A pastor's sin should remain private?

[Bradskii]

We should obey God rather than men.

The problem has always been: Whose interpretation of God's will should we be subject to?

 

[Brihaha]

The problem has always been: Whose interpretation of God's will should we be subject to?

Touche`. And even then the Holy Spirit isn't discernible to all so called believers. I often think in absolute and literal terms. If/then; on/off; Christian/pagan. If all Christians are blessed with faith, then we should all feel the Holy Spirit guiding us to help our neighbor before ourselves. I am still a bit naive about faith and religion and how many people considering themselves Christians only seem to go thru the motions. Many atheists seem to have more compassion and love for others than professed believers. It's not as though most disputes between people are those who attend church together anyhow.

I don't think anyone believes that the 1819 news site that published the private details of Mr Copeland cares one whit that they played a role in destroying the man's life for a profit. If people weren't interested in snooping into others' lives there would be a very small market for these trash sites. Real life is becoming a dang reality show now. 15 seconds of fame is as good as fifteen minutes in the digital age.

 

[Larniavc]

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?

Nope.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

It does raise interesting points, I agree.
The way I look at it from a religious perspective, and from someone who put "Other Religion" in my profile, I'd much rather follow secular law than how I believe the Christian's image of how God's authority should be executed in our society. Secular law is a good neutral way that I believe works for the majority.

And as a Christian, I feel the same way. There is no universal standard in the application of the Bible and sects of Christianity disagree regularly. So for something like a divorce, say I sue for divorce and want it mediated by other Christians… Will I get the group that says it’s blanketly a sin to divorce and so my suit will get rejected? Will I get the one that says it’s only OK in certain circumstances and I’ll have to prove that? Will I get the group that says go ahead and divorce but now you can’t remarry? Will I get the group that says it’s fine and grant it? If I disagree with the groups decision because I interpret it differently, who do I go to? It’s too many variables.

I’m not saying secular law is perfect by any stretch, but at least the people who practice it all got standardized education, pull from a universal code of practice, and have oversight so if I want to appeal, I can, and it can be reheard.

 

[Brihaha]

It does raise interesting points, I agree.
The way I look at it from a religious perspective, and from someone who put "Other Religion" in my profile, I'd much rather follow secular law than how I believe the Christian's image of how God's authority should be executed in our society. Secular law is a good neutral way that I believe works for the majority.

Maybe you found the crux of the issue.
"the Christians image of how God's authority should be executed in our society". It appears a popular Christian view is the same as the average American. "My needs supercede the needs of others." In reading my bible, I strive to adhere to the word. If more members of organized religion acted in true faith, it would reduce the need for a secular judge to settle disagreements altogether.

Please don't misunderstand, I know we need laws to mitigate the chaos and violence in our society. No doubt. I merely have no confidence in our courts or laws to enforce justice evenly. I don't think I am alone in feeling this way. The faith I've been blessed with is reserved for God and the word.

 

[Desk trauma]

I'm not interested in these rabbit-hole conversations.

Take care.

You're on an internet discussion forum, this place is itself a rabbit hole.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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?

It depends on the situation. Depending on what sin was committed, when it happened, and how often it happens can be factors we would have to consider on this particular question. Obviously if it were something to the effect of indecency with a child that should obviously by reported but even if it were something like physical abuse of another person that should also be reported and if the pastor is regularly or repeatedly committing sins that should also be reported. When it happened can also be a factor because if these things happened several year before or when the person wasn’t even a pastor or maybe not even a Christian then I would say in most cases no it shouldn’t be reported unless it was a sexual offense with a minor in which case yes absolutely something of that nature regardless of when it happened should be reported.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

That statement right there is the statement of a false professor. Being a pastor or even a Christian isn’t a part time job or occupation, it’s a way of life.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

I would also point out that anyone who preaches the word of God is a hypocrite to some degree since unfortunately we all do sin from time to time. I think what really distinguishes a hypocrite is a complete lack of remorse and repentance from their sin.

 

[RDKirk]

I would also point out that anyone who preaches the word of God is a hypocrite to some degree since unfortunately we all do sin from time to time. I think what really distinguishes a hypocrite is a complete lack of remorse and repentance from their sin.

I would not call someone who consistently and consciously tries to practice what he preaches, but fails and feels remorse for failure, a hypocrite to any degree.

What we see Jesus calling hypocrites are people who know but won't make an honest attempt, and know they don't intend and have never intended to make an honest attempt...and are not repentant about it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I would not call someone who consistently and consciously tries to practice what he preaches, but fails and feels remorse for failure, a hypocrite to any degree.

What we see Jesus calling hypocrites are people who know but won't make an honest attempt, and know they don't intend and have never intended to make an honest attempt...and are not repentant about it.

Amen I agree with that.

 

[Oneofhope]

You're on an internet discussion forum, this place is itself a rabbit hole.

If all participated with maturity and the Grace of God, we could all hold reasonable and rational conversations that are edifying for all people. If any one thing could be accomplished, it ought to be that parties can disagree with each other, yet their disagreements would not escalate.

 

[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.

Something like this is currently happening at Church Militant (link).

 

[ViaCrucis]

On the one hand, I believe Confession to be sacred, and it is a pastoral responsibility to keep what is confessed privately private. There are exceptions to this, I believe, but as the general rule of pastoral conduct that is important.

At the same time, if a pastor knows that a member of the congregation is doing something--has done and may do again--something utterly heinous that it warrants bringing it to the civil authorities, I think that is important. Now, I believe, good pastoral counsel would involve telling the penitent--if they are truly penitent--to face the consequences of their actions by turning themselves in. But if they don't, and if they are a risk--a continued risk--then there is a pastoral prerogative to protect the other sheep under his shepherding care.

If a man admits to beating his wife, and refuses to take real ownership of that action by facing real consequences, it would be an act of cruelty for a pastor not to do what is within his means to protect the victim--because someone who admits to something but refuses to actually amend their ways is someone who is likely to do it again.

A pastor has the requirement, I believe, to not only maintain the privacy of the confessional; but also the moral obligation to protect the flock and the community at large. Both are sacred responsibilities of that office.

When a pastor is themselves guilty of betraying the trust of their congregation, they have a responsibility to the Church--both to their parishioners as well as the entire Church at large to deal with that responsibly--and if a pastor is engaged in things which are heinous, seeks to keep them quiet, then they are unfit to exercise the sacred office with which they have been entrusted. It is a fundamental betrayal of their office, of the trust granted to them by the Church--for I believe very strongly that every pastor has their authority from the Church, not from themselves; it is the Church which appoints and ordains her ministers; pastors are not masters but servants of the Church. So it is imperative that pastors be held to the highest standards of accountability. As Christ said, "To whom much is given, much is required".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Open Heart]

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?

If someone is hurting someone else, the appropriate response is to stop them. You cannot do that if you keep it a secret.

 

[Open Heart]

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.

The incident you are describing is abusive. The pastor is using his authority over a female parishioner to have an illicit and toxic sexual relationship.

The Southern Baptist convention is working overtime trying to deal with the scandal of all the sexual abuse cases that are coming forward. Just as it was with the Catholic church, the thing that twists the knife is how the church covers it up.

Religious leaders are supposed to be our moral leaders. That means not only do they teach us right from wrong with their mouths in their sermons, but they are to illustrate moral living with their lives. A pastor that violates this needs to be let go.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The incident you are describing is abusive. The pastor is using his authority over a female parishioner to have an illicit and toxic sexual relationship.

The Southern Baptist convention is working overtime trying to deal with the scandal of all the sexual abuse cases that are coming forward. Just as it was with the Catholic church, the thing that twists the knife is how the church covers it up.

Religious leaders are supposed to be our moral leaders. That means not only do they teach us right from wrong with their mouths in their sermons, but they are to illustrate moral living with their lives. A pastor that violates this needs to be let go.

Just to add:

More than a moral leader, a pastor is supposed to guard, protect, and keep their parishioners safe. A pastor is an under-shepherd of Christ, Christ is the Church's Shepherd, but a pastor in their vow surrenders themselves to represent Christ, and to occupy themselves with the particular cross that only pastors can carry--to teach, to offer guidance, to protect not only from theological error but also abuses within the church and those things without.

The Church, historically, has always regarded pastors to be spiritual fathers, this goes back to the apostles, where we see St. Paul call himself St. Timothy's spiritual father. And a loving, good parent sacrifices, serves, loves, protects, instructs, and leads by example.

That is a massive cross to carry. Which is also why pastors--expected to bear integrity and trustworthiness--are to be taken seriously--they bear a responsibility of leadership, of authority within the structures of the church. And because leadership--authority--is so easily able to be abused, twisted, and perverted into authoritarianism, or other kinds of evil; the pastor can never be above reproach, but is accountable to the Church. There must be a mutual accountability between pastors, as well as the accountability which pastors have to their congregations.

When a pastor becomes the abuser, that is such a deep, deep, deep betrayal of trust. When that abuse is covered up, or excused away, and rather than face repurcussions and consequences, that abuse is allowed to continue or even get worse it becomes a scandal. I don't mean purely in a negative PR sense; but in a deeper sense: Why should the Church be trusted if it, systematically, acts untrustworthy? Even the Faithful should look upon it with possible disdain.

The highest privilege, which the Church can offer, being ordained as a minister of the word of God for the spiritual good of the Faithful; can also be rescinded, and should be rescinded from those who would abuse the word of God for selfish gain.

Being a pastor isn't easy, and it shouldn't be easy. To whom much is given, much is required.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[IceJad]

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 is obvious what the Lord says about it.

John 3:20-21
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

Pastors have to be beyond reproach and ruling their households well. It seems to me that these pastors have disqualified themselves in what they have done. How their sins came into the public domain is immaterial. The fact is that they are no longer beyond reproach and according to 1 Timothy and Titus, they have been disqualified according to Scripture. Whether they want to accept that is up to them and their congregations, and they will have to stand before Jesus one day and have their works tested by fire. If all their works are burned up and they enter heaven with nothing, then they have no one to blame but themselves.

If their sins came out because of gossip, then the gossipers will have to give their own account to the Lord on that day and accept the consequences.