Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

Excommunication according to the MINUTES. I need clarity.
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Excommunication according to the MINUTES. I need clarity. Bro Bob
If at all possible I would appreciate it if this could be confined to our collective understanding(s) of what the rules actually are, as expressed by the General Assembly.

A topic came up here just less than a year ago, IIRC, regarding the application of the following, which apparently was approved by the 2006 General Assembly.


Quote:
V. PROCEDURE IN DEALING WITH MEMBER
If a member who is not a minister shall be charged with any
offense which makes it necessary to deal with the member, formal
charges in writing shall be given to the member not less than three
days (when practical) prior to the time and place of the meeting.
The member shall have a right to be heard and offer corroborating
testimony at the meeting. Further, the charges shall be heard and a
decision rendered by the local church and pastorís council or (if a
church does not have a pastorís council or board of elders) by the
male members who are present at the meeting and in good standing
with the church. Disciplinary options include but are not limited to:
official reprimand, restitution, censure, restrictions, and, where nec-
essary, excommunication.
In those cases in which he deems it in the best interests of the
local church to do so, the state/regional overseer shall have the
authority to excommunicate an unruly or uncooperative member
without a formal hearing. A member disfellowshipped by a state/
regional overseer shall have the right to appeal to the International
Executive Committee within 10 days of the written notice of the over-
seerís action. The decision of the International Executive Committee
is final, with no further recourse for appeal by the member. The local
church must remove the memberís name from the membership roll
when notified of the action by the state overseer (71st A. 2006, p. 48 ).



The first part of the first paragraph was the previous language, and the rest in blue italics was added.

I have several questions regarding this.

Q1) Do any of you who were in attendance recall this item actually being presented? Was there any discussion or did it go through quickly?

Q2) All prior language on topic used the term "excluded" or "dis-fellowshipped" when referring to such a member. Does anyone know what we mean by "excommunicated?" Is it the dictionary definition? Does it mean they can not take communion and that we won't wash their feet? (Not being facetious. I'd just like to know.)

Q3) What do we do if they continue to come to church and merely remain silent or not attend business meetings? Do we call the police? Do we stop the service until they remove themselves?

Q4) When it says they can appeal to the IEC, can the IEC decide to let the ruling stand without actually hearing the appeal? (You can appeal (ask to be heard) and we have to acknowledge that we received your request, but we do not have to make a charge against you or let you speak or present witnesses on your own behalf.)

Q5) Is it our belief (like the Catholic Church if my understanding is correct) that an excommunicated member is a lost soul bound for hell? Or is he our brother, with whom we do not associate so that he may be ashamed?

.........................

And on a parallel question, related, but not the one addressed above regarding the State or regional overseer, (not to be confused with a District overseer) is there anything at all in the MINUTES that would allow a pastor the authority to remove any member without charge, and without the approval of either the church and pastor's council, or the male members in attendance at a church conference / business meeting?

Simply put, can a pastor do this on his own?

Oh, I almost forgot. I have only heard of the one case in south Georgia. Do any of you know of any other excommunications under the 2006 provision?

I sincerely appreciate your thoughts,

BB


Last edited by Bro Bob on 8/12/11 8:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3874
8/12/11 7:57 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
Good one Tom, now you owe me an honest opinion. Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3874
8/12/11 8:03 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
I don't understand. 151 views. Someone made it a sticky. And not one serious response to any single question.

Is it boring? Surely I don't intimidate the whole bunch! Are the questions that hard? Or would we rather just not face the reality?

Tom asks much deeper questions and gets plenty of response. (Is Tom not the same thing to Cleveland that Al Graham was to the South Georgia AB?)

.........................

Stan Holder stood in our pulpit on Jan 21st, 2007 and told how great his joy was in receiving BACK into fellowship a woman who had been "turned out" of the church decades before for being seen sitting at a bus stop outside a theatre that no one saw her go into or come out of.

Where is the Stan Holder for Bro Daugherty? Why has there not been someone with hat in hand to come to his steps and formally apologize and repent for the wrong done him? What if it were YOU!!! ? If you cut Doyle, does he not bleed?

Why are we like sharks with blood in the water when it comes to "dealing with an unruly member" (one who will not shut up when he is right and the "leader" is wrong?)

Why have I not been excommunicated? Is it because of who my dad was or who his dad was?

Why has Tom Sterbens and Travis Johnson not been excommunicated?

They are only trying to get Cleveland to face what the layman in South Georgia was trying to get his leaders to face.

Even if the outcome you seek is righteous, getting there by deception or heavy-handedness is too great a price to pay for any gain.

...............

So one question at a time.

Are there any readers here, who pastor a church of god, where faithful members paid your way to San Antonio in 2006 that recall these significant changes to church polity even being discussed?

Somebody pretend to be a man and tell us, what was the discussion like? These were major changes! Prior to this change, church disciplinary conferences included women. Yet "Women in leadership 2010" notwithstanding, now they only participate if they are on the church and pastor's council. What a joke!

Is there a witness? Surely the MINUTES did not change so drastically in the edit room only.

(edited to change 'bus top' to 'bus stop', for some reason it took three tries to add the s)


Last edited by Bro Bob on 8/13/11 9:50 pm; edited 3 times in total
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3874
8/13/11 3:17 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
Sorry I can't help you Bro Bob. I have no idea. I sincerely hope I never am called to excommunicate or disfellowship anyone. It's bad enough when people just leave on their own. Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 12405
8/13/11 3:24 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
You have the heart of a good shepherd quiet wyatt. Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3874
8/13/11 3:34 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
Thanks for the kind words, Bob.

(Then again, I have sometimes been thoroughly relieved when some folks left).

But I am serious when I say I hope I never have to officially seek to disfellowship anyone. I realize it may be necessary in some extreme cases.
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 12405
8/13/11 4:04 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Truman here Truman Smith
I don't remember even reading this as a proposal to be brought to the GA. And certainly don't remember anyone even talking about it at all . Wish I could help but just don't know anything about it . God bless . T Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1073
8/13/11 4:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
Thanks for the response, Truman.

Someone here said they recalled it being on the agenda but did not recall it ever being discussed or voted on.

It would be a sad state of affairs indeed, if such a dramatic change was snuck in without proper discourse and discussion. It would be criminal in my opinion if it became part of the church polity if it was never even voted on.

I admit I am thoroughly opposed to the idea in every way that I can be. I am prejudiced. Biased. There is nothing biblical about it. Even when his trial began as he was questioned by the high priest, "Tell us who your friends are, and what your doctrine is." Jesus responded by declaring that he did nothing in secret. That there were plenty of witnesses and they should ask them. Then a guard "smote him", and beguiled him for "speaking to the high priest in this manner". Jesus responded by laying forth a fundamental principal: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smightest thou me?"

The idea of "excommunicating" a member without charge, without a chance for both sides to be heard is foreign to me as a Christian, and repulsive to me as a product of American culture. Is wicked America more just than the Church of God? God forbid!

Since I can find no witness, I am more than a little suspicious as to the means of this becoming proper practice in the Church of God.

...................

So, let's move on to the 2nd question:

Q2) All prior language on topic used the term "excluded" or "dis-fellowshipped" when referring to such a member. Does anyone know what we mean by "excommunicated?" Is it the dictionary definition? Does it mean they can not take communion and that we won't wash their feet? (Not being facetious. I'd just like to know.)

The official position I have read about the Catholic church says that they do not condemn a person to hell when they excommunicate them. They say any person who has committed an act ( and they list them) worthy of excommuncation has chosen hell, and they merely recognize the choice.

Never-the-less, they pretty much own the term. And they are unambiguous about the eternal fate of anyone who dies excommunicado.

Do we concur? Jesus was repeatedly condemned for eating with publicans and sinners. Would Jesus eat with Al Graham? Would YOU? If I fly down to Baxley and take Al Graham out to lunch, if I bring communion wafers and grape juice, am I in disharmony with my church?

The phrase was new to the Church of God in 2006, and is unique to this one spot in the MINUTES. What is the definition as we use it?

It is a fair question. If I had chosen it, I could certainly tell you what I mean by it.

Now I will await another answer I know is not coming.

BB
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3874
8/13/11 7:59 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Carolyn Smith
Bro. Bob - Clearly, you are distressed about this and need some answers. I don't know anything about it nor about the situation in S GA that you speak of.

I would suggest you go to the COG Leadership web page at http://www.churchofgod.org/leadership/ and write to the general officials there. All of their e-mail addresses are listed. Bill Isaacs (who was on the Executive Council) is on FB as are other officials. Send them a private message. Surely someone there would be willing to help you find the answers you are seeking or find the person who could help you.

Just a thought...
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5327
8/13/11 10:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Judah4Him
I enjoy trusting my pastors & leaders. I've not heard of anyone in recent years being removed from membership that didn't FULLY deserve such. Friendly Face
Posts: 467
8/14/11 2:26 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
Caroline I have given a lot of thought to your advice. I highly respect your opinions and your knowledge.

However, I am not inclined to bother Bro Isaacs about it. Nor am I inclined to send a separate letter to each member of the IEC.

But I value your advice and your opinion. And therefore I am considering send a snail mail inquiry to Bro Culpepper.

I don't expect to find a favorable hearing. After all, I am on record and resolute that this process is un-biblical, and that the language affirming the right to appeal still did not give any opportunity for the member to hear charges against him nor respond in any way. He simply sent in the request to appeal, and they sent back a letter saying they agreed with the decision of the overseer.

But Bro Culpepper does bear the duty by virtue of his office of rendering decisions on the meanings and applications of MINUTE language. Unless overruled by the governing body, his interpretation of the MINUTES would be law.

For the record, I have asked:

Richard Acray, my Sunday school class teacher, a layman who has taught Bible classes at Camp meetings,
R. Gene Hodo, my dad, who counted Harold and Wick Garner (one of Bro Garner's first cousins) as one of life's dearest friends.
EJ Reynolds, who has served as pastor of some of the CoGs most prominent churches and served as State Overseer, and has also pastored the Baxley Ga CoG where both of the excommunicated laymen "served the church admirably".

I have also asked TV Burroughs, my former pastor and current pastor emeritus at my church, a man for whom Bro Garner's father had great admiration and mutual respect. ( I think he was known as 'General Garner', although I don't know if that was a given name or nickname).

I have not talked to Charles Tyre, but I have talked to Al Graham, who has had nothing but good things to say about Ray Garner.

NOT ONE OF THESE MEN have a clue what the General Assembly meant by the phrase "excommunication". Not one of them recall any discussion on this change at the 2006 General Assembly nor at any time since then. All of them said this was a provision in the MINUTES that they would not be a part of under any circumstances!

If I were inclined to be a respecter of persons, or critical of individuals, as two of my responders continually accuse me of, I would be inclined, as they are, to defer to the action taken by Bro Garner as unquestionably righteous.

It is my assertion that the more righteous Bro Garner is, and the more wicked Al Graham is, the more the matter ought to have been dealt with in strict adherence to Holy Scripture, to which the previous polity was completely faithful.

If Bro Graham has done wrong, we owe it to him and to the rest of the church to show him his wrong. If he has a counter claim that his pastor usurped authority reserved for the local congregation at Baxley, Ga. then we owe it to that pastor and that church, to correct their error also.

I am not saying Bro Garner was outside his authority under the current provisions. I am saying whoever and however that language got into the MINUTES in the first place was outside of THEIRS. That is something that even Bro Culpepper cannot cure today. But the IEC could have given the matter a full and complete hearing.

Caroline, you judge me correctly when you observe that this distresses me and that I need some answers.

The fact that neither you nor Tom nor Travis, nor Bro Park, nor Mike Chapman, nor any of those men I listed earlier can answer them is all the proof anyone should need of what a mess these current provisions are.

Tom continues to plead with leadership to keep their word, and to obey the General Assembly. Please stop concealing what you do. And now we have taken exclusion of members into those same back rooms.

We are gone away backwards.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3874
8/14/11 5:50 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Judah4Him
Bro Graham cussed on the radio talking about his church and pastor--- "admirable"??

Hmm... Don't understand your dog in this fight I guess.

Rolling Eyes
Friendly Face
Posts: 467
8/14/11 7:05 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
It was Brother Reynolds who said the men served the church admirably. He was their pastor. I guess you can take it up with him.

The first time Al Graham called me, (he had read the things I had written here) the first thing he said was that he deeply regretted his use of offensive language. Taken in the context in which it was said I did not consider it to even be sin, but in the Southern U.S.A. it was a very poor choice of words and especially poor timing.

I know others disagree. And their feelings are honestly and deeply held and I respect their view. Just as I respect a view that total abstinence is such a good idea that the Bible should have taught it.

If his choice of words was unpardonable for you, then I pray you never find out about some of the things that I regret, and have repented and asked mercy and forgiveness for.

But those who would hold that his use of the words "don't give a damn" justify us damning his soul to hell with excommunication, makes me wonder how long it would have taken us to excommunicate Peter.

The reason you don't understand my dog in this fight is because you don't understand that I don't HAVE a human dog in this fight. It is not about Al Graham or about Ray Garner. A proper trial of Al Graham in front of the people who selected him may well have ended up with a similar result or some lesser rebuke. Or he might have been exonerated. I don't know.

I strongly expect that it would have included some charges from him of the pastor conducting business that required the congregation's approval that was never duly obtained. And again, I don't know what the findings of the church would have been, because I do not know the facts.

One thing seems to be certain: This was a discussion that neither the state office nor Cleveland was willing to put before the congregation at Baxley, Ga.


My dog in this fight is the very idea that we have a high priest in the Church of God who can do the things written in blue in the original post in this thread. And that at the Vatican in Cleveland they will back up the priest every time without ever even hearing the other side.

That method is not who we are in the Church of God. At least I hope it's not. It didn't used to be.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3874
8/14/11 10:38 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The COG Apostle
I talked with a former member of the Council of 18 about the measure in question. This measure came to the General Council in 2006 from the Council of 18 to give greater clarity and definition to the church member discipline issue in the local church. The part concerning the right of State Overseer's excommunicating members was written for extreme cases of unruly or uncooperative members who, if brought before a church conference would do more damage to the church than already exists.

The language usage of the word "excommunicate" is a legal term that Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines simply as "removing from church membership". This is all the Church of God understands this to be. The rest of the language in the measure is self- explanatory. This measure was passed overwhelmingly by the 2006 General Council with little debate and then passed overwhelmingly by the 2006 General Assembly with little debate, with some laymen expressing appreciation for it. In short it followed all due process.
Belt Jerker
Posts: 514
8/15/11 2:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post no surprise Judah4Him
I honestly had no doubt it was passed with proper procedures. Cleveland has its share of politics and secrets, but at the end of the day, our leaders are good men. Our pastors are good men. They deserve our trust.

I've never known this Council or EC to try to hoo-doo us...sure they are struggling to slowly break down long-lived traditions and barriers---and probably not moving at a pace fast enough for some of us, but they are good men.

We could all use to trust our pastors and leaders more. It's never the duty or the responsibility of a lay person to be a self-proclaimed watchdog, for what that's worth.

Trust and obey...for there's no other way...

Wink
Friendly Face
Posts: 467
8/15/11 2:42 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
Someone had already sent me a copy of the agenda, but they did not recall it actually coming up. My gratitude to COG apostle for his inquiry of the C of 18 member and input.

Not arguing with you or him at all, but it seems strange to me that we would switch our terminology intentionally, but not change what we meant by it. And further, to go to the new term, 'excommunication' at the exact same time that we gave this pope-like power of applying it into the hands of the AB. ABs and popes are infallible. I mean, we've never had to discipline an AB, have we?

If it means nothing more than removed from the membership roll, then I am much less stressed over it. If it does not mean we esteem and pronounce them to be hell bound by our action, I am much less stressed. If we are not saying that their only path to heaven is to come back through a single human, admitting wrong when they can identify no wrong through honest prayerful self examination, then I am much less stressed.

I sincerely hope your c of 18 member is spot on.

I wish I could say with judah4him that I had no doubt that it had not been slipped through somehow, legally, but deceptively. I regrettably confess that my trust, a trust that was more alive than his when I was 12, is not nearly as strong today. Too many years, too many abuses of my brethren, whether layman or licensed. I don't differentiate much between the two.

Tom, as to your inquiry about excommunication being a current issue, I am unaware of anyone in threat of it today, unless it is you or Travis. Cool

More seriously, and more honestly, I have received more news this week from Baxley that concerns me deeply.

I know what it feels like to be excommunicated without a charge, and when my actions were absolutely respectable. It wasn't a church thing. But I know what it is to see people stop talking when you approach, struggle to smile, and then be relieved when you continue on your way. Not knowing and not comfortable with whether you are saint or sinner.

When I see this in the church it makes me ache to my core. Even the Catholic church takes the position that excommunication is their last hope to get the person to seek restoration.

If I don't reach out to a brother, even if he has erred grievously, then who will? I detest what happened to Bro White and Bro Daugherty. There is no way I could go through 4 years as presiding bishop without making that right. You are aware that neither of them were mere laymen, right?

....................

If y'all will bear with me, I'd like to know if there has been any other applications of AB initiated, no charge / no trial excommunications, (or membership revocations if I am allowed to choose the terminology,) other than one one of Bro Graham and Bro Tyre. I'll keep any PMs confidential if that helps.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3874
8/15/11 5:02 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post theElder
Brother, if I know anything it is that the more you mull over and stress about a situation that has troubled you, the worse you will feel about that situation.

Perhaps you are right in every thought you have about how the situation was handled. Perhaps Graham was in the right and AB Garner totally in the wrong.

I know neither man so my opinion about them is worthless.

But I do know you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a place where you don't need to go.

I've read all your posts concerning this and it seems to me you are more bitter and less trusting today than you were the last time you brought the subject up. I suspect that bitterness and doubt will continue to grow unless you are able to let this thing go.

I have seen too many instances where someone was wronged and folks who were not even involved took offense because of what was done to the individual. I've seen those folks leave the church and, in some instances, they no longer attend any church and seem to have backslid.

I'm not saying you are or are going to backslid but I would caution you about taking on offense for what you think happened to another. We have enough of our own troubles to deal with. We don't need someone elses.

Be blessed, brother.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1926
8/16/11 1:39 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
The COG Apostle wrote:
[color=darkblue]I talked with a former member of the Council of 18 about the measure in question. This measure came to the General Council in 2006 from the Council of 18 to give greater clarity and definition to the church member discipline issue in the local church. The part concerning the right of State Overseer's excommunicating members was written for extreme cases of unruly or uncooperative members who, if brought before a church conference would do more damage to the church than already exists.


IMO, this provision has the potential to do much more damage. Churches should be extremely careful to go by what the Bible says when excommunicating someone. The instructions we have on it include the church in the process. In Matthew 18, when there is a personal offense between one person and another, the offending party has a chance to 'hear the church' as the final step. After this, Jesus talks about the power of binding and loosing and 'where two or three of you are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of you."

In I Corinthians, a man was in blatant immorality, one might argue, and not a personal sin against another individual in the church. In that case, the man was to be brought before the church when they were gathered and the power of the Lord Jesus was present.

We see two common elements here. The discipline was given at the gathering of the church. When saints were gathered, the power of the Lord Jesus was present. Doesn't excommunicating rest on the power of the Lord Jesus? If the power of binding and loosing decisions made in heaven is associated with the gathering of the church, and Paul instructed the Corinthian Christians to deliver a man over to Satan when they were gathered and Christ's power was present, why would anyone suggest not having the church involved in such a process?

From a practical perspective, how can we expect the members of the church not to eat with a person and not to associate with him if the matter isn't dealt with before the church? If someone is kicked out by a church official secretly in some corner somewhere else, will the church even know about it? If they don't participate in the process, how can we expect to have the church's buy-in? Politically, having some leader way up in another city expel someone from the church isn't good for morale or unity either.

I can find local shepherds, elders who tend the flock, in scripture. I can't find these denominational leadership roles. Does it make sense to say that the power of excommunication is given to someone operating in such a role? Do we have any reason to believe, from scripture, that God will endorse back up such excommunication? If we follow Matthew 18, we have reason to believe the decisions made in heaven will be manifested on the earth, but if we just make up our own method of excommunication that doesn't line up with the word of God, why should we assume God endorses it?

Keep in mind that excommunication is a serious thing. It involves not having fellowship/communion with an individual. That includes not communing over Holy Communion with them. Cutting someone off from communion wrongly is a serious issue. Paul said that many Corinthians were sick and many had fallen asleep over the issue. How can bringing a matter before the church be more damaging to the church than creating an unbiblical system of excommunication? If the saints shall judge angels, can't they get involved in messy situations like that occur when the church functions as a court? Isn't that part of the training ground God has us on? If Paul wanted elders who sinned rebuked publicly, so that all may fear, doesn't that imply that church court situations serve to teach people to live right?
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11103
8/16/11 2:26 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Truman here Truman Smith
Let me shed some light on this matter . If a member has done something so bad that her/she should be disfellowshiped from the church It is hard to do it in the USA . Many are looking for a reason to sue, one MUST be cautious in such matters . When a pastor commits adultery The stateoverseer cannot tell the church why he is being removed . He can tell them how long he will be away from the pulpit and that they can check the Minutes to see what type of offence he is being charged with . The pastor and State offices and HDq. can be sued BIG TIME .
Now on a member being tried One would not want to expose a great family to a lot of open shame for one wayward family member . One church I pastored we had a large family and the Mother I was told would go to bed with about anyone and some of the Brothers wanted to know , " what are you ( meaning Me ) going to do about it "? I replied " nothing" .I SAID A SON AND HIS FAMILY ARE COMING AND GROWING IN THE LORD AND THREE FINE DAUGHTERS ARE COMING TO CHURCH AND I AM NOT GOING TO DESTROY THIS FAMILY . I don't know about the son but the daughters are still in the COG working with their husbands and children and even some grandchildren . The situation died down and the family was spared a lot of trouble .
One other thing In this good ole Usa of America , the Christians have such a low respect for the church it doesn't matter what you try to do to discipline a member they will not stand for it . They will leave you in a hearbeat and go right down the st

reet and another pastor will receive them into fellowship and tell the person how right they are in coming and joining them and how wrong they were being treated regardless of what they were involved in .


Many times the best thing to do is to simply ask the person , " Have you ever thought about going to another church"? And they will usually say , " Yes I have ". Then you can say , " I think it has come to the time when you must do that"> Now I know that this is a long way from what the Bible states that should be done , But times have changed and the church world has changed also . If a waywarfd member would accept the corrections of the church and the members could handle it in a Christian way then everyone and every thing would be better . but it is just not that way today . Now I don't have time to argue and will not, so do even try to call me out for I really don't care what you think about what I haver posted . Hey crew this is the voice of experience speaking .

God Bless . T
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1073
8/16/11 5:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Re: Truman here Link
Truman Smith wrote:
Let me shed some light on this matter . If a member has done something so bad that her/she should be disfellowshiped from the church It is hard to do it in the USA . Many are looking for a reason to sue, one MUST be cautious in such matters . When a pastor commits adultery The stateoverseer cannot tell the church why he is being removed . He can tell them how long he will be away from the pulpit and that they can check the Minutes to see what type of offence he is being charged with . The pastor and State offices and HDq. can be sued BIG TIME .


So are you saying if there is a risk of being sued, we don't need to obey what the Bible teaches anymore?

What about if they are going to throw you to the lions? If the government threatens to throw you to the lions if you don't deny Christ and burn some incense to the emperor, should you do what they want? Does persecution make it okay to disobey God?

Has anyone ever stopped to think if you printed your church discipline policy in your bulletin and included a waiver in contracts, the it would be much harder to sue successfully?

Quote:

Now on a member being tried One would not want to expose a great family to a lot of open shame for one wayward family member . One church I pastored we had a large family and the Mother I was told would go to bed with about anyone and some of the Brothers wanted to know , " what are you ( meaning Me ) going to do about it "? I replied " nothing" .I SAID A SON AND HIS FAMILY ARE COMING AND GROWING IN THE LORD AND THREE FINE DAUGHTERS ARE COMING TO CHURCH AND I AM NOT GOING TO DESTROY THIS FAMILY . I don't know about the son but the daughters are still in the COG working with their husbands and children and even some grandchildren . The situation died down and the family was spared a lot of trouble .


You shouldn't drag someone's name through the mud just based on hearsay, but if there were some evidence for it, should we neglect to obey God if it is difficult to do so?

Quote:

Many times the best thing to do is to simply ask the person , " Have you ever thought about going to another church"? And they will usually say , " Yes I have ". Then you can say , " I think it has come to the time when you must do that">


Is it a loving thing toward that other church they go to if you direct the person to go to another church?

Quote:

Now I know that this is a long way from what the Bible states that should be done , But times have changed and the church world has changed also .


Some people use the times have changed argument to justify gay marriage. Should that be considered okay?

I wonder how people would respond to the times have changed argument on the social drinking thread.

Why is it that many COG pastors will fight tooth and nail for man-made traditions that ban any alcohol, but think nothing of ignoring Biblical instructions on church discipline? Isn't the Lord more concerned with us obeying Him and keeping His word than with keeping 'old-timey' rules our grandparents believed in?

Quote:

If a waywarfd member would accept the corrections of the church and the members could handle it in a Christian way then everyone and every thing would be better . but it is just not that way today .


If every church offered Biblical church discipline like the Lord commands, then this would be much less of a problem.

Quote:
Now I don't have time to argue and will not, so do even try to call me out for I really don't care what you think about what I haver posted . Hey crew this is the voice of experience speaking .


I appreciate experience. Walking things out can be a lot harder than intellectually acknowledging what the word says. But your post seems to be throwing out excuses for not obeying the word of God.

The Lord is coming back for a glorious church without spot or wrinkle. This is what the Father wants for the Son. Paul labored among the Corinthians, seeking to present them as a chaste virgin to Christ. Shouldn't every servant of the Lord have this desire? Shouldn't the church be holy? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump of dough. Hebrews warns about a root of bitterness defiling many, warning against a profane person or fornicator being among the saints.

If the congregation is required to keep the leaven of sin from leavening the lump of dough, doesn't it stand to reason that those in pastoral ministry have a duty before God to confront sin in the congregation and keep it from spreading?
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11103
8/16/11 6:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.