Church Attempts To Extradite Member Fleeing From Abusive Pastor

[illinoisguy]

Burk Parsons' Florida church won’t allow elder to resign

The ruling elder at St Andrew’s Chapel in central FL & one-time “consigliere” of Pastor Burk Parsons says he's tired of controversy & conflict

julieroys.com

"In a follow-up letter sent to Zima on Jan. 28, St. Andrew’s elders warned him there is no 'escape hatch' to get out of church discipline. They told Zima that the now-independent Reformed church maintains both the spiritual and legal 'right to determine your membership status,' regardless of Zima’s desire to resign.

“'They want to hold me captive,” Zima told TRR. 'Spiritually imprisoned.'. . . 'I deny your jurisdiction over me,' Zima wrote. 'Please respect my legal right to disassociate from (St. Andrew’s) and worship at my new church.'"

https://thewartburgwatch.com/tww2/2...-is-demanding-st-andrews-stop-their-nonsense/

"Shortly thereafter, Zima was brought up on charges of 'gossiping.' I love the 'gossip' word. What do you want to bet that the beloved backroom boys have indulged from time to time? Zima eventually found himself in a 'no-win' situation and decided to leave the church. It appears the boys have decided that they cannot let David go, even though he is now a member in good standing of a PCA church. . . .

"I remember when the old Soviet Union forced everyone to agree with the leaders 100%. They also tried to prevent folks from leaving. Autocratic rule can eventually become a cult or an oppressive regime. None of this sounds like the Jesus I know."

[This is an all too common situation where a church attempts to forbid a member fleeing from an abusive pastor from being allowed to join any other church in the area. This particular case is Presbyterian, but this has been done by Baptist and Campbellite churches. It was done to me by an IFB church that I left when the pastor started using me as a punching bag. My former pastor and all his henchmen called my new pastor to demand that I be booted out of my new church.

I used to accept the Baptist principle that there are only 3 ways to leave a church: 1. Death 2. Exclusion/excommunication 3. Letter of transfer to a church of like faith and practice. It might be wise for churches to loosen up a bit, and allow members who want to leave the church to simply resign and have their membership dropped, without requiring a permission slip to join another church. Churches that fail to allow members to leave in peace may get themselves sued. I am not sure why it would be considered a good practice for any church to try to hold on, at any cost, to members who are unhappy campers and want to get out].

 

[Ransom]

I am not sure why it would be considered a good practice for any church to try to hold on, at any cost, to members who are unhappy campers and want to get out].

I'm not saying it's the case in this instance, but one reason, which seems legit to me, might be because the member in question is under church discipline. My church might not strike such a member from membership if requested, until the disciplinary process is completed.

A member in unrepentant sin shouldn't be able to hop to another church with a clean slate because a resignation short-circuited the discipline. If I Ran Things <tm>, such a move (or any other actions intended as a refusal to participate in discipline) would be treated as equivalent to an admission of guilt, and if another church inquired about the ex-member, the situation would be explained as such.

Useless trivia: Burk Parsons was almost a member of the Backstreet Boys. He auditioned and was accepted, but in the end decided not to sign with them.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I'm not saying it's the case in this instance, but one reason, which seems legit to me, might be because the member in question is under church discipline. My church might not strike such a member from membership if requested, until the disciplinary process is completed.

A member in unrepentant sin shouldn't be able to hop to another church with a clean slate because a resignation short-circuited the discipline. If I Ran Things <tm>, such a move (or any other actions intended as a refusal to participate in discipline) would be treated as equivalent to an admission of guilt, and if another inquired about the ex-member, the situation would be explained as such.

Beat me to it.

 

[subllibrm]

There is a case in our area where a man turned himself in for child sexual abuse. The police are investigating his involvement in multiple church youth groups over the last twenty plus years. First thought is why are churches so willing to let people in or let them leave without some level of inquiry? Second thought is that this confirms my theory that pedophiles are so often involved in churches and schools is because that's where the children are.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

I'm not saying it's the case in this instance, but one reason, which seems legit to me, might be because the member in question is under church discipline. My church might not strike such a member from membership if requested, until the disciplinary process is completed.

I find your thoughts on this topic intriguing. Hypothetically, are you saying that if a church member is under disciplinary action, s/he shouldn’t be allowed to withdraw membership status?

If that’s indeed what you’re saying, I can only imagine this being acceptable in a situation in which the member entered a contract agreement with a clause that specified that they will retain membership status until any disciplinary action is completed prior to membership withdrawal status being applied. I don’t think the pastoral staff/deacons/etc., should be able to, willy-nilly, make such a decision.

 

[Ekklesian]

There is a case in our area where a man turned himself in for child sexual abuse. The police are investigating his involvement in multiple church youth groups over the last twenty plus years. First thought is why are churches so willing to let people in or let them leave without some level of inquiry? Second thought is that this confirms my theory that pedophiles are so often involved in churches and schools is because that's where the children are.

The issue with the one of the OP is "...that he was unfit for ministry because he is harsh, unkind and domineering..." and a gossipper.

Not because he was diddling kids.

Definitely an internal matter.

You're trying to equate it to a crime...but, then, that's the leftists' tactic. Trying to make the felonies of the left equal to the misdemeanors of the right.

 

[Ransom]

If that’s indeed what you’re saying, I can only imagine this being acceptable in a situation in which the member entered a contract agreement with a clause that specified that they will retain membership status until any disciplinary action is completed prior to membership withdrawal status being applied. I don’t think the pastoral staff/deacons/etc., should be able to, willy-nilly, make such a decision.

The membership covenant at my church stipulates that members agree to abide by the by-laws, which include church disciplinary procedures. A resignation clearly intended to avoid discipline would be an effort to get around the by-laws.

Basically, if you agreed to submit to those processes, you don't get to avoid them by rage-quitting.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Basically, if you agreed to submit to those processes, you don't get to avoid them by rage-quitting.

You didn’t really address my question/comment. Sure, it might be unethical to “quit” when the water starts boiling over, but again, unless the church specifically states that a person’s membership status will be unchanged until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, then it would be just as unethical for the church to refuse a membership resignation. This is tantamount to a business not allowing an employee to resign when he knows he’s going to be terminated. Of course the business can refuse to rehire the individual in the future—same with the church, which could refuse future membership requests or even a trespass order could be issued, depending on the severity of the situation.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You didn’t really address my question/comment. Sure, it might be unethical to “quit” when the water starts boiling over, but again, unless the church specifically states that a person’s membership status will be unchanged until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, then it would be just as unethical for the church to refuse a membership resignation. This is tantamount to a business not allowing an employee to resign when he knows he’s going to be terminated. Of course the business can refuse to rehire the individual in the future—same with the church, which could refuse future membership requests or even a trespass order could be issued, depending on the severity of the situation.

Making an analogy between a corporate employment/termination situation and a church disciplinary action seems to be a stretch. The implication of thorough and prudent disciplinary action within a theological and ecclesiastical context means that a person can’t just do what Dave Hyles (and subllibrms’ examples) did when they just skipped town and went to another hunting ground.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Making an analogy between a corporate employment/termination situation and a church disciplinary action seems to be a stretch. The implication of thorough and prudent disciplinary action within a theological and ecclesiastical context means that a person can’t just do what Dave Hyles (and subllibrms’ examples) did when they just skipped town and went to another hunting ground.

OK, I may have misunderstood the situation. I thought we were talking about an average person sitting in the church pew. Wasn’t Dave Hyles a pastor?

 

[illinoisguy]

A member in unrepentant sin shouldn't be able to hop to another church with a clean slate because a resignation short-circuited the discipline. If I Ran Things <tm>, such a move (or any other actions intended as a refusal to participate in discipline) would be treated as equivalent to an admission of guilt, and if another church inquired about the ex-member, the situation would be explained as such.

Basically, I agree with this statement. In this case, I'm not convinced that Mr. Zima is in a state of "unrepentant sin." He is trying to leave his church to get away from a pastor who has been publicly censured by his presbytery for abusive conduct. And he is accused of "gossip," presumably for talking about a church problem that has been widely discussed and reported on all over the Internet. Meanwhile, Mr. Zima's new church examined the charges of "unrepentant sin" against him, which was appropriate and commendable on their part to do so, and they concluded that the charges are unmerited.

I support and endorse the principle and practice of church discipline, but I suppose that observers of the fracas at St. Andrews will note that lay people who fall out of favor with the Mannagod are dealt with in an extremely harsh manner, while preachers who indulge in sexual or other serious sins get the kid glove treatment and all sorts of excuses made for them, as to why we should forgive and forget and ease them back into the ministry. Not only that, but big-shot celebrity clergy like C.J. Mahaney and Mark Driscoll are able to hop from their churches to escape discipline, and get away with it, so the rules that apply to lay people do not apply to them.

I suppose the bottom line is that Mr. Zima is free to leave St. Andrews, he is free to join another church and ignore the "kangaroo court" proceedings against him at St. Andrews, while St. Andrews is free to make themselves look bad if they wish and incur possible legal liability under current case law, for carrying on their vendetta against a former member who has flown the coop. My sympathies are with Mr. Zima, since I was in the same situation with an IFB church which excommunicated me with no reason ever given, and then made herculean efforts to prevent me from joining another IFB church.

 

[subllibrm]

The issue with the one of the OP is "...that he was unfit for ministry because he is harsh, unkind and domineering..." and a gossipper.

Not because he was diddling kids.

Definitely an internal matter.

You're trying to equate it to a crime...but, then, that's the leftists' tactic. Trying to make the felonies of the left equal to the misdemeanors of the right.

I said all that? Wow! Pretty cool how I didn't use any of those words.

I have been around long enough to see people who are running from a church and others who are running into a church. Both kinds with baggage and both churches unequipped to deal with the drama those people are dragging around with them. The one I referenced just happens to be a big story in the local news. And it does speak to the weakness of the church as the authority God intended it to be in the lives of the congregation. The US military wasn't the first group to operate on the don't ask don't tell model.

 

[Ransom]

Sure, it might be unethical to “quit” when the water starts boiling over, but again, unless the church specifically states that a person’s membership status will be unchanged until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, then it would be just as unethical for the church to refuse a membership resignation.

My church does say so in the by-laws, as I said earlier.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

A member in unrepentant sin shouldn't be able to hop to another church with a clean slate because a resignation short-circuited the discipline. If I Ran Things <tm>, such a move (or any other actions intended as a refusal to participate in discipline) would be treated as equivalent to an admission of guilt, and if another church inquired about the ex-member, the situation would be explained as such.

I agree 100%! Church discipline is scriptural and should never be a trivial matter. The old congregation is not entirely out of line here.

If someone does not agree with the disciplinary procedure, the reason for such action, or whatever, they may leave but the Church is also within their right to "let them be as an heathen and publican" and have a duty to notify others that this person may be a potential problem!

Seems as if this church has done its "due diligence" in notifying this person's new church of the disciplinary action that had been taken. I would say it is up to this new church to closely evaluate and consider such and determine how they are to proceed. This person should be up front and candid with this new congregation and submit himself to their judgment on the matter.

The way I would handle the matter if I were one of the elders at this PCA church is that membership would be conditional upon determining whether such action was warranted, and whether this prospective member was agreeable to any disciplinary actions taken by the new congregation. PCA Presbyterians are largely sound, conservative, and take matters like this rather seriously.

What I would also do is insist that this prospective member not make any more public "Stink" over this matter! Gossip is a serious sin and should be dealt with but it is not something of which we need to be aware.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

This entire topic of church discipline seems antiquated and silly. Who would subject themselves to such a situation? Maybe this type of thing still happens in rural communities and small churches, but I can’t imagine the pastoral staff of a mega church giving two rips about some little congregation being up in arms about the conduct of a member, assuming it’s not criminal in nature. This sounds like little men with big egos who want to run a kangaroo court without due process, a situation in which the verdict is already decided.

 

[subllibrm]

This entire topic of church discipline seems antiquated and silly. Who would subject themselves to such a situation? Maybe this type of thing still happens in rural communities and small churches, but I can’t imagine the pastoral staff of a mega church giving two rips about some little congregation being up in arms about the conduct of a member, assuming it’s not criminal in nature. This sounds like little men with big egos who want to run a kangaroo court without due process, a situation in which the verdict is already decided.

Jesus disagrees with you. Matthew 18. Paul as well in several passages. If anything, your point is indicative of a problem with the mega church model not with proper church discipline.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Jesus disagrees with you.

Maybe, but I don’t think you would sit for a kangaroo court either.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Maybe, but I don’t think you would sit for a kangaroo court either.

I stand by my previous statement. If this person feels as if he had been unfairly treated by his previous congregation, he can bring the matter to his new congregation and allow them to fairly evaluate the situation. Church discipline is very much a biblical thing and I would be wary of any Congregation who took this matter lightly!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Maybe, but I don’t think you would sit for a kangaroo court either.

So are you saying that Church discipline is antiquated and stupid in general? Or just that the manner (of church discipline) in which some people wield power over the sheep is wrong?

 

[Edwards]

Burk Parsons' Florida church won’t allow elder to resign

The ruling elder at St Andrew’s Chapel in central FL & one-time “consigliere” of Pastor Burk Parsons says he's tired of controversy & conflict

julieroys.com

"In a follow-up letter sent to Zima on Jan. 28, St. Andrew’s elders warned him there is no 'escape hatch' to get out of church discipline. They told Zima that the now-independent Reformed church maintains both the spiritual and legal 'right to determine your membership status,' regardless of Zima’s desire to resign.

“'They want to hold me captive,” Zima told TRR. 'Spiritually imprisoned.'. . . 'I deny your jurisdiction over me,' Zima wrote. 'Please respect my legal right to disassociate from (St. Andrew’s) and worship at my new church.'"

https://thewartburgwatch.com/tww2/2...-is-demanding-st-andrews-stop-their-nonsense/

"Shortly thereafter, Zima was brought up on charges of 'gossiping.' I love the 'gossip' word. What do you want to bet that the beloved backroom boys have indulged from time to time? Zima eventually found himself in a 'no-win' situation and decided to leave the church. It appears the boys have decided that they cannot let David go, even though he is now a member in good standing of a PCA church. . . .

"I remember when the old Soviet Union forced everyone to agree with the leaders 100%. They also tried to prevent folks from leaving. Autocratic rule can eventually become a cult or an oppressive regime. None of this sounds like the Jesus I know."

[This is an all too common situation where a church attempts to forbid a member fleeing from an abusive pastor from being allowed to join any other church in the area. This particular case is Presbyterian, but this has been done by Baptist and Campbellite churches. It was done to me by an IFB church that I left when the pastor started using me as a punching bag. My former pastor and all his henchmen called my new pastor to demand that I be booted out of my new church.

I used to accept the Baptist principle that there are only 3 ways to leave a church: 1. Death 2. Exclusion/excommunication 3. Letter of transfer to a church of like faith and practice. It might be wise for churches to loosen up a bit, and allow members who want to leave the church to simply resign and have their membership dropped, without requiring a permission slip to join another church. Churches that fail to allow members to leave in peace may get themselves sued. I am not sure why it would be considered a good practice for any church to try to hold on, at any cost, to members who are unhappy campers and want to get out].

So, Burk Parson’s is disciplined by his denomination for being rude
and unfriendly. He was taken out of the pulpet years only for the same thing. When he was taken out a second time (there were 40 witnesses against him that testified in the denominational )the church quits the denomination, but they put
somebody under discipline for bucking authority. It sounds a bit hypocritical to me.