[Reader]

Originally Posted by n david

From what I've read, the church tried disciplining the man before he was subsequently excommunicated.

It may be. I assume such would come out in depositions.

The only law broken was regarding the Pastor not paying the kids. From what I've read in the comments, that is a separate issue from the lawsuit.

I agree it would not be part of the lawsuit, yet the two appear to be tied together.

If a person tells the Pastor something, then goes around telling others the same thing, there is no expectation of privacy or confidentiality. How can he claim it was private information if he were telling others the same information?

The pastor would still be under obligation to not share it with others.

Agreed....IF he did. We don't know that he did. People are just assuming the accuser is telling the truth without any evidence. And he may well be telling the truth.

Please note that I mentioned if and pointed out I was only able to go by what is in news reports.

Comment from the main news article.

Could one also say that you are just assuming this commenter is telling the truth without any evidence?

Why did this man keep going to the church, if not to cause trouble? I don't understand people who complain about and disagree with a Pastor, yet continue to go to the church.

Are you assuming this?

That's an assumption made without any evidence. You claim the Pastor would be wrong to retaliate against someone who took him to the authorities. What if the man was going around the church, causing division? Do you believe a Pastor should sit idly by while someone is purposefully causing trouble and division?

I stated it would appear and if that is true. If the expulsion was a result of the man going to the state about unpaid wages, would it be proper for the pastor to expel such a person for this? IF this is what happened, do you believe it is just?

Do you not believe the words of Jesus or writings of Paul on this issue?

The point of my final paragraph was it is not enough to just state that a believer may not sue another believer. We need to address what may be done and what recourse there is if any attempt to follow biblical advice cannot occur due to the manner in which the church is operated. Should a person be forced to accept and endure whatever may happen due to the fact that another believer is doing it to them?

If the Pastor slanders someone, that is for the church board to take up. If the church is affiliated with any organization, there are steps to take there. I wasn't there, I don't know the timeline of events, but it reads as though the man was causing division, refused to stop causing division and then was publicly reprimanded for it and excommunicated. After that, this man decided to file his third lawsuit. Because, from the comment posted above, that's what this guy does.

This is what I wish to explore. Are we able to discuss this separate from the Oregon case?

Situation: Pastor of an independent church slanders a member or former member. The board is a group of 'yes men' for the pastor, with no real authority to take any action. What options remain for the injured party? They are told they may not sue. At the same time, the board will not or cannot intervene.

Situation: Pastor of an affiliated church slanders a member or former member. The organization has a policy of dealing with charges against a minister but also affords liberty to each district overseer. In this case, that person has been a long-time friend of the pastor in question and dismisses the accusation against his friend. No action is taken. What options remain for the injured party? They are told they may not sue. At the same time, they are unable to pursue the situation through the established rules.

I have deliberately chosen two hypothetical situations where what would be considered the proper steps to take cannot be accomplished. It is something important to address since incidents such as these do indeed occur. How do we, as Christians, address them? Do we wave goodbye to the individual who was harmed and tell them tough luck?

Harmed in the community? Hurting his employment? This was done in a church. It's not as though the Pastor wrote an op-ed in the local paper or put up a billboard on main street.

I did not state the man was harmed in the community. Some people are. For instance, we have situations in Utah where people lost their employment because of church action. My final paragraph wasn't made with the intent as to only how it may pertain to this situation in Oregon, but to cause us to focus on the other side of the issue.