**preacher forums**

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

There are many good reasons to not shred people in public, including the fact that their families will be hurt by it.

That said, I understand pointing out inconsistencies for the sake of discussion; it just makes a lot more sense to do that when the other person is present to discuss it with you. Otherwise it might be backbiting.

I also understand the desire to strike back at someone who has hurt a lot of people with their hypocrisy and immorality. My thought is, it's really hard to drag someone through the mud without getting mud on your own boots.

I'm not saying that because they're preachers; I'm saying that because Jesus told us to love our enemies and do good to those who despitefully use us. There are times when something is public knowledge and it can and should be addressed, and saints should draw a public line between themselves and the errant person. If, however, something hasn't been made public (and isn't something that MUST be made public), we have a biblical guideline that tells us to settle things in-house.

So the question is: What comprises "in-house?" Can we discuss things going on in our own ranks? Well, the simple answer is--not in public. (which might explain one of the benefits of a private forum) And then you're back, full circle, to the problem of discussion turning into gossip and backbiting.

Really, really great post here MB. Thank you.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I don't understand the problem with bringing things out in public, especially the moral failings of a church leader.

How did you feel about President Clinton's adultery and how that was handled?

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

So there are some on the preachers forum that are adulterers, perverts and pretend preachers?
If this is the case, what's wrong with naming them.

The wrong in naming them is, they have family members that are innocent of wrongdoing. Should we add more pain to broken families?

[Charnock]

I haven't seen any names posted anywhere.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Charnock

I haven't seen any names posted anywhere.

Not names of preachers or forums....at least not on this thread!

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Providing haven means to offer sanctuary or protection.

The unnamed forum routinely boots men for "not believing the message," and the message includes the laundry list of 60 year old standards. Yet, for some odd reason, adulterers are allowed to stay and post.

Further, the guys that don't believe "the message," are excoriated endlessly while any mention of the gross sin of the ones doing the excoriating is taboo, and deleted immediately.

So I asked myself, "What is being promoted here?" The answer is clear. Adultery is preferable, and entirely more tolerable than not preaching "the message."

In fact, that exact sentiment has been expressed on this thread by bishoph.

It is a huge leap of logic (much like the pretzel logic of old time Pentecost) to say that because a conservative forum doesn't air the failures of members it is a "haven".

In fact quite the contrary. I believe that when gross sin is discovered in their membership they have booted the parties involved. How in the world is that a "haven"? Poor logic on your part.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Ron

[/B]


Alright CC1, here are 2 quotes from Charnock (whoever he/she is) you either did not read this thread or you agree with his statements.
Which is it?

I have no idea who Charnock is, but what if Charnock is the victim of an adulterer minister? What if Charnock's husband committed adultery or Charnock's wife was stolen by a pastor? I would be more understanding of these comments. Usually we are hair trigger with our defensiveness without knowing the full story. Just some thoughts to consider.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Sam

Stephanas,
it was written with a sarcastic tone that doesn't show up in print.
The perception of the world is that preachers are money grubbing hypocrites. Unfortunately we have given them enough examples to justify that in some cases. It is my opinion, however, that there are multitudes of good servants of God who are laying down their lives for the portion of the flock they've been given oversight of and for the Chief Shepherd. These may often go unnoticed when the eyes of the world are focused on the pampered, privileged, pomaded, princes of pentecost who are pontificating from our pulpits and enjoying privileges of the family cash cow(church run as a family business) and privileged places in the large political/religious organization.

Great use of illiteration Sam!

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by CC1

It is a huge leap of logic (much like the pretzel logic of old time Pentecost) to say that because a conservative forum doesn't air the failures of members it is a "haven".

In fact quite the contrary. I believe that when gross sin is discovered in their membership they have booted the parties involved. How in the world is that a "haven"? Poor logic on your part.

My friend Charnock is known for going over the top at times.
Haven is a bit harsh. But using unjust weights and measure may happen at times. Judging friends differently than those counted as foes happens. But that happens all over and not just with preacher. However seems to me Preachers should be better at fair-play than the average Joe.

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I have no idea who Charnock is, but what if Charnock is the victim of an adulterer minister? What if Charnock's husband committed adultery or Charnock's wife was stolen by a pastor? I would be more understanding of these comments. Usually we are hair trigger with our defensiveness without knowing the full story. Just some thoughts to consider.

Or what if an adultrous preacher condemned him/her while hiding in his own sin?

Charnock might want to consider what mercy he/she would want and extend that to those who depitefully used him/her.....