UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[Hoovie]

If you are looking for a "gorilla" you often miss other important details...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmd...layer_embedded

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

That wasn't his defense.

His defense was:

One of the reasons the pastor gave James Driver as grounds to biblically remarry was that James Driver once found his then-wife Angela Driver wearing a bikini at a swimming pool while with the husband of a mutual friend. The pastor felt that constituted exhibitionism and met the biblical definition of fornication, according to the defense summary.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/07/07/1187...#ixzz0td6QcJR6

Oooh, there we go. Good words to include in a lawsuit. LOL!

“The statements were made and calculated to harm the plaintiff and to justify defendant’s daughter’s relationship with James Driver, who was previously divorced from plaintiff, and to obtain the church congregation’s approval of the relationship between James Driver and Reverend Fogarty’s daughter,” the lawsuit stated."

Oopps...

He explained that the biblical definition of fornication includes more than sex outside of marriage. He told the congregation he had given James Driver permission to remarry because Angela Driver had committed one act of fornication, the motion states.

Yes, this is how they won it.

However, the acts given the congregation that constituted fornication accused Angela Driver of adultery, and the use of the term “fornication” imputed immorality to Angela Driver, the lawsuit stated.

Still not giving the woman a pass, by any means. It looked like a bad marriage. The pastor shouldn't have not brought that to the congregation. Even though he felt that her dress and actions constituted fornication, he couldn't prove she had done a physical act. That turns it toward slander.

Well, that was a good lesson for the ministry. It's going to do more harm than good, though. All of the ants will be out of the woodwork, including homosexuals. We won't be able to say anything because of those that have abused the position. Well, that's the way it works. We all get punished for the mistakes of others.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

omg!!!! You watch THAT show?



I definitely think it was terrible judgment, and she may have had bad motives. However, there's no proof that anything occurred beyond immodesty. That alone doesn't constitute fornication or adultery, ergo just biblical cause for divorce/remarriage.

And even if she did have lustful thoughts in her heart (ie:fornication in her heart) for the other man at the pool, none of us can possibly know that so we have to give her the benefit of the doubt.

.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I imagine that him calling out sinners was fairly common practice... you don't know of any preachers that do that?

I've heard of a church where a bulletin board or chalk board was kept up to date in the lobby where people currently under discipline or disfellowshiped were listed by name.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Cindy

Unlike women that commit fornication and adultery with co-workers, having never worn a bikini in front of them?

Sure, you can commit adultery wearing whatever. I agree! You can be wearing a wedding ring and it doesn't mean a thing. But she was wearing bikini and shouldn't have been.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Charnock

I did no such thing.

I said it would be if she wore a bikini whilst with a man who was not her husband.

To me, that is cheating. She's showing her wares to the wrong feller.

When seeking legal grounds for divorce in most states, "bikini" wearing, however immodest you and I may feel it to be, is not considered suitable grounds. Neither the NT nor the OT having anything in the original that can be translated as "bikini" so we'll have to extrapolate from there.

Matthew 5:32, clearly states that only "adultery" is suitable ground for a man to "put away his wife." I would not want to approach the throne whilst attempting to make "bikini wearing" my argument for otherwise.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Charnock

At the very least, stupidity.

Stupidity isn't grounds for divorce. Sorry, Charlie.

I love how you guys give her all of the benefit of the doubt, but staple Fogarty to the nearest cork board.

I didn't staple Fogarty to anything, and I didn't give Ms. Driver the benefit of any doubt. I'm only going by the facts as presented in the article. Since we don't know that anything else occurred other than "exhibitionism" (and I think if the pastor had known of anything else he would have most definitely said so), then that's all we can address.

I agree that Ms. Driver was immodest, and I'm not supporting her actions. The pastor slandered her reputation before the church to bolster support for his daughter marrying her ex-husband. I'm not convinced that her actions were worse in the grand scheme of things, and I still say she was justified in her lawsuit.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Oooh, there we go. Good words to include in a lawsuit. LOL!



Oopps...



Yes, this is how they won it.




Still not giving the woman a pass, by any means. It looked like a bad marriage. The pastor shouldn't have not brought that to the congregation. Even though he felt that her dress and actions constituted fornication, he couldn't prove she had done a physical act. That turns it toward slander.

Well, that was a good lesson for the ministry. It's going to do more harm than good, though. All of the ants will be out of the woodwork, including homosexuals. We won't be able to say anything because of those that have abused the position. Well, that's the way it works. We all get punished for the mistakes of others.

PO what is it you are just now seeing? This is the story I read all along.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

And even if she did have lustful thoughts in her heart for the other man at the pool, none of us can possibly know that so we have to give her the benefit of the doubt.
.

No, I don't think so. She had motive. Just can't see getting around that one.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

PO what is it you are just now seeing? This is the story I read all along.

I didn't read the article. I just wanted to ramp up the conversation about the bikini, man! What is wrong with that?!