To the community at HSC, deacons, members, and otherwise:
Greetings!
I was unable to attend Sunday’s meeting regarding the issue with Don, and his future as pastor at HSC. Never the less, I have considered HSC my community for about 5 years and I feel led to contribute to this conversation.
Before offering my views I believe it is important that we be clear on exactly what we as a church are. This is what the Bible says about us:
- “you are the body of Christ..” (1 Cor 12:27)
- “we are members of His body, of His flesh and His bones.” (Eph 5:30)
- “betrothed you to one husband that I may present you a chaste virgin to Christ.” 2 Cor. 11:2
- “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.” 1 Cor. 3:16-17
Let us be clear that we are the body of Christ, His bride, and His temple on Earth. As we consider the heavy decisions before us let us not forget that we are not the owners of this institution but stewards of Christ’s most precious possession. Let us enter this deliberation with a spirit of fear and trembling recognizing that any harm done is harm done not to men but to the body and bride of Christ, and knowing that God is jealous for his bride and will punish those who harm her promising that “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he be thrown into the sea.” My prayer is that we would solemnly recognize that we stand on holy ground. Let us remove any sandals of pride and approach the task at hand with utmost humility.
This issue of Pastor Don’s refusal to pay taxes in the past raises a number of important issues. In many people’s minds the most pressing issue is whether or not Pastor Don is guilty of sin. I propose that the more important issue in this circumstance is in the question of how we deal with a pastor who is caught in sin.
How does the church remove a pastor according to the Bible?
Let’s assume that Don is guilty. Both Jesus and Paul make clear that we are to pay our taxes. Don chose not to, therefore he sinned. What do we do now? How do we remove the sinful pastor? In fact, the New Testament says little or nothing about removing pastors. Why would this be? It can only be because “…the gifts and the calling are irrevocable.” (Rom. 11:29) The New Testament authors understood that a pastor is not commissioned by men, but by God. Having invited the Holy Spirit into the process of choosing a pastor, we cannot turn around and say that we were wrong in that decision without also saying that Holy Spirit was wrong.
Still, there must be some grounds to remove a pastor sometimes. Otherwise the office would be open to abuse and lay people would be helpless to do anything about it. There are, in fact, grounds to remove a pastor, but they are essentially the same grounds that apply to every believer. Jesus lays out the process for church discipline in Matt. 18:15-20. If a brother (or sister) sins against you there are 3 steps to take:
1. You must first address the offender in private (18:15). If he or she “hears you” than the matter is settled.
2. If the offender does not listen, then you may take with you one or two witnesses. At this point if the offender listens the matter is settled.
3. If the offender still does not listen, the matter may be brought before the church at which point the offender is given a final chance to change his or her view before being considered no longer a member of the church. (18:17).
But aren’t pastors held to a higher standard? Shouldn’t there be a certain expectation of holiness? Isn’t it wrong that a pastor should simply get to say, “I’m sorry” and get his job back, when he has sullied the churches reputation?
This question goes back to one of the first controversies the church ever faced. Christianity was initially illegal and punishable by death. During the worst waves of persecution there were a number of pastors who denied their faith when faced with death. Upon the conversion of the emperor Constantine in 311, Christianity became legally recognized, and many pastors who had denied their faith returned and resumed their ministry. Naturally this bothered some and there was a group known as Donatists who refused to recognize these men as pastors. The church met to decide on this issue and their conclusion was that the Donatists were in err. Appealing to Matt. 13:24-30 (the wheat and the tares) the church fathers argued that even if some of the pastors were false brethren, it would do more harm than good to remove them. The matter of preserving church unity trumps the matter of preserving church purity. Yes pastors are held to a higher standard, but the sorting of the good from the bad will be done “at the end of this age” Matt: 13:40, by God and not by men.
The only Biblical ground for removing a pastor from office is the method laid out in Matthew 18. The question of whether or not Don Ferris should continue to lead at HSC is a question that should be addressed according to the steps laid out by Jesus. At this point it is clearly too late to keep the matter private so the only questions that should be asked at this point are: Is Don really guilty of sin? And if so is he willing to turn from that sin?
Is Don really guilty of sin?
There are two scriptures that deal with the issue of paying taxes (Actually 4, but the gospels essentially present 3 versions of the same story). In the gospels, the Pharisees and the Herodians approach Jesus in order to trap him. The question of taxes is a trap because if Jesus acknowledges the obligation to pay taxes, he is acknowledging Caesar’s authority and is thereby denying His own sovereignty but if he denies the obligation to pay taxes, he is guilty of treason and can be tried under Roman law. Jesus skillfully avoids answering the question. The statement, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God’s” maintains God’s sovereignty over Caesar, without denying the obligations to Caesar, but it does not answer the question of exactly what is Caesar’s. In Don’s case the question of “What is Caesar’s?” is central. Don has not denied that he has some financial obligation to Caesar but he has entered into a disagreement with the IRS. It is not clear that Don has violated Jesus’ command to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s because the IRS has refused to provide an accounting of exactly what is Caesar’s. Until the issue is settled in some sort of a hearing before the IRS or in a court of law, we must reserve judgment as to whether Don has violated Christ’s command with regard to taxes.
The other scripture that deals with paying taxes is Romans 13:1-7, in which Paul argues that we should submit to the governing authorities and that we should pay our taxes because “they are God’s ministers”. This scripture is clear but historically it has been misused.
Some observations: Paul can’t possibly mean that we should obey every law all the time, as faith in Christ itself was illegal when Paul wrote the letter. Under Roman law, not paying taxes was tantamount to treason. Paul’s message seems to be that we as Christians are not trying to overthrow the government. If you can remember the political atmosphere after 9/11, everyone who was critical of the government liberal or otherwise was prefacing their statements with disclaimers that they were not trying to overthrow the government. They knew the Dept. of Homeland Security was scouring for terrorists and no one wanted to “accidentally” wind up in Guantanamo Bay. I think we should recognize that the first Christians lived in a similar atmosphere. They were viewed as a terrorist organization, and it was important that they made clear that it was not their goal to overthrow the government. Specifically this meant paying taxes.
I say that this scripture has been misused because historically every time Christians have engaged in civil disobedience there has been someone wagging a finger at them with an appeal to Romans 13. Christians (mostly white Christians) appealed to Romans 13 in an attempt to dissuade Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the African American Church from engaging in the Montgomery Bus Strike, and German Christians appealed to Romans 13 when they capitulated to Nazi hegemony.
The Montgomery Bus Strike is an interesting parallel to Don’s situation, in that the minority had the power to oppress the majority simply because the majority had been told repeatedly that they could not stand up for themselves (white people were only a small fraction of the bus riders compared to black people, and yet black people had to give up their seat for white people). The only reason the situation was possible at all was because of an oppressive theology that had been deeply embedded into the consciousness of African Americans, that it was a sin for them to stand up for themselves. Once they refused to accept this oppressive theology, when they finally collectively rejected the whole assumption, the specific system of bus rider oppression crumbled.
The IRS is not unlike the white bus riders in pre-civil rights Alabama. It is a tiny organization when compared to the number of taxpayers. It has the power to push around individuals, yes, but it is helpless against the mass of taxpayers as a whole. Unlike African Americans in pre-civil rights Alabama, most of us live without the fear of being pushed around by the IRS. The reason for this is that from the inception of the IRS there has been a certain minority of Americans who have viewed it with suspicion and have been willing to stand up to it from time to time, as Don has. Whether these specific American were right or wrong on their specific cases is unimportant. The net result of their unwillingness to be pushed around is that the IRS has to be aware that it can’t run willy-nilly over the American population. We should all be thankful for people like Don.
Don’s unwillingness to pay taxes is not an attempt to overthrow the government, or even a “crime” in the traditional sense. It is an act of civil disobedience. The whole American concept of freedom was founded on similar acts of civil disobedience. If we are trying to argue that Roman 13 precludes civil disobedience, then we are using the Bible to undermine the American concept of freedom (the Bible may very well be a threat to the American concept of freedom, but somehow I don’t think that this is what those who have called Don a “criminal” had in mind.) The spirit of Romans 13 requires that we don’t intentionally undermine the government. The ironic twist is that according to the American concept of freedom, an attempt to restrain civil disobedience, in fact, ends up as an attempt to undermine the government.
Concluding Remarks: On the Authority of Scripture
I am not convinced that Don’s decision to not pay his taxes is sinful, however, I realize that those who have called him a criminal are not likely to agree with me in spite of my previous arguments. This is why I began my argument with a discussion of Church discipline and the proper means of removing a pastor. I would now like to return to that discussion.
I understand there has been a petition circulated in which the Board of Deacons is accused of having “failed to take action to demonstrate belief in the ‘supreme authority of Holy Scripture in all matters of faith and practice’” for not having informed the congregation of Don’s issues with the IRS. It seems that the signers of this petition have demonstrated either an undeveloped understanding of scripture in matters of church discipline, or a willingness to ignore scripture in such matters. Matt. 18 makes clear that the goal of discipline is to correct the sinful action. Once the action is corrected, there is no more need of discipline. Going public with the accusations and disfellowshipping the believer are only last resorts. Having been made aware of the issue in May, the Deacon board had no further responsibility to discipline Don, as he had already given up his fight against the IRS in March. Even if Don was wrong in not paying taxes, he has already repented of (turned from) such actions and so he is no longer in sin and all the goals of church discipline are accomplished.
Perhaps of more concern is the signers willingness to ignore Paul’s command in 1 Tim. 5:19 that we should not even “entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is established by two or three witnesses.” The understanding behind this is that we should not even listen to an accusation against a pastor until it has reached the third step as described in Matt 18, unless the pastor has first been approached by the individual in private, was unwilling to repent, and was again unwilling to repent when approached by the accuser and a witness. Why would Paul instruct us to not listen to accusations against elders? The reason is because elders are the easiest to attack. In terms of spiritual warfare they are Satan’s most visible targets. As the Church we have a responsibility to protect our pastors from the character attacks that all pastors are subject to. We do this by only listening to the accusations which come through the method that Jesus prescribed in Matt. 18, a method that is loving and preserves the individuals right to privacy as well the churches right to be free from constant scandal. An anonymous letter submitted to the Board of Deacons is not an accusation established by 2 or 3 witnesses. It is an attempt to skirt the commands of Christ with regard to how we deal with sin. The Deacon Board should have tossed the letter out on the basis of 1 Tim 5:19 alone, but once it was established that Don was already in the process of rectifying the situation, the Board of Deacons had no more responsibility in the situation. Taking the situation before the church at this point is a violation of Christ’s command to protect the sinner’s privacy (Matt. 18:15).
We should be careful about any outside attempt to sow division in our church. An attempt to slay someone’s character by presenting accusations in a manner that is inconsistent with scripture should be viewed as just such an attempt. Jesus warns that, “he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1). One need not refer to scripture to observe that the results of these kinds unbiblical political maneuvers are division and spite. When we step back and see that this behavior is endemic in evangelical culture, we see our enemies plan for effectively silencing our voice in the broader culture. Why listen to the evangelical gospel if evangelicals are clearly incapable of loving one another?
I mean seriously, is this the way we treat our pastors? We do deep investigative research into their private lives and when we find supposed sin we drag it into the open in hopes that they will resign? I am dumbfounded at the shortsightedness of those who would see Don removed from his pastoral position over this issue. Do we honestly think that we will be the kind of church that would attract a better pastor than Don, after the stink of such a controversy had finally blown over? Think about it. Why would any pastor worth spit, seminary trained or otherwise, want to work for a church that treats it’s pastors this way?
The signers of the petition regarding the future of leadership at HSC need to recognize that they have been disobedient to Christ’s commands in Matt. 18, that by publicizing a matter that Christ’s Church had already privately handled, they not only sinned against Don in violating his privacy, but they sowed dissension and mistrust and thereby sinned against the Church, indeed the body and bride of Christ. Let them withdraw the petition and let the matter be closed. If they feel led to apologize to Don and the congregation, then let God be praised. If they chose not to, let us accept them back into the flock with love and forgiveness anyway, as it is in the spirit of Matt 13:24-30, that it is better to preserve church unity than it is to uproot those who may not belong.
Sincerely,
J. Ted Bond
