OMG, not another one. Why can’t these “pastors” keep it in their pants? And why can’t they tell the truth? Ain’t lyin’ 1 of the Big 10???
No wonder people don’t trust “Christians” anymore.

Not that Paulk is innocent, but what the heck was Brewer thinking when falling for the “only path to salvation” routine? What woman in her right mind would fall for that for 14 years before realizing that sex, as much fun as it is, has nothing to do with salvation??
Paulk certainly was a busy man…8 or 9 women fell for his “salvation” routine, and fathering his brother’s son…so his sister -in- law fell for the rouine too? Sounds like a really bad soap opera.
Not all ministers/priests/rabbi’s are jerks, but the ones that are, do a really good job of being jerks. Of course, the women weren’t exactly thinking either.

pagansister-
The women also recieved some financial assistance with bills etc. I can understand when a person is really desperately stressed-out and someone offers them something that is enjoyable as well as providing financial assistance it can seem pretty tempting to believe a line of BS. Making the enjoyment and relief from financial stress seem God sent.
As far as this church goes….I guess it is a case of another family business hitting hard times.
Peace!

Further, this is a Huckabee type church where the women are taught to submit to the authority of the man. So, the authority of a male preacher must carry even more weight.
Peace!

Oh, come on. Ms. Brewer is either very dumb or that was one weird church, if they got the Seventh Commandment THAT messed up.
(Although in response to Pagansister, I would hasten to add that saying “sex has nothing to do with salvation” essentially is saying that sex is spiritually meaningless, and thus, if true, Mr. Paulk didn’t really even do anything wrong. IJS.)
God bless.

“Former church employee Mona Brewer is suing Paulk, his brother and the church on allegations that Paulk manipulated her into an affair from 1989 to 2003 by telling her it was her only path to salvation.”
I keep saying people working in churches, people working for at least some religions, have way too much respect based on their positions. I would try to keep any child I was responsible for away from any of them, especially in a place not really careful about protecting children. Of course adults who have the minds of children are another matter and I suspect they gravitate to churches which promise them a Big Parent in The Sky. It’s good there are laws and people willing to enforce them.

Archbishop Paulk has a great convincing line, or did have. All clergy have one up on “the man on the street”, because they are supposed to be trusted, being men of God. People can become blind in accepting everything clergy tell them in many cases about many things, and womanizing for sex is disgusting for any man, but for a clergyman it’s off the wall. And then on top of it he lies under oath about the other 8 or 9 women he sermonized to. If 8 or 9 have come forth, there must be as many who are too embarrassed to add to their complaints.

JohnQ:
The women received financial assistance from this man(church) so basicly they were “paying” with themselves for the money given? He was paying for sex, thus using a prostitute. Some ministers have been kicked out of their churches for that.(guess he finally got caught). You mentioned that this church still believes that women should submit to men? If only women would stop falling for that ancient and outdated form of servitude. This is 2008!
Joey:
What DOES sex have to do with “salvation?” (Of course one has to believe in the concept of being saved). Yes, my concept is that sex is spiritually meaningless,not being a “believer”(not meaningless in any other way) but how in the world can you say that Paulk did nothing wrong with my view of things? If he was giving them $$ and they were sleeping with him, then he was turning them into prostitutes, which in most places is still against the law and I would suppose the church would frown upon.

joey,
“(Although in response to Pagansister, I would hasten to add that saying “sex has nothing to do with salvation” essentially is saying that sex is spiritually meaningless”
No, that isn’t what she “is saying”. To quote:
“Former church employee Mona Brewer is suing Paulk, his brother and the church on allegations that Paulk manipulated her into an affair from 1989 to 2003 by telling her it was her only path to salvation.”
Sex with your pastor is NOT a “way to salvation”. You seem to be interpolating that the misuse of sex makes ALL sex “spiritually meaningless”. That is rubbish and is NOT what she said at all. She not ‘believing’ what you ‘believe’ regarding spirituality and sexuality (read above) rejects the link between sex and “being saved”.
Or do you actually believe that one can be saved by having sex with your pastor??? That’s a pretty thin (i.e. incorrect) argument (aka a false teaching), imo.

JohnQ said: “Further, this is a Huckabee type church where the women are taught to submit to the authority of the man. So, the authority of a male preacher must carry even more weight.”
Joey responds: “Oh, come on. Ms. Brewer is either very dumb or that was one weird church”
First, you blame the victim (calling Ms. Brewer “very dumb” for merely accepting the teachings of her church, no less!).
Next, excuse the Church merely because it’s “weird”. Hmmm, this “Church” is certainly not alone in teaching women to submit to the authority of men. Ever hear of a movement called “Focus on the ‘Family’”? Or of the “Moral” “Majority”? Or almost ANY of the very popular TV ‘evangelists’? Or Mike Huckabee?
Not so “weird” it seems.
Lalaland indeed!

That geedy tramp is lying. She’s just another political ringer, put out there as she-wolf in a cheap wool suit to work for some money. Any nitwit with a Bible and an ability to read with the comprehension of a ten year knows better than that foolishness of finding God at the end of some preacher’s prayer line. Good Lawd! The affair allegedly went on from 1989 to 2003. She couldn’t find Jesus in the man of God any quicker than that? Naw, naw, booboo, sump’n fishy, this here is some okeydoke. Granted, preachers aren’t flawless, but this claimant needs to be scrutinized. The Lord is not pleased and the saints ain’t overly amused with this strumpet’s chicanery.

rage-
That is an interesting take on this. You do realize that she is not the only one stating that Archbishop Earl Paulk did this?
You did catch the place where the article mentions DNA testing shows that the Archbishop’s nephew is really his son…didn’t you?
I think blaming the victim may be out of place.
I do think people should be responsible for their own actions. However, I am not certain that the women in the story actually have the background/knowledge/wisdom to really be able to do so.
Peace!

rage (self descriptive?) she may be greedy and she may be a tramp, or not, but she’d be far from the first person to fall for outrageous religious claims. Just for instance the whole idea of needing “salvation” is laughable unless you grew up where people took it seriously or you have mental problems.
And while 1989 to 2003 is a long time, maybe she felt it was working or maybe he told her she had to keep it up.
It will be interesting to see if the civil case works, but note the only criminal case is about perjury, not about his telling her such nonsense. Separation of church and state means a church can legally tell people pretty much any kind of nonsense, not just state-approved nonsense.

Whatever the Archbishop convinced her to believe to start an affair with her, it all went wrong somewhere. He could have promised her that some day he would marry her, and she found out about his other dalliances and the relationship blew up! The civil case could cost him his title, but perjury is a no, no.

Look, y’all bein’ bamboozled big time by this bunch of deceitful tricks, claiming folks at church ‘coereced’ them into having sex in exchange for their souls’ salvation. Please! They could have come up with a much better lie than that. With all the information available just about everywhere about getting saved, finding Jesus through sex is just down right ridiculous. I mean, come on, now! How is someone going to ‘coerce’ another grown adult into sex and this not be a rape charge? Please keep in mind that you can’t rape the willing and wanting. These teases could have moved their memberships to other churches and most certainly should have alerted both church and civil authorities about these rampant recurrences of sexual ‘coersion ‘ long before now. No, these calculating hussies have been sitting around that church seeing dollar signs for their victimhood the whole time. That naivite to the old ‘sexual healing’ defense only works when the gullible inexperienced victim is some trusting teenager of whom some perverted knave really is taking unconscienable advantage. But all these old grown trolls creeping out the woodwork with their hands out, just because they’ve heard the man had a son by his brother’s wife, need to be checked. This ruse just sounds like somebody doesn’t want to have to get back on her register at aisle 3 at the Pigly Wigly to me. These strumpets have all had enough sex to know how to consent to or decline even fervent pastoral begging. These hussies are a handful of trifling scheming liars who are just out for a little something on their bills. They should have been smart enough to demand their cash UP FRONT the night they were ‘coerced’ at church to, er, uh, service the pastoral staff. Ain’t nobdy tryin’ to hear this now. They need to get on somewhere with this ridiculous tale. Just tell the truth: They enjoyed fornication, now they want to be blessed with some bread from heaven. On the street, we call that whoring, strolling, being a pro, et cetera. Jessic Flowers snagged Rev. Jim Bakkers’ tail in the same crack way back in the day. It ain’t nothing new, and these sluts don’t have my sympathy.

Well rage I guess the courts will decide.

I should really stop commenting here…nobody ever understands me when I do.
Let me show my work to clarify this:
*Pagansister says that “sex has nothing to do with salvation.” From this phrasing I took that to mean “all sex,” not just the specific instance this article discussed.
*Salvation, to almost any kind of religious believer, is basically an assessment of one’s spiritual standing, because is reflects how much God/Whatever Force Runs the Cosmos is happy with you.
*Thus, to say that sex has nothing to do with salvation is to pretty much say that God/Whatever does not care about sex, and that it is spiritually meaningless.
*As a consequence, aside from making sex between two people who love each other nothing more than a dull and pointless physical stimulus, this implies sex in no way is related to issues of morality.
*If sex does not have anything to do with morality, then no sexual act can be “bad,” including rape, necrophilia, bestiality, etc.
*Thus, it is impossible that any act Paulk could have done, either the coercion or the adultery, to be immoral.
Of course, I am very much of the “strict divine rules about sex” opinion, so no, I did not mean to exonerate that Paulk (assuming he is guilty).
God bless.

Joey:
Did you miss the part of my post that said even though I think sex is spiritualy meaningless, as I’m not a believer, that SEX IS NOT MEANINGLESS IN ANY OTHER WAY. You took what I said to assume I meant “all sex” was meaningless. Didn’t the statement I made clue you in that I feel that between 2 loving adults that sex has meaning?
Morality is a religious concept as is salvation. If he was paying the women, as was brought up by JohnQ, then having sex with them was illegal.
Joey: “If sex does not have anything to do with morality, then no sexual act can be “bad” including rape, necrophilia, beastiality etc.”
Rape is against the law, as is messing with kids etc., but necrophilia and beastiality and other “different” forms of sex are just certain ways some folks seem to want to do things…but are they immoral? Depends on your defination of immorality.
Adultry is breaking vows or promises made to another person at either a religious or non-religious ceremony. It is illegal also, and if a religious ceremony, you could say immoral. Is grounds for divorce.
Fathering his nephew? That was just stupid. His sister-in-law committed adultry by sleeping with Paulk.
Since Paulk is/was a minister he took advantage of his position of “authority” , many times it seems, thus in the eyes of the church, he was immoral. The guy is now 80! In 2003, he was 75. Ms. Brewer finally breaks it off when her turns 75! He must have had lots of Viagra in his pockets.

Joey,the morality and ethical evaluation Paulk’s past is not in question. Fornication and adultury are still cardinal sins in the canons of Christendom – PERIOD! Whether or not these tricks are telling the whole truth in accusing this 80 year old codger of taking sexual advantage of them is the issue. He claims he did not. These alleged near-rape victims say he’s lying, with the courts saying that he’s facing purjury for Clintoning in a local court. Well, the burden of proof rests with the accusers. I just don’t think he’s guilty of their accusation of sexual coersion. If his great Gospel exegesis was enough to separate these twits from their clothing in the all-purpose room of the church, that’s on them, but it ain’t sexual coersion. None of them were sexually compromised in any criminal way by virtue of their ages, experiences, or mental capacity. They CONSENTED TO SEX! Now, these tarts want lucretive compensation for their questionable presumptions of victimhood at hands of this old codger who just happens to have the perfect negative sexual history for convenient heart-tugging empathetic exploitation during the merciless media trial that will condemn the man in the public’s eyes. These troublesome old hussies need to get on and let this go! They’re playing themselves. Had this old rascal gotten hold of enough Viagra to stiffen him up for everything of which he’s being accused and publicly humiliated by these conniving strumpets, his bereaved congregants would have buried his weary broken dead body years back.

Pagansister (if she’s still here): the main difference between us then, I think, is that I do not believe something _can_ be spiritually meaningless, if it has meaning any other way.
God bless.

rage, I don’t agree with your victimizing the old f*rt or convicting the ladies (?) involved out of court, but your posts are more fun to read than pretty much all the others here.

pagansister-
The archbishop did not actually pay them. However, the church ministries provided them with some groceries, rent assistance, untility assistance, etc. The kind of things that many churches typically do. The part that is not typical is that part with him allegedly suggesting he was the way of their salvation.
Again, I do believe that these women have some responsibility in the matter. I also know that when people become desperate that their capacity to make sound decisions becomes impared. And, when a person of power makes things happen for someone with whom they are have sex and tells them it is the work of God….that is fraud.
Peace!

BTW, this is hardly the first case of a preacher taking advantage of females by suggesting that they will be blessed by having sexual relations.
In this case, the blessing did flow…they recieved assistance with neccesities of life.
Peace!

Read in Atlanta Constitution that Paulk pled guilty to purjury, and was charged 1,000 plus probation for 10 yrs. Also has to pay 32.00 per mo. for the probation fees.
Mona Brewer and her husband dropped the suit against Paulk, their lawyer said it was because it was difficult to get wittnesses to testify aganist Paulk.
Paulks lawyer admitted Paulk had sexual relationship with Mona Brewer but it was brief and she was the initiative.

Should have said that Paulks lawyer admitted Paulk had a sexual relationship with Mona Brewer but was brief and she initiated it. I think someone should write a song about this love story, what do you think?

There’s sure to be a song there. Maybe something about the father of the nephew of a preacher man. Or Reverend Feelgood?

JohnQ:
Thanks for clearing up the “payment” issue. He still took advantage of his position, as we both agree and they were foolish enough to fall for the salvation bit. Also, I expect everyone knows that these women aren’t the first ones to “fall for Preacher Men” with promises of getting in better with God.
Joey: I’m still here:
“The main difference between us, I think,is that I don’t believe that something_ can_ be spiritually meaningless if it has meaning any other way”.
Yes, I agree.

where’s cknuck? I want to hear what he’s got to say on this.
Or does he only talk about sexual immorality when it’s about GLBTs?
(I know he only talks about GLBTs as being sexually immoral….)
C’mon dude! Let’s hear about the straight morality on this one. Tell us all about it. Sheesh!

DeaconScott-
No offense, but this is just another example of Heterosexual Behavior. I have nothing against straight people, it is just the lifestyle I can not condone.
Having been ridiculous in the above paragraph, and at the risk of the following somehow used as an excuse for the archbishops behavior, I guess I will go ahead and point out that the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill Harvester Church supports inclusion and equality of lgbt people.
Peace!