Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Jerome, Nov 25, 2012.
Floyd County Times (KY) - Church Members Accuse Pastor of Using Racial Epithets
They need to follow the Matthew 18 principle and who knows, maybe they already have since the article said that the pastor justified his racial slurs.
If I were one of these four people and I had exhausted ethical and/or Biblical means in dealing with this pastor to no avail, I would ask the Lord to guide me and my family elsewhere.
The local church concerned has full authority to solve the problem.
First, exactly what did the pastor say.
Was it taken out of context?
Was the pastor trying to use an example?
Until we know all the facts,.....
Second - why are folks leaving the church?
Sounds like the people of the church should have set down with the pastor under Matt 18
( and possibly they have - the article did not say so one way or the other)
IF that brought no results, then the local association should take action to dis fellowship the church and then make a recommendation to the Commonwealth Convention and the SBC that they also take action to dis fellowship.
I wasn't aware that the Southern Baptist Convention, the state convention, or the local association had any authority in local church matters. Just out of curiosity, suppose the pastor is guilty as charged. Does the church attempt a reconciliation, or do they fire him? And what would justify associational action or state convention action? Shouldn't they steer clear until the church takes action one way or another?
You are correct - the local assoc, commowealth conv, and the SBC have no authority over the local church.
the church should first get all the facts - discuss with the pastor - and if things are not settled, the pastor should resign or be dismissed from the pulpit. The local DOM could be called in at any time for advice. The only offical action the association can do is to disfellowship the local church. The DOM could make a courtsey visit, but should otherwise stay clear until assistance is requeste.
As Saturn stated "The local church concerned has full authority to solve the problem."
The entire claim is suspect at this point. It seems to be only a few and they apparently have not attended for some time according to the pastor. We should be careful not to hold as truth claims such as these without clear and concise evidence.There are two sides here and neither one of them are lining up.
Why did these members have to bring the media into the issue? Evidently someone sent a copy of the letter to the media.
It does sound like the whole story is yet to be revealed.
Reminds me of a woman that I saw storm out of a SS class, when the teacher (male) made a general comment about being opposed to abortion. She literally gathered up her things and slamed the door on her way out. Can you imagine the grief that would have come about, if she'd taken "her side" of the story to news reporters?
SBC President Luter needs to keep his and everyone else's nose out of this churches business. He should not even be commenting other then to say something general like "being mean is bad" or some other much more PR flavored statement.
As to the comments, something tells me there is much more to this story and judgment shouldn't probably be holstered for the time being.
Involving the media is a huge problem. That ignores some essential ideals in both Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 6. We should not be airing our dirty laundry before the world.
Also, as Salty pointed out, context is important. The N-word does have a legitimate meaning and usage. We do not know what else was said, the context in which it was said, and what was done in response.
I am all for biblical accountability using a biblical standard.
Right now it looks like disgruntled members causing problems.
Just as in a divorce case there are three sides, His Hers and the truth. As Sgt. Joe Friday would say "Just want to get the facts".
They don't. The churches all operate autonomously.
As it has been made into a national matter, which it shouldn't have been---makes me wonder who told the story---it may be best for him to step down for a while and attempt to be reconciled to the Church.
This is right up there with sexual sin and all the others when it comes to being beyond reproach as the overseer.
A few simple questions brothers, if those members had approached the Pastor, individually and then with a witness. asked him to step down for the good of the Church, and the Pastor refused, and if the Pastor told them I have the votes then what should they have done?
Should a congregation believe the Pastor when he says I went to the offend and he has no problem with me, yet the member has told other members that he will never set foot in the church as long as the Pastor remains?
What others options did they have as they were told it would not be put to a vote?
What if the Pastor had apologized to one individual for saying the "N" word once. Then upon that member return said it again? Should he not apologize for offending him a second and a third time?
Should a pastor use the "N" word in a joke while delivering his sermon?
Should a pastor name each individual and berate them in front of the Congregation?
Should a Pastor be held to a higher standard or is Hypocrisy accepted in the Church?
The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. —Paul
A racial slur?
There has been posts, too many to count, from pastors, leaders of a local New Testement church, that they would not dare read in front of their congregation on Sunday morning. The suggestions you use as examples above are no worse than some of the posts I have seen.
Pastor apologizes for racial remarks, then lowers the boom on those who spoke up:
But the Rev. Grainger wasn't done: