Pastor Insults Congregation

[Zaac]

Zaac, what worries me most is that you keep analogizing this as a "family."

Not really sure what that worries you.

As Gina pointed out, Christ so loved the church that He gave Himself for it; and as the passage goes on to say, men ought to love their wives as their own bodies; no man hates his own flesh, but nurtures and cherishes it; and fathers shouldn't provoke their children to wrath.

As I said, a righteous rebuke will often times offend people. They are a family. And I see nothing wrong with a pastor who has been at a church for 24 years rebuking his flock.

You're making excuses for an abusive pastor.

If this pastor is abusive, then you better line up the majority of the folks on this board and peg them the same thing because of what they say.

Yet you take Christians on this board to task for acting the same way towards specific sins, such as homosexuality.

I take folks to task for unrighteous judgment. Neither you nor anyone else on this board has any insight as to what this pastor has said to these individuals wheras I'm well aware of the unrighteous comments that people on this board make.

One has to wonder if you're not just stirring the pot; or if you actually believe abuse within a family unit is acceptable.

One has to wonder if the lot of you think that because you believe it's abusive that it measures up as such?

 

[Zaac]

Oh, and please allow me to answer a question you asked Woody: this was most definitely NOT the same as a drill sergeant yelling at someone. You see, a DI has the most awesome and terrible duty and responsibility in the military: he/she has to break a human being down and re-train them to respond to orders instantly and without question, up to and including sacrificing their life.

I didn't ask what the DI's motives were. I asked if they did what he did? And they do. Seems like yall are okay with everybody else rebuking except the pastor.

Not the same at all. But I don't expect our brethren who haven't served to understand that.

Nice flippant attitude. Serving in the military is not a defining factor for knowing whether someone publicly rebukes. I asked Sapper because if that's his avatar, I assumed he served and was well aware that DIs DO publicly rebuke just as athletic coaches and others do.

 

[Don]

I didn't ask what the DI's motives were. I asked if they did what he did? And they do. Seems like yall are okay with everybody else rebuking except the pastor.



Nice flippant attitude. Serving in the military is not a defining factor for knowing whether someone publicly rebukes. I asked Sapper because if that's his avatar, I assumed he served and was well aware that DIs DO publicly rebuke just as athletic coaches and others do.

And you just proved my point that you don't understand the difference. Motive has EVERYTHING to do with it.

When a DI "rebukes," it's because s/he is making sure that the person being "rebuked" understands that their action(s) or inaction affect the entire unit and possibly the mission. The "rebuke" is intended to ensure the individual realizes s/he is part of a bigger whole, with a bigger purpose; and that purpose can't be fulfilled without each and every member not only fulfilling their own role, but assisting every other member in fulfilling theirs, too.

As has been pointed out multiple times to you, this pastor was focused on the letter "I". Argue it all you want, but using drill instructors is a faulty analogy.

 

[Zaac]

And you just proved my point that you don't understand the difference. Motive has EVERYTHING to do with it.

That may have proved your point. But it has NOTHING to do with mine as I again asked IF they did it, not why.

When a DI "rebukes," it's because s/he is making sure that the person being "rebuked" understands that their action(s) or inaction affect the entire unit and possibly the mission. The "rebuke" is intended to ensure the individual realizes s/he is part of a bigger whole, with a bigger purpose; and that purpose can't be fulfilled without each and every member not only fulfilling their own role, but assisting every other member in fulfilling theirs, too.

And I suppose you just happen to have information that this isn't the reason that the Pastor was rebuking? You have no more insight as to the Pastor's motives than anyone else.

As has been pointed out multiple times to you, this pastor was focused on the letter "I". Argue it all you want, but using drill instructors is a faulty analogy.

So because the Pastor said "I", it wasn't a proper rebuke? Pure silliness brought on by this cult mentality of if "we feel this way about what he did, then it has to be wrong".

So you and yours feel the way that you do. I STILL don't have a problem with what the pastor did and cannot call him abusive based upon what I saw. I see more of a Biblical call to do what he did than not.

Marvin Sapp Speaks About Rebuke in Response to Pastor's 'Hissy Fit' Sermon

On Tuesday, Sapp posted a social cam video response to a YouTube video of pastor Jim Standridge rebuking members of his congregation. Sapp explains, “Rebuke means 'to express sharp disapproval or criticism of someone because of their behavior or actions.'”

Standridge, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Skiatook, Okla., strongly reprimanded some of his church members in front of the entire congregation for sleeping during the worship service in a video titled, “Jim Standridge Throws a Hissy Fit.” Though the video, which has been viewed more than half a million times, has drawn harsh criticism, Sapp points to two Bible passages to explain a leader’s responsibility.

“The Bible makes it perfectly clear that it’s our responsibility as your coverings to deal with you in certain ways or aspects,” Sapp says. “First Timothy 5:20 says, ‘As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all so that the rest may stand in fear.’

“The reason why we have a responsibility of doing that is because of Hebrews 13:17,” he continues. “It says, ‘Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your soul.' This is the key. 'As those who will have to give an account, let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.’

“In other words, each and every spiritual leader has responsibility to give an account for each and every soul that submits to his and her authority.”

Sapp concludes by saying the way Standridge dealt with his rebuke was neither right nor wrong, “that an open rebuke is better than secret love," he says.

“We have to learn how to submit, because each and every spiritual leader has the responsibility to not only cover you, but has to give an account to God for you.”

http://www.charismanews.com/us/4024...buke-in-response-to-pastor-s-hissy-fit-sermon

 

[Don]

That may have proved your point. But it has NOTHING to do with mine as I again asked IF they did it, not why.

Then you might as well have asked if any of us yell at our dogs. You can't separate motivation from action.

And I suppose you just happen to have information that this isn't the reason that the Pastor was rebuking? You have no more insight as to the Pastor's motives than anyone else.

So because the Pastor said "I", it wasn't a proper rebuke? Pure silliness brought on by this cult mentality of if "we feel this way about what he did, then it has to be wrong".

No, it wasn't. And it doesn't have anything to do with a "cult mentality." It has to do with proper application of scripture.

What sin did the man who fell asleep commit? Sleeping during the preaching is a sin? Where do we find that in scripture?

We rebuke sin and sinful behavior. Where do you justify that this man was sinning and deserved public rebuke?

I simply see a preacher who got upset that someone fell asleep on him. And thus, he was offended. What does scripture tell us about how to deal with offenses? (Matthew 18 comes to mind)

So you and yours feel the way that you do. I STILL don't have a problem with what the pastor did and cannot call him abusive based upon what I saw. I see more of a Biblical call to do what he did than not.

Well, huh. I seem to recall they used that same line of reasoning during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and a few other incidents throughout the ages where people "needed" to be "rebuked."

Marvin Sapp Speaks About Rebuke in Response to Pastor's 'Hissy Fit' Sermon

On Tuesday, Sapp posted a social cam video response to a YouTube video of pastor Jim Standridge rebuking members of his congregation. Sapp explains, “Rebuke means 'to express sharp disapproval or criticism of someone because of their behavior or actions.'”

Standridge, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Skiatook, Okla., strongly reprimanded some of his church members in front of the entire congregation for sleeping during the worship service in a video titled, “Jim Standridge Throws a Hissy Fit.” Though the video, which has been viewed more than half a million times, has drawn harsh criticism, Sapp points to two Bible passages to explain a leader’s responsibility.

“The Bible makes it perfectly clear that it’s our responsibility as your coverings to deal with you in certain ways or aspects,” Sapp says. “First Timothy 5:20 says, ‘As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all so that the rest may stand in fear.’

“The reason why we have a responsibility of doing that is because of Hebrews 13:17,” he continues. “It says, ‘Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your soul.' This is the key. 'As those who will have to give an account, let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.’

“In other words, each and every spiritual leader has responsibility to give an account for each and every soul that submits to his and her authority.”


Sapp concludes by saying the way Standridge dealt with his rebuke was neither right nor wrong, “that an open rebuke is better than secret love," he says.

“We have to learn how to submit, because each and every spiritual leader has the responsibility to not only cover you, but has to give an account to God for you.”

Scripture also says "ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

My apologies to Mr. Sapp, but again: Where was the sin that required public rebuke?

 

[Zaac]

Then you might as well have asked if any of us yell at our dogs. You can't separate motivation from action.

Or I may have asked how many of you do on this board exactly what you're complaining about the pastor doing? The point you were trying to make for YOU had nothing to do with the question I asked.

No, it wasn't. And it doesn't have anything to do with a "cult mentality." It has to do with proper application of scripture.

What it has to do with is proper twisting to attempt to make your point. The pastor rebuked some folks. There is nothing twisted in Scripture about that.

What sin did the man who fell asleep commit? Sleeping during the preaching is a sin? Where do we find that in scripture?

Did the pastor say to him that falling asleep during church was a sin? As I said before, we don't know what else the pastor had said to this person or how many times he's had to address it. SO give the man of God the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping on board and trying to tear down his motives as one would expect the world to be doing. There's stuff we don't know about the situation.

We rebuke sin and sinful behavior. Where do you justify that this man was sinning and deserved public rebuke?

Where do you justify that you or anyone else knows what the pastor has had to say to this young man prior that may have led to the rebuke?

How do you know that this guy hasn't had problems with obeying and respecting authority his entire life and that the pastor had been counseling him about his disrespect for authority?

I simply see a preacher who got upset that someone fell asleep on him. And thus, he was offended. What does scripture tell us about how to deal with offenses? (Matthew 18 comes to mind)

That's right. That's what YOU see. That doesn't mean that's all that was there. So give the man of God the benefit of the doubt.

Well, huh. I seem to recall they used that same line of reasoning during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and a few other incidents throughout the ages where people "needed" to be "rebuked."

Well I seemed to recall that we're talking about what Pastor Standridge did. Somebody else's wrong doesn't automatically put him in the same boat.

Scripture also says "ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

That same Scripture says Proverbs 27:5

Better is open rebuke than hidden love.

1 Timothy 5:20

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

My apologies to Mr. Sapp, but again: Where was the sin that required public rebuke?

You'd have to ask the pastor who did it that question. Everyone is just assuming they know why he did it when there is OBVIOUSLY a lot we're not privy to.

 

[Gina B]

The question here isn't even one of rebuke. It's the frightening attitude and spirit (or lack of it) behind it. It wouldn't have mattered if it was done in private. It would have been just as wrong.

 

[Mexdeaf]

You'd have to ask the pastor who did it that question. Everyone is just assuming they know why he did it when there is OBVIOUSLY a lot we're not privy to.

He showed about the same amount of love to his members as you do here on the BB. :tongue3:

 

[Zaac]

He showed about the same amount of love to his members as you do here on the BB. :tongue3:

Goes both ways. I love yall just fine. It's the funky, nasty attitudes that accompanies the response to anyone who disagrees with the majority POV that yall can keep.

 

[Don]

Goes both ways. I love yall just fine. It's the funky, nasty attitudes that accompanies the response to anyone who disagrees with the majority POV that yall can keep.

Well, ain't that the pot calling the kettle....?

 

[Zaac]

Well, ain't that the pot calling the kettle....?

I didn't know pots could talk.

 

[Don]

I didn't know pots could talk.

And thus, I'm confirmed in my suspicion that your only intention is to stir things up.

 

[abcgrad94]

This is spiritual abuse, plain and simple.

If the pastor TRULY had the love for his flock that Christ has for the church, he would be more concerned for the church members' health than whether or not HE was being "ignored." It's not about HIM.

Think about it. If someone makes the effort to come to church, but falls asleep, there's a medical problem there, not a spiritual problem. Sleep apnea comes to mind. The one sleeping may not be getting enough oxygen at night. This is a serious problem and anyone with compassion should be able to discern it!

To call someone worthless for whom Christ died is horrible. It's demeaning and verbally abusive. This is not godly rebuke. This pastor seems to set himself up as the Holy Spirit, judging the people and filling himself with pride. So sad. He should publicly apologize to his congregation and seek some spiritual counseling if he plans to continue to pastor.

 

[Zaac]

And thus, I'm confirmed in my suspicion that your only intention is to stir things up.

You feel free to be confirmed in whatever you wish. I'll just place you in with the rest of the ones who cry racism, racebaiter, troll and now intend to stir things up.

Just a bunch of words coming from folks who can't stand that someone would dare take a POV that's different from their own.

 

[Zaac]

This is spiritual abuse, plain and simple.

If the pastor TRULY had the love for his flock that Christ has for the church, he would be more concerned for the church members' health than whether or not HE was being "ignored." It's not about HIM.

Think about it. If someone makes the effort to come to church, but falls asleep, there's a medical problem there, not a spiritual problem. Sleep apnea comes to mind. The one sleeping may not be getting enough oxygen at night. This is a serious problem and anyone with compassion should be able to discern it!

Sleep apnea might be a problem cause I've definitely seen that before. But based upon our insight, it very well may also be that the guy just fell asleep because he was tired or bored. :laugh:

To call someone worthless for whom Christ died is horrible. It's demeaning and verbally abusive. This is not godly rebuke. This pastor seems to set himself up as the Holy Spirit, judging the people and filling himself with pride. So sad. He should publicly apologize to his congregation and seek some spiritual counseling if he plans to continue to pastor.

I still say that we should give the pastor the benfit of the doubt since we don't know the conversations he may have had with these people prior.

 

[Zaac]

Further investigation found the following comments from the pastor that reaffirms my belief that tehre was nothing wrong with what he did amongst his church family.

Standridge, who has been serving as pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church for 24 years, made a similar statement last month, and said he really did not expect complete strangers to understand what he described as a "family meeting" that has since garnered national attention.

"It was hard (the message), but you can't say it wasn't loving," Standridge previously told CP, insisting that the sermon "brought order" to unresolved issues affecting the church.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/p...mended-and-rebuked-99661/#hPtbM5SpWoYmtqry.99

Unresolved issues , at least for me, points to the possibility that the pastor has had to deal with a lot of this before.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Unresolved issues , at least for me, points to the possibility that the pastor has had to deal with a lot of this before.

I believe that he has had to deal with lots of people falling asleep in his services.

 

[Zaac]

I believe that he has had to deal with lots of people falling asleep in his services.

Tom I'm in the process of watching the whole sermon. And I must say, the way that the pastor is setting up the sermon and personal responsibility speaks volumes as to why he may have done tings this way.

This is a man who loves his church family and it does come across in his sermon.

 

[saturneptune]

This pastor exhibits none of the qualities of a Christ like attitude. Had he been my pastor, when he said he would pack and take his car down the road, I would have bought him the suitcases. This is the last thing a local church needs in reaching a lost and dying world.

 

[abcgrad94]

I still say that we should give the pastor the benfit of the doubt since we don't know the conversations he may have had with these people prior.

Even if the pastor had previous conversations with his members, his big mistake is making things personal, because he sets himself up as judge and jury. His job is to LOVE his flock and share God's word, not use the pulpit to bully people, especially by name like that.

I think every pastor gets frustrated with church members not pulling their share, not displaying more commitment to the things of God, etc. but this man made it about HIM. Statements like, "I'M important, you will listen to ME; you might do your English teacher that way, but not ME; you're worthless," indicate he's taking their behavior as against HIM. These are statements made while in the flesh. It's not about HIM, it's about God. The pastor is just the servant of God. He is not God, he is the messenger. If people reject God, they reject God. It has nothing to do with HIM forcing people to respect him and his "authority."

One statement that really shows this fleshly attitude is when he says, "If you don't know what you've done wrong, then you don't care about what I'm trying to do right. That sentence alone is so judgmental, demeaning, and full of pride. It's spiritually abusive and destructive not only to the person he addressed, but to all who hear it.

If this man truly loved his flock, he would simply preach the word and let the spirit of God convict hearts. The Holy Spirit is perfectly able to do his own job without this man's "help."