What would your church do?

[lazarus]

What would your church do in this situation?

New Life members welcome Jones

http://test.denverpost.com/ci_5107908

As soon as the visitor from Denver walked through the church doors Sunday morning, heads turned. Word spread quickly: He was here.

Just about every person who offered him a handshake said the same thing: Welcome, thank you and God bless.

About 14,000 people pour into New Life Church in Colorado Springs each Sunday, so anonymity is not difficult to achieve.

One exception is when you are Mike Jones, the former male prostitute whose allegations of a three-year sexual liaison with church founder Ted Haggard triggered national scandal and led to Haggard's fall.

Jones attended services Sunday at New Life Church on a reconnaissance mission for his forthcoming book and said he was greeted warmly. Haggard, in an apology to the church, had urged members to forgive and thank Jones for exposing deceit.

[Parade Orange]

wow

If Mike Jones received Jesus it would because of the christians he meet thru the Holy Spirit

[Dr. Shane]

If my pastor was gay and his gay lover exposed him, how would my church react to his gay lover visiting the church?

Is that the question?

Hmmmmmm, I know how I would react but not too sure my church would react the same way. I would be friendly to him and probally invite him to my home. Unless he was a known child prediator, then I wouldn't invite him to my home since I have young children. But if he was just gay, I would probbally even be grateful he exposed our pastor.

[gina i]

Shane, you aren't insinuating that gay men are child predators? *scratches head* Sorry, just that sentence threw me off a bit.. Especially when you said 'if he was just gay'..

[Dr. Shane]

There are a lot of gay men that are predators. Anyone remember the Catholic church scandal from a few years ago?

Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia

Quote:

while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations.

However that is not to say the majority of gay men are predators - just a disproportionate number of them are.

[Robert]

Unless he was a known child prediator, then I wouldn't invite him to my home since I have young children. But if he was just gay, I would probbally even be grateful he exposed our pastor.

Send the kids off to a friend and invite him, Shane. Do not discriminate, God doesn't. Sin is sin....Pedophiles need Jesus too!

[John317]

I think this whole question of a gay person being praised because he exposed a gay or bi pastor is wrong. I could expose two men rather high up in SDA administration posts, but I believe it would be wrong. Does everyone here think I ought to call the conferences offices or write e-mails about what those men did? I wouldn't feel right doing that. I am praying for them but I don't plan to expose them. I think it is between them and God. The only time I would feel it is right to expose them is if they raped someone or molested a child. I admit I could be wrong in my thinking about this, however.

Would a church feel the same about their pastor being exposed for a bad temper, selfishness, greed, idolatry, cowardice, deceit, etc.?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Unless he was a known child prediator, then I wouldn't invite him to my home since I have young children. But if he was just gay, I would probbally even be grateful he exposed our pastor.

Send the kids off to a friend and invite him, Shane. Do not discriminate, God doesn't. Sin is sin....Pedophiles need Jesus too!

Of course pedophiles need Jesus too. But not everyone is trained or has adequate experience in dealiing with these kinds of people. There are many people who learned too late the hard way. To invite them into a home where there are children would be naive and very unwise, to say the least.

Pedophilia is about as difficult a thing to change as anything there is. Pedophiles are also some of most manipulative people you will ever meet. They can go years without acting out and then all of a sudden do something when the temptation is presented. They can work for years at getting people's trust or manipulating children to trust them, only to use it in the end in order to commit a crime upon a young person. In the meantime they can appear to be converted and deep into evangelism and other work for the church. Unfortunately, you have to assume they will always be a pedophile.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

I could expose two men rather high up in SDA administration posts, but I believe it would be wrong. Does everyone here think I ought to call the conferences offices or write e-mails about what those men did? I wouldn't feel right doing that. I am praying for them but I don't plan to expose them. I think it is between them and God.

Wouldn't that cause a mess!

You are right, John. It is nobody else's business. They can thank their lucky stars that you are a man of character!

~d.allan

[Woody]

I think this whole question of a gay person being praised because he exposed a gay or bi pastor is wrong. I could expose two men rather high up in SDA administration posts, but I believe it would be wrong. Does everyone here think I ought to call the conferences offices or write e-mails about what those men did? I wouldn't feel right doing that. I am praying for them but I don't plan to expose them. I think it is between them and God. The only time I would feel it is right to expose them is if they raped someone or molested a child. I admit I could be wrong in my thinking about this, however.

Would a church feel the same about their pastor being exposed for a bad temper, selfishness, greed, idolatry, cowardice, deceit, etc.?

The answer to your question depends upon how we view our members and Pastors. Do we feel we have to sit in judgement of other Christians? The Church Manual seems to say we do. We kick member out for much less than what you have described.

How holy do we expect our pastors and leaders to be. Are they without sin? OR Do we allow sin but just not the "big" ones ? Personally I relate better with a sinful Pastor who "knows the ropes" and has had to deal with sin. If he admits that he struggles with sin then I can benefit from his examples of victory and coping. It is the "holier than thou" ones that I would like to have reported and deported.

Ellen White say "The names of those who sin and refuse to repent should not be retained on the church books" 5BC 1096 Letter 215 ... 1902

I think this is where the church currently stands on the issue.

[Taylor]

I think the problem is that when people are taken off the church books, we treat them like they have the plague instead of surrounding them with love. The church is not a country club for saints but a hospital for sinners.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Does everyone here think I ought to call the conferences offices or write e-mails about what those men did?

If my pastor or any leader in my church was committing adultery, heterosexual or homosexual, I would feel obligated to tell their wife. I don't know if I would feel obligated to tell the conference. Perhaps I would. If a man's own wife cannot trust him, the church probably shouldn't put much trust in him either.

If he is a single paster, then I would be a different set of circumstances.

[Bravus]

Just a note that a pedophile who prays on boys is not the same as a gay person: the two categories shouldn't be confused with one another. It is true that while only about 3% of adults are gay, about a third of pedophiles prey on boys rather than girls, but the adult gay men are not the same group as the pedophiles. For this reason it is unfair to worry excessively about children in the presence of gay men. On the other hand, it is crucial for parents to be appropriately careful with the situations they place their children in around *all* men, including friends and family. It's horrifying that about a third of girls and about a quarter of boys are sexually abused in some way, and extra parental vigilance and just commonsense precautions could cut down on that significantly.

[Dr. Shane]

Their are different types of gays, if we want to categorize them as such, just as their are different types of heterosexuals. There are those that are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, others that are sexually attracted to post-pubescent adolescents, others that are sexually attracted to other adults and, of course some that are sexually attracted to more than one of these groups. This is true of homos and hetros alike. So just because someone is "out of the closet" or married doesn't make them safe.

[lazarus]

Quote:

I could expose two men rather high up in SDA administration posts, but I believe it would be wrong. Does everyone here think I ought to call the conferences offices or write e-mails about what those men did? I wouldn't feel right doing that. I am praying for them but I don't plan to expose them. I think it is between them and God.

Wouldn't that cause a mess!

You are right, John. It is nobody else's business. They can thank their lucky stars that you are a man of character!

~d.allan

To expose whatever they did does not necessarily mean than you would not be a man of character. I have worked with a priest who exposed his abuser 30 years after the fact. It may have helped other victims to come forward and deal with their pain. It may have also protected other children who would have been abused.

Because some churches at some times have failed to handle disciplinary issues properly, it should not prevent us from dealing with issues of discipline in the church. The church suffers when we do not hold our members accountable. The church also suffers when we don't love them as we hold them accountable.

[Beryl]

Quote:

It is nobody else's business. They can thank their lucky stars that you are a man of character!

It IS somebody else's business. If a pastor is committing adultery, or other sexual sins, then he MUST be brought to account. The same applies to laypersons who hold senior offices in the church.

God is not honoured when these things are let pass by as "nobody's business". For a pastor or senior layperson to be defiantly sinning, that is a disgrace to the church, and is also going against Biblical principles. Remember the man in 1 Corinthians 5 who was sinning against God (sexually) and the church did nothing about it? What did Paul do -- he held the whole church to account. The man was disfellowshipped -- and as a result of that, we find in 2 Corinthians that he took notice, repented, and returned to the church. It was the salvation of his soul.

For a situation like this it is vital that the name of the church be upheld. The pastor would be of no use in leading that church -- for the sake of the congregation he must be exposed. Also for the sake of God's honour in the community.

If that person is in your church -- and you KNOW what is happening -- DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT TODAY!

Beryl

[John317]

Quote:

I could expose two men rather high up in SDA administration posts, but I believe it would be wrong. Does everyone here think I ought to call the conferences offices or write e-mails about what those men did? I wouldn't feel right doing that. I am praying for them but I don't plan to expose them. I think it is between them and God.

Wouldn't that cause a mess!

You are right, John. It is nobody else's business. They can thank their lucky stars that you are a man of character!~d.allan

John 8: 1-11 is also something that needs to be considered-- the woman caught in adultery. Also the fact that Jesus knew what an evil man Judas was, yet Jesus never exposed him but rather treated him with dignity and respect. In other words, Jesus practiced the golden rule, even with people who did not deserve it.

[lazarus]

Jesus had deep compassion for those in sin. He also passionately exposed hypocricy. He held people accountable. Matthew 18:15-22 gives us the process and 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 give us an example.

If you accept EGW reflections on Judas you will know that he was not an "evil man" per se. She indicates that he would have been considered to be one of the greatest disciples if he had not rejected the final appeal of Jesus at the last supper.

Church discipline must be carried out under the leading of the Holy Spirit but it must be exercised. It may include exposing someone.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

To expose whatever they did does not necessarily mean than you would not be a man of character. I have worked with a priest who exposed his abuser 30 years after the fact. It may have helped other victims to come forward and deal with their pain. It may have also protected other children who would have been abused.

In John317's case, "abuse" was not involved. "Consenting adults" as they say.

"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone."

Any sin. Even self-righteousness? Faultfinding?

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians (2nd time?) he told them to go and bring that brother back into the church. He felt they had punished him enought or maybe too much. Today in these cases I've never heard of the church seeing out a person they and disfellowshipped and welcoming him back into their loving forgiving arms. Not once!

[Beryl]

Yes, I have seen that happen. The person was not "disfellowshipped" but put under 6 months "detention" -- stripped of office, etc. There was repentance, acceptance of church discipline, and that person was re-instated at the end of the 6 months, and is still in the church and is a great church worker. It took discipline to bring her to her senses.

Read your church manual regarding church discipline. It is essential, but must be administered with love.

Beryl

[Woody]

Quote:

For a situation like this it is vital that the name of the church be upheld

The name of the church? Are you saying that those in attendance are without sin? The church I attend is full of sinners. My church welcomes sinners. It is a hospital for sinners. If you are a saint ... I would not want to associate with you. I prefer associating with sinners like myself. I find courage, hope and direction in the company of sinners who are heavenbound. The Bible and Ellen White are clear about the Wheat and the Tares growing together until the harvest. They are both to have full advantage of the sun. If we try to uproot the ones we suppose to be tares we will uproot the Wheat.

To say that you have to uphold some kind of pious reputation in the community really bothers me. Could you further explain how you maintain this image in the commnunity. Jesus said we should call SIN by its name but not to call the sinner evil. It is the SIN that is evil. Let us point out SIN but not make it pesonal by calling out the sinner.

It is an impossible task to try to maintain a pure image of the church when it is full of sinners. So why would you try?

I don't think I would be welcome in your church.

Ellen White and the church manual says that all church members who hold ANY type of church office must be faithful tithe payers. Is your church one of those that actually enforce this belief? Do you have a tithe squad enforcer committee.

Ellen White says that Tithe paying is a "test of heavenly fellowship". Does your church actually believe this? It sounds like it must. But I would like to hear about how successful your enforcement measures are. Do you have regular disciplinary meetings? Do you have big turnovers with the church offices. OR do the members tow the line out of fear?

I would just say that I prefer a church that says " He without sin cast the first stone". Because if you commit ONE sin ... You are guilty of all and in the need of the blood of Christ.

[John317]

Jesus had deep compassion for those in sin. He also passionately exposed hypocricy. He held people accountable. Matthew 18:15-22 gives us the process and 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 give us an example.

I agree totally with that process. But that process does not call for individuals who are just as guilty as a leader to come forward with accusations. I feel I would be in the same position as those men who got the woman in trouble and then wanted her stoned.

Those men are not hypocrites in my judgment, nor, I believe, in the eyes of God. They are not pretending to be something they are not. They were struggling with sin and temptation, like everyone is. It was my fault they sinned. One of them told me a few years later that he had overcome that sin. God wants me to pray for them.

Quote:

If you accept EGW reflections on Judas you will know that he was not an "evil man" per se. She indicates that he would have been considered to be one of the greatest disciples if he had not rejected the final appeal of Jesus at the last supper.

He was never converted and was in fact possessed by a demon the whole time he walked with Jesus. He was no more evil as a man than any of the rest of us. It's just that Judas never gave his life to Christ. He always kept a hold of some sins and never gave them up. He betrayed Christ the same way any of us would have had we been in Judas's shoes. Jesus knew Judas would betray Him, and He knew that Judas was stealing money, yet Jesus never "outed" him. He showed how God treats sinners.

Quote:

Church discipline must be carried out under the leading of the Holy Spirit but it must be exercised. It may include exposing someone.

Yes, I agree, but I find it more than a bit peculiar that everyone seems to want sexual sins exposed. I am wondering if they would have the same intense conviction that we should expose someone's sins of dishonesty, greed, selfishness, and lack of Christian love. I have a feeling those would be passed over as less in need of radical action by the church. To me, that is hypocritical, don't you agree? It is pretending to be righteous because we don't commit certain sins-- in this case, sexual ones-- but we might be just as guilty or more so before God because we think we're OK being unloving, unforgiving, etc.

I agree that a pastor who is committing the kinds of sins we're talking about should not be in his position. That is why I'm not a pastor today, and I'm glad I made that decision. God has helped me in overcoming those sins the last few yeas but it took years of struggle, immersing myself in God's word, and prayer--my own but especially those offered by a lot of godly people.

[John317]

Yes, I have seen that happen. The person was not "disfellowshipped" but put under 6 months "detention" -- stripped of office, etc. There was repentance, acceptance of church discipline, and that person was re-instated at the end of the 6 months, and is still in the church and is a great church worker. It took discipline to bring her to her senses.

Read your church manual regarding church discipline. It is essential, but must be administered with love. Beryl

I agree with you. Anyone should be, and is, welcome to worship and attend Sabbath School, but that is something entirely different from holding church office and being a member of the church. Those are not open for just anyone. There are reasonable, Biblical qualifications to be met. We don't want to become like the Catholic-- universal-- Church which allows virtually everyone in.

The popular churches primarly care about attracting as many members as possible. They are centers of entertainment. That is one of the characteristics of Babylon, as portrayed in Revelation. Babylon is faithful to the world but unfaithful to Christ and His word. Babylon doesn't miss or want the spirit of prophecy because it has the pope, who claims the power to speak in the place of Christ. It cares almost nothing about whether a person is converted to Christ but only if the person is willing to submit to false worship and false doctrines. It finds people in sin and it leaves them there. It doesn't teach them that there is a Savior in the Heavenly Sanctuary with power to save them from their sins. To do that would cause them to lose their popularity with the world. In some ways, I'm afraid I see our church starting to follow down that same wide highway. No doubt we all can guess where that leads.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: D. Allan

Quote:

I could expose two men rather high up in SDA administration posts, but I believe it would be wrong. Does everyone here think I ought to call the conferences offices or write e-mails about what those men did? I wouldn't feel right doing that. I am praying for them but I don't plan to expose them. I think it is between them and God.

Wouldn't that cause a mess!

You are right, John. It is nobody else's business. They can thank their lucky stars that you are a man of character!

~d.allan

To expose whatever they did does not necessarily mean than you would not be a man of character. I have worked with a priest who exposed his abuser 30 years after the fact. It may have helped other victims to come forward and deal with their pain. It may have also protected other children who would have been abused.

Because some churches at some times have failed to handle disciplinary issues properly, it should not prevent us from dealing with issues of discipline in the church. The church suffers when we do not hold our members accountable. The church also suffers when we don't love them as we hold them accountable.

I don't have any disagreement with anything you say here, but I would like to add a few comments. None of the men I was referring to had anything to do with abusing children. You can be sure if they had been doing that, I would have reported it, because it's taking advantage of kids.

I think if we showed more love towards people in the church before the church needs to discipline them, they might never need such discipline to start with.

Do you think people would be equally interested in my "outing" someone for other sins besides sexual ones? For instance, what if I said I could report a church leader for greed, idolatry, lying, selfishness, lack of Christian love? I'm not saying sexual sins are not terrible sins-- just that those other sins are just as bad, yet they are often made to seem not quite so serious somehow.

[Beryl]

Quote:

I agree, but I find it more than a bit peculiar that everyone seems to want sexual sins exposed. I am wondering if they would have the same intense conviction that we should expose someone's sins of dishonesty, greed, selfishness, and lack of Christian love.

I think that perhaps there is a difference. We all agree that none of us are perfect -- and a long way off. We are all sinners -- and sin is sin, however trivial or bad it is. However, I do believe that there are differences, not only in the extent of sin, but also depending upon a person's position of leadership.

Sexual sins are more often exposed simply because it is something tangible. I believe that the person is just as guilty if they spend hours viewing child pornography -- the difference being that it can be a "secret sin" which only becomes an "open sin" when that person begins to put what they have watched into practice.

There are several steps that should be taken when a person becomes aware of someone's "open sin" (whatever that sin may be,let's say stealing from the church's funds as treasurer) and I believe that we have that outlined in what Christ told His disciples (Matthew 18:15-17)

Christ's instruction to the disciples were that:-

(1) they were go and speak to the person (let's say, for instance, the treasurer) personally -- just the 2 of them. This gives the opportunity for the treasurer to be convicted by the Holy Spirit, confess his sin, be forgiven, and the matter ends there. No-one else needs to know.

(2) If the treasurer refuses to accept the counsel of -- let's say, the elder, then that elder should confide in one or two others -- fellow elders?, the pastor? -- and then they should all approach the treasurer, and work with him, pray with him, do what they can to persuade him to confess his sins and start afresh.

(3)If he refuses to accept their combined counsel, together with the working of the Holy Spirit on his heart, then, in the words of Matthew 18:17, "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church".

(4)If, in face of all this, and the counsel of the church, then Christ gave the instruction, "if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." In other words, remove him from his position, and place him under church discipline. That is the instruction -- not from an apostle -- but from Christ Himself. And Christ has a one-track mind when He is dealing with people -- that of their eventual salvation. We can do no more than follow in His steps.

And, incidently, that person should not be placed in temptation's way again by later offering him back the church treasurer's position. That would be stupid. After all, he is human!

Beryl