Church officials could not be reached Monday. But its top administrator, the Rev. John Blount, has told the Times-Union he called Detective Robert Hinson last fall to report increasing vitriol on Rich’s then-anonymous blog, FBCJaxWatchdog.blogspot.com.
Blount said he also told Hinson, a church member, that mail had been stolen from Brunson’s home and that a stalker had taken photos of Brunson’s wife. Although police reports were never filed on those incidents, the church wanted to know if the blog, letters and photographs were connected, Blount said.
The investigation, which lasted from Sept. 29 to Nov. 13, ended with no criminal findings.
My thanks to Nass (New BBC Open Forum):
New BBC Open Forum > We want to minister to everybody...
... except those who ask questions we don't want to answer.
Well, Tiffany is now like the woman in Memphis and Tom Rich. If she doesn't agree with your comment she just deletes it.
Tells me a lot about your blog.
"Well, Tiffany is now like the woman in Memphis and Tom Rich. If she doesn't agree with your comment she just deletes it.
Tells me a lot about your blog.
April 27, 2009 9:38 PM"
Anon if you would comment with something note worthy then Tiff and WD wouldn't have to delete it!!!
Correction -
I did not delete anyones comment, if you look at it again it says "deleted by author" the person posting evidently changed their mind. If I had deleted it, the note would be "deleted by blog administrator.
This is exactly why judging someone without adequate information is dangerous.
Thy Peace said...
Wade's blog > A Southern Baptist Religious "State of Play".
Doug Pittman, a former member of Prays Mill Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist Church just west of Atlanta, Georgia, called me at the office yesterday to thank me for my blog, which he said had been a source of encouragement to him. It seems that Doug, a man in his late forties, had been a member of Prays Mill Baptist Church his entire life. Yet in early 2007 PMBC church leaders, led by Pastor Mike Everson, forcibly removed Doug from membership. Doug and his family had been attending another SBC church prior to the disciplinary action, and Doug himself had personally informed Pastor Everson weeks earlier that he and his family would be joining a sister church. Nobody from Prays Mill Baptist Church had informed Doug that he was "under discipline," and Doug discovered that he had been forcibly "removed" from membership when PMBC members called to tell him after the business meeting where the action had occurred.
...
Doug believes that the surprise move against him was intended to punish him for daring to speak out against church leaders. It was only after he was informed, after the fact, that he had been removed from the membership at PMBC that Doug began, on May 4, 2007, his blog. Doug told the reasons, in full detail, that led to his decision to leave the church and his shock that he was being "disciplined" for simply following his conscience and speaking out against what he believed to be intentional deception by church leaders. As stated above, Doug had intended to simply leave the church, but the blog was necessary to reveal what he believed to be an ecclesiastical abuse of authority, several acts of deception by church leadership, and a blatant attempt to ruin Doug's reputation for speaking out in opposition to church leadership actions.
...
Pastor Everson resigned his church leadership position in December 2007. Doug Pittman also shut down his blog. The hurt, however, continues. Doug told me yesterday that he has no desire for he or his family to ever again be associated with anything Southern Baptist. I encouraged Doug to realize that there are a great many Southern Baptists just like him. People who know that truth and transparency is always best, and we will not be snowed by any religious "state of play." In short, when any outside agency is used by a local Southern Baptist church to strike back at someone who is attempting to present the truth, then we Southern Baptists have an obligation to not just assume that the church leadership is always acting with integrity.
April 28, 2009 8:31 AM
I read Doug's blog when it was up and running.
That guy had some more backbone and spine to fight Mike Everson. He was/is known as the one in the Georgia Baptist Convention to go after many who opposed views within the GBC hierarchy. Mike fought both Mercer and Shorters Presidents in ways that I thought were so hateful.
But it looks like Mike finally got repaid for his animosity towards these two fine colleges.
Reap what you have sown - sounds so familar...
"So you think that if the FBC, Jax committee members know all the facts and follow their pastor's leadership then they are blind followers. What that tells me is that you aren't in any position of authority/leadership and are consumed with ambition and jealousy just wanting to be on those committees. There have been people like you for ages."
You are talking about worldly power and status, friend. There are only servants in the Body. Jesus said the greatest among them would be the servant of all. In the Greek, that means lowest of the low.
There is no status to it. Just read Paul, a bondservant, writing from Prison in chains.
Matt
Wade's blog > A Southern Baptist Religious "State of Play"
Post a Comment