Thankful that a pastor publicly owned his sin and repented. The law has had it's God ordained effect and brought another sinner to repentance and appropriate contrition. This is also the action of saving faith, the Holy Spirit in full active mode. While the former pastor's life may be more difficult until the Lord calls him home, a few years is nothing against eternity.
Since his public confession, we have learned that his admission was upon discovery. But entirely significantly, this sin was committed against (not with) a congregant, someone under his spiritual leadership. This is not an affair, this is Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse, a different category altogether. It is well-researched that when pastors misuse the inherent trust and power in their position to gain access to cross ethical boundaries with someone under their leadership, great and lasting harm is done to the victim. This is an egregious and devastating breach of trust in a pastor with a fiduciary duty to maintain ethical and moral boundaries with those in his spiritual care. Right-naming matters. Until he grasps what he has actually done, his soul is in jeopardy.
There is no report of rape charges filed against him that I can find, which would be the correct approach if your information is accurate (against vs with). We need to be extremely judicious about creating a psychoanalytic category of "beguiled consent" (was Judah beguiled into consensual sex with Tamar, or was he just too happy to find a prostitute with her charms?).
For now, we know that he has admitted to adultery. All adultery is abusive by definition. If it was against her will, she should file rape charges. Nevertheless, even if there was a pending rape trial and guilty conviction, it does not negate his confession and repentance. After all, not one of us is spotless without the bleaching blood of Christ to wash away our crimson stains.
Sexual abuse is a broader category than rape. Adult clergy sexual abuse (sexual relationship with a congregant) is a crime in many states. Ministry is a caring role (similar to doctor, therapist, teacher) and pastors have trust, access and influence over their congregants. It is literally his job to care for that woman’s soul. Not only did he fail to care for her soul, he has harmed it. Prima facie, he has violated his role to provide pastoral care without doing harm. He has exploited a congregant (whom he has a duty before God to shepherd-notice the difference in scripture’s categories between shepherds and sheep) for his own desires. Scripturally, he is in the category of a wolf. Ezekiel 34 for starters. For his own sake, it is not good to sin-level.
Functionally, pastors are not the same as caregivers, caregivers as spiritual term is ambiguous to all involved and understood in terms of practical application to the one involved. It’s not proper to ideally apply moral precepts by any means thought to be required by the observers. Unless, they are the actual jury.
Strongly disagree. Before his ascension, Jesus told Peter to feed/care for his sheep. When one has spiritual or personal matter, pastors functionally provide “pastoral care”. It is formally and functionally part of their job description. Usually these are sensitive matters of one’s faith, heart or personal life and require a measure of privacy. It is the role of the pastor to care for congregants who are struggling or simply seeking guidance in understanding how faith interacts with aspects of their personal lives. Pastors, due to the nature of their role to care for our souls, have automatic trust and access to parts of us that others do not, including vulnerabilities (not weaknesses). People are open and trusting because it their job to lend spiritual insight to help tend to our hearts. That’s a caring role in every sense.
As for applying moral precepts, are you aware that when a pastor crosses sexual boundaries with a congregant, it is a crime in over 15 states and counting? Civil laws aside, at face value, shepherds are not to feed themselves on the flock. In any circumstance. Period. We shouldn’t need the civil courts to tell us what God already has.
I agree as you assimilate things, it should be this way but it would require the laity to complete the scenario as you have inserted yourself. Recently, I have suggested that Elders at our church reach out as little pastors and get training or appoint people to shepherd the congregation. By doing so, one can have their eyes wide open to the subject and share the burden. Pastors as caregivers, should be training people to minister to each other and then laity would understand how to set policy. We appoint shepherds to minister in our stead, to be orderly, let civil discord guide the adiaphora as clergy and laity share the same burdens.
Your point is well received, congregations should also be held accountable to themselves because we test everything against the whole counsel of Scripture.
Judah and Tamar does not apply. Judah literally sought out a prostitute. Judah was not under her spiritual leadership. Rather, he was a man in a society where women had zero agency, which is why Tamar had to trick him into fulfilling his obligation to her. No comparison at all. Start with Ezk 34, and what God has to say about shepherds who feed themselves on His flock.
Sorry, this is psycho-social circumlocution. Tamar had no agency! Tamar becomes a prostitute and succeeds in her mission. Judah, you pig!
Even Tamar was forgiven and saved because she repented and believed. Even Judah was saved because he repented and believed. Christ counts both in his lineage.
Unfortunately, it seems that you reject the man's confession because you want a pound of flesh that is not yours to have. Stop prosecuting a case in public based on hearsay. If you are the representative of the other adulterer, then get her to permit you to spill all the evidence. Right now, you are gossiping.
Attending church and trusting a pastor, who has access to any congregant’s inner life is not “putting herself in a situation where there is risk for an illicit relationship”. Women have pastoral needs and should be able to receive care or spiritual guidance without being at risk. It is literally his job to care for souls. It is also his job to do that without harming and he has the fiduciary duty like any other caring profession (doctors, therapists, teachers) to maintain boundaries. When a pastor crosses those lines, he is not just an adulterer, in biblical categories, he is a wolf. Ezek 34.
I am a medical professional. If a patient were to strip naked and try to seduce me, I am legally, ethically, morally and professionally responsible to care well for that person by maintaining boundaries. If I fail to do that, I have abused my position and the power in it to exploit the vulnerability of that person in my care and abuse them for my own needs. Same with pastors. Even more so. It was his responsibility to care for her soul. Instead, he harmed her.
There is no reason to ever put oneself in a position where things can happen. A pastor should not counsel a woman alone, it is a danger to his and her reputation, at best and could lead to all sorts of trouble at worst.
I’ve seen women flirting with men and doing their very worst to seduce them - especially when money and power are involved. And oh, the power of bringing down a man of the cloth.
Matt 18:7-9
Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!
8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.
9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.
I’m not saying he cannot counsel her, he just needs to make sure there is someone else around and that his door is not closed. It’s not the church that’s failed, it’s modern society which did away with chaperones.
The Matt 18 verse applies to any pastor who developes attraction to someone under his care. He should mortify his sin and step away. Again, he has the fiduciary duty to care for her soul, even if that means bringing in another. The responsibility is his as an ordained shepherd of the flock. He is forgiven, but let’s keep an eye on the nature of his ordained role.
I will leave you with anothe invitation to learn about the devastation that happens when clergy betray their role and feed on the flock. Clergy sexual misconduct.com. Plenty of good research there if you’re willing. There is still forgiveness of course, but the church can’t protect the flock if they don’t know how this happens.
Thankful that a pastor publicly owned his sin and repented. The law has had it's God ordained effect and brought another sinner to repentance and appropriate contrition. This is also the action of saving faith, the Holy Spirit in full active mode. While the former pastor's life may be more difficult until the Lord calls him home, a few years is nothing against eternity.
Spot on.
Since his public confession, we have learned that his admission was upon discovery. But entirely significantly, this sin was committed against (not with) a congregant, someone under his spiritual leadership. This is not an affair, this is Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse, a different category altogether. It is well-researched that when pastors misuse the inherent trust and power in their position to gain access to cross ethical boundaries with someone under their leadership, great and lasting harm is done to the victim. This is an egregious and devastating breach of trust in a pastor with a fiduciary duty to maintain ethical and moral boundaries with those in his spiritual care. Right-naming matters. Until he grasps what he has actually done, his soul is in jeopardy.
There is no report of rape charges filed against him that I can find, which would be the correct approach if your information is accurate (against vs with). We need to be extremely judicious about creating a psychoanalytic category of "beguiled consent" (was Judah beguiled into consensual sex with Tamar, or was he just too happy to find a prostitute with her charms?).
For now, we know that he has admitted to adultery. All adultery is abusive by definition. If it was against her will, she should file rape charges. Nevertheless, even if there was a pending rape trial and guilty conviction, it does not negate his confession and repentance. After all, not one of us is spotless without the bleaching blood of Christ to wash away our crimson stains.
Sexual abuse is a broader category than rape. Adult clergy sexual abuse (sexual relationship with a congregant) is a crime in many states. Ministry is a caring role (similar to doctor, therapist, teacher) and pastors have trust, access and influence over their congregants. It is literally his job to care for that woman’s soul. Not only did he fail to care for her soul, he has harmed it. Prima facie, he has violated his role to provide pastoral care without doing harm. He has exploited a congregant (whom he has a duty before God to shepherd-notice the difference in scripture’s categories between shepherds and sheep) for his own desires. Scripturally, he is in the category of a wolf. Ezekiel 34 for starters. For his own sake, it is not good to sin-level.
Do you have the category Parishioner Clergy Abuse?
Sheep don’t abuse the shepherd.
And yet, they do.
Functionally, pastors are not the same as caregivers, caregivers as spiritual term is ambiguous to all involved and understood in terms of practical application to the one involved. It’s not proper to ideally apply moral precepts by any means thought to be required by the observers. Unless, they are the actual jury.
Strongly disagree. Before his ascension, Jesus told Peter to feed/care for his sheep. When one has spiritual or personal matter, pastors functionally provide “pastoral care”. It is formally and functionally part of their job description. Usually these are sensitive matters of one’s faith, heart or personal life and require a measure of privacy. It is the role of the pastor to care for congregants who are struggling or simply seeking guidance in understanding how faith interacts with aspects of their personal lives. Pastors, due to the nature of their role to care for our souls, have automatic trust and access to parts of us that others do not, including vulnerabilities (not weaknesses). People are open and trusting because it their job to lend spiritual insight to help tend to our hearts. That’s a caring role in every sense.
As for applying moral precepts, are you aware that when a pastor crosses sexual boundaries with a congregant, it is a crime in over 15 states and counting? Civil laws aside, at face value, shepherds are not to feed themselves on the flock. In any circumstance. Period. We shouldn’t need the civil courts to tell us what God already has.
I agree as you assimilate things, it should be this way but it would require the laity to complete the scenario as you have inserted yourself. Recently, I have suggested that Elders at our church reach out as little pastors and get training or appoint people to shepherd the congregation. By doing so, one can have their eyes wide open to the subject and share the burden. Pastors as caregivers, should be training people to minister to each other and then laity would understand how to set policy. We appoint shepherds to minister in our stead, to be orderly, let civil discord guide the adiaphora as clergy and laity share the same burdens.
Your point is well received, congregations should also be held accountable to themselves because we test everything against the whole counsel of Scripture.
Judah and Tamar does not apply. Judah literally sought out a prostitute. Judah was not under her spiritual leadership. Rather, he was a man in a society where women had zero agency, which is why Tamar had to trick him into fulfilling his obligation to her. No comparison at all. Start with Ezk 34, and what God has to say about shepherds who feed themselves on His flock.
Sorry, this is psycho-social circumlocution. Tamar had no agency! Tamar becomes a prostitute and succeeds in her mission. Judah, you pig!
Even Tamar was forgiven and saved because she repented and believed. Even Judah was saved because he repented and believed. Christ counts both in his lineage.
Unfortunately, it seems that you reject the man's confession because you want a pound of flesh that is not yours to have. Stop prosecuting a case in public based on hearsay. If you are the representative of the other adulterer, then get her to permit you to spill all the evidence. Right now, you are gossiping.
Clergysexualmisconduct.com
No woman should ever put herself in a situation where there is a risk of an illicit relationship developing. Marriage is sacred.
Attending church and trusting a pastor, who has access to any congregant’s inner life is not “putting herself in a situation where there is risk for an illicit relationship”. Women have pastoral needs and should be able to receive care or spiritual guidance without being at risk. It is literally his job to care for souls. It is also his job to do that without harming and he has the fiduciary duty like any other caring profession (doctors, therapists, teachers) to maintain boundaries. When a pastor crosses those lines, he is not just an adulterer, in biblical categories, he is a wolf. Ezek 34.
I am a medical professional. If a patient were to strip naked and try to seduce me, I am legally, ethically, morally and professionally responsible to care well for that person by maintaining boundaries. If I fail to do that, I have abused my position and the power in it to exploit the vulnerability of that person in my care and abuse them for my own needs. Same with pastors. Even more so. It was his responsibility to care for her soul. Instead, he harmed her.
There is no reason to ever put oneself in a position where things can happen. A pastor should not counsel a woman alone, it is a danger to his and her reputation, at best and could lead to all sorts of trouble at worst.
I’ve seen women flirting with men and doing their very worst to seduce them - especially when money and power are involved. And oh, the power of bringing down a man of the cloth.
Matt 18:7-9
Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!
8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.
9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.
I’m not saying he cannot counsel her, he just needs to make sure there is someone else around and that his door is not closed. It’s not the church that’s failed, it’s modern society which did away with chaperones.
One also has to be concerned with the pastor’s safety and reputation.
Well said.
The Matt 18 verse applies to any pastor who developes attraction to someone under his care. He should mortify his sin and step away. Again, he has the fiduciary duty to care for her soul, even if that means bringing in another. The responsibility is his as an ordained shepherd of the flock. He is forgiven, but let’s keep an eye on the nature of his ordained role.
I will leave you with anothe invitation to learn about the devastation that happens when clergy betray their role and feed on the flock. Clergy sexual misconduct.com. Plenty of good research there if you’re willing. There is still forgiveness of course, but the church can’t protect the flock if they don’t know how this happens.
Is this your website Susan?
No, this is not my website.
it sounds like this guy was married (maybe not?). Anyone going to seminary should have a wife. Single men should not be pastors.