UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Truth is a always a defense. If the facts are accurate, no fear.

Now I don't know that there are a lot of situations where one should go before the church but I can see where it could happen.

Baron if the Pastor simply just said to the congregation that she was with another man wearing a bikini, alone and that according to how the church defines fornication, there was just cause for a divorce and for him to remarry, would she still have a case against him?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

I have a couple of questions. Maybe I should post on a different thread. But here goes.

When, in this day and time, (a litigious society) should a pastor expose someone before the congregation?

Even in this case, ..... Matthew 18:15* ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16* But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17* And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican..... it may be a stretch! May be out of context.

Does anyone on AFF suggest that public exposure is wise in this time in which we live? If, because of the time in which we live, we do not do what Matt 18 states are we guilty of violation of scripture?

Also, where does the pastor determine scripturally that all nine things listed constitute fornication?

Just wondering....

Been Thinkin

First of all, the scripture in question isn't exclusively referring to a pastor making an indiscretion or offense public. This is for anyone who has a problem with another Christian.

Secondly, I would think the only really wise time to reveal things like this to the congregation would be:

1. In extreme circumstances, when there's no way to avoid apprising the church of the situation.

2. Before a select group of people(saints & elders)--not at a regular church service where sinners and visitors could be present.

IMO, if the pastor had been specific to the charge of "exhibitionism", he might have gotten away with it. It could have been argued that the church felt wearing a bikini was immodest and therefore the wife's actions fell into the category of exhibitionism. However, I think he was purposely vague because it's the most insignificant accusation from a moral standpoint. He had to leave it open ended, or else someone would have been saying, "But wait...that's not REALLY fornication."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

If you had the facts wrong and later publicly apologized when you realized that, could you still be sued for slander?

Maybe if you had her sign a legal contract not to. But it seems that publicly apologizing is a confession and thus any trial would be a slam dunk against him

[MrsMcD]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Cindy, he didn't make the public statement until 3 months after the divorce was final. The daughter and husband were married another 4 months after that.

I'm sure his daughter being interested in the ex had everything to do with him making a public statement. I can imagine my father feeling the need to do the same thing, although hopefully with a bit more wisdom in regard to the details. Actually, I can see my Dad fumbling it even worse.

The implication here is that the marriage was conveniently helped to its dissolution so that the daughter and ex-husband could pursue their already formed romantic relationship. I don't feel that is a fair assessment.

I can not imagine my father feeling the need to do the same. In fact, I know he wouldn't because we know the pastor involved very well and we discussed this situation a few days ago. The pastor had no reason to be discussing this girl period. She wasn't his saint. The girl's pastor (which I know very well) stood behind her.

[MrsMcD]

Originally Posted by allstate1

I dont believe a pastor should ever point out a person involved in sin from the pulpit!! Can you imagine if there was a visitor there?

Yes, I can imagine. We had young man get a girl pregnant and the pastor at the time called this young man to the front to expose his sin. I was mortified that a pastor would do such a thing.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Maybe if you had her sign a legal contract not to. But it seems that publicly apologizing is a confession and thus any trial would be a slam dunk against him

Well, that explains one legit reason as to why the pastor may have chosen not to apologize.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by MrsMcD

I can not imagine my father feeling the need to do the same. In fact, I know he wouldn't because we know the pastor involved very well and we discussed this situation a few days ago. The pastor had no reason to be discussing this girl period. She wasn't his saint. The girl's pastor (which I know very well) stood behind her.

I can imagine any pastor who teaches that divorce and remarriage is a sin except in the case of fornication feeling the need to make a public statement when he learns his daughter is interested in dating a divorced man.

I agree that it was a bad judgment call on the part of the pastor. I'm just saying that I understand the mindset, and I can see a pastor feeling the need to justify giving his approval in such a situation.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I agree. So he threw the ex-wife's reputation under the bus to facilitate the scriptural legality of the new relationship.

And it was entirely unnecessary. If any gossip had complained about the new bloom of romance a simple "pastor's discretion" would have sufficed.

I think the problem is that we're dealing with an environment where all such past issues were meet with the harshest of condemnations. That history can certainly lead to a very real "need" to justify oneself and one's family.

If our shared culture didn't have such a harsh past that it was constantly seeking to justify, we wouldn't have these problems today.

[drummerboy_dave]

Originally Posted by jfrog

?what implication?

see #106... seems I am slow to respond, you've already discussed it.

BTW frog, would you mind discussing the thought of post #26 and #32. You can PM to me if you want.

[MrsMcD]

Originally Posted by Cindy

I think the pastor should have never talked about the lady in church, period. In private would have been much better. I think it harmed him and his family, also.

You are correct Cindy this situation has harmed him, his family, and his church.