Church Attempts To Extradite Member Fleeing From Abusive Pastor

Edwards said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hadn't read the article until now and am typically leary of anything coming from Julie Roys but as presented, it seems quite clear to me. The new PCA church has taken everything into consideration and has rendered their decision. Seems to me that Burk Parson is being upfront and transparent so I do not understand the issue with the prior church aside from the fact that they want to usurp their ecclesiastical authority over soneone who no longer acknowledges it? They could have taken the matter over to the larger presbytery (However this works, I am not a Presby) but they themselves have withdrawn from the PCA and have become "Independent" and for what reason? Sad to see this happening to the Church that RC Sproul once pastored!
 
ALAYMAN said:
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?
Click to expand...
I’m referring more to the manner in which it’s done. I haven’t heard of church disciplinary measures being taken in decades. My last memory of this type of thing was from around the 1995ish. I was a teen at the time, but I recall even then thinking how this was being done in such a selective manner. One man was disciplined for having an affair. I remember that one well because I was dating his daughter at the time. Another one was a big woman with a big mouth. Her sin, apparently, was being a big ol’ gossip.
 
I still believe in and support church discipline. It should be exercised for such offenses as heresy, sexual immorality, substance abuse, certain financial misdeeds, physical and emotional abuse of spouse, family member or fellow church member, etc. Exclusion from membership should be carried out as a last resort for those who are unrepentant.

When a church excludes a member, it may appropriate for that church to notify other churches, especially the new church where the member applies for membership, of the action taken, and why. It is then appropriate and wise for the new church to examine the situation, and they may accept the applicant for membership if they find that the charges against him at the previous church were unfounded.

In the case of Mr. Zima at St. Andrews, he does not appear to be accused of any offenses that would normally be regarded as sin or requiring excommunication. "Gossip" is a rather vague offense that can be used as a weapon against almost anybody. Sometimes wives who appeal to the church for help, with a husband who is into physical abuse or porno, are accused of "gossip" and are disciplined, while the hubby goes scot free.

All too many people are being "disciplined" in churches these days for offenses no worse than questioning a budget or building program, or a change in the by-laws, or for expressing some disagreement with the pastor or getting on his "Enemies List" for whatever reason. Churches that misuse the practice of church discipline, like St. Andrews is doing, bring the whole concept into disrepute. As a result, some churches go to the opposite extreme and fail to exercise church discipline and then "anything goes."

We need to find a balance, involving both compassion and firmness for stubborn wrong-doers in the church. People are going to be turned off by churches that allow rampant sin in the membership, and likewise they will be turned off by churches that harshly demonize and persecute people over the slightest offense. St. Andrews appears to fall in the second category, and in my opinion, this type of thing is a bad testimony that scares people off from church membership and involvement in general.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Church discipline is a Biblical concept.
Your little men with big egos statement is apropos. 😉
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I haven’t heard of church disciplinary measures being taken in decades.
Click to expand...
And therein lies a big, big problem! Churches are often reluctant to deal with matters of sin and misconduct among their ranks. They won't demand evidence of a changed life, Christian character, fruits of the Spirit, etc.

There is also no real "commitment" to a particular congregation. One may come and go as they please and likely "Church Hop" from one place to another. Pastoral leadership often resorts to "Marketing tactics" in order to target certain demographics in order to attract and retain those that fit within such. The end-goal is "Warm bodies" in seats rather than actually making disciples, encouraging spiritual growth, and personal accountability. With your typical "Mega-Church," one may enjoy maintaining some semblance of "anonymity" while enjoying the "Show." If it seems as if you want to keep to yourself and not be bothered, they will likely leave you alone. If you are a significant "Contributor," they will likely overlook a number of things and refuse to "rock the boat!"

In other words, if you cater your church to attract goats, they will come and will bring their goat problems right along with them! Make an obvious goat comfortable in your congregation and they will ultimately take over your church and then they will run off the true sheep, will run off the shepherd, and replace him with wolves!

The instances you have mentioned are both legitimate reasons for Church discipline. The affair is an obvious situation especially if it involved another member. Gossip and slander is no less harmful to a congregation. Did they both stick around and receive the correction or did they run off to somewhere else?

As I said in my comment to Edwards, it seems as if this church is overstepping its bounds. One may always excercise their option to leave and disassociate themselves from a congregation if they so choose. It also seems clear to me that this person has done the right thing and made himself accountable to this new congregation. It is also good and proper for the prior church to notify the new church of the issue but from there, they are effecively done and should be considered "Out of the loop!"
 
illinoisguy said:
In the case of Mr. Zima at St. Andrews, he does not appear to be accused of any offenses that would normally be regarded as sin or requiring excommunication. "Gossip" is a rather vague offense that can be used as a weapon against almost anybody.
Click to expand...

That the charage against Zima was "gossip" raised a red flag for me. It's a slippery term. How many times on this forum was the word "gossip" thrown around during discussions of the various Hyles- and FBCH-related scandals, most of which by then were a matter of public record? I don't regard it as a serious accusation. It's a thought-terminating cliche.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I’m referring more to the manner in which it’s done. I haven’t heard of church disciplinary measures being taken in decades.
Click to expand...

Well, Jesus described discipline as starting at the personal level, and then to the elders, and then to the congregation at large (Matt. 18:15-20). If the matter is resolved, there's no need to escalate it. I know my church takes discipline seriously, and while I know of a few cases where someone's serious sins became "public" (including a pastor who was dismissed), it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out the vast majority of discipline cases never have to go farther than the elders' boardroom.

"If he listens to you, you have gained your brother" (15:15); and at that point, taking matters higher would only humiliate him. The primary goal of discipline is restorative, not punitive.
 
I believe it is important to maintain the practice of church discipline. For that reason, it is important that churches not use it in a heavy-handed, unjustified and extreme manner, which would bring disrepute on the entire concept. My perception is that St. Andrews is taking things too far.

In 1 Corinthians 5, the Apostle Paul strongly urged the church to carry out necessary discipline on an unrepentant offender. But then in 2 Corinthians 2:1-11, he admonished them to not overdo it and be unnecessarily harsh, which would be one of Satan's devices (2:11) in the sense that it would needlessly embitter folks against the Lord's Church.

Churches and denominations that become known for harsh, brutal treatment of their followers risk damaging their image and brand name. I believe this has already happened with the "9 Marks" movement, which has become notorious for their habits of attempting to control and harass former members who have flown the coop - so much so that detractors are referring to them as "9 Marxist."

It is necessary to deal, sometimes decisively and in an apparently harsh manner, with unrepentant evildoers and divisive troublemakers in any church. However, after the source of the real or alleged problem has left the congregation, perhaps it is not necessary to keep up the vendetta against persons who are no longer around. Once the burr is no longer under the saddle, it is time to ride on.
 
Ransom said:
Well, Jesus described discipline as starting at the personal level, and then to the elders, and then to the congregation at large (Matt. 18:15-20).
Click to expand...
Who determines what is a disciplinary action and what is not?
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Who determines what is a disciplinary action and what is not?
Click to expand...

You (Matt. 15:15), then yourself and witnesses (v. 16), then the church (v. 17).

If an issue isn't worth pursuing, at some level, it can be decided to let it drop, no?
 
Sincere question. Where does it say in the Bible that a born again believer is required to be a member of a church?
 
Ransom said:
My church does say so in the by-laws, as I said earlier.
Click to expand...
People are human and have egos, pride, self will, greedy, vengeful, spiteful amongst other sins.

That’s giving a lot of power to a group of people to have over your life.

I don’t say these things to you in sarcasm or anything like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top