mlssufan01

in my 30's, I went to mental health following the initial incident; the general consensus is that i had an episode, I was put on medications; but it was not enough to label as an official mental illness. I have been to churches prior to these 2; and only one afterwards. I did enjoy the last one while I was there; and was really the only church without a significant issue to cause me harm (I left due to work, not due to any issues). Again, I really have no info to give on the 2nd church. The pastor's reasoning in the 1st church was he "wanted to give me the space I need to move forward." again, seemed coded, and at best all I can think of was that since his family outright ended the friendship abruptly, it would be awkward and uncomfortable to be in a smaller setting; but that still begs the question why the need for the abrupt ending. My only inkling is because i am annoying; but i don't really find that to be an acceptable behavior of a pastor.

so...i cannot rally give you any information on the 2nd church; as i'm really at a loss as to where this came from; and the churches are so far apart it wouldn't really make sense for my former pastor to contact that pastor--it would be extremely surprising if they were in any way correlated. For the 2nd church, there was no small group or younger crowd or anything; I was actually very cautious about getting too involved; and pretty much laid low for my entire tenure there. As for the 1st church- you can probly find older posts on the matter...but a brief synopsis is that, at the time of the incident the pastor's children were all college age (18-25) and the pastor's son insulted me by saying i was barely tolerable; followed by a complete unexpected cutoff--which resulted in my first and only mental health episode---basically schizophrenic bipolar--and due to hallucinations, turned myself into the police thinking I did something wrong. So, in the very least...I at least tried to make sense of the situation there by telling myself that is why they won't speak to me; but the reality is they had an issue before that episode. Again, the one common denominator here I just want to know why I am always the reject, always the one cast aside, always feeling like I did something wrong; and yet nobody can ever tell me, no matter how hard I search.

well...first and foremost...if he could tell me, directly, why he feels the way he does...this would go a long way in resolving the problem. Secondly--if he were to write a review of my behavior---this would go a long way in doing one of 2 things: a). teaching me where my behavior is wrong or b). result in him being shown he is wrong about my behavior. This is a very big difference between from meeting with him; pointing out his behavior of insulting and abandoning; him acknowledging the sin; but then doing nothing; and then when I have asked what my offenses were, and to be given no clear answer, yet remain in punishment. I do not know the reason for the restrictions; he gave some vague christian-ized answer like "it's hard to love your neighbor when you don't love yourself." Really, i think the main caveat behind all of my frustration is I just want to know what I did wrong, if anything.

I am allowed to main service and men's breakfast...that's it...no bible studies or other small groups. I don't agree with disturbing worship; for one I would be uncomfortable anyway; but also my personal issue with the pastor should not disturb the worship of other individuals; however then again Jesus did tell us to go and be reconciled before we offer our gift at the altar...so in that regards I would say it would be sinful for the pastor to continue preaching when he is the one unwilling to repent and reconcile. Still; I would not find it wise to be disruptive in that manner.

the pastor has children in their late 20's and early 30's; so in essence we are all adults.

actually this is a new church , different place, very similar thing, different people. maybe what's bothering me is I don't know what i'm doing wrong and nobody can tell me what I'm doing wrong. *edit...well new in the sense of different from the previous one; i was at this one for about 3 years now.

right, i agree...that was basically the crux of the first message...i exhausted every option in terms of reconciliation--went directly...got nowhere...brought a third party...when that happened the pastor spoke in code and really didn't let me get much in; and the assistant pastor who was the third party just said he didn't really understand what the problem was and so just sort of left it; even though I explained that I had been essentially verbally insulted and then cut off with no explanation and still not getting any explanations; but i think the assistant pastor was probably just trying to keep his job tbh, but that's just speculation; and he really didn't do anything wrong imo. Just seems very shady thats all.

If you have had an offense with the pastor; and exhausted every possibility of working things out; have been told you didn't do anything wrong; and have still been exempt from attending certain services; and been blocked by the pastor and his family--at that point do I make the public aware of what happened (probably through an online review service like google or yelp)? I would be lying if I said I wasn't angry; there is a part of me that is; but I'm honestly more upset that I don't even think they think they did anything wrong (i.e. verbally insulting me; abandoning me), and the assistant pastor just sort of avoids everything cuz he doesn't really know what happened, and when we did talk; the pastor talked in code so that the truth wouldn't come out. but anyways; I wrestle with this because I really do care about them, but is it really loving for me to just let them go scott free? Part of me feels like it isn't wise to let people live under that leadership knowing that the pastor could just one day just cut people off with no discussion, no warning--if you've ever experienced that from anyone, it's an emotional trauma like no other; especially from someone you were close with.

A few rhings on this: No, it isn't directly tied to that. It is tied to almost every broken relationship I see never ever being reconciled. 2nd...to clarify...the pastor's daughter was not underage during our fallout, nor was there any sexual misconduct...these are very slanderous statements...at worst we had a frowned upon online friendship....thirdly....I am not excommunicated from any church...only allowed in limited capacity; and became confused due to conflicting statements and actions. In any case, this post isn't directly caused by that situation.

lol...no, no it wouldn't starve the lust. I am telling you this as someone who struggles with it. In fact after a bout with mental health I decided blocking those site on the internet would be wise. It did not eliminate my temptation because sin is not originated externally, it is originated in the human heart. Was I going out of my way to search for images? No. Was I awkwardly staring at women in church? No. In fact, I did a pretty good job of hiding it. But when alone, the struggle is still there, probably even more intensely then when I had access to those blocked sites. Now, is it wise to enter a sinful-themed shop overtly explicit things to trigger my temptations? of course not. But I am to avoid it altogeter? actually...I would argue no, for 2 reasons. Firstly, Jesus went into the desert TO BE TEMPTED. Though He would not sin. If going into a temptation is a sin, then you're calling Jesus a sinner...and that can't be possible. Secondly, especially in the area of lust...it is virtually impossible to go anywhere without being tempted. Walk down the street, see a woman in lewd clothing. Maybe I work in a mall (I did for a bit); how many Victoria's Secret images you think I saw? Could I even possibly go to the beach? Then you add the shear disobedience of Christians when it comes to premarital sex, 65% willfully engaging in it without any conviction (I don't support this view, but it can raise a lot of "why" questions). For lust, to avoid it altogether would be t never leave your house and never associate with anybody. And this is why I say avoiding temptation is nigh impossible. In fact, in Genesis, God said that the thoughts and intentions of man's heart are evil continually, all day long.

Man will be tempted whether you put him somewhere or he goes somewhere. The devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to destroy. Nobody is exempt from temptation. You can take the cake away from the table but eventually I have to go to the grocery store where there's cake. In fact...actually personal application here...if I struggle with lust but do not act should I then not go to church because I will be tempted by females who are there? pretty wrong if you ask me.

So, this would go back to the original posts--wherein I actually acknowledged anomaly situations such as these (abuse, rape) wherein I stated that I would agree reconciliation would not be wise in these specific cases of extreme sins; my original intent was more to the point where there has not been such extreme sin. Even then i still struggle to know for sure as Paul instructed the completely immoral man in Corinth to be reconciled (keep in mind, Corinth was known for it's extremely unbiblical sexual immorality). My case is largely based on the statisticsnthat the instructions of reconciliaton is the most disobeyed Scripture in the Bible; and from what I've seen, while SOME of it is due to extreme sin like the one you mention; the vast majority is out of pettiness and/or unforgiveness of the less extreme sins---and this is where I have the problem.

The problem with this statement is..the Holy Spirit DID tell you to do it...through Jesus...in the Sermon on the Mount; and again, through Paul, in Corinthians; and again, in Titus; and again, through Paul, in Galatians; and again, through Paul, in Ephesians.

I want to stress something deeply ingrained in me....by the logic most of you have been using...I would argue that if we practice forgiveness this way; we will never ever be effective in sharing the Gospel. For the Gospel forgives the worst of sins and brings back to reconciliation. When sin becomes too grievous for us to associate with; we have ultimately said the other party is not worthy of our love. Paul murdered other Christians then preached to their families. Jesus knew Judas would betray him to the most grievous act in history and yet still dined with him as friend. In fact, it was after the mention of the betrayal that Jesus called him friend (whether or not they were after I could not tell you; I don't think we're given enough details).

"like they don't have a history you should be aware of." in other words; you are still holding them responsible for their past sins. My original sentiment was for someone who is clearly repentant; who made a mistake and owned up to; I am not referring to the person who is still living in the sin. Also they never were perfect, never will be, and none of us will be...it is unfair to hold such an expectation.