UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[missourimary]

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org...-and-state.htm

Read a little about separation of church and state, PO. The attorney's statement may have been a very good way of saying "No comment" without actually saying it, IMO.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I never said or implied that the lawsuit was an "in your face" to the church. I said her wearing a bikini was.

I misunderstood you. Thanks for the clarification!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

You're correct. We don't have the whole context and dynamics of the situation. So let's give Angela the benefit of the doubt and say that neither flirting nor fornication was in her heart when her husband found her in a bikini in mixed company. The thing I cannot agree with is equating wearing a bikini with fornication unless we know the context and the intents of the heart, which we don't.

I think for an Apostolic people, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that flirting or fornication could, possibly, be in her heart. I'm only saying how I feel they are probably viewing it. That would be my point. He said she was his wife at that time, he is Apostolic, don't know what she was doing, but there she was. It is his view and I can see why he would think of her in that way knowing the mindset. That's all I'm saying.

[drummerboy_dave]

Originally Posted by DAII

HOUSTON 2010 ... DON'T MISS IT!!!!

Dan, if you're hosting, I wouldn't miss it.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_dave

Dan, if you're hosting, I wouldn't miss it.

No way!!! The woman in the middle is *gasp* showing her toes!! We do not believe in open toed shoes-we're Apostolic! Uphold the old paths!! Preserve the ancient landmarks!

Dan, I can't believe you would post such a shameful thing. tsk tsk. Open toed shoes on an Apostolic forum. You should be ashamed. We just can't have it. *sigh* we'll miss you when you're banned for such promiscuity. Soft porn. Open toed shoes. You probably made some poor man lust just by posting such a thing. For shame!

[drummerboy_dave]

Originally Posted by missourimary

No way!!! The woman in the middle is *gasp* showing her toes!! We do not believe in open toed shoes-we're Apostolic! Uphold the old paths!! Preserve the ancient landmarks!

We should burn this hussy at the stake, the little tramp!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think for an Apostolic people, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that flirting or fornication could, possibly, be in her heart. I'm only saying how I feel they are probably viewing it. That would be my point. He said she was his wife at that time, he is Apostolic, don't know what she was doing, but there she was. It is his view and I can see why he would think of her in that way knowing the mindset. That's all I'm saying.

This is where we get into trouble, when we ascribe intent to others actions. We need to err on the side of kindness and charity.


Okay, picture this scenario, Mark and Mary are married. Mark grew up Apostolic and had drifted away and backslid when he met Mary. Mary grew up Baptist. She had drifted away from her faith as well but in her Baptist church mixed bathing was not considered sinful. They married and decided to both get right with God. Mary was rebaptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Spirit but she could never see the holiness standards clearly taught in the Bible. Mark thought that holiness standards taught in his church were completely biblical. This became a source of contention between Mark and Mary and caused friction with some members in their Apostolic church, including the pastor.

Other things were causing trouble in their marriage as well. Their marriage was a little rocky but neither of them even considered fornication. But when Mark saw Mary in the pool, that was the last straw. She had gone overboard in her rebellion against what their pastor taught and this act constituted rebellion against God as well even though Mary's wearing of the bikini was not with any evil intention except to go swimming and lying out in the sun by the pool.

Is this grounds for fornication?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

This is where we get into trouble, when we ascribe intent to others actions. We need to err on the side of kindness and charity.


Okay, picture this scenario, Mark and Mary are married. Mark grew up Apostolic and had drifted away and backslid when he met Mary. Mary grew up Baptist. She had drifted away from her faith as well but in her Baptist church mixed bathing was not considered sinful. They married and decided to both get right with God. Mary was rebaptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Spirit but she could never see the holiness standards clearly taught in the Bible. Mark thought that holiness standards taught in his church were completely biblical. This became a source of contention between Mark and Mary and caused friction with some members in their Apostolic church, including the pastor.

Other things were causing trouble in their marriage as well. Their marriage was a little rocky but neither of them even considered fornication. But when Mark saw Mary in the pool, that was the last straw. She had gone overboard in her rebellion against what their pastor taught and this act constituted rebellion against God as well even though Mary's wearing of the bikini was not with any evil intention except to go swimming and lying out in the sun by the pool.

Is this grounds for fornication?

Mizpeh,
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to look at other scenarios. I will say, again, that my husband would view me in a bikini by a poolside "with" another man as adultery, which according to Adam Clark, includes fornication.

The news article had a comment, by a person, who said they knew Angela. I will post that below. I read over it several times and the person seems genuinely honest and sincere in what she is saying.

It simply appears that there is more to this situation. I will leave it there. I don't believe I have any further comments on this. Except, to reiterate, that I think all parties handled themselves in bad form, at one time or another, and no one is without excuse.

Just want to speak my view, like it or not. You know, Angela Driver was an adult. She knows the views of the Pentecostal Church and has known their views for many years. She decided on her own accord, as an adult to attend that church and to participate in the activities within that assembly, as well as with her ex-husband. I know Angela, she is not a happy person. None of this will ever change that, it is inside and she will see that some day. She has a lot of potential but can't seem to give up her own ideas about some things. And I don't care who you are, at some point you don't get your way. That's life. You have to have moral commitments and have to nail some things down. She needs to do that. Her life will never be peace until she does. If she didn't want to hear it she should not have come to the church. The church is called to identify sins. No, I don't think we need to outwardly bash someone when they have made a mistake and especially when it is to promote our personal agenda (I don't know if that was done or not) but the fact remains that Angela knew what the church practiced. She knew her behavior was not condoned by the church she attended. She knew and she continued to attend. I have walked in the very same shoes as Angela with the exception of the lawsuit. I know my behavior was wrong. I didn't see at the time. On behalf of the suffering and pain Angela had, vengance is MINE saith the Lord. Not - take it into your own hands with a lawyer.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/07/07/1187...#ixzz0tZm07Lyi

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

This is where we get into trouble, when we ascribe intent to others actions. We need to err on the side of kindness and charity.


Okay, picture this scenario... Their marriage was a little rocky but neither of them even considered fornication. But when Mark saw Mary in the pool, that was the last straw. She had gone overboard in her rebellion against what their pastor taught and this act constituted rebellion against God as well even though Mary's wearing of the bikini was not with any evil intention except to go swimming and lying out in the sun by the pool.

Is this grounds for fornication?

NOTHING is grounds for fornication.

The main problems I see with the scenario are that:
-the pastor had a problem with the bikini. Nothing I have read in court documents or media outlets says that the husband did. We are assuming that because of our Apostolic background. But it isn't a documented fact.
-there is nothing that indicates when the pool scenario allegedly happened, or if it actually did, by the documents we have. It could have been before or after the separation or the divorce. The documents do mention that it was the husband of "a mutual friend" which might mean that they were already separated when this alleged event occurred.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

"I don't know, I can imagine quite a bit." -Han Solo

Well so can I...which will depend on the level of how strong I am in the Lord lol, but that's the thing really. I don't agree that wearing a bikini equals adultery with another man and you should divorce but if I were her husband and she was alone with the man, I'd be upset.