"Pastor Is Always Right, Even If Wrong" - Abusive Spiritual Authority Hall of Shame
- Thread starter illinoisguy
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,596
- Reaction score
- 3,823
- Points
- 113
You are on a public forum called the “Fighting Fundamentalist Forum”. Did you think it was a site where people would agree with everything you typed?
More to the point, the church and her authority was given by God for rebuke, reproof, instruction, etc. Do some pastors overstep their authority at times? Sure do. But to say that any and every appeal to Scripture by congregants is equally valid in weight of authority is a gross oversimplification.
My reply was an attempt at levity. Sorry it was received otherwise. Consider me rebuked.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 5,026
- Reaction score
- 294
- Points
- 83
I’m sure most if not all here would agree to take scripture out of context would be wrong and then in turn try to defend whatever idea does not hold up.
All we are saying is that a pastors authority starts and stops with scripture. Why would anyone argue against this?
That guy youre talking about smoking weed……that’s not what anyone here is talking about. Please give a better example.
But look, if you believe the pastor has every right to demand something of Gods people that God doesn’t require, that’s fine just say so.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,596
- Reaction score
- 3,823
- Points
- 113
My apologies for misunderstanding your intent brother.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,596
- Reaction score
- 3,823
- Points
- 113
As usual, you miss the mark in characterizing or understanding the other person’s argument.
Our church constitution declares no member shall imbibe booze. What authority and responsibility do you think the pastor has in the event somebody believes (and openly challenges him and the church) that he/she can have a drink recreationally based on their understanding of Scripture?
An absolutely ridiculous assertion and not even close to what I am saying.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 5,026
- Reaction score
- 294
- Points
- 83
Well, it looks like your constitution pushes the Bible to the side on this one. That being said, if someone agrees to this, then they agree they see it as you do.
My understanding of scripture when it comes to alcohol is that it doesn’t say dogmatically not to drink but only gives warnings. It really doesn’t say anything good but only negative about alcohol.
Therefore, my response to someone that doesn’t agree with your constitution is that, you don’t have to be a member. I’d also say, show me in scripture where it says something positive.
I’ve often thought that a good sermon would be, if all I knew about alcohol is what the Bible says.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,596
- Reaction score
- 3,823
- Points
- 113
You see what you did there? You made yourself the final authority. You have every right according to your conscience to believe what you will, but you don’t have the right to deny the authority of a body of believers and their covenant as a church, at least not without consequences.
No, we would not say it that way, we’d say you CAN’T be a member in good standing. Would you deny us (and our pastor by extension) that ecclesiastical authority?
The irony in this discussion is that I don’t believe drinking alcohol, in and of itself is a sin, but abide by the covenant and constitution because I don’t have to exercise my liberty (in that area), so I serve where He has called me and don’t miss a thing.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,535
- Reaction score
- 677
- Points
- 113
Another balanced view, from an IFB pastor, Charles Dear, Crescentville Baptist Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
"Baptists believe in democratic procedures that permit open discussion of problems and divergent views. This is right and Biblical. Please read Acts 15. Note that this is not a council as is often stated, but a business meeting of the local church in Jerusalem (v.22)....The conduct of the meeting is interesting. Acts 15 for all practical purposes, contains the minutes of that church meeting. The question was freely discussed by many in this big assembly...(and) James, who was obviously the moderator, summarized the discussion and stated the conclusion which had been reached by the "whole church" (vv. 13-22).
"If that sounds strange to you, you might consider whether your church is forfeiting a vital process that maintains the accountability of church leadership to its members. Abandoning the exercise of such accountability will lead our churches further away from our Baptist heritage . . .
"Baptists thrive on openness in sharp contrast to church polities that keep their people in the dark and leaders that operate secretly. We have no time for Baptist 'popes' who rule their ministries with an iron hand and can do no wrong, neither should we countenance heavy-handed Deacon Boards who usurp to themselves the leadership of a pastor and rob the membership of their informed consent. Such Pastor and Deacons have wrought untold damage in many local churches, usually just before they leave the scene of their crime and pass the responsibility to others to recover from the carnage.
"Such high-handed leadership undermines a reasonable extension of the Baptist principle of Individual Soul Liberty. . . . In fairness, not all of the responsibility for this problem falls on church leadership. Too many church members (please don't call them 'laity' in a Baptist church) are also guilty of abdicating their rights to participate in local church decision making."
[Click on "Recent Articles" and then on "Power to the People: Are We Abandoning Congregational Polity?"]
"Baptists believe in democratic procedures that permit open discussion of problems and divergent views. This is right and Biblical. Please read Acts 15. Note that this is not a council as is often stated, but a business meeting of the local church in Jerusalem (v.22)....The conduct of the meeting is interesting. Acts 15 for all practical purposes, contains the minutes of that church meeting. The question was freely discussed by many in this big assembly...(and) James, who was obviously the moderator, summarized the discussion and stated the conclusion which had been reached by the "whole church" (vv. 13-22).
"If that sounds strange to you, you might consider whether your church is forfeiting a vital process that maintains the accountability of church leadership to its members. Abandoning the exercise of such accountability will lead our churches further away from our Baptist heritage . . .
"Baptists thrive on openness in sharp contrast to church polities that keep their people in the dark and leaders that operate secretly. We have no time for Baptist 'popes' who rule their ministries with an iron hand and can do no wrong, neither should we countenance heavy-handed Deacon Boards who usurp to themselves the leadership of a pastor and rob the membership of their informed consent. Such Pastor and Deacons have wrought untold damage in many local churches, usually just before they leave the scene of their crime and pass the responsibility to others to recover from the carnage.
"Such high-handed leadership undermines a reasonable extension of the Baptist principle of Individual Soul Liberty. . . . In fairness, not all of the responsibility for this problem falls on church leadership. Too many church members (please don't call them 'laity' in a Baptist church) are also guilty of abdicating their rights to participate in local church decision making."
[Click on "Recent Articles" and then on "Power to the People: Are We Abandoning Congregational Polity?"]
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 5,026
- Reaction score
- 294
- Points
- 83
I did not make myself the final authority. The Bible is the final authority not the church or the pastor.
If a person gives all the authority to a church that takes away from the authority of scripture.
It’s not about liberty but about giving scripture the authority over my life.
I think I know your view about women and pants. That being said, if a church says, you can’t be a member if your wife wears pants. Would the church have the authority to rightfully do this?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,596
- Reaction score
- 3,823
- Points
- 113
False dichotomy and over-simplification of the issue. The Bible is the ultimate and final authority for your faith and practice. It is not your authority to declare yourself able to dictate to the church/pastor what it will believe and practice.
Who has suggested the church has “all authority”? Cite examples.
Asked and answered, when earlier today I said….
“You have every right according to your conscience to believe what you will, but you don’t have the right to deny the authority of a body of believers and their covenant as a church, at least not without consequences.”
So in such a case, I would either comply out of deference to the church on a matter that is not of fundamental importance (in concert with prudent mutual consideration to my wife’s beliefs), or if I felt the examples of misapplication of Scripture was intolerably frequent then I would walk with my feet (if I thought dialogue with leadership would be unproductive).
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,596
- Reaction score
- 3,823
- Points
- 113
To what extent should allowances of said discussions be made? What if the congregant wanted to introduce and advocate for the notion of open theism, infant baptism (baptismal regeneration), or modalism?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 10,596
- Reaction score
- 3,823
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 5,026
- Reaction score
- 294
- Points
- 83
Your last paragraph says you and I agree. I’m saying the same thing.