Blogging when there is a personal cost

There are hacker and plodder bloggers like me, folks who sometimes foolishly think everyone else might like to drink from their incredibly deep wells of wisdom, wit, and insight. Take these with a bit of skepticism and not always seriously.

Then there are a few bloggers who feel compelled to address what they see as genuine wrongs and serious issues in their churches or in denominational life and who do so at a considerable personal cost.

While I appreciate a number of others, I can only think of two whom I would classify as the latter: David Montoya and Tom Rich.

David Montoya is a pastor and is (or was) the Spiritual Samurai, an odd name for a Baptist blogger in Texas. I've written about him in the past. His ire and indignation over wrongs in the Baptist General Convention of Texas led to the open knowledge of an appalling scandal with BGCT missions money and also led to his being sued. He says he is quitting. I hope not.

David hasn't always been right about things and sometimes says things he has to retract but if not for him I doubt the BGCT valleygate scandal would have been uncovered. I'm not so sure that many SBCers in my lifetime have successfully brought to light such an important matter.

I admire him.

Tom Rich is a layman, the FBCJax Watchdog, one of the early church/pastor critic blogs and to date the most well-known of this genre.

Tom got stirred up by a pastor change at his church and some of the things associated with it and started blogging about it. As is well known, the church played hardball with him and his family, law enforcement got involved, lawsuits were filed and, only recently, finally settled.

I don't buy all of his stuff but his bull-doggedness probably changed the way high profile pastors (those with an ounce of sense which would be most but not all of them) look at some of their church critics. I admire him for not shutting up and going away when his former church ratcheted up the pressure on him.

Any yahoo can belt out their opinions on stuff but there are a few people who do so at considerable personal cost.

Some Not-Too-Shabby Baptist Blogs and Bloggers

As a group, bloggers certainly score high on the scale of self-importance. I suppose it probably is so internalized that no blogger ever asks him/herself, “Why wouldn’t the whole galaxy want to know what I think about stuff, seeing that I am such a witty, insightful, and provocative guy?” Bloggers instead presume that the world awaits their next display of brilliance.

Indeed.

Plodder admits to a degree of that, the self-importance part, not the witty, brilliant, insightful part. OK, I own up to the provocative part.

Here are a few blogs that I enjoy reading and have found to be more than the usual tepid blogfare, annotated of course with my witty, brilliant, and provocative thoughts:

FBCJax Watchdog Tom Rich’s story about FBCJax, his banishment, lawsuit, and settlement was a prime example of how a church member, when denied any effective voice through proper church channels, can easily go public. Tom’s case just happened to be one of the more exaggerated examples of church conflict and a pastor and church’s inept response to it. Since then, Rich blogs about his version of abusive, manipulative, and misbehaving men-of-the-cloth. Sure, some may think it is just a pastor-hate site, but I encourage my colleagues to read it. They might learn something. I don’t buy all of his stuff but I read it all.

Spiritual Samurai David Montoya is the little Latino pit bull whose persistent small voice exposed one of the SBC’s largest scandals. Give a little guy with a high level of indignation a big bullhorn and see what might happen. There could be nothing better for the SBC at every level than an understanding that, ‘No, you’re not going to get away with untoward behavior and decisions, even if all the people who “count” busy back slapping, glad handing, and looking the other way.’ I don't get the samurai stuff.

SBC Voices is a group thing (six guys without a life, perhaps? Don’t they know that six is a bad number?) where a bunch of people contribute, including moi, occasionally. The blogs they feature have introduced me to a few interesting subjects and writers. The pieces written for SBCV are a mixed offering. As in the OT, I wave on a few, burn a few, and consume a few, and scratch my head over a few. I am told this is a Calvinist site but am awaiting divine judgment about that. Until then, I don't hold it against them. One of the calvinists there even has a sense of humor. Quite rare.

The Big Daddy Weave/ comes from Aaron Weaver who is a few light years to my left and a few decades below me in age. He writes well, is quite informed on church/state stuff, and hasn’t learned to trash mouth everyone who disagrees with him. He is a Georgia Bulldawg, which always helps. I don't get the Big Daddy stuff.

SBC Tomorrow. I like Peter Lumpkins. He has the finest hair in the SBC for one thing; however, he seems to generate some ire amongst the brethren. I confess to not quite understanding why. He is zeroed in on Calvinism and such things as ACTS29, et al. He writes well and thinks deeply about SBC stuff. I appreciate his stuff.

From Law to Grace is Howell Scott's blog, former lawyer, something he reminds us of about once a day, so I try and toss in a few ex post factos, certioraris, and a posterioris for him. Howell is far from being a posterior and writes widely on interesting things and I like his stuff.

I'd list other blogs I read but someone might get the idea that I don't have a life.

Criticize your pastor? You might be lost.

This according to Thom Ranier in a Baptist Press article,
FIRST-PERSON: When people criticize church leadership ...

In it he decries the "level and frequency" of criticism of pastors, something that he says "has increased significantly in the past several years." Maybe the level and intensity of criticism of pastors is up but no data is given.

Perhaps he has in mind some cases of calvinist pastors who have endured severe criticism after making changes consistent with their calvinistic views. Perhaps he has in mind the several cases of prominent SBC megachurch pastors who have to deal with anti-pastor blogs and websites. Steve Gaines at Bellevue, Mac Brunson at FBCJax, and Jerry Sutton formerly of Two Rivers all had or have members who operate or did operate such forums for criticism.

Or perhaps he has anecdotal evidence that the ordinary single staff pastor has a harder time with harsher critics these days.

It seems to me that the main difference with critics today, whether or not they are more frequent and harsh, is that they do have the option of a broader, more convenient, and more effective arena for criticism - blogs and websites and the like. A pastor in 2011 might wake up to a blog, even an anonymous blog that takes him to task. Welcome to the 21st century, pastor.

Ranier has some conclusions about the critics:

First, the standards of church membership have been low in many churches for many years. As a consequence our churches have more and more unregenerate members. Frankly, I would be not be surprised if some of the most vitriolic criticisms come from those who are not Christians.

First? I admit that it appeals to pastors if it is suggested that their critics may be pagans. But, is it proper to begin an address of criticism of pastors by raising the possibility that some critics are unbelievers? Sure, they may be, but it is a judgment that no pastor has the capability of making. It seems too self-serving to this pastor to "first" consider that some of my critics may just be lost. I don't think unregenerate members are the source of most criticism of pastors.

Second, church members have been unwilling to take a stand when they see and hear unwarranted criticism toward the pastor and other leaders.

I agree wholeheartedly. There are times when the pastor should be insulated, protected, defended, and bolstered by church members against critics. But, ah, the word “unwarranted” makes all the difference here. All of the cases mentioned above and, in cases I am familiar with, there is some degree of validity in criticism of the pastor. There are certainly some cases where such is unwarranted, as well.

Ranier continues by concluding,

It is truly a sin to remain silent when it is our God-given responsibility to confront those who ultimately would hinder the spread of the Gospel with the poison of their words.

Rather than classify criticism as “poison” and a "hindrance to the spread of the Gospel," what would be helpful would be an article on how a pastor and church should handle legitimate criticism. I would reluctantly admit that most of the criticism I have received over the decades has some degree of justification. I have benefited from some, have been hurt by some, and have found some worthy of being ingored. So, how should my church and I best handle critics?

A healthy church, a healthy pastor, and a pastor and church who have a healthy relationship will be one where criticism can be offered and handled properly by the both of them. A healthy church has channels for criticism. When members who criticize their pastor are treated dismissively, when they are called names, when the pastor flogs them from the pulpit rather than listen to them, when they (and sometimes their families) are crushed by heavyhanded tactics of the pastor or church leadership, something is wrong that our denominational leadership needs to recognize. Some pastors and churches need help in this area.

From where I stand and from what I see and read, it is completely understandable that critics, aware that they will never receive a hearing from their leadership, will sometimes take their criticism to alternative channels like blogs and discussion boards. They do this not because they are unregenerate, vicious, or cheapshot critics, but because they have been taught that they will not get a hearing from their pastor or church and that they will be treated badly if they do speak up.

I’m all for respecting one’s pastor. He should be given the benefit of the doubt in questionable decisions and actions. He should be allowed to exercise his leadership and gifts. And I recognize that there are church members with such a level of dissatisfaction that they will be much happier in another church and should be encouraged to pursue that course. But a pastor and church leadership have a responsibility to their membership to provide channels for critics, to listen, to respond properly.

It is as easy to beat up on the critics as it is for critics to beat up on the pastor. Let’s acknowledge that and provide helpful advice to both.

FBCJax and FBCJax Watchdog

Tom Rich blogs as FBCJax Watchdog, a blog that arose as his channel of complaint about his former church, FBC Jacksonville and their new pastor, Mac Brunson.

You know the story. Rich was critical of various things about the church, blogged anonymously about it, and angered the church leaders. The church played hardball with him, filing complaints with the Sheriff’s department, though Rich’s identity was still not known.

Let Jonathan Turley a nationally known lawyer who is frequently seen on national media outlets describe it:

We have discussed the situation regarding the anonymous blogger who complained about the salary and perks of Pastor Mac Brunson, here. Detective Robert Hinson of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office got a subpoena and forced Google to reveal the blogger’s identity. Hinson also worked for the church as part of the pastor’s security detail.
The anonymous blogger, identified as Thomas A. Rich, filed a federal law suit claiming the government violated church-state separation and his free speech rights. The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office wisely decided to settle the case. Rich will get $50,000.

The Sheriff’s department has settled with Rich, paid him a modest sum of money, and agreed to meet to discuss their policies and what might be done to avoid future problems. Rich comments

I can't tell you how extremely satisfying it is to know that the end result of a very painful process such as this lawsuit and the long, arduous discovery process will ultimately result in positive changes to improve the ethics and conflict of interest policies at JSO. We have full confidence that Sheriff Rutherford is committed to making these changes, and as I said I will provide updates in the future as things move forward.

I ask, what are the chances that FBCJax will respond positively as well and meet with Rich to discuss how such things can be avoided in the future. I’d say that the chances are about the same as pigs flying. Rich still has a lawsuit active against the church.

I ask again, what would have been the outcome of all this if Brunson and FBCJax had said, early on, “Come on in, Tom, and ask any questions you wish. I’ll answer as best I can. FBCJax is your church. You may not like my answers but you have a right to ask and I’ll respond. If we don't agree and you feel strongly about it, you may be happier in another church. We will wish you well. But, I'd at least like to have a chance to see your questions answered so you can make a decision.”

FBCJax would have avoided a lawsuit, avoided looking so inept, ham-handed, and harsh in this thing. But then, they would have had to have been open and transparent, not an easy thing for a megachurch to do.

They made their choice. Others can judge if it was wise, prudent, or Christian.

I have never met Tom Rich but have communicated with him a good bit. I don't buy all of his stuff. I don't agree with some of his actions. I don't share some of his views with respect to church life. But I think he had a right to ask and have his questions answered by his own church and I don't think he deserved the treatment he got at the hands of his Christian brethren at FBC Jax.