What do you all think?

That is what constitutions are for...
Too bad someone didn't have the backbone to stand for the by-laws.

Of course, it could've gotten messy anyway.
But without knowing anymore, that is about all I can say.

 

Can you define who the anointed are please?

And no, I don't agree with your assessment. It's not logical because it goes like this:

"A group of Christians did something to a fellow Christian who was also a pastor that may not have been right. A person who knew about it died during a medical procedure due to the error of the physician treating him. Therefore, it's very likely that God was angry because people weren't treating the pastor right, therefore he exacted his wrath on one person who knew about it by making the doctor make a mistake that could get him sued for malpractice and scar his career for life."

That is a paraphrase of what I have understood your post to say. Please correct any wrong perceptions in there.

 

He lost the majority. There is something more to this story but once the Pastor has loss the majority he is on his way out anyway. He could fight to get a vote of the membership but what's the point if he know's he's lost the majority?

Yes, the Bible says touch not my annointed.

 

Personally, if I were in such a church, and something such as this happened, regardless of who I did or did not like, or even agree with, I would have been gone long before the pastor finished picking up his sermon notes and Bible. The only thing I would say is :wavey:!

That's a "good-bye" wave, BTW.

Ed

 

The congregation should have some backbone and meet to excommunicate the committee. They had no business speaking for the congregation and bypassing the church constitution.

 

They should have a called meeting . . . might suggest having a constable present to assist with maintaining order . . .

Firestorm might be a good book to read.

 

Let's all remember...

We're only hearing one side and might not have all the facts. Not saying the OP is being less than truthful...just that in these matters, there's often two (or more) sides to the story.

 

Then I'm totally confused! Please help out.

What did the one guy dying from a doctor's mistake have to do with anything, and why was it followed up by the comment about "touch not my annointed?"

It really did sound like you thought the guy died as some type of justice from God for touching someone anointed. Please explain.

Ok, your definition of anointed. Haven't we all been called into service? I kinda thought that there were two meanings of anointed in those verses in the bible, one meaning those in authority (kings and other such offices NOT of the church, not pastors, because Christians are submitted one to another, kings and queens and presidents of the land actually have authority)

 

WEll, secret meetings of ANY group in a church isnt good. Especially if its to fire/hire someone.

 

I have to agree whole-heartedly with Tim here. People tell me all the time, "Why do we need constitutions and bylaws and statements of faith? If we just let the Holy Spirit work, we won't need none of that!" (A man told me that two days ago about another situation.)

What I wanted to know is just how exactly he knew that's not the way the Holy Spirit was working. That's what constitutions are for. Use it.

 

Paul said all things in the church are to be done decent and in order(1 cor 14). Having said that constitutions and by laws are not a biblical standard. Maybe the church could look to scripture instead.

We are in a spiritual battle(Ephesians 6). I think that even Pastors forget this at times. I certainly dont believe this is all the info necessary to make any judgement on this situation. But in general, we have pastors running from battles like scalded dogs way to much.

"I dont want to put my family through that." Certainly not a God centered response. We are called to fight the fight, contend for the faith, sacrifice our selves. But we are never called to tuck tail and run. Never assume the battle is over until it is actually over. Then and only then do you knock the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.

We can complain about weak church members who never want to grow. But maturity has to begin in the pulpit.

 

It seems you'd have to have a church vote for that. But if the majority don't care, they did vote, they voted for apathy.
I agree, the church needs to vote out that committee, they acted as if they had control of the church and they do not, or aren't supose too.
The pastor should have stood up and sought the congregation and what the church as a whole wanted.

 

It sounds to me like the "committee" just told the pastor that it was time to go. To say that they fired him implies that they had some control over his paycheck, which is certainly nothing that a self-appointed comittee can touch.

I know of a case where the church boss met privately with the pastor and told him that the deacons had decided to let him go. The pastor could put it to a vote of the church if he wished, but both the church boss and the pastor knew that the game was over by then. And it was.

In the case of the OP, it sounds like the game was over at that church as well.

 

I agree, the way the pastor left it seemed mutual agreement was found.

 

I can't really comment on this situation given the limited information we have here.

But I think that realistically, few pastors stick around long enough to be voted out of a job. If he doesn't have the support of the leadership he might as well leave anyway because a pastor cannot function without them. At that point, he probably doesn't have the support of the rest of the congregation either. There may be some exceptions to this but those are probably rare.

 

The "anointed" in Psa. 105:15 (and 1 Chron. 16:22) are not "pastors." They are the whole nation of Israel.