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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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]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.
So, to me, that’s an important dividing line… is it a private sin or a public one?
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.
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
[A. Carpenter]…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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.”
[A. Carpenter] 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony] irony .
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.
[Red Phillips] “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 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’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’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.;)
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.
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.
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: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
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’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) …
If you strip off the first six paragraphs and begin with this (brackets note alteration) …
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
Moreover if your brother sins against youThe sin was not against the one who recognized him, but against the whole church! I rather see that I Tim 5:19 applies.
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:
Now responding to this section:
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.
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!)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
[Aaron Blumer][A. Carpenter]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.
Edit: about opening line again… I’m surprised to see anyone react so strongly to that. Maybe this would help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony] irony .
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.
[Charlie]…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.
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.
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] 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.Comments:
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.
- 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”
[Pastor Joe Roof] 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.
[Jim Peet] Comments: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 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”
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] 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.
[Jim Peet]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.[Susan R] 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 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]…. 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!
[Jim Peet]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.
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!
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: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Jim Peet]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.)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 issueMoreover if your brother sins against youThe sin was not against the one who recognized him, but against the whole church! I rather see that I Tim 5:19 applies.
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
[Jim Peet]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.[Susan R] 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.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
The author himself verified it
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.
[Jim Peet]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?[Susan R]…. 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!
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
[Jim Peet] The author himself verified itNo, 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.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.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
[MShep2]Yeah…I have to agree with this.[Jim Peet] The author himself verified itNo, 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.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.
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
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.
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.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
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.
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.
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.
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.
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] 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.Wow. So much for ‘shepherding the flock of God’.
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.
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.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Right on Durning!
jt
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;
[Mike Durning] 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.Great post, Mike! Thanks for the well thought out response.
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.
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
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.
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.
[Mike Durning] 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.
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] 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.Aaron,
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.
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
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.
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
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
Discussion