You may be wondering what became of the sins I mentioned in the previous post. We heard out the multiple witness accusations as the judges of these matters, and the elders informed both the church that left and their denomination of our decision. Their response? As someone we know in the military said it, it's according to what those in the military are taught: Deny, deny, deflection!
First, their entire response was based upon the false assumption that these are charges that I was making instead of understanding that these are charges based upon our investigation into these matters based upon eye witness testimony, some of which included family members and the accused themselves over the years. I am simply one witness, although a key one, since I had the most access to what was being said and done behind the scenes.
But we were not submitting accusations for their elders to judge [Who would ever find themselves guilty if they were the judges of their own qualifications? Conflict of interest would dictate that they cannot] or for their denomination to judge [What authority does God through His Word give to denominations? None. They're manmade.] or for their laity to judge [The laity in a church judging a matter either way is evil as Christ does not give that authority to them. The layman who judges the matter on his own speaks against Christ]. Instead, these are charges that are made as a verdict of the judgment that Christ has given the rightful judges, the elders of the church from which they were never released, to make.
Second, they argued that we did release them as a church plant, and therefore, we don't have authority to judge them. This is a very interesting claim. For one, we (i.e., both their leadership and ours) have put churches and people under church discipline, i.e., excommunicated and handed them over to the devil, who were in other churches, including pastors of other churches. Christ isn't bound by walls. So even if they had been released from us, this is a nonargument. On another point, however, no one actually came to us and asked whether they could go to this church. Now, this may be controversial to the American mindset, but if you are under authority you need to be released from that authority. If you can just choose to be under any authority at any given time that you like, then you are not under any authority but your own. I'm not sure how the prodigal son becomes a prodigal if he doesn't need to be released from his father. His father seems to think that he's dead until he repents and returns to him.
On top of this, strange that a church plant began with a coup to take over the church through secret meetings and phone calls, attempted to get another elder on board with the coup to legitimize it, then when that didn't work, through our own gullibility being used to present this as some congenial split, all the while the vow to not campaign was being ignored in order to gut the church that was supposedly sending this group out as a plant. What plant do you know of that is not accountable to its sending church? What plant do you know of poisons its members into thinking that it was the other side's fault as to why you split rather than taking accountability for its rebellion and splitting the church over a single pastor's personal preferences and dislikes? What church plant promises to leave within a couple weeks and then stays in the same building for almost a year and then when asked to leave threatens to undo its sending church and attempts to manipulate its way into getting the building and taking away the time from its sending church that was so graciously given to it even when it was in sin against it? What church plant ignores the elders of its sending church that the pastor they are following is disqualified from ministry and the two elders he appointed were unqualified for ministry (something announced to them when the split was happening)? They were all told this beforehand yet they ignored it because they really, really wanted to have their own church to mold in their own images. Even by their own admission, it was a split, as they admitted that they didn't agree with the decision of the session, i.e., Christ's voice through the two or three, and therefore were going to leave and start their own church. That's not a church plant. That's a mutiny and a split, Ladies and Gents!
My fellow elder and I wish we could go back to make it clear that we did not consider it a plant, and that was never said by us. That was the propaganda of the other side to hide the sin of insurrection committed by this pastor and two or our deacons and many of the households of the church. We were so exhausted and just wanted him to leave so badly, we unfortunately just let him do what he wanted on the way out. I hugged him in the end, not to say that this was somehow all great and good, but rather my hug meant, "Goodbye" and "I'm sorry I couldn't save you," which I sincerely state not in some sarcastic manner but as heartfelt. I deeply regret not being able to pull him out of his rebellion in order to save his life. I do not believe that he, or any of his family, will enter the world to come.
Thirdly, the biggest pushback was about whether the document they got was in accordance with protocol and proper procedures. I must confess, as a Bible scholar, I'm not quite sure what protocol or procedures they're talking about as the verses cited have no relevance to what we did as we either did them or they refer to personal relationships. I can only imagine that it’s according to their denominational, man-made procedures by which we are not bound nor are helpful. In fact, their ad hoc elder wasn't interested in even asking us who the witnesses were, but proceeded to speculate that it was all from one source, that it was sinful to break his imaginary procedures of his denomination because he thought we were submitting accusations. He was not interested in asking questions, but rushing to judgment, in order to dismiss it as fast as he could, he just made blind accusations against us without even talking to us about it. Ironic, isn't it? Unfortunately, as an old friend of one of the elders, he is guilty of what he tried to pin on us (unrighteous judgment, not following the biblical procedure by even investigating the claim of at least two witnesses, i.e., us, and extreme bias). His bitterness toward us may stem from past interactions we've had with him. Whatever it may be, he just projected a bunch of irrelevant claims that would have been easily refuted had he even cared to ask any questions at all. A couple of the witnesses were even willing to reach out to him until I told them his responses and at that point didn't think he was fit to judge the matter objectively. Ironically, as well, the Scripture commands that one is not to even entertain an accusation against elders except on the basis of two or three witnesses (1 Tim 5:19, something we actually were mindful of when we wrote up our decision (we have quite a few, not just two or three), and yet, I'm pretty sure we're elders and he had no problem shooting out lots and lots of accusations based upon the assumption that we were handing him accusations rather than the judgment of Jesus Christ from his highest authority on earth, the local church.
Here is how we went about this matter and the biblical precedent for it:
1. If someone sins a sin leading to death, and it is established to have been committed, it is to be exposed and judged immediately. There is no further trial if the sin is established and it is made known to everyone along with the judgment of excommunication and the handing over to the devil. This is clear from multiple examples where judgment is made immediately either based on at least a couple witnesses or if it is committed in front of the elders/apostles so that they need no witnesses for it (Acts 5:1-11; 13:9-11; 8:20-24; Rom 16:17-20; 1 Cor 5; 1 Tim 1:18-20; 5:20-21; 2 Tim 4:10, 14; 3 John 9-11; Jude; Rev 2-3). This is built off of the idea that if a sin leads to death, the one who commits it must immediately be removed from the camp. Only if there is repentance, i.e., a confession of his crimes and a disposition to make restitution, can one be forgiven and allowed back in the camp.
2. If an elder commits a sin that is against another leading to death, he is disqualified from ministry and is to be exposed. 1 Timothy 5:20-21 states, "The elders who sin are to be exposed in the presence of all so that the rest also will be fearful. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His elect angels, to carefully observe these instructions without bias, doing nothing because of your personal relationship with or feelings toward someone."
3. Matthew 18 is about personal feuds, not sins leading to death. As usual, Matthew 18 is misapplied to these circumstances. It's actually what stopped me from obeying all of the above verses throughout the years. I thought if someone said sorry that discipline could go no further. I didn't realize that (1) repentance isn't just saying sorry, and (2) Matthew 18 is a passage concerning forgiveness in one's personal relationships with one another as Christians. This is why some mss. state "if your brother sins against you." This was to make clear that since the sin is against you, you can forgive it without taking it to the church. But even this isn't talking about sins leading to death like insurrection and adultery. The Gospel of Matthew makes it clear that these sins largely have to do with calling people names and having personal feuds with one another. Now, even calling a brother a name or feuding with him may lead to death as murder if it is not repented of and reconciled, but some sins are far more egregious and cannot be dealt with on an individual level because they have consequences for the whole community.
For instance, in Matthew 5:21-26, Jesus warns that calling a brother a name is worthy of hell but can be remedied through repentance so that he no longer has an accusation against him. The phrase, "Truly, I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the very last penny," is echoed in the statement of Matthew 18:34, "And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him." Verse 35 of Matthew 18 makes it very clear that this is about personal forgiveness and not church discipline. Church discipline is only cited in Matthew 18:17-20 if the sin turns into a murder through unrepentance. The rest of the chapter is about these types of sins in personal relationships, as Peter's question assumes.
Likewise, Matthew 5:44 indicates that there will be feuds within the covenant community where some people "persecute you." Whereas one might be inclined to think of this as a Roman persecution where Christians are being thrown in jail and killed, Matthew defines persecution in v. 11 as insults and false accusations. Again, these have to do with personal relationships of sins that can be atoned for through repentance and restitution even in the Mosaic law itself (Lev 6:1-8). There is no sacrifice in the Mosaic Law for an intentional/high handed/purposeful sin leading to death. Although in the NT, one can be forgiven of such sins, they are disqualifying from ministry since the person has proven themselves to be spiritually immature.
Hence, since we went through the biblical process, have the authority according to Jesus Christ to judge issues of church discipline according to the one part of Matthew 18 that does involve church discipline and because we have apostolic succession to render judgment (vv. 17-20, see the parallel in Matt 16:18-19; John 20:22-23), and have done so in accordance with the way the apostles both render judgment and commanded we must do so as well, we have rendered our verdict and warning, which is Christ's verdict and warning. All who have received Christ's words through us and have rejected it have now placed themselves outside of His loving care and have given themselves over to the devil.
So that's how that all went.
As for us, the only repentance that came out of this was from us. I submitted to the judgment of our leadership, presented it to our people, and gave the option for anyone to object to my staying in ministry.
So what was the point of all of this if the other church wasn't going to budge one ounce toward true repentance? It really was a cleansing for us, me personally, and a great catalyst for teaching. We had been as wrong about church discipline and repentance as these people are, and over the last year, God has been showing us our error so that we might now come to the right of it.
Time does nothing toward sin. As Christ states in Matthew 5, a sin committed against someone will carry over into eternity. It is not forgiven or lessened in any way simply because it has been a long time since committed. When people are thrown into the lake of fire, though it be a trillion years later, the sin committed in their lives here will continue to be as potent and poisonous as when they first committed it, perhaps, even more so. Knowing that we had committed so many errors, therefore, and have sinned ourselves, even though with sins not leading to death ourselves, and knowing that time is not a factor, we decided to do what even the other church did when they were a part of us, i.e. render judgment upon those who had sinned (in that case, they had caused a split and left and had been gone for over a year before this pastor and the other pastors/elders decided to put them on discipline--no denomination or man-made procedures needed). They were rebuked. They did not repent. The end.
Now, we are simply left to see who will jump into Korah's pit with him so that we might prepare our final verdict.
No comments:
Post a Comment