|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BETRAYAL
THE CHARGE: Criminal Conduct Consisting Of Complacency,
Complicity, and Conspiracy
—Pastor Jerald Manley D.D. THE INDICTMENT: The religious organization known as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has received a well-deserved public pillorying for immorality—particularly homosexuality in the form of pedophilia—among its ordained priests. The contamination has subjected the RCC to multiple lawsuits that have required unknown millions in reparations or ‘buy-off’ dollars and have caused a dramatic decline in receipts from membership. The vast majority of the clerics are not accused; however, all RCC clergy are suspected because of the transferred taint of the degenerate priests.
The rest of the story is that the unimaginable human destruction is the production of less than ten percent (estimates range from 4% to 8%) of that priesthood. Those most affected are those that should have been protected from that very wickedness by these same priests.
But, that is not the worst of the story. The greater wrath of the RCC communicants and of the nation is reserved for the leadership of the RCC that has consistently, through an organized and sanctioned manner, covered over the reprehensible conduct of these relative few. While the hierarchy obviously knew the dangers of the predilections of the reprobate priests, no congregations were ever warned and the children of the RCC families were left unprotected—even worse, those children were knowingly delivered into the ‘care’ of known defilers. Priests were systematically transferred to avoid exposure—sometimes ‘promoted’ to larger dioceses. The continuing exposure of fresh new innocents to the seductive abilities of proven perverts and the resultant corruption and carnage are rightly deemed unacceptable by both RCC laity and the legal system of this land.The despicable lives of these depraved priests has become the topic of news broadcasts and have prompted lengthy articles in major and minor national publications in addition to the numerous lawsuits. Indignant Baptist pulpits and publications have devoted time and space to pontificate upon the vileness of the confessional priesthood. The old book about the priest and the confessional has gained a new popularity. However, this Baptist righteous indignation is mote-pulling and beam-avoiding. Baptists are unworthy to cast any stones; Baptists are as guilty of the same conspiracy of silence and concealment as is any RCC bishop.
The author of Ministerial Ethics, Joe Trull, asserts that thirty
to thirty-five percent of those in the ministry admit to having “sexual
relationships” with “other than a marriage partner.” He reports that over
half of these “encounters” were connected to “pastoral counseling.” His
research suggests that, in a directory of preachers with twenty-four
names on a page an average of eight of those preachers should have a
scarlet letter on their collar. A hundred such pages would contain more
than eight hundred pastors who have violated their office. A listing of
4000 would include 1200 to 1500 pastors who had “sexual relationships”
with “other than a marriage partner.” The mind is stunned into
numbness by such horribleness and struggles to refuse to
accept the possibility of such proportions.
I have no way to verify Trull’s research and it is not restricted to
Baptist pulpits but includes a wide range of ministers; however, I am not
prone to challenge it, based upon observation. Whether the quantity is
correct or not, the plentiful presence of adulterers, pedophiles, and
homosexuals in the Baptist ministry cannot be denied. But, even
that is not the worst of the story.The worst of the story is that
Baptist preachers, Baptist pulpits, Baptist publications, and Baptist
conventions, associations, conferences, and fellowships have a propensity
to cover the immorality of their own fellow-preachers and, with the
sanction of the silence and/or the active participation of the leadership,
to organize their own programs to relocate the perpetrators of depravity
into unsuspecting congregations filled with potential fresh victims.
Baptists are no less guilty on all counts than is the RCC. This is not a
suspicion on my part: I have witnessed it and I been victimized by it.THE
EVIDENCE:Shortly after Julie and I were married, we were in a week of
meetings in central Missouri. As I gave the invitation early in the week,
a very pregnant, very young girl came forward weeping. The pastor motioned
for Julie to talk with her. She poured her heart out to my wife—the story
was sad and sordid—seduction by a married man in a position of honor and
authority, condemnation by her conscience, expulsion by her high school,
and rejection by her family and church. Her tears and her repentance
seemed genuine, but she was a pregnant teenage unmarried girl in 1965
central Missouri. Before the week was over, she gave birth to a boy. The
rest of the story is that the father of the baby was a nationally known
evangelist. But, that is not the worst of the story. I wrote the
editor of the national publication that advertised this man as an
evangelist, providing names and phone numbers for him to verify the facts.
The editor wrote back that he had heard such rumors, but that the
evangelist was so blessed as a great soul-winner that I had best not touch
the LORD’s anointed. He continued the advertisements and the evangelist,
with his endorsement, continued the wickedness.~An American missionary
physically assaulted his wife. He bought tickets for her and the children
on an international flight—not to America, but to a country neighboring
his field. The customs agency for that country contacted the American
Embassy for funds to feed, shelter, and transport the family (minus the
husband) to the United States. She returned to their sending church. The
church required him to come home and give an account of his stewardship;
he refused because of “the need of the work.” The rest of the story is
that after weeks of pressure, he finally left the field to face his home
church. He was found, by that church, to have misused monies, to have made
fraudulent appeals for funds, and to have abused his wife and children.
The church disciplined him by exclusion from membership; the mission
agency terminated their recognition. The church I pastor was a supporting
church and, honoring the discipline and integrity of the local church,
withdrew our financial support.
A pastor, for whom I was preaching, and I were sitting in his study when another local pastor walked in with a visiting evangelist whom I had never met; but I immediately recognized the name. After the introductions, I commented on the evangelist having been a church planter in very unusual circumstances and for being on the board of a national publication. He was flattered that I knew of his accomplishments. I then asked if he had not held a meeting with great numbers of converts for a certain preacher in Georgia. He positively glowed as he acknowledged that he had.
The rest of the story is that when I asked if he remembered, in that church, a particular young couple—describing them in some detail, particularly mentioning that the wife was an attractive, petite, blonde legal secretary—the evangelist turned noticeably pale, slumped in his seat, and said nothing else.
But, that is not the worst of the story. He continued his ‘lifestyle’ of seduction and fathering for years afterward, supported by national voices because he was ‘so effective in the pulpit.’~
A young preacher/husband that I had known for several years, called me, seeking a place to serve as a youth pastor. I spoke to the pastor for whom he worked and with whom I had exchanged pulpit visits. Assured that his departure was proper, that he would be recommended to any church, and that he was worthy of my help in relocating, this preacher became our houseguest for an extended period. Finally, he did find a good church with a need for a solid youth worker—and then another—and then another.
The rest of the story is that two years after this request for my help, I discovered that my preacher friend had ‘misled’ me. He had fired the rascal for immorality, getting him out of town just before the local authorities attempted to serve a warrant for his arrest.
But, that is not the worst of the story. This conduct became the pattern of his ministry—being moved by one pastor to another, to cover his ‘shortcomings,’ without telling the next church. ~
The woman in my office was crushed. Her pastor husband had seduced teenage girls in the church. This was not the first such episode; they had left a previous church for the same reason and she had fears about situations before that. The pastor and the deacons warned her not to stir trouble, because it would damage the testimony of the church and make it impossible for the husband to find another church. Since her family had her come to me for advice and since she asked for help, I suggested that she use an excellent, expensive local attorney, protect herself and their children, sue her husband for divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity, and ask the attorney to explore suing the deacons for covering the sexual abuse of minors.
The rest of the story is that she pretty much followed the advice.
But, that is not the worst of the story. The preacher was pitied for the treatment received at the hand of his wife and she was condemned for ‘breaking up the marriage.’ Local Baptist preachers publicly attacked me because I had committed the unpardonable of encouraging her to get herself and her children out of the marriage. ~
He was the second man to one of the nation’s Baptist statesmen for years—widely respected and used.
The rest of the story is that his over-a-decade-long affair with a secretary was inadvertently disclosed.
But, that is not the worst of the story. Within sixty days, the statesman-pastor wrote a favorable report of his associate’s call to evangelism and a national Baptist publication carried the announcement and a seconding recommendation by the editor.~
Few can match him in the pulpit—his fire and passion are overpowering and convincing. Baptist pulpits across the land delight in his ministry. His writings sell as fast as they are printed. He counseled the woman in his office that her legal husband was no longer her spiritual husband because he had committed adultery. She divorced her ‘ex-spiritual still-legal’ husband and her pastor counselor promptly married her.
The rest of the story is that this pastor would later divorce her and marry another woman within the same church.
But, that is not the worst of the story. The pastor’s popularity and speaking engagements continue unabated and he remains recognized by many as an authority to be quoted. ~
His friend was concerned and made an appointment for the young man to see me for counseling. He came. He sat. We talked. He was a homosexual. He understood that his choice was a source of grief and embarrassment for his mother and a burden to his friend. He seemed to feel badly that either was hurt, but he was unwilling to agree that his life was unnatural, immoral, or sinful.
The rest of the story is that he continued his chosen pathway and, to the best of my knowledge, died in his sin and as a result of his sin.
But, that is not the worst of the story. He assured me that he was justified in his life choice because one of his ‘companions’ was a local Baptist preacher.~
He was a multi-term missionary with a history of stable, consistent ministry. His wife grew suspicious of an improper liaison with a national woman and confronted him. He sent her home and had the national move in to the home. The church I pastored shifted our support to her. His home church promptly ordered him home and the mission agency suspended funding—except to provide transportation home. For a while, he balked about coming back to the States. Word of his being sick came from the field. In a matter of weeks, he did return. His conduct was so out of character and his physical condition upon arrival was so noticeably altered that his home church placed him under medical care. Subsequent examinations revealed that he had a brain tumor. The doctors stated that the tumor was in the portion of the brain that could affect his moral judgment. He did not live long afterward.
I do not choose to enter into how the Chief Shepherd will adjudicate this matter at the Judgment Seat. Dr. Bob Jones Sr. related how Dr. Barnhouse altered his conduct shortly before his death in ways that affected his testimony. An autopsy after death, according to Dr. Bob, revealed that Dr. Barnhouse did have a brain tumor. Dr. Jones cautioned us not to be so certain that we could know why someone takes a particular course. How much responsibility rests with the man and how much with the tumor, I do not wish to try to determine. Even with that in mind, the conduct of the home church and the mission agency was right, proper, and just. Regardless of how anyone wishes to consider the ‘reason’ for the immoral conduct of the missionary, his removal from the ministry was biblically, ethically, and morally essential. Frankly, regardless of why he did what he did, his conduct disqualified him for the office he held. One can pity the man, while condemning the conduct. The protection of the testimony and the flock is of primary importance. It is betrayal not to protect the sheep from an immoral shepherd.
I have not mentioned the drunkenness (now up-scaled to alcoholism), the financial chicanery, the preachers and church workers abandoning wives and families for an internet spawned romance, the vulgar language and filthy communication from the mouths of preachers, and I have not exhausted my examples of immorality, adultery, homosexuality, and child molesters ‘posing’ as pastors, youth ministers, choir directors, missionaries, evangelists, teachers, and church officers. However, the space does not permit and the purpose does not demand more. Sufficient evidence has been introduced to support the indictment. Moreover, to my limited experiences, every pastor and most Christians could add personal knowledge of both the presence of immorality and wickedness in the pulpit leadership and of the wretched practice of the concealment of that corruption. It has become ‘Baptist public policy’ quietly to move a ‘troubled’ preacher or staff member from one congregation to another. This is reprehensible and indefensible conduct. It is betrayal.
Mission agencies have contacted me for references for missionary candidates. Responding truthfully to the questions, in certain instances, I have been accused of “dredging up the past,” “having an unforgiving spirit,” “seeking to destroy a ministry,” and of “fabrication and distortion.” Telling the truth makes one an enemy of the Truth in the eyes of some in Baptist leadership. That is a betrayal.
When a pastor terminates a staff member because of sexual misconduct and recommends him to another church to avoid a ‘public stink’ in his own church, he betrays his LORD, his church, and the church to which he transferred his ‘problem.’ He is, thereby, accountable as a partaker in all the evil deeds of the future depravity of that degenerate. This is betrayal.
For any church simply to allow a sexual predator to resign and slip out of town is a violation of the Biblical mandate and of the civil criminal code. Worse, the action is a betrayal of the Chief Shepherd. A pastor (or any other church worker—paid or unpaid) that seduces the male or female children of his church should be reported to the legal authorities and prosecuted. A church that overlooks or covers child abuse is guilty before the LORD of the Harvest and before the civil legal system. The officers of that church are biblically and legally partakers of the evil deeds and, while they may escape criminal charges before an earthly judge, they will answer to the High Justice.
The standards of conduct for a preacher are not subject to negotiation or revision. These values are established in Scripture not in secret conferences.
1 Timothy 5
1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; 2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity. 3 Honour widows that are widows indeed. 4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. 5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. 6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. 7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. 8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. 11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. 14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some are already turned aside after Satan. 16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed. 17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. 22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure. 23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. 24 Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. 25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid. The “elder” in verse one is clearly not a preacher; he is simply a male older than Timothy—just as the elder women are not female preachers, but women older than Timothy. The elder of verse one is contrasted with the younger man of the same verse. Notice that Timothy is commanded by the apostle
(1) to treat a man older than he, as if he were his father,
(2) to conduct himself with a man younger than he, as if he were his brother,
(3) to consider a woman older than he, as if she were his mother,
(4) to handle every woman younger than he, as if she were his sister, and
(5) to “rebuke before all” those elders that are examined and found guilty of immorality and to do so “without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”
If the words have any meaning, those terms demand that Timothy (and thus all preachers) treat the church members as though they are members of his family. Therefore, I must take the position that any act of sexual contact with anyone within the church should be considered as though it were an act of incest. A preacher (the ‘elder’ of verses 17 and 19) guilty of ‘church-incest’ is assuredly worthy of being rebuked before all and permanently expelled from the pulpit. In his challenge to Timothy, the apostle, writing words given by the Holy Ghost, establishes a principle that, by extension, covers every form of sexual misdeed, especially pedophilia, adultery, and homosexuality.
What is written to Timothy is not to be construed as treating sexual contact with one outside the church membership as being an acceptable conduct. “Keep thyself pure” is the call to unqualified purity. The distinction is rather to emphasize the horrendousness of a man taking advantage of his position as shepherd to molest the sheep that he is charged to oversee.
A solemn example that preachers and fellowships of preachers should understand as a serious warning is found in 1 Samuel 2. The sons of Eli were immoral—perhaps even incorporating that immorality into the worship as did the pagans in their temples. Knowing their wickedness, Eli did not remove his sons from their priesthood. The consequence is that the LORD charged Eli with honoring his sons over his God and the result is that the LORD Himself removed both the sons of Eli from the priesthood and the priesthood from the line of Eli.
22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 24 Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the LORD’S people to transgress. 25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them. . . . 29 Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? 30 Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.
Reluctantly, I find that faithfulness to the LORD requires that I charge the leadership who exercise influence over preachers and churches and who use their positions actively to conceal ungodliness AND I charge those preachers and churches that passively follow those leaders in this corrupted concept of concealment with an indictment having three counts:
1. A Charge of Complacency: They remain at peace with evil doers. 2. A Charge of Conspiracy: They engage in the protection of evil doers.3. A Charge of Complicity: They, therefore, become partakers of the evil deeds.Brethren, I take no joy in this indictment. I would that the evidence could warrant an acquittal; but the facts demand a conviction on all three counts of the indictment.
I find no joy in hearing of fellow laborers falling. I confess that better men than I have fallen, and I dare not stand in my own strength. Joshua was no doubt grieved for Achan even as Achan was being executed; however, his heaviness of heart did not cause him to disobey the command of the God of Heaven to expose Achan. I take no pleasure in calling for a return to Biblical treatment for those men who disqualify themselves for the Gospel ministry. The Scriptures give no alternative.
Restoration to fellowship is not the same as rehabilitation to ministry. Certainly, a saved individual may sin and, by confession and by forsaking that sin, have a restoration to fellowship with his God, his church, and his fellow believers. Rehabilitation to ministry is an entirely different matter. Some disqualifications from an office do not permit a re-qualification for that office.
The God-ordained purpose of corrective rebuke and exposure is to provide a deterrent: that “others also may fear.” When those who are in the position to rebuke and to expose do not do so, they not only become a “partaker of other men’s sins,” but they also are guilty of failing to deter others. Therefore, instead of merely covering an already committed sin, they are encouraging future sins. Rather than helping the fallen brother, they are actually helping other brothers to fall. This is true regardless of the reason for the preferential treatment accorded the sinner.
“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.”
That, my Christian brethren and sisters is the final word. Not mine, but His, Whose word is the unalterable absolute by which our conduct must be measured. It is the word to which we will all be held accountable by the One that had it written, the LORD of the Harvest.
Pastor Jerald Manley
The following article was written in 1991. A national Baptist publication
requested and was granted permission to reprint the article. After a
revision to meet space constraints and after several conversations, the
editor determined not to print what he had requested. His reason was
honest and, I believe, accurate. He said, “We (He was the editor and
never explained who the consulted ‘we’ were.) feel that it would be used
against too many preachers.” Maybe so, but if so, then the need was more
desperate than I imagined. I reprint it here, because it completes the
thought of the article on Betrayal.
BAPTIST PREACHERS WITH A
These atrocious, monstrous, horrendous, repulsive affairs occur considerably too often and one happened again this past week causing yet another prominent Baptist preacher to be driven in disgrace from his pulpit because of moral failure. Such shocking and tragic announcements are coming with an alarmingly ever increasing frequency.
Way back in those long ago days when I started this 'strait and narrow' straight path of preaching, one rarely heard the shameful, disgraceful tale of some preacher diving headfirst into the mirage of moral misdeed, crippling his own life and wrecking the lives of hundreds of others, destroying his own testimony and damaging the testimony of a church, shattering the trust and faith of his family and bringing injury to multitudes of other families. Certainly, even then, such things did happen; but two things were true in those days, which do not appear to be true in these days.
FIRST, such wicked events were not commonplace. In recent years, however, it is a rare week without some such communication finding its way before my eyes or into my ears.
SECOND, such sordid episodes were dealt with far differently. A fallen preacher did not 'resign' his pulpit and walk away to the 'ministerial rehab center,' he surrendered his ordination and found other employment.
All too often, today such stories do not come from tiny, unknown churches lost in the hills of nowhere nor are they of unfamiliar preachers never mentioned by the world; these are large 'leading' churches served by national preacher 'stars.' Preachers who have been speakers on international platforms and are heralded as 'among the leaders of fundamentalism' and saluted as the Doctor’s of knowledge, 'the teachers of preachers.' These sadly abused and severely traumatized churches are in major metropolitan centers and attract thousands in attendance. It is this public aspect of the misdeeds that causes the tragedies to influence multitudes rather than individuals and to smear the stain of reproach across the collective face of Christianity.
Not twenty minutes ago, I heard (via radio) a local pastor, a good man, employ the very man whose fall was reported this week as an example of a “great preacher” who “preached the greatest message I (the local pastor) ever heard” the “message that brought revival to this (place named).” How can his listeners fail to be affected when they now hear (And, hear they will!) that this 'great among the greatest' has ruined his own life and ravaged the lives of dozens of others? What must this do also to the credibility of this innocent pastor who has now placed that guilty preacher on such a lofty pedestal before this 'uninvolved' congregation?
This particular letter came from a 'national evangelist' to inform me of this latest crumbled wall. Read the following selections taken from that letter. I assure you that these excerpts are accurately quoted and that the deletions do nothing to alter or slant his letter.
“It is with deep regret and greatest personal sadness that I write this letter. Our brother, Dr. ___ ______ of the ___ _____ Baptist Church in _____, ______, has made some drastic mistakes in his personal life that has caused his surrendering himself for professional help and for the immediate resignation of his pastorate . . . . . Brother ____ has been under professional care for the last 30 days and will continue a restoration program being put together by several well known pastors from across the nation . . . . . . Let’s not allow ___ this dear brother to be cast aside as another statistic of ministry failure . . . Signed __________
PS- An uplifting word of encouragement to Bro. ___ would also be a tremendous blessing.”
The multiple hypocrisies of this request simply staggers me. Here is a pastor who has preached across this nation for many years to thousands upon thousands that “only the Bible has the answer,” that “only Christ Jesus can meet your needs,” “that sin is against God,” that “immorality is wicked”; yet amid the debris of his fall comes this urgent fervent appeal (from an evangelist who has preached the very same message) to raise money for the specific purpose of literally setting aside the Scriptures and instead to engage in a deliberate covering of the sin by calling in 'PROFESSIONALS' to help with his “restoration.” All this is combined with an appeal to send “an uplifting word of encouragement.” I do not say this writer is a deliberate hypocrite, I am certain that he is sincere; but, these requests, however well meaning, are inconsistent, even in opposition with Scripture.
Not a single indication of repentance stands in the entire letter—only an implication that the man was 'found out' and forced by the revelation of his ungodly duplicity to 'immediate resignation.' Nothing scriptural is found, and a very real hypocrisy is revealed, in references to 'surrendering himself for professional help' and continuing in “a restoration program” and the requesting of an “uplifting word of encouragement.”
Send him a visit from Nathan (“Thou art the man”) the prophet, not Norman Vincent Peale. Send him to visit John (“It is not lawful for thee to have her”) the Baptist not Sigmund Freud!
Have we rearranged the Scriptures so that 1 John no longer includes preachers? Is Psalm 51 missing? Who has bewitched us that we should no longer obey the truth? What need we with ‘Professionals?’ How came we to such a time?
The preacher who is morally impure is not a patient; he is a sinner! He has sin to be dealt with, not a sickness to be cured! He does not require a “professional counselor”; he needs an old-fashioned dose of biblical repentance. This not another “ministry failure,” this is the willful transgression of the laws of God by a preacher.
Call the man to the altar, exactly as we would any backslidden man in the pew, and plead with him to confess that he is a miserable wretched sinner! Beg him to repent and not merely to 'surrender' and to admit that he has sinned and not simply has been found out. Tell him that he has violated the laws of a Holy God and faces judgment and needs cleansing and pardon. Urge him to fall on his face and seek the mercy of the Holy God he has wronged. Admonish him to “bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.” Return to the practice, my dear brethren, of what we preach!
Do we preachers stand in our pulpits and tell our congregations that “by your sin, you have broken God’s law, so come forward and let us set up a restoration program endorsed ‘by several well known pastors from across the nation’ and hire a professional counselor so you can be ‘restored’?”
Do we need 'a restoration program' for a sinful preacher but a brief prayer at the altar for any ‘common‘ sinner?
The preacher who has violated the sanctity of his home, corrupted the purity of his flock, and forsaken the holiness of his calling, has forfeited his position; he has failed his stewardship; he is no longer fit to be called a leader. If this preacher repents of his sin and makes whatever restitution is possible, then he can be restored to fellowship; but let us cease talking about 'restoring' the fallen brother to his former place of service. Let him become a follower; but by all that is holy and right, keep him out of the pulpit! “His bishoprick let another take!”
A father who commits incest ought not to be given, yea, must not be given, custody of the children; and a preacher who violates the purity and holiness of the relationship between teacher and disciple, preacher and hearer, shepherd and flock is guilty of an incestuous sin and is forever more unqualified to be restored to his position. He has betrayed his Lord and has become a traitor to his calling and is to be banned and barred from the pulpit.
Surely, he may be forgiven. Yes, someday he may even become able to be used as would any other layman in the congregation; but he is never again to be conferred a position of moral trust. Never should it be allowed to be once again business as usual! He cannot be 'restored' to the pulpit.
This letter included a request for financial assistance to pay the normal bills of his family (since sadly “they are now without income”) as well as to pay toward 'professional counseling' for the fallen preacher. I would willingly assist in feeding and clothing the family of the preacher. I also would agree to help in feeding and clothing the victims of his “drastic mistakes” (Not one of whom was mentioned, by the way. Do they not deserve our “show of love”? And, would not “an uplifting word of encouragement” be “a tremendous blessing” also to them at this time?).
Having said what I am willing to do, let me be equally clear about what I am emphatically, unequivocally, unwilling even to consider. I will not give one thin dime to help pay for 'professional counseling' for a morally impure preacher. No sir! Not a single penny! The hypocrisy of even making such a request staggers me.
That very hypocrisy, dear reader, is the symptom of the vicious 'sickness' spreading rapidly through the ranks of Baptist preachers like a deadly virus. Some are calling (for 'the greater good' of course) for Baptists to set aside the clear commands of God and follow instead the counsels of men, thereby establishing a double standard of treating the sins of preachers differently than the sins of 'pew-fillers.' Rather than plainly and scripturally dealing with sin in a preacher, his sin is dealt with as 'some drastic mistakes in his personal life that has caused his surrendering himself for professional help and for the immediate resignation of his pastorate.'
It needs to be faced that these 'misdeeds' are not merely 'some drastic mistakes'; they are wicked vile sins against the Holy God of Heaven! A 'drastic mistake' is making an error in addition in your checkbook and writing an insufficient funds check. A 'drastic mistake' is missing a lowering speed limit sign and receiving a 'blue light special.' A 'drastic mistake' is calling Miss Jones, Mrs. Smith. A 'drastic mistake' is leaving the sermons in Tucson when you go to Tacoma to preach a revival! A 'drastic mistake' is forgetting a deacons’ meeting or an appointment to marry a couple.
Committing adultery is not a 'drastic mistake'; committing adultery is sin! 'Fooling around,' 'playing house,' 'having an affair,' with the secretary or the pianist or anyone else is sin, not a 'drastic mistake.' Stealing is not a 'drastic mistake'; stealing is sin! Homosexuality is not a 'drastic mistake'; homosexuality is sin! Moral infidelity is sin, not a mistake!
Scripture rightly cautions that we are to “lay hands suddenly on no man.” No man is to be ordained until he has first proven himself. (It absolutely astounds me when churches will unhesitatingly ordain a man to the Gospel ministry that they would never consider ordaining to the deaconship because of his age or his inexperience or even due to his being unmarried. Think about that hypocrisy!) Scripture is unavoidably clear. Pastors are to be mature men who have proven themselves. And, those preachers that fall away into moral or doctrinal heresy are to be dealt with promptly and forcibly. “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” The next generation of preachers (if there is one) will live pure or live loose as this generation of preachers is disciplined.
The pulpit has become soiled and stained by the careless living of some and remains that way by the compromising leading of others. It is time to clear away the rubbish and filth, purge the unclean workers, and restore the holy place behind the sacred desk. The pulpit must be pure. The pulpit must be clean. The pulpit must be holy. May God send us some new Nehemiah’s who will 'clean house' even if it means (pardon the pun) 'laying hands' (Nehemiah 13:21) on somebody!
And, may God send a revival of church discipline and give us a generation
of pastors with the spiritual integrity to honor the discipline of sister
churches! Oh, yes, exactly who are those preachers with A·I·D·S? They are
those Baptist preachers who have set aside the laws of God and who,
having been infected with the traditions of men, have now developed
A·I·D·S:
A