Limping Forward
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.
- 16 views
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Discussion