UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by corvet786c

I thought we are not suppose to take our brothers and sisters to court?

It appears that she tried to handle it without court, but got no response.

[DAII]

Interesting "legal response" to the separation of Church and State arguments made by Fogarty @ Spiritual Abuse ....

http://spiritualabuse.org/experience...eparation.html

[OilCityCajun]

Originally Posted by missourimary

This needs to be revisited.

I agree, and so; Let's continue to visit it together.

Originally Posted by missourimary

The first I can accept as true to a degree. Some people only have rule over us because we allow them, though, and do NOT watch for our souls, but only for their own stomachs. This verse doesn't hold true as a pat answer for why we should obey anyone who says they are a pastor.

I agree with you 100%. Mr. Fogarty appears to be a prime example of this. I had thought with all my posts on this thread and others which touch on pastoral authority, that my position would be clear. Apparently I need a bit more clarifying to do. I am a firm believer that we are to follow a pastor as he follows Christ. One who clearly wrests the scriptures and redefines sin to fit his, or his family's, chosen lifestyle is clearly no longer following Christ, if he ever was. However, following Christ does not necessarily mean preaching only what is in the book. Certainly if all the works of Christ wouldn't fit in all the books in the world, neither would all his commandments and teachings. Not all things are sins, but Paul also speaks about weights which easily beset us. Standards are supposed to be an elimination of these weights, and are supposed to be presented as such. Making them doctrinal/salvational issues, in and of themselves, is not within the biblical authority of a pastor or any minister. Preaching against sin is preaching against sin. Preaching standards is raising a barrier on the safe side of sin to stop sin from creeping in.

Originally Posted by missourimary

The second was said by Jesus, not a pastor. (and is the reason for this small commentary-that kind of proof texting is very dangerous-anyone that doesn't look it up could misunderstand the intent.)

Pel answered this objection well, but my argument is the principle, not the letter. If accepting Christ is the same as accepting God, then accepting those Christ sends is the same as accepting Christ. WE all know there are many ministers and even pastors who were never called by God, but were ordained by some organization. There are also many ministers and even pastors who are called of God but were never ordained by any organization. But most many ministers and even pastors are ordained both by God and at least one organization. In either case, to accept the minister is to accept whomever sent him. If a man is called of God, ordained or not, accepting him is accepting God, and rejecting him is rejecting God.

Originally Posted by missourimary

I can only assume that the third is in reference to Gal 5:19-23 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Beards, wedding bands "and such like" hardly fit with the rest of the context that "such like" refers to here.

Actually, I think under certain circumstances, they could fall under variance and seditions. And maybe, with a great stretch of the imagination, even uncleaness (in the case of beards) and idolatry (in the case of wedding bands).

Originally Posted by missourimary

The fourth says "feed", not "set additional rules for."

"Feed my sheep" is an allegory to being what I have heard many ministers refer to as an under-shepherd (a shepherd, with all the responsibilities and authority of a full shepherd, but working for the head shepherd who owns the sheep). Shepherds lead the sheep and set bounderies for them.

Originally Posted by missourimary

The fifth was Jesus talking to Peter. Do we all have the keys to the kingdom now? Do all who call themselves pastors?

I am sorry to have to correct you but you are mistaken. In Matthew 16:10 He was talking to Peter, but to whom was He talking in Matthew 18:18? That's the scripture I was quoting. I wont make you look it up...he was talking to all the disciples, soon to become Apostles, AKA, his ministers.

[missourimary]

Interesting perceptions, OCC. We have a difference of opinion, but can agree to disagree, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

I am sorry to have to correct you but you are mistaken. In Matthew 16:10 He was talking to Peter, but to whom was He talking in Matthew 18:18? That's the scripture I was quoting. I wont make you look it up...

Oh, don't worry. I enjoy looking things up. It is much better than seeing a few phrases cited without scripture references and without proper context, accepting whatever we're told without studying (2 Tim 2:15, Eph 4:14) .

[OilCityCajun]

Originally Posted by missourimary

...I enjoy looking things up. It is much better than seeing a few phrases cited without scripture references and without proper context, accepting whatever we're told without studying (2 Tim 2:15, Eph 4:14) .

I concur, and I usually dont post in that manner. I usually include the scripture reference with any quotes or even paraphrases I post, but I was deliriously tired last night and not quite myself. Thank you for keeping a right spirit about it when mine was less than stellar.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

"Obey them that have rule over you, for they watch for your soul"
"He that receives me, receives he that sent me"
"And such like"
"Feed my sheep"
"Whatsoever you bind on Earth..."

The RCC doctrine of papal infallibility is based on these scriptures.
Some of our Apostolic ministers are just small popes.

[OilCityCajun]

Originally Posted by Sam

The RCC doctrine of papal infallibility is based on these scriptures.
Some of our Apostolic ministers are just small popes.

A lot of false doctrines misuse a lot of scriptures. That doesnt negate the validity of those scriptures, nor their proper application. You know full well I am not preaching pastoral infallibility. I am talking about proper application of proper authority to draw proper guidelines. I find this comment especially difficult to take coming from one who supports, tacitly, if not actively, the RCC doctrine of trinity.

[whoami]

Originally Posted by Sam

The RCC doctrine of papal infallibility is based on these scriptures.
Some of our Apostolic ministers are just small popes.

[geekette]

Can the title of this thread be changed?

"Convicted" means "convicted" of a crime.

This was a civil lawsuit and the more proper way to phrase it is: "UPC Pastor Found Legally Liable for Slander in Pulpit!"

As for the notion that separation of church and state would preclude a finding of libel or slander against a pastor, that conclusion just boggles my mind. The First Amendment isn't an exemption from the law. To quote from the Supreme Court case Reynolds v. US (1879):

"Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?"

Or, in other words, "good luck with that."

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by geekette

Can the title of this thread be changed?

"Convicted" means "convicted" of a crime.

This was a civil lawsuit and the more proper way to phrase it is: "UPC Pastor Found Legally Liable for Slander in Pulpit!"

As for the notion that separation of church and state would preclude a finding of libel or slander against a pastor, that conclusion just boggles my mind. The First Amendment isn't an exemption from the law. To quote from the Supreme Court case Reynolds v. US (1879):

"Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?"

Or, in other words, "good luck with that."

If you click on the link DA gave in his last post, you will read that a conviction would have been more difficult if the plaintiff had been a current member of the church which the defendent pastored.