McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamation

[Holy Ghost HH]

Oh and about posting the BOLI report I can fax or email it to anyone that wants it. But unless you know how many years and hours those children worked you wouldn't know how bad the pastors lied about the use of these children. The amount of pay was 300 each child. How did they get that figure? Well an attorney wrote up a contract and the pastor had the children and parents sit in his office while he told the parent and children that was fare enough. Now feel that for a second. He is your authority and he has preached it for years. Your in his office. No intimidation there hmmm. Why would they just not pay them the hours they worked for the business at min. wage? Can anyone say that being in your pastors office and him telling you what is fare is not intimidating? These kids are poor and parents don't go to church except for 2.
I deal in facts. I have no accusers That can come against me for strife. Even those pastors will agree to that. A man that lets unethical behavior go unchecked is himself unethical.
The man that walks in the counsel of the unethical it should read.

[Esaias]

Again, this would never happen if people read their bibles and followed them and REFUSED TO ASSOCIATE WITH ANYTHING CONTRARY.

Just saying...

[n david]

Originally Posted by Reader

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

Right, whatever was done will/has been answered in the depositions.

Originally Posted by Reader

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

The more I read the article and comments, the more it does appear the two are tied together. There seems to be an added issue of something the accuser claimed was said in confidence which the Pastor revealed openly to the congregation which isn't part of the labor/wage ordeal.

Originally Posted by Reader

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

He should still follow the ethics of private counsel, but if the accuser did tell others what he told the Pastor, it could hurt the burden of proof he has to show of it being a private matter. Private isn't private if you tell other people.

Originally Posted by Reader

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

As am I. And the news reports don't contain much information at all. Most of the information is in the comment section, and I'm not sure how much of that can be trusted as fact or truth.

Originally Posted by Reader

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

Touche. Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Reader

Are you assuming this?

I would guess I am assuming he's staying to cause trouble. Personally, I wouldn't have stayed if I had this bad an issue with a Pastor. Again, I don't understand people who complain about and disagree with a Pastor, yet refuse to leave. Doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Reader

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?

It depends on what's happening and what the man is doing. If the man simply alerted the authorities to the labor issue and, once it was resolved, moved on and was excommunicated; then, no it wasn't just. If, however, he had a vendetta against the Pastor because of the labor issue, and began to cause division in the church; then, yes, it was just and the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by Reader

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 a great question. I will open a new thread on this.

Originally Posted by Reader

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.

You're right, I apologize. I kept reading the post with the Oregon case in mind.

[n david]

I made some paragraphs for ease of reading.

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

Ok let's try to take this all in.

This church is under no board, is not affiliated and has no authority overseeing it. He says that's not biblical. He has "trusted advisors" aka friends he talks to.

That is a problem. My former Pastor was not affiliated, but he had two boards, a church board to handle any conflicts and an advisory council for basic church vision, goals, etc. He also had an external group of men which the church board approved who would step in if there was ever an issue involving him.

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

So the brother brings grievance to pastor about pastor how do you think that went down? So now this man's wife gets ahold of labor department they investigate and find that pastors where scamming the system. If the kids had to work for the school bill that is sad because the church took up offerings every Thursday for the poor kids to attend. Plus they worked those kids 60 hours a week so that more than paid per week for a month of school. So private company makes profit of the backs of children and church takes in money for children.

Those are facts people. Pastor finds out and "thinks" man called labor dept. accuses him in one of 3 private meetings and kicks him out after morning service but says wife can stay. Hmmm. She makes a lot of money. He is on ssi due to work related neck injury and the church wanted that as well. Part of the issue.

Why did the wife decide to get involved? I know in the post after this one that the Pastor had the parents in his office to sign the contract. As intimidating as it may be, and I've been in some intimidating offices, the parents are grown adults. If they don't like the contract, they shouldn't sign it. And if they did sign it, it's none of this woman's business. Is there a reason she decided to get involved? Or is she a general busybody?

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

Pastor then has evening service, waits till it is over, brings out all his personal stuff to include the note pad from counseling room, and goes on about him by name stating facts and dates of meetings. Remember he is no longer a member for over 8 hours.

All the info the pastor said in no way the man told anyone. How would you tell anyone your personal home stuff. That was a lie from an apologist of the church. As well as sueing 3 times. He has not to this time sued people.

His wife is blessed with a great job and income. Jealous apologist just by reading it. The pastor insured all recording was stopped before the blasting and had ushers check people's phones for recording. BTW some people did record. Can't hide the truth if it is recorded.

If this is what happened, the Pastor is in the wrong. But I have known a person who made their personal home stuff known to anyone and everyone who would listen. TMI...too much information!

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

So a question here.... Why couldn't a preacher just say "Mr. Goings has been booted so don't fellowship him"? Would that not be scriptural enough or is telling all about a person the scriptural aspect here? I don't read it in scripture unless you want to take a wide latitude with the word MARK them. Even with all that Mr. Goings tried to not sue. He issued a letter asking the pastor to take back all that was said that night and let it be. The bull headed pastor said pound sand title 9 is our bible. But in legal gargon printed by lawyers. So he decided to sue based on research he got from prior case.

The Pastor would have been wise to understand with whom he was dealing. If his wife got involved with something which didn't pertain to her, the result of which cost the Pastor several thousand dollars, you would think the Pastor would limit his words and allow nothing to be used against him by this couple. It would have been better to simply state as you did, the accuser has been removed from fellowship, and leave it at that. Unfortunately, many Pastors feel the need to go on defense when something like this happens and explain their reasons why they did what they did.

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

So to say the church is protected by internal issues that is not so. It is not hard to find case law on this one. Most of you might think I'm am pastor bashing. That's not so. I appriciat what the men of God do. But I also know that being faithful goes both ways. And when I saw the lies these men told it was enough. These are all facts. I have a recording I have the file of the investigation. If this man had been stirring up strife I would have told him to stop myself. This is a bigger issue than Mr. Goings. These men have bigger issues coming as well.

Because the church is not affiliated and does not have a church board or council of elders, it could very well be exposed. I would be assuming here, but typically if a church doesn't have a board or council, the bylaws are either non-existent or fail to give any covering.

I do have a link to a case from 1995, in which a former UPC minister sued the UPCI after his license was revoked and he was removed from fellowship with the UPCI. He lost in trial court and also lost the appeal. I'll post that below this.

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

Jesus taught that people are to be brought BEFORE THE CHURCH not just the pastor. Because this is what happens. If the church would have been involved the pastor would have been found out long ago. This issue effected me in a big sad way. I feel that Church is about the money and the anointed ones in the special circles of the church. My heart yurns to be there In church but I can't. I'm a broken vessel with a jaded heart from this situation. I loved that pastor I loved that man but to read the lies and hear the words spoken that night hurts deep. It's sad really. Please pray for me. All I say is true I will be in court testifying to it under oath. There is never a reason to lie but always a reason to be truthful. At least I can sleep at night knowing I didn't destroy anyone's life.

The Biblical steps are individually, with witnesses and then before the whole church. If it gets to the whole church, it's not a good thing.

As terrible as the Pastor's alleged actions were, and he made some dumb choices from what you've posted, I still disagree with filing a lawsuit against him.

You claim that you can sleep at night knowing you didn't destroy anyone's life, but that's not really the case. Should the Judge rule against the Pastor, his ministry and likely the ministry of others under him will be destroyed.

There's a reason Paul said not to involve secular courts. It doesn't just affect the church, the Pastor and the people involved. But especially today, because we live in a media-driven world, it will affect the local community and areas around the US. The church's witness has been stained because of this.

Did the Pastor do wrong? It seems he did. Is it right to sue him over it. No. Vengence isn't ours, it's the Lord's. This accuser fits the description of the servant in the parable I posted earlier. He was forgiven a great debt by God, yet when the Pastor did him wrong, instead of forgiving as he was forgiven, he does the most he can to make sure the Pastor pays for the wrong he did against him. Some day the Lord of the servants will call the accuser back in; and, because of his unforgiveness, all the debt of which he was forgiven will be put back on him.

If this man wins or loses, I hope he feels it was worth it. As wrong as the Pastor may have been, two wrongs don't make this right.

[n david]

The link below is to a court case brought by a Pastor who's license was revoked and who was removed from fellowship with the UPCI.

Where this differs from the Oregon suit, is the lack of affiliation, a church board or likely any organization of bylaws, etc.

"The trial court granted UPCI's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution precluded its jurisdiction over the suit. We will affirm the trial court's order dismissing this action."

"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV. The Constitution thus mandates that government and religion remain separate and accordingly forbids the government from interfering with the right of hierarchical religious bodies to establish their own internal rules and regulations and create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over religious matters. See Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 708-09, 724-25 (1976). It has been well settled for over 120 years by the United States Supreme Court that when the highest authority of a church judicatory has decided questions of discipline, faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law, secular civil courts must accept such decisions as final and binding:

The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all . . . within the general association, is unquestioned. All who united themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be vain consent and would lead to total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for."

Natal v. Christian & Missionary Alliance, 878 F.2d 1575, 1577 (1st Cir. 1989); see also Patterson v. Southwestern Baptist Seminary, 858 S.W.2d 602, 605-06 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1993, no writ). Green was dismissed as an act of discipline, and questions of church discipline and government are left to the church, limited only by the courts' supervision of property and civil rights. See Hughes v. Keeling, 198 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. Civ. App.--Beaumont 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

A civil court cannot constitutionally intervene in this dispute because this is exactly the type of intervention the First Amendment was designed to prevent. See Hutchison v. Thomas, 789 F.2d 392, 393 (6th Cir. 1986).

http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/th.../1995/212.html

[Reader]

First, David, thank you for your earlier exchange. I will make a few brief comments on that after these first two from different posts.

The link below is to a court case brought by a Pastor who's license was revoked and who was removed from fellowship with the UPCI.

Where this differs from the Oregon suit, is the lack of affiliation, a church board or likely any organization of bylaws, etc.

I have read of this previously. In my opinion, it cannot be compared to the Oregon case as Green's had to do with the inner workings of a church organization, which the courts do not touch. The court also will not touch the doctrines of a church or church discipline while a person is a member, as long as a crime is not committed. The Green case also did not involve slander or libel, things in which the courts will intervene and it happening in a church setting does not stop them.

Why did the wife decide to get involved? I know in the post after this one that the Pastor had the parents in his office to sign the contract. As intimidating as it may be, and I've been in some intimidating offices, the parents are grown adults. If they don't like the contract, they shouldn't sign it. And if they did sign it, it's none of this woman's business.

I may be mistaken, but the idea I had from reading the post is this was reported by the wife and only after the pastor discovered it was reported, he had them sign contracts. I didn't see it as her reporting it after contracts were signed.

The timeline of it all appears to be as follows, if news reports are accurate, and I realize this isn't always true-

In October 2014 Goings went to the state (the article doesn't say the wife reported it).

On November 2, the pastor had the service where he spoke against Goings.

Seven youth filed with the state together and that case was settled on January 13, 2015.

One youth filed separately and this was settled March 20, 2015.

Goings appears to have filed the suit on March 18, 2015.

He should still follow the ethics of private counsel, but if the accuser did tell others what he told the Pastor, it could hurt the burden of proof he has to show of it being a private matter.

I agree.

It depends on what's happening and what the man is doing. If the man simply alerted the authorities to the labor issue and, once it was resolved, moved on and was excommunicated; then, no it wasn't just.

It would appear in less than a month after alerting the state, the pastor made him leave. The state claims were not settled until more than 2 and 4 months respectively after he was expelled. It is looking as if the expulsion was a direct result of going to the state.

You're right, I apologize. I kept reading the post with the Oregon case in mind.

No apology necessary, but thank you.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Reader

I have read of this previously. In my opinion, it cannot be compared to the Oregon case as Green's had to do with the inner workings of a church organization, which the courts do not touch. The court also will not touch the doctrines of a church or church discipline while a person is a member, as long as a crime is not committed. The Green case also did not involve slander or libel, things in which the courts will intervene and it happening in a church setting does not stop them.

I agree there are significant differences between the Green case and this; especially considering the accuser was not a member when this happened.

Originally Posted by Reader

I may be mistaken, but the idea I had from reading the post is this was reported by the wife and only after the pastor discovered it was reported, he had them sign contracts. I didn't see it as her reporting it after contracts were signed.

The timeline of it all appears to be as follows, if news reports are accurate, and I realize this isn't always true-

In October 2014 Goings went to the state (the article doesn't say the wife reported it).

On November 2, the pastor had the service where he spoke against Goings.

Seven youth filed with the state together and that case was settled on January 13, 2015.

One youth filed separately and this was settled March 20, 2015.

Goings appears to have filed the suit on March 18, 2015.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Pastor had them sign contracts after the fact, given the post above saying he's against church boards. Your timeline appears accurate.

[Holy Ghost HH]

My question is, if the pastor dis-fellowships is that not in it's self saying that person is no longer a brother? He stopped referring to him as brother and used his full name instead. So, if Mr. Goings felt that he was no longer a brother even after trying to reconcile via letter he should then be free to sue seeing that the pastor no longer accounts for him? There is a truth, God will judge in the end. All lairs will find there place in the lake of fire. No repentance can be granted until the pastors(father and son) repent and admit they where not truthful in the investigation. We all know that wont happen because they will trust in their lawyer(s) before they trust God at this point.
The wife started the investigation because the children asked her for help and to start this whole thing. Mr. Goings did not have a clue until the investigators started calling and she asked him to help the kids. Mr. Goings had no issues with the pastor. As a matter of FACT Mr. Goings and the pastors (both father and son) went shooting together and quad riding(the son) quite a few times. So this isn't a vindictive saint issue. Mr. Goings loved these pastors and held them in high regard. He looked up to the Davies as his extended family, like a Father and a brother.
Part of the issue about taking a brother to law I have a question, Isn't it required by law that the ministry are mandatory reporters when an alleged sexual charge has been found out by them? So that whole law and brother issue is mute. It seems that the pastor is required to tell but the saints are not.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

My question is, if the pastor dis-fellowships is that not in it's self saying that person is no longer a brother? He stopped referring to him as brother and used his full name instead. So, if Mr. Goings felt that he was no longer a brother even after trying to reconcile via letter he should then be free to sue seeing that the pastor no longer accounts for him? There is a truth, God will judge in the end. All lairs will find there place in the lake of fire. No repentance can be granted until the pastors(father and son) repent and admit they where not truthful in the investigation. We all know that wont happen because they will trust in their lawyer(s) before they trust God at this point.

IMO, a Pastor excommunicating a person only means they're no longer a member. If the person still believes the Gospel and doctrine, they're still a believer. Paul writes of believers, not members.

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

The wife started the investigation because the children asked her for help and to start this whole thing. Mr. Goings did not have a clue until the investigators started calling and she asked him to help the kids. Mr. Goings had no issues with the pastor. As a matter of FACT Mr. Goings and the pastors (both father and son) went shooting together and quad riding(the son) quite a few times. So this isn't a vindictive saint issue. Mr. Goings loved these pastors and held them in high regard. He looked up to the Davies as his extended family, like a Father and a brother.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Holy Ghost HH

Part of the issue about taking a brother to law I have a question, Isn't it required by law that the ministry are mandatory reporters when an alleged sexual charge has been found out by them? So that whole law and brother issue is mute. It seems that the pastor is required to tell but the saints are not.

Yes, clergy are mandatory reporters, per Oregon law. I'm afraid to ask, and would rather not know, but what does an alleged sexual charge have to do with Paul's writing on not taking another believer to court?

All citizens have a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Members of the general public may report suspected abuse and neglect if they choose.

Oregon state law, however, mandates that workers in certain professions must make reports if they have reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect. These people are called mandatory reporters and they are a crucial link in the system to protect Oregon’s most vulnerable citizens.

For a current and complete list of public or private officials who are mandatory reporters please refer to Oregon Revised Statute 419B.005 (3). Some of these mandatory reporters include:

•Physician or physician assistant licensed under ORS chapter 677​ or naturopathic physician, including any intern or resident;
•Dentists;
•School employee, including an employee of a higher education institution;
•Licensed practical nurse, registered nurse, nurse practitioner, nurse’s aide, home health aide or employee of an in-home health service;
•Employee of the Department of Human Services, Oregon Health Authority, Early Learning Division, Youth Development Division, Office of Child Care, the Oregon Youth Authority, a county health department, a community mental health program, a community developmental disabilities program, a county juvenile department, a licensed child-caring agency or an alcohol and drug treatment program;
•Peace officer;
•Psychologist;
•Member of the clergy;
•Regulated social worker;
•Optometrist;
•Chiropractor;
•Certified provider of foster care, or an employee thereof;
•Attorney;
•Licensed professional counselor;
•Licensed marriage and family therapist;
•Firefighter or emergency medical services provider;
•A court appointed special advocate, as defined in ORS 419A.004;
•A child care provider registered or certified under ORS 329A.030 and 329A.250 to 329A.450;
•Member of the Legislative Assembly;
•Physical, speech or occupational therapist;
•Audiologist;
•Speech-language pathologist;
•Employee of the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission directly involved in investigations or discipline by the commission;
•Pharmacist;
•An operator of a preschool recorded program under ORS 329A.255;
•An operator of a school-age recorded program under ORS 329A.257;
•Employee of a private agency or organization facilitating the provision of respite services, as defined in ORS 418.205, for parents pursuant to a properly executed power of attorney under ORS 109.056​;
◦Employee of a public or private organization providing child-related services or activities: Including but not limited to youth groups or centers, scout groups or camps, summer or day camps, survival camps or groups, centers or camps that are operated under the guidance, supervision or auspices of religious, public or private educational systems or community service organizations; and
◦Excluding community-based, nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is to provide confidential, direct services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking or human trafficking
•A coach, assistant coach or trainer of an amateur, semiprofessional or professional athlete, if compensated and if the athlete is a child.

http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/abuse/Page...ry_report.aspx

[Esaias]

Where does the Bible say a single pastor can single handedly excommunicate someone?