Florida Woman Says Former Church Plans to Make Her Sins Public

[rossid]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469928,00.html

“I don’t really care what they do to me. But I am concerned about my children sitting in church with their mother being crucified by the church that they trust,” she said. “I am very concerned about how it would affect them.”




Well there were two situations where sins were exposed from the pulpit in my lifetime. In both the person did not repent of the sin and this how the churches felt scripture taught them to address the situations


If this is her former church I have a problem. But if her children are members? Is the PDF of the letter appropriately titled "Church_Extortion"?

[Aussie3rddayfan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469928,00.html

“I don’t really care what they do to me. But I am concerned about my children sitting in church with their mother being crucified by the church that they trust,” she said. “I am very concerned about how it would affect them.”




Well there were two situations where sins were exposed from the pulpit in my lifetime. In both the person did not repent of the sin and this how the churches felt scripture taught them to address the situations


If this is her former church I have a problem. But if her children are members? Is the PDF of the letter appropriately titled "Church_Extortion"?

Yeesh! You won't find many churches doing that thesedays.

Bottom line, on January they 4th they are going to the church publicly with my sins, and my children will be sitting in church at the time,” Hancock told FOXNews.com.

Then don't send them to chuch that day. Problem solved.

“As it progressed I told her about it and she said, 'You’ve got to get out, you’re biblically wrong,'” Hancock said.

True, but there are gentler ways to approach the situation.

Despite knowing her relationship was against church rules, Hancock said she never realized that disclosing it would trigger the first in a three-step process used by the church to deal with sinners: private admonishment, admonishment in the presence of witnesses and finally public admonishment.

I have never heard of a church actually doing this. Anyone else?

Hancock learned that her private sessions with her mentor hadn’t been so private after all, when in October her mentor pulled her aside in church and asked her come into another room.

“In the room, there were several women that I never told my business to. And they proceeded to tell me about my business and what I was doing and what a sinner I was — just persecuting me.” Hancock said. “One of the ladies was even saying ‘I was at your house when you didn’t come home all night.’"

Breach of privacy?

Your refusal to repent and be restored in your relationship with God and His Church leaves us with no alternative than to carry out the third step of the discipline process,” the letter explained. “In accordance with Matthew 18:17, we intend to ‘tell it to the church.’”

What's the point of telling the congregation if the woman is no longer attending? The whole point is to get her to repent.

To me at least it seems this church is being very uncaring in this instance. It appears people were gossiping and that they seem very strict about things. Could be a beat up though.

[VerbumReale]

I have never heard of a church actually doing this. Anyone else?




Yes, I have. I don't remember all of the details but it was handled differently than the way this church is handling it. I think there are problems with the way both paries are dealing with this. If the woman is no longer a member of the church why is she sending her kids there? And on the other hand, if the woman is no longer a member why is the church leadership making her sins public?

In the instance that I am thinking of that I know if where it happened, it was applied in a way much more according to the letter of Matthew 18, but it did lead to the person being excommunicated, which is a possible worst case scenario in Matthew 18. But if this woman has taken the steps to remove herself from the fellowship then there should be no making public of her sins.

[Pouye]

Yes, I have. I don't remember all of the details but it was handled differently than the way this church is handling it. I think there are problems with the way both paries are dealing with this. If the woman is no longer a member of the church why is she sending her kids there? And on the other hand, if the woman is no longer a member why is the church leadership making her sins public?

In the instance that I am thinking of that I know if where it happened, it was applied in a way much more according to the letter of Matthew 18, but it did lead to the person being excommunicated, which is a possible worst case scenario in Matthew 18. But if this woman has taken the steps to remove herself from the fellowship then there should be no making public of her sins.

These sort of scenarios can lead to confidentiality wars; not to mention everything was handled wrongly. Not only that, but her situation has already been made wrongfully public. These people are abusing their authority, with the pastor and staff on a power trip. They have not followed Matthew 18, since Matthew 18 has to do with the person who is being sinned against, not the church. In other words, if someone was doing something sinful to this woman and she couldn't solve the problem with that other person, she could take witnesses to confirm her case (and if that doesn't solve it) take her case to the church (meaning the church leadership), following Matthew 18. Matthew 18 is not specifically a passage about church discipline. It has to do with two people (believers) who cannot solve a problem between them privately. From what I can see, this case has nothing to do with such a thing. In this case you have two people who are mutually in agreement, albeit in a relationship that is not considered godly.

The part of the verse that says, "tell it to the church" doesn't mean to publicly announce anything to the congregation. It means bring your case to the church (leadership) and let them privately decide if the matter is a sin against you. If the church leadership decides that the matter is a sin (that you are a victim of the sinful behavior of another), then the church has the right to remove the person who is sinning against you from the fellowship if the perpetrator still decides not to stop. The leadership is under no compulsion to reveal anything to the congregation as a whole.

An example of how this would work in a situation:

Sally is a believer. Jimmy is a believer. Sally is being harassed by Jimmy.
She tells him privately to stop spreading rumors about her and to quit bothering her -- he doesn't stop.
She takes a married couple with her to confront Jimmy privately. The couple decides Jimmy is wrong and yet Jimmy denies it and continues harassing Sally.
Sally then goes to the pastor and elders (privately) with the married couple (her witnesses) and they all agree that Jimmy is in the wrong and should stop. The leadership of the church then calls Jimmy in (privately) and tells Jimmy that Sally and her witnesses have discussed this matter with them and they believed Sally and the couple's testimony. They tell Jimmy that he is in the wrong and needs to stop harassing Sally. The result? He doesn't repent, and he doesn't stop. Therefor they have the authority to remove him from the fellowship. If Jimmy so chooses he can repent and come back, which means he must apologize to Sally and never harass her again.

Rock

[Sam!]

These sort of scenarios can lead to confidentiality wars; not to mention everything was handled wrongly. Not only that, but her situation has already been made wrongfully public. These people are abusing their authority, with the pastor and staff on a power trip. They have not followed Matthew 18, since Matthew 18 has to do with the person who is being sinned against, not the church. In other words, if someone was doing something sinful to this woman and she couldn't solve the problem with that other person, she could take witnesses to confirm her case (and if that doesn't solve it) take her case to the church (meaning the church leadership), following Matthew 18. Matthew 18 is not specifically a passage about church discipline. It has to do with two people (believers) who cannot solve a problem between them privately. From what I can see, this case has nothing to do with such a thing. In this case you have two people who are mutually in agreement, albeit in a relationship that is not considered godly.

The part of the verse that says, "tell it to the church" doesn't mean to publicly announce anything to the congregation. It means bring your case to the church (leadership) and let them privately decide if the matter is a sin against you. If the church leadership decides that the matter is a sin (that you are a victim of the sinful behavior of another), then the church has the right to remove the person who is sinning against you from the fellowship if the perpetrator still decides not to stop. The leadership is under no compulsion to reveal anything to the congregation as a whole.

Rock

Could you make an argument that her sin is a sin against the whole body of Christ? The confidentiality part of it actually doesn't bother me - she opened the door by having an extramarital sexual encounter. She doesn't seem to believe that she has done anything wrong--that's troubling. There are potentially good reasons for public discipline.

But this church has gone about this all wrong, imo. Their actions seem vindictive at this point-she's leaving, so let's tell everybody she was never a great member anyway.

[VerbumReale]

These sort of scenarios can lead to confidentiality wars; not to mention everything was handled wrongly. Not only that, but her situation has already been made wrongfully public. These people are abusing their authority, with the pastor and staff on a power trip. They have not followed Matthew 18, since Matthew 18 has to do with the person who is being sinned against, not the church. In other words, if someone was doing something sinful to this woman and she couldn't solve the problem with that other person, she could take witnesses to confirm her case (and if that doesn't solve it) take her case to the church (meaning the church leadership), following Matthew 18. Matthew 18 is not specifically a passage about church discipline. It has to do with two people (believers) who cannot solve a problem between them privately. From what I can see, this case has nothing to do with such a thing. In this case you have two people who are mutually in agreement, albeit in a relationship that is not considered godly.

The part of the verse that says, "tell it to the church" doesn't mean to publicly announce anything to the congregation. It means bring your case to the church (leadership) and let them privately decide if the matter is a sin against you. If the church leadership decides that the matter is a sin (that you are a victim of the sinful behavior of another), then the church has the right to remove the person who is sinning against you from the fellowship if the perpetrator still decides not to stop. The leadership is under no compulsion to reveal anything to the congregation as a whole.

An example of how this would work in a situation:

Sally is a believer. Jimmy is a believer. Sally is being harassed by Jimmy.
She tells him privately to stop spreading rumors about her and to quit bothering her -- he doesn't stop.
She takes a married couple with her to confront Jimmy privately. The couple decides Jimmy is wrong and yet Jimmy denies it and continues harassing Sally.
Sally then goes to the pastor and elders (privately) with the married couple (her witnesses) and they all agree that Jimmy is in the wrong and should stop. The leadership of the church then calls Jimmy in (privately) and tells Jimmy that Sally and her witnesses have discussed this matter with them and they believed Sally and the couple's testimony. They tell Jimmy that he is in the wrong and needs to stop harassing Sally. The result? He doesn't repent, and he doesn't stop. Therefor they have the authority to remove him from the fellowship. If Jimmy so chooses he can repent and come back, which means he must apologize to Sally and never harass her again.

Rock


While I agree with most of what you are saying, keep in mind there is a lot that we do not know. As I read the article I noticed that there were two different sides of the story being played out. I will be honest in saying that I tended to give more benefit of the doubt to the church leadership. However I still think they handled this innapropriately. Once she left the church, then the leadership should have dropped it. I also think that the mentor dropped the ball somewhere. While you might say that the one woman's relatisnhip wasn't affecting the mentor, I say as soon as she told the mentor about the affair, it became the mentor's business. Clearly there seemed to be an accountability element to the role of these mentors. The mentor was right in challenging her to end the relationship. Or actulally I don't see why she had to end the relatiosnhip but simply stop being sexually active unless they got married. But then it said that he didn't go to the church so maybe there was an unequally yoked element there.

I think the mentor dropped the ball in not telling her that she was going to tell some of the leaders in the church about it. In fact the mentor should have brought Hancock with her to the leaders. But then again we don't really know how much we can believe from the Hancock woman. If the mentor didn't tell her then she dropped the ball, but I honestly am not convinced that she didn't. I think a lot of what the Hancock woman says has to be taken with a grain of salt. She says that when she was taken aside she was "persecuted." Well when you don't want to own up to your sin, anything can seem like persecution. I mean look at some in the homosexual community and their reacting as if President-elect Obama's selection of Rick Warren to deliver the Invocation at his inaguration were some kind of persecution against them.

And the fact that the pastor is not talking could seem like he is hiding something or it could mean he is repsecting people's confidentiality. But clearly this, at the least a pretty loose application of Matthew 18. And just how faithful they were to it up until now, I am not going to hazard a guess, since lets be honest all we reall have is he said/she said testimony. But clearly the fact that they are continuing with the proocess of revealing this woman's sins after she has left is inconsistent with Matthew 18.

[Pouye]

Could you make an argument that her sin is a sin against the whole body of Christ? The confidentiality part of it actually doesn't bother me - she opened the door by having an extramarital sexual encounter. She doesn't seem to believe that she has done anything wrong--that's troubling. There are potentially good reasons for public discipline.

But this church has gone about this all wrong, imo. Their actions seem vindictive at this point-she's leaving, so let's tell everybody she was never a great member anyway.

No. If that is the case, every sin is against the whole body of Christ. If a member in the church cheats on her taxes, it would then be a sin against the whole Body of Christ and should be dealt with in public discipline. If a member got into an argument with his wife and slammed the door, it would then be a sin against the whole Body of Christ -- public disciplinary action should ensue. If a member treated a waitress with disrespect it would be a sin against the whole body of Christ. Do you get my drift? Why pick and choose which sin to deal with publicly? In fact, nowhere in the Scriptures does it say to deal with someone's sin publicly. Also, confession is always voluntary. Never is anyone in the Bible told to confess the sins of another person to someone else.

Even in the situation in 1 Corinthians (which is far worse -- incestuous adultery) there wasn't any exhortation by Paul to make public what was already known among the leadership (Paul's letter was in response to a letter written by the leadership in the Corinthian church). Paul just said to remove the man from the fellowship. There was no be public confessional or anything like that. Not only that, but Paul wrote back (in 2 Corinthians) and said to (if possible) make an effort to restore the guy who sinned back into the fellowship. Paul had specific authority as a leader, but he rarely used it, since he knew Jesus' injunction that the greatest (in authority) should be servants to the least (see 2 Corinthians 13:10; Paul's letter to Philemon).

Jesus said that the world's system is to "lord it over" others, but not so with the Body of Christ. We are all on the same level as brothers and sisters. That doesn't mean there isn't authority or structures of authority, but they should not operate the same way as worldly authority structures, which use their authority to do the kinds of things that this pastor and staff are doing.

Church authority has been abused for centuries, and nothing has grieved Christ more. People who call themselves Christians have killed and tortured others in the name of Christ. Humility is the mark of any Christian leader:
"Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." Ephesians 4:2-

"Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing." 1 Peter 3:8-

One of the requirements of any New Testament church leader was humility (which can be construed from the fact that new converts may become prideful so they should not be leaders).

Hundreds of pastors and church staff are abusing their authority as I type. People are being hurt and congregations are being torn apart. It is one of the most grievous sins on the planet. The church fellowship was never about fault-finding and exposing sin. It is about forgiveness, restoration, healing and love:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." 1 Corinthians 13:4-

I think this pastor and staff should be rebuked by the entire congregation and removed from authority by the Body.

Rock

[Pouye]

I will be honest in saying that I tended to give more benefit of the doubt to the church leadership.

I never give the benefit of the doubt to the church leadership. Never. I've seen so many times how church leadership abuse their authority. I've seen lives destroyed over and over because of such abuses. I would say most churches today misapply Matthew 18 and other verses on supposed church discipline. Power corrupts, and absolute power (which some pastors and/or clergy think they have) corrupts absolutely. Jesus was very hard on the church leadership of His day for a reason. Most of them were corrupt and prideful. The same thing today. My church is awesome and the pastor and staff are awesome -- so I don't have any bone to pick with them. My pastor is a true servant leader and the staff are all very humble. Problems arise, but they are dealt with (from what I have seen in the past 20 some years) in love. Confidentiality, respect, etc. are all applied. Never once in 20 years have I heard a public confessional aside from our pastor himself. He offended some folks through a sermon illustration and asked for public forgiveness. This was completely voluntary. Of course there were some who decided to defend the pastor (the ones who weren't offended) but before there could be "sides" drawn, he quickly quelled any problems by telling the "side" that was supporting him that if they truly supported him, they needed to let it go and love their brothers and sisters in Christ as he did.

Rock

[phil_ur_friend]

The way things have turned out, it seems as if the people in charge have decided to to play "telephone" with scripture and use whatever they come up with as "Truth".
How could you screw up something so simply stated as Matthew 18?

That reminds me of how I used to have my own interpretation of "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you".

If I felt self righteous, it was; "Do unto them like they did to me...only more so, because, I don't get even, I get ahead." :rolleyes:

Phil, your friend

[sandie]

I also never give the benefit of the doubt to the church leadership. As you say Rock, church leaders have been involved in far too much abuse, and the procession of church leaders being stood down over affairs, and the charging of priests and other ministers over sexual offences continues, and is often reported in the press.

Rebecca Hancock spoke to her mentor, who correctly told her that her behaviour was unbiblical. (I imagine Rebecca Hancock knew this already.) There, the story should have ended. The mentor advised correctly, and it was then up to Rebecca, and the workings of the Holy Spirit, to make any decisons. This situation was wrong from the moment the mentor broke confidentiality. Breaking confidentiality caused her to leave the church, but did not change her behaviour. She would also have lost those ties with Christians at her church who may have walked through this situation with her, listening and advising where appropriate.

The woman has left the church already, so the only consequence of disgracing her will be to embarrass her children. Will they leave the church as a result? How will that affect their faith? The effect may be to punish them, and harm their faith because of something that they did not do. I can't imagine that her non-Christian boyfriend is likely to turn to Christ, either, after this sequence of events.

We have a couple at church who are not married, but have been living together for some years. She's an ex-prostitute who came to Christ through the ministry to the ladies on the highway. Both she and her partner are enthusistic, growing Christians who have such a desire to learn from God's word. :) The Elders are waiting for them to read in scripture that they should be married, and there will be much rejoicing, and perhaps a wedding in church.

[VerbumReale]

I never give the benefit of the doubt to the church leadership. Never. I've seen so many times how church leadership abuse their authority. I've seen lives destroyed over and over because of such abuses. I would say most churches today misapply Matthew 18 and other verses on supposed church discipline. Power corrupts, and absolute power (which some pastors and/or clergy think they have) corrupts absolutely. Jesus was very hard on the church leadership of His day for a reason. Most of them were corrupt and prideful. The same thing today. My church is awesome and the pastor and staff are awesome -- so I don't have any bone to pick with them. My pastor is a true servant leader and the staff are all very humble. Problems arise, but they are dealt with (from what I have seen in the past 20 some years) in love. Confidentiality, respect, etc. are all applied. Never once in 20 years have I heard a public confessional aside from our pastor himself. He offended some folks through a sermon illustration and asked for public forgiveness. This was completely voluntary. Of course there were some who decided to defend the pastor (the ones who weren't offended) but before there could be "sides" drawn, he quickly quelled any problems by telling the "side" that was supporting him that if they truly supported him, they needed to let it go and love their brothers and sisters in Christ as he did.

Rock

No. I think you misunderstood me. Clearly there was an abuse of power here I do not deny that and clearly there was a complete missapropriation of Matthew 18. When I said I gave the pastor the benefit of the doubt I meant purely in how I read the events leading up to when he is supposedly going to be revealing Ms Hancock's sins to the congregation. I am not trying to absolve him of any wrongdoing, nor am I assuming any malicious intent. Again, we have to understand that there is a lot about this story that we don't know.

What we know about the pastor is that apparently he has an accountability mentoring program at his church. Nothing wrong with that. We know that he is not commenting to the press. Nothing wrong with that, could be he is just respecting people's privacy. We also know that he is revelaing these woman's sins after she has left the church. Again, clealrly a missapropriation of Matthew 18 and abuse of power. But the fact that he apparently needs some work on how to apply Matthew 18 does not necessarily make him by definition an abusive pastor. Again, there is a lot about this we have absolutely no knowledge of.

What de we know about this woman? She was involved in an inappropriate relationship. She has supposedly tried to break up with the guy and was not able to. She left the church not long after they tried to hold her accountable. Something tells me there might just be more to this than what she is telling FoxNews. Maybe since leaving she has been disparaging the pastor's name all arund town. Maybe she has been going to different churches and badmouthing her old church. She did apparently go to the press after all.

Again, I am not defending the pastor, but you seem so quick to label him as abusive when we really haven't even heard his side of the story. Obviously there are problems with the way the pastor has handled this, but like it or not this woman is no innocent victim here either. You seem to want to emphasize the importance of confidentiality and you are right, this should be confidential. But apparently it was Ms Hancock that went to the press with this. Might it be so she could garner support on a large scale so that she could play the victim and thus portray the pastor as merely an oppressive bully.

[VerbumReale]

I also never give the benefit of the doubt to the church leadership. As you say Rock, church leaders have been involved in far too much abuse, and the procession of church leaders being stood down over affairs, and the charging of priests and other ministers over sexual offences continues, and is often reported in the press.

Rebecca Hancock spoke to her mentor, who correctly told her that her behaviour was unbiblical. (I imagine Rebecca Hancock knew this already.) There, the story should have ended. The mentor advised correctly, and it was then up to Rebecca, and the workings of the Holy Spirit, to make any decisons. This situation was wrong from the moment the mentor broke confidentiality. Breaking confidentiality caused her to leave the church, but did not change her behaviour. She would also have lost those ties with Christians at her church who may have walked through this situation with her, listening and advising where appropriate.




Allegedly broke confidentiality!!!

All we know of this is the testimony of a woman who admittedly was involved in an inappropraite relationship and admittedly could not break it off and then left the church and not long after that went running to the press. Call me crazy if I think that perhaps the mentor's side of the story might be a little different than ms Hancock's. Call me crazy if I am a little hesistant to take Ms Hancock's word and a secular new's source's interpretation of that at face value.

I am not jumping to conclusions either way here. Some of you seem so qucik to condemn the church leadership as abusive and self-righteous without hearing their side of the story, thus refelecting the same self-righteousness that you accuse them of.

[sandie]

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Assuming Rebeacca Hancock has reported the facts correctly, she was taken by her montor to another room where some women already knew about her situation and one said that she had been to Rebecca's house and she hadn't been home all night. (Did the woman stay over???) The mentor had breached confidentiality.

The position of mentor is confidential, and it allows the parties to trust each other and share, as they know it will not go further.

I am not surprised that Rebecca Hancock has been annoyed enough to go to the press. If the mentor had remained in fellowship with her, the outcome would have been different. As it stands, the woman has left the church, her boyfriend is speaking out against the church and her children will be embarrassed (which they probably are already).

One of my close friends has been in an extra-marital relationship for six years. The man was her Pastor, but was removed from that position. Both marriages broke up. Despite the church hearing, the fact that she had to leave that chuch, and opposition from both families, the relationship continued, as they communicate really well. She came to my church two years ago. (I knew her previously, as she used to be my next door neighbour.) I've been listening, making some comments and occasionally praying with her. A man at church has been doing this too. She knows that they can never marry, due to his selfishness, and the affair has finished, and they are friends. There is no way I could break up her relationship - her church and both families have tried previously. However, she is a committed Christian who is aware of the distance she has travelled away from God, and is having trouble forgiving herself for the grief she has caused to so many people.

I don't have all the answers, but it seems to me that this has been a far better approach. Closing the door to a Christian may mean that the person's faith is lost. The Holy Spirit is able to deal with a person, and bring that person to repentance is His time and for His purposes. :)

[VerbumReale]

Assuming Rebeacca Hancock has reported the facts correctly, she was taken by her montor to another room where some women already knew about her situation and one said that she had been to Rebecca's house and she hadn't been home all night. (Did the woman stay over???) The mentor had breached confidentiality.

That's the key word, assuming. I am not ready to assume that she is reporting the facts correctly. Again, this is overflowing with secondhand information. All we have is the word of a woman who has admitted to being in an inappropriate relationship and that she has not been able to break up with the guy. I am not saying that she is lying, but what is she leaving out? You seem to think that she was unfairly treated in the manner that accusations were made against her. Don't you think that the mentor should be treated fairly? Let's just say hypothetically you were the mentor and that there is some crucial information that Ms Hancock is leaving out that would shed a different light on how Ms Hancock has presented this case to the media. But for you to come out and reveal that information would be a breach of confidentiality regarding someone else. if you were the mentor in that situation would you want people assuming the worse about you or would you want people to recognize that you might just have a different side of the story? I am not assuming that is the case but you never know. I am not saying she's deliberately trying to be deceptive but when she was confronted by this group, she was resisting accountability for her sin. Like I said before, when someone is in that state, anything can seem like persecution. Yeah I know she said the mentor broke confidentiality, and she said that woman accused her of being out all night. But that is her recounting of it. I am not asuming she's lying, but until I hear the side of the story of the women in this group then I am not assuming she's got all the facts straight. Let's be honest she probably wasn't in a very rational state of mind. If she's got her facts straight then yeah this was a clear abuse of power and breach of trust. But, whether you like it or not, there is another side of this story, and it's probably pretty different from Ms Hancock's.


The position of mentor is confidential, and it allows the parties to trust each other and share, as they know it will not go further.

I am not surprised that Rebecca Hancock has been annoyed enough to go to the press. If the mentor had remained in fellowship with her, the outcome would have been different. As it stands, the woman has left the church, her boyfriend is speaking out against the church and her children will be embarrassed (which they probably are already)

So she went to the press because her kids were embarassed?? Making a public spectacle of this is going to be less embarassing? And the fact that her boyfriend, who as far as we know never set foot on the church nor met the pastor or the mentor, is going around badmouthing the church does nothing to serve Ms Hancock's credibility as far as I am concerned. If anything it takes away from it. What purpose does going to the press serve??


One of my close friends has been in an extra-marital relationship for six years. The man was her Pastor, but was removed from that position. Both marriages broke up. Despite the church hearing, the fact that she had to leave that chuch, and opposition from both families, the relationship continued, as they communicate really well. She came to my church two years ago. (I knew her previously, as she used to be my next door neighbour.) I've been listening, making some comments and occasionally praying with her. A man at church has been doing this too. She knows that they can never marry, due to his selfishness, and the affair has finished, and they are friends. There is no way I could break up her relationship - her church and both families have tried previously. However, she is a committed Christian who is aware of the distance she has travelled away from God, and is having trouble forgiving herself for the grief she has caused to so many people.

Of course that's the better way to handle it. I never suggested otherwise. And for all we know that is how the mentor handled it. Or maybe not. We only have one extremely biased side represented. Maybe what Ms Hancock says is true. Maybe every word is a lie.



I don't have all the answers, but it seems to me that this has been a far better approach. Closing the door to a Christian may mean that the person's faith is lost. The Holy Spirit is able to deal with a person, and bring that person to repentance is His time and for His purposes. :)


Of course when such action as the third step in the accountability process from Matthew 18 can be avoided then that is the better way to handle the situation. Of course handling it in private is better. But the reality is, sometimes that doesn't work. Sometimes church leadership has to make tough decisions that might seem stringent or unfair but might actually be better for the welfare of the body.

A few of you seem to have stories of abuses of power from the pastor's end. And yes those are out there, and that happens and it's tragic and as a pastor it saddens and embarasses me. But I am telling you I have seen it happen the other way also, where there was manipulation and abuse toward a pastor and church leaders on the part of some of the laity. I saw a good friend and colleage falesly accused by a lay-person of innapropriate sexual behavior with one of the youth. These charges were later disproved and dismissed as completely unfounded. I could go into the details of how baseless they were, for exmple the accusation came 18 months after the alleged incident, but suffice it to say the authorities got it right in ruling them unfounded. But from now on when this pastor is asked whether or not they have ever been accused of a felony they have to say yes. And they still had to leave due to the damage that had been caused by the accusations. I have seen lay people completely misrepresent themselves to a pastor during the call-process only to treat the pastor, once they got there, like an employee and not a pastor, and try to dictate to them how to do their job. And I have seen many other examples so forgive me if I am a little hesitant to take this woman's word at face value.

Bottom line is there is at least one other side to this that we are not hearing. There is a lot that we don't know. But I do know that neither you nor I were there during any of the discussions between Ms Hancock and her mentor, nor were we there for the confontation with the larger group. So maybe we should at least be willing to entertain the idea that there might be something that Ms Hancock is leaving out.

[Pouye]

That's the key word, assuming. I am not ready to assume that she is reporting the facts correctly. Again, this is overflowing with secondhand information. All we have is the word of a woman who has admitted to being in an inappropriate relationship and that she has not been able to break up with the guy. I am not saying that she is lying, but what is she leaving out? You seem to think that she was unfairly treated in the manner that accusations were made against her. Don't you think that the mentor should be treated fairly? Let's just say hypothetically you were the mentor and that there is some crucial information that Ms Hancock is leaving out that would shed a different light on how Ms Hancock has presented this case to the media. But for you to come out and reveal that information would be a breach of confidentiality regarding someone else. if you were the mentor in that situation would you want people assuming the worse about you or would you want people to recognize that you might just have a different side of the story? I am not assuming that is the case but you never know. I am not saying she's deliberately trying to be deceptive but when she was confronted by this group, she was resisting accountability for her sin. Like I said before, when someone is in that state, anything can seem like persecution. Yeah I know she said the mentor broke confidentiality, and she said that woman accused her of being out all night. But that is her recounting of it. I am not asuming she's lying, but until I hear the side of the story of the women in this group then I am not assuming she's got all the facts straight. Let's be honest she probably wasn't in a very rational state of mind. If she's got her facts straight then yeah this was a clear abuse of power and breach of trust. But, whether you like it or not, there is another side of this story, and it's probably pretty different from Ms Hancock's.



So she went to the press because her kids were embarassed?? Making a public spectacle of this is going to be less embarassing? And the fact that her boyfriend, who as far as we know never set foot on the church nor met the pastor or the mentor, is going around badmouthing the church does nothing to serve Ms Hancock's credibility as far as I am concerned. If anything it takes away from it. What purpose does going to the press serve??



Of course that's the better way to handle it. I never suggested otherwise. And for all we know that is how the mentor handled it. Or maybe not. We only have one extremely biased side represented. Maybe what Ms Hancock says is true. Maybe every word is a lie.





Of course when such action as the third step in the accountability process from Matthew 18 can be avoided then that is the better way to handle the situation. Of course handling it in private is better. But the reality is, sometimes that doesn't work. Sometimes church leadership has to make tough decisions that might seem stringent or unfair but might actually be better for the welfare of the body.

A few of you seem to have stories of abuses of power from the pastor's end. And yes those are out there, and that happens and it's tragic and as a pastor it saddens and embarasses me. But I am telling you I have seen it happen the other way also, where there was manipulation and abuse toward a pastor and church leaders on the part of some of the laity. I saw a good friend and colleage falesly accused by a lay-person of innapropriate sexual behavior with one of the youth. These charges were later disproved and dismissed as completely unfounded. I could go into the details of how baseless they were, for exmple the accusation came 18 months after the alleged incident, but suffice it to say the authorities got it right in ruling them unfounded. But from now on when this pastor is asked whether or not they have ever been accused of a felony they have to say yes. And they still had to leave due to the damage that had been caused by the accusations. I have seen lay people completely misrepresent themselves to a pastor during the call-process only to treat the pastor, once they got there, like an employee and not a pastor, and try to dictate to them how to do their job. And I have seen many other examples so forgive me if I am a little hesitant to take this woman's word at face value.

Bottom line is there is at least one other side to this that we are not hearing. There is a lot that we don't know. But I do know that neither you nor I were there during any of the discussions between Ms Hancock and her mentor, nor were we there for the confontation with the larger group. So maybe we should at least be willing to entertain the idea that there might be something that Ms Hancock is leaving out.

Nobody is saying she isn't in the wrong. There are usually two sides to any story. But my point was that Matthew 18 should never be applied the way it was. Never. Even it her testimony is flawed, it should have never been applied to her situation, period. It sounds to me like they started playing "Holy Spirit" and got burned.

I've thrice watched pastors destroy three entire congregations over such things, leaving hundreds of families hurting and broken. Yes pastors can get a bad rap, and you, being a pastor, know how such things can happen. From my own experience (and I've been in various denominations for over 30 years) what usually happens is the pastor and/or someone on his staff gets prideful and decides to "clean up the flock" rather than let God do that part. They start playing "Holy Spirit". Whenever that happens all hell breaks loose. All three times each pastor ended up breaching their marital fidelity.

Whenever a preacher starts ranting over a particular type of sinful behavior I cringe. It usually means he/she is about ready to fall into that sin himself/herself. Some people rant about a certain sin because they secretly struggle with it and by ranting against the sin, it makes them feel better. It is never the pastor's job to "hold people accountable."


Rock

[mcgreen311]

So she went to the press because her kids were embarassed?? Making a public spectacle of this is going to be less embarassing? And the fact that her boyfriend, who as far as we know never set foot on the church nor met the pastor or the mentor, is going around badmouthing the church does nothing to serve Ms Hancock's credibility as far as I am concerned. If anything it takes away from it. What purpose does going to the press serve??


This is exactly what I was wondering. Instead of her kids being humiliated on a local level, they are now humiliated on a national level. Why not just speak to a lawyer? I don't know the whole story, but this makes me suspect her motives.

[VerbumReale]

Nobody is saying she isn't in the wrong. There are usually two sides to any story. But my point was that Matthew 18 should never be applied the way it was. Never. Even it her testimony is flawed, it should have never been applied to her situation, period. It sounds to me like they started playing "Holy Spirit" and got burned.

What do you mean never?? Are you saying that there should never be a sitaution where a congregation may have to resort to applying that? Are you saying that a congregation should never get to the point where they theoretically may have to, after continued unrepentance, hold someone accountable in front of the congregation and possibly excommunicate someone?


I've thrice watched pastors destroy three entire congregations over such things, leaving hundreds of families hurting and broken. Yes pastors can get a bad rap, and you, being a pastor, know how such things can happen. From my own experience (and I've been in various denominations for over 30 years) what usually happens is the pastor and/or someone on his staff gets prideful and decides to "clean up the flock" rather than let God do that part. They start playing "Holy Spirit". Whenever that happens all hell breaks loose. All three times each pastor ended up breaching their marital fidelity.

And from my experience a pastor getting a bad rap is usually the result of one or two selfish lay-people who don't like something about a pastor (too traditional, not traditional enough, too "demanding" on the youth, don't like music they pick, or even one disagreement at a council meeting), who then start badmouthing the pastor (when they aren't around of course) to the point of even flat out lying about them until the congregation is divided and something has to be done and eventually the pastor is forced to leave.

You seem to have a real chip on you shoulder for clergy. Maybe you have had some bad experiences and if that is true then that is very sad. And I am not trying to create an overly exalted image of clergy. I have seen some abuse of power on the part of clergy also. But from my experience, it happens just as much from the other direction also, if not moreseo.

[VerbumReale]

This is exactly what I was wondering. Instead of her kids being humiliated on a local level, they are now humiliated on a national level. Why not just speak to a lawyer? I don't know the whole story, but this makes me suspect her motives.

So I am not crazy after all. :D Thank you.

[Pouye]

What do you mean never?? Are you saying that there should never be a sitaution where a congregation may have to resort to applying that? Are you saying that a congregation should never get to the point where they theoretically may have to, after continued unrepentance, hold someone accountable in front of the congregation and possibly excommunicate someone?


Applying what? Publicly humiliating someone? Absolutely not! Removing a person from the fellowship (in a loving and tactful manner) who is harming another member? Sure.


And from my experience a pastor getting a bad rap is usually the result of one or two selfish lay-people who don't like something about a pastor (too traditional, not traditional enough, too "demanding" on the youth, don't like music they pick, or even one disagreement at a council meeting), who then start badmouthing the pastor (when they aren't around of course) to the point of even flat out lying about them until the congregation is divided and something has to be done and eventually the pastor is forced to leave.


I've seen this, too.


You seem to have a real chip on you shoulder for clergy.


Nope. I just know the reality that leadership often creates pride in people:

"Therefore, to keep me from becoming conceited, I am forced to deal with a recurring problem..." (words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 7)

"An elder must not be a new Christian, because he might be proud of being chosen so soon, and the Devil will use that pride to make him fall."
1 Timothy 3:6-

Every leader I've seen crash and burn has done so because of pride, not simply because others had it out for them.


Maybe you have had some bad experiences and if that is true then that is very sad.


Try dozens. :(


But from my experience, it happens just as much from the other direction also, if not moreseo.

Not from my experience -- and from what the Scriptures say about leadership struggling with the Enemy in a special way and being prone to pride, I would guess you would be more accurate if you left off the "if not moreso" appendage.

Rock

[VerbumReale]

Applying what? Publicly humiliating someone? Absolutely not! Removing a person from the fellowship (in a loving and tactful manner) who is harming another member? Sure.

I never remotely suggested publicly humiliating someone was OK. I was simply asking if you thought it was ever appropriate to apply Matthew 18.




Every leader I've seen crash and burn has done so because of pride, not simply because others had it out for them..

Well all I can say is my experience has been different. I have seen some "crash and burn" as a result of their own pride but I have just as many "crash and burn" from selfish lay-people with an agenda.



Try dozens. :(



Not from my experience -- and from what the Scriptures say about leadership struggling with the Enemy in a special way and being prone to pride, I would guess you would be more accurate if you left off the "if not moreso" appendage.

Rock


Well then on behalf of pastors everywhere I apologize for the bad experiences you have had. I am being sincere. When I hear of experiences like yours it really does sadden and embarass me. But I also have to wonder how you can have so many bad experiences with pastors and say that you don't have a chip on your shoulder for pastors? I wouldn't blame you for having one. And I have seen it in some of your posts. You said youself that you never give pastors the benefit of the doubt. To me that seems to reflect an instinctively suspicious attitude toward pastors. Maybe I am wrong.

And as far as the "if nor moreso" appendage. I was not trying to argue against what scripture says about leadership struggling with the enemy. In fact I would argue that the examples that I gave were examples of exactly that. So the appendage stays.

[Pouye]

I never remotely suggested publicly humiliating someone was OK. I was simply asking if you thought it was ever appropriate to apply Matthew 18.


Depends on how you apply it. Most pastors don't know how.


You said youself that you never give pastors the benefit of the doubt. To me that seems to reflect an instinctively suspicious attitude toward pastors. Maybe I am wrong.


Actually, it is not suspicion, but caution. It is has to do with leadership in general, but pastors included. Paul shared my sentiments, as well as Jesus and Jude:

"“And now beware! Be sure that you feed and shepherd God's flock—his church, purchased with his blood—over whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders. I know full well that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock. Even some of you will distort the truth in order to draw a following. Watch out! Remember the three years I was with you—my constant watch and care over you night and day, and my many tears for you."
Acts 20:28-

"Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from what we believe; they will follow lying spirits and teachings that come from demons." 1 Timothy 4:1-

"I say this because some godless people have wormed their way in among you, saying that God's forgiveness allows us to live immoral lives. The fate of such people was determined long ago, for they have turned against our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
Jude 1:4-

"How terrible it will be for you experts in religious law! For you hide the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering." Luke 11:52-

----------

In fact, the only scathing remarks I hear in the Bible directed toward followers is that they fall for the schemes of the false teachers.

Rock

[VerbumReale]

Depends on how you apply it. Most pastors don't know how.

That's a little presumptuous don't you think? Maybe most whom you have met but that does not mean that most in general don't know how. I have actually only known one who took it to the point of removing someone from fellowship and it was done in a very loving, patient and appropriate manner that was faithful to Matthew 18.



Actually, it is not suspicion, but caution. It is has to do with leadership in general, but pastors included. Paul shared my sentiments, as well as Jesus and Jude:

"“And now beware! Be sure that you feed and shepherd God's flock—his church, purchased with his blood—over whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders. I know full well that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock. Even some of you will distort the truth in order to draw a following. Watch out! Remember the three years I was with you—my constant watch and care over you night and day, and my many tears for you."
Acts 20:28-

"Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from what we believe; they will follow lying spirits and teachings that come from demons." 1 Timothy 4:1-

"I say this because some godless people have wormed their way in among you, saying that God's forgiveness allows us to live immoral lives. The fate of such people was determined long ago, for they have turned against our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
Jude 1:4-

"How terrible it will be for you experts in religious law! For you hide the key to knowledge from the people. You don't enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering." Luke 11:52-

----------

In fact, the only scathing remarks I hear in the Bible directed toward followers is that they fall for the schemes of the false teachers.

Rock


Actually the more appropriate way to say it would be that you share the sentiments of Paul and Jesus and Jude. :D

But I digress. Those passages that you cite are dealing with false teaching, we're talking about prideful abuse of power. And yes, the two can go hand in hand but they don't necessarily have to. There are plenty of pastors who may be the most humble, loving, compassionate people in the world and may be great at encouraging and empowering people to use their gifts and creating an environment that on the surface might seem very harmonious and loving and wonderful and they might be "growing" in the sense that the numbers are going up. But get them in the pulpit and they end up preaching revisionist false-Gospel.

On the other hand there might be a pastor who is soldily orthodox in his preaching and teaching but completely abusive when it comes to his leadership of the body.

I love those texts. They are reminders to me of the importance of preaching Christ and Him crucified. And believe me I am well aware that many pastors have been deceived by the devil and are practicing false teaching.

But my point is, since abuse of power and false teaching don't necessarily always go hand in hand, then abuse of power can just as likely stem from the laity as from clergy.

Of course I agree that false teaching is more likely to come from clergy. However I would argue against your suggestion that there is nothing in scripture suggesting false teaching coming from lay-people. In fact in the same chapter of the Jude passage you quoted there is a passage that could easily be applied to a situation that a colleague of mine is currently dealing with.

18 They said to you, In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions. 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.

One of my closest friends and colleagues is told fairly regularly that he preaches too much law by one of his parishioners. In fact not only is he told that he preaches too much law but that because Jesus died for our sins, the law doesn't need to be preached at all. I would also say that this passage could be applied to the scores of homosexuals, both lay and clergy, who are pushing for blessing of same-sex-unions and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.

[Pouye]

That's a little presumptuous don't you think? Maybe most whom you have met but that does not mean that most in general don't know how. I have actually only known one who took it to the point of removing someone from fellowship and it was done in a very loving, patient and appropriate manner that was faithful to Matthew 18.


Agreed - it was a presumptuous statement. However, some churches actually publish how they apply church discipline, and I've seen errors in many of their publications regarding how they interpret Matthew 18 as part of the process.


Actually the more appropriate way to say it would be that you share the sentiments of Paul and Jesus and Jude. :D


True -- but of course you know I meant we share each other's sentiments. :)


But my point is, since abuse of power and false teaching don't necessarily always go hand in hand, then abuse of power can just as likely stem from the laity as from clergy.


That's not an abuse of power, but rather stirring up dissension. Clergy are the power-holders, not the laity.



One of my closest friends and colleagues is told fairly regularly that he preaches too much law by one of his parishioners. In fact not only is he told that he preaches too much law but that because Jesus died for our sins, the law doesn't need to be preached at all. I would also say that this passage could be applied to the scores of homosexuals, both lay and clergy, who are pushing for blessing of same-sex-unions and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.

Maybe he does preach too much law. By far the biggest problem I've seen in churches in Papua New Guinea (across all denominations) is this same problem. The preachers continually beat the congregation over the head with such statements as, "You must not lie; you must not cheat, you must not steal, you must not commit adultery, you must not fornicate...", thinking that such statements will get them to stop doing these things, which are all big problems in the village and society in general. Preaching law is actually very dangerous without balancing it with the solution to the sinful behavior:

"And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will accept. When you think of what he has done for you, is this too much to ask? Don't copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will know what God wants you to do, and you will know how good and pleasing and perfect his will really is." Romans 12:1-2

It is a tendency for preachers all over the world to get frustrated with the behaviors of their "flock". In Papua New Guinea, many preachers feel a strong need to continually remind their flock how sinful their behaviors are in God's sight, hoping this will change their behavior and somehow make them better sheep. Then they preach to the people how they should live, "You need to help your family, be kind to your wife and children, be generous with those in need..." etc. This is all still based on behavioral change, but not a change of heart in relationship with God -- from which all of these behaviors will begin to naturally flow if the Holy Spirit is in fellowship with the believer.

Rock

[DareDevil]

Many things have already been said, but there is another point. What happens, if a preacher who made a sin public turns out to have been wrong? I mean, this doesn't seem to be the case here, but what if a preacher makes such a mistake?

[VerbumReale]

That's not an abuse of power, but rather stirring up dissension. Clergy are the power-holders, not the laity.


It depends on the structure of the congregation and how they understand vocation. If it's a congregationally based structure then committees can actually be the real power wielders in the congregation. And I would also point out that power and authority are not always the same thing. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you don't think lay-people can have and abuse power in a congregation without holding a position of authority.




Maybe he does preach too much law. By far the biggest problem I've seen in churches in Papua New Guinea (across all denominations) is this same problem. The preachers continually beat the congregation over the head with such statements as, "You must not lie; you must not cheat, you must not steal, you must not commit adultery, you must not fornicate...", thinking that such statements will get them to stop doing these things, which are all big problems in the village and society in general. Preaching law is actually very dangerous without balancing it with the solution to the sinful behavior:

"And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will accept. When you think of what he has done for you, is this too much to ask? Don't copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will know what God wants you to do, and you will know how good and pleasing and perfect his will really is." Romans 12:1-2

It is a tendency for preachers all over the world to get frustrated with the behaviors of their "flock". In Papua New Guinea, many preachers feel a strong need to continually remind their flock how sinful their behaviors are in God's sight, hoping this will change their behavior and somehow make them better sheep. Then they preach to the people how they should live, "You need to help your family, be kind to your wife and children, be generous with those in need..." etc. This is all still based on behavioral change, but not a change of heart in relationship with God -- from which all of these behaviors will begin to naturally flow if the Holy Spirit is in fellowship with the believer.

Rock


I assure you that what you are referring to is much different from what I am talking about. I have heard him preach several times. I have read many of his sermons. He's not beating people over the head and trying to control their behavior. He preaches good standard law and Gospel sermons. Do you not belive that the law should still be preached???

He preaches the law to expose sin, as Paul says in Romans 3, through the law comes the knowledge of sin. This is standard second use; preaching the law to drive them to Christ. But then he follows preaching of the law with the proclamation of the Gospel. It's standard preaching of Christ and Him crucified.

I'll give you an example

This is an excerpt from his sermon from what I believe will be his Christmas eve sermon

For something peculiar happens once we start to settle down and feel secure-suddenly our sight turns off of what has come before us and becomes focused on ourselves. As happens with any rebellious teenager who heads off to college, we get caught up in our own selves and allusions of freedom and start to assert our ability to discern our paths in the future. And as we become more confident in our ingenuities, we suddenly lose the ability to separate fact from fiction, reality from fantasy, truth from error.
For we have a problem in our land today-in our collapsing God’s work from our work, we have placed our plans over that of His. And we see this popping up everywhere these days-from being wrapped up in the excitement of political celebrity, to our current angst over the economy. However nothing compares to the rampant idolatry currently taking place in the halls of our sanctuaries. For as David did of old, so we have attempted to build a home for God out of our dreams and aspirations and grand designs. For in our attempts we have sought to build the church in our own image-replacing justification with justice and redemption with relevancy. The God of the Bible has been watered down and replaced with one fashioned by our own hands. Even the news of Christmas cannot escape our tampering-we either turn this season into a self-indulgence binge or a safe Christmas card portrayal. But either way, the radical news of Luke today gets domesticated so not to upset our day.


Boldy preaching the law to be sure. But notice the "we" and "our" langauge. He includes himself.

And he follows that up a little later with.

For what Gabriel’s announcement discloses, isn’t merely the coming birth of the Christ child, but God’s final and full answer toward all our attempts at trying to define and enclose Him according to our dreams, desires and designs. For this One, born of a woman who was still a virgin, was much more than any of our projections, but is none other than the Son of the Most High-the One given to save the world from their sins, as Gabriel told Joseph in Matthew. For it is within Him, and Him alone, that we are able to discern what God desires His people to know about Him and His will for us.
For the giving of Christ Jesus isn’t about what we can do for God, but about what God has done for you. God reminded David that it wasn’t anything he had done that deserved his status-but, God reminded, it was He alone that gave David and Israel their victory and rest. And so also, Christ was given first and foremost, not to make you a better person, not to help you apply the Bible to your life, but to save you from your sins; to raise you from your death; to end your bondage to the power of the devil. He was given to save you from the forces that you have no control over-He came to take away the judgment of your sin, the darkness of your death, the powerlessness you have over the devil. He came, not to inspire you or to show the way of justice, but to be rejected, beaten, crucified and die all for your sakes, so that, when the Father raised Him from the dead, so all who believe and are baptized may too be redeemed from your tomb.

Now, not being a Lutheran maybe you have some disagreement with some of the theology in these. But clearly you can see he is not beating them over the head trying to coltrole their lives. He is simply trying to proclaim the good news of God's forgiveness in Christ. But proclaiming forgiveness necesesitates preaching the law to expose our sin. ie what we are forgiven of.

[Pouye]

Now, not being a Lutheran maybe you have some disagreement with some of the theology in these. But clearly you can see he is not beating them over the head trying to coltrole their lives. He is simply trying to proclaim the good news of God's forgiveness in Christ. But proclaiming forgiveness necesesitates preaching the law to expose our sin. ie what we are forgiven of.

You know, VerbumReale... you're alright! :)

I didn't find anything I disagree with, but much I agreed with. Any time we place our focus on the real Jesus who came 2000 years ago and Who also lives today, I'm all for it!

Rock