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.
[Rick Franklin] 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.Why do you think 1 Timothy 5:1 refers to the biblical office of elder and not simply an older man? And Timothy was told that instead of rebuking him, he might exhort (the meaning of the word can range from “comfort” to “command”) him. Surely that could have been done.
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.
Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.
[Mike Durning] 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?Well, I wasn’t really talking about “build the ministry” in an abstract way (people often use that kind of terminology for “build programs and increase numbers”). What I mean is that Christ called us to shepherd the entire flock and that sometimes creates a tension with individual needs. So I’d be more inclined to put the tension in terms of “protecting the people” vs. “protecting an individual.”
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?
In the case at hand, the pastor’s actions didn’t actually protect the flock at the expense of an individual ‘sheep,’ because his way of handling it hurt both. My point there was that—to put in the best light I can think of—he may have been thinking of the impact on the flock as a whole and got very clumsy about dealing w/the individual sheep.
But the tension between sheep and flock (or “member” and “body”) is real. Often what seems to serve an individual is not in the best interest of the flock and vice versa. It’s probably easiest to illustrate this with “policy.” … and I’ll use a real life example. Our church has a rule in its constitution that requires you be a member for a full year before you can run for one of the elected offices. Last year, that prevented a family from being involved at that level because—though they’d been attending for more than a year—they hadn’t been “members” a full year yet. So what the deacons and I wrestled with included the matter of what’s best for family A vs. what’s best for the body. What I really wanted to do was wink and pretend the rule didn’t exist… or have it thrown out.
But the rule is a sensible one when you look at the big picture. It just seems silly and even counter-productive when you look at individual cases. Alot of things are like that. But where the two meet is that the kind of place that is formed by the “rule” over time ultimately serves the individuals better as well. My example may not be a very good one, but there are policies that serve individual needs better by improving the quality of the whole of which they are a part.
I don’t know if that helps explain what I mean any better or not.
But we’re agreed that in this case the pastor served neither the needs of the flock nor the needs of the individual very well.
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.
This thread is starting to remind me of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. :)
I also saw the pastor’s actions as tending more toward damage control than real shepherding, but it certainly is a common human failing to think more about public perception than about what truly benefits the people, whether it is the needs of the few or the one, or the needs of the many.
I also saw the pastor’s actions as tending more toward damage control than real shepherding, but it certainly is a common human failing to think more about public perception than about what truly benefits the people, whether it is the needs of the few or the one, or the needs of the many.
[Rick Franklin] 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.Rick,
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.
I’m not sure C.L. should have been the one to say something. Maybe one of the other church leaders should have. I’m going to guess this church is not elder led. In that case, I would have hoped another pastoral staffer or a deacon would make the observation to the pastor respectfully. I don’t think I Tim. 5:1 requires the deacons to be “Stepford Deacons”.
If the church had the kind of culture where the pastor is unapproachable, we have serious problems in every area.
Mike
[Susan R] This thread is starting to remind me of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. :)I get it. I’m arguing “The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many”. And Aaron is arguing “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.”
I also saw the pastor’s actions as tending more toward damage control than real shepherding, but it certainly is a common human failing to think more about public perception than about what truly benefits the people, whether it is the needs of the few or the one, or the needs of the many.
Aaron, I’ll meet you on Mount Seleyah and we’ll fight it out. Bring your Spock ears and your lirpa! Susan R can play the Lyrrette while we joust.
Oops, my Trekker status is showing.
[Aaron Blumer] Well, I wasn’t really talking about “build the ministry” in an abstract way (people often use that kind of terminology for “build programs and increase numbers”). What I mean is that Christ called us to shepherd the entire flock and that sometimes creates a tension with individual needs. So I’d be more inclined to put the tension in terms of “protecting the people” vs. “protecting an individual.”Aaron,
In the case at hand, the pastor’s actions didn’t actually protect the flock at the expense of an individual ‘sheep,’ because his way of handling it hurt both. My point there was that—to put in the best light I can think of—he may have been thinking of the impact on the flock as a whole and got very clumsy about dealing w/the individual sheep.
I get your points (and I’m not talking about the Spock ears). I guess what I’m trying to say boils down to this: The heart of the pastor ought to ache for those who are hurting in his flock — whether they know they are injured and lamed or not. And that ought to drive the ORDER in which such events are addressed, and influence the MANNER.
As for the many vs. the one, a few more illustrations will suffice:
Mr. Hypothetical comes to your church. He talks to you afterward. He is a convicted Child Molester but one who has since found Christ, found much counseling, repented, etc. He wants to attend your church. You set firm limits: He attends only main services. He meets a Deacon in the parking lot, is accompanied into church and out again. If he goes to the restroom, he is accompanied. No contact with children is allowed. No other attendance is allowed. You explain the situation and the rules to the congregation. A few days later, you’re presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: “The former molester goes, or we go.” Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the man with the past?
Don’t be too fast to answer, because here’s one I heard decades ago from a Southern pastor:
A black man comes to your church. He talks to you afterward. He wants to attend your all-white church. A few days later, you’re presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: “The black man goes, or we go.” Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the black man?
The man who told me this story said he’d choose the 4 families. I would show them the door.
I know the two situations are different, but are they that different?
A person who wants to be in the Lord’s House to worship should be welcome (even if there are limits due to a particular sin on the part of the molester). I’m sure Jesus would have found a way to welcome both.
I know we’re a long way from the story of our ex-music minister, but this is about the whole “many or one” thing we’ve been tossing back and forth.
First, I should clarify that my view is not that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Rather, my view is that there is often tension between the two and also, at times, the needs of the one are actually best served by meeting the needs of the many. So, I think tension between what one member needs and what the body needs is not unusual, but often their needs are not really in conflict if we give the whole scenario enough time to work out. A healthier body is a better place for all the individuals that are in it.
For the case of Mr. H. the child molester, it’s not clear that the needs of the many are being expressed by the four families. The desires, yes. Different matter. I can’t say for sure how I’d handle that beyond trying to persuade the four families to rethink it.
Actually, knowing my nature in these situations, I do know what my first response would be—privately I’d dig my heels in and think “There is no way you’re going to threaten me into acting a certain way.” I tend to be stubborn that way. But after I calmed down a while, I hope I’d be more conciliatory and try to win them over. Failing that… well, let’s just say I hope that’s a bridge I don’t have to cross any time soon!
Edit: I do think it’s relevant to the thread because I think you’re right, Mike that pastors often go astray in handling tricky situations by not properly valuing the individual… which clearly happened in this case.
For the case of Mr. H. the child molester, it’s not clear that the needs of the many are being expressed by the four families. The desires, yes. Different matter. I can’t say for sure how I’d handle that beyond trying to persuade the four families to rethink it.
Actually, knowing my nature in these situations, I do know what my first response would be—privately I’d dig my heels in and think “There is no way you’re going to threaten me into acting a certain way.” I tend to be stubborn that way. But after I calmed down a while, I hope I’d be more conciliatory and try to win them over. Failing that… well, let’s just say I hope that’s a bridge I don’t have to cross any time soon!
Edit: I do think it’s relevant to the thread because I think you’re right, Mike that pastors often go astray in handling tricky situations by not properly valuing the individual… which clearly happened in this case.
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.
[Mike Durning]And my honor and respect for you continues to grow…that’s some hard core trek knowledge! What a man![Susan R] This thread is starting to remind me of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. :)I get it. I’m arguing “The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many”. And Aaron is arguing “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.”
I also saw the pastor’s actions as tending more toward damage control than real shepherding, but it certainly is a common human failing to think more about public perception than about what truly benefits the people, whether it is the needs of the few or the one, or the needs of the many.
Aaron, I’ll meet you on Mount Seleyah and we’ll fight it out. Bring your Spock ears and your lirpa! Susan R can play the Lyrrette while we joust.
Oops, my Trekker status is showing.
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
[Aaron Blumer] But after I calmed down a while, I hope I’d be more conciliatory and try to win them over. Failing that… well, let’s just say I hope that’s a bridge I don’t have to cross any time soon!Aaron…help me out with this. Are you saying you might consider siding with the families and asking Mr. H or the black man to leave the church? You make it sound like this would be a difficult thing…what makes this difficult to you?
If you used God’s word in a lovingly but serious manner and you have sought to teach these families biblical principles…and they refuse to accept it and they refuse to change…what else can you do? And, IMO, the ministry of the church as a whole may be better served with their departure…even if they were the majority of the church! This is certainly much more difficult in the Mr. H scenario…the family is probably very concerned with the safety of their children…but even their need for that can’t become more important than God’s numerous commands to be forgiving. In the case of the black man…I find very little room for understanding their prejudice. Although their upbringing has certainly molded this line of thinking deep into their minds, all that needs to change when you understand God’s Word on the subject (Acts. 17:26; Eph. 2).
It would be painful to see them go…and it would have implications on the church body…but is the body really better served by us allowing and even perpetuating unbiblical thinking?
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
[Jamie Hart] You make it sound like this would be a difficult thing…what makes this difficult to you?You pretty much answered that in the rest of your post. :)
One, it’s always difficult to see anyone leave. Two, in our case four families would be about a third of our church. Three, the people in the four families are individuals I want to help also, and when they stay you can teach them. When they leave you can’t. So, yes, difficult. I think it only looks easy when it’s hypothetical and doesn’t too closely resemble situations you’ve actually faced. I’ve been just close enough to that to be able to half-imagine how hard it might be in reality.
I’d try very hard to keep everybody, it’s the best case scenario. So if they couldn’t be won over listening to me, I’d probably try to recruit someone they might find more persuasive and see if they’d agree to meet with him. If there’s another pastor who has been through assimilating a believer like Mr. H, his help would be priceless.
These are the kinds of things I pray for the courage to handle rightly… I’m not an especially courageous guy.
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’m not an especially courageous guy.And I’m often too quick and harsh on my judgments. God’s showing me a lot lately about balancing truth and mercy (compare Prov. 3:3-4 to John 1:14…incredible).
I agree with you…it would be difficult…and trust me when I say I’ve been there. In our area, there are many, many church choices…and church hoppers! However, it has never been easy to see people leave…and I too try to do all I can. I didn’t communicate my question well.
So let me word the question a little differently…would siding with these families be an option you would consider? If so, why?
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
A few days later, you’re presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: “The former molester goes, or we go.” Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the man with the past?Wouldn’t these four families be subjects of church discipline for acting directly and openly contrary to the gospel? Hopefully they would repent of their ungodly and unforgiving attitudes before it came to that, but you never know.
I heard a message recently by someone that I can’t remember who pointed out that there is room in our church for the child molester who has repented but not room for the victim who harbors bitterness.
Living in bitterness and unforgiveness is as much a sin as molesting children. It looks a little more respectable to most, but slanders the gospel just as much. We need to take both of them very seriously. A family who would leave the church in this case is showing that they don’t understand the gospel. And that is very serious.
[Larry]For reasons I’m not going to go into, I really appreciate it. If only more pastors would preach this message. We so often categorize sins, but God doesn’t.A few days later, you’re presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: “The former molester goes, or we go.” Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the man with the past?Wouldn’t these four families be subjects of church discipline for acting directly and openly contrary to the gospel? Hopefully they would repent of their ungodly and unforgiving attitudes before it came to that, but you never know.
I heard a message recently by someone that I can’t remember who pointed out that there is room in our church for the child molester who has repented but not room for the victim who harbors bitterness.
Living in bitterness and unforgiveness is as much a sin as molesting children. It looks a little more respectable to most, but slanders the gospel just as much. We need to take both of them very seriously. A family who would leave the church in this case is showing that they don’t understand the gospel. And that is very serious.
[Larry]Though I agree with the sentiment (bitterness and an unforgiving heart are serious sins) is this an example when we would use church discipline? Their leaving may be public…their reasons are not. If we are going to discipline people out of the church for heart issues, what comes next? Lust, envy, pride…before long, you wouldn’t have a church!A few days later, you’re presented with an ultimatum by 4 families: “The former molester goes, or we go.” Do you sacrifice 4 families, or the man with the past?Wouldn’t these four families be subjects of church discipline for acting directly and openly contrary to the gospel? Hopefully they would repent of their ungodly and unforgiving attitudes before it came to that, but you never know.
I heard a message recently by someone that I can’t remember who pointed out that there is room in our church for the child molester who has repented but not room for the victim who harbors bitterness.
Living in bitterness and unforgiveness is as much a sin as molesting children. It looks a little more respectable to most, but slanders the gospel just as much. We need to take both of them very seriously. A family who would leave the church in this case is showing that they don’t understand the gospel. And that is very serious.
Good discussion (but maybe for another thread)…when do you practice church discipline? I have been taught that public sins are handled publicly. Others are handled as privately as possible…but I would love to hear some solid biblical teaching on the topic.
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
IMHO, there are a lot of pastors who have no idea how to handle such things.
I have heard a pastor recently say that say there should be the death penalty for sex offenders.
While I find such talk inexcusable, there is a whole generation that was told that the psychologists should handle this and they should stay out of it, so they have no idea what to do.
I was also in a counseling and restoration case such as this…because the offender’s own pastor would not touch it with a ten-foot pole. Even though the offender’s family was an integral part of the church, the pastor’s attitude was to just expel and move on. I was able to convince them not to expel the offender, and, by God’s grace, they have become an example of the power of God to cleanse and restore.
I had a good friend who was saved out of years of homosexuality and became a great trophy of God’s grace. We dare not become so hard-hearted and legalistic (and yes, in this sense we are a very legalistic society) that we do not believe God can work among sex offenders. How big is our God?
Praise God for men such as this who can stand and see God change their lives! Thanks for coming forward to be heard!
I have heard a pastor recently say that say there should be the death penalty for sex offenders.
While I find such talk inexcusable, there is a whole generation that was told that the psychologists should handle this and they should stay out of it, so they have no idea what to do.
I was also in a counseling and restoration case such as this…because the offender’s own pastor would not touch it with a ten-foot pole. Even though the offender’s family was an integral part of the church, the pastor’s attitude was to just expel and move on. I was able to convince them not to expel the offender, and, by God’s grace, they have become an example of the power of God to cleanse and restore.
I had a good friend who was saved out of years of homosexuality and became a great trophy of God’s grace. We dare not become so hard-hearted and legalistic (and yes, in this sense we are a very legalistic society) that we do not believe God can work among sex offenders. How big is our God?
Praise God for men such as this who can stand and see God change their lives! Thanks for coming forward to be heard!
Aaron, I do understand that there are times when the needs of the one can be well served by meeting the needs of the many in the right way. I don’t think this was one of them — and it seems you do not either.
But, going back to that theme, I talked to a few friends about this whole thing, and I thought I’d pass on a few things they said:
One friend commented that we should remember that the Good Shepherd leaves the 99 and goes seeking the one lost sheep. Wow! How’d I miss that!
Another commented that many passages emphasize the “when one of us hurts, we all hurt” principle. Heb. 13:3 came to my mind immediately.
In short, I’m sticking by my guns (though I’m not shooting anyone yet). Take care of the person. Build your church by building individuals in it. Don’t sacrifice individuals trying to build your church. For one thing, given sufficient time, you may lose or alienate everyone.
But, going back to that theme, I talked to a few friends about this whole thing, and I thought I’d pass on a few things they said:
One friend commented that we should remember that the Good Shepherd leaves the 99 and goes seeking the one lost sheep. Wow! How’d I miss that!
Another commented that many passages emphasize the “when one of us hurts, we all hurt” principle. Heb. 13:3 came to my mind immediately.
In short, I’m sticking by my guns (though I’m not shooting anyone yet). Take care of the person. Build your church by building individuals in it. Don’t sacrifice individuals trying to build your church. For one thing, given sufficient time, you may lose or alienate everyone.
I also was caught and upset by the ‘hook’ although I do see the ‘limp’ was his sin. A ‘limp’ many have and that has taken many out. My reasoning for his removal from the office of a bishop would not so much be the ‘sin’ as the fact he was not currently qualified in his family, in his self control, reputation. This last one 1 Tim 3:7 covers the reason to remove him. I agreed, it was handled with some want of skill and Christlikeness to say the least.
I am challenged by the responces and agreed with many of them, but saw an area in Matthew 18 I felt was missed… so here is my two cents:
Mat 18 did not apply to this event. (at first) It was not a personal offense, TOO many look only to Mat 18:15 - 17 and seem to forget the begining of the chapter, the hurting the least of God’s children. Breaking their trust, remember it all starts with whoever receives a little child versus whoever hurts that child of God. I did not see the writer of these events as having caused such damage to the pastor, and as he points out, the pastor did not seem to have restoration in mind.
I felt the pastor had used the tried and (not really) true method of disciplining a member. In the steps leading up to the confrontation the pastor ended up betraying our ‘limper.’ Not a small point, yet between equals, I felt (that was before the update.) It was a regrettable thing, but the man was disqualified, period, cold as it sounds and it becomes clear that he knew this through the updated information. Peter tells us when we are punished for what we are guilty of, where is the point of speaking out, those in the house of God should expect condemnation for their sins. 1 Peter 4:15 - 17.
I wanted to write to defend the member who told the pastor. I thought perhaps he told him asking for advise and not accusing. The accuser was the pastor, not the witness. BUT THEN when I heard/read the words, “I wish I had never told you.” and that the pastor had the man spy on the ‘limper.’ Here we have a true Mat 18 offense. The pastor received one who trusted him and then hurt/broke trust with the witness. He also betrayed the confidence of our ‘limper’ who he failed to restore.
This church lost not only our ‘limper’ but our ‘witness’ as well.
As a pastor, he had opportunity to follow James 5:20 and bring a sinner back, instead he shied away from the harder job of 1 Peter 5:1 - 3 and the reward of 1 Peter 5:4.
I would suggest that our author/limper go to his pastor and forgive him for the hurt done, bringing if possible the ‘witness’ and watch how God is glorified. Not easy but worth it.
I suppose that was a nickels worth….
I am challenged by the responces and agreed with many of them, but saw an area in Matthew 18 I felt was missed… so here is my two cents:
Mat 18 did not apply to this event. (at first) It was not a personal offense, TOO many look only to Mat 18:15 - 17 and seem to forget the begining of the chapter, the hurting the least of God’s children. Breaking their trust, remember it all starts with whoever receives a little child versus whoever hurts that child of God. I did not see the writer of these events as having caused such damage to the pastor, and as he points out, the pastor did not seem to have restoration in mind.
I felt the pastor had used the tried and (not really) true method of disciplining a member. In the steps leading up to the confrontation the pastor ended up betraying our ‘limper.’ Not a small point, yet between equals, I felt (that was before the update.) It was a regrettable thing, but the man was disqualified, period, cold as it sounds and it becomes clear that he knew this through the updated information. Peter tells us when we are punished for what we are guilty of, where is the point of speaking out, those in the house of God should expect condemnation for their sins. 1 Peter 4:15 - 17.
I wanted to write to defend the member who told the pastor. I thought perhaps he told him asking for advise and not accusing. The accuser was the pastor, not the witness. BUT THEN when I heard/read the words, “I wish I had never told you.” and that the pastor had the man spy on the ‘limper.’ Here we have a true Mat 18 offense. The pastor received one who trusted him and then hurt/broke trust with the witness. He also betrayed the confidence of our ‘limper’ who he failed to restore.
This church lost not only our ‘limper’ but our ‘witness’ as well.
As a pastor, he had opportunity to follow James 5:20 and bring a sinner back, instead he shied away from the harder job of 1 Peter 5:1 - 3 and the reward of 1 Peter 5:4.
I would suggest that our author/limper go to his pastor and forgive him for the hurt done, bringing if possible the ‘witness’ and watch how God is glorified. Not easy but worth it.
I suppose that was a nickels worth….
He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent. - Augustine
I’m late to this thread, but I do have a few points to make:
1 — Although we seem to have a lot of specific information in this story, everyone should remember that we have only heard one side of that story. I think some of the condemnations of the church/pastor in this thread are more decisive than our level of information would warrant. I’m not impugning C.L.’s integrity at all (I don’t know enough about all the facts to do so). I’m just saying that I’ve lived life long enough to know that nothing is ever as “cut & dried” as it seems when hearing only one side of a bad situation.
2 — I agree with Duane Braswell. C.L. should have been removed immediately from his leadership position. The pastor was correct in doing so.
3 — Although we could fault the pastor’s handling of this situation (if we accept the one-sided information at face value — see disclaimer above), we need to keep in mind that he did allow C.L. to stay in the church, and C.L. seems ultimately to have experienced healing and some level of restoration there. There are many autocratical, controlling IFBx-type pastors who would never have allowed that.
4 — I appreciate Aaron’s concern for the whole as well as the individual. His comments are both balanced and pastoral.
Interesting discussion.
1 — Although we seem to have a lot of specific information in this story, everyone should remember that we have only heard one side of that story. I think some of the condemnations of the church/pastor in this thread are more decisive than our level of information would warrant. I’m not impugning C.L.’s integrity at all (I don’t know enough about all the facts to do so). I’m just saying that I’ve lived life long enough to know that nothing is ever as “cut & dried” as it seems when hearing only one side of a bad situation.
2 — I agree with Duane Braswell. C.L. should have been removed immediately from his leadership position. The pastor was correct in doing so.
3 — Although we could fault the pastor’s handling of this situation (if we accept the one-sided information at face value — see disclaimer above), we need to keep in mind that he did allow C.L. to stay in the church, and C.L. seems ultimately to have experienced healing and some level of restoration there. There are many autocratical, controlling IFBx-type pastors who would never have allowed that.
4 — I appreciate Aaron’s concern for the whole as well as the individual. His comments are both balanced and pastoral.
Interesting discussion.
Kent McCune I Peter 4:11
[Kent McCune] 2 — I agree with Duane Braswell. C.L. should have been removed immediately from his leadership position. The pastor was correct in doing so.Before he talked with C.L.? How did he KNOW it was him? How would removing him before hearing the matter square up with Prov. 18:13, 15, 17?
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
[Jamie Hart]Again, we only know one side of the facts in terms of the timeline of events. We do not know what incremental verification, if any, was done by the pastor and deacons during the month between the event and the confrontation. You’re assuming more than the facts tell us about what the church leadership did or did not know definitively at the time of the confrontation. Since by C.L.’s own admission his struggle with pornography was a recurring problem, it’s very possible the pastor and deacons could have verified the veracity of the original accusation during that month timespan.[Kent McCune] 2 — I agree with Duane Braswell. C.L. should have been removed immediately from his leadership position. The pastor was correct in doing so.Before he talked with C.L.? How did he KNOW it was him? How would removing him before hearing the matter square up with Prov. 18:13, 15, 17?
Also, given the public nature of C.L.’s ministry in the corporate worship of that church, I don’t have a real problem with the pastor and deacons being prepared to act decisively in the meeting. That seems only prudent to me. They needed to be decisive on that one point (removing him from public ministry) in order to protect the flock.
Kent McCune I Peter 4:11
Hmmmm….it appears the Pastor here (properly or improperly) is “enforcing boundaries”…but nah…that couldn’t be part of his responsibility.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif
Sorry, Kent, I’m with Jamie on this one. I can’t envision any scenario in which it would not be more prudent and more biblical to meet privately with an individual (by “privately” I do not necessarily mean “one-on-one”, but rather with a few individuals) rather than in the manner that was reported.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Kent McCune] 2 — I agree with Duane Braswell. C.L. should have been removed immediately from his leadership position. The pastor was correct in doing so.It appears that C.L. *also* agrees with Duane Braswell. (From Post #42)
[Aaron Blumer] The author asked me to pass on a few of his observations regarding the discussion.
They appear below verbatim.
::SNIP::
On the question of whether I believe I should have been fired, the answer is yes. I believe I was disqualified from the ministry because of my sin.
Clarification: I was not an elder or deacon. I was the minister of music only–though I don’t believe that makes much difference.
I understand we don’t have all the facts…but IMO I can’t imagine any unknown facts that would releave the pastor from checking out the full story before he acted. Can you?
The question isn’t “was the pastor right from removing him from the position” as much as it is “was the situation handled biblically?” From hind-sight, we know he was guilty and he needed to be set aside. But that’s from hind-sight…
Play the same scenario out with C.L. being innocent. He comes into the meeting and he’s being set aside from ministry…but the limping man at the porn store wasn’t him. He’s innocent and due to someone’s mistaken identification, a pastor’s leaping to conclusions without finding out all the facts, and now gossip and slander, the man’s reputation and ministry are greatly compromised if not completely destroyed. And all of that could have been avoided if the pastor took the steps to find out the facts first.
The question isn’t “was the pastor right from removing him from the position” as much as it is “was the situation handled biblically?” From hind-sight, we know he was guilty and he needed to be set aside. But that’s from hind-sight…
Play the same scenario out with C.L. being innocent. He comes into the meeting and he’s being set aside from ministry…but the limping man at the porn store wasn’t him. He’s innocent and due to someone’s mistaken identification, a pastor’s leaping to conclusions without finding out all the facts, and now gossip and slander, the man’s reputation and ministry are greatly compromised if not completely destroyed. And all of that could have been avoided if the pastor took the steps to find out the facts first.
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
[Greg Long] Sorry, Kent, I’m with Jamie on this one. I can’t envision any scenario in which it would not be more prudent and more biblical to meet privately with an individual (by “privately” I do not necessarily mean “one-on-one”, but rather with a few individuals) rather than in the manner that was reported.Well, Greg, to be a little picky here, Jamie’s comment to me didn’t really get into the size of the audience during the confrontation, just whether or not the pastor and deacons should have already determined to remove C.L. from leadership prior to the confrontation. If the facts and timeline are what has been reported, I would agree that a smaller confrontation should have been done first.
Kent McCune I Peter 4:11
[Jamie Hart] I understand we don’t have all the facts…but IMO I can’t imagine any unknown facts that would releave the pastor from checking out the full story before he acted. Can you?Again, you are assuming more than the facts of the story represent. You are assuming as fact that the pastor did not know the real truth until C.L. confirmed it at the time of the confrontation. As I said before, there was a month between the reported event and the confrontation. How do you know the pastor had not already verified the story during that month? You don’t, and I don’t; therefore we can’t infer the pastor’s ignorance of the truth before the meeting.
The question isn’t “was the pastor right from removing him from the position” as much as it is “was the situation handled biblically?” From hind-sight, we know he was guilty and he needed to be set aside. But that’s from hind-sight…
Play the same scenario out with C.L. being innocent. He comes into the meeting and he’s being set aside from ministry…but the limping man at the porn store wasn’t him. He’s innocent and due to someone’s mistaken identification, a pastor’s leaping to conclusions without finding out all the facts, and now gossip and slander, the man’s reputation and ministry are greatly compromised if not completely destroyed. And all of that could have been avoided if the pastor took the steps to find out the facts first.
C.L. only said that the pastor read from a prepared statement which began with “it has come to our attention that you have visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address” and ended with “you will resign during the Sunday night service this weekend.” We don’t know what the rest of that prepared statement said. It could have said “and we have personally witnessed your attendance at said establishment on such-and-such dates.”
All I’m saying is until the pastor and/or some of the deacons post their side of the story on SI, we will not have the complete picture of all that happened. And, therefore, we should be careful about how decisively we censure the pastor for his actions or lack of them.
Kent McCune I Peter 4:11
[Alex Guggenheim] Hmmmm….it appears the Pastor here (properly or improperly) is “enforcing boundaries”…but nah…that couldn’t be part of his responsibility.Brother Alex,
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif
I agree that boundaries are critical to the purity of the Body of Christ. I believe they must be observed, never ignored, and zealously guarded by God’s people.
When the Good Shepherd went out to find the one lost sheep, he made sure that the 99 other sheep were safe insite the boundaries of the fold.
That said: the Good Shepherd did go out to bring the lost sheep (erring believer?) back into the fold.
Paul told the Ephesians to speak the truth in love. (Ephesians 4:15)
He told the Galatians that they were to restore a brother overtake in a fault. (Galatians 6:1) Yes, establish the boundary, remove a person from a position from which he has disqualified himself, but restore him to faith and fellowship.
I keep on coming back to John 13:35. It does not say “By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, that he have established and enforced the boundaries of spiritual purity.”
OK, we have here only one side of the story. I surely would have liked to have heard from the mouth (keyboard?) of this pastor what he did to stand with C.L. in the process of restoration. According to the account, restoration occured, but the pastor was not involved. If that is not an accurate account, then C.L. will be responsible one day to the Lord. If it is an accurate account, it sounds as if the un-named pastor will have some things of which to give acount to the Lord, as well.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
This verse is still in the Bible, and must be applied with equal force as the passages on boundaries, sanctification, and approriate church discipline.
Karl,
My comment was not an evaluation of the process, just a reference to another thread where a few personalities that seemed to strongly oppose the idea of “keeping or enforcing boundaries” as a proper duty of the Pastor, now sing another tune here, it was tongue-in-cheek.
As to your comment, I agree that we only know one side but to reject the side we are hearing would be an unwarranted impugning of the author’s words. So I agree with you, to proceed with caution. If what has been related be true, and we can only in good conscience believe no other way without other evidence, the poor chap involved in the incident was mangled in the process.
Why he stayed when he felt betrayed in some way by the Pastor is a question I have. Maybe he is giving something in retrospect that only came to his mind after some years, hence at the time he was vulnerable.
Yes, the Shepherd is to care for all God’s sheep, those with broken legs, those who have drank at poison wells and those who have not.
My comment was not an evaluation of the process, just a reference to another thread where a few personalities that seemed to strongly oppose the idea of “keeping or enforcing boundaries” as a proper duty of the Pastor, now sing another tune here, it was tongue-in-cheek.
As to your comment, I agree that we only know one side but to reject the side we are hearing would be an unwarranted impugning of the author’s words. So I agree with you, to proceed with caution. If what has been related be true, and we can only in good conscience believe no other way without other evidence, the poor chap involved in the incident was mangled in the process.
Why he stayed when he felt betrayed in some way by the Pastor is a question I have. Maybe he is giving something in retrospect that only came to his mind after some years, hence at the time he was vulnerable.
Yes, the Shepherd is to care for all God’s sheep, those with broken legs, those who have drank at poison wells and those who have not.
[A. Carpenter]That was an error on my part. Thanks for exhorting me. :)
Why do you think 1 Timothy 5:1 refers to the biblical office of elder and not simply an older man? And Timothy was told that instead of rebuking him, he might exhort (the meaning of the word can range from “comfort” to “command”) him. Surely that could have been done.
I had focused on those first four words and missed the rest of the verse. I also assumed, incorrectly, that the term “elder”, when used as a noun, always referred to a pastor/shepherd.
Rick Franklin Gresham, Oregon Romans 8:38-39
[Mike Durning]Yes, the pastor would certainly have received admonition on the issue of his handling of C.L.’s dismissal if it had been raised by someone other than C.L. I suppose many of us have seen churches with unapproachable pastors and Stepford Deacons, and it’s clearly not a situation that honors Scriptural principles.
Rick,
I’m not sure C.L. should have been the one to say something. Maybe one of the other church leaders should have. I’m going to guess this church is not elder led. In that case, I would have hoped another pastoral staffer or a deacon would make the observation to the pastor respectfully. I don’t think I Tim. 5:1 requires the deacons to be “Stepford Deacons”.
If the church had the kind of culture where the pastor is unapproachable, we have serious problems in every area.
Mike
Rick Franklin Gresham, Oregon Romans 8:38-39
[Jamie Hart] So let me word the question a little differently…would siding with these families be an option you would consider? If so, why?Catching up a bit here. I can’t think of any reason why I’d side with the objecting families. I’m not even sure I’d require all the safeguards that were described in the hypothetical situation… but certainly would take some serious precautions.
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.
Has CL ever gone privately to the pastor to confront him about how he handled this situation or did he just post it all over SI first?
I am who I am solely by the amazing grace of my God.
[A.C. Caincross] Has CL ever gone privately to the pastor to confront him about how he handled this situation or did he just post it all over SI first?
[C.L. in Comment # 46 by Aaron Blumer] As far as going to that pastor and discussing all this, last I knew he was in poor health in a nursing home and I’ve moved many miles away. To be honest, even if that was not the case, I’m not sure I’d have the courage to meet him. Maybe writing this article without taking that step first is wrong–that’s valid feedback. That is something I need to consider.
Rick Franklin Gresham, Oregon Romans 8:38-39
I guess I stopped reading at about that point and missed those comments…thanks!
I am who I am solely by the amazing grace of my God.
[Alex Guggenheim] Karl,Please accept my apology. I completely missed the connotation: one of the challenges of fellowshipping in this way. It looks like you and I are in agreement on this issue.
My comment was not an evaluation of the process, just a reference to another thread where a few personalities that seemed to strongly oppose the idea of “keeping or enforcing boundaries” as a proper duty of the Pastor, now sing another tune here, it was tongue-in-cheek.
I think I’ll just sit back an lurk for a while… :X
[Aaron Blumer]Great…thanks for the clarification. Situations like these are not easy…however they are also not uncommon! It’s been a good discussion.[Jamie Hart] So let me word the question a little differently…would siding with these families be an option you would consider? If so, why?Catching up a bit here. I can’t think of any reason why I’d side with the objecting families. I’m not even sure I’d require all the safeguards that were described in the hypothetical situation… but certainly would take some serious precautions.
[Kent McCune] Again, you are assuming more than the facts of the story represent. You are assuming as fact that the pastor did not know the real truth until C.L. confirmed it at the time of the confrontation. As I said before, there was a month between the reported event and the confrontation. How do you know the pastor had not already verified the story during that month? You don’t, and I don’t; therefore we can’t infer the pastor’s ignorance of the truth before the meeting.I understand your point. We don’t know the full story.
Here’s my point…failing to talk to the accused before taking action is hasty and unbiblical, IMO. I can’t imagine a scenario that would warrant such decisive action without first verifying the facts. The best case scenario would be for the pastor to encourage the concerned brother to talk to C.L. If he was unable or unwilling, the pastor should offer to go with him. If that still wasn’t an option, the pastor should at least have as private a conversation as possible with him. Once the facts are verified…then act.
[A.C. Caincross] Has CL ever gone privately to the pastor to confront him about how he handled this situation or did he just post it all over SI first?Since actual names, places, etc. were not mentioned, I don’t see a problem with this being posted on SI. It has generated some very helpful discussion about how to biblically handle these situations.
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
[Rev Karl]No problem Karl and I don’t see that you did anything wrong, but your earnestness is appreciated. When I make singular comments or tongue-in-cheek ones as I did, I (or anyone doing so) must accept that I might be misunderstood and if so, it is still my fault until I clarify. Your thoughts on the topic are well stated and appreciated.[Alex Guggenheim] Karl,Please accept my apology. I completely missed the connotation: one of the challenges of fellowshipping in this way. It looks like you and I are in agreement on this issue.
My comment was not an evaluation of the process, just a reference to another thread where a few personalities that seemed to strongly oppose the idea of “keeping or enforcing boundaries” as a proper duty of the Pastor, now sing another tune here, it was tongue-in-cheek.
I think I’ll just sit back an lurk for a while… :X
[Kent McCune]I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Far to many will cast stones at a pastor, and anyone for that matter, without ever hearing their side of the story. I think that Psalm 39 gives us a picture of David doing that very thing. I love the contrast between verse 3 and 4. He held and held it until he could hold it no longer…. then… He prays that God would let him know when he would die. The humility flows at that point. I think… again, just my reading of it, … he got more of the story and regretted opening his mouth. I am not sure I have ever felt as close to David as I do, I know that feeling for certain.[Jamie Hart] I understand we don’t have all the facts…but IMO I can’t imagine any unknown facts that would releave the pastor from checking out the full story before he acted. Can you?Again, you are assuming more than the facts of the story represent. You are assuming as fact that the pastor did not know the real truth until C.L. confirmed it at the time of the confrontation. As I said before, there was a month between the reported event and the confrontation. How do you know the pastor had not already verified the story during that month? You don’t, and I don’t; therefore we can’t infer the pastor’s ignorance of the truth before the meeting.
The question isn’t “was the pastor right from removing him from the position” as much as it is “was the situation handled biblically?” From hind-sight, we know he was guilty and he needed to be set aside. But that’s from hind-sight…
Play the same scenario out with C.L. being innocent. He comes into the meeting and he’s being set aside from ministry…but the limping man at the porn store wasn’t him. He’s innocent and due to someone’s mistaken identification, a pastor’s leaping to conclusions without finding out all the facts, and now gossip and slander, the man’s reputation and ministry are greatly compromised if not completely destroyed. And all of that could have been avoided if the pastor took the steps to find out the facts first.
C.L. only said that the pastor read from a prepared statement which began with “it has come to our attention that you have visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address” and ended with “you will resign during the Sunday night service this weekend.” We don’t know what the rest of that prepared statement said. It could have said “and we have personally witnessed your attendance at said establishment on such-and-such dates.”
All I’m saying is until the pastor and/or some of the deacons post their side of the story on SI, we will not have the complete picture of all that happened. And, therefore, we should be careful about how decisively we censure the pastor for his actions or lack of them.
That there was more in the letter actually eluded me, great catch and point.
Yet, we do have enough information to discuss this ‘hypothetical’ situation. It is far better to have a pre-med practice on the dead then the living. We did get updates that make it clear the Pastor DID verify the scenario. Our witness was asked to spy on the man. according to CL it was something he disliked greatly. My concern follows the whole Matt 18 context. So much was said did the pastor correctly apply it, and clearly he did not. The argument can, and perhaps should be, made that it was not a Matthew 18 issue. I would think though that any man who took on a ministry and continued to live, or began after a physical injury, a double life of sin and ministry, both quite public, that man personally broke the trust of the pastor. I agree with several there is NO scenario where the man should not have been personally confronted, AND no scenario where the man should not have been removed.
A C Caincross asked about confronting the pastor before he wrote. I agree with Jamie, there has been no inditing statements here, just a thought provoking scenario. Yet as I mentioned before, if we are to honestly follow Matt 18 C.L. needs to go and confront this pastor. In love, with respect of his position, (or the one that he had at the time, he is retired in a nursing home) and offer forgiveness. In all likelihood it has passed out of this ex-pastor’s memory and is only preventing CL from fellowship with the Father. If it still pulls on the pastor, (and it might, there is no statutes of limitations on the Holy Spirit) He would love the opportunity to ask for forgiveness.
Actually, since I have read this I have been praying for CL to do that very thing, that he might again be free from the prison God freed him of, and also that he is freed from that public sin of pornography and back ministering with his music talents. I mean, guys, it is not a made up scenario, we are operating on a live person here.
off the soap box.
He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent. - Augustine
So is this individual permanently disqualified from ministry? What if he had been the pastor? Many have said yes or no to this question, but not much reasoning or Biblical support has been given for or against disqualification.
[J Thomas] So is this individual permanently disqualified from ministry? What if he had been the pastor? Many have said yes or no to this question, but not much reasoning or Biblical support has been given for or against disqualification.I would disagree that there has been not much biblical support for disqualification. I looked back up and saw that 1 Cor 5 was mentioned. Although, perhaps there is no connotation of permanent disqualification. Also mentioned were Gal 6:1 as disqualifying. I used 1 Tim 3:7 and 1 Peter 4:15 and found those two to suffice. Also I saw 2 Sam 12:14 gives indication that causing God’s name to be scorned might end up a permanent disqualification. It is at least VERY significant.
I did not see 1 Cor 9:27 yet this sin clearly seems to be in violation and disqualifies.
Brother Durning in post number 41 does bring up the one woman man and such a public display of wanting more than the one woman God has/will provide again disqualifies. (please, I hope this does not go into a detail discussion on this specific. nor do I want anyone to come from that excellent post with only a disqualification seen.)
You asked What if he had been the pastor?
If he had been a pastor 1 Tim 5:19 was mentioned properly applied. As was 1 Tim 3:1 - 6 with notes later that this does not require ‘sinless’ rather ‘blameless’ as in the mans testimony. That might not make it permanent, but it surely comes close. How many years of living right would wash away the stain of visiting public pornography locations AS a pastor? Will someone not say, “Are we not putting a man ‘with a limp’ back into temptation?” Would that not be a fair question and concern for the brother? Would the slur “Pastor Pornography” from the lost ever be consider ‘good report’ of 1 Tim 3:7?
Where as we do see Peter restored his sin was one of faith and out of fear and self preservation in the face of persecution. Public pornography visitation does not quite fall under that area. (Sorry to the previous post, I do not see Paul’s upbraiding of Peter, and Barnabas for that matter, as a disqualifying matter.) In contrast we see Achan put to death for his sin, of which he repented (Joshua 7:20), David punished for Bathsheba and numbering his fighters. (1 Sam 12; 2 kings 19) Perhaps Elijah is an example of where he was broken and then replaced by Elisha, but only perhaps.
It does lead to my response to what I felt is at the heart of these question.
Is it possible that a man could become a pastor again later in his life after being disqualified?
Perhaps. I am a strong supporter of Rom 14:4 and 1 Cor 4:3 - 5. I am also a believer in the leading of the Holy Spirit in the Church regarding the prayers over selecting a pastor.
But…
how he will get past Ephesians 4:27? It is enough of a foothold to keep men from political office, should the standard for our pastors be less stringent? Should one not consider 1 Cor 6:12? Yes he could be a pastor again, but would it be helpful? Also James 3:1 makes it clear that we should weigh heavily the role of ‘teacher’ of God’s people.
Yet with the idea of restoring one to ministry I, and I think most here, say,
“YES, absolutely!”
What a great skill this man has to be able to lead singing. Why should this talent be forever taken from the church? What an opportunity to mentor and shepherd the fleeting few who also frequent such locales! (please read that ‘fleeting few’ part with tearful sarcasm.) This man, once restored, had he been a full time pastor or simply a pew sitter, has a ministry open to him that we so desperately need filled. One that DOES NOT need to be the pastor to fill and one that he will fervently enjoy. Luke 7:41 - 43.
So in my understanding, he has been disqualified from the office of a bishop. I do not see any doubt to that in scripture. I do not see a way to bring him back to that office, but will leave that there are some scenarios available, albeit none in scripture. Yet once restored, he is restored to ministry. I even think it does well to show men that there are consequences to our actions and that even then God is glorified by using the weak to befuddle the wise.
He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent. - Augustine
So is this the opinion of most? That this man is permanently disqualified from ministry? I guess I still have not heard good support for permanent disqualification. If this is true, I think there are other qualifications that disqualify permanently that others sweep under the rug. Either he can be restored fully or there are a lot of other pastors that need to get out of ministry - we need consistency.
And I don’t mean general ministry in which all members can be involved. I mean full time vocational ministry - just so there is no confusion.
No, I am not of the opinion that he is permanently disqualified from vocational ministry. And I’m not sure that “most” on SI would believe so, either.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[J Thomas] So is this the opinion of most? That this man is permanently disqualified from ministry? I guess I still have not heard good support for permanent disqualification. If this is true, I think there are other qualifications that disqualify permanently that others sweep under the rug. Either he can be restored fully or there are a lot of other pastors that need to get out of ministry - we need consistency.I think it needs to be handled with great caution, but I don’t see any biblical requirement for permanent disqualification.
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
“Permanent” is an awfully long time. I would not take that position either.
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.
The blameless qualification has always been tough for me to nail down, and in an age when more and more pastors are dealing with porn, esecially internet porn, we need to know what to do when one of our brothers falls into this kind of sin. Many people I have heard and many things that I have read are quick to string up any preacher that has had an issue with porn. I am not so sure we should be so quick to defrock such a one of his position. Maybe removal from ministry until he has true victory and accoutability is necessary, but he should be able to return to ministry somewhere if not at his current church. Pastors have so much pressure to be perfect, and then when they do struggle they get dumped on be people that likely deal with the same thing is secret. Biblically speaking, Pastors should be held to a higher standard, but they still need love and encouragement - they are sinners like everyone else. I tend to think that many pastors have been destroyed publicly when the matter could have been handled privately and lovingly. Just my two bits.
How do we define ‘porn’, btw? Because when it is talked about I hear so many variations that my head does a Regan MacNeil.
For instance, if one looks at the movie rating system at http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp] the MPAA website it says- “More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.” So you can watch Lucy take a shower as long as she isn’t doing it in a sexual manner and she only offers a flash or two of her body. Uh-huh.
An R rating means that “n R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements” you can watch nudity and simulated sex, as long as it is in good taste, because http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html the legal definition of porn is:
Excuse me, my incredulity is leaking all over my keyboard.
For instance, if one looks at the movie rating system at http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp] the MPAA website it says- “More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.” So you can watch Lucy take a shower as long as she isn’t doing it in a sexual manner and she only offers a flash or two of her body. Uh-huh.
An R rating means that “n R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements” you can watch nudity and simulated sex, as long as it is in good taste, because http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html the legal definition of porn is:
… in 1973, in Miller v. California, Justice Burger announced the second definition of obscenity - the majority position of the Court, and the definition, which, more or less, is still in effect today. It is as follows:I think the average church-goer and pastor have viewed nudity and sexual situations more than once in the last year, but it wasn’t porn.
“(a) whether the ‘average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
This holding specifically replaced the old test and also held that community standards could be local rather than national…
Since Miller, the Court has clarified and explained aspects of the Miller standard:
Jurors are to apply the standards of the area “from which he comes for making the required ” decision as the “community standards” for obscenity;
“[A] ppeals to the prurient interest” means that which appeals to “shameful or morbid interests” in sex, but not that which incites normal lust and includes materials designed for and primarily disseminated to a deviant sexual group (for example, sadists) which appeals to the prurient interests of that group;
“[A] verage person ” includes both sensitive and insensitive adult persons, but does not include children;
Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does not preclude a finding that a work is obscene.
Additionally the Court has created a sort of middle category of materials – “indecent” materials that are protected speech. Indecent materials are defined as those which show “nonconformance with accepted standards of morality.” After reviewing the above, most persons, including lawyers, remain confused about what is and is not legally permissible.
Excuse me, my incredulity is leaking all over my keyboard.
[Susan R] I think the average church-goer and pastor have viewed nudity and sexual situations more than once in the last year, but it wasn’t porn.Tell me about it.
Excuse me, my incredulity is leaking all over my keyboard.
We live in what has been known as “The Spring Break Capitol of the World”. I, for one, stay off “the beach” (the other side of the county). It seems like people - a large majority of people - drop off their morals at the state line.
You can’t even watch the local news without being confronted with it.
Can you think of a place that needs the Gospel more?
[Susan R] How do we define ‘porn’, btw? Because when it is talked about I hear so many variations that my head does a Regan MacNeil.
For instance, if one looks at the movie rating system …
So are you saying that pastors just split hairs so they can watch sinfull stuff but can get away with it because it is not technically pornography? I am not sure what you are getting at. Obviously any of the material you listed is inapropriate for any Christian. Movie rating do not determine Biblical morality.
[J Thomas][Susan R] How do we define ‘porn’, btw? Because when it is talked about I hear so many variations that my head does a Regan MacNeil.I completely agree that the MPAA doesn’t determine Biblical morality- that is exactly my point. I have known and know presently of pastors, church leaders/workers, and church members who regularly watch movies rated PG-13 and R (because they contain sexual situations and nudity, not just violence). So is it not porn because it was rented at Blockbuster and not at The Lion’s Den? How many pastors and church leaders would be ‘disqualified’ from the ministry if another elder had access to the list of movies they’ve seen in the last year? Or how often they’ve perused a Victoria’s Secret catalog? Or would their excuse be “But it was rated PG-13!” and “I wanted to buy something nice for my wife.”
For instance, if one looks at the movie rating system …
So are you saying that pastors just split hairs so they can watch sinfull stuff but can get away with it because it is not technically pornography? I am not sure what you are getting at. Obviously any of the material you listed is inapropriate for any Christian. Movie rating do not determine Biblical morality.
Discussion