Pastor Imposes "Morals Clause" on Choir

I usually find myself agreeing with your posts, Ann, but I cannot do so on this occasion (sorry about that, and no offence, of course ).

What scriptural basis is there for church members who are not in a choir being held to lower standards of morals than those who are? After all, "non-choir" church members could well be active in door-to-door outreach, leading the church's club for children or for youth, and so on. All Christians are to be in the service of their Master in some kind of ministry.

But I may be under a misapprehension concerning church choirs in the USA. I've been assuming that a members of a church choir are drawn from the membership of the church. But perhaps I'm wrong, and it's like some bell-ringers in Anglican churches over here. Some of them ring the bells before services, but are not church members, and do not even attend the services. This page from a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) website includes:

Robert Wood, a bell ringer for over 40 years and treasurer of the Beverley and District Ringing Society says the size of the group's membership has reduced by about 15% over the last 10 years......"I think young people think something that's involved with the church maybe isn't that cool. But they don't realise you don't actually have to be a church member to be into bell-ringing… a lot of ringers are not church-goers," added Mr Wood.
​

Obviously, to be a church choir member, you would have to attend church services, but do you have to be a church member to sing in the church choir, particularly at the church concerned in the OP? If not, that would put the matter of the covenant in a different light.

 

It is really quite simple. It appears this was a unilateral decision either by the choir director or by the pastor of the church. I say appears as I realize we may not have all the information concerning how this was done.

In an article it says:

[I placed the bold type ... also you have to click on 'related articles.']

As a Baptist pastors and/or choir directors do not make this type of decision and impose it on others. Such a decision should be brought to the church business meeting and either adopted or rejected there.

In the covenants you mentioned I am sure it was a corporate, not an individual decision. There is a big difference.

I hope the explains it a bit.

 

No, it actually doesn't.

Baptists have not, historically, believed that we do not have to submit to leadership, NOR that the church is run by "committees." "Baptist" just means local church autonomy...you get to choose what group to be a part of, and hence what leadership you will submit yourself to. That local group has no other overriding authority (such as a presbytery); it is autonomous.

Scripture, and Baptists, teach that you are to submit yourself to the elders/leadership of your church. It is not "anarchy." If your pastor says "we are doing this, because scripture says so" you have three options:

#1 Submit to it.

#2 Find a different church.

#3 Get with the elders/leadership of your church, address the issue, and bring it before the pastor. If it is not biblical, and the pastor will not relent, the congregation can then can the pastor.

But just telling the pastor, "You have no authority here. That decision has not gone through 'such and such' committee," is neither biblical, nor Baptist.

 

I'm sorry, I disagree though...

The power resides within the congregation of the church, not the pastor. A pastor is a servant leader, not a leader that dictates.

If the church voted on a resolution to make this a sorta covenant, then I would agree with it.. but just because it comes from the pastor does not make it binding.

 

Define authority for me. This word has come up so often in threads about pastors, elders, etc. authority. I have asked for this to be elaborated on and most of the time my request has been me with silence. I would appreciate an explanation of authority. Thanks in advance.

By the way I have been a Baptist all my life and I have yet to be in a church where the Baptist congregation would allow a pastor a blank check of "submit to me or leave the church." Do you really mean this?

Oh, and Tiny, amazing as it is, you are RIGHT again.

 

My friend, define "leader." Jesus was also a servant leader, and he commanded His disciples to follow His example. Yet he commanded them to do all sorts of things. So did Paul, and Peter issue commands to their respective groups.

The pastor has the authority to say "do this if you want to serve." If the congregation has biblical warrant, they have a right to say "get out."

The idea that the sheep should lead the under-shepherd around by the nose, is a ridiculously un-biblical one, and is why so many "baptist" churches are in disarray.

 

From the dictionary...

"the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine"

The Greek word,epitagē, which is used of elders/pastors, means to "mandate, command, or decree."

Where did I say "blank check"? Every Baptist Church that I know of, and have been involved in, does indeed submit to the leadership. He says "We are going to go out and do this this weekend," and everyone follows. He says "You can't be a minister in this position, because you did this," and they follow.

What I said about leaving, was that the congregations power resided in their ability to eject the PASTOR from the church, in the case of abuse of power. But unless they do that, for biblical grounds, their Christian duty is to submit to the leadership which they have placed themselves under, or find a different place where they can.

 

OOOOOOOOHHHH!!!!! That makes sense!.. I NOW understand where this pastor is allowed to dictate is coming from.,.. yep, ur rite!

 

How is authority manifest? Mandate, command or decree are very strong words.

 

I find it kinda crazy that anyone would not be a Christian and join a church and a choir. Just doing so would be lying so what would stop them from continuing the lie and signing the paper?

 

I agree with the statements disclosed in the article but umm... what does a choir have to do with sexual morality? Have they had a rash of provocative dancers or something?

Now, assuming the choir director is rightfully a pastor (according to her church's doctrine), should she be the one telling these people what to believe and be? I don't think she has that kind of authority as the music director, does she?

If I was in my church's choir and I was asked to sign that covenant I wouldn't give it a second thought because the bible is pretty clear about what that covenant states. I'm just not sure the choir should be singled out to sign it.

One last thing this round... If you have to ask your fellow church members to sign a paper saying something like, "I believe homosexuality is a sin" perhaps your senior pastor should take some time to preach on the topic explaining to ALL of the members what the bible teaches.

Those are my thoughts. I neither agree nor disagree with the "pastor's" decision but still have a strong opinion.

 

Of course, but that doesn't mean it was necessary to include the topic in a choir's covenant.

Like I said before though, I wouldn't have a problem signing something like that. I just thought it was an odd thing to include. It was almost a way of guaranteeing a large and divided reaction from what I can tell.

Salty may have a good point there too... we're not a part of the church so it would be hard to tell what would prompt the covenant's creation in the first place.

 

JohnDeerefan...

She most certainly is. Did you not read the very beginning???

She is the Senior Pastor.

Thats your opinion. Others see it differenly, using the scriptures as thier authority.

 

I pray God give her wisdom and strength

 

Uh, no. "Husband of one wife" and "a woman may not have authority over a man" is pretty clear. They do not use scripture, they twist it to conform to politically correct secular hoopla. Some people just can''t stand to bear the reproach of Christ.