Attorney Hopes Texas Court Will Uphold Pastor's Rights
From Crosswalk.com. The pastor's rights at issue: applying church discipline when needed.
Yes, you heard that right. The article gives the full details, but here's the situation in a nutshell: A woman came to see her pastor for marital counseling. But then she left her husband and moved in with another man. The pastor then started applying the Matthew 18 rules.
Matthew 18:15-20 says that the first thing you do, if a fellow believer sins against you, is to go to that believer and ask him to repent and apologize. If he refuses, you go back to him with one or more witnesses. If that doesn't work, then you go to the whole church, and if he won't listen to the church, then the church should put him out of fellowship. The language used would today be equivalent to "Treat this person no differently from an earth-worshipper or a tax agent." (The practices of the Roman-style publicani, who literally were private tax gatherers, equivalent to third-party bill collectors or repo men today, was a very sore point in Jewish society in Jesus' day--so that's a much deadlier insult than you might at first appreciate.)
Now the only thing I think this pastor did wrong was to dismiss this woman summarily from fellowship. Matthew 18 makes clear that you put such an issue to a vote. My own pastor has not been shy about doing this when necessary. (Don't bother asking me for details.)
So all right, this woman is out of fellowship. So what does she do? She sues him. Her allegation: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and negligence.
Now hold on a minute. If you go to your pastor for counseling, what sort of counsel do you think you're going to get? You know the terms and conditions as well as anyone. If you violate church rules, you're gone. Actually, few pastors have the moxie to enforce that. This pastor did.
The suit alleges, however, that this pastor blended religious and secular counseling. I am highly suspicious of that statement. What, after all, does "secular counseling" mean? It can only mean counseling offered outside of a religious context, and which even deprecates religion in the client's life. What pastor would offer counseling like that? A fool, if true. Somehow I doubt that this pastor is as big a fool as that. (And another thing: her lawyer says that the pastor recommended a divorce attorney to her. I can smell the rotting fish from here. My pastor would never--never--do something like that. God hates divorce. Check it out; you'll find Jesus quoted specifically on this subject, according to Matthew and Luke, mentioning divorce only to condemn it.)
The larger point is that if a pastor cannot discipline a member of his flock who flouts the commands of Jesus, then he is not being allowed proper free exercise of his religion. That discipline consists strictly of putting a member out of fellowship and telling the flock why. No "defamation" is involved--and truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim anyway. Neither is invasion of privacy involved, because the flock is specfically enjoined not to bruit this about.
In a society with an element dedicated to depicting Christians as no better than Muslims when it comes to religious practices that are a positive menace to their neighbors, we can expect to see more lawsuits of this nature. And we must be prepared to argue the point, before Congress and various legislatures, if necessary.
Yes, you heard that right. The article gives the full details, but here's the situation in a nutshell: A woman came to see her pastor for marital counseling. But then she left her husband and moved in with another man. The pastor then started applying the Matthew 18 rules.
Matthew 18:15-20 says that the first thing you do, if a fellow believer sins against you, is to go to that believer and ask him to repent and apologize. If he refuses, you go back to him with one or more witnesses. If that doesn't work, then you go to the whole church, and if he won't listen to the church, then the church should put him out of fellowship. The language used would today be equivalent to "Treat this person no differently from an earth-worshipper or a tax agent." (The practices of the Roman-style publicani, who literally were private tax gatherers, equivalent to third-party bill collectors or repo men today, was a very sore point in Jewish society in Jesus' day--so that's a much deadlier insult than you might at first appreciate.)
Now the only thing I think this pastor did wrong was to dismiss this woman summarily from fellowship. Matthew 18 makes clear that you put such an issue to a vote. My own pastor has not been shy about doing this when necessary. (Don't bother asking me for details.)
So all right, this woman is out of fellowship. So what does she do? She sues him. Her allegation: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and negligence.
Now hold on a minute. If you go to your pastor for counseling, what sort of counsel do you think you're going to get? You know the terms and conditions as well as anyone. If you violate church rules, you're gone. Actually, few pastors have the moxie to enforce that. This pastor did.
The suit alleges, however, that this pastor blended religious and secular counseling. I am highly suspicious of that statement. What, after all, does "secular counseling" mean? It can only mean counseling offered outside of a religious context, and which even deprecates religion in the client's life. What pastor would offer counseling like that? A fool, if true. Somehow I doubt that this pastor is as big a fool as that. (And another thing: her lawyer says that the pastor recommended a divorce attorney to her. I can smell the rotting fish from here. My pastor would never--never--do something like that. God hates divorce. Check it out; you'll find Jesus quoted specifically on this subject, according to Matthew and Luke, mentioning divorce only to condemn it.)
The larger point is that if a pastor cannot discipline a member of his flock who flouts the commands of Jesus, then he is not being allowed proper free exercise of his religion. That discipline consists strictly of putting a member out of fellowship and telling the flock why. No "defamation" is involved--and truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim anyway. Neither is invasion of privacy involved, because the flock is specfically enjoined not to bruit this about.
In a society with an element dedicated to depicting Christians as no better than Muslims when it comes to religious practices that are a positive menace to their neighbors, we can expect to see more lawsuits of this nature. And we must be prepared to argue the point, before Congress and various legislatures, if necessary.
posted by Temlakos at 12:56 PM
<< Home