SERIES: Christ is the Answer When the Church Is in Crisis
Restoring Fallen Brothers and Sisters
Introduction: Last week I preached a hard-hitting message on sin in the church and the need for the church to discipline its members. I am going to speak with equal vigor today about the need for forgiveness and restoration for those who have fallen once they have repented.
I want to begin today with a question: What would you say is the most representative symbol of the Church of Jesus Christ? Would you suggest a cross? If so, you’re no doubt in the majority. But what about a fish, the ICTHUS symbol of some early Christians, the fish you see on the trunk of cars? (The word icthus in Greek is an acrostic for Jesus Christ, God’s Son, our Savior). Or maybe an open Bible, or the bread and wine of the Lord’s Table, or the dove. All of these are positive, even sacred symbols of the Church, and they have profound meaning and significance for all who name the name of Christ.
But there’s another symbol–neither positive nor sacred–which, unfortunately, is also very representative of the Church. In fact, a good argument might be made that it has been the most representative symbol of the Church through much of her history. The symbol I am thinking of is the pendulum. What does a pendulum do? Basically it swings from one side to another. By its very nature a pendulum is always moving to extremes. Unfortunately the history of the Church has been similar to the activity of the pendulum, always moving from one extreme to another, rarely halting in a state of equilibrium or balance.
The Church has often either completely ignored biblical prophecy or become obsessed by prophetic detail and futuristic guessing games.
The Church has often either taught salvation by works or so stressed grace that believers saw no need to live godly lives.
The Church has either split itself into multitudinous factions or pursued unity through compromising ecumenical efforts.
Oh, there are notable exceptions to this tendency toward pendulumism (a word I just made up), but too often Christians seem to be out on the fringes–at opposite poles on key issues. And almost always both extremes are wrong. What the Church needs is balance. What it needs is to stop the pendulum, teach the whole of God’s truth, and avoid unbiblical extremes.
The example of the pendulum in the Church with which we are concerned today involves church discipline. Last Lord’s Day we saw in 1 Cor. 5 that the Church at Corinth not only refused to discipline a member who was guilty of gross sin, but it was actually proud of its tolerance. Today we are going to see that the same church acquiesced to Paul’s demand for discipline, but they did such a thorough job of disciplining this guy that they refused to forgive him, even after he repented. First, they wouldn’t go far enough; then they went too far. And this is not just a first-century problem. In fact, if there’s anything at which the evangelical church today is more negligent than disciplining the sinner, it is probably forgiving and restoring the sinner once he has repented.
I want to begin by briefly reviewing last week’s message on “How to Handle a Scandal,” and then take the opportunity to deal with some questions that may have been raised but not answered last Sunday. We started with the principle that professing Christians are capable of gross sin. The second principle we learned is that tolerance of gross sin in the Church is grossly sinful as well. Paul denounces the church for their proud and arrogant attitude, and he demands that this person be put out of the fellowship.
The discipline he prescribes is, however, not the first step of discipline the Bible demands in the life of a believer; rather it is the last. The situation in Corinth had gone so far that only radical surgery could correct it, but the Scripture indicates that under normal circumstances there are at least four previous steps that should be taken before a case ever gets to the point we find here in Corinth. We discussed each of these steps and I only mention them at this time by way of review:
1. The sinning Christian is first to judge himself.
2. If that doesn’t happen, a mature believer is to confront the sinning Christian privately and seek to lead him to repentance.
3. If that doesn’t work, the mature believer is to take one or two others with him and again confront the sinning Christian.
4. If that doesn’t work, the Church is to be informed of the situation, presumably leading to excommunication–the taking away of the privileges of membership in the Body.
5. And if even that doesn’t bring the offender to repentance, there is the final step of social isolation or shunning.
We made it clear that the goal of Church discipline is not punishment but rather correction and restoration of the sinning member and the protection of the purity of the Church. Now before moving on to new material today, I want to deal with a few difficult questions related to church discipline, which we didn’t have time to deal with last Sunday.
1. Can a church risk discipline of its members today in the face of potential lawsuits? In the past several decades an interesting new twist has been introduced into this matter of church discipline by our judicial system. One church was sued by a former member because the Elder Board publicized her sin of adultery during the process of church discipline, and she won a $360,000 judgment against the church. I believe this court action constitutes a very dangerous trend of government interference in church matters, but perhaps there are some things we can learn from it.
There are some precautions we can take to minimize legal threats, while not neglecting the biblical mandate to practice good discipline. For example, the Church can speak in generalities about the sin, rather than in specifics, when handling any disciplinary situation. For example, the leadership can report to the membership, “So‑and‑so has violated the covenant of membership through conduct unbecoming a believer.” I’m not sure what good it does for the church to know the sordid details anyway.
2. What if the disciplined person refuses to repent and is a member of one’s own family? Should we isolate ourselves from a member of our family? That is practiced in the Amish Community, but it is a complicated question, and I want to respond to it by reading a few paragraphs from an article by Ron Runyan in Ministry Magazine:
“How are we, as parents, to relate ourselves to our unmarried son who is living with a girl? He and the girl are both baptized members of our church but because of this immoral relationship, the church will probably disfellowship (discipline) them. Should we have them in our home? Should we visit them and act as if everything is fine? Should we express our disapproval of this LTA (living together arrangement)?”….
Naturally, as parents we never stop loving our children, no matter what sins they have embraced, just as the Father never stops loving us in spite of our sins. But that love is not expressed by ignoring their sin and acting as if everything is alright. I suggested to the parents that they should be sure their son knows they love him and that he is welcome to visit their home (minus his girlfriend if he intends to spend the night). They should make every effort to keep the lines of communication open.
We must take the attitude of the heavenly Father, who, while unyielding in His love for the sinner, is also uncompromising in His rejection of sin. In Jesus’ story of the prodigal son, the boy’s father loved him and, seeing his son from afar, ran to embrace him when he returned, but the father did not go and share the pig pen with him. Only such an attitude will have the potential for bringing the sinner to see the utterly corrupt nature of his life. As ministers, we dare not say to the wicked by voice or action that all is well with him.”[i]
I think that is wise counsel.
3. How can a disciplined member ever be reached if he is being isolated by the church? Shunning doesn’t sound very loving. Please understand that social isolation is a last resort and it only rarely called for. And even social isolation doesn’t mean we shouldn’t speak to the person or counsel him–it just means that we can’t treat him in a business-as-usual manner and allow him to think his sin doesn’t matter.
Thankfully, many individuals repent quickly and thoroughly. And of those who don’t repent, most leave the church and isolate themselves from their Christian friends, because they are either angry or embarrassed. Remember, Paul was dealing with one who was publicly claiming to follow Christ but unashamedly living like the devil! Such behavior simply cannot go unchallenged in the church of Jesus Christ, or the church will lose its influence and become the laughing stock of our world!
Now this morning I would like for us to give our attention to the question of when a sinning believer should be restored to his church family and how it should be done. It is one thing to state that the goal of our discipline is to correct the sinning member, but it’s another to actually see those positive results occur. Over the past three decadees in two churches, I have seen a number of genuine trophies of grace–people who have made terrible mistakes, were disciplined by our church or previous churches, but were forgiven and restored. I’m going to tell you the story of one of those cases, but first I want to finish the story of the man to whom we were introduced last Lord’s Day.
Keeping the account of the wicked man of 1 Cor. 5 in mind, I am going to read our primary Scripture text for today, which is 2 Cor. 2:5-11. I will read from The Message, which will be on the screen, but I will preach from the NIV:
Now, regarding the one who started all this–the person in question who caused all this pain–I want you to know that I am not the one injured in this as much as, with a few exceptions, all of you. So I don’t want to come down too hard. What the majority of you agreed to as a punishment is punishment enough. Now is the time to forgive this man and help him back on his feet. If all you do is pour on the guilt, you could very well drown him in it. My counsel now is to pour on the love.
The focus of my letter wasn’t on punishing the offender but on getting you to take responsibility for the health of the church. So if you forgive him, I forgive him. Don’t think I’m carrying around a list of personal grudges. The fact is that I’m joining in with your forgiveness, as Christ is with us, guiding us. After all, we don’t want to unwittingly give Satan an opening for yet more mischief–we’re not oblivious to his sly ways!
I’m going to share with you two main points this morning:
1. Christian discipline can produce positive results in the sinning believer.
2. Church discipline can produce positive results in the Church.
Neither is guaranteed by any means, but both are possible.
Christian discipline can produce positive results in the sinning believer. (2 Cor. 2:5‑8)
How do I know that 2 Cor. 2 is dealing with the same individual as 1 Cor. 5? The question is hotly debated, but here are the reasons I believe the two passages are speaking of the same man:
1. All the facts dovetail:
The individual is a professing believer and has sinned grievously.
Discipline was demanded in the earlier passage and carried out in the latter.
A hope for repentance is held out in the earlier and the repentance actually
occurs in the latter.
The disciplined man of both passages seems to be well‑known.
2. The very nature of 2 Corinthians is to look back at the church’s response to the
first epistle and discuss it in the past tense.
3. Satan is mentioned as a principal player in both passages.
4. The presence of Christ is mentioned in both passages as a fact to be reckoned with.
These reasons do not necessarily amount to a proof, but frankly we don’t need to prove the actual identity of the two individuals in order to make our point this morning. Even if these are two different persons, it is still clear that discipline must be carried out, and if the disciplined person truly repents, he must be received back into the fellowship.
Now in order for strong discipline to produce optimum results in the sinning Christian, three prerequisites must be met:
The Church must be sensitive as to when discipline has accomplished its purpose. (5-6)This is the point made in 2 Cor. 2:6: “The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficientfor him.” It had accomplished its purpose, but they did not realize it because they were not watching for repentance. Rather they had written the man off. I think the Church has been guilty of writing off too many people, too often, too soon. Someone has said that the Church is the only army that shoots its own wounded. I don’t think that’s fair, but it certainly has happened.
Consider those who have suffered divorce. Can one find in the Bible that divorce is an unforgivable sin? No, yet many conservative churches have written people off if they have a divorce in their background–no matter what the reason.[ii] That is not right, friends.
At least three of the pastors who served with me on staff over the past 30 years experienced discipline, either at our church or before coming to us, but after repentance and restoration, they returned to ministry and now serve God effectively. And I have known dozens of lay members who have likewise been restored. I believe in repentance and restoration.[iii]
There is a second prerequisite in order for discipline to produce optimum results:
The Church must be ready and willing to forgive, comfort, and reaffirm its love for the one who repents. (2:7-9) “Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.” When discipline has accomplished its goal, then the church must forgive. And that doesn’t mean sending the member a letter saying, “We forgive you, but please find another church home.” Or, “We forgive you but you’ll never be able to serve the Lord again publicly–no singing in the choir, no ushering, no eligibility for church office. If you’re real good you may eventually be able to participate in work day.”
Then Paul says that forgiveness must be accompanied by comfort. The Greek word here isparakaleo, the same word used by Christ to describe the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. The word comes from two roots meaning literally to “come to one’s side.” It speaks of encouraging and cheering up one who is down. Instead of avoiding the repentant sinner (which is often what we do), we should go out of our way to spend time with him, to encourage him, to speak a word of kindness. This is the very opposite of shunning.
Verse 8 adds that forgiveness and comfort must be accompanied by a reaffirmation of love. The term “to affirm” is a legal term used for ratifying covenants (it is so used in Gal. 3:15), and it suggests that the Apostle is urging them to make their love for the man a matter of certainty. Help him feel the security of knowing he is loved by the Body. Don’t treat him like a second‑class citizen.
Why is it so important that the Church forgive, comfort and reaffirm its love for a repentant member? The answer is given at the end of v. 7: “so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.” Most of us have no idea how traumatic the experience of church discipline can be because we have never been on the receiving end of it. The shame and reproach it brings upon the individual and his family can easily bring the person to the breaking point. In fact, that is its purpose.
But, if a person at the breaking point repents and asks for God’s forgiveness but is still rejected by his friends, he may be swallowed up by excessive sorrow. He may have a nervous breakdown, may turn bitter against God, and may even take his own life. Obviously such results are never the goal of discipline. The goal is restoration, and the way to get there is forgiveness, comfort, and affirmation.[iv]
Now allow me to address a third prerequisite for optimum results, and that is a very difficult issue–it is the question of how far restoration should go.
The church should be willing to restore to ministry, as well as to fellowship. This is certainly true for lay people, but I also believe it should be true for clergy. There are those who believe that if a Christian leader has committed sexual sin or suffered a divorce, he should never be restored to public ministry. I have fellow pastors who hold that view. I do not. I made it clear last week that sexual sin is not an unpardonable sin; it is not the only sin for which excommunication is ordered; it does not make a person unclean and unusable for the rest of his life.
I applaud Grace Chapel in the Boston area, where Gordon MacDonald served with distinction for many years. After he left the church and became the President of Intervarsity, he was exposed for having had a secret affair while he was pastor of the church. He had already confessed the sin to his wife and to a small group of Christian men to whom he was accountable, but when the sin was made public he resigned from Intervarsity and spent a year in virtual isolation–further rebuilding his relationship with God and with his family.
Eventually he returned to ministry at a small inner-city church in New York and served faithfully as its pastor for 4 or 5 years. Then his former church, Grace Chapel, lived up to its name and invited him to return as Senior Pastor–the very place where his sin had occurred. Both MacDonald and Grace Chapel were severely criticized by some who felt he had forfeited any right to preach God’s Word or pastor again. But friends, did David forfeit his right to preach God’s Word in the Psalms because of his sin? Did Peter forfeit his right to be an Apostle when he committed an even worse sin–publicly denying he even knew Jesus?
When it comes to divorce, the NT makes it very clear that there is such a thing as a biblically permitted divorce, and if one has been divorced for biblical reasons, he or she can remarry without sinning, and I believe they can serve in God’s church without restriction.
I certainly agree that the Church must be cautious about restoring those disciplined too soon. Clearly the person who has been disciplined needs time to thoroughly repent and to demonstrate the fruits of repentance. Some people find it very easy to repent; they can repent of the same sin every day and then repeat it the next. That’s phony repentance. In the Free Church we require pastors to be out of ministry for two years before they can even apply for reinstatement. Sexual sin is often a signal of deep pathology, and those who have been repeat offenders should perhaps never be restored to public ministry.
I personally do not think pedophiles should be restored, not because the sin cannot be forgiven but because the bulk of the evidence today indicates that pedophilia may be incurable. The risk to our children may not be worth it. But to say of someone, “He can never be an Elder because he’s divorced,” or “he can never again be a pastor because of a moral failure in his past” is going beyond Scripture–something we were clearly warned not to do back in chapter 4, verse 6.
Friends, please understand I am not asking that we lower the standards. Rather I am asking that we accept the Bible’s standards instead of conservative traditions.
Now I want to briefly comment on my second major point:
Church discipline can produce positive results in the Church. (2 Cor. 2:9‑11; 7:8‑11)
The Apostle is not only concerned about the restoration of the sinning church member; he is also concerned about the spiritual health of the church. Among the positive results he sees being produced by forgiveness after discipline is:
It will prevent Satan from taking advantage of the Church with his “pendulum scheme.” (2:9‑11) Paul says in verse 11, “I have forgiven the man … in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.” In case I didn’t make it clear in my introduction, the pendulum is not the Lord’s symbol for the Church–it is Satan’s. Can you see Paul’s point? If you don’t forgive this person once he has repented, you have allowed yourself to be tricked by Satan. He doesn’t care whether you refuse to discipline at all or refuse to forgive. Either way he is victorious in destroying the sinning member and in ruining the reputation of the Church.
Satan is so clever. He never cares which side of the truth you are on so long as you’re as far away from the center as possible. What he doesn’t want is for you to be right on the truth. He doesn’t care whether you preach baptismal regeneration or ignore baptism altogether. He doesn’t care if you are a hyper-Calvinist or a hyper-Arminian. He doesn’t care whether you are an extreme charismatic or think all charismatics are extreme. He doesn’t care whether you excuse all divorce or treat all divorced persons as lepers. Just so you’re out on one extreme or the other–that’s Satan’s goal.
A second positive result of appropriate church discipline is:
It will restore purity to the Church, along with the power that inevitably goes with it. When individuals hide sin in their lives, or when churches refuse to deal openly and honestly with sin in the congregation, it always results in rumor, conflict and weakness of testimony
Now I want to tell you a true story from my own experience. It’s amazing, but it’s not unique. I have personally seen stories like this repeated a number of times.
Jan and I left Wichita after 9 ½ wonderful years at First Free to plant a church in St. Louis. Among the visitors who came during our first six months was a couple in their late 40’s. They attended a couple of weeks and then one Sunday the woman asked if she could meet with me. I agreed. She said, “My husband and I have really enjoyed the services. We’d really like to continue coming, but I’m not sure we are welcome. Several of your people recognized us.” I said, “OK, but why is that a problem?” She asked, “Didn’t anyone talk to you about us?” “No,” I said, now getting pretty nervous.
So she proceeded to tell me their story. Her present husband had been a pastor in an evangelical church in St. Louis. She had been his secretary and the wife of the pastor of another evangelical church. They had an affair. When exposed, they decided they couldn’t live without each other, even though he had four grown children and she had two small children. Each divorced their spouses and they married each other. Both were excommunicated from their respective churches, and he was defrocked by his denomination. All of this happened about a year before I met them.
The pain and trauma they caused to their churches, their families and the discipline itself began to produce tremendous regret. That’s when they began to seek out Christian fellowship.
I will tell the rest of the story by moving ahead two years and reading directly from a sermon I preached to our congregation, by then about 400 people. I had preached that morning on the restoration of Paul’s companion, John Mark, to ministry. Then, after telling this couple’s story, I continued:
“I think I’ve said enough to establish that John and Jane (not their real names, though I used their real names at church that day) were guilty of sin that was very heinous in God’s sight, as well as very destructive to the Body of Christ. As was most appropriate, both their local churches and their denomination, the Presbyterian Church of America, carried out church discipline.
In His great grace, God refused to turn His back on them, and through the conviction of the Holy Spirit they began to desire to be restored to fellowship with God and with God’s people. They started by attending a church in the area which welcomed them and immediately gave him an adult Sunday School class to teach. It wasn’t long, however, before they realized that the doctrinal integrity of that church was very suspect. After all, if they were so readily accepted without any concern for their recent past actions, it was not surprising that serious heresy was being tolerated in other areas in that church.
So they left and showed up at our church in the early summer of 1985. When I heard their story, I said to myself, “Lord, why us? We’re a new church in a denomination that is new to St. Louis. We’re trying hard to build relationships with the P.C.A. What we don’t need is an issue like this to divide us.” But then I realized something I have known all along intellectually, but perhaps never before accepted so practically, and that is that the Church is a hospital and if the hospital shuts the doors of its emergency room, where are the desperately needy to go?
So, what began that day was a process of confrontation, confession, forgiveness, and healing that has taught me something new about the marvelous grace of our loving Lord. I am not going to go through the whole story today, but I do want you to know that our Elders decided right from the beginning that while we would welcome this family into our church, we would not ignore the discipline of another evangelical church. We told them that if they wanted to join our church family, they would have to take steps to seek forgiveness and restoration from their former church and denomination, which would also require confessionand perhaps even restitution to their former spouses.
When I first suggested this to them, I remember getting looks of unbelief and protests like “You’re asking the impossible! We could never go back to our former churches after the way they rubbed our faces in the dirt. And our ex-spouses won’t even speak to us except through lawyers!”
But God specializes in things thought impossible, and slowly changes of attitude began to take place. It started with letters to the former spouses, expressing repentance and seeking forgiveness. Not surprisingly those letters were received with considerable skepticism, even anger, but we refused to let that stop us.
Later, meetings were scheduled with the Elders of the former church and more meetings with the Presbytery, where public confession was made and where spiritual leaders from our church bore witness that there had been true repentance in this couple’s lives. Forgiveness and restoration did not come easy for the former church or denomination, and that’s understandable, for the consequences of this sin had been devastating for them. But though they moved slowly they did move deliberately.
They appointed a committee to consider the issue of restitution to the former spouses and they worked with us to resolve a number of difficult issues. (By the way, the amount of restitution eventually requested was way beyond this man’s ability to pay, so our elders pooled their resources and paid the man’s wife what it was determined she was owed. It was a large amount of money, and it was money a new church could well have used in other ways, but we determined this was a priority!).
On Wednesday, January 14, (1987) the Elders of his former church voted unanimously to rescind the excommunication and to commend this family to the care of our church. Two days later, on Friday, January 16, the local Presbytery of the P.C.A. also voted to remove the censure and to commend them to our care. Yesterday our Elder Board voted unanimously to receive them into the membership of our church.
It is, admittedly, highly unusual to discuss such a matter publicly with an entire church, especially in a worship service. But the public nature of the sin and the widespread publicity it received, demanded, we felt, a public restoration. We didn’t want anyone to hear of this matter by gossip or by the grapevine and wonder whether the Elders knew what this couple had done, or whether they had truly repented. We also want other evangelical churches and denominations to know that we do not consider ourselves an independent group doing our own thing. Instead, the Free Church is part of the Body of Christ, working with the rest of the Body of Christ to present a united front for the Gospel in the city of St. Louis.
I have shared these things only with the permission and agreement of our entire Elder Board, and with John and Jane’s permission. And now I’m going to ask them to come forward as I extend to them the right hand of Christian fellowship. I want you to know that they are being accepted as full‑fledged members and they are not under probation. The Elders would not have accepted them into membership if they were not convinced that their repentance was real. As repentant and restored Christians, they will be treated as eligible for service in the Body, as we do all other members.”
The tears flowed freely that Sunday morning as 400 people filed by and extended to this couple the right hand of Christian fellowship.[v]
Did they get off scot free? No. They would both tell you that they deeply regret what they did and they have paid dearly for their sin. In the words of the Gospel song, “Sin will take you further than you want to go….” But they would also tell you that the grace of God is immeasurable. They are eternally grateful that they were not abandoned and left for dead.
Not every case of discipline ends this well. Sometimes people are rebellious. They leave the church and they walk away from God. But I believe church discipline and restoration is the only chance they have to once again live productive lives.
Conclusion: The point of this message has been that the Church must be no less willing to forgive and restore than she is willing to discipline. And if this is true for the church, it is likewise true for us as individuals. Is there someone with whom you have been in conflict and you need to make peace? Has someone who wronged you, perhaps even deeply, repented and yet you refuse to forgive? Don’t fall prey to Satan’s “pendulum scheme.” Don’t keep holding a grudge!
The chief motivation for forgiveness comes from a very simple fact, namely that GOD HAS FORGIVEN US THROUGH JESUS! Ephesians 4:32 says, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Each of us is a sinner, without any righteousness of our own. Guilt plagues us because we know that we have broken God’s laws. But God intervened and sent His own Son to die for our sins. He could pay for our sins because He had none of His own. God is willing to forgive us and give us eternal life on the basis of the death of His Son.
But He will not force us to accept Christ. We must do it by an act of our wills. You can accept Him right now, right where you’re sitting. Only then will you be able to forgive fully and freely with your whole heart. Only then will you be able to celebrate true peace at Christmas, maybe for the first time in your life.
Date: December 10, 2000
Tags:
Church discipline
Repentance
Forgiveness
Restoration
[i] Ron Runyan, Ministry Magazine, May, 1979.
[ii]. I fought for years in our denomination to allow pastors who had suffered a biblical divorce (caused by their wife’s persistent and unrepentant infidelity, for example) to remain in the ministry, and we finally succeeded. I am proud that we now have several dozen pastors (out of more than 3,000) who were given a second chance. Is it ideal for a pastor to have a divorce in his background? No, of course not. Is it forbidden in Scripture? I don’t think so.
[iii] One of our church plants in Wichita, East Evangelical Free Church (later renamed GraceFirst), founded the Recovery Church Program. I think it was the first of its kind in any evangelical denomination, and dozens of pastors have been restored after moral failure or emotional burnout or conflict or divorce.
[iv]. By the way, church discipline is especially overwhelming when experienced by a pastor. If a layman is exposed for having an affair, he loses his reputation, probably loses some friends, and may even suffer divorce. But if a pastor is the guilty party, he suffers all those things and he also loses his livelihood. Nor can he just move to another church (the Roman Catholic Church tried that as they moved pedophile clergy from one parish to another; it has cost the Church hundreds of millions of dollars and more!).
Ministry may be the only thing the pastor knows; he may have no other way to support his family. Now your response may be, “Well he should have thought of that before he messed up.” Yes, that’s right. I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve the trauma; I’m not saying he should continue in ministry. I’m just saying we should recognize the trauma and if we care anything about forgiveness and restoration, we should try to help him along that path.
I also would never want to minimize the trauma a congregation itself goes through when its spiritual leader falls. I have some powerful books in my library that speak to this issue, and that’s what I would be emphasizing this morning if I were speaking to a group of pastors. But I’m not. I’m speaking to a congregation, and so I tell you that moral failure creates trauma on both sides, and God commands us to forgive, comfort, and reaffirm our love even for a fallen pastor, if he repents.
[v] As I write this footnote in 2023, I would like to bring you up to date concerning the long-term result of this particular discipline/restoration case. “John,” after several decades of faithful and effective ministry as a staff counselor at First Free, finally passed away in the fall of 2021. I was honored to be invited to speak at his funeral in St. Louis. His wife continues to serve faithfully at one of our church plants there, now 38 years after I first met them. There has been full reconciliation with his four children, and even some with his former wife before she passed away.