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

[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?

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.
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.

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.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked003.gif
Brother Alex,

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.

[A. Carpenter]

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.
That was an error on my part. Thanks for exhorting me. :)

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]

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
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 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,

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.
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.

I think I’ll just sit back an lurk for a while… :X

[Aaron Blumer]
[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.
Great…thanks for the clarification. Situations like these are not easy…however they are also not uncommon! It’s been a good discussion.
[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.

[Rev Karl]
[Alex Guggenheim] 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.
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.

I think I’ll just sit back an lurk for a while… :X
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.

[Kent McCune]
[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?

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.
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.

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.
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.

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