Friday, June 26, 2009
Media Debating Religion: The Problem is Bigger than Maury Davis
Posted by Pete Kotz on Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:24 AM
Comments (40)
Showing 1-40 of 40
Nice, Mark.... you withhold judgment on a man who nearly decapitated a sunday school teacher, who routinely lies about how he was arrested and the drugs he was really taking, who embellishes the whole story and people excuse it because of the 'good he has done" since he personally created a scene worthy of a slasher film.
Only this slasher film was real, not fiction. He lies now about his crime, avoids the name of his sunday school teaching victim, all to win converts to Christ. How ironic is this? If he were a child molester I'd surely not want him around children even if he was forgiven by Jesus and a shiny new minister. Yet, he's allowed to be a pastor overseeing sunday school teachers, the very person he brutally murdered and served a mere 8 years for, when he should have been in there for life, or received the death penalty.
How many sex offenders turned pastors are you willing to have lead your Church vs cold-blooded murderers who nearly removed them head of a sunday school teacher with a Buck knife? And you have the nerve to say the author of the story had an axe to grind with Christianity, when the details of this horrific crime you willingly withhold judgment on, sir?
Really? You need not attend his church, try reading the transcripts from the court case, or talking to the investigators, and put two and two together as this story did. Then tell me, why is it OK for the murdered of a sunday school teacher to now be working around sunday school teachers?
like
dislike
To KF: It's not Mr. Breton's job to judge anyone. So what if Mr. Breton reign down hate and anger on the name of Maury Davis? What will that change? If the legal system could not keep Maury in jail, then what's there to do about it? He should stop lying and come clean about the situation. But that's easy to say. Maury is the one tasked with the decision. Hopefully, someday, God will talk to his heart and convict Maury of what has been going on.
I withheld judgment for two reasons, one, I read the original story from the Texas paper where Maury is much more forthcoming about the crime. Secondly, there is plenty of judgment being thrown at this; I was making a different point. You draw the comparison between one act of horrific violence committed 34yrs ago that is, statistically, highly improbable in the repeating (no more than you and I killing someone) and sex offenders, who, statistically speaking, are much more prone to repeat offense. The nature of the crimes is so different, and their possibility of repeat offense so disparate they render your point moot. However, that there is not full disclosure in the material Davis distributes is disturbing (I have never heard the testimony.) The Texas paper's article does a good job explaining his mindset. I believe the biggest point to be recognized here is that his own congregation knows the nature of his past crime and they choose to follow his leadership. What would you propose as a solution to this issue? My own proposal would be that his testimony be given full force and honesty, as accurate as possible so as to match the police report. Perhaps they could set up a memorial to the woman who was killed? He is not a repeat offender. I hate that this crime was committed in the first place. But it was, and two men are trying to move on with their lives. That process now includes Davis having to deal with the fallout of, given the facts at hand, not being completely forthcoming about the crime. Put yourself in his shoes. What would you do, and how would you want to be dealt with?
My last post listed me as anonymous; that was not intended. I am Mark Breton, and I will never hide behind anonymity.
Some readers, and perhaps the author of the Scene story himself, seem to equate what seems to be a lack of justice in the criminal court system (Davis only served 8 years for a heinous crime that would have put him on death row had he been black) with the appropriateness of Christian forgiveness in his case. These are two completely separate issues.
Christianity teaches that followers of Jesus must repent of their wrongdoings and must be willing to forgive wrongdoers even before repentance takes place. (The example is Jesus himself, who prayed that his executioners be forgiven and who refused to break communion with Judas even though he knew that Judas was about to betray him.) And for that matter, Christian forgiveness only builds on the teachings of Judaism, which called for a person to forgive his brother 7 times -- and which Jesus interpreted to mean not just 7 but 70x7, or in other words, there is no limit to forgiveness.
Forgiveness by God in a Christian sense is not dependent on forgiveness by the aggrieved party. Thus, it is perfectly within Christian tradition to say that Maury Davis has been forgiven by God even if the family of his victim have not forgiven. Of course, Christianity also teaches that we should seek reconciliation and forgiveness between the aggriever and the aggrieved, but that is a separate issue from divine forgiveness. From the Christian perspective, whether Maury Davis DESERVES forgiveness is also beside the point, because none of us deserve forgiveness, which is an unmerited gift from God.
So I don't have a problem with the fact that Maury Davis turned his life around and now is the pastor of a megachurch. In fact, Jesus' teaching is that I should be happy. (There is greater rejoicing in heaven over the return of someone who was lost than over the retention of those who never strayed.) I don't care for megachurches for the most part, and from what I know of Davis' preaching, I don't care for his take on socio-theological issues. But that, too, is separate from forgiveness and acceptance.
Nor would it be a big deal to me that he doesn't go into all the gory details of what he did every Sunday, as long as he doesn't try to lie about the fact that he is a murderer. By the number of times I've seen the phrase "nearly decapitated," I gather that the Scene writers think this makes him something more of a murderer than someone who used a gun, or than King David in the Bible story, who arranged for the murder of a loyal subject to cover up his affair with Bathsheba.
The real questions I would ask and on which I would judge him involve how Davis carries out a ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation in his church. Unfortunately, the Scene article left something of a hole there, in my opinion. I didn't get much of a flavor for what Cornerstone Church is like or how Davis conducts himself. Is he a ruthless and vindictive dictator, like that TV preacher who ran Two Rivers Baptist Church? Is he a model of the forgiveness he received? Give us a better picture.
Here's the original story on Davis that Mark keeps referencing:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/047909dnmetkillerpastor.3d02476.html
Well, OK. I guess forgiveness is a Christian virtue. I can even go along with that. The guy is no longer in jail (even though he probably should be), so is what he is doing now so bad? Well, other than the usual schucksterism, hypocrisy and money grubbing of fundamentalist mega-churches, I guess not. just as good to have Davis there as anyone. Maybe it just helps expose what those megachurches are all about.
But I also know that Cornerstone is a politically active right-wing church. They really hate gays and liberals and the ACLU, etc.
Do you remember when Billy Graham was asked if he could forgive Bill Clinton? And Billy Graham replied -- GASP! -- that, yes, he certainly could forgive Bill Clinton. Which would seem to pretty much fit with the whole Jesus concept of things.
And do you remember the vicious, adamant, mean-spirited reaction to this pretty mild statement? The attacks on Billy Graham for daring to suppose that Bill Clinton could be forgiven? Because, after all, only Republican, right-wing thinking, anti-gay, misogynistic transgessors can actually be forgiven. Becaus they cray and tell us about Jesus. (Didn't Mark Sanford just do that?) Anyone who doesn't agree with the myopic fundamentalist political world view cannot.
My point ot all this is that these churches are simply personality cults, and the personality is not Jesus. The personality conducting the cult is the pastor. That's why Jerry Sutton can cook the books at his church and throw out anyone who questions him. That's why Davis' congregants will pat him on the back a while clutching their study Bible in the other, knowing full well that he is a murderer who found a way to get very rich from their contributions. And part of that personality cult is to forgive anyone with their world view and spew hate and judgment on anyone who doesn't.
Mark, you are missing my point entirely. First of all, you have avoided like the plague the fact that Davis is lying about his drug use, how he was arrested and who knows what else from it all. So you tell me how a man who is a murdered, who nearly decapitated a sunday school teacher, can truly be repenting of his horrific sins if he thinks he needs to embellish the facts and outright lie about the situation surrounding it?
I am troubled deeply that the State of Texas has sent people to the death chamber for the same kinds of crimes yet this lying murderer walks the streets in the name of God, have a million dollar home to live in, and gets it all by lying about the activities he was involved in so as to blow-up to story to win more converts through disingenuous methods.
You haven't addressed the facts presented by the arresting officers and how the supposed wild drug use and the fantasy car chase David tells of never happened. You've ignored all of the inconvenient facts to come to the defense of this murdering liar who is unrepentant about his lies, continues to spread them, which speaks to the truth about his repentance for his nearly slicing the head off of a sunday school teacher. You talk instead of likelihood to reoffend as if this horrific crime he committed was a shoplifting case. He has no business around sunday school teachers and if I were one I sure as heck would be thinking about my neck if I worked in Davis's so-called ministry. My point is MOOT? Have mercy on your logic process, Mark.
You're perfectly OK with a murderer of a sunday school teacher, one who nearly decapitated the poor soul, doing this job. Just say it.
David built his ministry on LIES. What part of that don't you get? Either he was chased like a TV show cop drama the way he tells it, or he went peacefully without incident the way the cops tell it. Its one or the other, so who do you believe? The murderer, or the officer who arrested the murderer?
I'd done a ton o'drugs in my time, at the same age as Davis, and it never occurred to me to do something so violent and horrific to a sunday school teacher or anyone with a Buck knife or anything else for that matter. My stomach turns at the thought. Blaming the drugs is complete and utter crap and another example of his lying about his repentance. He blames them instead of himself. And he then lies about the whole arrest story to make a nice story to use in his weekly theater of the church.
When Maury Davis comes forward on this issue himself, and not a bunch of apologists for Maury from his church, but himself, and admits that he has been misleading people about his role, his drug use, his responsibility, and how he was arrested, then I will believe he has repented of this horrific crime. Until then, he's just another lying charlatan in the name of God to me and millions of others who can see right through his charade. Shame on Maury Davis.
Excuse the "David" typos, I don't want ANY comparison of DAVIS and King David implied as a Freudian slip on my part, they were typos.
What I can't get a feel for from the story, but would like to know is this--how much of the thrust of his ministry is built on the fact that he's a "reformed" murderer?
In other words, is he sitting in his mansion in his gated community and is he in the pulpit of his giant church as a result of his continuing to tell the story of how he murdered a woman (regardless of whether he's truthful in the details)?
Because I have to tell you, if so, the fact that he can walk around DIRECTLY PROFITING from having murdered a woman and then being willing to talk about it is really disgusting to me.
If he is where he is now because of his willingness to exploit the story of how he murdered that woman, everything he has is tainted by that. If he has the life and career he has now because of that murder...
That's just wrong. It's practically human sacrifice and the way that the commenters on the story hint around at that--that that poor woman might have had to die so that Davis could have his career and "help people"--is really disturbing.
If someone is repentant and demonstrates that through their character, I cannot hold them accountable for their previous actions, in a personal sense, because it is done and over with. Restitution should be made if possible. I have known many people who tried to rebuild their lives after making the worst of choices. We do not know the whole story on Maury, believe me (I did some research), and the article in Texas and the Scene are incredibly biased and lacking in information. I think this speaks to another blog I wrote for the Scene when I got started here, and that concerned the echo chamber that we all choose to live in. We often only hear that which mirrors our own thoughts and desires, reinforcing what we already believe. It is evident in this thread that some people have some serious grist for the mill concerning Christians.
Mark, you've danced around it again. Its simple. If you've "researched it" then you know what the detectives said about the arrest, the lack of any car chases, the lies about the drugs found in his premises, and the over-the-top way Davis presents the story, embellishing and omitting. If you wish to judge their repentant character, you should start with examining their truthfulness when repenting. Either a high-speed car chase happened, or it did not. Again, who do you believe, the murdered, or the arresting officer who said it was a peaceful arrest without incident? On that one thing alone, how can Davis be truly repentant when he lies about this simple fact. He who is trusted with little will be trusted with much. Davis can't be trusted to tell the little details truthfully, and it taints the rest of his "message." Can you not see that his character is not demonstrating repentance through the way he lies and embellishes the story of his arrest? I'm done trying to talk some common sense into you here. If you can't see it, its because you simply are not willing to see it.
Maury Davis, I challenge you to come clean, to tell the truth with regard to the details of your arrest, and the truth about your actions, drug use, and the lot. Because as it stands, I don't believe you, and now millions of others don't either, because your embellished story doesn't match up with the criminal record, the police report and the detectives testimony. Until you decide to clear you heart and tell the truth, you will remain the charlatan that you are today, and that's the bottom line. You can't run around lying about these facts in the name of Jesus to help hype the story of your reformed life for the sake of winning souls. Jesus doesn't need your lies to win souls.
Pete:
Here's what I think you left out:
1. Your article appears to presume that, since Mrs. Liles' family has not forgiven Davis, that he cannot really claim forgiveness in the Christian sense as well. As I tried to point out above, this reflects a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the whole concept of Christian forgiveness.
2. Your article doesn't give readers much insight into Davis' church, and this is a big gap. The suggestion that Davis lied about having a drug problem and leading police on a high-speed chase, and even his choice not to describe all of the details of the murder, leads readers to infer that he is a fraud in his current life. But there is precious little in your story to support that, really. You acknowledge that many members of his congregation are intensely loyal to him but your story doesn't much look into the reasons for that. Are the members merely dupes of some Elmer Gantry? Readers might be tempted to conclude as much based on your story.
3. There is also a subtle implication (maybe not-so-subtle) that being the lavishly compensated pastor of a megachurch makes Davis a fraud -- which by extension suggests that he is just conning people into believing that he genuinely repented of the murder he committed. There are lots of lavishly compensated megachurch pastors who preach the prosperity Gospel (Joel Osteen, for one) whose theology and style I abhor but whose sincerity I don't reflexively doubt.
4. The DMN piece, I thought, offered a more subtle and balanced picture, and part of that was because they quoted Davis frequently. He mostly seems to be a third-person figure in your piece.
Finally, though this has nothing to do with bias per se, I found the Scene's piece, as someone noted above, to be mostly a rehash of the DMN piece, talking to the same set of sources and breaking no new ground. I would have expected more from the Scene, especially since you have much easier access than the DMN to Davis' church and its membership.
Bubbsdog, you chose to read all that into it. The story points out facts, you take them and do with them what you will.
Here's the bottom line:
Either Maury Davis is lying about the circumstances surrounding his arrest (ie high speed chase and his drug use) or he is not. The arresting officer's report says there was no high speed chase. Davis says there was. So who do you believe, the convicted murdered, or the arresting officer?
I have surmised, and rightly so, based solely on these facts that you are other apologists for Davis avoid, that Davis's repentance is not sincere if he feels the need to aggrandize the story, to lie about the circumstances.
What does he need to embellish or lie about a high speed car chase that never happened? Nobody wants to answer this or face the truth that a man who feels the need to lie about his sins in the process of repentance is not repentant at all.
Bubba & Mark:
I think Brantley can answer these questions better than me, but since he's out of town, I'll make an attempt:
I think the big reason the story doesn't include a lot from Davis or the church is because they refused to talk to us. Davis declined multiple interview requests. Others at the church wouldn't talk either. It's difficult to portray someone's side when they refuse to offer their point of view.
This is probably a matter of personal opinion, but I don't think we are misrepresenting Christian forgiveness. It clearly points out that Davis' parishioners forgive him. But it also very clearly points out that there's multiple levels of forgiveness from different religions and the secular world as well. I don't know if this is bias as not so much expressly buying into Cornerstone's brand of forgiveness.
I think bringing up his wealth is perfectly kosher. I realize there are a lot of churches where the preachers are very wealthy, and everyone's fine with that. But I think there are far more who find this very problematic. Jesus, as you may recall, was not into enriching himself. So there are a lot of us who believe this defies some very basic doctrine. Agree or not, I think it has to be mentioned in the story.
I think it's pretty clear Davis has romanticized the story of the murder for his audience. He hands out a video of this sermon to every new parishioner. According to police, there were no signs of heavy drug use, the kind that would turn someone into a crazed killer. There was no car chase. And he leaves out the absolute brutality of the murder from his sermons, and the fact that he killed a Sunday school teacher. This, to me, seems very germaine to who the man is. He's recreated himself as a Drug-Crazed After School TV Special killer, the kind more easily redeemed without the drugs, instead of a sociopath who killed a middle-aged woman for no reason. As a man, I find the blame-it-on-the-drugs thing cowardly.
Finally, we would never apologize for writing much of it from Liles' point of view. Davis nearly beheaded his mother. Repeat: His mother. Imagine what it is to live with that kind of anguish -- especially knowing your mother's murderer is living a life of wealth, preaching the gospel, and followed by many. Could you forgive? I know I couldn't.
As the poster already pointed out, this already story rehashed what was already in the Dallas Morning News. There's not a whole lot of groundbreaking reporting here. With that being the case, why not recycle his quotes too?
Simple, you're exactly right.
Pete, I re-read your story just to make sure of this. The story never mentioned that Davis or his church members refused to talk to you. (The closest you came, and it's not very close, is a sentence to the effect that Davis doesn't talk these days about the details of his crime.) At the very least, you owe it to your readers to explain that you tried to talk to Davis and some of his parishioners, but they refused. (And how many parishioners did your writer try to reach, by the way?) Mentioning that they refused to talk to you is basic to the reporting of this story, and it's almost unpardonable that you left it out.
And, as Simple points out, you always could have recycled some of the quotes from the DMN with attribution to their story. Doing so would at least have allowed Davis to be heard in his own words, which is one reason why the DMN piece comes off as much more professional than the Scene's. The two main voices in your story are Mrs. Liles' son, whose point of view is understandable, and that of the original investigating officer, whose motivations are less clear. In any event, by skewing the story so heavily toward their voices and by failing to include any voices from Davis or his flock, your story comes across as one-sided.
Or was the Scene reticent to recycle Davis' quote because it would have made it even more apparent that your own story was so thoroughly recycled. (Really, Pete, it wasn't that far from the kind of job the Tennessean does when some national media outlet beats them on a local story, and then they hastily try to put something together.)
Your story leaves readers with the impression (intentionally, I believe) that Davis is the same unrepentant scumbag he was on the day of his arrest, and has used "finding Jesus" as his ticket to a life of respectability and ease. And maybe that's just what he is. Then again, maybe he's someone like Gary Hart and Garrison Keillor, who changed their names inexplicably and fudged some details about their lives in the stories they tell. Maybe Davis today doesn't mention all the gory details of the murder because, as he told the DMN, he fears they would be too disturbing to some of the people he's trying to reach. Maybe he is fabricating the story about heavy drug use because, as your story implies, because he wants his listeners to believe his outburst of violence was caused by something people could at least understand, if not endorse (and, by the way, neither you nor the DMN actually establishes that he did, merely that the investigating officer, relying on his own experience, strongly BELIEVES that he did -- a distinction you don't quite get around to making in your story). Or maybe he publicly gives drugs a greater role in his crime because it is scary to confront the idea that some inexplicably evil something within him led him to commit this murder, and he's not sure that it couldn't happen again. Mrs. Liles' son claims to be able to see this homicidal rage inside Davis, and one of the most intriguing anecdotes from the DMN story came from the man who was nervous about sharing a room with Davis on a church mission trip not long after Davis got out of prison.
The point is that I come away from your story without anything close to a picture of Maury Davis -- except for the picture you try to paint. There's nothing in his own words, not even a quote from his life-story CD that you frequently referenced. There's nothing from his congregation, not even from his former fellows in Dallas. All I knew about him before reading your story is that he's a very public megachurch preacher who's highly vocal on a lot of social and political issues (which doesn't distinguish him from most of your other megachurch preachers). Your story presented an opportunity to provide a nuanced, thought-provoking piece that invites readers to think about the issues of repentance, forgiveness and accountability, rehabilitation, grace, truth and self-delusion. Instead, you published a poorly recycled piece that (partly because it omitted some of the shades of gray from the DMN piece it copied) appeared to be driven by an agenda. As a liberal evangelical who probably wouldn't be very comfortable in a church like Davis, I nonetheless couldn't help but wonder whether the agenda in your story was driven by some animus against evangelical Christians in general, against conservative evangelicals in particular, against megachurch TV preachers like Davis or Joel Osteen, and whether your writer may lack familiarity with the Protestant Christian understanding of divine forgiveness and acceptance (which is more than what you described in your post as "Cornerstone's brand of forgiveness"). I'm most disappointed that what could have been a truly powerful piece came off as more of a down-and-dirty hatchet job.
Pete, now that I've re-read your response, I want to mention a couple of other things, too.
I agree with you that Davis' wealth is germane to the story. But you all don't go very far in establishing that. You simply mention that he lives in a gated community. And from the photo, obviously the man owns at least one nice suit. But that still leaves a lot of questions unanswered (questions that I think an editor should ask of a reporter). Does the church provide this house as a parsonage, or does Davis own it outright? Did you check public records for the title? How hard did you dig to try to learn his salary from the church? What kind of car does he drive and who owns it?
To a more important point, you say you would never apologize for writing the story from Liles' point of view. But there are a couple of problems with that. First of all, Liles' point of view is understandable: Murder victim's family member resents a miscarriage of justice (just 8 years in prison) and resents the fact that the murderer has made a whole new life for himself. It's such a common point of view among families of murder victims that it's really not much of a story in and of itself; it's interesting to Nashville readers because the murderer is a prominent Nashville preacher whose past is no secret but also unknown to most people here. And that leads to the second point: Though the story clearly adopts Liles' point of view about who Davis is today, the story isn't really about Liles. We learn precious little about what life for him has been like, except that he lives a modest existence. The story is really about Davis. And for that reason, your readers deserve a story that moves beyond merely representing Liles' point of view to give us a fuller picture. As published, your story might be summarized as: A bitter Mr. Liles thinks Maury Davis is an unrepentant scumbag who used Jesus as a false front to gain money and respectability and who might well kill again, and a Dallas cop kind of thinks, so, too. So why do the churchpeople in Dallas and so many Cornerstone members here appear to think otherwise? What do they see in his words and actions? Are they just dupes? The picture is woefully incomplete.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one, Bubba.
I think you're right about more clearly pointing out that he and his parishioners wouldn't speak. It must have mistakenly chopped somewhere in the editing. That's on me. But we did make multiple calls for interviews to his church. Brantley also went to his church for services. He didn't want to talk to us, nor did he have someone else talk in his place. He's a grown man. If we're going to include him in the story, he's gotta speak for himself or have someone else do it for him. The only people who talked on his side were his attorney and the retired cop who sat on the jury. Both of those people were quoted at length. After the Dallas story, Davis clearly didn't want to submit himself to a new round of questions, especially when they'd be read on his home turf. That's his choice.
Brantley was raised Southern Baptist, so I think he has a fairly good read on this kind of Christianity. You may not like his read, but I think it's an honest one.
You're right about putting a heavy weight on what the cop said. As general rule, we're going to put a lot more weight on what a cop says than we would a convicted murderer. I think you'll find this at most papers. The cop has no motive to lie. Davis has every motive in the world to lie.
As far as him fictionalizing his story, I guess that's a matter of viewpoint. You'll see it as a sermonizing technique. Others see it as a sign of a man running a racket. Everyone comes to a story with their own bias based on how they view the world.
As for whether the story worked as a thought-provoker, I think that speaks for itself. There's nearly 100 comments on the story itself, and me and you are still debating it two weeks later. The comments are pretty much split, some thinking the story was great, some saying we're huge assholes. There's no way to please everyone on what to include in a story, but I think this one very much works in terms of stimulating thought and debate.
Either way, I really appreciate your response and insight. It's always nice when obviously smart readers take the tiem to dissect your stuff, even when they don't like it. We are fortunate to have readers like you, Bubba.
Pete, I appreciate your response, both in substance and speed.
I can't leave this without a couple of comments. Obviously, your story provoked a lot of comment, but I don't know I'd describe it as nearly as thought-provoking as it could or should have been. I'd agree with you that readers' views of Davis -- huckster vs. repentant sermonizer -- will be shaped by their own experience and preconceptions. I would have expected to come away from a story like this with a lot of unresolved questions about who Davis really is, and perhaps somewhat unsure either way. Some stories, objectively told, come out pretty clearly black and white. This story, based on the evidence presented both in your piece and the DMN, should have contained more shades of gray. Instead, it looked like the writer was pursuing an agenda instead of letting readers draw their own conclusions.
It's tough when the main subject of a story, as well as those around him, won't talk to you. But I don't think that absolves you as a journalist of the responsibility to find other ways of presenting his voice. What does Davis say on his CDs? Give us some direct quotes. What does he say in his sermons? (You need to attend more than once.)
Finally, I don't want to keep beating a dead horse on this forgiveness thing. But as I understand it, Davis claims he has been forgiven by God. That's perfectly within every Christian understanding of forgiveness that I know about. It's not just an Assemblies of God thing, or a Cornerstone Church thing. It's also a wholly separate issue from whether his victim's family has forgiven him and whether his parishioners have forgiven him. In other words, whatever else you may think of Davis, there's nothing even remotely askew with his claim that God has forgiven him. But the writer of the story, his Southern Baptist bona fides notwithstanding, does not seem to recognize this.
Bubbadog and the other apologists for Davis still dance around the facts that LYING about the circumstances of a horrible sin you are supposedly repenting for does not repentance make. Jesus doesn't need a liar hiding facts or embellishing the truth, to try to protect people this Davis person wants to convert. The truth will set you free, Maury Davis. Come out and tell the truth about your drug use, tell the truth about the circumstances of the arrest, because until you do, this will haunt you in Google and you'll be called to account for it not only in the real world, but on that final day of judgment. Jesus doesn't need people to lie about their past to help get the sinner to convert. Stop lying, Maury Davis. Come clean. And shame on the apologists who won't deal head on with the facts and the situation Davis places himself and the rest of us in when his lies are exposed, and he chooses to say nothing.
KF, whatever else I may be I am not apologist for Davis, as you should have been able to discern had you carefully read and comprehended my posts. There's a difference between criticizing the Scene's story and apologizing for Davis. As I said above, for all I know Davis is as big a scumbag as the story portrays him. But the story is so skewed that it's not really possible for me to draw that conclusion. So I'd appreciate it if you'd stop LYING about what I've said.
I've not lied. If you don't like my characterization of your whining over the Scene's story, then piss off and please kiss my happy, hairy arse, you ignorant oafish grunt. I must have hit a nerve. You obviously have some reason to come defend his honor against the Scene's so-called on-sided attack. Well I read both stories, and they are consistent, so go to the Dallas paper and whine to them, you tool.
You're just a distraction here and if you're not an apologist, you're their best friend in this comments section by creating a nice diversion from the real issues at hand and the point of this article. That point is that Davis glorifies the circumstances around his arrest, blames the drugs for nearly beheading a defenseless sunday school teacher, lies about the car chase and his arrest, and then uses it all to get rich in the name of Jesus. So shove the so-called journalism-integrity check up your bum, the points made deserve to be addressed without the distraction of your whiny, pitiful crybaby crap about their writing ability.
Unless you have some facts to back up your whining about their writing, shut the heck up. You've nothing to say but accuse them of the same thing you're doing. At least they have police reports to quote. You have speculation and pants-wetting.
Don't dance around the facts here because you're unhappy with the rag that is the Scene. Yeah, they ain't Pulitzer material, but they did the right thing running this story, and you've nitpicked the details to death, all the while ignoring the biggest issue at hand. You complaining about the quality of the writing in the Scene is like going to a Green Day show and complaining that they didn't play Mozart's Marriage of Figero.
Give us a break. Why won't somebody address the real issue here...... anyone. Somebody? Preferably Maury Davis himself.
Either Davis is lying about the arrest of he is not. There is nothing skewed about that, but you'd rather dance on the "head of a pen" than let discussion flow about the real issue at hand, which is Davis, not your whiny opinion of this article.
So, Davis, step up to the plate and address these issues. I know you're reading these comments in the dark of night when nobody is around but you and God, so come forward and tell the truth. Until you do, you're just the lying scum-bag that Bubbadog thinks you to be for all he knows. There Bubba, did I quote you right? Crybaby.
Davis, you're a lying sack of crap who uses your heinous sinful murder for personal gain and somehow you think you need to lie and embellish your story in order to better lead people to Christ. You deserved to die in the death chamber in Texas. That's what should have happened at the worst and at best you should have done life. How can you look a family of another murderer who got the death penalty for a crime identical to your own? How dare you.
In my youth, I did plenty more drugs than Davis ever did at 18, and it never crossed my mind to do anything so murderous and evil. Never. Not even once. Not on mushrooms, not on LSD, not on pot, not on booze, not on speed, not on ludes, not on coke, no nothing I ever did. At the same age as Davis, doing well more than him, I'm sure, it never made me do anything I didn't want to do. Blaming drugs is a cop out. Its dishonest, its a lie and its not taking responsibility for the crime. Its not repenting. Its shifting blame. Its "the devil made me do it so it wasn't really my fault" bull-crap.
On top of that, claiming there was a car chase when the police report states for the official record there there was a peaceable arrest is something ol' Maury never thought would see the light of day. He thought he could make good theater, tell a great story of his wrong ways turned right, and show what a great witness its made him. Instead, he's he's walking perjury in his witness.
So Bubbdadog, we've heard you, you don't like the Scene, they're "one-sided" even though Davis refused several request to do the story, blah blah blah. I'm glad they exposed in Davis's own home town the evil he committed, and lies he's told about what he did, the way he flaunts his sinful, murderous past to win people to Jesus and does so painting a picture of his crime that is light on facts, and heavy on lies.
Damn, sounds like I missed a spirited discussion. First of all, to Mark Breton, you might want to check your facts before you accuse somebody of plagiarism. That's pretty lame. Second of all, I think we painted a much more complete picture of what happened back in 85. The DMN didn't have possibly the most important character in the entire story: Don McDaniel. That wild card juror is the only reason Maury Davis is preaching at Cornerstone today.
I also felt the DMN story lacked anything resembling nuance. It was pretty much a straight-up news story that dodged issues like redemption and accountability, which I would like to think this article hit on, and I've heard from a lot of readers who picked up on that.
Bubbadog: "The story never mentioned that Davis or his church members refused to talk to you. (The closest you came, and it's not very close, is a sentence to the effect that Davis doesn't talk these days about the details of his crime.)"
Hargrove, in the story: "But whatever the story he tells now—he declined interview requests from the Scene—it's certainly captivated Middle Tennessee's evangelicals."
Mr. Pink:
You're right. I read the story twice and missed that sentence both times, so my apologies.
However, I do not find a similar statement that the church members also refused to talk to Mr. Hargrove, which should have been included. I have to think that the members (or former members, for that matter) would have provided a critical piece of this story. What is it about Davis' message and leadership that attracts them? Why do they trust him? What evidence do they see in his life of rehabilitation? All of these are highly relevant questions that would help answer the big question at the heart of this story: Who is this Davis guy, really? The absence of members' voices leaves a big hole in this story. Letting us know that members refused to talk would at least explain why that hole is there (even though it's a little surprising that you couldn't find at least one person out of several thousand members who would speak. And if they've all been told not to talk to the media, that would be highly illuminating, too, and should be mentioned in the story.)
My feeling is that Maury Davis would probably get a lot more forgiveness from both Christians and non-Christians if his focus was on bringing people to his church and not brazenly injecting himself into political debates in Tennessee.
This is a guy who has been openly critical of political figures, publicly supported presidential candidates, called out fellow pastors for refusing to endorse political candidates from the pulpit, touted two members of his congregation running for office from the pulpit and is a regular stop for every right wing politician running for national office and whose name has appeared in daily newspapers in Tennessee more than 50 times in the last five years. Yet, his church remains tax exempt.
If Pastor Davis is going to inject himself into the public political discourse, he has every right to do so, but he and his followers can't then whine about reporters digging into his past. Maury Davis is a politician and that's what happens to politicians.
He can't argue that gays are condemned to the fiery pit of hell, but then claim God doesn't mind if you cut off somebody's head.
To claim that journalists can't cover issues related to Christianity because they probably aren't Christians shows a distinct lack of understanding of what journalism is all about. Christianity may be 2,000 years old, but during that time, Christ's teachings of peace and acceptance have been used to justify wars, murders, hangings, executions and just about every form of barbarity known to man. Christianity has also fractured into thousands of denominations most of whom claim to be the "one true faith."
The problem is not that people don't understand Christianity. Its that they understand it all too well.
Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Who really cares that a little old Sunday school teacher was almost decapitated 35 years ago by this man? After all, this was to serve God's Holy Purpose. Some of the people posting here fail to see the benefit of this. Of course we can see that Maury isn't the best that society has to offer, but is that what you really want? I think we need more people like this in the clergy. I don't see any reason to have right-standing moral people in the pulpit. After all, none of us are perfect...right?
It doesn't matter to me that Pastor Davis refuses to talk about this with the media. It's best that he lets them answer all the questions for themselves. So what if he embellished the facts in the case! Who really cares if he's lying about drugs being involved? I certainly don't! Who cares if there was no car chase? I mean, come on people, who are you going to believe anyway?....A man of GOD or the police report that makes NO mention of this small detail. After all, do we really care to know the truth? If telling a few lies helps to make his testimony more theatrical.....GREAT!!! It helps to bring more people in to hear the message of JESUS!!
It's not like the good people of Cornystone have a choice, do they? All of those other churches in the area are just boring. They don't have a place to buy coffee in their churches....how yesterday! If I need a new message CD I can buy it right inside the church. NO need to go to the book store or order anything online. I can BUY whatever their selling RIGHT THERE, RIGHT NOW!! What a great deal! Im hoping, since Pastor Davis deals in guns on the side, that he starts selling a few in church, too! I'm in the market for a new "I'm So HOLY MAC-10". Maybe, just maybe, If we all pray hard enough, they will install a shooting range in the back lot. How cool would that be?! Complete with pop-up Muslim Terrorist targets and even a few Gay/Lesbian targets too! I get all giddy just thinking about it.
And what's the beef about him making over a million dollars a year? Its not your money to begin with...ITS ALL GOD'S. Maury is just holding it for GOD. His house? What about it? Would you expect him to live in some small 3/2 ranch like the rest of us do? HELL NO! He's a Man of GOD and should live just as JESUS DID! Nice cars, nice clothes, expensive vacations...give me a break!! Its all part of GOD'S plan and doing GOD'S work is hard and Pastor Maury deserves to live better than anyone else, doesn't he? Everyone that places a paltry piece of their hard earned money into the collection Bucket ( no gold plates here because a bucket will hold more ) should be proud to help this man of GOD live the high life.
Everyone that follows this man should kneel down tonight and say a prayer of thanks to Mrs. Lyle's. She gave her life for GOD'S PLAN. If it wasn't for her murder you would have never heard of Pastor Maury. The money you give to support him would be going to something else, like a stupid charity or paying your mortgage or something less fulfilling than that.
Last thing, I hope and pray that Pastor Maury uses his savvy skills to elevate himself into the political arena. He would be GREAT! He knows how to raise money. He's good at sidestepping the truth. He's great at bending the law just enough as not to get into much trouble for it. We can only hope that Sarah Palin will give him a call when she goes looking for a V.P. candidate!!!!
GOD WILLING OF COURSE.....have a nice day!
Wow! You guys are the best, that last blog from Just Me! I was really entertained by that! Most of the blogs on here are from people who do not go to Cornerstone, how they got so educated on how the Pastor preaches I am not sure, they probably watch him on TV and love him!! I go there and no he doesn't get rich on telling the story of his crime, and he only does it twice a year, and that is by demand. I am sure if he could that is one chapter in his life he would close the door on and never look back! You people just cannot stand it because someone is able to accept Gods grace , mercy and forgivness and move on!! So according to you guys all he needs to do is pay some fines then his preaching would be OK!! Get a life! Find someone new to follow around! For people who cannot stand him you sure do keep up with him!
It is a shame that the Scene, as liberal as it is, takes the time to personally have a op-ed writer, because we all can see that Hargrove is far from a reporter, go on a mission to run a pastor from town. Jesus forgives us of our wrongdoing, and it is his job to pass judgment, not all of you other liberal hacks here on this post. I only hope you find the way and you don't fall under the wrong hand of God. Liberalism is a mental disorder, and the Scene in inflatrated with it. Look at where it has us. . .higer taxes, more spending, unemployment at a all time high, big corporate companies and wellfare reciepents getting all the benefits while the working class get stuck every way possible. Thanks liberals, I can't wait until the 2010 and 2012 revolution and get your one termer socialist who practices obaminusm profoundly out of the White House and out of politics. The most un-experienced pres in American History.
What's up everybody under the sun, I'm chic to the forum and just wanted to impart hey. hi devotion manipulate to grasp fresh pepole and share tackle with them
suffer with a jubilant year
What's up all, I'm chic to the forum and just wanted to approximately hey. hi leaning manipulate to grasp fresh pepole and allowance stuff with them
suffer with a contented year
What's up everybody under the sun, I'm brand-new to the forum and just wanted to approximately hey. hi love get to grasp fresh pepole and share in things with them
have a contented year
I knew Maury very well. I played with him in the park across the street from his house. I 'partied' with him during high school, often at his parents' home on weekends while his family enjoyed their lakehouse on Possum Kingdom lake. He was a gentle person then, even in times alcohol and 'recreational' drug use. I was as shocked as most who knew him when he murdered the woman in our hometown. I can speak with certainty that Maury was not drugged out during the days preceding the murder. His behavior was not that of a crazed drug addict. I spent time with him just days before. Blaming the murder on drugs is a cop out. He murdered a defenseless woman and has spent the ensuing years profiting from that heinous act. Forgiveness? Be honest Maury. Only then will you be remotely worthy of forgiveness.
The IVF treatment focuses on more eggs being fertilized so chances increase for pregnancy as well as muliple births. Teh sork will deliver soon. Not a fortune cookie but the absolute possible truth. Maybe in the future it'll do even better in those areas, but for now it's a fantastic way to organize your new child's room from your dreams, conscious, and videos, and is without a superior in that regard. The procedure's strengths are its effectiveness. If those sound compelling, perhaps it is your best choice.
