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
However, his error does not excuse the pastor’s error.
I wish the pastor would have gone to him in private. I wish the pastor would have himself, or had some other staff person (there may have been a more appropriate staff person), come alongside the man to offer support and encouragement as he traveled through the healing process. I wish the leadership have been open to using this situation to minister healing to others in the church who had the same struggles.
But life is frequently not as I wish it. Life is messy. I’m so glad that we serve a God who, while we were yet sinners loved us. While we’re still sinners, continues to love us.
Thanks for posting this story, it’s stimulated lots of interesting thought and discussion.
[Mike Durning] The first thing a pastor should do is be concerned for the spiritual well-being of the person in question. He should have built bridges to understand, rebuke, correct, and instruct, and then all disciplinary action should have arisen from the results of those conversations. That’s a pastor’s heart at work.I don’t disagree with this but I think I’d qualify the first part a tiny bit. That is, in defense of this pastor, he may well have been thinking of the spiritual well-being of the whole body rather than the person in question. Of course, he’s got to think about both, and that’s clearly a failure here, but it may simply be a matter of ineptly balancing the perceived needs of the whole against the needs of the one.
When I first read the piece I felt bad for everybody involved, including the sr. pastor. He just seemed to have no preparation at all for how to deal with these things. I’m not inclined to excuse him, but there’s room to simultaneously wish that someone had taken the time to train him better in that area. Maybe he served superbly in every area but that one. But yes, it’s a big one.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I don’t disagree with this but I think I’d qualify the first part a tiny bit. That is, in defense of this pastor, he may well have been thinking of the spiritual well-being of the whole body rather than the person in question. Of course, he’s got to think about both, and that’s clearly a failure here, but it may simply be a matter of ineptly balancing the perceived needs of the whole against the needs of the one.Aaron,
When I first read the piece I felt bad for everybody involved, including the sr. pastor. He just seemed to have no preparation at all for how to deal with these things. I’m not inclined to excuse him, but there’s room to simultaneously wish that someone had taken the time to train him better in that area. Maybe he served superbly in every area but that one. But yes, it’s a big one.
I appreciate your desire to moderate my statement, and what drives your desire. But isn’t this always the big trap? If we are building people, we will build the ministry. If we build the ministry at the expense of individual persons in that ministry, are we really doing what Christ called us to do?
I fear where this thinking ends.
I know that you would not approve of this, but isn’t this “protect the ministry first or there’ll be no people” thinking the same thing that drives a church board to cover up the molestation incident by the church staffer?
I know it’s not the same, but I think my example is just a more extreme version of the thinking that drives pastors and boards to deal with people in this way.
Mike D
Of course, if he raised the issue shortly after the event, it would probably have come across as bitterness and/or blame-shifting, which could have caused the pastor to throw up defensive walls. But even several years later, it would seem to me to be a rebuke.
Rick Franklin Gresham, Oregon Romans 8:38-39
1 Timothy 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.
It seems pretty plain that this was not followed by the pastor or the rest who called him on the carpet. (If we say, “well, he’s not an elder, so that doesn’t apply,” then we cannot hold this man to the same standard as elders).
Was v20 followed properly in this case? Just as importantly, was the spirit of this verse the controlling theme of the conduct of the pastor and other leaders? 1 Timothy 5:20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.
I feel very sad that this music minister had such a low view of Christ, of his own heavenly seating, and even of his own future glorification alongside Christ, that at that moment that he could subject the Lord, himself, the community and his church to such debasement. Having said that, I am equally sad that the relationship of the pastor to the staff was so superficial, so strictly functional and professional, that this man could have developed such a habit without it being known or that his struggles could not be shared and dealt with in a helpful way much sooner. Frankly, I’d be carefully examining the church and staff culture for depth of spiritual and relational fellowship. I’d at least entertain the possibility that such a stumbling among someone in leadership was, if not almost inevitable, at least a real possibility in that environment. The whole situation sounds unhealthy IMHO.
Keep looking down, Eph 2:6
[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.
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.
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.
Discussion