"Pastor" throws hissy fit

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by Whole Hearted

People today hate pastoral Authority.

If you mean that "pastoral authority" means publically humiliating members, I doubt this has EVER been loved.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by n david

.

So if this was about confronting sin, what was the sin?

I don't know! The sleeping person appears a different member than the one rebuked as "The sorriest member here, ...Not worth 15 cents...Wanting me to marry you to her" and "...not knowing your place." There has to be a longer history and context about the second guy being rebuked--any or all on that list could have been a reference to sin and/or disobedience that probably some of the church family understood, but we are not privy to knowing in this case. I am only claiming that open, pastoral rebuke is scriptural, even if or when not wise. And for a long time in Apostolica such was a more accepted practice, even when apparently "so mean" as in this clip. The catch-all, "Obey them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your soul...." lets the authoritative type pastors decide what qualifies as disobedience. Aside from that, pastors can usually tell who is trying by faith (sheep) and who is faking it (goats.) Had the bully pastor known a Youtube jury would be watching him kill a goat, he could have made the case more specific regarding sin.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

I never labeled it "a method." However, Paul's coworker Peter perhaps demonstrates the concept in a big way here,

"Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these words."

No evidence that this was in public, more just the two offenders, called before the apostle.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by houston

Are you saying that Paul didn't practice what he preached?

I don't believe Paul denigrated folks in this manner. This mans approach is one from a sense of superiority, and arrogance. It rises to abuse of folks of weak character, and guilty conscience develop from years of this kind of disrespect.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

An overseer must rule his household well, otherwise how will he be able to rule the house of God. (The word rule, if I remember correctly, has to do with persuading, being able to persuade people to do right, not lording it over).

As a result, I would say the preacher needs to step back and pray a bit and seek more wisdom in how to address the issues.

Having said that, I give him kudos for at least having the heart to publicly address issues that apparently need to be addressed, unlike so many churches and ministers who just go along to get along and collect a nice paycheck, not upsetting any apple carts, preaching worldliness and tolerating nonsense.

And the person who claimed 'this is spiritual abuse', get over it. Too much whineyness in America today.

When a man in a position of authority, says "....you are not worth 15 cents..."
that is abuse and like parents telling their kid, "...you are worthless, and will never amount to anything..." He is abusing his authority, and lifting himself up superior.

It is not like a sibling or peer saying the same words. This does not have the right kind of heart to be in the leadership position that he is in.

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by crakjak

When a man in a position of authority, says "....you are not worth 15 cents..."
that is abuse and like parents telling their kid, "...you are worthless, and will never amount to anything..." He is abusing his authority, and lifting himself up superior.

It is not like a sibling or peer saying the same words. This does not have the right kind of heart to be in the leadership position that he is in.

Furthermore, could this possibly be a lie? Does a Pastor have the right to stretch it to this point? I know I say this probably too often, but how would this pastor measure up to living according to 1 Cor. 13? Oh and on second thought, does a pastor have to measure up to 1 Cor. 13?

BT

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Jay

I listened to that clip, and I will tell you that I had no problem with it.

That man and his fiance had issues with attendance, he was already not faithful to the house of God, and apparently had a rebellious attitude to go along with it. They do not need him there. Further, he was not wrong in calling out the gentleman in the video room. Those young people hanging out up there should have been sitting in the congregation, not up there. The young man falling asleep has apparently done this before to merit that correction, but it was not overly severe, and I have heard of far more severe corrections because of it.

The full video is also posted, not this rather pathetic hit job. Pastors used to do far more correction, and had the respect of their people too. You can not discipline a goat.

I attended a church where the pastor's sons operated the sound room, kind of a balcony above and behind the congregation. They would signal the Dallas Cowboy's score, on Sunday night, to the men in the congregation. Those boys are still attending church to this day.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

1 Timothy 5:1-2 ESV

Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.

Its not talking about church elders but older men

Agreed on that part. But are you claiming that 1Tim.5:20 refers to elders ONLY, since 1Tim 5:19 specifies elders?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually it was talking about Elders who sin

1Ti 5:19 Do not accept an accusation against an elder unless it can be confirmed by two or three witnesses.
1Ti 5:20 Those guilty of sin must be rebuked before all, as a warning to the rest.
1Ti 5:21 Before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, I solemnly charge you to carry out these commands without prejudice or favoritism of any kind

Do not many epistle chapters end with a collation of loosely related, but not tightly connected thoughts and admonitions? The subject of 5:19 is "accusations brought against the elders" but that thought NOT necessarily continued with 5:20. Likewise, the idea of 5:20 is a slight gear change from 5:21, and 5:21 just roughly related to 5:22, and so on.

I can appreciate how a 21st Century (ie, nicer) interpretation tries to avoid a traditional justification some pastors have used in order to unfairly smack people around with the bible. But the text here seems so not tricky, with its additional context not mitigating its stand-alone meaning,

"Those who are sinning, rebuke in the presence of all, that others may also fear." (NKJV)

[PS, The same word "presbutero" (for "elder") is used in all of 1Tim 5:1, 5:19, and 5:17. But 5:17 implies these "elders who rule well" are church leaders, if not officers of sort. Is it likely that Paul would be telling Timothy to openly rebuke ONLY those Elders (with a capital "E") ? Considering the qualifications for deacon (1Tim3:10 "tested and blameless"-- !) then it's unlikely that sin-problem Elders are primarily in view (in 5:20) as they would not achieve any leadership office, or at least would be quickly removed.]

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by crakjak

No evidence that this was in public, more just the two offenders, called before the apostle.

Depends on what you accept as evidence.
Acts 5:5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6. And the young men arose and wrapped him, carried him out, and buried him.

The above reads just like a SEQUENCE. "So great fear upon all who heard" is described as happening in between "breathed his last" and "young men buried him." But maybe you will claim that doesn't mean anyone was allowed to witness this Holy Ghost Thumping of a liar. Ok, your god was so determined to not embarrass the guy in public, although billions of people have since that day had to read about it.

Originally Posted by crakjak

No evidence that this was in public, more just the two offenders, called before the apostle.

Acts 5:2 specifies Ananias lay the proceeds at the "Apostles' feet" which is a plural possessive. But I'm sure you have another explanation that fits what a private affair it was.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

Agreed on that part. But are you claiming that 1Tim.5:20 refers to elders ONLY, since 1Tim 5:19 specifies elders?



Do not many epistle chapters end with a collation of loosely related, but not tightly connected thoughts and admonitions? The subject of 5:19 is "accusations brought against the elders" but that thought NOT necessarily continued with 5:20. Likewise, the idea of 5:20 is a slight gear change from 5:21, and 5:21 just roughly related to 5:22, and so on.

I can appreciate how a 21st Century (ie, nicer) interpretation tries to avoid a traditional justification some pastors have used in order to unfairly smack people around with the bible. But the text here seems so not tricky, with its additional context not mitigating its stand-alone meaning,

"Those who are sinning, rebuke in the presence of all, that others may also fear." (NKJV)

[PS, The same word "presbutero" (for "elder") is used in all of 1Tim 5:1, 5:19, and 5:17. But 5:17 implies these "elders who rule well" are church leaders, if not officers of sort. Is it likely that Paul would be telling Timothy to openly rebuke ONLY those Elders (with a capital "E") ? Considering the qualifications for deacon (1Tim3:10 "tested and blameless"-- !) then it's unlikely that sin-problem Elders are primarily in view (in 5:20) as they would not achieve any leadership office, or at least would be quickly removed.]

Yes Paul was specifically addressing Elders, perhaps because they are in leadership

The context shows 1Ti 5:1 refers to older men just as verse 2 is older women.

The Greek word can refer to both depending on the context