A Sea Of Red

From Friday's Wall Street Journal ...

Banned From Church
Reviving an ancient practice, churches are exposing sinners and shunning those who won't repent.

By ALEXANDRA ALTER
January 18, 2008; Page W1

On a quiet Sunday morning in June, as worshippers settled into the pews at Allen Baptist Church in southwestern Michigan, Pastor Jason Burrick grabbed his cellphone and dialed 911. When a dispatcher answered, the preacher said a former congregant was in the sanctuary. "And we need to, um, have her out A.S.A.P."



Half an hour later, 71-year-old Karolyn Caskey, a church member for nearly 50 years who had taught Sunday school and regularly donated 10% of her pension, was led out by a state trooper and a county sheriff's officer. One held her purse and Bible. The other put her in handcuffs.

Click Here for Full Story

Very interesting read. Thoughts?

I praise God that Jesus did not practice that...
...in fact, He was (GASP)...known to actually PARTY with sinners (Matthew 9).

This makes me more sad then anything...because non-Christians are going to see this and completely dismiss Christ because of the actions of a few..its sad...but I can't say I would blame this....but this is quite the opposite of what Jesus of the New Testament preached....sad

thepostman: I agree with you, and I feel like even if we don't do it in the outright way these churches are doing it, most Evangelical churches are doing this. We just do it in our own way with indirect actions and silence. It's very sad and completely hypocritical.

Sore subject, here...
...what's the difference between what these churches are doing and they way many on here treated Shuck/KentuckWildcats?

Shuk was abusing a privilage, removing a member of church becuse of personal sin is a whole different issue.

but when he came on here as another name....he was instantly ridiculed and said nothing truly outrageous.

I don't remember reading where the good shepherd ever kicked out or abandoned a sheep, now he did leave the flock to look for a lost sheep. Usually independent baptist preacher preach hell fire sermons so much they drive away most sinners. In this case I think it is a preacher who just wants to be the king, just my 2 cents worth.

Fumblerooskies wrote:but when he came on here as another name....he was instantly ridiculed and said nothing truly outrageous.

I think that's because he tried to be sneaky about it, not because of who he was. I mean, you have to admit it's a little silly.

If this was meant to be a comparison between a church dismissing a member and him being banned in the first place, I don't know what to tell you. Flame Fans.com isn't a church (even if there are some Christians here, and even if one of our members thinks he's our pastor). He was banned because he was taking a lot more away from the board than he was contributing, and because he was being downright hateful. He was given an opportunity to make his ban temporary, but we never heard back from him. Instead he chose to violate the general trust of this site even further by registering a new name and lying about it. He's been able to stay anyway, so if he gets made fun of a little bit for that, I won't feel too bad for him. I'm not going to do it, but I'm not going to feel bad either. If he had come clean and apologized, it'd be a different story, but since he's here (and we all obviously know it) I can't equivocate him to someone who's been dismissed.

churches like this IMO ought to be ashamed of themselves.

OK.. .sorry to highjack...
...now back to the original intent of the thread.

As a preacher's kid (yes, if you didn't know already that I am a PK) I feel slightly conflicted on the subject. All of the above instances in the article (which should be fully read if you haven't the chance yet) are fairly obvious cases of bad behavior IMHO.

On the other hand, I've seen what insurrections among a few malcontents can do to the effectiveness of a church. There needs to be a way to address issues directly and move on. I'd be anxious to hear the opinions of several of the pastors we have here on the board. What is the best way to handle these situations from a Biblical standpoint and as a witness to the community?

IMO that situation could have been handled in a private manner instead of embarrassing the lady in front of the congregation.

here's the simplest answer...have the person deal with personal sin by confessing it (privately)...if the person does not confess their sin privately, and their sin becomes public sin, then repenting publicly is the answer. If confrontation is needed...look at Matthew 18. First, one person confronts, if they still have not repented of public sin, the matter is taken to make two people aware and confront the individuals public sin. If the public sin is not repented of then, the church is notified and is told of the public sin and the person has the opportunity to confess and repent again. If the person still refuses to repent then they are to be removed from this fellowship of believers.

The whole point of church discipline is for individual sins to be dealt with. The last thing a Pastor or church wants is a person who will not deal with their own sin. Also, sowing discord among the breathren is not tolerated. This goes for backstabbing the pastor or leadership of the church in my opinion. Confrontation has to be done, if it isn't, then "a little leaven, leaven the whole lump".

The fact that the pastor is a Hyles-Anderson College graduate (founded by Jack Hyles) probably explains a lot.

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/showthread.php?t=41377

TDDance234 wrote:Shuk was abusing a privilage, removing a member of church becuse of personal sin is a whole different issue.

I agree. I'll let Matthew tell my story:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

The question is, how to treat someone as the "pagan" or "tax collector"? Well, Jesus had dinner with the tax collector.

And Matthew was a tax collector by trade.

This topic is not as cut & dried as some might realize. The issues stated in the article are fairly simple to wrap your mind around. Buyt that generally isn'[t the case.

Personally I don't have any issue whatsoever with someone requesting the books be opened. Churches are to operate above reproach and I believe the pastor's refusal to open the books was actually spreading much more discord than anything the lady had done. The lack of transparency (and accountability as a result) is my greatest pet peeve of churches today. As the megachurch phenomenon continues the amount of money at stake make sit very tempting for those in leadership to mishandle funds. But that is fodder for another day's thread.

Sly Fox wrote:As a preacher's kid (yes, if you didn't know already that I am a PK) I feel slightly conflicted on the subject. All of the above instances in the article (which should be fully read if you haven't the chance yet) are fairly obvious cases of bad behavior IMHO.

On the other hand, I've seen what insurrections among a few malcontents can do to the effectiveness of a church. There needs to be a way to address issues directly and move on. I'd be anxious to hear the opinions of several of the pastors we have here on the board. What is the best way to handle these situations from a Biblical standpoint and as a witness to the community?

I am a PK as well SLY and I understand totally what you are saying. I think there are instances where churches have the right to do this. These instances are few and far between and I can't think of instance where our church has done it. I know usually when church discipline comes up, the people who are disciplined choose to leave. They usually take there friends with them. I think with these large churches it is probably a case of trying to "nip the problem in the bud." The Pastor, elders and leaders should be trusted to do whats best for the church. While the Pastors are not perfect, they have the right to discipline people as long as they themselves are not guilty of gross misconduct. In terms of finances, I think we need to hear the churches side of the story as well. Certainly, I believe a church needs to be open about that and not hide anything.

Also, almost ever case of church discipline is done in private. Those who think there is never a reason to ask people to leave the church are misinterpreting Scripture. I Cor 5:1-13

Here is the Amplified Bible on the Corinthians Passage: Discuss

10Not [meaning of course that you must] altogether shun the immoral people of this world, or the greedy graspers and cheats and thieves or idolaters, since otherwise you would need to get out of the world and human society altogether!

11But now I write to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of [Christian] brother if he is known to be guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater [whose soul is devoted to any object that usurps the place of God], or is a person with a foul tongue [railing, abusing, reviling, slandering], or is a drunkard or a swindler or a robber. [No] you must not so much as eat with such a person.

12What [business] of mine is it and what right have I to judge outsiders? Is it not those inside [the church] upon whom you are to pass disciplinary judgment [passing censuring sentence on them as the facts require]?

13God alone sits in judgment on those who are outside. Drive out that wicked one from among you [expel him from your church].

She can get some sweet t-shirts...











"I was shunned from the age of four until my sixth birthday for not saving the excess oil from a can of tuna." - Dwight Schrute

Done correctly, church discipline is Biblical. Done the way most churches today do it, it's wrong.

As a pastor, if someone disagrees with me, I have to realize that I may be wrong. David listened to criticism from Nathan, why can't I listen to it from someone in my church? Kicking people out of church over a difference of opinion is stupid. (On the other hand, if that person starts causing division in the church, then there's a whole different problem.)

But church members who are living in habitual, unrepentant sin need to be dealt with as per Matthew 18 (and yes, Jesus said that). And people who claim to be Christians who are living in unrepentant sin should not be made members of a church -- for the same reason, as well as what Paul wrote in I Corinthians (I'm glad someone mentioned that one). I've had to deal with that one before, and it wasn't fun. But I had to do what was best for everyone long-term; ignoring habitual sin is not good for anyone, and has to be dealt with. We also need to remember that there is a difference between church attendance and church membership. ANYONE can attend a church service. Membership is reserved for baptized believers.

There's a reason, though, that Jesus doesn't give one person the authority to excommunicate someone, and the WSJ article did a good job of illustrating that reason.

Its hard to understand if you haven't been a leader of a church but in just about all of the cases I read in this article, I believe the leaders were justified in asking folks to leave. Honestly some of the extracurricular stuff was excess IMHO... but the idea of asking members to shape up or ship out is a biblical position according to Jesus in Matthew 18. The text didn't say "Treat them as I (Jesus) would treat a pagan or tax collector." It said "Treat them as you would (your normal reaction)." This was a very easily understood way of saying that at some point you disassociate with people who are defiantly going against the leadership of the church.

Sly I've even seen cause to not open the books. In my 10 years of full-time ministry thus far I have yet to have a faithful lay person ask about finances. We have a leadership team who sees them and we openly tell our folks that if you are a regular contributer you have the right to see the books... but the only ones who've ever asked to get into the nuts and bolts of the books have been people who didn't support the church and nearly all were gossipers who were looking for a fight.

As for the woman who demanded her Pastor get a deacon team for a church of 12... she's lost her mind. Deacons aren't even mentioned until Acts 6 where there were 12 apostles and 3,000 men in the community. That ratio was a little larger than 1 to 12 of this little church.

As far as how the 'public' would view it.... I think the 'public' doesn't have one view. I think much of the public understands that if you don't follow through with being a member in good standing of an organization (boy scouts, Sams Club, etc.) you will be asked to leave at some point. Churches aren't called to a lesser standard.

Church discipline is very much needed to get rid of a lot of garbage. I applaud Pastors willing to have the tough discussion.

TallyW wrote:Its hard to understand if you haven't been a leader of a church but in just about all of the cases I read in this article, I believe the leaders were justified in asking folks to leave. Honestly some of the extracurricular stuff was excess IMHO... but the idea of asking members to shape up or ship out is a biblical position according to Jesus in Matthew 18. The text didn't say "Treat them as I (Jesus) would treat a pagan or tax collector." It said "Treat them as you would (your normal reaction)." This was a very easily understood way of saying that at some point you disassociate with people who are defiantly going against the leadership of the church.

Sly I've even seen cause to not open the books. In my 10 years of full-time ministry thus far I have yet to have a faithful lay person ask about finances. We have a leadership team who sees them and we openly tell our folks that if you are a regular contributer you have the right to see the books... but the only ones who've ever asked to get into the nuts and bolts of the books have been people who didn't support the church and nearly all were gossipers who were looking for a fight.

As for the woman who demanded her Pastor get a deacon team for a church of 12... she's lost her mind. Deacons aren't even mentioned until Acts 6 where there were 12 apostles and 3,000 men in the community. That ratio was a little larger than 1 to 12 of this little church.

As far as how the 'public' would view it.... I think the 'public' doesn't have one view. I think much of the public understands that if you don't follow through with being a member in good standing of an organization (boy scouts, Sams Club, etc.) you will be asked to leave at some point. Churches aren't called to a lesser standard.

Church discipline is very much needed to get rid of a lot of garbage. I applaud Pastors willing to have the tough discussion.

What do you think about church membership? I'm on my church staff and I discussed the article with my pastor a little bit. I heard a pastor once speak that church membership is a man made thing and isn't a biblical thing. He wasn't saying it was wrong, but he said it was not necessary, but more tradition. What is your opinion on it?

My church runs around 700 and I can't imagine how these churches of 1,500+ handle problems. We would LOVE to find out (by doubling our attendance), but it has got to be a TOUGH job.

That is taking the topic in a different direction, BB. Do you mind opening up a new thread on that topic? I know I'd love to engage in some chatter.

As for Tally's thoughts on shunning and financial transparency, I believe this is one of those areas where there is certainly room for interpretation of Scripture.

I agree that the vast majority of folks have little to no interest in checking the numbers. But that case in Nashville right now involving the lawsuit over the church credit cards illustrates that without some form of transparency then a cloud of suspicion can envelope a congregation. That stunts effectiveness quicker than just about anything short of pastoral moral failings. Some of the churches I have attended in the past decade or so have not been willing to open up the finances to anything more than broad categories. And it has raised red flags and it was one of the underlying reasons why we switched churches this past year (there were more significant reasons, I can assure you). But the larger today's churches grow, the more I anticipate this becoming an issue.

I believe that alot of preachers should throw themselves out. Sad, but true. Along with what Sly said, there is a growing trend to hide salaries and other expenditures in a broad based budget. The pastor has the power to give himself raises without any recourse or even scrutiny from membership. This is wrong!

Unfortunately the church I grew up in, closed its Christian school down two years ago and the church buildings were recently leveled to the ground to make room for a new public elementary school. Unfortunately some of the pastors were power hungry and basically theives. How do I know, I worked for one years ago and got to see first hand how the little dictator worked, two or three other pastors followed. Eventually a church that ran between 1 to 2 thousand people ended up only with 30 members. And this was an independent baptist church. This one pastor years ago would have a call to raise money and not let the church out until he got the amount he would ask for from the members. Some members gave their life saving. This was during the 70s the time TRBC and Hyles were starting to grow as big church. This pastor wanted to be in the same ranks as Jerry and Jack Hyles, etc.
Thinking about what happened to my school and church and the sweat and tears the founding members sacrificied makes me sad and upset.