Limping Forward

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.

Discussion

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

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
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!

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.

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.

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.

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

[rogercarlson] 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.

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.

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

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

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.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer] 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.

[Aaron Blumer]

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.

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.

[A. Carpenter]…

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.

“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.