 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/7/2003 3:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | OK. I appreciate your response fyodor. But the it seems kinda vague. And I think I would disagree with it and here’s why.
quote:
We should all take responsibility for the sins we behold. From those who identify themselves in Christ we should counsel towards repentance just as we should for anyone else. I think it's more than a heavy burden to bear to be the pastor as many think he/she should have a clean slate and remain blameless, but we all have been seduced by sin and fall short of the Glory.
I don’t have a problem with your first sentence. Am I my brother’s keeper? Yes. And so, we should lovingly confront to restoration (whatever that means). But when you say that we should counsel towards repentance, what EXACTLY do you have in mind? Specifically, what would be the goal here? Also, do you think you have put the pastor on a pedestal when you say:quote:
I think it's more than a heavy burden to bear to be the pastor as many think he/she should have a clean slate and remain blameless…
The pastor has certain responsibilities, but when we say that he has a heavy burden to bear (because of the high expectations of others) are we not in that instance setting him apart in some special way that we sound like, “Oh the poor pastor…” and possibly “setting him up for a fall" by taking such a stance? There are many SUBTLE ways of putting a pastor on a pedestal (I'm thinking the goal here)  . I don’t see that asking a pastor to refrain from sexual immorality is placing a heavy burden upon him. I understand that you want to say that we are all in the same boat together. However, that is a different question and it somewhat skirts the issue IMHO. High expectations are one thing. Asking for sexual purity is not asking much (is not a high expectation).
quote:
I think there is a certain failing in "the church" that holds the pastor on the pedastal as an almost inhuman presence, when the fact is they are merely human. It sometimes seems that the pastor experiences greater pressure to be blameless as well. The knowledge of a taboo sin such as sexual immorality can drive the pastor out of pastoring.
OK. This seems like a repeat of the above. We do hold the pastor in high esteem at times to the point that we overlook his idiosyncrasies (AND SINS) and I think this works out in some VERY PRACTICAL WAYS in terms of WHAT THE GOAL IS that I’m trying to get at. Again, I don’t think the pastor is under any SPECIAL pressure to live a life of sexual purity. This is NOT asking for him to be DIVINE. Now, when you say that sexual immorality can drive a pastor out of pastoring, you are beginning to enter the territory of which I’m driving at. The GOAL that I’m looking for. Surely there is nothing wrong with asking the pastor to step down is there?
quote:
Equally scary is the seducer in this situation. There is tremendous burden in being the one who "brought down the pastor" or "seduced the pastor into sin." But the sin is no different from anyone else involved in sexual immorality, and should be treated with the same severity and compassion as any other who makes the same choices.
What exactly is the burden that the “seducer” has to bear? Should we view the “other woman” as the “one who brought down the pastor?” Did she bring down the pastor? What is your personal view on this?
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 9/7/2003 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | The NT standard in the Pastoral Epistles for church leadership is that they be "above reproach," as well as solid fathers and husbands to their families. Therefore, it seems to me that at the very least when a leader blatantly violates his wedding vows and church responsibility in being sexually immoral, if he is to ever again be considered "above reproach" there by definition needs to be a process of restoration during which his mind is renewed, his family healed (to a reasonable degree), and his congregation "healed" as well. I don't think this restoration process necessarily can be limited to a specific period of time such as a year, six months, two years, etc. Each case is unique.
The above applies to a certain degree to the "seducing woman" too.
Also, I think we have to take into account the egregious nature of certain sexual sins. For instance, I don't think we should offer restoration to ministry to a pedophile. As to simple adultery, my own denomination has had to adopt a "two strikes and you're out-- permanently" policy, which to my mind is far too generous. Simply put, if a man cannot keep his hands off the ladies, he has no business leading the church.
I can understand a man falling prey to such a temptation once, but it seems to me that to allow him the privilege of continued leadership in the church after he has shown himself either unable or unwilling to live an "above reproach" life is falling into the trap of viewing ministry as one would any other "profession."
Is adultery the unpardonable sin? Definitely not. Forgiveness is available to all who truly repent and confess their sins. However, leadership in the church demands a level of respect that can only be earned. It would be in everyone's best interest for a repeat adulterer to find some other livelihood than ministry, in my opinion.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/8/2003 5:08 AM (GMT -6) | | John, I’m not going to weigh in on the issue of leaders being above reproach because I have a different view on the matter. But you were going in the same direction as my self. Here’s the point.
Basically, when there is clergy sexual misconduct, one of the first things that a church does is try and hide the affair or “preserve the secret.” Just like many families do when sexual misconduct occurs within THAT realm, i.e. incest. When this fails (which it probably will depending on different factors, i.e. size of church, pastoral personality, etc) the church begins to focus their energies on protecting THEIR NAME and the pastor’s reputation. To do this they must blame “the other woman.” Placing blame on the her though, does no good because it doesn’t ASSIST the pastor in confronting HIS behavior so that he can own up to his responsibility for the affair. Also, denominations partake in the “conspiracy of silence” when they place the pastor in another location without giving the reason for the transfer.
But here’s the thing.
When a member of the clergy is found to have conducted himself in an unbecoming fashion? The church tries to RESTORE the pastor to his place of MINISTRY. In other words THE GOAL IS GETTING HIS JOB BACK. Think of the typical scenario.
Pastor has an affair. Church finds out. They (church elders and deacons) confront the pastor. He acknowledges personal guilt, owns up for his action (responsibility) with some possible shedding of tears of repentance. The church leaders accept that he has truly repented and involve him in a process of discipline. Some time usually goes by (a year or two in most cases) and the pastor dude is allowed to reenter his ministry.
Now, doesn’t that seem like the “Christian thing to do?” I mean the gospel is all about reconciliation right? It’s all about restoration! I mean if anything embodies biblical compassion it is this right?
The question is, should this be the GOAL for the pastor when he fails like this? What about the deeper issues of his misconduct? Things such as unresolved issues that could lead him to be a “repeat offender.” To focus primarily upon getting this guy his job back, which in “Christianize” is pronounced “ministry” but for the rest of us is pronounced “JOB” is off IMHO. The wider ramifications of his failure, are for the most part, usually ignored. I mean, when a pastor is confronted? Where are the other people who are affected? Where is the wife? What about the children? And most of all, what about the "other woman?"
The reason why these are never considered IMHO? Is because of the male-dominance that makes up most confrontations. There is little if any female representation at all. This means that no female input (perspective) was brought to bear on the situation. Hmmm…talk about gender differences! What this does is create bias and REINFORCES the myth of “the other woman.” And what myth would that be? That she is the “seductress,” the “sleaze ball” (add your own description, I have a few others in mind that others might think of such a person as) who undermined and destroyed the vulnerable male and his pastorate. In other words, he is usually viewed (a silent assumption) as the victim instead of the victimizer. Church people usually see him as having been unwise or impulsive, “succumbing in a moment of weakness” to “that woman who seduced him.” Seeing the pastor as victim leads us to set his restoration (which translated =JOB) as the highest priority. Talk about patriarchialism!
Now, this deep-seated assumption of pastor as victim? Needs to be rejected and reversed. And those who have been affected by sexual misconduct? They need to be identified and helped. Helped to cope with their new found situation. Helped to honestly appraise their own responsibility. Help to move away from guilt and anger and experience forgiveness and restoration (which may or may not mean reconciliation).
And here’s one of the BIG points. The “other woman?” We need to ditch this understanding of seeing her as being the one responsible for the pastor’s “fall from grace.” Sure there may be those who come to the pastor for help and in the midst try to flirt with the pastor? But we need to recognize THEM as the ones who are vulnerable. Not the pastor. She comes to him for help, not the other way around. Therefore, there is a power differiential. Have we ever stopped to realize what drives some women to try to seduce men? Could it be that women who try to seduce men are the victims of unhealthy relationships with men that go all the way back to childhood? I mean why would a woman involve herself into a sexual relationship with a pastor? Does someone who comes to the pastor seeking help and healing from a broken past need to be treated as an outcast thereby placing them in harms way again?
Bottom line is, we cannot dismiss her to salvage the ministry of the pastor. We need to minister to her wounds and needs which the actions of the pastor have seriously compounded.
Talk about the need for healthy Christian counseling.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 9/8/2003 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | 1 Tim. 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
I don't see anything in the above qualifications that isn't true of the moral standard for all Christians. The only difference as far as I can tell would be that leaders are to have grown in the faith to the point where they are much more consistent at godly living than a new convert.
I also certainly agree that the "ministry as a profession" concept fuels much of this problem today.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 9/8/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | I thought that most churches have implented the practice of having the wife of the pastor, or someone else, present in the same room if the pastor's going to be counseling a woman. That seems to me the wisest thing to do. It would be an extra burden on the pastor's wife to have to step away from her own job or duties to join her husband in this part of his ministry, but it would be better to do that, than to allow the pastor and this other woman to be in a situation where they could fall into sexual temptation. Any time a person is opening up and talking to someone about their personal feelings and problems, they are making themselves vulnerable, and the person listening can also be drawn to that person in genuine love and concern for them, which can cause confusing feelings of desire. It simply makes sense that when a man and a woman are spending a lot of time alone together talking about such deep, personal issues, that at least one of them might start developing feelings for the other.
Even if the counseling office had a huge window so that the pastor's secretary can see into it at all times while the pastor and the woman are doing the counseling session might be a good idea. This is another good reason to have female pastors, if for nothing more than the women of the church seeking counseling for their life issues. That way, there wouldn't be a danger of the male pastor getting involved with the female counselee.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 9/8/2003 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BBBCanada
John,
Just because I don’t necessarily agree with all aspects of your understanding of the pastor being above reproach doesn’t mean that I think it is ok for him to get a little "side action." That is a major point in my posts. I’m all for disciplining the pastor under such circumstances. So I really don’t know why you would ask such a question. I don’t have to hold to the same interpretation of 1 Tim 3 in order to believe that what the pastor did was inappropriate. There are enough scriptures to suggest that marital infidelity is sin.
Okay. The reason I cited 1 Tim 3 is that it contains the most clear standard specifically for those in leadership.
quote:
But the issues that I’m bringing up concern the goal for the pastor, the “other woman,” and the “pastor as victim.” I term the ministry as “job” in this case because all those surrounding the pastor are not looking at the deeper issues.
I don't see a pastor who commits marital infidelity as a victim, not in the least.
quote:
By the way, part of the reason I have come to not think of the 1 Timothy in the sense that you are thinking is because I've come to believe that that is more of a “literal wooden” understanding and it doesn’t take into full consideration the specifics of each persons life situation.
As I have not given it, you can't even know the sense in which I am thinking of 1 Tim 3; you are just assuming you know my view. That said, I wonder how Paul and Timothy would interpret 1 Tim. 3.
quote:
For example, when it says the pastor must manage his family well, does this mean that though a pastor tries to do all he can to salvage his broken marriage and he can’t fix it that he is no longer a candidate for ministry? Is he now a second class citizen? There is her will too you know. What if she is primarily at fault for the break-up for the marriage? Is there not such a thing as one person being "at fault" for marriage breakdown?
I agree that there are exceptions to the rule laid down in 1 Tim. 3. However, I'm more than a little hesistant to write off the passage as if it were not applicable to us today. I certainly agree that "it takes two" and that in the culture in which Paul wrote, the male authority in the household was generally much more supreme. In addition, the self-determining power of women in society today is far greater than it was in Paul's day. I have seen more than one instance where a pastor was divorced by his wife against his will, and where it sure appeared to me as if the wife was more at fault than the husband was.
quote:
Again, this thread is not meant to really get into the 1 Timothy passage. One does not need to cite said passage to deal with the issues that I’m bringing up.
That's okay with me. I just think we are only left with our subjective opinions if we don't take into consideration the biblical passages that pertain to the issue at hand.
I'll leave this thread alone if that is what you wish. Sorry if my replies were not what you were hoping for.
Blessings,
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
fyodor
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 9/9/2003 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the conversation Brandon. Some responses....
quote:
OK. I appreciate your response fyodor. But the it seems kinda vague.
Vague indeed and somewhat purposefully so. The situation described is fairly vague, and thus the response was more generalized.
quote:
And I think I would disagree with it and here’s why.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should all take responsibility for the sins we behold. From those who identify themselves in Christ we should counsel towards repentance just as we should for anyone else. I think it's more than a heavy burden to bear to be the pastor as many think he/she should have a clean slate and remain blameless, but we all have been seduced by sin and fall short of the Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t have a problem with your first sentence. Am I my brother’s keeper? Yes. And so, we should lovingly confront to restoration (whatever that means). But when you say that we should counsel towards repentance, what EXACTLY do you have in mind? Specifically, what would be the goal here? Also, do you think you have put the pastor on a pedestal when you say:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's more than a heavy burden to bear to be the pastor as many think he/she should have a clean slate and remain blameless…
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pastor has certain responsibilities, but when we say that he has a heavy burden to bear (because of the high expectations of others) are we not in that instance setting him apart in some special way that we sound like, “Oh the poor pastor…” and possibly “setting him up for a fall" by taking such a stance? There are many SUBTLE ways of putting a pastor on a pedestal (I'm thinking the goal here) .
I think my approach is intended to highlight a way in which people apply additional pressure on pastors. I have no intention of playing the poor pastor card, rather to reveal the pedestal that is often created for the pastor to preach from. I would contend that being a sinner is quite burdensome, to be a sinner that is often expected to remain "above reproach" is an additional source of worldly pressure that is reflected by many people towards their pastors. I don't think it's a pedestal I'm creating as much as it is an attitude that creates the pedestal.
quote:
I don’t see that asking a pastor to refrain from sexual immorality is placing a heavy burden upon him. I understand that you want to say that we are all in the same boat together. However, that is a different question and it somewhat skirts the issue IMHO. High expectations are one thing. Asking for sexual purity is not asking much (is not a high expectation).
hmmm....I remember when I had sexual purity, then I turned 3. What is the definition of sexual purity? Are lustful thoughts in or just the acts themselves? How is it not a high expectation to expect sexual purity? That's like saying, "Ok, you can be the pastor, just don't ever sin again..."
quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is a certain failing in "the church" that holds the pastor on the pedastal as an almost inhuman presence, when the fact is they are merely human. It sometimes seems that the pastor experiences greater pressure to be blameless as well. The knowledge of a taboo sin such as sexual immorality can drive the pastor out of pastoring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. This seems like a repeat of the above. We do hold the pastor in high esteem at times to the point that we overlook his idiosyncrasies (AND SINS) and I think this works out in some VERY PRACTICAL WAYS in terms of WHAT THE GOAL IS that I’m trying to get at. Again, I don’t think the pastor is under any SPECIAL pressure to live a life of sexual purity. This is NOT asking for him to be DIVINE. Now, when you say that sexual immorality can drive a pastor out of pastoring, you are beginning to enter the territory of which I’m driving at.
The GOAL that I’m looking for. Surely there is nothing wrong with asking the pastor to step down is there?
It sounds like perhaps you are asking a question that you want answered with your answer....Of course, sometimes it is necessary to ask a pastor to step down, but to me there are several things wrong with this scenario.
1) What does asking the pastor to step down say to the congregation? If I had been "sexually impure" would I be asked to leave this church?
2) Does that mean its a much greater sin to act sexually impure than to break any of the other commandments that God has placed before me?
3) Am I ok if I'm just thinking about having sex with the woman I am counseling as long as I am not actually having sex with her?
4) What does asking the pastor to leave actually accomplish? Is it more than just a symbolic gesture to the rest of the church that "we just don't put up with that kind of sin around here?" What does it really say about how my sins will be dealt with by the church?
Asking the pastor to leave may indeed need to be a result, but as I suggested earlier, I think there needs to be some effort to understand and assess the situation, counsel the sinner towards repentence, perhaps talking very openly with the congregation about the nature of the sin and using the falleness of those involved to express correctly how we as Christians can provide pastoring to pastors, who are, in the end, merely humans who have the opportunity to accept the redemptive, restorative love of God though Christ as all others. I don't believe that letting a pastor keep his/her job would be void of real-world consequences. Sexuality is such a taboo sin to be guilty of in this culture. There is quite a large consequence just through the exposing of the sin itself...
quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally scary is the seducer in this situation. There is tremendous burden in being the one who "brought down the pastor" or "seduced the pastor into sin." But the sin is no different from anyone else involved in sexual immorality, and should be treated with the same severity and compassion as any other who makes the same choices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly is the burden that the “seducer” has to bear? Should we view the “other woman” as the “one who brought down the pastor?” Did she bring down the pastor? What is your personal view on this?
Again, this is an applied burden, one that may come from the pressures of people in response to the woman's (in this scenario) deeds and that they occurred with the specific person whom may have been placed on a pedestal by the afore-mentioned "people."
Surely you could probably ascertain from my tone that I don't think she "brought down the pastor." We are all sinners, because we are all sinners. -"all have fallen short of the glory"
†††"One rarely finds an exposition of which it holds true that the exposition is that which is expounded." – S. Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/10/2003 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | OK! Thanks to all for the convo. The question was asked by S.B.G. about the pastor and the parishioner falling in love. Excellent question.
WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the pastoral/counsellor scenario, I think it is possible for the counsellor and counselee to have intimate feelings for each other. But there can be a lot of problems with it. Here’s what I think.
During this time of counselling, the pastor/parishioner relationship is MOST susceptible to abuse which is why the some professionals are calling for strict guidelines between the parties involved. They feel that if romantic interest develops? That the pastor/counsellor should transfer the client to another therapist. The reason why is because the situation and role/power differential may have triggered the attraction in the first place. Therefore, the initiative in any contact thereafter must rest with the former client. What it does is give the client the PEROGATIVE of changing their mind. It also helps the client to not feel ANY pressure in starting or maintaining the relationship. And lastly, it allows for the client to gain control of the situation. So, what this means for these professionals, is that some time should past BETWEEN termination of counselling and restarting social contact. It would allow for a “cooling-off” period and a reassessment of the issues and feelings that are pertinent to the situation. Remember, there can be exploitation to clients in terms of the financial, sexual, and emotional, etc. In other words, ABUSE. When things are kept in the open i.e. worshipping together or working together in the WIDER aspects of the common life of the church? The level of vulnerability is lessened.
But here’s the thing. Whenever a pastor dates someone in the congregation? IMO, he has ceased to be her pastor. I mean, what if the relationship ends? They can’t GO BACK to their original roles. The pastoral role is RELEGATED or SUBSUMED to second place when dating occurs. I think the pastoral/congregant relationship cannot be regained when the relationship ends. The other problem is that it is different for a pastor to date than for two lay people. For example, jealously may occur among other parishioners who would like to date the pastor. It may come from members who feel that the dating relationship is stealing from other aspects of the ministry. There may be the pressure to marry which could be premature or there is the possibility of talking them out of NOT getting married even when they know the relationship is ka-putz.
These are some of the realities of the nature of ministry.
To Tigress, I agree that there should be systems in place where the possibility of exploitation of a person’s vulnerability is lessened. When I see my counsellor? Though you are in his office? The secretaries are right outside the door which has a window. He also keeps the session limited to one hour. On time, ALL the time. He’s pretty strict 'bout that. Very professional about it all. Him and I are REAL tight? But we don’t have a relationship outside of the counselling office (friends don’t counsel friends is his motto). Last week I went to him and once again he set me on the straight and narrow. I tell everybody how he’s kicked my butt (I use the “A” word, ) back into reality. Pissed me off. No holds barred. Made me angry and made me cry at the same time. He’s a great guy. I love 'im. God is certainly using him in my life.
Now, to John. Yer just not going to let me get away from the 1 Timothy 3 passage are you? Coo…OK. Here’s my deal. Some scholars think that the list provided in 1 Timothy 3 passage is not universal. Part of the reason for this is because it is hard to pattern our ministries after the New Testament models when THE EXACT NATURE of those models is hard to figure out. We don’t have to say that ministers today need to do that exact list as those antiquity did. When you look at the role of the deacon or overseer or elder, these were in part derived from leadership models that already existed in Greco-Roman society. They adopted their patterns from the culture around them and adapted them according to the demands of the gospel. Now, we recognize this. We see that there are differences between ancient and modern church roles. Yet we tend to relativize some of the qualifications of the list for these leaders. I mean, we ALL do it.
[Sidebar: In the past I think Semeia, Greg and Iconoclast have brought up some excellent points in regard to hermeneutical methodology. What is the right methodology? Why do we choose this one? What is the basis or criteria for choosing this and not another methodology? Do we have to find the RIGHT methodology in order to get to what God wants to say to us? Good questions and ones that are not easily answered.]
The reason for this list of qualifications is so that one would be “above reproach.” So yes, you are right there. However, we are not required to add this EXACT LIST to our situation today. Though we can learn from Paul’s list, we could have a list for our own modern times. So our list would be a different list for what it means to be “above reproach.” If you notice, the 1 Tim 3 list and the Titus list are slighty different. The reason why is because they were adapted to their respective communities. This is what I mean by a “wooden approach.” We need to not be literal 'bout this.
Now, you say that you saw where someone was divorced against their will. Guess what? In our society? We don’t consider that person to be disgraced when the divorce was beyond their control. And so, said person could still be above reproach and be married twice. In our society, a person is NOT above reproach when they exploit the counsellor/counselee relationship, whether financially, sexually, or emotionally.
fyodor said:
quote:
I would contend that being a sinner is quite burdensome, to be a sinner that is often expected to remain "above reproach" is an additional source of worldly pressure that is reflected by many people towards their pastors.
Again, I don’t think it is pressure to ask for a pastor to be above reproach in this manner. Granted, I would say that the misconduct is due to some deeper issues that penetrate society. Part of the reason why a pastor may fail in this area is because of the nature of ministry. That is, there are dynamics (in our modern era) which invite the intrusion of the sexual dimension. Still, I don’t lower my expectations.
quote:
hmmm....I remember when I had sexual purity, then I turned 3. What is the definition of sexual purity? Are lustful thoughts in or just the acts themselves? How is it not a high expectation to expect sexual purity? That's like saying, "Ok, you can be the pastor, just don't ever sin again..."
When I say “sexual purity” I am talking about a relationship where the pastor exploits a vulnerable counselee. Do you think it is too much to ask that the pastor be above reproach in this manner? Is it too much to ask him to refrain from sexual activity though he may simply be the pastor where no counselor/counselee relationship exists? Is it an additional source of pressure to ask him to refrain from these kinds of behavior? I don’t expect this merely from him/her but from Christians everywhere. Again, Christians everywhere may not have to deal with the nature of ministry and so in that way they do not have the pressures you talk about. But at this point, this is not a question of expectation but of the dynamics of ministry.
quote:
It sounds like perhaps you are asking a question that you want answered with your answer....Of course, sometimes it is necessary to ask a pastor to step down, but to me there are several things wrong with this scenario.
1) What does asking the pastor to step down say to the congregation? If I had been "sexually impure" would I be asked to leave this church?
2) Does that mean its a much greater sin to act sexually impure than to break any of the other commandments that God has placed before me?
3) Am I ok if I'm just thinking about having sex with the woman I am counseling as long as I am not actually having sex with her?
4) What does asking the pastor to leave actually accomplish? Is it more than just a symbolic gesture to the rest of the church that "we just don't put up with that kind of sin around here?" What does it really say about how my sins will be dealt with by the church?
Asking the pastor to leave may indeed need to be a result, but as I suggested earlier, I think there needs to be some effort to understand and assess the situation, counsel the sinner towards repentence, perhaps talking very openly with the congregation about the nature of the sin and using the falleness of those involved to express correctly how we as Christians can provide pastoring to pastors, who are, in the end, merely humans who have the opportunity to accept the redemptive, restorative love of God though Christ as all others. I don't believe that letting a pastor keep his/her job would be void of real-world consequences. Sexuality is such a taboo sin to be guilty of in this culture. There is quite a large consequence just through the exposing of the sin itself...
You asked a lot of questions. Let me say this for now. First, I hope you can see, (for the most part) what I’m talking about when I talk about sexual impurity. Though you can have a sexual impurity without the pastor/counselor relationship even in situations like these it is not altogether a question of SEXUAL MISTRUST between a pastor and a congregant, but an abuse of POWER.
But here is the issue. Mainly, that there are VICTIMS. Sexual misconduct INVOLVES others. It not only affects the pastor, but his family (wife and children), his church, “the other woman” and the gospel. Think of the whole counseling field. Most therapists nowadays are brought under serious legal litigation for abusing their position. And yes, you should be asked to leave the pastorate, though you may not be asked to leave the church (though most likely the pastor probably will). But consider this IN YOUR QUESTIONS. What if the pastor has a long standing pattern of sexual misconduct? Should we consider the possibility for future restoration of ministry? More importantly, could his return to ministry EVER be in the interest of the church or community? It may be that this person should have never entered into ministry!
I think I may have to say more about the ramifications of sexual misconduct in the next couple of days.
Good stuff people.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 1/16/2005 2:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon,
It is a good question, a relevant one, and most likely one that is neglected. I believe that part of the reason that divorce rates are at least equally as high among evangelicals as they are among unbelievers, is because we have such high expectations, and because people are afraid to talk about there struggles, as well as their failures. Some of the reason for that fear is the fear of judgement within a community of believers, the fear of losing an opportunity to minister...
If we could be a little more honest with each other, perhaps we could be more preventative. Men need other men to walk along side them. They are bombarded visually by temptation. Is it any less sinful to follow a woman down the street with your eyes, and to imagine what it would be like to be with that woman? I'm just wondering. No one might ever no about that (unless they see you obviously looking at women in ways that are inappropriate).
Sometimes we expect our leaders to be above reproach, but then put them in impossible situations, or they place themselves in "dangerous" situations for one reason or another. Many leaders burn out. Their lives are lonely. We have a responsibility to these leaders, to walk with them, pray for them, shoulder the load, and to confront in love as we see problematic things in their lives. I know it's a fine line, one that most would not dare to walk.
We had a pastor in one city who had a beautiful wife, and he ended up having an affair with another lady in our church, who was not only not beautiful, but she was coniving, deceitful....or should I say, a wounded, insecure woman who wanted someone to love her? She became his friend. She complimented him continually. She was "there for him" when his wife wasn't. She "needed" him. She admired him. Both had a part to play in what happened, and so did we as a church.
I believe that you can a friend who is a Christian brother if you're a woman, or a sister, if you're a man, as long as you maintain healthy boundaried, and your lives intersect at the cross. Does that sound terribly naive? I have two wonderful Christian brothers, but we have unspoken boundaries that we maintain. I am not so foolish as to believe that "it couldn't be me." None of us should think that way.
I think that there is far more involved in something like this than what most people realize...
Yes, there needs to be accountability; there needs to be repentance; there needs to be restoration, and compassion. I think it is a journey of healing, a long road back from something like this. My heart goes out to pastors who have fallen. They're human, and we often expect them to be superhuman, and they fail. I believe that the "above reproach" is the ideal, that it should be the norm in a man or woman's life, not the exception. There needs to be a standard set. We don't need to lower the bar because of our frailty, but we also need to recognize that not one of us would qualify, would be "above reproach" all of the time.
My thoughts, as flawed as they are...
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/16/2005 4:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
SoulPurpose said...I believe that you can a friend who is a Christian brother if you're a woman, or a sister, if you're a man, as long as you maintain healthy boundaried, and your lives intersect at the cross. Does that sound terribly naive? I have two wonderful Christian brothers, but we have unspoken boundaries that we maintain. I am not so foolish as to believe that "it couldn't be me." None of us should think that way.
Is it ok, as Christians, to entertain temptation while dancing outside the door of sin?
You are what you eat - beware of what you’re fed. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/16/2005 5:31:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/21/2005 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | |
SoulPurpose said...
I think that the answer to your question is an obvious one.
Well apparently it’s not so obvious to at least one pastor you mentioned.
SoulPurpose said...
As a member of a 5 couple pastoral team, we are friends, brothers and sisters in Christ - in leadership - with well defined, healthy boundaries.
(We don't dance with each other!)
Well if that’s the case, I guess you won’t have to worry about stepping on anyone’s toes.  Ouch!
Dancing in the Spirit of God,
Matthew 11:28-30 (NRSV)
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/21/2005 10:39:04 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/26/2005 12:54 AM (GMT -6) | |
"Hold the phone!" (to coin a phrase!)
Excuse me, but, why is the "lady" in question being called a "seductress" and the man in question not being called a "womanizer." Or, maybe we should just refer to them as hurting individuals who are susceptible to failing? (Or some such thing...?)
Jo-Anne
and
We had a pastor in one city who had a beautiful wife, and he ended up having an affair with another lady in our church, who was not only not beautiful, but she was coniving, deceitful....or should I say, a wounded, insecure woman who wanted someone to love her? She became his friend. She complimented him continually. She was "there for him" when his wife wasn't. She "needed" him. She admired him. Both had a part to play in what happened, and so did we as a church.
Sorry Jo-Anne. I didn't see that you responded to this thread. How's my fellow Canadian doing? It was done so long ago. Ummm...I would agree with you that the pastor is just as responsible because of the "power differential." But what happens in most of the cases that I have saw, is that the first goal of those in leadership (usually all men) is to seek to "restore" the pastor back to his position as pastor while the woman quietly disappears never to be heard from again. She is usually considered "that evil seductress" by the rest of the congregation without taking the time to consider her plight i.e. what would cause ANY woman to do that in the first place?
Brandon
"Theology is doxology"--John G. Stackhouse quoting J.I. Packer in "Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method" | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 1/28/2005 1:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Brandon,
You're  "fellow" Canuck is doing fine! Though I'm absolutely immersed in an editing course from Ryersen (Toronto)! 
A lot of things would cause a woman to do that, and she wouldn't have to be a "seductress" either, but it's sad that that is how she might be viewed–sexist really.
 These icons are great! I'm probably in over my head here, or at least treading water, but this is a very relevant, worthwhile topic (somebody throw me a lifebuoy...no...not the soap!)
Sorry, but long hours studying, does (do?) crazy things to your brain! 
I've been reading Blue Like Jazz by donald miller. Now there's a radical thinker (like moi).
Would you like to hear what I believe would cause a woman to fall into this temptation? I have an advantage (being a woman) of course. I also have a pretty good idea of what would cause a pastor to fall into this temptation, and by the way, any of us.
Restoration is possible, and not only possible, but it is what the Father seeks. But he is all for preventative measures, but not for fear...so many thoughts about this. I do believe in guarding your heart, and would love to talk about what that means.
I'm reading through the gospels right now...exciting, exciting stuff! Have you ever heard of the Secret Gospels? I read an article by Scott Brown, called The Secret Gospel of Mark...never heard of this before....I'm rambling...time to go count sheep!
'Nite...I'll be back tomorrow,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 1/29/2005 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Well let me see if I can answer this and avoic "religious" sounding answers at the same time.
I guess there are the obvious answers, which all of us know, but some of us are too spiritual (myself included at times) to consider. There are times when marriage just doesn't work, for many reasons. I'm not saying though that just because something doesn't "work" the way we hoped it would, that we should bail out, or that that gives us an excuse to sin. We are, after all, to set aside the sin that so easily drags us down. I've come to believe though, that the only way to do that is through relationship, mine with God, and then mine with "you". I believe that if I fall in love with the Father, that He wil enable me to trust and obey Him, and to follow Him–but He didn't intend for us to walk alone–so he gave us each other
(Do I sound like I'm avoiding the real question?  Well, maybe  )
I don't want to give those airy-fairy religious sounding answers, ones that everybody nodds in approval at, but nobody really knows what they mean. Jesus gave answers that turned the religious community on their ear. He made some certain promises. He told us that if we draw close to Him that He will draw close to Him. He also told us that for every temptation that we face, that He has provided the way of escape. It is up to us to choose it of course, and our ability to choose it depends on so many things.
We all want to be loved, as you said (me included). That is what makes us so very vulnerable. We could blame the fall, but even Adam and Eve were vulnerable (and that was before the fall). We could blame our childhood, blame our parents (but Adam and Even had perfect parents, and they still fell into temptation). Free will seems to be the bottom line, and some even turn that on God, saying that He knew all along that we were going to sin and that it was part of some grander divine plan.
(still hedging, I know  )
I had a personal friend, a pastor, who this happened to, and one thing I learned from it is how absolutely gracious some Christians are, while others are like the lions' den kind of believers. This pastor confessed to a room full of leaders, in front of his wife, that he was simply at his "end." He felt that his wife had abandoned him (she was a beautiful woman, but she wasn't happy, and their marriage wasn't happy). He was depressed, and the woman that he was involved in was not beautiful. She was a very troubled individual, but she always there for him, to listen, and bolster his wounded ego. I knew them all, and loved them all (well, maybe I loved the "woman" a little less, because I was quite immature, and saw her as the "seductress" . They say hind-sight is 20/20.
What "makes" a man do this? What makes a "woman" do this? What keeps me from doing the exact same thing?
We all need love and affirmation. Sometimes we get just the opposite from our Christian community. Sometimes men and women are too fearful to share their deepest struggles (I've been there), or to show who they really are, because who they really are isn't spiritual enough (especially as leaders). I believe that leaders are especially vulnerable to this kind of temptation, not because of power, or lust, but because they are in positions where they are constantly vulnerable, constantly giving out and taking direct "hits."
Sometimes we just need, as Donald Miller describes in Blue Like Jazz, to be held. And some might find that rare relationship in community where that can happen, but most don't. I don't believe that finding that rare relationship is, as you've said Spark, "dancing at the door of temptation." It may be, but it may not be. I think that only in relationship with the Father can you discern that. I'm not a fool, and I don't believe I'm foolish either, but I do desire to be honest about these things.
As a leader there have been times when I've longed to have someone to speak to about my marriage, about my family, about pain and struggle, but as a leader you can't go to just anyone (like a dumptruck) and unload on htem. And as most know, things like that spread through a church community like wildfire (sort of like the tongue being a flame...James was right).
I believe that most of us go "underground" with our pain and struggle. Statistically the divorce rate among believers is at least as high as among unbelievers, with (or so I've heard) Pentecostals ranking the highest. Why is that? And why would Pentecostals rank the highest? I can only guess. I don't want to come up with religious sounding "pat" answers anymore.
I do want to love. I want to love the Father...to fall in love with Him, and invest in that relationship so that He and I are not separated. I want to live it, not just talk about it, philosophize about it, or worse–go through the motions. I spent most of my adult life going through the motions–playing church–doing instead of being. I was introduced (literally) as "Wade's wife" and that was my identity. I rode on the coatstrings of my husband's ministry. It was only three years ago that I really fell in love with the Father and started learning about who I am. I am having an affair, but it is with someone who will "never leave me or forsake me."
God help me when I'm tempted to judge instead of love, or when I listen and give religious answers, instead of just listening, or crying with someone, putting an arm around their shoulders and promising to walk with them. If I could speak to that pastor of my youth, the one who baptized me, and discipled me, and married us, the one who had big dreams for God, who was just an ordinary man with needs, who fell into temptation and then repented–I would beg him for forgiveness. We judged him. We didn't listen and cry with him, and then walk with him.
Some women are caregivers. I was one. They see a man hurting and they reach out, and it fulfills a need in their own life. We are so human.
Yes, pastors and leaders carry an added weight of responsibility. I believe they are to share responsibility (not to be spiritual lone rangers), and to be mutually accountable to other leaders. Sometimes (actually often) leaders get so busy doing the work of the ministry, that they leave their first love behind. When our identity in Him gets fuzzy, we start wandering, like sheep looking for pasture and shelter in all the wrong places. We need a shepherd–no "ifs ands or buts."
We need to stay close to the shepherd (me included), and to each other. If we wander off, we're sheep stew basically.
I could ramble on but...
Do you have questions? Thoughts? I have to run...back later,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 1/31/2005 1:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi,
Guess I could add a couple more thoughts on this. I was scanning a couple of threads that were related to this. We are created in the image of God, but it is like a mirror-image; it does not yet have true substance. As you were mentioning in another thread (at least I think it was you Brandon), sex within marriage is not always holy. It is not the ideal that God intended it to be because it is mixed with impure motives, selfishness...but having just said that, it is the closest, most intimate experience that we have been given, aside from intimacy with the Father. Is is "as good as it gets" so to speak. It can be beautiful, and can bring a married couple even closer together, but I believe that depends on their hearts, on their character, and on their relationship with the Father and with one another. One person in a couple can be passionately in love with the Father, and following Him, and the other can be not Christ-like at all, and marriage becomes a place of pain.
I do not think that anyone is so godly that they can withstand that kind of relationship for long periods of time without seeking love elsewhere. I think that the husband/pastor was at fault in this case, but perhaps the husband's wife was at fault as well. We are each responsible for our sin before God, but we may play a part in causing someone else to stumble. If a wife (or husband) uses sex as a weapon, or withholds it, or abuses it, are they in any way responsible for their spouse falling into temptation (falling into the arms of someone who is "willing" to treat them with gentleness, perhaps even convinced themselves that they are loving them, perhaps another wounded soul looking for the same thing).
I know that I'm taking a compassionate look at those involved. It is my character to lean on mercy, and I know that others bring balance to "softies" like me. I don't want anyone to think that I take this lightly. But I definitely am not standing ready with stones.
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:42 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|