Your example here doesn't apply because no law was broken. This is about an angry ex parishioner who is suing a Pastor for being excommunicated. In THIS case, the courts have no business interfering in the free exercise of the internal church discipline.

A court previously ruled that exact point. The First Amendment does not allow the courts to interfere with non lawbreaking lawsuits like this.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Everything I said about those two snakes was dead bang accurate. Youre just mad because they got caught. Now I know why. Because you were taught to believe ministers are above the law and above reproach. Newsflash they are not.

A lesson that was unfortunately learned by one of your colleagues, named Mark Fogerty, is that US law actually does not protect you from slandering former or ex church members from a pulpit. This is, I believe, also one of the Ten Commandments. Oops I know right? Seems you cant accuse an innocent woman of fornication just because she divorced someone in your church and attended someone elses church. Even if you are a UPCI pastor.

This case appears to have been affirmed in the appeals court.

With that said wave your flag elsewhere and let the courts sort it out.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Never said it did. I again wasnt talking to you. When I do talk to you, it will be to answer you directly.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Whether or not a court will intervene depends upon what transpired and when it occurred. When a church attempts to discipline after a person is no longer a member, courts can and do intervene and have every right to do so. Issues of slander or defamation would not matter whether one was a member.

Laws would appear to have been broken. The state intervened and is forcing payment for the workers. The state obviously heard from both sides and regardless of there being talk that they were working to pay for their involvement at a church function, the state saw otherwise after their investigation.

If the pastor revealed things to the congregation about the man that were made during counseling, this would also be breaking the law. If the expelled man had privately shared with a few people all or part of his troubles, such does not release the pastor/counselor from keeping the counseling sessions confidential.

If the pastor stated false things about the man, this could be considered slander, depending on what was stated.

With only going by the little that has been shared, it would appear the pastor may have only ex-communicated the man after he helped to bring about the payment owed the children. If true, it would then appear to be retaliation for the man's action. With the state ruling against the pastor on this issue, if this accurately portrays what transpired, it would be wrong of the pastor to retaliate in such a manner.

Some are emphasizing the fact that the expelled man has brought forth a lawsuit, feeling this to be scripturally wrong, yet are not addressing what should be done when a pastor (assuming the pastor did these things) does things like the above. How can the individual use steps outlined in scripture when a pastor would not allow it? What recourse does such a person have? What should the church do after a pastor does this? If the person is harmed in the community by false statements, injuring friendships and possibly hurting their employment in the area, are they to do nothing? Are the person's hands tied? (It would be good to address what is in my last paragraph on its own and not how it may or may not pertain to this specific incident.)

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Holy Ghost HH, are the papers you obtained something you could upload to this discussion?

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

Stop with the name-calling. They're not snakes. You just hate them because of the message they preach. They didn't lie. And you're wrong, yet again, about how I was taught. I was NEVER taught to believe ministers are "above the law" OR that they're "above reproach."

I don't know the case you're referring to. From your post, it again appears you're talking about something different.

I've said, multiple times, one court refused to interfere with internal church discipline. What you're talking about above isn't about internal church discipline. You keep throwing these examples out which are apples and oranges in comparison to this issue.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

This from someone whose religion beheads folks, slaughters infants, and flies planes into the twin towers.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

From what I've read, the church tried disciplining the man before he was subsequently excommunicated.

The only law broken was regarding the Pastor not paying the kids. From what I've read in the comments, that is a separate issue from the lawsuit.

If a person tells the Pastor something, then goes around telling others the same thing, there is no expectation of privacy or confidentiality. How can he claim it was private information if he were telling others the same information?

Agreed....IF he did. We don't know that he did. People are just assuming the accuser is telling the truth without any evidence. And he may well be telling the truth.

Comment from the main news article.

Either this guy has some bad luck with people, or he likes suing people.

That's an assumption made without any evidence. You claim the Pastor would be wrong to retaliate against someone who took him to the authorities. What if the man was going around the church, causing division? Do you believe a Pastor should sit idly by while someone is purposefully causing trouble and division?

Do you not believe the words of Jesus or writings of Paul on this issue?

If the Pastor slanders someone, that is for the church board to take up. If the church is affiliated with any organization, there are steps to take there. I wasn't there, I don't know the timeline of events, but it reads as though the man was causing division, refused to stop causing division and then was publicly reprimanded for it and excommunicated. After that, this man decided to file his third lawsuit. Because, from the comment posted above, that's what this guy does.

Harmed in the community? Hurting his employment? This was done in a church. It's not as though the Pastor wrote an op-ed in the local paper or put up a billboard on main street.

Why did this man keep going to the church, if not to cause trouble? I don't understand people who complain about and disagree with a Pastor, yet continue to go to the church.

Re: McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamati
 

It may be. I assume such would come out in depositions.

I agree it would not be part of the lawsuit, yet the two appear to be tied together.

The pastor would still be under obligation to not share it with others.


Please note that I mentioned if and pointed out I was only able to go by what is in news reports.

Could one also say that you are just assuming this commenter is telling the truth without any evidence?


Are you assuming this?

I stated it would appear and if that is true. If the expulsion was a result of the man going to the state about unpaid wages, would it be proper for the pastor to expel such a person for this? IF this is what happened, do you believe it is just?


The point of my final paragraph was it is not enough to just state that a believer may not sue another believer. We need to address what may be done and what recourse there is if any attempt to follow biblical advice cannot occur due to the manner in which the church is operated. Should a person be forced to accept and endure whatever may happen due to the fact that another believer is doing it to them?


This is what I wish to explore. Are we able to discuss this separate from the Oregon case?

Situation: Pastor of an independent church slanders a member or former member. The board is a group of 'yes men' for the pastor, with no real authority to take any action. What options remain for the injured party? They are told they may not sue. At the same time, the board will not or cannot intervene.

Situation: Pastor of an affiliated church slanders a member or former member. The organization has a policy of dealing with charges against a minister but also affords liberty to each district overseer. In this case, that person has been a long-time friend of the pastor in question and dismisses the accusation against his friend. No action is taken. What options remain for the injured party? They are told they may not sue. At the same time, they are unable to pursue the situation through the established rules.

I have deliberately chosen two hypothetical situations where what would be considered the proper steps to take cannot be accomplished. It is something important to address since incidents such as these do indeed occur. How do we, as Christians, address them? Do we wave goodbye to the individual who was harmed and tell them tough luck?

I did not state the man was harmed in the community. Some people are. For instance, we have situations in Utah where people lost their employment because of church action. My final paragraph wasn't made with the intent as to only how it may pertain to this situation in Oregon, but to cause us to focus on the other side of the issue.

Reader, you make some very good points. I have to run some errands, but will come back later this evening to respond. :thumbsup