UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by Cindy

I had not heard of anything like this before I came on AFF. It still shocks me and makes me sad, and grateful. Grateful that all the Pastor's I have known in my life, were humble before God, and loving souls.

I never witnessed anything like this, but I have heard many stories from friends that it did happen to. It appears that teenagers are the biggest target when they start to question or rebel against church teachings. Unfortunately, every person that I know that this happened to left the church for good after being humiliated. I have yet to see a positive result from the public approach.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway

I never witnessed anything like this, but I have heard many stories from friends that it did happen to. It appears that teenagers are the biggest target when they start to question or rebel against church teachings. Unfortunately, every person that I know that this happened to left the church for good after being humiliated. I have yet to see a positive result from the public approach.

Yup, it DOES happen to teens more then anyone, although I did see it happen to people of all ages. Once I hit 18 -and until my early 30's, I think I stepped inside a church a few dozen times. I still don't go much because of the wave of bad memories (and still do everything I can to avoid song service).

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Yup, it DOES happen to teens more then anyone, although I did see it happen to people of all ages. Once I hit 18 -and until my early 30's, I think I stepped inside a church a few dozen times. I still don't go much because of the wave of bad memories (and still do everything I can to avoid song service).

My father was a good pastor, and I never recall him calling anyone out for sin from the pulpit. He DID make one tragic mistake with my sister in private when she was a teenager.

She sneaked out one night and went to a high school party with her best friend. At this party, my sister and her friend were both raped!

My father, in his emotional response to hearing about the rape, put the blame on my sister for getting involved with worldly friends. It was my sister's fault that she and her friend were raped!

The icing on the cake was when he followed that up and said, "Think about how this looks on ME as a pastor!"

When my sister heard those words, she was forever changed! She will not now darken the doors of a church! She is a drug addict and lives a rather sad life now at the age of 52 years old.

When my sister heard that my father's concern about her humiliation of being raped was how it looked on HIM, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. My father later apologized, but the bell couldn't be un-rung!

[DAII]

I see Lois also has brought up the looming doctrinal and ecclesiatical issue that this case brings before the UPCI, when it comes to the definition of fornication and reasons for divorce:

"As pointed out earlier, the UPC ministerial Manual gives their official definition of immoral conduct to include "adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest, and/or any other sexual acts determined by the District Board to be perverted or immoral." It would appear that the official stand of the organization is basically that immoral conduct is some form of sexual act.

Let's review the acts listed by Pastor Fogarty, that in his eyes constitute biblical fornication:

• homosexuality
• lesbianism
• lust
• exhibitionism
• pornography
• child abuse
• harlotry
• bestiality
• prostitution
• solicitation of sex
• and so forth

The question that needs to be answered is whether or not the United Pentecostal Church as an organization is in agreement. Besides the organization as a whole, would any UPC District Board across the country agree that the incident at the swimming pool was in fact exhibitionism and that this is an example of the biblical definition of fornication and thus grounds for divorce and remarriage?

This case has great significance in the organization because if this definition stands, similar statements concerning other church members, or former members as is the case here, could be made by their licensed ministers in other churches and/or it used as a reason for additional divorce or remarriage.

If it stands, will a licensed minister be able to divorce or remarry based on their spouse accidentally being seen in a bathing suit at a pool when another man suddenly arrives?

This isn't just a local licensed minister giving this definition. It is someone who holds numerous offices within the UPC, including high level positions."

---------------------
Lois, I would add that the indifference shown by the District Supt. on the matter which came before him via letter .... and in my own experience - my dad served on the Metro District board - the District board of Georgia no doubt met either formally or informally about this ...

Their indifference to address this definition given by the General Secretary of the Georgia board which is at the VERY CORE OF THIS MATTER ... can only be interpreted as tacit approval of his definition ...

Yes, the UPCI manual defines these as sexual acts but also allows a district board to determine other acts that are perverse or immoral

By choosing to not censure or address this matter in a public manner, or with Ms. Driver, one must believe that their apathy is tacit stamp of approval of a board member's definition of fornication.

Georgia Board, is exhibitionism and/or other forms of immodesty ... FORNICATION?
Is there a difference between immodesty (commonly viewed as wearing pants, or skirt above the knee) and exhibitionism?
How much skin qualifies for exhibitionism? What settings?
Is this grounds for divorce?

Has Pastor Fogarty been corrected in defining fornication seemingly contrary to how it is defined by the manual and scripturally ... and for condoning divorce on the grounds he gave?

This is a matter of precedence.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DAII

I see Lois also has brought up the looming doctrinal and ecclesiatical issue that this case brings before the UPCI, when it comes to the definition of fornication and reasons for divorce:

"As pointed out earlier, the UPC ministerial Manual gives their official definition of immoral conduct to include "adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest, and/or any other sexual acts determined by the District Board to be perverted or immoral." It would appear that the official stand of the organization is basically that immoral conduct is some form of sexual act.

Let's review the acts listed by Pastor Fogarty, that in his eyes constitute biblical fornication:

• homosexuality
• lesbianism
• lust
• exhibitionism
• pornography
• child abuse
• harlotry
• bestiality
• prostitution
• solicitation of sex
• and so forth

The question that needs to be answered is whether or not the United Pentecostal Church as an organization is in agreement. Besides the organization as a whole, would any UPC District Board across the country agree that the incident at the swimming pool was in fact exhibitionism and that this is an example of the biblical definition of fornication and thus grounds for divorce and remarriage?

This case has great significance in the organization because if this definition stands, similar statements concerning other church members, or former members as is the case here, could be made by their licensed ministers in other churches and/or it used as a reason for additional divorce or remarriage.

If it stands, will a licensed minister be able to divorce or remarry based on their spouse accidentally being seen in a bathing suit at a pool when another man suddenly arrives?

This isn't just a local licensed minister giving this definition. It is someone who holds numerous offices within the UPC, including high level positions."

---------------------
Lois, I would add that the indifference shown by the District Supt. on the matter which came before him via letter .... and in my own experience - my dad served on the Metro District board - the District board of Georgia no doubt met either formally or informally about this ...

Their indifference to address this definition given by the General Secretary of the Georgia board which is at the VERY CORE OF THIS MATTER ... can only be interpreted as tacit approval of his definition ...

Yes, the UPCI manual defines these as sexual acts but also allows a district board to determine other acts that are perverse or immoral

By choosing to not censure or address this matter in a public manner, or with Ms. Driver, one must believe that their apathy is tacit stamp of approval of a board member's definition of fornication.

Georgia Board, is exhibitionism and/or other forms of immodesty ... FORNICATION?
Is there a difference between immodesty (commonly viewed as wearing pants, or skirt above the knee) and exhibitionism?
How much skin qualifies for exhibitionism? What settings?
Is this grounds for divorce?

Has Pastor Fogarty been corrected in defining fornication seemingly contrary to how it is defined by the manual and scripturally ... and for condoning divorce on the grounds he gave?

This is a matter of precedence.

Good questions, Dan.

Is the UPC or any other religious body quick to evaluate and examine itself, correct itself, or confess its faults with transparency and humility? The other option is to encircle the wagons and to justify unbiblical actions in order to save face. I'm looking forward to how the new leadership will address this situation. I'm hoping and praying for integrity and honesty to win out. May God help them to do the right thing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Good questions, Dan.

Is the UPC or any other religious body quick to evaluate and examine itself, correct itself, or confess its faults with transparency and humility? The other option is to encircle the wagons and to justify unbiblical actions in order to save face. I'm looking forward to how the new leadership will address this situation. I'm hoping and praying for integrity and honesty to win out. May God help them to do the right thing.

You all are talking about one man right?

You can't hold an organization accountable for the actions of one individual.

Sometimes when I read these UPCI hate threads I can't help thinking it is like a few of you are involved in a fatal attraction.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You all are talking about one man right?

You can't hold an organization accountable for the actions of one individual.

Sometimes when I read these UPCI hate threads I can't help thinking it is like a few of you are involved in a fatal attraction.

But I don't hate the UPC.

It's not one man involved in this situation. This complaint should have never gone to court. It had been brought to the pastor and then the district level before it was ever brought court. They had ample opportunity to address the matter and all of its issues but they did nothing. Dan's questions are valid. I can understand your comments since much of the bluster is coming from Dan, whom most of us see as having an agenda against the UPC, but Dan is making excellent points which you try to brush away with comments that don't address the real issues. It's not about one man, it's about the definition of fornication and remarriage. It's about how the UPC will respond to this matter.

There was a similar situation in Galatia back in the early days of the church. Some were going around saying Christians had to be circumcised and keepers of the law of Moses to be saved. The early church did the right thing. They sought God. They didn't let error continue. The Bible doesn't tell us that after they found the will of God that they discommunicated or set at nought those who were to be found in error, either.

[tv1a]

You can hold the organization accountable if they condone the behavior.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You all are talking about one man right?

You can't hold an organization accountable for the actions of one individual.

Sometimes when I read these UPCI hate threads I can't help thinking it is like a few of you are involved in a fatal attraction.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

...
This is a matter of precedence.

Since we don't really know what happened at "the pool incident" and probably never will, on a going forward basis, the only real question that arises is the propriety of remarriage in this and similar cases.

It has been reported that the gentleman seeking to remarry was NOT the one to file for divorce - in spite of the speculated "grounds" that have been offered. His ex clearly was looking for a lifestyle outside of the "Apostolic/Pentecostal" realm of standards and such. Thus, he is "a victim of divorce."

The UPCI Manual and the AoF on this matter have always been understood and interpreted as saying that the "victim of a divorce" can remarry - but "only in the Lord." There really has never been a need to "prove" that an actual act of "adultery" took place. It is enough that the man was served with papers and left standing out in the rain.

There has already been a ton of precedence for this. It's no big deal, in the long run. This one guy just sort of flubbed his handling of the thing and got zapped for a half a million dollars because he wanted to "prove" something that he didn't even need to prove.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Since we don't really know what happened at "the pool incident" and probably never will, on a going forward basis, the only real question that arises is the propriety of remarriage in this and similar cases.

It has been reported that the gentleman seeking to remarry was NOT the one to file for divorce - in spite of the speculated "grounds" that have been offered. His ex clearly was looking for a lifestyle outside of the "Apostolic/Pentecostal" realm of standards and such. Thus, he is "a victim of divorce."

The UPCI Manual and the AoF on this matter have always been understood and interpreted as saying that the "victim of a divorce" can remarry - but "only in the Lord." There really has never been a need to "prove" that an actual act of "adultery" took place. It is enough that the man was served with papers and left standing out in the rain.

There has already been a ton of precedence for this. It's no big deal, in the long run. This one guy just sort of flubbed his handling of the thing and got zapped for a half a million dollars because he wanted to "prove" something that he didn't even need to prove.

Pela, you may want to update your files. James filed for divorce from the ex-pastor's adopted daughter on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. See the Spiritual Abuse site.