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

So is this the opinion of most? That this man is permanently disqualified from ministry? I guess I still have not heard good support for permanent disqualification. If this is true, I think there are other qualifications that disqualify permanently that others sweep under the rug. Either he can be restored fully or there are a lot of other pastors that need to get out of ministry - we need consistency.

And I don’t mean general ministry in which all members can be involved. I mean full time vocational ministry - just so there is no confusion.

No, I am not of the opinion that he is permanently disqualified from vocational ministry. And I’m not sure that “most” on SI would believe so, either.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

[J Thomas] So is this the opinion of most? That this man is permanently disqualified from ministry? I guess I still have not heard good support for permanent disqualification. If this is true, I think there are other qualifications that disqualify permanently that others sweep under the rug. Either he can be restored fully or there are a lot of other pastors that need to get out of ministry - we need consistency.
I think it needs to be handled with great caution, but I don’t see any biblical requirement for permanent disqualification.

“Permanent” is an awfully long time. I would not take that position either.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

The blameless qualification has always been tough for me to nail down, and in an age when more and more pastors are dealing with porn, esecially internet porn, we need to know what to do when one of our brothers falls into this kind of sin. Many people I have heard and many things that I have read are quick to string up any preacher that has had an issue with porn. I am not so sure we should be so quick to defrock such a one of his position. Maybe removal from ministry until he has true victory and accoutability is necessary, but he should be able to return to ministry somewhere if not at his current church. Pastors have so much pressure to be perfect, and then when they do struggle they get dumped on be people that likely deal with the same thing is secret. Biblically speaking, Pastors should be held to a higher standard, but they still need love and encouragement - they are sinners like everyone else. I tend to think that many pastors have been destroyed publicly when the matter could have been handled privately and lovingly. Just my two bits.

How do we define ‘porn’, btw? Because when it is talked about I hear so many variations that my head does a Regan MacNeil.

For instance, if one looks at the movie rating system at http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp] the MPAA website it says- “More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented.” So you can watch Lucy take a shower as long as she isn’t doing it in a sexual manner and she only offers a flash or two of her body. Uh-huh.

An R rating means that “n R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements” you can watch nudity and simulated sex, as long as it is in good taste, because http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html the legal definition of porn is:
… in 1973, in Miller v. California, Justice Burger announced the second definition of obscenity - the majority position of the Court, and the definition, which, more or less, is still in effect today. It is as follows:

“(a) whether the ‘average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

This holding specifically replaced the old test and also held that community standards could be local rather than national…

Since Miller, the Court has clarified and explained aspects of the Miller standard:

Jurors are to apply the standards of the area “from which he comes for making the required ” decision as the “community standards” for obscenity;

“[A] ppeals to the prurient interest” means that which appeals to “shameful or morbid interests” in sex, but not that which incites normal lust and includes materials designed for and primarily disseminated to a deviant sexual group (for example, sadists) which appeals to the prurient interests of that group;

“[A] verage person ” includes both sensitive and insensitive adult persons, but does not include children;

Serious artistic, political, or scientific value, using a national standard, is required for a finding that something is not obscene and a finding of some artistic, political or scientific value does not preclude a finding that a work is obscene.

Additionally the Court has created a sort of middle category of materials – “indecent” materials that are protected speech. Indecent materials are defined as those which show “nonconformance with accepted standards of morality.” After reviewing the above, most persons, including lawyers, remain confused about what is and is not legally permissible.
I think the average church-goer and pastor have viewed nudity and sexual situations more than once in the last year, but it wasn’t porn.

Excuse me, my incredulity is leaking all over my keyboard.

[Susan R] I think the average church-goer and pastor have viewed nudity and sexual situations more than once in the last year, but it wasn’t porn.

Excuse me, my incredulity is leaking all over my keyboard.
Tell me about it.

We live in what has been known as “The Spring Break Capitol of the World”. I, for one, stay off “the beach” (the other side of the county). It seems like people - a large majority of people - drop off their morals at the state line.

You can’t even watch the local news without being confronted with it.

Can you think of a place that needs the Gospel more?

[Susan R] How do we define ‘porn’, btw? Because when it is talked about I hear so many variations that my head does a Regan MacNeil.

For instance, if one looks at the movie rating system …

So are you saying that pastors just split hairs so they can watch sinfull stuff but can get away with it because it is not technically pornography? I am not sure what you are getting at. Obviously any of the material you listed is inapropriate for any Christian. Movie rating do not determine Biblical morality.

[J Thomas]
[Susan R] How do we define ‘porn’, btw? Because when it is talked about I hear so many variations that my head does a Regan MacNeil.

For instance, if one looks at the movie rating system …

So are you saying that pastors just split hairs so they can watch sinfull stuff but can get away with it because it is not technically pornography? I am not sure what you are getting at. Obviously any of the material you listed is inapropriate for any Christian. Movie rating do not determine Biblical morality.
I completely agree that the MPAA doesn’t determine Biblical morality- that is exactly my point. I have known and know presently of pastors, church leaders/workers, and church members who regularly watch movies rated PG-13 and R (because they contain sexual situations and nudity, not just violence). So is it not porn because it was rented at Blockbuster and not at The Lion’s Den? How many pastors and church leaders would be ‘disqualified’ from the ministry if another elder had access to the list of movies they’ve seen in the last year? Or how often they’ve perused a Victoria’s Secret catalog? Or would their excuse be “But it was rated PG-13!” and “I wanted to buy something nice for my wife.”

Though churches may be have to wrestle with this some, I don’t think it’s much of an issue in God’s eyes. It’s the heart of the man that’s the issue…and if his heart desires looking at flesh more than keeping pure and dedicated to his wife, he’s on the road to disqualification. It could be a horrible website or simply a JCPenny catalog….if his heart as left the pure devotion of Christ to please his fleshly desire…again…not the right road.

The thing to consider, IMO, is the patterns of his life. It’s one thing for a guy to struggle once or twice. He should then have a 2 Cor. 7 style repentance, get some accountability and put up some serious barriers. It’s a completely different issue for this to be a habit pattern with no repentance. Once again…even if it is just the JCPenny catalog, his heart is wondering…and he’s in danger.

I understand what you’re saying, Bro. Hart, and I basically agree. What I’m thinking, though, is that many folks don’t consider things like a JC Penney catalog or a PG-13 movie as being fraught with peril. Guys don’t usually go straight to porn- it’s a slide that starts somewhere much more innocuous than The Girls Next Door.

So when we define ‘porn’ as being something that’s prurient and obscene, only available in adult bookstores and websites, and that only creepy perverts are viewing it, we are being purposefully naive and IMO creating an atmosphere where the man who has struggled once or twice with a PG-13 movie or an underwear catalog is more likely to excuse his struggles instead of seeing them as a warning sign and a need to repent and get some help.

I think we have to ask “How did CL get as far as he did without seeing his need for repentance, and without his problems being noticed by all his Christian friends?” The way his case was handled raises questions, I just don’t think they raise the most important ones IMO.

I don’t think that CL is permanently barred from ministry either. Susan is bringing up all of the salient points for me :)

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Susan R] I think we have to ask “How did CL get as far as he did without seeing his need for repentance, and without his problems being noticed by all his Christian friends?”
It’s quite possible that C.L. did see his need for repentance, as Paul alluded to in Romans 7:15-17. Many people, even Christians, struggle with addictions which they want to overcome.

As far as his sin not being noticed by Christian friends, perhaps they saw symptoms but were not aware of the specific sin, and in any event chose not to confront.

I’m not sure we need to define “pornography”; a definition of the broader term “lust” would apply to C.L.’s issue, the “control” problem his pastor had, greed and other sins Christians deal with.

Rick Franklin Gresham, Oregon Romans 8:38-39

[Susan R] I understand what you’re saying, Bro. Hart, and I basically agree. What I’m thinking, though, is that many folks don’t consider things like a JC Penney catalog or a PG-13 movie as being fraught with peril. Guys don’t usually go straight to porn- it’s a slide that starts somewhere much more innocuous than The Girls Next Door.

So when we define ‘porn’ as being something that’s prurient and obscene, only available in adult bookstores and websites, and that only creepy perverts are viewing it, we are being purposefully naive and IMO creating an atmosphere where the man who has struggled once or twice with a PG-13 movie or an underwear catalog is more likely to excuse his struggles instead of seeing them as a warning sign and a need to repent and get some help.

I think we have to ask “How did CL get as far as he did without seeing his need for repentance, and without his problems being noticed by all his Christian friends?” The way his case was handled raises questions, I just don’t think they raise the most important ones IMO.
Susan, I see where you are coming from. However, my experience with this issue brings me to a different conclusion. It’s not that guys are downplaying the lust issue, or that they are pretending their flip through Victoria Secret isn’t sinful. I think most men would understand those things are wrong. I think the answer to the question “How did C.L. get that far?” has much more to do with the culture of our churches. I agree with Rich…he probably did repent…and fell again…and repented again. That pattern continues in many men because we are not real enough with one another to admit our struggles. We feel the need to pretend everything is “hunky dory” (is that how that’s spelled?!?) and that we are on top of things spiritually. Guys can talk about football, work, frustrations in co-workers…but we don’t talk about our struggles…and we don’t get help.

For whatever reason, C.L. didn’t get the help he needed. Perhaps he didn’t feel safe. Perhaps he just didn’t take advantage of the help that was available. Whatever the case, we need to fix this. Guys need to be teaching guys how to live righteously in a world that’s pulling us hard away from Christ. I think 2 Tim. 2:2 has as much do to with conduct as it does with doctrine. 2 Tim. 3:10 is clear…it’s not just doctrine (knowing doctrine) it’s also right LIVING (DOING doctrine). I think we need to do much better at this. In our churches, there needs to be an environment where a guy feels safe saying saying, “I’m really struggling with pornography and I need help” And, sadly, that wouldn’t describe most of our churches.

Just to clarify, I’m not talking about a man standing up and giving public testimony. I’m mean he knows he’s loved and that there are men who are willing to help with understanding…and real answers!