Limping Forward

110 replies [Last post]
SharperIron
SharperIron's picture
Offline
UserEditor
Joined: Mon, Jun 29 2009
Posts: 686

Editor’s note: this story is true. Only the name of the church has been changed.

By C. L.

I walk with a limp, and consequently, the pastor fired me.

I gained this limp on the first of July, exactly one year from the day I had joined the staff of Berean Baptist Church. That first year had been a great start to my short career as a music minister. Fresh out of school, I was a good match for Berean Baptist. The congregation welcomed me warmly, the choir grew quickly, and the pastor considered me the finest music minister he’d ever worked with in his thirty-plus years of ministry.

But then came the limp. On Friday night, July 1, 1994 I broke my spine. The details involve a family reunion, an old trampoline, and the sound of shattering vertebrae in my ears that faded quickly, replaced by my own voice, mid-scream. No feeling from the waist down, but an inferno of pain engulfing all the nerves that remained online. After the spinal swelling subsided, the surgeons installed two nine-inch steel rods and fused the ruined bones together. They put me in a wheelchair and shuttled me off to rehab. The people of my church prayed and prayed. In a true season of miracle, God moved and I walked home one month after the accident. Neurological injuries can’t be overcome by hard work or willpower, and there is no medical repair for broken nerve tissue. I walk today because God’s good hand was on me.

He did leave me with a limp.

I started back to work the first Sunday in September, only two months after the accident. The church applauded my rapid return, and my suit hid the shape of the bulky brace strapped around my torso. Outpatient therapy continued for several months. The music program didn’t miss a beat. That year’s Christmas program was one of the best the church had ever enjoyed.

The remnants of my injury are most noticeable in my right foot. I never regained dorsiflexion, the ability to pull that foot up or “let off the gas.” The deficiency is most evident when I play the piano. To use the sustain pedal, I clomp my whole leg up and down like a horse keeping time to the tune. Otherwise, it’s not a big hindrance to me. I don’t think about it often. It’s other people that notice your limp.

While filling up at a truck stop service station off the interstate, a member of my church watched a man enter an adult bookstore across the street. A man with a limp. It was too far away to recognize the face, but the limp was unmistakable. He’d seen it on the platform the previous Sunday. The concerned member phoned his pastor, who called secret deacon meetings. Within a month, a course of action was plotted. The pastor casually asked me to attend a Thursday night deacon’s meeting. “Just routine business. No biggie.”

I limped into the room to find a chair had been positioned for me, turned to face the group. The chair already looked accused. I took a deep breath and sat down. The pastor read a prepared statement that began, “It has come to our attention that you visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address.” It ended with “you will resign during the Sunday night service this weekend.”

I didn’t try to lie. I told them about previous visits to adult bookstores to view pornography. I told them I was sorry, that I didn’t know what was wrong with me, that I was willing to find help. I asked if could take a leave of absence to sort things out. They refused. I resigned that Sunday night in February of 1995.

Thoughts on Church Discipline

Much is written for the pastor to guide him in proper handling of these situations. But I would like to offer the more rarely heard perspective of the offender. My pastor’s choices had enormous impact on me then, and they continue to mark me today.

Matthew 18:15-17 is often the scriptural blueprint for such interactions, and I’ll use it here as well.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother (Matt. 18:15).

My pastor should have confronted me one on one. Inviting me to a deacons’ meeting under false pretenses only established an atmosphere of distrust. It sent the message that this meeting was about controlling me, not confronting me. The outcome of the situation was preplanned and extra hands were there to ensure it. But to discuss the matter “between thee and him alone” leaves room for denial and misunderstanding and accusation. I believe that’s why Christ urged individual confrontation as a first step. It should be scary and unpredictable, so that we confront prayerfully and humbly. This model of one-on-one confrontation makes us vulnerable. Paul describes it as meekness in Galatians 6:1 when he says, “if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness.”

Notice the end of Matthew 18:15. The hope of one-on-one confrontation is “to gain a brother.” When my pastor bypassed this step, he closed the door on a chance for the intimacy confession always brings. Even if he still required that I resign, he could have shepherded me through a difficult journey. Instead, he chose control over vulnerability, leverage over love. He didn’t confront me—he contained me.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established (Matt. 18:16).

I appreciate how Jesus carefully expands the sphere of people involved. If individual confrontation is met with denial, include just one or two more when you return. God is aware of a difficult dynamic at play in the heart of the offending brother. Coming to terms with secret sin is usually a process, not a one-time event. That first confrontation may be too scary to admit much of anything. The offender may minimize his sin or deflect blame. He may have lived years in denial within his own heart. So if the initial response to the individual confrontation isn’t mature or complete, don’t assume this is a flat refusal to hear. If you’ve confronted with vulnerability the first time, returning with a compassionate partner or two will bring strength to the confrontation. In an environment of compassion (we care) accompanied by strength (we care enough pursue the truth with you), the offending brother may be willing to come out of hiding.

Have faith that the Spirit of God has worked since your first conversation. Christ ends his thought on this process in Matthew 18:20. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” This often misquoted promise was made in the context of confronting your brother’s sin. Expect Christ to be present in the process.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican (Matt. 18:17).

Never is the goal to force confession and remorse. If it were all aimed toward a guilty verdict, the process would move into evidence and eyewitness testimony. The goal is that the church live in truth. If the offender is unable to join them in the truth, he must leave.

After I resigned, I attended Berean Baptist for more than a year. I found other work in the area, sought some professional Christian counseling and quietly became part of the congregation. When a new music minister was hired, I joined the choir. And although the pastor had expressed his commitment to “walk with me through my restoration,” he never asked me how I was doing. Not once. I think he was waiting for me to follow standard church procedure and leave town in shame. He seemed unsure and awkward around me.

But I was finding healing in living in the light, in the place where people knew the worst of me and still shook my hand. My relationships became deep, and those I’d hurt found healing too. I learned what it is to be forgiven. It’s like stepping out of the shadows to let the sun warm your face.

The pastor attempted to control, which is always an illusion at best. Though I had a long way to go, I decided to walk toward truth. In that surrender, I began to experience healing and freedom. In choosing control over surrender, the pastor was left on the outside looking in. Sadly, he was unable to join in the redemption.

Father, thank you for the limp.

Mike Durning
Mike Durning's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 615
Thanks

Brother, thanks for this powerful reminder to put Shepherding ahead of "church business".

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3492
I find the opening statement disingenuous

First of all, I feel your physical pain. I broke my neck (C4/C5) in 1987 and have significant spinal cord damage. It impacts all of my body below my shoulders. BUT

I find the opening statement disingenuous

Quote:

I walk with a limp, and consequently, the pastor fired me.

Definition "consequence": "something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions "

Reality: You went to adult bookstores and were caught. You disqualified yourself from serving as an elder. You weren't fired because of a limp!

Rev Karl
Rev Karl's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 173
A Needed Testimony

C.L., Thanks for this testimony. We *need* compassion in pastoral leadership, as well as understanding to the Scriptural principles of restoration and church discipline. Unfortunately, there are enough stories of pastors who (in the words of the OP) seek to "control" rather than restore, that "control" becomes the perceived norm of our circle of fellowship.

A. Carpenter
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 82
I got the point, but...

The point of the article is well-taken, and I am sorry that any brother in Christ should be denied the benefits of a godly pastor and redemptive community. May this never happen in any of our churches!

However, I take issue with the idea that Matthew 18:15-17 should be used as the "Scriptural blueprint" for this example. Much of the hurt expressed by the author seems to come from the pastor and church's failure to follow this "blueprint." But Matthew 18 clearly refers to interpersonal conflicts. Yes, by implication and application, we might extend the methodology to dealing with other sins in the church, but there are other church discipline instructions in Scripture that seem to indicate that different matters be handled differently.

For instance, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 (which I did not notice mentioned in the article) refers to a case involving fornication, and Paul goes on to mention other open sins that he considered in a like category: covetousness, idolatry, abusive speech patterns, drunkenness, or extortion. In these cases, Paul seems to believe that even a carnal church in Corinth should be able to see that people claiming to be believers and yet indulging these sins should be purged out of the church. And, in light of 2 Corinthians 2:1-8, the repentance of the sinner should bring the restoration and joy of fellowship. Now, I'm not saying that "Berean Baptist Church" correctly followed 1 Cor. 5, which would include public knowledge of the sin and an obvious refusal to repent on the part of the sinner. But nowhere does this passage indicate that Matthew 18:15-17 was to be used as a blueprint, either.

Furthermore, the matter seems to take on a whole new level of seriousness when involving elders. 1 Timothy 5:19-20 addresses this. There is protection for the elder, who would likely be the object of accusation even if impeccable, by requiring an accusation of 2 or 3 witnesses and perhaps requiring this accusation to be made in the presence of others. But there is also a public nature to this discipline, too. "Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear." The sins of elders - if of a disqualifying nature - seem to require some form of public disclosure. Of course, this does not preclude the use of wisdom with certain kinds of sin that may place others at risk, but the public nature of the rebuke cannot be dismissed. Again, I'm not arguing that "Berean Baptist Church" handled this correctly, only that Matthew 18:15-17, once again, is not used as a blueprint.

Let me repeat, I am very sorry for what happened to the author of the article, and I am glad that he found healing, even in that church. But the serious nature of sin, especially in the life of an elder, requires the use of more church discipline passages than just Matthew 18:15-17. However, regardless of how any of these passages are taken or what weight is given to them, it is clear that the leadership of this church should have surrounded him with loving arms outstretched to assist him in his restoration and discipleship.

__________________

Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.

Matthew Olmstead
Matthew Olmstead's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 80
I disagree

As unfortunate as this situation is, I agree with what the senior pastor and deacons did. The "offender" did not offend only the pastor or the church member who witnessed him entering the facility, he impugned the integrity of the church; he engaged in an egregious act upon which even the culture at large frowns; he immediately disqualified himself from ministry. Granted, the leadership of the church didn't follow Matthew 18—they followed 1 Corinthians 5. No steps; just expulsion.

A leave of absence would, presumably, have the goal of restoration to that ministry at that church. In my opinion, he disqualified himself from serving with integrity at that church, in that town.

To the brother who wrote the article: Frankly, I stopped reading at "My pastor should have confronted me one on one." There are immediate consequences to sin. Even if the one-on-one confrontation took place, the pastor would have been right, as your boss, to dismiss you from that ministry right there. Further, I think the body would have been right to bring you immediately before the church and dismiss you publicly.

__________________

Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
Matthew, The author did say

Matthew,

The author did say that the pastor still should have fired him. I guess what bothers me on the side of the story that we are given (knowing there are two sides) is this. The pastor called him to a business meeting saying it was a routine no biggie meeting. IF that happened does anyone else have a problem with this? IF the pastor did this, that is an integrety problem as well is it not?

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Matthew Olmstead
Matthew Olmstead's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 80
rogercarlson wrote: The
rogercarlson wrote:

The author did say that the pastor still should have fired him. I guess what bothers me on the side of the story that we are given (knowing there are two sides) is this. The pastor called him to a business meeting saying it was a routine no biggie meeting. IF that happened does anyone else have a problem with this? IF the pastor did this, that is an integrety problem as well is it not?

I finished reading the article, but I cannot find where the author said he should have been fired. Can you help me here?

Granting the accuracy of the author's account, I agree, the leadership team could have handled it differently (there was deception, disingenuousness at least). I'm not sure about the integrity issue. The author at least didn't see it as an integrity issue since he remained a member for a time after the incident.

__________________

Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.

SHoward
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Jun 5 2009
Posts: 12
Good comments so far.

I agree with most of the comments so far. As I read the article, all I could think of was I Tim 5:19-20. There is a higher standard for church staff. Of course, even here restoration is the ultimate goal, so I get the author's point. I am glad to see he found forgiveness and restoration among many in his congregation. His pastor's ongoing discomfort is understandable, but not correct. Pastor's are human, too, but to me there is little doubt his pastor grew through this experience, even if it wasn't apparent to him. I do have one question for the SI community. This man was disqualified from the ministry based on his sin. We all agree on that point, I am sure. At what point, if any, is he again qualified to hold the office of an elder? Obviously, the sin must no longer be present in his life. Is that enough? I don't have the answer. I've been working through some of these ideas with a missionary friend who has a lot of these types of issues in his new congregation.

Joel Tetreau
Joel Tetreau's picture
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 368
Good article

Good article.

I'm working on a response. I posted....now I've taken it off to pray through it a bit more.

Blessings on you my brother for posting this. I'm grateful for your attitude and clearly we needed to hear this. Too many ministries fail when it comes to helping brothers and sisters that are dealing with sin failures in their lives!

Straight Ahead!

jt

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
Food for thought

We hoped this piece would provide some food for thought. I personally found the story quite moving, but I was also torn--as some of you are--about what should have happened. Some I discussed it with though the writer was absolutely right that a private confrontation should have occurred first. My own response was that Matt. 18 describes a sin "against you" and assumes (in my view) that only you and your brother are aware of it.
So a couple of us had a chat about that. In the end, I conceded that I might try to handle the matter in a more Matt18 sort of way myself if the incident had occurred a few towns away. We'd have reason to believe nobody knew about it locally and could try to handle it as a private transgression rather than a public one.
So, to me, that's an important dividing line... is it a private sin or a public one?

Jim, about the opening sentence... it's just a hook. When I first read the peace I immediately though "What? Impossible. There has to be more to it than that." Indeed there was. So yes, the writer is teasing us a bit there.

Matthew Olmstead
Matthew Olmstead's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 80
Aaron Blumer wrote: Jim,
Aaron Blumer wrote:

Jim, about the opening sentence... it's just a hook. When I first read the peace I immediately though "What? Impossible. There has to be more to it than that." Indeed there was. So yes, the writer is teasing us a bit there.

I think it is inappropriate to "tease" and audience in an introduction with something that is not true. Would a similar tease (one that is not true) be appropriate in a sermon? I think not. Introductions and attention-getters need to be accurate and helpful; not misleading.

I'm with Jim—the statement is false and misleading.

__________________

Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.

A. Carpenter
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 82
Aaron Blumer wrote: So, to
Aaron Blumer wrote:

So, to me, that's an important dividing line... is it a private sin or a public one?

Are there any truly private sins? Matthew 18:15-17 begins with private disagreements - there is not necessarily any sin present. However, when one or more individuals refuse to resolve personal conflicts, or one brother refuses to repent of what is obviously a sin, that is when the stakes begin to rise.

But when we look at 1 Corinthians 5, it seems that Paul viewed the man's sin (which was committed, presumably in the privacy of his own home) as a public offense, because it brought sin into the body. A church is a covenantally-bound community; my sin has an indirect effect on my fellow church members. (I do acknowledge that, when a brother sins against us personally, there are occasions when it is often better simply to forgive and move on. (Prov. 19:11; 1 Peter 4:8))

I'm kind of surprised no one noticed this, but perhaps the first person at fault - besides the man walking into the adult bookstore - was the man at the gas pump, who neglected to approach his brother but instead accused him to the pastor. That was a sinful neglect of church discipline, as was the pastor's willingness to receive such an accusation from a single individual. (Assuming, of course, that everything in the story is perfectly accurate. We don't know everything the pastor and deacons did, nor the motives of their hearts.)

__________________

Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
Maybe not Matt. 18, but certainly Prov. 18!

Quick thought here...
My biggest problem with the pastor's actions is not in his violation of Matt. 18, but that he failed to regard the instruction in Prov. 18.
(see Proverbs 18:13; Proverbs 18:15; Proverbs 18:17). Why did the pastor jump to the conclusion that it was, without doubt, C.L.? It seems he was willing to make the accusation before doing the work of finding all the facts. We know, from hind-sight, it was C.L., however, wisdom teaches us to carefully examine a matter BEFORE we come to conclusions. And when you couple that with 1 Tim. 5:19-20 it drives us to be very careful before we accuse.

I understand the 1 Cor. 5 line of thought...but my heart would be always err on the side of protection and love. I would lean more toward a Matt. 18 path in this case.

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

Dan Miller
Dan Miller's picture
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 215
A. Carpenter wrote: ... I'm
A. Carpenter wrote:

...
I'm kind of surprised no one noticed this, but perhaps the first person at fault - besides the man walking into the adult bookstore - was the man at the gas pump, who neglected to approach his brother but instead accused him to the pastor. That was a sinful neglect of church discipline, as was the pastor's willingness to receive such an accusation from a single individual. (Assuming, of course, that everything in the story is perfectly accurate. We don't know everything the pastor and deacons did, nor the motives of their hearts.)

I agree. CL is right that 1 on 1 confrontation should have been first, but not by the pastor. The pastor should have discipled the witness about his duties per Matt 18.

That he should have refused the accusation of one witness is true, but probably would have been unnecessary, as CL didn't seem willing to lie about this.

Red Phillips
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 41
"perhaps the first person at

"perhaps the first person at fault - besides the man walking into the adult bookstore - was the man at the gas pump, who neglected to approach his brother but instead accused him to the pastor."

I'm not sure I would say he is at fault because from this discussion the right thing to do is not obvious. But I was bothered by the snitch factor. Why should the man who observed him going in not have confronted him? This is more difficult since he was a member of the church staff and not just a fellow member, but he could have encouraged him to go to the pastor himself or gone with him perhaps. There is something about seeing him go in and immediately getting on the phone and ratting him out to the pastor that seems unsavory to me.

__________________

www.conservativetimes.org

rogercarlson
rogercarlson's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 379
Matthew, Notice the following

Matthew,

Notice the following paragraph:

"Notice the end of Matthew 18:15. The hope of one-on-one confrontation is “to gain a brother.” When my pastor bypassed this step, he closed the door on a chance for the intimacy confession always brings. Even if he still required that I resign, he could have shepherded me through a difficult journey. Instead, he chose control over vulnerability, leverage over love. He didn’t confront me—he contained me."

I guess maybe I read into it. When he said even if he still required that I resign.

__________________

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

MClark
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 36
The issue of the opening line

The issue of the opening line is a literary device and a matter of preference. Some of us would use it and some of us wouldn't. "False and misleading" seems a harsh pronouncement. The author does have a limp which figured in his firing in a prominent way. But arguing over his right to use that statement detracts from the point at hand.

Whether or not Matthew 18 is THE blueprint, I think we could all agree that it shouldn't have been ignored. At the very least, wisdom (Proverbs 18:13) mandates confirming the facts of a matter before confronting someone, lest you confront a situation you've misunderstood. (How often have I done that and ended up covered in embarrassment!) If one wants to say that this brother was, in fact, a pastor of the church (a question that has long plagued the functional hierarchy of most of our traditional Baptist churches), 1 Timothy 5 was not even honored by summoning 2-3 witnesses.

1 Corinthians directs a public rebuke of unrepentant sin, which doesn't seem to apply to this situation, as it does not appear that anyone even confirmed whether the sinning brother was, in actual fact, unrepentant.

It appears that Galatians 6:1 not honored. A brother was indeed caught in sin, but was there any attempt to restore him gently, with humble watchfulness of one's own sin-bent?

Yes, I agree that we only have one side of the story. I am well aware of the grief and sorrow that can occur when one party tells his/her side and the audience swallows the story without knowing the other party's perspective. And reality is always colored by perception. I know all this.

But I also am grieved by how often our fundamental churches can "lay into" a sinning brother with little thought of gently restoring him to spiritual health and usefulness, to the glory of God. How would Jesus, our Chief Shepherd, want us to respond to those "caught in sin"? "Restore him gently." I think we all could learn more gentleness and greater patience when dealing with those who have sinned. All of our churches could grow in the area of extending grace and walking honorably through these difficult situations.

Yes, I do believe there is an integrity (dishonesty) issue if the pastor allowed his music director to believe that the deacons' meeting was "no biggie." It is sad to me to have observed firsthand in multiple situations that sexual sin is immediately and forcefully rebuked (and punished) while questions of integrity are swept aside and denounced ("just your perception;" or "don't question authority;" or "we need what's best for the whole church"). Such a reluctance to walk in complete honesty/integrity, trusting the result to God, can reveal a fear of man that drives our leadership to attempt to manipulate the outcome by controlling the factors. I pray constantly that the pastors I love will be humble (which always results in honesty) and will trust God to protect the church (rather than succumbing to the very real temptation to protect one's own kingdom).

May God help each one of us "to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with [our] God."

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
Private.. yes
A. Carpenter wrote:

Are there any truly private sins? Matthew 18:15-17 begins with private disagreements - there is not necessarily any sin present. However, when one or more individuals refuse to resolve personal conflicts, or one brother refuses to repent of what is obviously a sin, that is when the stakes begin to rise.

Are there any private sins, yes. There are those only the sinner and God know about (1Tim. 5:24), and then--widening the circle--those only the sinner and God and one other person know about (Matt.18). And then those that the church in general and/or public know about (1Cor.5:1-2). Through Nathan, God makes this distinction as well in 2 Sam. 12:14, when He explains to David why--though forgiven--he must suffer because of his choices. "because... you have given great occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme..."

Matt. 18 clearly has sin in view... "If your brother sins against you." It's not about disagreements.

So how known it is really is a factor in how it should be handled--probably, in part, because of the damage factor.


Edit: about opening line again... I'm surprised to see anyone react so strongly to that. Maybe this would help: irony.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3430
Agreeing
Red Phillips wrote:

"perhaps the first person at fault - besides the man walking into the adult bookstore - was the man at the gas pump, who neglected to approach his brother but instead accused him to the pastor."

I'm not sure I would say he is at fault because from this discussion the right thing to do is not obvious. But I was bothered by the snitch factor. Why should the man who observed him going in not have confronted him? This is more difficult since he was a member of the church staff and not just a fellow member, but he could have encouraged him to go to the pastor himself or gone with him perhaps. There is something about seeing him go in and immediately getting on the phone and ratting him out to the pastor that seems unsavory to me.

I find myself agreeing with this line of reasoning. There is no reason I can think of for the man who saw a brother 'overtaken in a fault' to not go to him first and attempt correction and restoration. Church leadership needed to be informed of the situation, but IMO not in the way it was handled here.

I'll also ditto on the title of this article- I was assuming, during the entire first section, that this man was unjustly accused. I got whiplash when I realized that he indeed was guilty and justly removed from his position. Quite frankly, he should have stepped down immediately. He had so far neglected to inform anyone of the problems he was having, and was not willing to repent until confronted. The level of deception he had already engaged in made it necessary IMO for him to be 'fired'. He was no longer suited to or qualified for his position.

I realize that there are not 'degrees' of sin, but I think that some moral/ethical failures do require a removal, even if temporary, of someone in leadership because of their nature and for testimony's sake. The natural man is drawn to lust, and may be momentarily snared while standing in the line at the grocery store or walking around Walmart- but the use of pornography goes WAY beyond the every day struggles we each deal with on a daily basis. Pornography is a willful indulgence. Of course, so is substance abuse- whether it's cigarettes, Oxycontin, or the Golden Corral.Wink

And while the world needs to see our sense of compassion toward sinners, since we all basically bear that label, I think they also need to see us take wickedness and its consequences seriously. The qualities of a leader are quite specific and stringent, and if someone has stepped over the line, they should expect to again earn the respect and trust their position requires.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Charlie
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 862
Baptismal Regeneration Anyone?

I think the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, as followed by part of the early church, has a lot to say to this situation. Tertullian counseled that a person should delay their baptism as long as possible. Why? Because baptism wipes away all sins, no matter how heinous, that occur BEFORE it. However, should someone already baptized commit a mortal sin, he or she loses all chance at eternal life. In other words, the same sin that is completely blotted out and entirely irrelevant to your spiritual state BEFORE baptism is damning AFTER baptism. (The penitential system developed to deal with the problems this theology created.)

So.... a man who is an unbeliever is a pornographer. He gets saved and quits being a pornographer. Fast forward a few years down the road and he becomes a pastor with a great personal testimony of obedience. Fast forward a few more years and he surrenders to temptation and becomes a pornographer again. He repents. Now, here's the rub. Will he ever be allowed to be a pastor again? If we answer with a categorical "no," I think we have fallen into the same sort of error that afflicted the early baptismal regenerationists. The pastor's sin must not be forgivable (at least in a temporal sense) because "he knew better." The cross doesn't wipe away post-conversion sins quite as completely as pre-conversion sins.

The Bible gives guidelines for people who desire to become pastors. However, we cannot move immediately from those passages to a theology of dealing with sinning pastors. They are simply two different questions. For the sake of provoking thought, I will give an example of a sinning pastor. The Apostle Peter denied Christ twice during his ministry. First, on the night in which Christ was betrayed. Second, when due to the fear of man his lifestyle contradicted the message of the gospel and was actually an offense to the gospel and a hindrance to the health of the church (Gal. 2). In both cases, he clearly repented. In the first case Jesus personally reconfirmed His intention for Peter to shepherd the others (Luke 22; John 21). In neither case was there any discussion of Peter stepping down.

__________________

My Blog: www.sacredpage.wordpress.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3492
It's not just the opening line

It's not just the opening line that is misleading ... the first 6 paragraphs are. The spinal injury have nothing to do (other than his being recognized) with what follows. I feel (and I am not impugning his motives) that the "[/i]I'm handicapped[/]" angle is used to elicit pity from the reader.

If you strip off the first six paragraphs and begin with this (brackets note alteration) ...

Quote:

While filling up at a truck stop service station off the interstate, a member of my church watched a man enter an adult bookstore across the street. [I was recognized as that man.]

I don't see the situation as a Matthew 18 issue

Quote:

Moreover if your brother sins against you

The sin was not against the one who recognized him, but against the whole church! I rather see that I Tim 5:19 applies.

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3492
Other observations

Aside from the way his dismissal was handled (and I agree that the meeting under "false pretenses" was wrong! - Should have been handled something like this: "Bill ... a member has made a serious allegation about you and I would like to meet with you to clarify and resolve the issue")

Now responding to this section:

Quote:

I didn’t try to lie. I told them about previous visits to adult bookstores to view pornography. I told them I was sorry, that I didn’t know what was wrong with me, that I was willing to find help. I asked if could take a leave of absence to sort things out. They refused. I resigned that Sunday night in February of 1995.

  • I commend the author for being honest (the visits)
  • AND for wanting to find help
  • The "leave of absence" request "to sort things out" : Had I been the Pastor I would have refused this as well!
  • "I resigned": Sounds like he had a choice ... either resign or be fired. The choice to fire was theirs .. the choice to resign was his.
  • Stayed in the church: I commend him for this. That must have been difficult and the desire to flea to another ministry must have been strong.

Quote:

And although the pastor had expressed his commitment to “walk with me through my restoration,” he never asked me how I was doing. Not once. I think he was waiting for me to follow standard church procedure and leave town in shame. He seemed unsure and awkward around me.

  • I'm not sure what kind of restoration the author was expecting. Did he expect he could be restored as an Elder? It would be nice to know
  • He was restored to service (in the choir and fellowship with the body!)

Quote:

The pastor attempted to control

  • It would be nice to know what the author means by this AND
  • What facts would support this
  • Looking back at the article looks like this is what is meant: "My pastor should have confronted me one on one. Inviting me to a deacons’ meeting under false pretenses only established an atmosphere of distrust. It sent the message that this meeting was about controlling me, not confronting me"
  • I admit that the confront aspect could have been handled better (much better) but still unsure about "the control" angle.

Also left out of the article, the issue of his wife (if he has one). The one betrayed to a much higher degree was his wife (again presuming he is married). Restoration of that relationship is paramount to any other!

Anne Sokol
Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 504
this is no excuse

but on behalf of the pastor and leaders, i think they were dealing with a lot of shock. they should've gotten over it, but it was a betrayal. the man wasn't who they presumed him to be, and who he most likely presented himself to be. So just that he owned up to it during the meeting, but was hiding it all along . . . ?

shock and feeling betrayed are not reasons to sin, of course, and they create sinful reactions if lived out, which apparently happened here. but the pastor might write quite an emotionally different scenario, you know?

Pastor Joe Roof
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 403
Sobering

This is a sobering article. It is a reminder that apart from God's Grace, we are helpless and useless. It is a reminder that there is hope in the Lord. Praise His Name!

Here are a couple of questions that come to my mind:
1. Did the author of this article share these concerns with that Pastor? If not, after all of these years, I would let that Pastor know these concerns.
2. What about Galatians 6:1? It says, "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. " There must be discipline. But if the church just does discipline without attempting restoration, it has no right to pat herself on the back. The community is not going to impacted for Christ just because a wrongdoer is disciplined. The impact comes when the wrongdoer is restored by the grace of God. Maybe the wrongdoer loses a staff position that he will never hold in that church again, but he can be restored to some level of service for God as God leads. The Bible is full of examples of people who did abominable things who were rescued and restored by God.

A. Carpenter
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 82
Aaron Blumer][quote=A.
Aaron Blumer][quote=A. Carpenter wrote:


Edit: about opening line again... I'm surprised to see anyone react so strongly to that. Maybe this would help: irony.

Not sure its the same thing. I wouldn't have a problem with the literal meaning of "consequently," for the limp was directly involved in a necessarily connected with the sequence of events leading to this man being fired. The problem I felt was that the author appeared to set us up for a record of his unfair treatment. Were we not supposed to say, at least mentally, "No way! Fired for a limp!" I was expecting the pastor to become embarrassed at the sight of a choir director limping to the platform or taking too long in services to come back from the piano after an offering or something stupid like that. Not so. This is misleading because, as we all seem to have agreed, he should have been fired! And the limp led to that! We also agree that he was treated unfairly (and un-Christian-ly) in the process, but not because he was fired.

Now, we have to be very careful when judging because we do not know the whole story - any more than the pastor appeared to. For instance, there are at least 3 missing elements from the story:
1. How long had the author been involved with this sin?
2. Was the man walking into the bookstore, in fact, the same man who wrote this article?

Do these matter? I think they do. Not to satisfy the curiosity of SI readership, of course, but because of one important factor:

3. God's grace in rescuing His child from this destructive sin. I do not mean to minimize the suffering of a man who has endured such a traumatic neurological injury, so please don't misunderstand me. But if the opening line is remotely accurate, then God most certainly used the limp to bring about confession and repentance! There does not seem to be any indication that the author was trying to get right with God before he was confronted. But when confronted, he opened up and sought restoration and redemption, and apparently found it.

The purpose of this article seems to be to warn and scold abusive pastoral methodology. Our author is the protagonist, and his pastor is the villain. But there's another character in the story! I, and others here at SI, have received the brunt end of abusive pastoral methodology. But which of us does not recognize God's sovereign hand in using that to bring us to where we are now? Which of us does not thank Him for His grace, though it was painful at the time? What some men have meant for evil, God has been able to mean for good, as He does for all things to them that love Him. The opening line does not help us come to this conclusion.

__________________

Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3430
IFB's unpardonable sins
Charlie wrote:

...
So.... a man who is an unbeliever is a pornographer. He gets saved and quits being a pornographer. Fast forward a few years down the road and he becomes a pastor with a great personal testimony of obedience. Fast forward a few more years and he surrenders to temptation and becomes a pornographer again. He repents. Now, here's the rub. Will he ever be allowed to be a pastor again? If we answer with a categorical "no," I think we have fallen into the same sort of error that afflicted the early baptismal regenerationists. The pastor's sin must not be forgivable (at least in a temporal sense) because "he knew better." The cross doesn't wipe away post-conversion sins quite as completely as pre-conversion sins.

The Bible gives guidelines for people who desire to become pastors. However, we cannot move immediately from those passages to a theology of dealing with sinning pastors. They are simply two different questions. For the sake of provoking thought, I will give an example of a sinning pastor. The Apostle Peter denied Christ twice during his ministry. First, on the night in which Christ was betrayed. Second, when due to the fear of man his lifestyle contradicted the message of the gospel and was actually an offense to the gospel and a hindrance to the health of the church (Gal. 2). In both cases, he clearly repented. In the first case Jesus personally reconfirmed His intention for Peter to shepherd the others (Luke 22; John 21). In neither case was there any discussion of Peter stepping down.

I think we are sometimes guilty of making certain sins 'unpardonable' in our minds and in our churches. Divorce, remarriage, fornication, adultery... all seem to step beyond some mysterious Point of No Return.

However- if someone has exhibited continued pattern of unrepentant, sinful behavior in violation of the Biblical standards of church leadership, I think stepping down/being removed is reasonable, BUT- the person should allowed and encouraged to again earn respect and trust and be fully restored. I think this is what happened to Peter- he obviously demonstrated his sorrow and repentance, and his behavior afterwards reflected this. There is a significant period of time between his denial of Christ and his own entrance into full time ministry independent of his mentor, so to speak.

On a related note, when the word 'restoration' is used, it often IMO doesn't seem to mean restoration, but a sort of reluctant appointment to the SecondHand Goods Dept on the back row of the sanctuary. We should take into account that 'restoration' means that one is again reinstated to their former condition or position.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3492
On 'unpardonable' sins
Susan R wrote:

I think we are sometimes guilty of making certain sins 'unpardonable' in our minds and in our churches. Divorce, remarriage, fornication, adultery... all seem to step beyond some mysterious Point of No Return.

However- if someone has exhibited continued pattern of unrepentant, sinful behavior in violation of the Biblical standards of church leadership, I think stepping down/being removed is reasonable, BUT- the person should allowed and encouraged to again earn respect and trust and be fully restored. I think this is what happened to Peter- he obviously demonstrated his sorrow and repentance, and his behavior afterwards reflected this. There is a significant period of time between his denial of Christ and his own entrance into full time ministry independent of his mentor, so to speak.

On a related note, when the word 'restoration' is used, it often IMO doesn't seem to mean restoration, but a sort of reluctant appointment to the SecondHand Goods Dept on the back row of the sanctuary. We should take into account that 'restoration' means that one is again reinstated to their former condition or position.

Comments:

  • I think we need to separate the issues of restoration (to the Lord) and restored to a place of responsibility (Elder position in this case)
  • Trust me I'm not saying that what he did is unpardonable BUT RATHER
  • That there are some sinful behaviors that have consequences that disqualify one for Eldership
  • FINALLY: Not being an elder should never be considered a "reluctant appointment to the SecondHand Goods Dept on the back row of the sanctuary"

James Kubecki
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Sep 22 2009
Posts: 1
Matthew 18
Pastor Joe Roof wrote:

Did the author of this article share these concerns with that Pastor? If not, after all of these years, I would let that Pastor know these concerns.

I would go one step further. If the author did NOT share these concerns with that Pastor, and then with 1 or 2 witnesses present, then presenting in this public forum itself violates Matthew 18.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3430
What is restoration?
Jim Peet wrote:

Comments:

  • I think we need to separate the issues of restoration (to the Lord) and restored to a place of responsibility (Elder position in this case)
  • Trust me I'm not saying that what he did is unpardonable BUT RATHER
  • That there are some sinful behaviors that have consequences that disqualify one for Eldership
  • FINALLY: Not being an elder should never be considered a "reluctant appointment to the SecondHand Goods Dept on the back row of the sanctuary"

Is there Biblical support for the idea that certain sins permanently disqualify someone for 'the ministry'? What is restoration if one is not again brought back to the place they once were? What ministries would a person who had committed one of these particular sins be qualified for? For instance, they can't pastor the church, but they can teach Sunday School or lead the youth group... or just have a supporting role, and never lead anything besides the line at the all-you-can-eat buffet?

I do agree in the sense that a man might not generally be a brawler, but circumstances may occur that he finds himself in a physical confrontation- but that isn't his normal pattern of behavior. However, when it comes to something like adultery or pornography, there's been something going on mentally for a very long time in order for those inhibitations to lower to the point where one can indulge fully in those behaviors. No one 'snaps' and finds themselves in bed with another woman. So I'm not saying that all sins are created equal, so to speak, when it comes to consequences. But I think a pattern of over spending and debt should be treated in the same way, as well as drunkeness, dishonesty, or one's family being out of order. IOW, I'm along for the ride if other characteristics that are listed in 1 Tim. 3 are treated with the same gravity and consequences.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3492
Good question and not all agree on this point
Susan R wrote:

Is there Biblical support for the idea that certain sins permanently disqualify someone for 'the ministry'? What is restoration if one is not again brought back to the place they once were? What ministries would a person who had committed one of these particular sins be qualified for? For instance, they can't pastor the church, but they can teach Sunday School or lead the youth group... or just have a supporting role, and never lead anything besides the line at the all-you-can-eat buffet?

I Tim 3:2, "A bishop then must be blameless"

Comment: Doesn't say "perfect" but I suggest there are some sins that permanently disqualify from the role of Bishop. Whether repeated visits to the porno store disqualify someone would be an interesting discussion.

You used the phrase " permanently disqualify someone for 'the ministry'". I think the term "the ministry" is perhaps too general for this discussion.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3430
That's why I asked
Jim Peet wrote:
Susan R wrote:

Is there Biblical support for the idea that certain sins permanently disqualify someone for 'the ministry'? What is restoration if one is not again brought back to the place they once were? What ministries would a person who had committed one of these particular sins be qualified for? For instance, they can't pastor the church, but they can teach Sunday School or lead the youth group... or just have a supporting role, and never lead anything besides the line at the all-you-can-eat buffet?

I Tim 3:2, "A bishop then must be blameless"

Comment: Doesn't say "perfect" but I suggest there are some sins that permanently disqualify from the role of Bishop. Whether repeated visits to the porno store disqualify someone would be an interesting discussion.

You used the phrase " permanently disqualify someone for 'the ministry'". I think the term "the ministry" is perhaps too general for this discussion.

I was using the term 'ministry' to mean one's 'full-time' vocation. So when we say 'bishop', do we mean just the pastor? Or does that include the assistant pastor, music leader, youth pastor, Sunday School superintendent... I'm just wondering where the boundaries are.

I agree that blameless isn't perfect, but the principles of repentance, restitution, and restoration clearly say in my mind that someone is allowed to fully reclaim their earlier position regardless of whether they cheated on their wife or cheated on their taxes.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3492
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this point
Susan R wrote:

.... the principles of repentance, restitution, and restoration clearly say in my mind that someone is allowed to fully reclaim their earlier position regardless of whether they cheated on their wife or cheated on their taxes.

I don't agree that every forgiven sin results in a restoration to a position of leadership. Specifically I disagree with your statement above.

In 40 years of being a Christian I've known Pastors who have run off with their secretaries, had sex with a teen (in a youth group), met someone on the Internet and driven miles to met them to have sex, etc. These should never Pastor again!

Charlie
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 862
Why not?
Jim Peet wrote:

In 40 years of being a Christian I've known Pastors who have run off with their secretaries, had sex with a teen (in a youth group), met someone on the Internet and driven miles to met them to have sex, etc. These should never Pastor again!

Why not? Jesus said, "But the one who is forgiven little, loves little." I'm not saying that things like this should be shrugged off, treated casually, or shoved under the rug. However, you have not adduced any biblical support for your statement. Spurgeon said something about letting a man regain his position when his repentance is as infamous as his sinning. That's a high bar, but it always leaves room for hope. Christianity knows no punishment, only discipline for correction. If we will eventually "forgive" a pastor's drunkenness but not his fornication, we have emptied the cross of its grace.

Or to put the question in another way, what if the pastor who ran off with his secretary eventually ceased that relationship, was reconciled to his wife, and announced that through this process he realized he was not really a Christian and believed in Christ. Now, can this man ever be a pastor again? If you say no, then we must reach the quite awkward conclusion that a man's pre-conversion sins can disqualify him from ministry. However, if you say yes, then we're right back to Tertullian and baptismal regeneration. The cross is more efficacious for pre-conversion than post-conversion sin.

__________________

My Blog: www.sacredpage.wordpress.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

MShep2
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 98
Was the charge ever verified?
Jim Peet wrote:
Quote:

While filling up at a truck stop service station off the interstate, a member of my church watched a man enter an adult bookstore across the street. [I was recognized as that man.]

I don't see the situation as a Matthew 18 issue

Quote:

Moreover if your brother sins against you

The sin was not against the one who recognized him, but against the whole church! I rather see that I Tim 5:19 applies.

I think the point is being missed that part of the wisdom of the Matt. 18 process is that a charge can be confirmed before it is made public knowledge. This is especially true in this case. The person did not see his face but was sure it was him. Does this mean that it was impossible that anyone else in the world limped like him? Even if the person were 95 or 98% sure, private confrontation and verification should have happened first. (After verification, things could and probably should move quickly to the public steps.)

Instead, what happened was 1 month of burning phone lines and juicy discussions culminating in a "ambush" meeting. If somehow the charge would have not been true and he was able to prove convincingly his innocence, his ministry in that church would still probably be over.

__________________

MS
--------------------------------
Luke 17:10

MShep2
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 98
Qualifications
Jim Peet wrote:
Susan R wrote:

Is there Biblical support for the idea that certain sins permanently disqualify someone for 'the ministry'? What is restoration if one is not again brought back to the place they once were? What ministries would a person who had committed one of these particular sins be qualified for? For instance, they can't pastor the church, but they can teach Sunday School or lead the youth group... or just have a supporting role, and never lead anything besides the line at the all-you-can-eat buffet?

I Tim 3:2, "A bishop then must be blameless"

Comment: Doesn't say "perfect" but I suggest there are some sins that permanently disqualify from the role of Bishop. Whether repeated visits to the porno store disqualify someone would be an interesting discussion.

You used the phrase " permanently disqualify someone for 'the ministry'". I think the term "the ministry" is perhaps too general for this discussion.

I taught in a pastors' seminar on this subject and found the same very good point in a number of sources: the qualifications of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 relate to what the man is now rather than what he might have been. Now I agree there are some sins that would seem to disqualify a man longer than others (based on the "blameless" qualification which has to do with testimony and character). However, at times churches and church leaders pick and choose among the qualifications as to which should be pressed and which are "no big deal." This is not biblical.

__________________

MS
--------------------------------
Luke 17:10

Jim Peet
Jim Peet's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditorAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3492
Re: Was the charge ever verified?

The author himself verified it

Quote:

The pastor read a prepared statement that began, “It has come to our attention that you visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address.” ... I didn’t try to lie. I told them about previous visits to adult bookstores to view pornography.

MShep2
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 98
Verses?
Jim Peet wrote:
Susan R wrote:

.... the principles of repentance, restitution, and restoration clearly say in my mind that someone is allowed to fully reclaim their earlier position regardless of whether they cheated on their wife or cheated on their taxes.

I don't agree that every forgiven sin results in a restoration to a position of leadership. Specifically I disagree with your statement above.

In 40 years of being a Christian I've known Pastors who have run off with their secretaries, had sex with a teen (in a youth group), met someone on the Internet and driven miles to met them to have sex, etc. These should never Pastor again!

I do agree somewhat with this point, but what is your biblical basis for this? Here in Liberia we have had a number of warlords who became "pastors" after the war. I find this personally to be rather ludicrous (mostly because there is no taking responsibility for past sins/crimes) but what if they truly did repent and get saved? What could they be or do for God?

In the examples you mention, I would seriously doubt the salvation of these "pastors". Before they could do anything for God they not only would have to repent but also examine their entire lives and their reasons for going into the ministry. Maybe they never really were Christians to begin with?

__________________

MS
--------------------------------
Luke 17:10

MShep2
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 98
Verification BEFORE gossip
Jim Peet wrote:

The author himself verified it

Quote:

The pastor read a prepared statement that began, “It has come to our attention that you visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address.” ... I didn’t try to lie. I told them about previous visits to adult bookstores to view pornography.

No, my point was, was it ever verified before discussing it with others for a month? Since they didn't do it, this clearly was wrong. Going to him privately and then with witnesses (if needed) could have served to verify the charges before possibly ruining a man's testimony and ministry over gossip.

__________________

MS
--------------------------------
Luke 17:10

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
MShep2 wrote: Jim Peet
MShep2 wrote:
Jim Peet wrote:

The author himself verified it

Quote:

The pastor read a prepared statement that began, “It has come to our attention that you visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address.” ... I didn’t try to lie. I told them about previous visits to adult bookstores to view pornography.

No, my point was, was it ever verified before discussing it with others for a month? Since they didn't do it, this clearly was wrong. Going to him privately and then with witnesses (if needed) could have served to verify the charges before possibly ruining a man's testimony and ministry over gossip.

Yeah...I have to agree with this.
Interestingly enough, SI member Kevin Subra posted this on his facebook today...
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is condemnation before investigation."- Herbert Spencer(1820-1903) British author, economist, philosopher

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 518
The qualification in 1 Tim. 3

The qualification in 1 Tim. 3 that a pastor be "blameless" obviously does not refer to being "sinless" but rather has to do with his reputation. The word carries the idea that no one can "grab ahold" of anything in his life to accuse him of something; irreproachable, not open to accusation or censure. Think Daniel in the OT, where those who were trying to trap him couldn't find anything of which to accuse him (except praying). Obviously a man who has repeatedly gone into a porn store to buy porn has opened himself up to public accusations. He might also not meet the criterion of being a "one-woman man" (if taken in the sense of "faithful to his wife").

However, I do not believe the offense mentioned in the story would by itself necessarily permanently disqualify a man from ministry, although many issues would need to be addressed before he would be ready for pastoral ministry again.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Mike Durning
Mike Durning's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 615
Troubled

Well, I am troubled by a lot of the data (and non-data) here so far. I posted a "thank you" early here, because I believe what we need to walk away with from this story is this: We should never let the politics and business aspects of church supersede our responsibility to shepherd.

Assuming that the story here related is true and inclusive of all relevant facts...

I am troubled that the first response to this young man's problem was a group meeting at which he was fired. The first thing a pastor should do is be concerned for the spiritual well-being of the person in question. He should have built bridges to understand, rebuke, correct, and instruct, and then all disciplinary action should have arisen from the results of those conversations. That's a pastor's heart at work.

Instead, he was ground up in the machine first, with concern first for the good of the ministry. In so doing, the pastor built walls instead of bridges. It is a testament to this ex-music minister's character that he stayed on in membership.

I am opposed to this model, that makes the church staffing problems into a Christian College-like environment that expels first and asks questions later. Nor should it be a business model that predominates, that fires for violations of "policy" without regard to heart issues. The spiritual leaders ought to be held to a higher standard, indeed, but that does not remove the obligations of everyone to deal with them with love as they would any other believer for their spiritual well-being. The discipline process as outlined in Matthew 18 and 1st Cor. 5 is God's program to fix people (if done properly). Neglecting it is equivalent to caring less for their well-being.

In terms of process and Scripture, I think a few points need to be made here also:

Matthew 18's use of "against you" is a textual variant. For those of you who accept critical text readings, I would point out that the NASB, for instance, excludes the words.

Regardless of whether the words "against you" should be included or not, which I leave to another thread to debate endlessly, one thing is clear: It is a mistake to set I Timothy 5:19 against Matthew 18. I Timothy 5:19 is all about Matthew 18. It is emphasizing that the pastor (Timothy, in this case) can't receive the accusation about an elder unless it is brought by two or more -- meaning the process of Matthew 18 has occurred prior to the Pastor's involvement.

Think it through. It's what Paul is really saying.

Regarding I Timothy 3 and the word "blameless", I resist the word "reputation" as being the subject. If "reputation" is key, then this man could legitimately stay in the ministry if he had never been caught. Instead, let us use the word "character". In a thread several years ago, we painstakingly went through the I Timothy 3 qualifications. Through the study that attended that thread, many of us came to realize that the word "blameless" is an umbrella word, overshadowing all. It is about having nothing that can be grasped in the life. But it is about character rather than reputation.

For example, "husband of one wife" (literally "a one woman man" in the Greek) is about character. Saying "He can't be divorced" misses the point. He has to be a "one woman man" by character. Note that this is a FAR higher standard than "can't be divorced". Many men who have only been married once are not "one women men" in heart or deed.

If the author of this article was doing what I imagine most men would do in such places, he ceased to be a one woman man at some point prior to entering. But his character can change. He can become a one woman man again someday. That may take some time --- and a great deal of time for trust to be rebuilt. But I believe it is attainable.

I'm not saying this man can be restored definitely. I'm saying that I'm not prepared to cut him off from all hope of restoration till I see what he does with the problem over time.

I have been involved in the restoration of one such, and I firmly believe that the right thing was done. It took time, Biblical counseling, and much prayer. The man actually now is involved in counseling others in the same area.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
A few words from "C.L."

The author asked me to pass on a few of his observations regarding the discussion.
They appear below verbatim.


A good point has been made about my choice to use Matthew 18:15-17. Other passages have been cited as also dealing with this issue, each one valid. I used that passage because, while my recollection of those events is a little fogged by emotion and time (it was 16 years ago), I can only remember one passage the pastor mentioned to the church the night I resigned: Matthew 18. He may have quoted others, but that's the only one I recall clearly. Because he specifically used that scripture, I believe using it as a grid for the discussion is fair.

Another good point: you're only getting my side. My intentions are to give a lesser-known perspective while trying to be as fair as I can. I hope it doesn't come across as simply sour grapes–it was an honest attempt with an awareness of my bias.

On the question of whether I believe I should have been fired, the answer is yes. I believe I was disqualified from the ministry because of my sin.

Clarification: I was not an elder or deacon. I was the minister of music only–though I don't believe that makes much difference.

Concerning the man who reported my activities to the pastor, he called me that night, after I returned home from the deacon's meeting. He was a wreck–particularly because he himself had experienced an on-going problem with pornography. He had debated whether to come to me directly, or if he should say anything at all. He said he regretted his decision to go to the pastor. In the month before the confrontation, the pastor asked him to follow me around in the evenings in case I again went to view porn. He told me the pastor made a distasteful joke about the situation, to which he replied, "I wish I'd never told you." He actually became a good friend to me in the days that followed, offering hope in my struggle against lust. I do wonder how things would have been different if he had come to me first. It's difficult to remember my mindset and predict my reaction.

Someone wondered what kind of restoration I was expecting. The night I resigned, the pastor spoke at length to the congregation about his commitment to my restoration, to walk alongside me through every step of the healing process. In light of those words, I expected him to still be my pastor through this time.

To answer another question: yes, I was married at the time. In the interest of "not tackling too many topics at once", I did not include that whole aspect.

As far as going to that pastor and discussing all this, last I knew he was in poor health in a nursing home and I've moved many miles away. To be honest, even if that was not the case, I'm not sure I'd have the courage to meet him. Maybe writing this article without taking that step first is wrong–that's valid feedback. That is something I need to consider.

Jay
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminEditor
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 2290
What?
Aaron Blumer wrote:

Concerning the man who reported my activities to the pastor, he called me that night, after I returned home from the deacon's meeting. He was a wreck–particularly because he himself had experienced an on-going problem with pornography. He had debated whether to come to me directly, or if he should say anything at all. He said he regretted his decision to go to the pastor. In the month before the confrontation, the pastor asked him to follow me around in the evenings in case I again went to view porn. He told me the pastor made a distasteful joke about the situation, to which he replied, "I wish I'd never told you." He actually became a good friend to me in the days that followed, offering hope in my struggle against lust. I do wonder how things would have been different if he had come to me first. It's difficult to remember my mindset and predict my reaction.

Someone wondered what kind of restoration I was expecting. The night I resigned, the pastor spoke at length to the congregation about his commitment to my restoration, to walk alongside me through every step of the healing process. In light of those words, I expected him to still be my pastor through this time.

Wow. So much for 'shepherding the flock of God'.

It sounds to me like the pastor of Berean lost sight of the fact that he was called to shepherd his sheep first, and to 'be the pastor' second. This church sounds like it was dysfunctional, and I hope things have gotten better there since then.

__________________

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
-Eph. 4:29-32, ESV

Joel Tetreau
Joel Tetreau's picture
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 368
Right on Durning!

Right on Durning!

jt

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
Mike Durning wrote: Well, I
Mike Durning wrote:

Well, I am troubled by a lot of the data (and non-data) here so far. I posted a "thank you" early here, because I believe what we need to walk away with from this story is this: We should never let the politics and business aspects of church supersede our responsibility to shepherd.

Assuming that the story here related is true and inclusive of all relevant facts...

I am troubled that the first response to this young man's problem was a group meeting at which he was fired. The first thing a pastor should do is be concerned for the spiritual well-being of the person in question. He should have built bridges to understand, rebuke, correct, and instruct, and then all disciplinary action should have arisen from the results of those conversations. That's a pastor's heart at work.

Instead, he was ground up in the machine first, with concern first for the good of the ministry. In so doing, the pastor built walls instead of bridges. It is a testament to this ex-music minister's character that he stayed on in membership.

I am opposed to this model, that makes the church staffing problems into a Christian College-like environment that expels first and asks questions later. Nor should it be a business model that predominates, that fires for violations of "policy" without regard to heart issues. The spiritual leaders ought to be held to a higher standard, indeed, but that does not remove the obligations of everyone to deal with them with love as they would any other believer for their spiritual well-being. The discipline process as outlined in Matthew 18 and 1st Cor. 5 is God's program to fix people (if done properly). Neglecting it is equivalent to caring less for their well-being.

In terms of process and Scripture, I think a few points need to be made here also:

Matthew 18's use of "against you" is a textual variant. For those of you who accept critical text readings, I would point out that the NASB, for instance, excludes the words.

Regardless of whether the words "against you" should be included or not, which I leave to another thread to debate endlessly, one thing is clear: It is a mistake to set I Timothy 5:19 against Matthew 18. I Timothy 5:19 is all about Matthew 18. It is emphasizing that the pastor (Timothy, in this case) can't receive the accusation about an elder unless it is brought by two or more -- meaning the process of Matthew 18 has occurred prior to the Pastor's involvement.

Think it through. It's what Paul is really saying.

Regarding I Timothy 3 and the word "blameless", I resist the word "reputation" as being the subject. If "reputation" is key, then this man could legitimately stay in the ministry if he had never been caught. Instead, let us use the word "character". In a thread several years ago, we painstakingly went through the I Timothy 3 qualifications. Through the study that attended that thread, many of us came to realize that the word "blameless" is an umbrella word, overshadowing all. It is about having nothing that can be grasped in the life. But it is about character rather than reputation.

For example, "husband of one wife" (literally "a one woman man" in the Greek) is about character. Saying "He can't be divorced" misses the point. He has to be a "one woman man" by character. Note that this is a FAR higher standard than "can't be divorced". Many men who have only been married once are not "one women men" in heart or deed.

If the author of this article was doing what I imagine most men would do in such places, he ceased to be a one woman man at some point prior to entering. But his character can change. He can become a one woman man again someday. That may take some time --- and a great deal of time for trust to be rebuilt. But I believe it is attainable.

I'm not saying this man can be restored definitely. I'm saying that I'm not prepared to cut him off from all hope of restoration till I see what he does with the problem over time.

I have been involved in the restoration of one such, and I firmly believe that the right thing was done. It took time, Biblical counseling, and much prayer. The man actually now is involved in counseling others in the same area.

Great post, Mike! Thanks for the well thought out response.

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

TracyC
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Sep 22 2009
Posts: 2
This story is certainly food for thought

Sure it was appropriate that this music director step down from his position; he needed time to work through issues and grow in the healing God had for him. Too bad he did not resign himself.

However, his error does not excuse the pastor's error.

I wish the pastor would have gone to him in private. I wish the pastor would have himself, or had some other staff person (there may have been a more appropriate staff person), come alongside the man to offer support and encouragement as he traveled through the healing process. I wish the leadership have been open to using this situation to minister healing to others in the church who had the same struggles.

But life is frequently not as I wish it. Life is messy. I'm so glad that we serve a God who, while we were yet sinners loved us. While we're still sinners, continues to love us.

Thanks for posting this story, it's stimulated lots of interesting thought and discussion.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
Part vs. whole
Mike Durning wrote:

The first thing a pastor should do is be concerned for the spiritual well-being of the person in question. He should have built bridges to understand, rebuke, correct, and instruct, and then all disciplinary action should have arisen from the results of those conversations. That's a pastor's heart at work.

I don't disagree with this but I think I'd qualify the first part a tiny bit. That is, in defense of this pastor, he may well have been thinking of the spiritual well-being of the whole body rather than the person in question. Of course, he's got to think about both, and that's clearly a failure here, but it may simply be a matter of ineptly balancing the perceived needs of the whole against the needs of the one.
When I first read the piece I felt bad for everybody involved, including the sr. pastor. He just seemed to have no preparation at all for how to deal with these things. I'm not inclined to excuse him, but there's room to simultaneously wish that someone had taken the time to train him better in that area. Maybe he served superbly in every area but that one. But yes, it's a big one.

Mike Durning
Mike Durning's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 615
Aaron Blumer wrote: I don't
Aaron Blumer wrote:

I don't disagree with this but I think I'd qualify the first part a tiny bit. That is, in defense of this pastor, he may well have been thinking of the spiritual well-being of the whole body rather than the person in question. Of course, he's got to think about both, and that's clearly a failure here, but it may simply be a matter of ineptly balancing the perceived needs of the whole against the needs of the one.
When I first read the piece I felt bad for everybody involved, including the sr. pastor. He just seemed to have no preparation at all for how to deal with these things. I'm not inclined to excuse him, but there's room to simultaneously wish that someone had taken the time to train him better in that area. Maybe he served superbly in every area but that one. But yes, it's a big one.

Aaron,

I appreciate your desire to moderate my statement, and what drives your desire. But isn't this always the big trap? If we are building people, we will build the ministry. If we build the ministry at the expense of individual persons in that ministry, are we really doing what Christ called us to do?

I fear where this thinking ends.
I know that you would not approve of this, but isn't this "protect the ministry first or there'll be no people" thinking the same thing that drives a church board to cover up the molestation incident by the church staffer?

I know it's not the same, but I think my example is just a more extreme version of the thinking that drives pastors and boards to deal with people in this way.

Mike D

Rick Franklin
Rick Franklin's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 34
How to keep from rebuking the pastor?

With regard to whether C.L. should have gone to the pastor and raised the issue of the pastor's poor handling of the situation, I'm not sure he could do so without rebuking an elder (I Timothy 5:1). Merely bringing it up would seem to me to be expressing the opinion that it was poorly handled, and that seems like a rebuke--a mild rebuke if handled carefully, but a rebuke nonetheless.

Of course, if he raised the issue shortly after the event, it would probably have come across as bitterness and/or blame-shifting, which could have caused the pastor to throw up defensive walls. But even several years later, it would seem to me to be a rebuke.

__________________

Rick Franklin

Gresham, Oregon
Romans 8:38-39

Eric Peterman
Eric Peterman's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Mon, Aug 31 2009
Posts: 4
What about 1 Tim 5:19-20

1 Timothy 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.

It seems pretty plain that this was not followed by the pastor or the rest who called him on the carpet. (If we say, "well, he's not an elder, so that doesn't apply," then we cannot hold this man to the same standard as elders).

Was v20 followed properly in this case? Just as importantly, was the spirit of this verse the controlling theme of the conduct of the pastor and other leaders? 1 Timothy 5:20  Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.

I feel very sad that this music minister had such a low view of Christ, of his own heavenly seating, and even of his own future glorification alongside Christ, that at that moment that he could subject the Lord, himself, the community and his church to such debasement. Having said that, I am equally sad that the relationship of the pastor to the staff was so superficial, so strictly functional and professional, that this man could have developed such a habit without it being known or that his struggles could not be shared and dealt with in a helpful way much sooner. Frankly, I'd be carefully examining the church and staff culture for depth of spiritual and relational fellowship. I'd at least entertain the possibility that such a stumbling among someone in leadership was, if not almost inevitable, at least a real possibility in that environment. The whole situation sounds unhealthy IMHO.

__________________

Keep looking down, Eph 2:6

A. Carpenter
Offline
User
Joined: Wed, Jun 3 2009
Posts: 82
Rick Franklin wrote: With
Rick Franklin wrote:

With regard to whether C.L. should have gone to the pastor and raised the issue of the pastor's poor handling of the situation, I'm not sure he could do so without rebuking an elder (I Timothy 5:1). Merely bringing it up would seem to me to be expressing the opinion that it was poorly handled, and that seems like a rebuke--a mild rebuke if handled carefully, but a rebuke nonetheless.

Of course, if he raised the issue shortly after the event, it would probably have come across as bitterness and/or blame-shifting, which could have caused the pastor to throw up defensive walls. But even several years later, it would seem to me to be a rebuke.

Why do you think 1 Timothy 5:1 refers to the biblical office of elder and not simply an older man? And Timothy was told that instead of rebuking him, he might exhort (the meaning of the word can range from "comfort" to "command") him. Surely that could have been done.

__________________

Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
Part vs. whole... more
Mike Durning wrote:

But isn't this always the big trap? If we are building people, we will build the ministry. If we build the ministry at the expense of individual persons in that ministry, are we really doing what Christ called us to do?
I fear where this thinking ends.
I know that you would not approve of this, but isn't this "protect the ministry first or there'll be no people" thinking the same thing that drives a church board to cover up the molestation incident by the church staffer?

Well, I wasn't really talking about "build the ministry" in an abstract way (people often use that kind of terminology for "build programs and increase numbers"). What I mean is that Christ called us to shepherd the entire flock and that sometimes creates a tension with individual needs. So I'd be more inclined to put the tension in terms of "protecting the people" vs. "protecting an individual."
In the case at hand, the pastor's actions didn't actually protect the flock at the expense of an individual 'sheep,' because his way of handling it hurt both. My point there was that--to put in the best light I can think of--he may have been thinking of the impact on the flock as a whole and got very clumsy about dealing w/the individual sheep.

But the tension between sheep and flock (or "member" and "body") is real. Often what seems to serve an individual is not in the best interest of the flock and vice versa. It's probably easiest to illustrate this with "policy." ... and I'll use a real life example. Our church has a rule in its constitution that requires you be a member for a full year before you can run for one of the elected offices. Last year, that prevented a family from being involved at that level because--though they'd been attending for more than a year--they hadn't been "members" a full year yet. So what the deacons and I wrestled with included the matter of what's best for family A vs. what's best for the body. What I really wanted to do was wink and pretend the rule didn't exist... or have it thrown out.
But the rule is a sensible one when you look at the big picture. It just seems silly and even counter-productive when you look at individual cases. Alot of things are like that. But where the two meet is that the kind of place that is formed by the "rule" over time ultimately serves the individuals better as well. My example may not be a very good one, but there are policies that serve individual needs better by improving the quality of the whole of which they are a part.

I don't know if that helps explain what I mean any better or not.

But we're agreed that in this case the pastor served neither the needs of the flock nor the needs of the individual very well.

Susan R
Susan R's picture
Offline
ModeratorUserUser accounts adminAdmin
Joined: Wed, May 6 2009
Posts: 3430
Star Trek Theology

This thread is starting to remind me of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Smile

I also saw the pastor's actions as tending more toward damage control than real shepherding, but it certainly is a common human failing to think more about public perception than about what truly benefits the people, whether it is the needs of the few or the one, or the needs of the many.

__________________

Susan R

Blogging at At Home and School and Shelf Discoveries
"Like" my Facebook page

Mike Durning
Mike Durning's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 615
Rick Franklin wrote: With
Rick Franklin wrote:

With regard to whether C.L. should have gone to the pastor and raised the issue of the pastor's poor handling of the situation, I'm not sure he could do so without rebuking an elder (I Timothy 5:1). Merely bringing it up would seem to me to be expressing the opinion that it was poorly handled, and that seems like a rebuke--a mild rebuke if handled carefully, but a rebuke nonetheless.

Of course, if he raised the issue shortly after the event, it would probably have come across as bitterness and/or blame-shifting, which could have caused the pastor to throw up defensive walls. But even several years later, it would seem to me to be a rebuke.

Rick,

I'm not sure C.L. should have been the one to say something. Maybe one of the other church leaders should have. I'm going to guess this church is not elder led. In that case, I would have hoped another pastoral staffer or a deacon would make the observation to the pastor respectfully. I don't think I Tim. 5:1 requires the deacons to be "Stepford Deacons".

If the church had the kind of culture where the pastor is unapproachable, we have serious problems in every area.

Mike

Mike Durning
Mike Durning's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 615
Susan R wrote: This thread is
Susan R wrote:

This thread is starting to remind me of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Smile

I also saw the pastor's actions as tending more toward damage control than real shepherding, but it certainly is a common human failing to think more about public perception than about what truly benefits the people, whether it is the needs of the few or the one, or the needs of the many.

I get it. I'm arguing "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many". And Aaron is arguing "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

Aaron, I'll meet you on Mount Seleyah and we'll fight it out. Bring your Spock ears and your lirpa! Susan R can play the Lyrrette while we joust.

Oops, my Trekker status is showing.

Mike Durning
Mike Durning's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 615
Thinking
Aaron Blumer wrote:

Well, I wasn't really talking about "build the ministry" in an abstract way (people often use that kind of terminology for "build programs and increase numbers"). What I mean is that Christ called us to shepherd the entire flock and that sometimes creates a tension with individual needs. So I'd be more inclined to put the tension in terms of "protecting the people" vs. "protecting an individual."
In the case at hand, the pastor's actions didn't actually protect the flock at the expense of an individual 'sheep,' because his way of handling it hurt both. My point there was that--to put in the best light I can think of--he may have been thinking of the impact on the flock as a whole and got very clumsy about dealing w/the individual sheep.

Aaron,

I get your points (and I'm not talking about the Spock ears). I guess what I'm trying to say boils down to this: The heart of the pastor ought to ache for those who are hurting in his flock -- whether they know they are injured and lamed or not. And that ought to drive the ORDER in which such events are addressed, and influence the MANNER.

As for the many vs. the one, a few more illustrations will suffice:
Mr. Hypothetical comes to your church. He talks to you afterward. He is a convicted Child Molester but one who has since found Christ, found much counseling, repented, etc. He wants to attend your church. You set firm limits: He attends only main services. He meets a Deacon in the parking lot, is accompanied into church and out again. If he goes to the restroom, he is accompanied. No contact with children is allowed. No other attendance is allowed. You explain the situation and the rules to the congregation. A few days later, you're presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: "The former molester goes, or we go." Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the man with the past?

Don't be too fast to answer, because here's one I heard decades ago from a Southern pastor:

A black man comes to your church. He talks to you afterward. He wants to attend your all-white church. A few days later, you're presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: "The black man goes, or we go." Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the black man?

The man who told me this story said he'd choose the 4 families. I would show them the door.

I know the two situations are different, but are they that different?
A person who wants to be in the Lord's House to worship should be welcome (even if there are limits due to a particular sin on the part of the molester). I'm sure Jesus would have found a way to welcome both.

I know we're a long way from the story of our ex-music minister, but this is about the whole "many or one" thing we've been tossing back and forth.

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
Needs, many and few

First, I should clarify that my view is not that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Rather, my view is that there is often tension between the two and also, at times, the needs of the one are actually best served by meeting the needs of the many. So, I think tension between what one member needs and what the body needs is not unusual, but often their needs are not really in conflict if we give the whole scenario enough time to work out. A healthier body is a better place for all the individuals that are in it.

For the case of Mr. H. the child molester, it's not clear that the needs of the many are being expressed by the four families. The desires, yes. Different matter. I can't say for sure how I'd handle that beyond trying to persuade the four families to rethink it.

Actually, knowing my nature in these situations, I do know what my first response would be--privately I'd dig my heels in and think "There is no way you're going to threaten me into acting a certain way." I tend to be stubborn that way. But after I calmed down a while, I hope I'd be more conciliatory and try to win them over. Failing that... well, let's just say I hope that's a bridge I don't have to cross any time soon!

Edit: I do think it's relevant to the thread because I think you're right, Mike that pastors often go astray in handling tricky situations by not properly valuing the individual... which clearly happened in this case.

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
Mike Durning wrote: Susan R
Mike Durning wrote:
Susan R wrote:

This thread is starting to remind me of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Smile

I also saw the pastor's actions as tending more toward damage control than real shepherding, but it certainly is a common human failing to think more about public perception than about what truly benefits the people, whether it is the needs of the few or the one, or the needs of the many.

I get it. I'm arguing "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many". And Aaron is arguing "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

Aaron, I'll meet you on Mount Seleyah and we'll fight it out. Bring your Spock ears and your lirpa! Susan R can play the Lyrrette while we joust.

Oops, my Trekker status is showing.

And my honor and respect for you continues to grow...that's some hard core trek knowledge! What a man!

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
Aaron Blumer wrote: But
Aaron Blumer wrote:

But after I calmed down a while, I hope I'd be more conciliatory and try to win them over. Failing that... well, let's just say I hope that's a bridge I don't have to cross any time soon!

Aaron...help me out with this. Are you saying you might consider siding with the families and asking Mr. H or the black man to leave the church? You make it sound like this would be a difficult thing...what makes this difficult to you?
If you used God's word in a lovingly but serious manner and you have sought to teach these families biblical principles...and they refuse to accept it and they refuse to change...what else can you do? And, IMO, the ministry of the church as a whole may be better served with their departure...even if they were the majority of the church! This is certainly much more difficult in the Mr. H scenario...the family is probably very concerned with the safety of their children...but even their need for that can't become more important than God's numerous commands to be forgiving. In the case of the black man...I find very little room for understanding their prejudice. Although their upbringing has certainly molded this line of thinking deep into their minds, all that needs to change when you understand God's Word on the subject (Acts. 17:26; Eph. 2).

It would be painful to see them go...and it would have implications on the church body...but is the body really better served by us allowing and even perpetuating unbiblical thinking?

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
Always difficult
Jamie Hart wrote:

You make it sound like this would be a difficult thing...what makes this difficult to you?

You pretty much answered that in the rest of your post. Smile
One, it's always difficult to see anyone leave. Two, in our case four families would be about a third of our church. Three, the people in the four families are individuals I want to help also, and when they stay you can teach them. When they leave you can't. So, yes, difficult. I think it only looks easy when it's hypothetical and doesn't too closely resemble situations you've actually faced. I've been just close enough to that to be able to half-imagine how hard it might be in reality.

I'd try very hard to keep everybody, it's the best case scenario. So if they couldn't be won over listening to me, I'd probably try to recruit someone they might find more persuasive and see if they'd agree to meet with him. If there's another pastor who has been through assimilating a believer like Mr. H, his help would be priceless.
These are the kinds of things I pray for the courage to handle rightly... I'm not an especially courageous guy.

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
Aaron Blumer wrote: [I'm not
Aaron Blumer wrote:

[I'm not an especially courageous guy.

And I'm often too quick and harsh on my judgments. God's showing me a lot lately about balancing truth and mercy (compare Prov. 3:3-4 to John 1:14...incredible).

I agree with you...it would be difficult...and trust me when I say I've been there. In our area, there are many, many church choices...and church hoppers! However, it has never been easy to see people leave...and I too try to do all I can. I didn't communicate my question well.

So let me word the question a little differently...would siding with these families be an option you would consider? If so, why?

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

Larry
Offline
ModeratorUser
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1149
Quote: A few days later,
Quote:

A few days later, you're presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: "The former molester goes, or we go." Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the man with the past?

Wouldn't these four families be subjects of church discipline for acting directly and openly contrary to the gospel? Hopefully they would repent of their ungodly and unforgiving attitudes before it came to that, but you never know.

I heard a message recently by someone that I can't remember who pointed out that there is room in our church for the child molester who has repented but not room for the victim who harbors bitterness.

Living in bitterness and unforgiveness is as much a sin as molesting children. It looks a little more respectable to most, but slanders the gospel just as much. We need to take both of them very seriously. A family who would leave the church in this case is showing that they don't understand the gospel. And that is very serious.

Teri Ploski
Teri Ploski's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 52
Thank you for this post
Larry wrote:
Quote:

A few days later, you're presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: "The former molester goes, or we go." Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the man with the past?

Wouldn't these four families be subjects of church discipline for acting directly and openly contrary to the gospel? Hopefully they would repent of their ungodly and unforgiving attitudes before it came to that, but you never know.

I heard a message recently by someone that I can't remember who pointed out that there is room in our church for the child molester who has repented but not room for the victim who harbors bitterness.

Living in bitterness and unforgiveness is as much a sin as molesting children. It looks a little more respectable to most, but slanders the gospel just as much. We need to take both of them very seriously. A family who would leave the church in this case is showing that they don't understand the gospel. And that is very serious.

For reasons I'm not going to go into, I really appreciate it. If only more pastors would preach this message. We so often categorize sins, but God doesn't.

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
Larry wrote: Quote: A few
Larry wrote:
Quote:

A few days later, you're presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: "The former molester goes, or we go." Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the man with the past?

Wouldn't these four families be subjects of church discipline for acting directly and openly contrary to the gospel? Hopefully they would repent of their ungodly and unforgiving attitudes before it came to that, but you never know.

I heard a message recently by someone that I can't remember who pointed out that there is room in our church for the child molester who has repented but not room for the victim who harbors bitterness.

Living in bitterness and unforgiveness is as much a sin as molesting children. It looks a little more respectable to most, but slanders the gospel just as much. We need to take both of them very seriously. A family who would leave the church in this case is showing that they don't understand the gospel. And that is very serious.

Though I agree with the sentiment (bitterness and an unforgiving heart are serious sins) is this an example when we would use church discipline? Their leaving may be public...their reasons are not. If we are going to discipline people out of the church for heart issues, what comes next? Lust, envy, pride...before long, you wouldn't have a church!

Good discussion (but maybe for another thread)...when do you practice church discipline? I have been taught that public sins are handled publicly. Others are handled as privately as possible...but I would love to hear some solid biblical teaching on the topic.

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

Steve Newman
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 4 2009
Posts: 108
There are a lot of pastors like this....

IMHO, there are a lot of pastors who have no idea how to handle such things.
I have heard a pastor recently say that say there should be the death penalty for sex offenders.
While I find such talk inexcusable, there is a whole generation that was told that the psychologists should handle this and they should stay out of it, so they have no idea what to do.
I was also in a counseling and restoration case such as this...because the offender's own pastor would not touch it with a ten-foot pole. Even though the offender's family was an integral part of the church, the pastor's attitude was to just expel and move on. I was able to convince them not to expel the offender, and, by God's grace, they have become an example of the power of God to cleanse and restore.
I had a good friend who was saved out of years of homosexuality and became a great trophy of God's grace. We dare not become so hard-hearted and legalistic (and yes, in this sense we are a very legalistic society) that we do not believe God can work among sex offenders. How big is our God?
Praise God for men such as this who can stand and see God change their lives! Thanks for coming forward to be heard!

Mike Durning
Mike Durning's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 615
Word from friends

Aaron, I do understand that there are times when the needs of the one can be well served by meeting the needs of the many in the right way. I don't think this was one of them -- and it seems you do not either.

But, going back to that theme, I talked to a few friends about this whole thing, and I thought I'd pass on a few things they said:

One friend commented that we should remember that the Good Shepherd leaves the 99 and goes seeking the one lost sheep. Wow! How'd I miss that!

Another commented that many passages emphasize the "when one of us hurts, we all hurt" principle. Heb. 13:3 came to my mind immediately.

In short, I'm sticking by my guns (though I'm not shooting anyone yet). Take care of the person. Build your church by building individuals in it. Don't sacrifice individuals trying to build your church. For one thing, given sufficient time, you may lose or alienate everyone.

Duane Braswell
Duane Braswell's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 25 2009
Posts: 19
WOW and WOW

I also was caught and upset by the 'hook' although I do see the 'limp' was his sin. A 'limp' many have and that has taken many out. My reasoning for his removal from the office of a bishop would not so much be the 'sin' as the fact he was not currently qualified in his family, in his self control, reputation. This last one 1 Tim 3:7 covers the reason to remove him. I agreed, it was handled with some want of skill and Christlikeness to say the least.

I am challenged by the responces and agreed with many of them, but saw an area in Matthew 18 I felt was missed... so here is my two cents:

Mat 18 did not apply to this event. (at first) It was not a personal offense, TOO many look only to Mat 18:15 - 17 and seem to forget the begining of the chapter, the hurting the least of God's children. Breaking their trust, remember it all starts with whoever receives a little child versus whoever hurts that child of God. I did not see the writer of these events as having caused such damage to the pastor, and as he points out, the pastor did not seem to have restoration in mind.

I felt the pastor had used the tried and (not really) true method of disciplining a member. In the steps leading up to the confrontation the pastor ended up betraying our 'limper.' Not a small point, yet between equals, I felt (that was before the update.) It was a regrettable thing, but the man was disqualified, period, cold as it sounds and it becomes clear that he knew this through the updated information. Peter tells us when we are punished for what we are guilty of, where is the point of speaking out, those in the house of God should expect condemnation for their sins. 1 Peter 4:15 - 17.

I wanted to write to defend the member who told the pastor. I thought perhaps he told him asking for advise and not accusing. The accuser was the pastor, not the witness. BUT THEN when I heard/read the words, "I wish I had never told you." and that the pastor had the man spy on the 'limper.' Here we have a true Mat 18 offense. The pastor received one who trusted him and then hurt/broke trust with the witness. He also betrayed the confidence of our 'limper' who he failed to restore.

This church lost not only our 'limper' but our 'witness' as well.

As a pastor, he had opportunity to follow James 5:20 and bring a sinner back, instead he shied away from the harder job of 1 Peter 5:1 - 3 and the reward of 1 Peter 5:4.

I would suggest that our author/limper go to his pastor and forgive him for the hurt done, bringing if possible the 'witness' and watch how God is glorified. Not easy but worth it.

I suppose that was a nickels worth....

__________________

He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent. - Augustine

Kent McCune
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 23
my nickel's worth

I'm late to this thread, but I do have a few points to make:

1 -- Although we seem to have a lot of specific information in this story, everyone should remember that we have only heard one side of that story. I think some of the condemnations of the church/pastor in this thread are more decisive than our level of information would warrant. I'm not impugning C.L.'s integrity at all (I don't know enough about all the facts to do so). I'm just saying that I've lived life long enough to know that nothing is ever as "cut & dried" as it seems when hearing only one side of a bad situation.

2 -- I agree with Duane Braswell. C.L. should have been removed immediately from his leadership position. The pastor was correct in doing so.

3 -- Although we could fault the pastor's handling of this situation (if we accept the one-sided information at face value -- see disclaimer above), we need to keep in mind that he did allow C.L. to stay in the church, and C.L. seems ultimately to have experienced healing and some level of restoration there. There are many autocratical, controlling IFBx-type pastors who would never have allowed that.

4 -- I appreciate Aaron's concern for the whole as well as the individual. His comments are both balanced and pastoral.

Interesting discussion.

__________________

Kent McCune

I Peter 4:11

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
Kent McCune wrote: 2 -- I
Kent McCune wrote:

2 -- I agree with Duane Braswell. C.L. should have been removed immediately from his leadership position. The pastor was correct in doing so.

Before he talked with C.L.? How did he KNOW it was him? How would removing him before hearing the matter square up with Prov. 18:13, 15, 17?

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

Kent McCune
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 23
Jamie Hart wrote: Kent
Jamie Hart wrote:
Kent McCune wrote:

2 -- I agree with Duane Braswell. C.L. should have been removed immediately from his leadership position. The pastor was correct in doing so.

Before he talked with C.L.? How did he KNOW it was him? How would removing him before hearing the matter square up with Prov. 18:13, 15, 17?

Again, we only know one side of the facts in terms of the timeline of events. We do not know what incremental verification, if any, was done by the pastor and deacons during the month between the event and the confrontation. You're assuming more than the facts tell us about what the church leadership did or did not know definitively at the time of the confrontation. Since by C.L.'s own admission his struggle with pornography was a recurring problem, it's very possible the pastor and deacons could have verified the veracity of the original accusation during that month timespan.

Also, given the public nature of C.L.'s ministry in the corporate worship of that church, I don't have a real problem with the pastor and deacons being prepared to act decisively in the meeting. That seems only prudent to me. They needed to be decisive on that one point (removing him from public ministry) in order to protect the flock.

__________________

Kent McCune

I Peter 4:11

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1087
Hmmmm....it appears the

Hmmmm....it appears the Pastor here (properly or improperly) is "enforcing boundaries"...but nah...that couldn't be part of his responsibility.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

Greg Long
Greg Long's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 518
Sorry, Kent, I'm with Jamie

Sorry, Kent, I'm with Jamie on this one. I can't envision any scenario in which it would not be more prudent and more biblical to meet privately with an individual (by "privately" I do not necessarily mean "one-on-one", but rather with a few individuals) rather than in the manner that was reported.

__________________

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Rev Karl
Rev Karl's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 173
To Remove or Not To Remove: there is no question.
Kent McCune wrote:

2 -- I agree with Duane Braswell. C.L. should have been removed immediately from his leadership position. The pastor was correct in doing so.

It appears that C.L. *also* agrees with Duane Braswell. (From Post #42)

Aaron Blumer wrote:

The author asked me to pass on a few of his observations regarding the discussion.
They appear below verbatim.

::SNIP::
On the question of whether I believe I should have been fired, the answer is yes. I believe I was disqualified from the ministry because of my sin.

Clarification: I was not an elder or deacon. I was the minister of music only–though I don't believe that makes much difference.

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
From hind-sight...

I understand we don't have all the facts...but IMO I can't imagine any unknown facts that would releave the pastor from checking out the full story before he acted. Can you?

The question isn't "was the pastor right from removing him from the position" as much as it is "was the situation handled biblically?" From hind-sight, we know he was guilty and he needed to be set aside. But that's from hind-sight...

Play the same scenario out with C.L. being innocent. He comes into the meeting and he's being set aside from ministry...but the limping man at the porn store wasn't him. He's innocent and due to someone's mistaken identification, a pastor's leaping to conclusions without finding out all the facts, and now gossip and slander, the man's reputation and ministry are greatly compromised if not completely destroyed. And all of that could have been avoided if the pastor took the steps to find out the facts first.

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

Kent McCune
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 23
Greg Long wrote: Sorry, Kent,
Greg Long wrote:

Sorry, Kent, I'm with Jamie on this one. I can't envision any scenario in which it would not be more prudent and more biblical to meet privately with an individual (by "privately" I do not necessarily mean "one-on-one", but rather with a few individuals) rather than in the manner that was reported.

Well, Greg, to be a little picky here, Jamie's comment to me didn't really get into the size of the audience during the confrontation, just whether or not the pastor and deacons should have already determined to remove C.L. from leadership prior to the confrontation. If the facts and timeline are what has been reported, I would agree that a smaller confrontation should have been done first.

__________________

Kent McCune

I Peter 4:11

Kent McCune
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 23
Jamie Hart wrote: I
Jamie Hart wrote:

I understand we don't have all the facts...but IMO I can't imagine any unknown facts that would releave the pastor from checking out the full story before he acted. Can you?

The question isn't "was the pastor right from removing him from the position" as much as it is "was the situation handled biblically?" From hind-sight, we know he was guilty and he needed to be set aside. But that's from hind-sight...

Play the same scenario out with C.L. being innocent. He comes into the meeting and he's being set aside from ministry...but the limping man at the porn store wasn't him. He's innocent and due to someone's mistaken identification, a pastor's leaping to conclusions without finding out all the facts, and now gossip and slander, the man's reputation and ministry are greatly compromised if not completely destroyed. And all of that could have been avoided if the pastor took the steps to find out the facts first.

Again, you are assuming more than the facts of the story represent. You are assuming as fact that the pastor did not know the real truth until C.L. confirmed it at the time of the confrontation. As I said before, there was a month between the reported event and the confrontation. How do you know the pastor had not already verified the story during that month? You don't, and I don't; therefore we can't infer the pastor's ignorance of the truth before the meeting.

C.L. only said that the pastor read from a prepared statement which began with "it has come to our attention that you have visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address" and ended with "you will resign during the Sunday night service this weekend." We don't know what the rest of that prepared statement said. It could have said "and we have personally witnessed your attendance at said establishment on such-and-such dates."

All I'm saying is until the pastor and/or some of the deacons post their side of the story on SI, we will not have the complete picture of all that happened. And, therefore, we should be careful about how decisively we censure the pastor for his actions or lack of them.

__________________

Kent McCune

I Peter 4:11

Rev Karl
Rev Karl's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 173
Safe in the fold
Alex Guggenheim wrote:

Hmmmm....it appears the Pastor here (properly or improperly) is "enforcing boundaries"...but nah...that couldn't be part of his responsibility.

Brother Alex,

I agree that boundaries are critical to the purity of the Body of Christ. I believe they must be observed, never ignored, and zealously guarded by God's people.

When the Good Shepherd went out to find the one lost sheep, he made sure that the 99 other sheep were safe insite the boundaries of the fold.

That said: the Good Shepherd did go out to bring the lost sheep (erring believer?) back into the fold.

Paul told the Ephesians to speak the truth in love. (Ephesians 4:15)

He told the Galatians that they were to restore a brother overtake in a fault. (Galatians 6:1) Yes, establish the boundary, remove a person from a position from which he has disqualified himself, but restore him to faith and fellowship.

I keep on coming back to John 13:35. It does not say "By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, that he have established and enforced the boundaries of spiritual purity."

OK, we have here only one side of the story. I surely would have liked to have heard from the mouth (keyboard?) of this pastor what he did to stand with C.L. in the process of restoration. According to the account, restoration occured, but the pastor was not involved. If that is not an accurate account, then C.L. will be responsible one day to the Lord. If it is an accurate account, it sounds as if the un-named pastor will have some things of which to give acount to the Lord, as well.

John 13:35  By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

This verse is still in the Bible, and must be applied with equal force as the passages on boundaries, sanctification, and approriate church discipline.

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1087
Karl, My comment was not an

Karl,

My comment was not an evaluation of the process, just a reference to another thread where a few personalities that seemed to strongly oppose the idea of "keeping or enforcing boundaries" as a proper duty of the Pastor, now sing another tune here, it was tongue-in-cheek.

As to your comment, I agree that we only know one side but to reject the side we are hearing would be an unwarranted impugning of the author's words. So I agree with you, to proceed with caution. If what has been related be true, and we can only in good conscience believe no other way without other evidence, the poor chap involved in the incident was mangled in the process.

Why he stayed when he felt betrayed in some way by the Pastor is a question I have. Maybe he is giving something in retrospect that only came to his mind after some years, hence at the time he was vulnerable.

Yes, the Shepherd is to care for all God's sheep, those with broken legs, those who have drank at poison wells and those who have not.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

Rick Franklin
Rick Franklin's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 34
I sit corrected
A. Carpenter wrote:

Why do you think 1 Timothy 5:1 refers to the biblical office of elder and not simply an older man? And Timothy was told that instead of rebuking him, he might exhort (the meaning of the word can range from "comfort" to "command") him. Surely that could have been done.

That was an error on my part. Thanks for exhorting me. Smile

I had focused on those first four words and missed the rest of the verse. I also assumed, incorrectly, that the term "elder", when used as a noun, always referred to a pastor/shepherd.

__________________

Rick Franklin

Gresham, Oregon
Romans 8:38-39

Rick Franklin
Rick Franklin's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 34
Another member raise the issue
Mike Durning wrote:

Rick,

I'm not sure C.L. should have been the one to say something. Maybe one of the other church leaders should have. I'm going to guess this church is not elder led. In that case, I would have hoped another pastoral staffer or a deacon would make the observation to the pastor respectfully. I don't think I Tim. 5:1 requires the deacons to be "Stepford Deacons".

If the church had the kind of culture where the pastor is unapproachable, we have serious problems in every area.

Mike

Yes, the pastor would certainly have received admonition on the issue of his handling of C.L.'s dismissal if it had been raised by someone other than C.L. I suppose many of us have seen churches with unapproachable pastors and Stepford Deacons, and it's clearly not a situation that honors Scriptural principles.

__________________

Rick Franklin

Gresham, Oregon
Romans 8:38-39

Aaron Blumer
Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
UserEditorAdmin
Joined: Mon, Jun 1 2009
Posts: 5382
Siding
Jamie Hart wrote:

So let me word the question a little differently...would siding with these families be an option you would consider? If so, why?

Catching up a bit here. I can't think of any reason why I'd side with the objecting families. I'm not even sure I'd require all the safeguards that were described in the hypothetical situation... but certainly would take some serious precautions.

A.C. Caincross
A.C. Caincross's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 4 2009
Posts: 2
What About This?

Has CL ever gone privately to the pastor to confront him about how he handled this situation or did he just post it all over SI first?

__________________

I am who I am solely by the amazing grace of my God.

Rick Franklin
Rick Franklin's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 34
C.L. hasn't discussed the issue with the pastor
A.C. Caincross wrote:

Has CL ever gone privately to the pastor to confront him about how he handled this situation or did he just post it all over SI first?

C.L. in Comment # 46 by Aaron Blumer wrote:

As far as going to that pastor and discussing all this, last I knew he was in poor health in a nursing home and I've moved many miles away. To be honest, even if that was not the case, I'm not sure I'd have the courage to meet him. Maybe writing this article without taking that step first is wrong–that's valid feedback. That is something I need to consider.

__________________

Rick Franklin

Gresham, Oregon
Romans 8:38-39

A.C. Caincross
A.C. Caincross's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 4 2009
Posts: 2
Oops

I guess I stopped reading at about that point and missed those comments...thanks!

__________________

I am who I am solely by the amazing grace of my God.

Rev Karl
Rev Karl's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 173
Shutting up now...
Alex Guggenheim wrote:

Karl,

My comment was not an evaluation of the process, just a reference to another thread where a few personalities that seemed to strongly oppose the idea of "keeping or enforcing boundaries" as a proper duty of the Pastor, now sing another tune here, it was tongue-in-cheek.

Please accept my apology. I completely missed the connotation: one of the challenges of fellowshipping in this way. It looks like you and I are in agreement on this issue.

I think I'll just sit back an lurk for a while... Oops

Jamie Hart
Jamie Hart's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 92
Catching up...
Aaron Blumer wrote:
Jamie Hart wrote:

So let me word the question a little differently...would siding with these families be an option you would consider? If so, why?

Catching up a bit here. I can't think of any reason why I'd side with the objecting families. I'm not even sure I'd require all the safeguards that were described in the hypothetical situation... but certainly would take some serious precautions.

Great...thanks for the clarification. Situations like these are not easy...however they are also not uncommon! It's been a good discussion.

Kent McCune wrote:

Again, you are assuming more than the facts of the story represent. You are assuming as fact that the pastor did not know the real truth until C.L. confirmed it at the time of the confrontation. As I said before, there was a month between the reported event and the confrontation. How do you know the pastor had not already verified the story during that month? You don't, and I don't; therefore we can't infer the pastor's ignorance of the truth before the meeting.

I understand your point. We don't know the full story.
Here's my point...failing to talk to the accused before taking action is hasty and unbiblical, IMO. I can't imagine a scenario that would warrant such decisive action without first verifying the facts. The best case scenario would be for the pastor to encourage the concerned brother to talk to C.L. If he was unable or unwilling, the pastor should offer to go with him. If that still wasn't an option, the pastor should at least have as private a conversation as possible with him. Once the facts are verified...then act.

A.C. Caincross wrote:

Has CL ever gone privately to the pastor to confront him about how he handled this situation or did he just post it all over SI first?

Since actual names, places, etc. were not mentioned, I don't see a problem with this being posted on SI. It has generated some very helpful discussion about how to biblically handle these situations.

__________________

Senior Pastor
Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN

Alex Guggenheim
Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 1087
Rev Karl wrote: Alex
Rev Karl wrote:
Alex Guggenheim wrote:

Karl,

My comment was not an evaluation of the process, just a reference to another thread where a few personalities that seemed to strongly oppose the idea of "keeping or enforcing boundaries" as a proper duty of the Pastor, now sing another tune here, it was tongue-in-cheek.

Please accept my apology. I completely missed the connotation: one of the challenges of fellowshipping in this way. It looks like you and I are in agreement on this issue.

I think I'll just sit back an lurk for a while... Oops

No problem Karl and I don't see that you did anything wrong, but your earnestness is appreciated. When I make singular comments or tongue-in-cheek ones as I did, I (or anyone doing so) must accept that I might be misunderstood and if so, it is still my fault until I clarify. Your thoughts on the topic are well stated and appreciated.

__________________

My blog:

http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/

Duane Braswell
Duane Braswell's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 25 2009
Posts: 19
Kent McCune wrote: Jamie
Kent McCune wrote:
Jamie Hart wrote:

I understand we don't have all the facts...but IMO I can't imagine any unknown facts that would releave the pastor from checking out the full story before he acted. Can you?

The question isn't "was the pastor right from removing him from the position" as much as it is "was the situation handled biblically?" From hind-sight, we know he was guilty and he needed to be set aside. But that's from hind-sight...

Play the same scenario out with C.L. being innocent. He comes into the meeting and he's being set aside from ministry...but the limping man at the porn store wasn't him. He's innocent and due to someone's mistaken identification, a pastor's leaping to conclusions without finding out all the facts, and now gossip and slander, the man's reputation and ministry are greatly compromised if not completely destroyed. And all of that could have been avoided if the pastor took the steps to find out the facts first.

Again, you are assuming more than the facts of the story represent. You are assuming as fact that the pastor did not know the real truth until C.L. confirmed it at the time of the confrontation. As I said before, there was a month between the reported event and the confrontation. How do you know the pastor had not already verified the story during that month? You don't, and I don't; therefore we can't infer the pastor's ignorance of the truth before the meeting.

C.L. only said that the pastor read from a prepared statement which began with "it has come to our attention that you have visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address" and ended with "you will resign during the Sunday night service this weekend." We don't know what the rest of that prepared statement said. It could have said "and we have personally witnessed your attendance at said establishment on such-and-such dates."

All I'm saying is until the pastor and/or some of the deacons post their side of the story on SI, we will not have the complete picture of all that happened. And, therefore, we should be careful about how decisively we censure the pastor for his actions or lack of them.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Far to many will cast stones at a pastor, and anyone for that matter, without ever hearing their side of the story. I think that Psalm 39 gives us a picture of David doing that very thing. I love the contrast between verse 3 and 4. He held and held it until he could hold it no longer.... then... He prays that God would let him know when he would die. The humility flows at that point. I think... again, just my reading of it, ... he got more of the story and regretted opening his mouth. I am not sure I have ever felt as close to David as I do, I know that feeling for certain.

That there was more in the letter actually eluded me, great catch and point.

Yet, we do have enough information to discuss this 'hypothetical' situation. It is far better to have a pre-med practice on the dead then the living. We did get updates that make it clear the Pastor DID verify the scenario. Our witness was asked to spy on the man. according to CL it was something he disliked greatly. My concern follows the whole Matt 18 context. So much was said did the pastor correctly apply it, and clearly he did not. The argument can, and perhaps should be, made that it was not a Matthew 18 issue. I would think though that any man who took on a ministry and continued to live, or began after a physical injury, a double life of sin and ministry, both quite public, that man personally broke the trust of the pastor. I agree with several there is NO scenario where the man should not have been personally confronted, AND no scenario where the man should not have been removed.

A C Caincross asked about confronting the pastor before he wrote. I agree with Jamie, there has been no inditing statements here, just a thought provoking scenario. Yet as I mentioned before, if we are to honestly follow Matt 18 C.L. needs to go and confront this pastor. In love, with respect of his position, (or the one that he had at the time, he is retired in a nursing home) and offer forgiveness. In all likelihood it has passed out of this ex-pastor's memory and is only preventing CL from fellowship with the Father. If it still pulls on the pastor, (and it might, there is no statutes of limitations on the Holy Spirit) He would love the opportunity to ask for forgiveness.

Actually, since I have read this I have been praying for CL to do that very thing, that he might again be free from the prison God freed him of, and also that he is freed from that public sin of pornography and back ministering with his music talents. I mean, guys, it is not a made up scenario, we are operating on a live person here.

off the soap box.

__________________

He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent. - Augustine

J Thomas
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Sep 24 2009
Posts: 5
Disqualification

So is this individual permanently disqualified from ministry? What if he had been the pastor? Many have said yes or no to this question, but not much reasoning or Biblical support has been given for or against disqualification.

Duane Braswell
Duane Braswell's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Thu, Jun 25 2009
Posts: 19
J Thomas wrote: So is this
J Thomas wrote:

So is this individual permanently disqualified from ministry? What if he had been the pastor? Many have said yes or no to this question, but not much reasoning or Biblical support has been given for or against disqualification.

I would disagree that there has been not much biblical support for disqualification. I looked back up and saw that 1 Cor 5 was mentioned. Although, perhaps there is no connotation of permanent disqualification. Also mentioned were Gal 6:1 as disqualifying. I used 1 Tim 3:7 and 1 Peter 4:15 and found those two to suffice. Also I saw 2 Sam 12:14 gives indication that causing God’s name to be scorned might end up a permanent disqualification. It is at least VERY significant.

I did not see 1 Cor 9:27 yet this sin clearly seems to be in violation and disqualifies.

Brother Durning in post number 41 does bring up the one woman man and such a public display of wanting more than the one woman God has/will provide again disqualifies. (please, I hope this does not go into a detail discussion on this specific. nor do I want anyone to come from that excellent post with only a disqualification seen.)

You asked What if he had been the pastor?

If he had been a pastor 1 Tim 5:19 was mentioned properly applied. As was 1 Tim 3:1 - 6 with notes later that this does not require ‘sinless’ rather ‘blameless’ as in the mans testimony. That might not make it permanent, but it surely comes close. How many years of living right would wash away the stain of visiting public pornography locations AS a pastor? Will someone not say, “Are we not putting a man 'with a limp' back into temptation?” Would that not be a fair question and concern for the brother? Would the slur "Pastor Pornography" from the lost ever be consider 'good report' of 1 Tim 3:7?

Where as we do see Peter restored his sin was one of faith and out of fear and self preservation in the face of persecution. Public pornography visitation does not quite fall under that area. (Sorry to the previous post, I do not see Paul's upbraiding of Peter, and Barnabas for that matter, as a disqualifying matter.) In contrast we see Achan put to death for his sin, of which he repented (Joshua 7:20), David punished for Bathsheba and numbering his fighters. (1 Sam 12; 2 kings 19) Perhaps Elijah is an example of where he was broken and then replaced by Elisha, but only perhaps.

It does lead to my response to what I felt is at the heart of these question.

Is it possible that a man could become a pastor again later in his life after being disqualified?

Perhaps. I am a strong supporter of Rom 14:4 and 1 Cor 4:3 - 5. I am also a believer in the leading of the Holy Spirit in the Church regarding the prayers over selecting a pastor.

But...

how he will get past Ephesians 4:27? It is enough of a foothold to keep men from political office, should the standard for our pastors be less stringent? Should one not consider 1 Cor 6:12? Yes he could be a pastor again, but would it be helpful? Also James 3:1 makes it clear that we should weigh heavily the role of 'teacher' of God's people.

Yet with the idea of restoring one to ministry I, and I think most here, say,

"YES, absolutely!"

What a great skill this man has to be able to lead singing. Why should this talent be forever taken from the church? What an opportunity to mentor and shepherd the fleeting few who also frequent such locales! (please read that 'fleeting few' part with tearful sarcasm.) This man, once restored, had he been a full time pastor or simply a pew sitter, has a ministry open to him that we so desperately need filled. One that DOES NOT need to be the pastor to fill and one that he will fervently enjoy. Luke 7:41 - 43.

So in my understanding, he has been disqualified from the office of a bishop. I do not see any doubt to that in scripture. I do not see a way to bring him back to that office, but will leave that there are some scenarios available, albeit none in scripture. Yet once restored, he is restored to ministry. I even think it does well to show men that there are consequences to our actions and that even then God is glorified by using the weak to befuddle the wise.

__________________

He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent. - Augustine