What do you think of this?

[Praxeas]

MissBrattified echos my feelings. It's very frustrating to win souls, built a family that is working together to serve him and reach more souls then to have a church across town try to build their own work by secretly coming to your members and convincing them to leave that church and join them. And it is disturbing that a Pastor would stoop to that level rather than reach lost souls.

The race issue makes all the more disturbing

[edjen01]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Edjen, I really think most people are smart enough to understand this. However, "sheep stealer" is a good word for people who sow division so they can personally reap the benefits of increasing the size of their own congregation. They are wolves.

I am VERY careful when fellowshipping with folks from other churches that I don't criticize their pastor/leadership, even if I disagree with them. To do so would be sowing discord. If someone wants to come to our church, I think we should welcome them, but still be courteous to their previous leadership. At the same time, we shouldn't be "welcoming" them before they even make a decision to move.

THAT is the problem. The welcoming of other saints is happening way too early in the game.

while I agree that most should understand this....i'm not sure most practice this attitude.

regarding fellowship and welcoming other Christ-followers...i guess i don't see how that can happen "too early in the game". i'm not trying to be difficult...but i don't see the Jesus-principle in asking someone to make a proclamation of where they will be attending church this week/month/year.

I do believe that God-led pastors, leaders, and a stable church enviroment can help a believer grow...but i guess my approach would be to teach them about the benifits of this...and not focus on how long they've been where and with whom.

[Praxeas]

Seems to me the issue was one church actively focusing on taking or convincing saints to leave one church for theirs. I can't understand then why anyone here would focus on the church that these saints were "recruited" from. It's one thing for a saint to decide the don't like a church and go elsewhere but quite another for churches to attempt to build themselves a little club by convincing members they should leave the other church

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by edjen01

while I agree that most should understand this....i'm not sure most practice this attitude.

regarding fellowship and welcoming other Christ-followers...i guess i don't see how that can happen "too early in the game". i'm not trying to be difficult...but i don't see the Jesus-principle in asking someone to make a proclamation of where they will be attending church this week/month/year.

I do believe that God-led pastors, leaders, and a stable church enviroment can help a believer grow...but i guess my approach would be to teach them about the benifits of this...and not focus on how long they've been where and with whom.

Don't be obtuse, edjen. I'm not talking about "fellowship." I believe churches SHOULD fellowship with each other. Fellowship is NOT the same as getting with another saint from another church and spending time convincing them that they belong elsewhere. Even if it's TRUE, and even if they have CAUSE, it's wrong on the part of the persuasive party.

I'll never forgot a pastor who pastored in a neighboring city from my father. We had moved to Louisiana, but we were home in Missouri for a wedding. At the wedding, the pastor walked up to our table, in front of my father, and said, "Hey, when you decide to move back, we would love to have you come do music for us!" (Seriously--not joking.) I really wanted to slap him, first for disrespecting my father enough to make the statement right in front of him, and secondly for assuming that we would have ever attended anywhere but my father's church, if we moved back.

Now, maybe my (inward) reaction was uncalled for, but I lost respect for that man, and it made me angry to boot.

Small churches especially have a hard time surviving, and no one needs to be taking saints from other churches. Each church needs to work together as a team to win the lost, and how can they be a team if another church is constantly picking off their team members?

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Book 'em Dano

A UPC church has a multicultural congregation. A local PAW does not nor does the local Apostolic Assembly. The AA is all Latino. The AA church has actively sought to take away Latino saints from the UPC. The Pastor of the AA is ok with it. The PAW Pastor gave an invitation to church members when he was at the UPC where he was welcomed to attend. Well one of the UPCs saints went and visited and stayed and the PAW pastor never called.

Members of the AA used to visit the UPC and actually would try to talk Latino members to change churches.

I personally find this disturbing. On the one hand it is unethical to actively try to get saints to change churches. On the other hand I am bothered by the "our kind" mentality. I thought segregation was a racist ideal.

The AA has in the past first gotten the wife to leave the UPC and go to their church, then they tell the husband he needs to follow his wife. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Anyways, the UPC pastor wanted to be able to get together with the other oneness churches but now is reluctant to do so because of the sheep stealing activities and the lack of ministerial consideration to call the pastor when one of his saints changed churches.

Is this some sort of growing trend? Aren't there enough sinners out there to reach without having to take a bunch from another church? I fully understand why a Pastor would no longer want to associate with the other churches despite them supposed to be brothers of the faith.

What do you think?

I think it's really a bummer.
It does seem to be what humans do.
I think it provides another data point supporting my view that our assemblies are much more accurately descriptions of clubs than God's own church.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I understand the "free to come, free to go" mentality.

However, there is some merit to objecting to someone who sows division and actively seeks to persuade someone to go to another assembly, for various reasons.

I also agree that trying to get a person to go to another church simply because of their race is disturbing.

I understand DA & MOW's points, and I don't think we need to be territorial, per se, but if it was one of MY friends, I would be upset if someone was filling their ears with divisive double speak simply to add to the success of another congregation. How selfish! SIN because of the nature of the speech.

To try to get someone to go to another church, when they're already saved right where they are! (Assuming there aren't any serious problems.) Those "sheep-stealers" are focusing on moving converts, rather than converting new believers. PERSPECTIVE ... NO SIN IN BIBLE IN PERSUADING PEOPLE SAVED OR NOT TO COME TO YOUR CHURCH (PLACE OF ASSEMBLY) ONE MAN'S MARKETING IS ANOTHER'S MAN'S LOSS. THE SHEEP ARE HIS.

DA, don't you have anything to say about such behavior? Address it from both sides, instead of just being critical of the "territorialists."

Originally Posted by tbpew

I think it's really a bummer.
It does seem to be what humans do.
I think it provides another data point supporting my view that our assemblies are much more accurately descriptions of clubs than God's own church.

I have to agree with you here, TB. Divisions along a saint's preferences date to Paul's day when he wrote:

He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.
Divisions in the Church

10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul?

We have divided Christ if somehow we think we have propietary rights over "sheep". It's as devilish as the sin of backbiting, gossiping and spreading false witness.

A real pastor would have the interest of the soul, first. One should accept whether it be immature or not ... that PEOPLE HAVE PERSONAL PREFERENCES.

Some people like a certain type of worship (Spanish, Black, Caucasian, Southern Gospel, Hillsongish, etc) ... different types of preaching styles ... leadership styles ... etc.

As a pastor, I would want a Christian to attend the optimal place where they will work out their own salvation ...

It does not offend me if it's not my ministry... The mission is ... and remains ... to serve.

The idea that one ministry is inferior or superior ... is simply ... perspective.

Yet when the country club mentality is where church rolls, territory and sheer numbers are the benchmark ... then the Kingdom becomes a man's fiefdom.

Christ is not divided. There is one body ... where folks congregate should be left to personal choice without the foolish tug of wars that have stagnated the Apostolic movement ... to bickering, isolation, intrigue, distrust ....

When we start looking at the Church ... as a corporate entity ... we'll stop thinking our local assembly is the only real church in town.

My advice to the "offended" party is ... keep plugging away ... do what we've been called to do ... and stop the vicious circle of victimization and marginalization .... and endless "business" meetings that teeter on character assassinations.

Also, unless there is ample evidence that there is "double speak" being utilized in a coordinated and orchestrated effort ... I usually chalk up these discussions to ... sour grapes.

The issue would be about character .... not "sheep stealing"

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

...A real pastor would have the interest of the soul, first. One should accept whether it be immature or not ... that PEOPLE HAVE PERSONAL PREFERENCES.

Of course, DA, and I have no problem with people choosing where they attend. I object to pastors who use manipulative tactics to keep their saints under their thumb. I don't care about the reasoning, either. Some people simply want a church that is close to their home. Nothing at all wrong with that.

Some people like a certain type of worship (Spanish, Black, Caucasian, Southern Gospel, Hillsongish, etc) ... different types of preaching styles ... leadership styles ... etc.

As a pastor, I would want a Christian to attend the optimal place where they will work out their own salvation ...

It does not offend me if it's not my ministry... The mission is ... and remains ... to serve.

It doesn't offend me either, for a saint to CHOOSE. It does offend me for a member of another church to deliberately affect their choice to their own advantage.

The idea that one ministry is inferior or superior ... is simply ... perspective.

Yet when the country club mentality is where church rolls, territory and sheer numbers are the benchmark ... then the Kingdom becomes a man's fiefdom.

Christ is not divided. There is one body ... where folks congregate should be left to personal choice without the foolish tug of wars that have stagnated the Apostolic movement ... to bickering, isolation, intrigue, distrust ....

I completely agree, but you still have not addressed the issue from the perspective of people who would attempt to persuade others to leave their assembly and go elsewhere, and the motivation behind such.

When we start looking at the Church ... as a corporate entity ... we'll stop thinking our local assembly is the only real church in town.

My advice to the "offended" party is ... keep plugging away ... do what we've been called to do ... and stop the vicious circle of victimization and marginalization.

It sounds like the UPC pastor is trying to do just that, but with some reasonable concerns based on past acts of division.

Also, unless there is ample evidence that there is "double speak" being utilized in a coordinated and orchestrated effort ... I usually chalk up these discussions to ... sour grapes.

The issue would be about character .... not "sheep stealing"

So address the character, and I still think that "sheep stealing" is a reasonable label for those who make a concentrated effort to relocate the saints from another assembly into their own.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Of course, DA, and I have no problem with people choosing where they attend. I object to pastors who use manipulative tactics to keep their saints under their thumb. I don't care about the reasoning, either. Some people simply want a church that is close to their home. Nothing at all wrong with that.



It doesn't offend me either, for a saint to CHOOSE. It does offend me for a member of another church to deliberately affect their choice to their own advantage.



I completely agree, but you still have not addressed the issue from the perspective of people who would attempt to persuade others to leave their assembly and go elsewhere, and the motivation behind such.



It sounds like the UPC pastor is trying to do just that, but with some reasonable concerns based on past acts of division.



So address the character, and I still think that "sheep stealing" is a reasonable label for those who make a concentrated effort to relocate the saints from another assembly into their own.

Again, unless there is a memo, a video, etc ... a smoking gun ... this stuff usually boils down to he said, she said. In this case, there is none ...just some poster's recounting of a situation.

The principles remain the same for a pastor or saint ... backbiting is a sin.

In these terrritorial fights (yes, that's what they are)... usually there is backbiting on both sides ... I've seen it enough to know that all it does is lead to disfellowship.

Churches make coordinated efforts all the time to appeal to the saved and unsaved ... it's par for the course ... with their progams, format, signage, etc

The problem would arise if it was based on backbiting ... just as I think that if the person who has lost members ... should not engage in it ... after his number's dwindle ... at the expense of the person who has benefitted from the increase.

When it's all said and done ... the Kingdom of God ... should come first.

Move forward .... do it better. No such thing as "sheep stealing" ... in and of itself. They are His.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Again, unless there is a memo, a video, etc ... a smoking gun ... this stuff usually boils down to he said, she said. In this case, there is none ...just some poster's recounting of a situation.

The principles remain the same for a pastor or saint ... backbiting is a sin.

In these terrritorial fights ... usually there is backbiting on both sides ... I've seen it enough to know that all it does is lead to disfellowship.

Churches make coordinated efforts all the time to appeal to the saved and unsaved ... it's par for the course ... with their progams, format, signage, etc

The problem would arise if it was based on backbiting ... just as I think that if the person who has lost members ... should not engage in it ... after his number's dwindle ... at the expense of the person who has benefitted from the increase.

When it's all said and done ... the Kingdom of God ... should come first.

There is some REAL hurt that takes place when one pastor deliberately robs another pastor not only of his church members, but often the relationship that existed between that pastor and the saint.

There are cases when the pastor who is doing the "stealing" deliberately sabotages the existing pastor with innuendos and "backbiting" in his attempts to persuade the saints to go elsewhere, and OFTEN it works like a charm.

Are you actually a pastor, or were you just speaking hypothetically earlier?

I agree, the Kingdom of God should come first, and taking saints from other churches, whether by good marketing or underhanded tactics isn't about the Kingdom of God. It's about a man (or woman) increasing their own personal kingdom or fiefdom.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

ONE MAN'S MARKETING IS ANOTHER'S MAN'S LOSS

The only "marketing" that should be taking place is toward unbelievers. The church as a whole should be focused on evangelism.