It often comes up in debates and discussions in Baptist circles. If we mean a pastor dealing with sin in a member of the congregation, I think we would all agree Mt. 18 gives us a pretty good outline. The final outcome should (I think) be up to a vote of the church, but that is another debate. Usually it isn't used in the matter of sin--like adultery, lying, etc. Usually it is used when someone disagrees with the pastor over how church should be done. The pastor may want one kind of music, the congregant another. Or the pastor espouses TULIP, the congregant doesn't. Or the pastor wants to lead in seeker sensitive manner, the congregant believes that denies Christ. Or you can turn all those examples around 180 degrees. Then we hear the idea of not touching God's annointed, and finally someone will say to obey them that have authority over you, which means the congregant should just fall in line with the pastor's wishes. I have to admit I just don't see that in the Bible. Rather, I think it teaches us to be Bereans and search the scriptures and see if what is being taught or done is correct. Now, obviously, both pastor and congregant could be totally wrong, or one right and one wrong, or just seeing a non essential differently. It would seem to me rather than just go along to get along, the member should meet with the pastor and discuss the issue. After that, if the member honestly thinks the pastor is all wet AND that the issue is important, wouldn't the member be correct in leaving (without a big fuss) and just going somewhere else where he agrees with what is taught and done? But then, isn't the member of any Baptist church a VOLUNTARY one? How does the pastor gain an authority other than one voluntarily given? What am I missing?