Two Rivers Members Group Sues Sutton

A matter between church members and the pastor? Doesn't the law suit contradict this statement?

It seems some of what they are asking for is private information about members.

 

The lawsuit is unneeded. Plain and simple.

Couple of more thoughts:
1. If they don't like the leadership they can leave the church.
2. As a pastor, as a leader my finances (church wise) are an open book and I have nothing to hide. All leaders should operate this way.
3. The after effects of the SBC takeover need to have a postmortem report done on how the newer leadership has handled themselves in their positions. Lots of scary stories about that.

 

Unfortunately, not all pastors are like you.

I have known more than a few "big name" pastors who shield their compensation information from the membership citing concerns of privacy. Of course, when you discover what they are making, it is often something of a scandal.

Now, I have no problem with pastors and ministers making a good living. I believe that a minister should make about what an average member of the congregation would make in white collar secular employment if they are working about 50 hours a week.

 

I guess Paul's command not to take another believer to court has no standing in these

This is just taking the attack web site to the next logical, though unscriptural, level. They work up a web site, start attacking the Pastor and when that gets nowhere, they bring it to court.:tear:

 

Sad state of affairs.

I'd hate to have to stand in front of God and answer to Him about why I took a brother to court over this. Or why I was part of a minority trying to oust the man God put in this place by the vote of the majority of members. I can't see this as coming out well for anyone.

Btw, our church runs it's finances very similarly to Timsings. If you want to know what is going on, go to the business meetings and participate!

 

They want to know what members tithe so they can compare with the books.
I read some of the comments from church members.

 

Here is another article that gives a few more details as far as the money spent on his daughter's wedding reception and trips that the church footed the bill for.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/NEWS06/708150423

 

Just how does the pastor get this money? In our church the pastor has nothing to do with the money, he can't even sign a check.

 

But if we practiced the "pastor as servant" model that Jesus and the New Testament taught, we wouldn't have the denominational power structures that lock out the rank-and-file Christians, the politicking from the pulpit, and the drive to move from the smaller churches up to the bigger churches for more pay, prestige and power!

 

Sounds like your church has a good perspective on this. If I were still a pastor, I would still refuse to have the ability to spend the church's money or make financial decisions.

The pastor is not in that role to "run the church." The pastor is there to feed the people, provide leadership through proclamation, encouragement, and example, and to minister to the community of faith and those whom God is drawing to Himself.

 

according to the article, the church has 6,800 members....about 900 folk attend an early traditional service, and 680 attend a contemporary service.

6,800 members, and 1,700 in attendance? wow.

 

I wonder if Jerry Sutton was against the resolution at a recent Southern Baptist Convention that churches exercise integrity with their membership rolls and clear the names of "members" who they cannot locate or who have been completely inactive for many years? That resolution was opposed by a number of the so-called "Conservative Resurgence" leaders, and Jerry Sutton is certainly one of those leaders.

 

If anyone is still measuring effectiveness and size of churches by membership role numbers they are vastly mistaken. Week to week attendance and monthly chur averages (how many unique individuals show up from Sunday to Sunday) are the true measure.

Membership processes, in most SBC (and Baptist) churches, needs vital overhauling.

 

So a church is in yet another battle and a liberal wants to take pot shots unrelated to the issue at the Pastor questioning his integrity.

This is sad and should grieve everyone.

 

If this is referring to my posts...

- I'm not "a liberal" by any sane definition.
- The so-called "pot shots" had to do with issues of church leadership and inflated church membership numbers related to the issues at this church, so they are not "unrelated."
- Mr. Sutton is a member of the so-called "Conservative Resurgence" old guard, which has had difficulty with the newer generation of "conservatives" over issues like this, which are related to integrity. If Mr. Sutton was in support of the resolution on integrity in church membership, I'll be happy to apologize.

 

I don't get the "liberal" label. Even if there were "pot-shots" taken...how does that make one "liberal?" I would think that "pot-shotting" is equal-opportunity.

I'm not really dealing with the appropriateness of the thread regarding the pastor...this has to do more with why that gets a "liberal" label. If this thread questioned a liberal pastor in the same way, would that make the questioner a "liberal?"

Back to the thread at hand....Tennessee's larger Baptist churches are having a rough go of it. First Bellevue, now Two Rivers. Sheesh.