Titus 2 Men And Women

Betrayal

Criminal Conduct in the Pulpits of America

What Does God Want Done?

The staff of Titus 2 is saddened by the number of people who have sent us mail through the web site: people wounded and bleeding from the sexual misconduct and abusive actions of people on church staffs.  For over a year we have been searching for an article which Biblically addresses what God wants people to do when there is criminal conduct consisting of complacency, complicity and conspiracy.  When this article was presented to us we knew God had answered both our prayers and our searching.  We want to thank Pastor Jerald Manley for his permission to publish this to our web site.

Before you read this text I would suggest you ask God to open your mind to His truth.  Many people who read this may reject that any of this happens…while many others feel  with great agony its validity…for they live with the lasting affects from these kinds of crime.  ~~Sharon

Betrayal

Preface

No believer rejoices when another believer stumbles and falls. Apostates and devils celebrate; believers mourn. No preacher is sinless. The chambers of the imagery of every believer, even of preachers, require periodic cleansing. Except for grace and for fear, none would endure the temptations of life. Even so, preachers must be held to the biblical standard of accountability. To do less, is to diminish the holiness of the call to preach. To do less, is to remove the deterrent of fear and turns grace into license. To do less, is to insult the Chief Shepherd. Sadly, to do less is the present pattern.           —Pastor Manley

THE CHARGE:

Criminal Conduct Consisting Of Complacency, Complicity, and Conspiracy

THE INDICTMENT:

The religious organization known as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has received a well-deserved public pillorying for immorality—particularly homosexuality in the form of pedophilia—among its ordained priests. The contamination has subjected the RCC to multiple lawsuits that have required unknown millions in reparations or ‘buy-off’ dollars and have caused a dramatic decline in receipts from membership. The vast majority of the clerics are not accused; however, all RCC clergy are suspected because of the transferred taint of the degenerate priests.

The rest of the story is that the unimaginable human destruction is the production of less than ten percent (estimates range from 4% to 8%) of that priesthood. Those most affected are the very individuals that should have been protected from that very wickedness by these same priests.

But, that is not the worst of the story. The greater wrath of the RCC communicants and of the nation is reserved for the leadership of the RCC that has consistently, through an organized and sanctioned manner, covered over the reprehensible conduct of these relative few. While the hierarchy obviously knew the dangers of the predilections of the reprobate priests, no congregations were ever warned and the children of the RCC families were left unprotected—even worse, those children were knowingly delivered into the ‘care’ of known defilers. Priests were systematically transferred to avoid exposure—sometimes ‘promoted’ to larger dioceses. The continuing exposure of fresh new innocents to the seductive abilities of proven perverts and the resultant corruption and carnage are rightly deemed unacceptable by both the laity of the RCC, the public at large, and the legal system of this land.

The despicable lives of these depraved priests have become the topic of news broadcasts and have prompted lengthy articles in major and minor national publications in addition to the numerous lawsuits. Indignant Baptist pulpits and publications have devoted time and space to pontificate upon the vileness of the confessional priesthood. The old book about the priest and the confessional has gained a new popularity. However, this Baptist righteous indignation is mote-pulling and beam-avoiding. Baptists are unworthy to cast any stones; Baptists are as guilty of the same conspiracy of silence and concealment as is any RCC bishop.

The author of Ministerial Ethics, Joe Trull, asserts that thirty to thirty-five percent of those in the ministry admit to having “sexual relationships” with “other than a marriage partner.” He reports that over half of these “encounters” were connected to “pastoral counseling.” His research suggests that, in a directory of preachers with twenty-four names on a page an average of eight of those preachers should have a scarlet letter on their collar. A hundred such pages would contain more than eight hundred pastors who have violated their office. A listing of 4000 would include 1200 to 1500 pastors who had “sexual relationships” with “other than a marriage partner.” The mind is stunned into numbness by such horribleness and struggles to refuse to accept the possibility of such proportions.

I have no way to verify Trull’s research and it is not restricted to Baptist pulpits but includes a wide range of ministers; however, I am not prone to challenge it, based upon observation. Whether the quantity is correct or not, the plentiful presence of adulterers, pedophiles, and homosexuals in the Baptist ministry cannot be denied. But, even that is not the worst of the story.

The worst of the story is that Baptist preachers, Baptist pulpits, Baptist publications, and Baptist conventions, associations, conferences, and fellowships have a propensity to cover the immorality of their own fellow-preachers and, with the sanction of the silence and/or the active participation of the leadership, to organize their own programs knowingly to relocate the perpetrators of depravity into unsuspecting congregations filled with potential fresh victims. Baptists are no less guilty on all counts than is the RCC. This is not a suspicion on my part: I have witnessed it and I have been victimized by it.

THE EVIDENCE:

Shortly after Julie and I were married, we were in a week of meetings in central Missouri. As I gave the invitation early in the week, a very pregnant, very young girl came forward weeping. The pastor motioned for Julie to talk with her. She poured her heart out to my wife—the story was sad and sordid—seduction by a married man in a position of honor and authority, condemnation by her conscience, expulsion by her high school, and rejection by her family and church. Her tears and her repentance seemed genuine, but she was a pregnant teenage unmarried girl in 1965 central Missouri. Before the week was over, she gave birth to a boy.

The rest of the story is that the father of the baby was a nationally known evangelist.

But, that is not the worst of the story. I wrote the editor of the national publication that advertised this man as an evangelist, providing names and phone numbers for him to verify the facts. The editor wrote back that he had heard such rumors, but that the evangelist was so blessed as a great soul-winner that I had best not touch the LORD’s anointed. He continued the advertisements and the evangelist, with his endorsement, continued the wickedness.

---An American missionary physically assaulted his wife. He bought tickets for her and the children on an international flight—not to America, but to a country neighboring his field. The customs agency for that country contacted the American Embassy for funds to feed, shelter, and transport the family (minus the husband) to the United States. She returned to their sending church. The church required him to come home and give an account of his stewardship; he refused because of “the need of the work.”

The rest of the story is that after weeks of pressure, he finally left the field to face his home church. He was found, by that church, to have misused monies, to have made fraudulent appeals for funds, and to have abused his wife and children. The church disciplined him by exclusion from membership; the mission agency terminated their recognition. The church I pastor was a supporting church and, honoring the discipline and integrity of the local church, withdrew our financial support.

But, that is not the worst of the story. The next Sunday, he joined one of America’s largest Baptist churches, who promptly commissioned him as a missionary under a recognized Baptist mission ‘agency,’ where he continues to ‘serve.’ Warned of his being under the voted discipline of his home church, both his new pastor and the new mission ‘agency’ defended him and gave (and continue to give) him repeated exposure to new churches. They also provided him the opportunity to mail to a wide audience an attack upon the church that excluded him, the pastor, and, for some reason, me by name.

---A pastor, for whom I was preaching, and I were sitting in his study when another local pastor walked in with a visiting evangelist whom I had never met; but I immediately recognized the name. After the introductions, I commented on the evangelist having been a church planter in very unusual circumstances and for being on the board of a national publication. He was flattered that I knew of his accomplishments. I then asked if he had not held a meeting with great numbers of converts for a certain preacher in Georgia. He positively glowed as he acknowledged that he had.

The rest of the story is that when I asked if he remembered, in that church, a particular young couple—describing them in some detail, particularly mentioning that the wife was an attractive, petite, blonde legal secretary—the evangelist turned noticeably pale, slumped in his seat, and said nothing else.

But, that is not the worst of the story. He continued his ‘lifestyle’ of seduction and fathering for years afterward, supported by national voices because he was ‘so effective in the pulpit.’

---A young preacher/husband that I had known for several years, called me, seeking a place to serve as a youth pastor. I spoke to the pastor for whom he worked and with whom I had exchanged pulpit visits. Assured that his departure was proper, that he would be recommended to any church, and that he was worthy of my help in relocating, this preacher became our houseguest for an extended period. Finally, he did find a good church with a need for a solid youth worker—and then another—and then another.

The rest of the story is that two years after this request for my help, I discovered that my preacher friend had ‘misled’ me. He had fired the rascal for immorality, getting him out of town just before the local authorities attempted to serve a warrant for his arrest.

But, that is not the worst of the story. This conduct became the pattern of his ministry—being moved by one pastor to another, to cover his ‘shortcomings,’ without telling the next church.

---The woman in my office was crushed. Her pastor husband had seduced teenage girls in the church. This was not the first such episode; they had left a previous church for the same reason and she had fears about situations before that. The pastor and the deacons warned her not to stir trouble, because it would damage the testimony of the church and make it impossible for the husband to find another church. Since her family had her come to me for advice and since she asked for help, I suggested that she use an excellent, expensive local attorney, protect herself and their children, sue her husband for divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity, and ask the attorney to explore suing the deacons for covering the sexual abuse of minors.

The rest of the story is that she pretty much followed the advice.

But, that is not the worst of the story. The preacher was pitied for the treatment received at the hand of his wife and she was condemned for ‘breaking up the marriage.’ Local Baptist preachers publicly attacked me because I had committed the unpardonable of encouraging her to get herself and her children out of the marriage.

---He was the second man to one of the nation’s Baptist statesmen for years—widely respected and used.

The rest of the story is that his over-a-decade-long affair with a secretary was inadvertently disclosed.

But, that is not the worst of the story. Within sixty days, the statesman-pastor wrote a favorable report of his associate’s call to evangelism and a national Baptist publication carried the announcement and a seconding recommendation by the editor.

---Few can match him in the pulpit—his fire and passion are overpowering and convincing. Baptist pulpits across the land delight in his ministry. His writings sell as fast as they are printed. He counseled the woman in his office that her legal husband was no longer her spiritual husband because he had committed adultery. She divorced her ‘ex-spiritual still-legal’ husband and her pastor counselor promptly married her.

The rest of the story is that this pastor would later divorce her and marry another woman within the same church.

But, that is not the worst of the story. The pastor’s popularity and speaking engagements continue unabated and he remains recognized by many as an authority to be quoted.

---His friend was concerned and made an appointment for the young man to see me for counseling. He came. He sat. We talked. He was a homosexual. He understood that his choice was a source of grief and embarrassment for his mother and a burden to his friend. He seemed to feel badly that either was hurt, but he was unwilling to agree that his life was unnatural, immoral, or sinful.

The rest of the story is that he continued his chosen pathway and, to the best of my knowledge, died in his sin and as a result of his sin.

But, that is not the worst of the story. He assured me that he was justified in his life choice because one of his ‘companions’ was a local Baptist preacher….

The “elder” in verse one is clearly not a preacher; he is simply a male older than Timothy—just as the elder women are not female preachers, but women older than Timothy. The elder of verse one is contrasted with the younger man of the same verse. Notice that Timothy is commanded by the apostle

(1) to treat a man older than he, as if he were his father,

(2) to conduct himself with a man younger than he, as if he were his brother,

(3) to consider a woman older than he, as if she were his mother,

(4) to handle every woman younger than he, as if she were his sister, and

(5) to “rebuke before all” those elders that are examined and found guilty of immorality and to do so “without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”

If the words have any meaning, those terms demand that Timothy (and thus all preachers) treat the church members as though they are members of his family. Therefore, I must take the position that any act of sexual contact by a pastor with anyone within the church should be considered as though it were an act of incest. A preacher (the ‘elder’ of verses 17 and 19) guilty of ‘church-incest’ is assuredly worthy of being rebuked before all and permanently expelled from the pulpit. In his challenge to Timothy, the apostle, writing words given by the Holy Ghost, establishes a principle that, by extension, covers every form of sexual misdeed, especially pedophilia, adultery, and homosexuality.

What is written to Timothy is not to be construed as treating sexual contact with one outside the church membership as being an acceptable conduct. “Keep thyself pure” is the call to unqualified purity. The distinction is rather to emphasize the horrendousness of a man taking advantage of his position as shepherd to molest the sheep that he is charged to oversee.

A solemn example that preachers and fellowships of preachers should understand as a serious warning is found in 1 Samuel 2. The sons of Eli were immoral—perhaps even incorporating that immorality into the worship as did the pagans in their temples. Knowing their wickedness, Eli did not remove his sons from their priesthood. The consequence is that the LORD charged Eli with honoring his sons over his God and the result is that the LORD Himself removed both the sons of Eli from the priesthood and the priesthood from the line of Eli.

22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 24 Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the LORD’S people to transgress. 25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them. . . . 29 Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? 30 Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

Reluctantly, I find that faithfulness to the LORD requires that I charge the leadership who exercise influence over preachers and churches and who use their positions actively to conceal ungodliness AND I charge those preachers and churches that passively follow those leaders in this corrupted concept of concealment with an indictment having three counts:

1.   A Charge of Complacency: They remain at peace with evil doers.

2.   A Charge of Conspiracy: They engage in the protection of evil doers.

3.   A Charge of Complicity: They, therefore, become partakers of the evil deeds.

Brethren, I take no joy in this indictment. I would that the evidence could warrant an acquittal; but the facts demand a conviction on all three counts of the indictment.

I find no joy in hearing of fellow laborers falling. I confess that better men than I have fallen and I dare not stand in my own strength. Joshua was no doubt grieved for Achan even as Achan was being executed; however, his heaviness of heart did not cause him to disobey the command of the God of Heaven to expose Achan. I take no pleasure in calling for a return to Biblical treatment for those men who disqualify themselves for the Gospel ministry. The Scriptures give no alternative.

Restoration to fellowship is not the same as rehabilitation to ministry. Certainly, a saved individual may sin and, by confession and by forsaking that sin, have a restoration to fellowship with his God, his church, and his fellow believers. Rehabilitation to ministry is an entirely different matter. Some disqualifications from an office do not permit a re-qualification for that office.

The God-ordained purpose of corrective rebuke and exposure is to provide a deterrent: that “others also may fear.” When those who are in the position to rebuke and to expose do not do so, they not only become a “partaker of other men’s sins,” but they also are guilty of failing to deter others. Therefore, instead of merely covering an already committed sin, they are encouraging future sins. Rather than helping the fallen brother, they are actually helping other brothers to fall. This is true regardless of the reason for the preferential treatment accorded the sinner.

“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.”

That, my Christian brethren and sisters is the final word. Not mine, but His, Whose word is the unalterable absolute by which our conduct must be measured. It is the word to which we will all be held accountable by the One that had it written, the LORD of the Harvest.

This page has been displayed 3 times this month, 41 times since October 11, 2008.