Should Church Resolutions apply to Bro. Estep as it does to other ministers?
Prov. 20:23 says "Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good." If the weight or standard that the Presbytery uses to discipline one minister is different from the standard used on another minister it indicates "divers weights". If the Presbytery considers an issue or condition very "weighty" and it has a significant influence on the status of a man's ministry and that same issue or condition is considered "light" or unimportant to another man's ministry then there is a "false balance" involved.
It is common knowledge that Bro. Estep has some sort of Social Security assistance. I am sure he is deserving of such and that is not an issue. Social Security makes determinations on eligibility based on many factors none of which are being disputed.
However, questions arise in the light of Enclosure 2 in the Links section which concerned another minister who was also receiving some sort of Social Security assistance. I am NOT comparing the details of the different cases, I am pointing out the "Resolution" of the Ways and Means Committe quoted in the letter. Part (A) of the resolution states "If the pastor is receiving Social Security disability and continues in his/her responsibilities (even in a limited capacity) he/she is in violation of Federal law which in turn violates God's law. (1 Peter 2:13-15)"
It is apparent from the letter that the Bro. from Arkansas was considered to be in violation of God's law and was removed from his position. Has the same "weight" been balanced against Bro. Estep? If not does that imply "divers weights"?
posted by Automaton at Monday, March 06, 2006
8 Comments:
If the same consideration is not shown towards Bro. Estep's situation, it would appear that "someone" stands to gain "something" by overlooking this issue.
I thought we left this crookedness in the former organization.
Good job Automaton Chronicles. I will vote for you.
Should apply to all. Otherwise it is discrimination and that is also against federal law. Woops, Sorry, forgot where I was at. Appears GH can discriminate all it wants to. There are hundreds of us that can testify to that.
The fact is that he made his position clear concerning finacial issues, and then he was offered a position...then he changed his mind. Men of integrity cannot be bought off, bribed, or promoted by the devil! Personally, I do not want someone of that character to be over me, telling me how one should live, or preaching perfection when they themselves are lacking simple Christlike character, and all the while they are shouting about how
God is cleaning up The Church. It seems to me that good men are being replaced with those of questionable conduct. The Bible speaks about the qualifications for a Bishop, which is one who 'OVERSEES' the work. Seems to me an overseer should also meet the same qualifications as a Bishop?
this stuff of don Estep came out 10 years ago and Bro. Pruitt said leave him in the people like him. when the overseer did not reapoint him Bro. Pruitt took his licens away
PLEASE LEAVE BROTHER ESTEP ALONE.
I am boggled at the fact that some people feel they shouldn't have to be held accountable for their actions.
The Bible says to give to Ceasar what is his and to owe no man anything. That includes paying one's bills, oweing someone an apology, possessing something that is someone else's...etc. It is up to us to pray and ask God if any of us owe anything to anyone. I believe God requires that of us. I hesitate to point out things about others when I myself may be guilty. I am not speaking of compromise, but of kindness and mercy.
Post a Comment
<< Home