Limping Forward

Editor’s note: this story is true. Only the name of the church has been changed.

By C. L.

I walk with a limp, and consequently, the pastor fired me.

I gained this limp on the first of July, exactly one year from the day I had joined the staff of Berean Baptist Church. That first year had been a great start to my short career as a music minister. Fresh out of school, I was a good match for Berean Baptist. The congregation welcomed me warmly, the choir grew quickly, and the pastor considered me the finest music minister he’d ever worked with in his thirty-plus years of ministry.

But then came the limp. On Friday night, July 1, 1994 I broke my spine. The details involve a family reunion, an old trampoline, and the sound of shattering vertebrae in my ears that faded quickly, replaced by my own voice, mid-scream. No feeling from the waist down, but an inferno of pain engulfing all the nerves that remained online. After the spinal swelling subsided, the surgeons installed two nine-inch steel rods and fused the ruined bones together. They put me in a wheelchair and shuttled me off to rehab. The people of my church prayed and prayed. In a true season of miracle, God moved and I walked home one month after the accident. Neurological injuries can’t be overcome by hard work or willpower, and there is no medical repair for broken nerve tissue. I walk today because God’s good hand was on me.

He did leave me with a limp.

I started back to work the first Sunday in September, only two months after the accident. The church applauded my rapid return, and my suit hid the shape of the bulky brace strapped around my torso. Outpatient therapy continued for several months. The music program didn’t miss a beat. That year’s Christmas program was one of the best the church had ever enjoyed.

The remnants of my injury are most noticeable in my right foot. I never regained dorsiflexion, the ability to pull that foot up or “let off the gas.” The deficiency is most evident when I play the piano. To use the sustain pedal, I clomp my whole leg up and down like a horse keeping time to the tune. Otherwise, it’s not a big hindrance to me. I don’t think about it often. It’s other people that notice your limp.

While filling up at a truck stop service station off the interstate, a member of my church watched a man enter an adult bookstore across the street. A man with a limp. It was too far away to recognize the face, but the limp was unmistakable. He’d seen it on the platform the previous Sunday. The concerned member phoned his pastor, who called secret deacon meetings. Within a month, a course of action was plotted. The pastor casually asked me to attend a Thursday night deacon’s meeting. “Just routine business. No biggie.”

I limped into the room to find a chair had been positioned for me, turned to face the group. The chair already looked accused. I took a deep breath and sat down. The pastor read a prepared statement that began, “It has come to our attention that you visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address.” It ended with “you will resign during the Sunday night service this weekend.”

I didn’t try to lie. I told them about previous visits to adult bookstores to view pornography. I told them I was sorry, that I didn’t know what was wrong with me, that I was willing to find help. I asked if could take a leave of absence to sort things out. They refused. I resigned that Sunday night in February of 1995.

Thoughts on Church Discipline

Much is written for the pastor to guide him in proper handling of these situations. But I would like to offer the more rarely heard perspective of the offender. My pastor’s choices had enormous impact on me then, and they continue to mark me today.

Matthew 18:15-17 is often the scriptural blueprint for such interactions, and I’ll use it here as well.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother (Matt. 18:15).

My pastor should have confronted me one on one. Inviting me to a deacons’ meeting under false pretenses only established an atmosphere of distrust. It sent the message that this meeting was about controlling me, not confronting me. The outcome of the situation was preplanned and extra hands were there to ensure it. But to discuss the matter “between thee and him alone” leaves room for denial and misunderstanding and accusation. I believe that’s why Christ urged individual confrontation as a first step. It should be scary and unpredictable, so that we confront prayerfully and humbly. This model of one-on-one confrontation makes us vulnerable. Paul describes it as meekness in Galatians 6:1 when he says, “if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness.”

Notice the end of Matthew 18:15. The hope of one-on-one confrontation is “to gain a brother.” When my pastor bypassed this step, he closed the door on a chance for the intimacy confession always brings. Even if he still required that I resign, he could have shepherded me through a difficult journey. Instead, he chose control over vulnerability, leverage over love. He didn’t confront me—he contained me.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established (Matt. 18:16).

I appreciate how Jesus carefully expands the sphere of people involved. If individual confrontation is met with denial, include just one or two more when you return. God is aware of a difficult dynamic at play in the heart of the offending brother. Coming to terms with secret sin is usually a process, not a one-time event. That first confrontation may be too scary to admit much of anything. The offender may minimize his sin or deflect blame. He may have lived years in denial within his own heart. So if the initial response to the individual confrontation isn’t mature or complete, don’t assume this is a flat refusal to hear. If you’ve confronted with vulnerability the first time, returning with a compassionate partner or two will bring strength to the confrontation. In an environment of compassion (we care) accompanied by strength (we care enough pursue the truth with you), the offending brother may be willing to come out of hiding.

Have faith that the Spirit of God has worked since your first conversation. Christ ends his thought on this process in Matthew 18:20. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” This often misquoted promise was made in the context of confronting your brother’s sin. Expect Christ to be present in the process.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican (Matt. 18:17).

Never is the goal to force confession and remorse. If it were all aimed toward a guilty verdict, the process would move into evidence and eyewitness testimony. The goal is that the church live in truth. If the offender is unable to join them in the truth, he must leave.

After I resigned, I attended Berean Baptist for more than a year. I found other work in the area, sought some professional Christian counseling and quietly became part of the congregation. When a new music minister was hired, I joined the choir. And although the pastor had expressed his commitment to “walk with me through my restoration,” he never asked me how I was doing. Not once. I think he was waiting for me to follow standard church procedure and leave town in shame. He seemed unsure and awkward around me.

But I was finding healing in living in the light, in the place where people knew the worst of me and still shook my hand. My relationships became deep, and those I’d hurt found healing too. I learned what it is to be forgiven. It’s like stepping out of the shadows to let the sun warm your face.

The pastor attempted to control, which is always an illusion at best. Though I had a long way to go, I decided to walk toward truth. In that surrender, I began to experience healing and freedom. In choosing control over surrender, the pastor was left on the outside looking in. Sadly, he was unable to join in the redemption.

Father, thank you for the limp.

Discussion

[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?

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]
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.
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.

[Larry]
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.
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!

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.

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!

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.

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….

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.

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?

[Jamie Hart]
[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?
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.

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

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.

[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