Featured Pastor Abusing Position

Taking the OP at face value, what are we supposed to say? That abuse of power is good? That pastors are to rule as lords?

Experience has taught me not to take these reports at face value, and then I discovered that Scriptures call one who believes every word a fool. The man has already been judged in this individual's mind. What was gained by this post but to engender ill will toward someone without any real knowledge of the situation? Look at what everyone is saying based on nothing but on what has been written by someone who is simply flirting with the church. Hasn't joined? Why? and what standing can he have in the court of opinion on the situation not being a member? What business is it of his?

The OP is gossip as it stands. Name names and let us ask questions, and then it ceases to be gossip.

 

Your experiences are much different than mine, as well as is your definition of gossip.

 

That is why in most Baptist churches it takes a majority or in some a 2/3s vote to remove a pastor from office. This is a very serious matter, and must be handled in the light of Scripture. No one person can decide. In an elder form of government, it can be the elders or a combination of elders and congregation. Unless the pastor is doing something unScriptural, and there is a congregational government with deacons, then the deacons, being servents, are there to support their pastor and serve the congregation, not to go off on a tangent as some type of governing authority.

I agree with your point that if one has not joined the church, they have no say so in the internal affairs of the church. I also agree that we do not know all the ends and outs of the facts. It seems very odd to me that any congregational form of government would allow abuse of one person to linger over a long period of time. They have the power to solve the problem with one business meeting. Look at how complex this would be if there was a hierarchy involved, such as a Presbytery. The congregational or elder vote would only be one factor. Those in the Presbytery would have to approve the action. This is why I cannot understand why this congregation is putting up with this.

Another thing that does not sound right is the power of the head pastor to fire staff. If the church voted to approve their position, then the church must vote to remove them if deemed appropriate. It does not sound right.

The last element that perhaps bothers me more than anything else is posting for advice in an internal squabble. Gossip is rampant in lots of churches today, and for the most part, is ignored by others, unlike the sins we put on a pedestal. The point I am trying to make is that the purpose of such a post has to be advice how to solve the problem, not a sense of getting even or the thrill of telling news to someone else that is the attraction of gossip. When someone comes up to me at church as says "did you hear so and so did this or that last night, or was with so and so at the movie so and so, etc" I remember there are only two reasons someone is telling me that. One, is so I will know to help the person being talked about return to the Lord and repent in a loving way, or two, I will join in the party and help spread the garbage. Usually it is number two. So, I am very careful about giving advice without having lived the facts.

All I am saying is that no local church has to put up with a truly abusive pastor. Abusive however, does not mean the pastor does not agree with me. If a pastor wants to increase giving to a mission ministry, and it is approved in a budget, the church has acted. If you do not agree with the increase, that is not a pastor being abusive.

 

Well said! :thumbsup:
Especially the section on gossip.

 

About a year ago, the pastor began to insist that he was to never be questioned about anything he did or said by the staff. He began to accuse some of the staffers of not being loyal to him. He soon began to lie to the deacons and leadership council about various things some of the staff had allegedly said or done. He started monitoring all emails and social sites postings. It was like he was paranoid.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This seem to fast becoming the norm among Baptist Churches.

 

I'm confused. That's not uncommon these days as age creeps up on me.

Is your post about the same church as the OP, or another one?

If either case, is your knowledge of the situation first hand?

An alternative explaination to him being paranoid is that he has learned something, in confidence, that would be detrimental to the church if continued. First, he has to confirm the what-ever-it-is before taking action. If he has learned that some of the church leadership has kept this from he, that could also account for his outward behavior. If all that's been said about this particular pastor is actually true.

Just my opinion....

If it were my church, proof would have to be offered if someone accuses our pastor of lying.

If the church is paying for the equipment and service providers, unless otherwise stated in the By-Laws or prohibited by state law, it should be understood by all staff that their electronic communications can be monitored. I fully support freedom of speech as specified in the Bill of Rights. That said, what I do during the time I'm on a payroll is under supervision of my employer.

First, using company time for personal activities, without permission of the employer is stealing. Second, in the case of a pastor, as the shepherd of his flock he will be held accountable (especially in the eyes of the world) if any members of his staff go astray, especially while using church facilities. And, especially if the immoral has been covered up by someone for an extended period of time.

Again, I want to know -- for a fact -- both sides of the story in any situation like this one before making a judgement call on who's right and who's wrong.

 

Input on what? All you said was a man you know is a liar and throws his weight around.

What are we supposed to say?