Pastor asked to resign

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Seek on September 12, 2013 at 2:15pm

I like how Joyce put this in a sermon I listened to yesterday.  She read that:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It says nothing about the church not being involved in the state, but that the state cannot stick their noses into church business.  Boy we've come a long way baby.  We ignore God AND our own Constitution. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda on September 12, 2013 at 4:03pm

Yes, the first amendment doesn't restrict the people but restricts the government. It's supposed to be one way according to the Constitution, but the separation of church and state is why prayer is not allowed in schools, nor the ten commandments posted, and so forth. At the same time, the people want freedom of religion. We don't want the state to decide which church we can or can't attend and churches are non-profit organizations, etc ... So the separation is wanted, too.

As far as this situation, from my perspective, I can see why the congregation might feel unsafe now after using the bus, simply because it could become a target now for anyone seeking revenge on the mayor. People in drug rings can be very vindictive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seek on September 13, 2013 at 7:22am

This is why our founding fathers worded it as such.  They came here to escape religious restrictions.  So they wrote the Constitution so that all people were free to worship God and practice their religion.  But this country has gone over that and have restricted it again.  You can't pray in school (restricted), you can't have the 10 Commandments, as good and wholesome as they are, in school (restricted), you can't put a cross on your lawn, but it's ok to put up a pagan symbol (restricted).  And they've restricted religion so much, they're even now trying to monitor the churches.  I don't recall the article I read recently, but something about churches having to report to the state about something...wish I could remember.  But it all comes down to the state (country) has changed the Constitution verbally to mean the opposite of what is written.  Not good. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amanda on September 13, 2013 at 9:37am

Yes, it was meant to be one way, with the restrictions not on people, and over time it became a distinct separation. That's my meaning. With the present administration, government on both the federal and the state levels has become even bigger IMO. 

On the other hand, people have wanted help from the government to restrict the media and censor for immoral content in order to protect children from being overly exposed. We could control what our children see and hear through the media ourselves by not watching any television or buying any books or magazines, home schooling, etc ... But our control is limited because we can't be with our children constantly to monitor what they see and hear when they go out in public to stores, visit their friends, etc ... 

So the separation between church and state, over time, has become a division with many factors involved, and the people have wanted it, like the people wanted a king over them in the OT. See 1 Samuel 8:1-22. The people had judges to decide their legal questions and problems, then they wanted a king because the judges perverted justice. This looks all too familiar now, too. But how many, today, want King Jesus and His justice and His ways? 

I believe the time will eventually come when people will be told where to worship as well as whom and what to worship. But, I'm digressing from the topic. 

The news article you've provided as a link says this wasn't the first time the church bus was used in an undercover operation and also, the  mayor/pastor is the chief of police as well. It looks like it was his choice alone to use the bus without bringing it before the other leaders or elders in the congregation.

The article says no one in the church complained after the first time the bus was used this way. So the pastor assumed no one would care this time either, and it sounds like he didn't bother to ask for them to weigh in on the matter either time. If that's the case, then IMO there wasn't unity anyway in the congregation simply because at least two decisions were made by the pastor without involving or consulting elders or other church leadership.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on September 12, 2013 at 8:02pm

Two points to share:

1) We do not have enough detail to give a educated opinion.

2) We do not know the governance structure of that church as it varies from church to church and denomination to denomination.

 

Lord Bless,
LT

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard L. Broch, Sr. on September 12, 2013 at 11:25pm

One more point to add to LT's thoughts:

We don't know the history and dynamics that have been going on in this church. Maybe things had been building for a while, and this was the final straw.........so the body axed him.

Will there be a split now?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seek on September 13, 2013 at 6:53am

I wonder as this is similar to things my own church has undergone.  My pastor has had a vision that our church will be multi-generational and grow.  Since he took over about 4 to 5 years ago, we've gone from an average of 50 to 60 on Sundays to an average of about 200 to 250 on Sundays.  We've also had two splits.  One when he fired the youth pastor.  The other when a family was hurt that he didn't show to their sister's funeral that he says he hadn't even heard about.

With the first, the pastor never told the reasons for the dismissal...he didn't even say he'd been fired.  He said that pastor Rob was leaving us to pursue other things.  Pastor Rob however spread rumors and let everyone know he'd been fired.  Some of the church members left over this because they loved Pastor Rob, not because God led them to leave but because they disagreed with the actions of the leadership without knowing the true reasons.

With the second, the family swore the pastor had to have known, but he said he did not.  To that end, he just instituted a program of 10 elders with wives and assigned around 20 families in the church to each elder team.  He made sure we knew that if we had ANYTHING we needed prayer for or needed support in, we have to contact our elder team or there is no way anyone will know.  And with over 200 people, there is no way he can attend every funeral and hospital bedside.  It is simply impossible.  But people get upset over those little things.  They don't get into small groups and make friends with a small set of the church population, they don't inform anyone of things going on in their lives, but they're quick to get upset and leave the church, or blame the leadership, for not knowing these things or for not attending to everyone's unknown needs. 

That is why I question what this church did.  I wonder if they even called a meeting with the pastor to discuss why he did this, to try and keep unity and find an answer for the next time rather than immediately jumping to calling for his resignation.  Maybe things have been building, but I would hope they've sat and met with him on the other things as well.  I just know with my own church, that's usually not the case.  People simply jump the gun with hurt feelings and off the cuff replies before trying to have a meeting of the minds. 

I know there've been plenty of times I too have felt hurt in my church and considered another church.  But in prayer, I feel this is where I belong and so I stay through it.  If I'd jump the gun and take off out of a hurt, that would only hurt my own growth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colby on September 13, 2013 at 11:06am

Did he, or did he not, do the right thing by resigning as pastor?  We don't have the full story and aren't privy to all of the pertinent facts surrounding the church's call for the pastor to resign.  I see this as a matter of conscience that concerns him and the church where he was pastor for 10 years.  I will make a few observations based on the news accounts.

Holding the offices of Mayor and Police Chief simultaneously has the potential in certain situations to create a conflict of interest.  Even more so when you add a third hat: pastor of a local church.

As Chief of Police and Mayor, he was eager to help the Sheriff's Department and I commend him in that regard for supporting their crackdown on illegal meth labs.  But, as pastor of the church, as he had done at least once before, he didn't consult with and get the approval of the church's governing body or elders to loan the church bus.  "I just assumed it would be OK to do,” he said. “Maybe I should have checked with them." Had he followed protocol, perhaps the chain of events that led to his ouster as pastor could have been averted.

One news story reported this: "Attendance has been down at the church, and Wilkinson said he had been thinking about stepping down as pastor even before the controversy surfaced."  This lends credence to Richard Broch's comment: "We don't know the history and dynamics that have been going on in this church. Maybe things had been building for a while, and this was the final straw ... so the body axed him."

Amanda's point is valid.  Using a church bus for law enforcement raids might make it a target.  It could be vandalized as retribution.  Worse yet, it could be ambushed by criminals, even targeted with gunfire, when being used on church business because they think another raid is being staged or to send the church a message. Worst-case scenarios, highly unlikely, but still ... .

Church members raised the concern that the insurance coverage on the bus does not cover its use for police business.  Presumably, the Sheriff's Department and State Department could have rented unmarked buses, minivans, and/or SUVs from a car rental agency if denied use of the church bus.  After all of the publicity generated by this story, its value in lending an element of surprise in criminal raids is probably all but gone anyway.

In any event, the matter appears to have resolved itself.  I wish the Police Chief/Mayor and the church all the best and hope that this parting of the ways doesn't lead to a breakup of the church.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page