A pastor's sin should remain private?

[arrepto veritate]

I have read two news articles about pastors who have had sins brought to the public eye. Both pastors are were upset that their sins came out, one is suing is because of it. Should a pastor's sin remain private?

 

[tturt]

"But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the Lord: and be sure your sin will find you out." Num 32:23

applies to all of us.

 

[Bradskii]

Should a pastor's sin remain private?

Yes, if it's a private matter. What did they do?

 

[arrepto veritate]

Yes, if it's a private matter. What did they do?

I am referring to Johnny Hunt and F.L. Copeland in Alabama. Hunt is suing the SBC for the revelation of an extramarital altercation with another married woman that the investigation into the SBC found the altercation to be a credible report of abuse. Hunt believes a pastor's sins should remain private.

In the case of Copeland he was outed for having another lifestyle in private and is quoted "what I do in my private life has nothing to do with what I do in my holy life."

We all sin. I am struggling with how these public figures dealt with it. I am of the understanding that pastors are held at a higher standard than those they lead. I am not seeing that higher standard. I think Copeland's quote is the reality of what many very public figures in pulpits today believe. I was looking for another opinion.

 

[Oneofhope]

Discussing sin, any sin, is a dangerous proposition, for one of the primary principles of the Law of Moses is that when sins are discussed, this in itself is what teaches and leads people into committing those exact same sins.

"Sins Advantage In The Law"
Romans 7:7-11 NKJV - "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me."

Those who have yet to receive the Circumcision of Christ will be tempted by the very sins discussed from the Pulpit. Anyone who understands the principles of the Law of Moses will know these things, in fact, their hearts will confirm the danger of discussing any form of sin at all.

Example: Tell a child what not to do and before you know it, they're doing exactly what they were told not to do. Yet incredibly, this is one of the primary purposes for God sharing His Law with us . . . to increase our trespasses.

Romans 5:20 NIV - "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more . . ."

But for the sake of protecting our children (and those who have yet to receive the Circumcision of Christ), it is best to not discuss sin AT ALL . . . which includes this place. I absolutely cringe each time people come to these sites and begin discussing their sex sins openly. It shows a complete lack of Biblical Wisdom and Understanding, for those very discussions are planting the very ideas into the minds of those who still are under the Power of Satan (those who have yet to receive the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ.)

 

[eleos1954]

I have read two news articles about pastors who have had sins brought to the public eye. Both pastors are were upset that their sins came out, one is suing is because of it. Should a pastor's sin remain private?

1 Timothy 5:20 In-Context

20 Rebuke publicly all those who commit sins, so that the rest may be afraid. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the holy angels I solemnly call upon you to obey these instructions without showing any prejudice or favor to anyone in anything you do.

Don't see how how a law suit can be successful ... the state has no authority over what can or can not be exposed by the church. As far as crime goes .... that also is allowed to be exposed by both. (don't know what sins were exposed with these two?)

I think exposure of ones sin to the public is up to the church ... and the church may decided to remove someone from fellowship within the church if they want to.

 

[zippy2006]

I have read two news articles about pastors who have had sins brought to the public eye. Both pastors are were upset that their sins came out, one is suing is because of it. Should a pastor's sin remain private?

This is one of those questions that has no black-and-white answer. Sometimes sin should be divulged, and sometimes it should not be. Matthew 18:15-20 speaks to this question. It is also worth considering whether the sin has a special impact on the public sphere and the common good.

 

[keith99]

This is one of those questions that has no black-and-white answer. Sometimes sin should be divulged, and sometimes it should not be. Matthew 18:15-20 speaks to this question. It is also worth considering whether the sin has a special impact on the public sphere and the common good.

It also matters how the sins of those in the pews are treated. It is absolutely disgusting when the sins of those in the pews are made public and the sins of the preachers are covered up. Those in authority should always be held to a higher standard (but often not all that much higher). I personally find it repugnant when a preacher reviles his flock about a sine he is committing and managing to cover up.

 

[Miles]

Should their sins remain private? They don't necessarily need to divulge the details, but integrity is important. If we're talking about infidelity, then probably not unless they're willing to silently step down and let somebody else be pastor.

It also matters how the sins of those in the pews are treated. It is absolutely disgusting when the sins of those in the pews are made public and the sins of the preachers are covered up. Those in authority should always be held to a higher standard (but often not all that much higher). I personally find it repugnant when a preacher reviles his flock about a sine he is committing and managing to cover up.

Agreed. Those in authority should be held to a higher standard. If they can't lead by example when it comes to the basics then they shouldn't be leading.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I am referring to Johnny Hunt and F.L. Copeland in Alabama. Hunt is suing the SBC for the revelation of an extramarital altercation with another married woman that the investigation into the SBC found the altercation to be a credible report of abuse. Hunt believes a pastor's sins should remain private.

In the case of Copeland he was outed for having another lifestyle in private and is quoted "what I do in my private life has nothing to do with what I do in my holy life."

We all sin. I am struggling with how these public figures dealt with it. I am of the understanding that pastors are held at a higher standard than those they lead. I am not seeing that higher standard. I think Copeland's quote is the reality of what many very public figures in pulpits today believe. I was looking for another opinion.

Hunt’s case isn’t about sin, it’s about a crime so, yes, that should be public knowledge.

Copeland’s situation was tragic and, given it was his personal life and he wasn’t doing anything illegal (that I saw), if he wanted it private then that should have been respected. However, it put him at odds with people who think anything other than a heteronormative life is shameful and to be exposed and rooted out. I think that is the real issue, not his private life.

 

[Paidiske]

I have read two news articles about pastors who have had sins brought to the public eye. Both pastors are were upset that their sins came out, one is suing is because of it. Should a pastor's sin remain private?

I think it depends on what has happened. If the pastor has done something within the church, or which has negatively impacted the church, then dealing with it well might mean privacy is compromised. (I am thinking, for example, of a situation I saw play out where a priest cheated on his wife with a woman in the congregation, and he ultimately left his wife for this woman. He was allowed to resign for "personal reasons" and the matter was kept private... for a while, until people still in touch with his wife started hearing what had really happened. It would have been better if a factual, simple statement was made up front so people understood why he had left in the way he did).

But if whatever the sin is was not in the church, was not a criminal matter, and didn't impact the church, then I think ministers should be allowed some privacy as a matter of grace. What is the point of public humiliation if it's not necessary?

 

[zippy2006]

It also matters how the sins of those in the pews are treated. It is absolutely disgusting when the sins of those in the pews are made public and the sins of the preachers are covered up. Those in authority should always be held to a higher standard (but often not all that much higher). I personally find it repugnant when a preacher reviles his flock about a sine he is committing and managing to cover up.

Well, you are talking about hypocrisy, which is a whole 'nother angle.

If a pastor is committing adultery should he stop preaching against adultery? No, I don't think so. Should a pastor who is doing so in a highly hypocritical and vile manner be "outed"? Yes, in certain circumstances.

For many, and especially Catholics, the general question of the OP bears on the question of what institutional damage would occur. This is where Catholics have erred in recent decades, but on the other hand, it is not an altogether simple matter to resolve. The institution has a legitimate interest at stake that even victims are able to recognize. Anti-institutionalism obscures this fact, and we tend to be imbalanced in both directions.

 

[Bradskii]

I am referring to Johnny Hunt and F.L. Copeland in Alabama. Hunt is suing the SBC for the revelation of an extramarital altercation with another married woman that the investigation into the SBC found the altercation to be a credible report of abuse. Hunt believes a pastor's sins should remain private.

In the case of Copeland he was outed for having another lifestyle in private and is quoted "what I do in my private life has nothing to do with what I do in my holy life."

We all sin. I am struggling with how these public figures dealt with it. I am of the understanding that pastors are held at a higher standard than those they lead. I am not seeing that higher standard. I think Copeland's quote is the reality of what many very public figures in pulpits today believe. I was looking for another opinion.

It seems that Hunt denied the accusations and then admitted to them a few years later, albeit that they were consensual acts. He should definitely be held to account.

And Copeland was apparently a crossdresser. Which harmed no-one. It wasn't overt and he kept it private but was outed by a local website: 1819 News. He then tragically took his own life. The people who thought to publish private photos of the guy should be held to account. A tragedy for Copeland, his wife, family and many friends.

 

[RDKirk]

Discussing sin, any sin, is a dangerous proposition, for one of the primary principles of the Law of Moses is that when sins are discussed, this in itself is what teaches and leads people into committing those exact same sins.

"Sins Advantage In The Law"
Romans 7:7-11 NKJV - "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me."

Those who have yet to receive the Circumcision of Christ will be tempted by the very sins discussed from the Pulpit. Anyone who understands the principles of the Law of Moses will know these things, in fact, their hearts will confirm the danger of discussing any form of sin at all.

Example: Tell a child what not to do and before you know it, they're doing exactly what they were told not to do. Yet incredibly, this is one of the primary purposes for God sharing His Law with us . . . to increase our trespasses.

Romans 5:20 NIV - "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more . . ."

But for the sake of protecting our children (and those who have yet to receive the Circumcision of Christ), it is best to not discuss sin AT ALL . . . which includes this place. I absolutely cringe each time people come to these sites and begin discussing their sex sins openly. It shows a complete lack of Biblical Wisdom and Understanding, for those very discussions are planting the very ideas into the minds of those who still are under the Power of Satan (those who have yet to receive the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ.)

You want to keep people from knowing that sin exists? Too late, that cat is already out of the bag. Children know how to sin before they know how to talk.

It's good that you've studied Romans 7, but you seem not to have understood that God's establishment of the commandment was spiritual, not intellectual. Nobody has to actually tell anyone what sin is. Humans are born with the establishment of the commandment already having had its effect on them.

 

[RDKirk]

1 Timothy 5:20 In-Context

20 Rebuke publicly all those who commit sins, so that the rest may be afraid. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the holy angels I solemnly call upon you to obey these instructions without showing any prejudice or favor to anyone in anything you do.

Don't see how how a law suit can be successful ... the state has no authority over what can or can not be exposed by the church. As far as crime goes .... that also is allowed to be exposed by both. (don't know what sins were exposed with these two?)

I think exposure of ones sin to the public is up to the church ... and the church may decided to remove someone from fellowship within the church if they want to.

It should be noted that 1 Timothy 5:20 refers explicitly to church leaders who sin.

 

[RDKirk]

It also matters how the sins of those in the pews are treated. It is absolutely disgusting when the sins of those in the pews are made public and the sins of the preachers are covered up. Those in authority should always be held to a higher standard (but often not all that much higher). I personally find it repugnant when a preacher reviles his flock about a sine he is committing and managing to cover up.

Yes, 1 Timothy 5:20 refers explicitly to exposing church leaders who sin.

If we take Jesus' handling of offenses within the congregation, most offenses should end without the matter becoming common knowledge.

 

[Richard T]

Discussing sin, any sin, is a dangerous proposition, for one of the primary principles of the Law of Moses is that when sins are discussed, this in itself is what teaches and leads people into committing those exact same sins.

"Sins Advantage In The Law"
Romans 7:7-11 NKJV - "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me."

Those who have yet to receive the Circumcision of Christ will be tempted by the very sins discussed from the Pulpit. Anyone who understands the principles of the Law of Moses will know these things, in fact, their hearts will confirm the danger of discussing any form of sin at all.

Example: Tell a child what not to do and before you know it, they're doing exactly what they were told not to do. Yet incredibly, this is one of the primary purposes for God sharing His Law with us . . . to increase our trespasses.

Romans 5:20 NIV - "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more . . ."

But for the sake of protecting our children (and those who have yet to receive the Circumcision of Christ), it is best to not discuss sin AT ALL . . . which includes this place. I absolutely cringe each time people come to these sites and begin discussing their sex sins openly. It shows a complete lack of Biblical Wisdom and Understanding, for those very discussions are planting the very ideas into the minds of those who still are under the Power of Satan (those who have yet to receive the Spiritual Circumcision of Christ.)

I like your post as I have always thought that preaching sin often only makes things worse. What seems more effective is preaching on how holy God has made us and how to walk in the spirit. I suppose the former is ok though if you end on the latter.

 

[RDKirk]

Copeland’s situation was tragic and, given it was his personal life and he wasn’t doing anything illegal (that I saw), if he wanted it private then that should have been respected. However, it put him at odds with people who think anything other than a heteronormative life is shameful and to be exposed and rooted out. I think that is the real issue, not his private life.

Depends on what he preached. If he preached that a Christian life must be a heteronormative life, then hypocrisy is the sin. Remember that the only people Jesus literally cursed were those committing hypocrisy explicitly for their hypocrisy.

 

[Oneofhope]

You want to keep people from knowing that sin exists? Too late, that cat is already out of the bag. Children know how to sin before they know how to talk.

It's good that you've studied Romans 7, but you seem not to have understood that God's establishment of the commandment was spiritual, not intellectual. Nobody has to actually tell anyone what sin is. Humans are born with the establishment of the commandment already having had its effect on them.

Kick the ball, not the player. I just copied and pasted Scripture. You can disagree with what Paul wrote . . . doesn't bother me at all.

 

[Oneofhope]

I like your post as I have always thought that preaching sin often only makes things worse. What seems more effective is preaching on how holy God has made us and how to walk in the spirit. I suppose the former is ok though if you end on the latter.

It's common sense . . . glad to see that someone gets it.

The person who posted after you suggested that babies know what rape and murder is when they're born. Whew . . . Christian websites are mind-boggling.