Tom Rich and FBC Jacksonville Settle! Brunson Forced to Publicly Apologize!

Posted on by April 3, 2012avatar

WHOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOO!

We will write a full post on the history of this matter. We are unable to talk with Tom about this settlement because he must maintain strict confidentiality. But, your humble blog queens, who have been friends with Tom for close to 3 years, and have covered this story for that same amount of time, can read between the lines. We will do a post on this tomorrow.

Suffice to say, this should strike fear into the hearts of rogue churches and give solace to bloggers around the country. 

Oh, just in case any FBC lawyer is reading this (and we know they do), we learned of this settlement only this AM due to an alert reader, Arce, who has also followed this case with interest .

To our dear friends, Tom and Yvette Rich, well done, good and faithful servants! We love you both. I know we can never talk together on this settlement but don't forget who told you that it would end positively! I sensed it in my bones. Link to ABP  report.

Comments

Tom Rich and FBC Jacksonville Settle! Brunson Forced to Publicly Apologize! — 35 Comments

  4. Note to Reader

    We both are out of pocket for long segments of the day. Please bear with us in how long it takes to approve comments-dadblasted, no good trolls!

  5. Dee and Deb:

    You might want to read some of the comments at the link Amos posted. Seems some folks question whether or not the 20 year member who was blogging handled his disagreemens in a Biblical fashion. While Rich cannot comment on the case (don’t know if this concern would be included in that directive) you may be able to shed some light on that aspect of the story, since you have been following it. Common sense tells me that a 20 year member does not just walk out of a church in a hissy fit without trying to work through the issues. But who knows, maybe that’s just too much common sense on my part (eye roll).

  6. “As long as I am pastor, with every ounce of energy I have, I will guard this congregation to the best of my ability,” he (Brunson) said.

    Insert “cash cow” for “congregation” and I think we have the real dope.

    Amazing.

  7. I am glad this case settled. Brunson should have apologized. It was inappropriate to say that Rich was a sociopath and obsessive compulsive, or whatever it was that he said.

    I am not sure that Rich suffered any actual damages by that utterance, but it doesn’t matter in terms of whether those words should have been said.

    What is the most amazing thing to me was that Brunson said that on his own.

    From what I understand, the efforts to find out Rich’s identity were conducted by the sheriff’s office and a deputy that went to FBC. That was also a head scratcher. The deputy never made any attempt to justify getting the subpoena. He just assumed that he could.

    It seems that Brunson had nothing to do that, or at least he made pretty good efforts to not be involved in it, even if he knew the efforts were going on.

    But then – Brunson turns around and hands his biggest detractor a club and found himself and the church in trouble. It really is unbelievable.

    I suspect that Rich probably did make efforts to handle this biblically, but I can’t prove it.

    It would not surprise me one bit to find that Rich or his lawyer tried to contact Brunson and told him that if he would apologize publicly for a public statement (which is the appropriate scope of an apology in that circumstance)they would not file suit. I am almost certain that happened. But I am also almost as certain that Brunson and the church would not have been able to bring themselves to such an apology at that point.

    The thing that surprises me the most about this episode is not whether this person or that person did this or that and should have or should not have, but how apparently sloppy FBC and its leadership are. Sloppiness and arrogance is not an inspiring combination.

    No wonder they may have money problems there.

  8. Re Anon 1:39 “Brunson said that(apology) on his own.”

    I seriously doubt that. Chances are very good that Tom’s lawyer stipulated what had to be in the apology and Brunson’s lawyer told Brunson that it was the best way out. Knowing Mac I cannot imagine him saying those words on his own. Otherwise it probably would have been one of those “If I have offended anyone etc, type responses.

  9. I’m sorry but I am tired of hearing the words “handled biblically”. That does not mean that anyone can say what they want and it was more than words that was done to Tom and Yvette. They went through a living nightmare because of Mac and the Jax church. He did the right thing, he took it to court. He won. I’m glad and stand by Tom and Yvette 100%. This and you who have been abused making your stories public will hopefully stop if not slow down the craziness and abuse. It should have been done. A court listened and in my opinion ruled rightly.

  10. I am very happy for him. I doubt that this mega-pastor would have said anything publicly except it be for legal reasons. Let’s hope there are many more legal challenges to autocratic churches’ public excoriations of former members. (Take heed Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church)!

  11. If you go back to the beginning of Tom’s blog, it is clear that he made a number of attempts to talk to Brunson about his concerns. But he was never able to talk to Brunson due to the shielding minions between Brunson and a regular church member (not a big giver, politically connected, etc.). And what Tom had to say about Brunson was either factual or clearly stated as opinion. Tom’s civil rights were violated by the Deputy and he was slandered by Brunson in the newspaper, in addition to having been kicked out of the church with a trespass warning that applied to him and his wife, even though they were 20+ year members in good standing.

  15. Here are some links I remember reading:

    http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2008/03/serial-pdophile.html

    http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2008/07/steven-sitler.html

    http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/9225/C136/L136/

    http://www.keely-prevailingwinds.com/2011/05/marriage-part-2-with-letter-to-ed.html

    http://www.keely-prevailingwinds.com/2011/05/marriage-part-3-open-letter-to-ed.html

    http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-June/076773.html

    http://theironhare.xanga.com/606584338/doug-wilson-steven-sitler-child-molester-christ-church-moscow-idaho/

    http://june11eleven.com/?page_id=104

  17. This question is addressed to Arce, who is the best qualified to answer:

    Will this set a precedent for other pending legal action(s) against other abusive evangelical regimes?

    And if so, will it mark the end of hiding behind the guarantee of religious freedom when it can be shown that said religious organization caused tangible harm to plaintiff?

  18. Thy Peace,

    Thanks for the link to Wade’s post. I just read it and saw your comments. When you relocate, I trust that you’ll be joining us here through EChurch@Wartburg.

    BTW, I don’t know if you remember, but three years ago I was commenting quite a bit on Wade’s blog, and I would sometimes include links. You were so kind to do hyperlinks for me. Thanks! I FINALLY figured out how to do it!

    Blessings, dear friend!

  19. Hey, Muff….

    I don’t think that cases that are settled instead of going to trial (I am assuming this is the case here) does anything toward setting precedents. Most of the time, church lawyers will advise their clients to settle out of court with gag orders to avoid the negative publicity of a trial. That was the case with a friend of mine – although the pastor held out until the day before the deadline before he agreed to settle.

    So, if it does not actually go to court, it does not set a precedent. However…. the more of these there are, the more smart attorneys will try to ‘advise’ their clients on behavior.

  20. Deb, I remember very clearly helping with the hyperlinks. I have been following your blog’s progress with EChurch. I am very grateful to you and Dee that you are giving air-time to Wade’s sermons. I would have to concur with George M. Ella: Oklahoma’s Baptist Convention recently appointed a thorough-going Reformed man, Wade Burleson, senior pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, OK, as their President. Wade is as sound as a bell and a brilliant pastor, evangelist and organiser.

  21. Eagle,

    You’ve got a lot of catching up to do! 🙂 Dee wrote about the FBC Jax saga back in August 2009. Here is the first post:

    First Baptist Church Jacksonville – Just Another Same Old Same Old

    She wrote a series of posts, so just check under categories for “Mac Brunson” or go back to the August 2009 archives to read through the series. Remember, we’ve come a long way baby since we first started blogging…

    Also, Wade Burleson just wrote a post summarizing everything that happened, and Thy Peace has provided the link in a previous comment.

  22. We are unable to talk with Tom about this settlement because he must maintain strict confidentiality.

    Does that mean that the settlement conditions effectively included Hush Money?

    Otherwise it probably would have been one of those “If I have offended anyone etc,” type responses. — Anthony Dare

    Right up there with “Mistakes Were Made..” and “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is…”

  24. HUG
    Tom has spent an untold amount of money defending himself and fighting a once powerful pastor. There is not a soul on this planet who can’t guess who prevailed. And, as for hush, why don’t you go to his blog. Tom has taken on the establishment for a long, long time and has put himself on the line more than most people I know. I will write about him today.

  25. Muff Potter on Tue, Apr 03 2012 at 09:02 pm, said:

    “This question is addressed to Arce, who is the best qualified to answer:

    Will this set a precedent for other pending legal action(s) against other abusive evangelical regimes?

    And if so, will it mark the end of hiding behind the guarantee of religious freedom when it can be shown that said religious organization caused tangible harm to plaintiff?”

    No. The only “precedents” turn out to be cases that are appealed, since those are the cases that are included in the published books. A few district court cases do get published, buy have little precedental value.

    However, the first case, involving liability of the Sheriff’s dept for getting a subpoena and revealing the name of a previously anonymous blogger, on behalf of and to the church, will likely limit future behavior of that sort, unless there is a serious and real criminal allegation, since the insurance industry will be instructing their clients on that matter.

    Likewise, insurers of churches and pastors will likely instruct them that public dissing of church members or former church members, or anyone else for that matter, can lead to lawsuits for slander, and that behavior should be avoided. So some good may come out of it. However, most mega-pastors are rather narcissistic and ego-driven, and will likely ignore that advice.

  26. Arce –

    Add to your last sentence above: Consequently, these mega-church pastors with unbridled tongues will appeal to members for more “giving” to feed the poor. But the money will actually be used to pay for the ever increasing costs of liability insurance to cover their tongues and other “lacking” Christian virtues that will cause lawsuits.

  27. Has anyone here read the book below? Also, is there a topic on wartburg for books / resources? Thanks.

    “Spiritual Terrorism: Spiritual Abuse from the Womb to the Tomb” by Boyd C. Purcell Ph.D.

  28. david,

    I have not heard of this book, but I just looked at it over on Amazon. It looks like a great resource. It was published in 2008.

  29. Arce,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response to Muff. That makes a lot of sense.

    I am grateful for Tom and Yvette Rich.

  31. “And if so, will it mark the end of hiding behind the guarantee of religious freedom when it can be shown that said religious organization caused tangible harm to plaintiff?”

    Can you imagine calling it religious freedom to use the government sheriff’s office as a resource in your quest to silence a critic? That is the very opposite of religious freedom. That is state church.

    And for those who say Tom did it for the money are naive. I am sure all the lawyers, recorders, etc did it for free. Right? No this was a big hassle but Tom saw it through and all of us should be grateful even if some are too ignorant to know it. They might figure it out later on.

  32. Now, the fact that FBCJax keeps Brunson and his family on the payroll after the last 3 years, says a lot. I was also glad to hear Soud’s judge friend recused himself. Brunson thought the powerful people around him would always be his protection.

  33. Sophia, Thanks for the link! Excellent article and very timely since all this “reconcilation” business has become the vehicle to save lucrative ministries and keep the “Brand”. Since wolves are asking for reconcilation, people better read the Undermuchgrace.com stuff first!

  34. Maika –

    Jesus was God and man, but still he went away for time alone and rest when he could. He knows that we are but flesh and His yoke is not burdensome. Rest in His peace.

  35. That comment is in the wrong place. I wasn’t on this thread when I wrote it. Please excuse it from the conversation. (Stange techno stuff or I’m losing it?!)