"Pastor Is Always Right, Even If Wrong" - Abusive Spiritual Authority Hall of Shame

[Ransom]

it may be appropriate to let the congregation know why they are being asked to give that member "Das Boot."

You offer him the left boat of fellowship?

 

[ALAYMAN]

To your last paragraph.

Would you deny us (and our pastor by extension) that ecclesiastical authority?

You’re guilty of doing this if you walk with your feet.

What!?!

 

[ALAYMAN]

I agree. Other things being equal, it is best for the church leadership to avoid publicizing the notions of known heretics or the gripes of perennial soreheads. Unfortunately, sometimes heretics and soreheads give themselves the platform and cannot be stopped from making their views known, in which case a public disputation is sometimes needed to clear the air. If it becomes necessary to exclude the offending member, it may be appropriate to let the congregation know why they are being asked to give that member "Das Boot."

If a member suddenly and out of the blue interrupts the service to go on about how the swoon theory is a plausible explanation for the claims of resurrection there won’t be “discussion” but rather eviction, lol.

 

[Bruh]

What!?!

You are taking away “ecclesiastical authority” by walking with your feet.

My original post said something to the effect, that your constitution pushed the Bible aside when it comes to alcohol by demanding to become a member a person must never drink. And I also said, that that person can choose not to join and you gave this reply

Would you deny us (and our pastor by extension) that ecclesiastical authority?

So, if you walk with your feet are you guilty of this?

 

[ALAYMAN]

You are taking away “ecclesiastical authority” by walking with your feet.

My original post said something to the effect, that your constitution pushed the Bible aside when it comes to alcohol by demanding to become a member a person must never drink. And I also said, that that person can choose not to join and you gave this reply

Would you deny us (and our pastor by extension) that ecclesiastical authority?

So, if you walk with your feet are you guilty of this?

What do you think ecclesiastical authority means?

 

[Bruh]

Power or

What do you think ecclesiastical authority means?

governing authority

 

[ALAYMAN]

Power or

governing authority

Governing authority, but where?

 

[Bruh]

Governing authority, but where?

Over the members

 

[ALAYMAN]

Over the members

Does he have the authority to say that they cannot walk with their feet and leave membership? Or does his authority only extend to those under his care within the structure of the church?

 

[Bruh]

Does he have the authority to say that they cannot walk with their feet and leave membership? Or does his authority only extend to those under his care within the structure of the church?

Wether he’s a member or not the church does not have the authority to say, no you cannot walk.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Wether he’s a member or not the church does not have the authority to say, no you cannot walk.

So you’ve already answered your own question then. “You are taking away ‘ecclesiastical authority’ by walking with your feet.” is a false, illogical, or poorly worded statement. A person who leaves a congregation does not take away ecclesiastical authority. That authority is given by consent of the members who are governed within that local church assembly (that’s what ecclesiology is, at least in independent churches). When you leave, you deny them authority to govern your life, but you do not take their authority to willingly govern within a local church framework.

 

[Bruh]

So you’ve already answered your own question then. “You are taking away ‘ecclesiastical authority’ by walking with your feet.” is a false, illogical, or poorly worded statement. A person who leaves a congregation does not take away ecclesiastical authority. That authority is given by consent of the members who are governed within that local church assembly (that’s what ecclesiology is, at least in independent churches). When you leave, you deny them authority to govern your life, but you do not take their authority to willingly govern within a local church framework.

So if you walk, talking about you personally, that’s what you would be doing if you choose to do so.

So back to the guy who chose to walk because of your constitution he has every right biblically to walk?

 

[ALAYMAN]

So if you walk, talking about you personally, that’s what you would be doing if you choose to do so.

So back to the guy who chose to walk because of your constitution he has every right biblically to walk?

According to his own conscience, he will answer for his own choices, and a pastor will answer for how he governs. In his case, he wasn’t willing to be governed by reasonable biblical Pastoral authority. He didn’t wanna know the truth. He wanted to believe that pot was good.

Similarly, and ironically, I am currently dealing with somebody who is friends with a flat-earther. The source of information for the flat earth proponent is extra biblical sources. They want to take those sources and question the legitimacy of scriptures. Imagine that, somebody who doesn’t want to submit to the authority of scriptures all the while claiming to believe in God and “Yashua”.

Remember, my first statement about the person who wanted to smoke pot was that they were biased and immature, not really being led of their informed Christ honoring conscience, but rather being led by their flesh. I won’t answer for those choices made against biblical counsel.

 

[illinoisguy]

More on the Second Baptist Houston court case:

"Two important ideas came out of Dorfman’s ruling: Officers and directors of a nonprofit corporation owe their fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, not to individual members of the corporation; and churches as Texas nonprofits do not face the same scrutiny in notices of meetings as other nonprofits. . . .

“'Texas law makes quite clear, however, that officers and directors of a for-profit corporation do not owe fiduciary duties to individual shareholders. The duty is owed to the corporation. … The same rule holds true for nonprofit corporations like Second Baptist Church.'

"'To allow individual members of a church to hold leaders accountable in this way could create chaos, the judge ruled. 'This is not some hyper-technical distinction. At minimum, one suspects Second Baptist would find itself hard-pressed to fill officer and director positions were this court to decree that they are potentially subject to civil liability to any one of the 94,000 members due to disagreements about proper church governance or whether they made incomplete (or no) disclosures on the subject.'”

Lawsuit against Second Baptist Houston tossed out | The Roys Report

A Texas judge dismissed a lawsuit by Second Baptist Houston members who accused leaders of rigging bylaws to make Ed Young's son pastor.

roysreport.com

Second Baptist Church was morally wrong to call a special business meeting with limited notice to members, for the purpose of sneaking in these changes in the by-laws. But under Texas law, what they did was legally permitted. Members who objected to this skullduggery were right to do so, but they have no remedy for it except to vote with their feet and leave the church (and cut off the automatic credit card donations and change their wills, please).

 

[Ransom]

But under Texas law, what they did was legally permitted.

And I suppose a church that abolishes congregational polity can legally continue to call itself "Baptist," too, although at this point they're Baptist in name only.