***Is this Right????***

[JesusisallIneed]

Help me but maybe I am wrong. I thought anything confidential about a person should not be shared publicly in a church. I attended a new church for the 1st time this past Sunday and the minister really went in on a member in the church bringing out all of her weaknesses and had the poor girl in tears. I felt sorry and embarrassed for her. He thing tried to tie it up as he was trying to give her advice and encouragement. Then he talked about the pastor's marriage. I felt it was none of anyone's business and those matters should of been discussed privately.

I guess my big question is do churches talk openly about their members to the congregation on personal issues happening in that member's life?

Help me I am lost on this one but I feel it is wrong.

 

[Nails74]

This doesn't really line up with your previous threads...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7622717/

 

[athenken]

First I would as if she had given permission for this public vetting of her weaknesses and sins. It could be one way of airing her sins so she can repent of them and ask forgiveness.

Aside from that, churches have requested prayer for individuals, but have been somewhat vague about the kind of sins they are struggling with.

Now, if the pastor did not have permission from the person he was talking about I would question his motives. Did she end up running out of the service, or did she stay through the whole thing?

 

[pdudgeon]

Help me but maybe I am wrong. I thought anything confidential about a person should not be shared publicly in a church. I attended a new church for the 1st time this past Sunday and the minister really went in on a member in the church bringing out all of her weaknesses and had the poor girl in tears. I felt sorry and embarrassed for her. He thing tried to tie it up as he was trying to give her advice and encouragement. Then he talked about the pastor's marriage. I felt it was none of anyone's business and those matters should of been discussed privately.

I guess my big question is do churches talk openly about their members to the congregation on personal issues happening in that member's life?

Help me I am lost on this one but I feel it is wrong.

let's look at this one again.

1. it's your first Sunday at this church, so you have no idea of what has gone before.

2. just because someone cries in church does not necessarily mean that they are being singled out by a minister. the larger the church the greater chance that many people are having the same problem. By the same token when you are sitting in church you can only see a small portion of the whole congregation, so you actually have no way of knowing by observation only who is and who isn't affected by the message that Sunday.

3. In our church any time one person thinks about talking about someone else to a third party, we're always told to 'draw a box around the problem'.

By that our pastor means that we should only be talking to the people that are either directly involved in the problem itself or those who can directly affect the outcome of the problem. anything else is gossip.

So only if the whole church was involved in the problem concerning the pastor's marriage, or if the whole church was needed to affect it's outcome, would there be any reason for a third party to tell the whole church about it.

and by extention that would also rule out talking about the problem in the presence of visitors

 

[Aibrean]

No, and in my church anything discussed in private is to remain in private (and most especially when those are confessions).

I've never heard a sermon since I've been attending directed at one person.

 

[JesusisallIneed]

Nails74-I am having a hard time understanding your response. This thread has nothing to do with my previous threads. This a a new experience. So I am not understanding what you mean any insight would be helpful. I had to remove links because it would not let me reply with links.

 

[JesusisallIneed]

He started off by saying to the young lady I do not mean to put you on blast**and then he started sharing some things about in her life that I felt were too private for my ears. Also when he addressed the pastor's wife he brought up some things about their marriage that I felt was inappropriate for the whole church to know. So he was talking with them and involving the church as a whole. I had no idea about none of this until he brought it out. As far as people crying in church I do not pay any attention to that as being singled out I cry in church when I am touched by the message. Crying is healthy. I am sorry I am not trying to debate just gaining advice. Just trying to see if it is acceptable for a church to openly publicly address their members private issues.

let's look at this one again.

1. it's your first Sunday at this church, so you have no idea of what has gone before.

2. just because someone cries in church does not necessarily mean that they are being singled out by a minister. the larger the church the greater chance that many people are having the same problem. By the same token when you are sitting in church you can only see a small portion of the whole congregation, so you actually have no way of knowing by observation only who is and who isn't affected by the message that Sunday.

3. In our church any time one person thinks about talking about someone else to a third party, we're always told to 'draw a box around the problem'.

By that our pastor means that we should only be talking to the people that are either directly involved in the problem itself or those who can directly affect the outcome of the problem. anything else is gossip.

So only if the whole church was involved in the problem concerning the pastor's marriage, or if the whole church was needed to affect it's outcome, would there be any reason for a third party to tell the whole church about it.

and by extention that would also rule out talking about the problem in the presence of visitors

 

[JesusisallIneed]

So would this be considered gossip based on your quote below:

let's look at this one again.

1. it's your first Sunday at this church, so you have no idea of what has gone before.

2. just because someone cries in church does not necessarily mean that they are being singled out by a minister. the larger the church the greater chance that many people are having the same problem. By the same token when you are sitting in church you can only see a small portion of the whole congregation, so you actually have no way of knowing by observation only who is and who isn't affected by the message that Sunday.

3. In our church any time one person thinks about talking about someone else to a third party, we're always told to 'draw a box around the problem'.

"By that our pastor means that we should only be talking to the people that are either directly involved in the problem itself or those who can directly affect the outcome of the problem. anything else is gossip."

So only if the whole church was involved in the problem concerning the pastor's marriage, or if the whole church was needed to affect it's outcome, would there be any reason for a third party to tell the whole church about it.

and by extention that would also rule out talking about the problem in the presence of visitors

 

[JesusisallIneed]

No she stayed through the whole thing and was crying. But in any event I probably will not be going back. So I guess I have no worries. I guess I am living and learning.

First I would as if she had given permission for this public vetting of her weaknesses and sins. It could be one way of airing her sins so she can repent of them and ask forgiveness.

Aside from that, churches have requested prayer for individuals, but have been somewhat vague about the kind of sins they are struggling with.

Now, if the pastor did not have permission from the person he was talking about I would question his motives. Did she end up running out of the service, or did she stay through the whole thing?

 

[JesusisallIneed]

I need to stop typing and thinking so fast. I just read your bottom quote and it basically answers my last question that I sent you. Thank you so much!!

let's look at this one again.

1. it's your first Sunday at this church, so you have no idea of what has gone before.

2. just because someone cries in church does not necessarily mean that they are being singled out by a minister. the larger the church the greater chance that many people are having the same problem. By the same token when you are sitting in church you can only see a small portion of the whole congregation, so you actually have no way of knowing by observation only who is and who isn't affected by the message that Sunday.

3. In our church any time one person thinks about talking about someone else to a third party, we're always told to 'draw a box around the problem'.

By that our pastor means that we should only be talking to the people that are either directly involved in the problem itself or those who can directly affect the outcome of the problem. anything else is gossip.

"So only if the whole church was involved in the problem concerning the pastor's marriage, or if the whole church was needed to affect it's outcome, would there be any reason for a third party to tell the whole church about it.

and by extention that would also rule out talking about the problem in the presence of visitors"

 

[JesusisallIneed]

I totally agree with you!

First I would as if she had given permission for this public vetting of her weaknesses and sins. It could be one way of airing her sins so she can repent of them and ask forgiveness.

Aside from that, churches have requested prayer for individuals, but have been somewhat vague about the kind of sins they are struggling with.

Now, if the pastor did not have permission from the person he was talking about I would question his motives. Did she end up running out of the service, or did she stay through the whole thing?

 

[JesusisallIneed]

Thanks!!

No, and in my church anything discussed in private is to remain in private (and most especially when those are confessions).

I've never heard a sermon since I've been attending directed at one person.

 

[Bible2]

JesusisallIneed said in post #7:

Just trying to see if it is acceptable for a church to openly publicly address their members private issues.

That depends on the circumstances (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 5:20).

 

[Aibrean]

That depends on the circumstances (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 5:20).

As per THIS case

Plucking single verses to support your argument is grasping at tiny straws because you have neglected the context which changes the meaning entirely.

Matthew 18:17 in context: no it doesn't.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee

First, it's only if the person sins against you directly. Then it would have to go to a small group of witnesses, then telling it to the entire church doesn't necessarily mean the whole congregation.

1 Timothy 5:19 in context: no it doesn't.

Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

This is directed toward Elders ONLY. Why? Because church leaders should be above reproach.

 

[salida]

This info shouldn't have gotten out. Its not their business.

 

[parsley]

I have a feeling that what you walked in on was "popcorn" prophecy (one here, one there around the room) -- that the speaker was a visiting prophet and did not know the people. These prophecies often bring tears toward healing. I agree that it is inappropriate to talk about people's personal lives in front of a congregation, but have also seen some good come out of these experiences.

If that was what it was... the church had the assumption that the speaker was being led and informed by God. I would not assume that is necessarily true, even if some of the facts were correct.

I agree with you that a pastor should go out of his/her way to be protective -- that is the role of any shepherd, and part of the definition of the term "pastor."

If prophecy was not what was going on, run out of that church as fast as you can. A speaker should not use others' misery to accomplish their own job.

Overall, if you're ever in a church situation that you're not comfortable with, you are not required by God or Man to do anything. Just because an organization labels itself as a church does not mean its practices or sermons were God-sanctioned.

 

[JesusisallIneed]

Actually the speaker was a member of the church. It was actually youth's night and it turned into something totally different towards the end. So we will not be going back. It is good we found out the first time we went instead of leaving when we have our roots in the church. Thanks for your advice!!!

I have a feeling that what you walked in on was "popcorn" prophecy (one here, one there around the room) -- that the speaker was a visiting prophet and did not know the people. These prophecies often bring tears toward healing. I agree that it is inappropriate to talk about people's personal lives in front of a congregation, but have also seen some good come out of these experiences.

If that was what it was... the church had the assumption that the speaker was being led and informed by God. I would not assume that is necessarily true, even if some of the facts were correct.

I agree with you that a pastor should go out of his/her way to be protective -- that is the role of any shepherd, and part of the definition of the term "pastor."

If prophecy was not what was going on, run out of that church as fast as you can. A speaker should not use others' misery to accomplish their own job.

Overall, if you're ever in a church situation that you're not comfortable with, you are not required by God or Man to do anything. Just because an organization labels itself as a church does not mean its practices or sermons were God-sanctioned.

 

[athenken]

The strangest church we have ever attended was one where during the hymns, or praise songs, people in the church started dancing around in the isles as if we were suddenly at a drum circle. Very weird. Only went once. That was enough.

 

[Bible2]

Aibrean said in post #14:

As per THIS case

Post #13 was addressing the more general question, which was quoted.

Aibrean said in post #14:

First, it's only if the person sins against you directly.

That's right. That's why the reference to Matthew 18:17 was preceded by saying that it depends on the circumstances (just as Matthew 18:17 itself starts with an "if" clause).

Aibrean said in post #14:

This is directed toward Elders ONLY.

1 Timothy 5:1 may forbid the application of 1 Timothy 5:20 to elders. Also, 1 Timothy 5:19 refers to a singular elder, whereas 1 Timothy 5:20 refers to a plural "them", suggesting that the two verses aren't referring to the same thing: 1 Timothy 5:20 could apply to any members of the congregation (except possibly elders).

Aibrean said in post #14:

Because church leaders should be above reproach.

Note that even Christians who aren't elders should be above reproach (1 Timothy 5:14).

 

[parsley]

Actually the speaker was a member of the church. It was actually youth's night and it turned into something totally different towards the end. So we will not be going back. It is good we found out the first time we went instead of leaving when we have our roots in the church. Thanks for your advice!!!

Eek, on youth night? It reminds me of things that happened during the Shepherding movement. People pressed others into open honesty and confession of sins, and raved about how healing it was to get their feelings out. But then as you can imagine, the exposure also damaged lives.

Often tears are about relief, not having to shoulder one's guilt and fear when sharing it with others. But confrontation, unless it is over a crime, can do a lot of damage and break the level of trust in the fellowship.

Some pastors have a very courteous practice: If they want to talk about someone else's problems, they ask the person for permission beforehand -- and accept the answer.