This is the question that people keep asking me: Have I watched Matt Chandler’s sermon from last Sunday? Most of the time, that question is followed by this one: If you have, what did you think?
Well, the answer to the first question is yes. I watched Matt’s sermon. In fact, parts of his sermon I’ve watched several times.
Now, so far, I’ve avoided answering the second question because…
1) I wasn’t sure that a response from me was really necessary. And honestly, that still might be true.
2) If I was going to write a response, I wanted to live with the sermon for a few days to avoid making the same mistake I did last week, offering an opinion way too soon and ended up having to retract it a day later. Again, I’m very sorry about doing that. It was shoddy blogging on my part.
3) I have friends, colleagues, and readers on both sides of this conversation. And sometimes, whether you can believe this or not, I can be a bit of a people pleaser, especially when it comes to my close friends. And honestly? Six days ago I had no idea how many good friends of mine either count Matt Chandler and his wife, Lauren, as close friends or good acquaintances.
All of that said, since last Sunday when the feature I wrote for The Daily Beast went live, I’ve received a lot of feedback—from sincere appreciation to sincere critique. Unlike other stories I’ve written about that cause people to offer their feedback, with this story, most of the comments/critique I’ve received has not been presented unkindly. And for that I’m grateful, especially considering that presenting my own point of view without the use of snark and/or sharp wording is a difficult task at times, especially when I’m writing a story or idea or an opinion that I’m passionate about.
So about Matt Chandler’s sermon…
I wish I could say that I loved it. I wish I could say that I felt the exact same way as one of my Facebook friends felt. Upon sharing a portion of Matt’s sermon, she wrote: THIS is the kind of man/leader I would gleefully follow….
Needless to say, I didn’t feel that way, not even close.
That said, I do recognize that there’s something very likable about Matt. While he and I would likely disagree on a host of theological and social ideas, I do think—a couple friends even swear this would be true—he and I would get along. Because even though he’s the head of a church organization that tends to practice a type of church that often creates unhealthy spiritual environments, I find him to be far more humble and gracious and non-Driscollish than any of the Acts29 pastors that I’ve met over the years.
Friends who I adore tell me that he and Lauren are lovely charitable people. And I honestly don’t doubt that in the least. Sometimes I’m often far too quick to define people by their theological beliefs as opposed to seeing them as humanity.
So even though Matt’s sermon wasn’t an apology to me, I do believe him when he says that he’s sorry. I believe he’s being honest when he openly says that his church has made numerous mistakes. And I do believe that he really does desires something (maybe several things) to change at The Village Church.
I suppose that you might say that, as I listened to Matt’s sermon, I felt prayerfully skeptical about what I was hearing.
And here’s why…
1) I’m prayerfully skeptical because whenever churches apologize in broad strokes without referencing any actual circumstances or situations in which mistakes were made or the people who made these mistakes, the apology seems incomplete.
Or at least, still in progress.
In other words, that sermon-apology was instigated by a huge problem, a huge problem involving real people, real people who work for the church and real people who are members of the church, real people who abused their power and real people who were hurt by that abuse of power. The majority of people on Facebook who are raving about Matt’s sermon-apology did not need any apology from TVC.
2) I’m prayerfully skeptical because I know (and you likely know, too) that remedying a worship environment with church-abuse tendencies is a grueling, often impossible, task.
Now, I know what some of you are thinking, “Sure, change inside a church is extremely difficult… but God.”
And you’re right. But my response to that would be… “but male elder board.”
Few things eradicate God changing a church’s functionality like an elder board. This could be true of any elder board at any church. But it’s especially true of a church that has an elder board that borders on being like The Sanhedrin. Change inside most churches is a long aggravating process. But change comes especially slow inside a church that’s led by pastors and elders who are 1) emboldened by a church membership covenant, 2) empowered to issue church discipline to laypeople, and 3) known for often crossing lines or abusing their positions to uphold and honor the membership covenant and church discipline process. Guys, these kinds of elder boards are rarely known for fixing Titanic-sized problems. There’s too much politics involved. Too many egos involved. Too much fear among some elders/pastors to not piss off the wrong elders/pastors. And when you’re a church that is held together and guided by a person-man-written membership covenant, those politics involve how something is worded, how hard-nosed one person is about one verse of scripture compared to somebody else being hard-nosed about another verse of scripture. Elders/pastors come into meetings about CHANGE with their own lists of pet rules and pet ideas, often believing that what they believe is in fact, what God wants them to believe because God believes the same exact thing.
3) I’m prayerfully skeptical because I have a difficult time believing that TVC’s male-dominated environment could ever be a truly safe place for women to disagree with leadership.
Nearly every single story of church abuse that I’ve been sent by both past and present TVC members–and there are a couple doozies–involves a female who dared to challenge the ideas or rules of a pastor or elder at TVC. Again, Pastor Matt might be awesome! But Pastor Matt didn’t take part in anything that happened regarding Karen Hinkley. In fact, Karen was never called or contacted by Matt or his wife, Lauren. Now, I’m not saying that they should have contacted her. I’m just saying he’s not the awesome person making a majority of the decisions involving people who challenge the church’s membership contract. And when it comes to churches who hold oppressive theologies toward women, they usually hold that value up on a pedestal. They might bend on a few small things. But to give up their whole stance? It would likely cause the church to split.
Moreover, considering Karen’s story and one of her major concerns, a similar argument could be made regarding TVC and the safety of children. In light of recent events, there’s a valid need for parents with small children who attend TVC to ask the elders: What are you doing to keep my kids safe from sexual predators? And what information are you withholding from your members for fear that full-disclosure would make us feel like TVC is an unsafe environment for our children?
4) I’m prayerfully skeptical because any change that Matt Chandler makes or even tries to make at TVC doesn’t simply affect TVC, it also affects the hundreds of churches that make up the Acts29 Network.
Now, some people might think, “Yay! Maybe if TVC loosens up, other churches will follow suit!” And while that’s a possibility, the likely scenario is that those outside forces and influences would limit the depth of change and amending that TVC is even allowed to do/make. Acts29 churches are known for being strong-willed congregations that take their theologies and doctrines very seriously. As the leader of the network, Matt’s church cannot make vast change in a vacuum without relational and political repercussions. Am I speculating? Yes. Am I completely off in left field? Heck no. If you’ve spent anytime at all watching what happens at Acts29 churches, then you know that my reasons for speculating are not uninformed. And yes… But God.
Then again, but the Acts29 Board of Directors…
5) I’m prayerfully skeptical because church abuse is an all-too common reality, a major problem within all kinds of congregations, a problem that, all too often, we see left unfixed to fester and hurt more people.
Eradicating a toxic worship environment and setting the stage for true congregational healing requires huge sweeping changes in not only how a church is run/managed but also who is running/managing it…
And even when that kind of change happens inside a church, it happens slowly… which leaves the door open for new offenses to occur.
Many of you might not believe me when I say this… but I hope that Matt Chandler and The Village Church prove me wrong on every point. I really do. And while some people will likely balk at that statement, those of you who have been abused or hurt by a church or pastor or elder board know I’m telling the truth.
That’s because we know that church abuse hurts. It hurts the deepest part of a person’s being. You lose your friends. You lose your community. You lose your ability to trust. You often lose your identity. You sometimes lose yourself.
And I wouldn’t wish that on anybody…
And yes, I am skeptical. Considering what we know and have experienced, it’s wise to be skeptical.
But I’m also prayerful… and hopeful…
Viagra is for the treatment of inability to get or keep an erection and similar states when erection is of low quality. When you buy remedies like cialis from canada you should know about cialis online canada. It may have a lot of brands, but only one ATC Code. Erectile disfunction, defined as the persistent impossibility to maintain a satisfactory hard-on, affects an estimated 15 to 30 millions men in the America alone. Sexual health is an substantial part of a man’s life, no matter his age etc.
Good post, MPT. I join you in your skepticism and hope. And I would add that I am troubled that even in MC’s sermon they are still clinging to being “right” theologically.
The stories published on how they handle marriages in distress suggest an extreme practical theology at work. I hope they explore that and see if they really DO accept divorce/annulment in some cases. From what I read, it is not “simply” a male or female issue. It is an issue involving anyone in a troubled marriage who does not agree with leadership even if supported by clear Biblical witness for a divorce and remarriage (e.g. sexual infidelity was involved).From where I stand, this troubles me as TVC and MC have very strong influence on many evangelical church bodies, and it hurts my heart to think about faithful spouses further abused by their own churches after discovering infidelity on the part of their spouse. That to say, I hope TVC and MC dig deeper.
As someone who attended TVC for over a decade, served in various leadership roles, and experienced several episodes of spiritual/authoritarian abuse from the staff, there’s no way I’m coming forward for the staff to own their wounding of me (as Chandler pleaded for those of us to do at the end of his sermon).
And the reason is…honestly, they wouldn’t understand. We are on completely different planes.
I’m reading Peter Rollins’ “The Divine Magician” and something struck me regarding a point he makes and my experience at TVC. Rollins makes a point that a true community must not just be one that lets outsiders in (something TVC struggles with anyway), but must be one where we all are conscious that we all are outsiders.
And as you point out, MPT, the structure being an all-male elder board, the ties to big business Acts 29, and their theological flaw in pursuing doctrine above all else puts them in a situation where it is impossible for the staff to be on a level plane with the rest of the church.
It’s sad really. I’ve grown so much over the past two years in my healing process (still ongoing) from the wounds caused by TVC and now I see how the pursuit of doctrine is such a small way to see the universe/reality. It’s like laying down on the beach and having the tide wash over just your feet and believing that’s swimming.
I don’t mean to be particularly harsh because I believe their hearts are genuinely inclined to do things for the glory of God and His people. But I lament that they can’t get out of their own way to experience the depths of joy from truly serving their flock.
I’m sure that sounds really condescending to someone who defends TVC in this situation and that’s fine. I don’t mean it to be that way, the staff at TVC are certainly far better and more mature than I in certain areas; I just want to say my piece and hope it can somehow cause change even outside TVC.
Former TVC Member: I don’t think what you’ve stated is condescending at all. Of course, I am a former Acts 29 church member myself (who was asked to leave because we dared to question doctrine), so I understand where you are coming from. I love what you said about all of us being outsiders. I have seen it over and over in church where people who were once living a life that was very far from God have their lives completely transformed by grace and mercy and the love of God and then seemingly forget their former state when it comes to accepting and loving others who are either a) where they once were, and/or b) love the Lord and have for a long time but find themselves in a dark season of real struggle. In my own experience, my dark seasons and struggles in this life have taught me to be empathetic towards others who are also walking through hard times, but as you stated above, when you live and die by doctrine and make it the be all/end all in all circumstances, it really doesn’t allow for empathy on any real level. I’ve learned there’s much more grey area than absolutes in this life and religion is no different.
I’m sorry you experienced abuse at TVC. I used to listen to Matt Chandler’s sermon pretty regularly and was always impressed with his intellect and superb communication skills. And I agree that I believe their hearts are sincere, but when you embrace such a rigid and – as MPT stated – hard-nosed conviction, it becomes nearly impossible to also have an environment where people can struggle and be transparent about those struggles. Your default will always be rigidity rather than mercy and grace.
Former TVC Member: Thanks for your comments. I cannot speak to your experience at TVC, but as a leader in an Acts29 affiliated Church, I take your comments very seriously, and is a warning to me to not allow doctrine to blind me to the people I am supposed to be serving.
I have been affiliated with other denominations or associations and I have learned there can be abuse in any theological system, and we need to keep re-evaluating our practices and procedures to make sure our priorities do not veer off course.
I hope the whole TVC episode will be a catalyst for other Acts29 churches to re-evaluate and correct any areas that could lead to abuse .As the old saying goes ” if you ever find a perfect church, don’t go there because you will mess it up.” So I also hope that those who have been wounded will be willing to reciprocate with showing those in leadership who repent the same grace and love that they should expect from them
Great post!
I was confused at first at the initial excitement by many people (including this blog) at the apology offered and then the subsequent retreat. I see now that repentance for these particular sins is not what anyone really wants, rather for them to repent of their theology: the sins of complementarianism, and the sin of reformed theology.
First response was “this is exactly what we asked for, this is exactly how a church should respond when they have been wrong.” And then the realization sets in: “But we really don’t like their theology and the doctrines they subscribe to causes this kind of situation.”
I suspect that if we were able to copy word for word all the “what they should have said” posts that are now circulating and go back in time and insert them into Matt Chandlers mouth and TVC’s written apology, most folks would still not be satisfied, because their doctrine is what they really must repent of.
I am hopeful and encouraged by TVC’s repentance and I am worried about Christians who’s standards of how apologies and repentance are so stringent and that are far beyond what God expects from us when we repent of sins against him. God help me if he required me to be so precise in the wordings of my repentance. Repentance should not be considered valid or not based on what the person’s theology “will probably lead to”
Dennis,
We’ve had some respectful, I think, exchanges on this number. Not all of the critics view it as a Reformed theology problem or even a complimentarian issue. I know of a story where it was a divorced man that TVC leadership tried to coerce into reuniting with his admittedly unfaithful EX-wife (see that story here: http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2015/05/stories-of-village-church-and-other.html).
Personally, I know some very humble, kind, and gentle Reformed pastors. I am sure they would be equally as horrified as I am about how TVC leadership tried to control these individuals like Karen in regard to her “marriage.” So, I do not see it as a Reformed theology issue. I see it as a flawed theology of divorce/annulment issue.
The theology I am critical about here isn’t Reformed or Arminian or whatever. It is a theology that adds to the permission God gave Christians to divorce in light of sexual immorality (see Jer 3:8, Mt 1:19, 5:32 and 19:9). Does God give us permission to sin? Can God sin even metaphorically as God divorced Israel for her repeated adulteries (see Jeremiah 3:8)? God seemed to view adultery so seriously that He COMMANDED the end of marriages by death in the Old Testament over such sin (e.g. Duet. 22:22). Thankfully, God is merciful now as we see in John 8, which means He does not promote the death penality for adulterous spouses but that says nothing about a mandate for the marriage to survive as it seems at work in TVC theology.
In the last direct statement (to 6,000 members!), TVC leadership said nothing about whether or not they were wrong in opposing Karen’s decision to seek and obtain an annulment. That was a major issue of contention and area of spiritually abusive, IMO, control. What they apologized in that specific communication was not being prepared to tell her their theology on the matter. Their silence suggests to me that they DO think she was wrong but are unwilling to actually say that for whatever reason. That IS a theological issue, IMO. And it isn’t a Reformed theology problem or complimentarian theology issue but a theology of divorce/annulment issue.
Divorce Minister. As usual, you make some good points. While you might not be addressing reformed theology or complimentarianism, the blog post did, that (and many other posts I have read) is what I was addressing.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I think it is easy to monday morning quarterback this whole situation and say with conviction how we would have responded in this exact same situation. I have been in church leadership for over 15 years and I have never been confronted with a situation like this. Of course now, I have a better idea of how I would respond, but there is no manual that tells you exactly how to handle this kind of situation.
I agree with your comments about what scripture allows for divorce, but “sexual immorality” Is a pretty broad term. Lusting after another woman would certainly qualify as sexually immoral, but I thank God my wife hasn’t divorced me for the times I have done that and she has forgiven me. Now Obviously this is a different and more heinous situation, but my point is the level of the severity of the offence doesn’t seem to be the point of the passages. Rather I think if the sin is continuous and unrepentant. I am in no position to judge whether or not at this point Karen’s husband is/was repentant. I do think that she was one of the victims in the situation, not the husband and obviously she was not treated as such.
Dennis,
Fair enough about other posts and your response to those who focus on Reformed theology and complimentarianism. Thank you for seeing that as NOT my focus in my criticism of this matter.
I do not think it was ever proper for TVC leadership to demand to make marriage/divorce decisions for two adults. Counsel and decide to what extent one supports or does not support a decision is one thing but to insist Karen submit to their decision on her marriage is another. Matt Chandler seemed to agree in his sermon “apology” with the point that counsel turned to control. However, I am not sure he is applying it to Karen’s situation as such was not communicated in the last direct email about the matter to the church membership. It would have been nice if MC had actually been explicit on that matter in regards to Karen’s situation.
As to deciding if someone is repentant or not, I think that is really beside the point here. It is up to Karen to decide whether or not to offer Jordan a chance to restart their marriage and not pastors outside the relationship. Just because we repent, it does not mean we are OWED a restored relationship or forgiveness. Such is a mercy and a grace. Repentance does not mean we are free of the consequences of our sin. One of those consequences of lying for years about pedophilia in the case of Jordan is that his “marriage” was eligible for an annulment. Treating this otherwise distorts the Gospel and makes a mockery of mercy/grace. That is one of the deeper theological issues I see at work in the situation as well. It feeds a dangerous entitlement mentality, IMO.
That’s my two cents. Like I said before, I am glad we can have this exchange respectfully as two brothers in the Lord.
Agreed. Thanks for your thoughts. They have caused me to reflect, and I don’t think we have any significant disagreement at this point.
There is often so much negativity and personal attack that takes place in online exchanges that I have often considered giving it up. I appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion that is fruitful.
Dennis,
Before I say any of this, I have been on the butt end of shaming in the church. Super insensitive, looking down their nose, stiff and unloving rebukes. It made me not want to be apart of a community of faith for awhile. So, in some smidgen of a way (maybe .00001%) I can understand a lot of the feelings towards this situation and empathize.
Nonetheless, your thoughts are exactly what I’ve been thinking. I hope people don’t construct a faulty cause with respect to male-led elder boards and abuse. I would hope one could articulately explain complementarianism and church discipline, give those subscribers the benefit of the doubt with respect to their sincerity for studying/following scripture, hopefully not resort to building straw-men, using hasty generalizations…etc. to make their cases against it, and, instead, respectfully disagree.
I understand all of the concerns that have been voiced, and believe they are justified. I just think it is better to lay a well-constructed argument than, “See? All male leader board. They’re misogynists and want to keep women down.” That really takes their doctrine and makes simplistic use of its implications when shown at face value in our current society. It’s easy to appeal to ignorance when most people aren’t actually inside the situation or care to actually study.
well said
Doing something over and over in the same manner and expecting a different result is considered to be the definition of insanity in most circles. Speaking from my own experience in fundamentalist churches, Acts 29 churches and neo-reformed (non Acts 29) churches is when theology, membership contracts and adherence to specific polity mores are the backbone of the church it ends up with little wiggle room for leadership to change whether they want to or not.
I’ve seen this happen to many a leader who becomes more open-minded over their tenure with a specific congregation but since they have built a following based on a particular hobby horse they can’t afford to make major shifts because they gotta keep the tithes flowing.
Also these types of doctrinally rigid organizations tend to leave quite a lot of wounded people in their wake because they firmly believe that their enforcement of theology/doctrine/polity is more important than entertaining the fact that diversity of perspective in the body of Christ is what makes it beautiful or that people are “sinning” in a way that they feel needs censure. So rather than “taint” their walled garden of theology with different streams our consumer driven church culture encourages the notion that “if you don’t agree with us you can move on”.
It seems that many times the mega-church model is to blame but often these same abuses can happen up close in church plants and smaller churches as well. I often wonder if where we went wrong was making the standard of what makes a good leader be someone with a type-A personality. Not that Type-A is bad but a lot of elder boards seek out these type of guys to run the churcheration (church + corporation). If our elder boards had more men (and women) who were a little bit less driven and aggressive maybe there would be less casualties.
In summation I agree with the author that “I hope there is change” but I am not going to hold my breath. Frankly I think church as we currently “format” it is a fragmented if not broken concept that strays far from what God intended. I won’t pretend to have answers or alternatives but I am hopeful that prominent lessons on what not to do will inspire churches to be more accepting and grace filled… kinda like this guy in the Bible named Jesus.
Gabriel, I appreciate your comments and you make a lot of really good points that I agree with. I am concerned however, (as I mentioned above) about the standards we expect before we will accept an apology or someone’s repentance.
I don’t believe “this guy in the Bible named Jesus” said “forgive seventy times seven, except for those fundamentalists and neo-reformed people, because you know it’s because of their theology that they keep sinning against you” 🙂
Nor do I think he said to Peter after he failed him multiple times “well, I hope you change, but I’m not holding my breath.”
Dennis thanks for the reply. I wasn’t specifically referencing forgiveness but the fact that change will be hard for the “theology first crowd”. I’ve lived it, taught it, repented of it and finally left it. To set the record straight I harbor no ill will or bitterness toward the fundies or neo-reformers in my past and all that spiritual abuse and manipulation is behind me by His grace.
I heartily accept Matt’s apology and appreciate the fact he got up and owned what he did. He honestly didn’t have to. What I am highly dubious about is whether there will be a willingness and ability to turn the TVC ship and in turn lead the Acts 29 flotilla into more accepting waters. I am hopeful but not too hopeful. If change does not occur I predict that scenarios similar to this one will happen again. If shoring up the covenant and clarifying their doctrinal stance is their reaction then… well… I’ve seen that scenario play out before.
I see your point.
I would argue that there are “theology first” folks of every theological persuasion, and that isn’t unique to fundamentalism- though I will admit the percentage is probably higher 🙂
Full disclosure: I am in leadership in an Acts29 church and I have learned from this incident and have been reminded to put people above procedure-so maybe that will add to the small amount of hope you have 🙂
True conviction comes from the Holy Spirit. I am taken aback as to why the Holy Spirit would stop there , with just , ” you have been wrong in how you treated the victims of these cases .” Now , the ones wronged have to come to you to receive your apology? I firmly believe , with all my heart, that each man involved, in just one case or several , can recall at least ONE person that fits into this category ! Making Amends ( taught in Recovery at TVC) means going to the person you have wounded and asking for forgiveness .
Now that, would truly be an act of humility .
DomMari: I also agree that it was odd that he requested the people who have been wronged by them to come to them for an apology. I know his heart was likely sincere in his request and there was probably not a superiority intent behind the request, but I can certainly see how someone who may have been hurt by them could take it that way. I also agree that (most) people know when they have hurt someone and can recall the incident without any prompting and should seek out the person they have offended to seek forgiveness.
I think it may be safe to say that Matt Chandler and the Elders are probably not aware of every incident since some of these things were done by campus pastors or community group leaders. So I don’t think we can expect them to know of every person the need to talk to.
What I think they mean is that they realize they have created a culture where this has happened and they are taking responsibility for it though they may have not been directly involved in every instance.
I did not say that the present elders or Matt should know of every person. I did say that each man (elder) involved in one case or many , can think of at least one person that fits into ” we handled that wrong” category ( according to Matt’s sermon ). Before this specific case came to the forefront, what you say is correct. That no longer applies, as this is now water cooler conversation…..imagine how much the topic is, and has been discussed at TVC.
Amends need to be made and it is not up to the offended to make that first step. I do understand that Matt needs to hear the stories , to make appropriate changes.
I did not listen to the sermon, but in reading the replies, it seems as if Matt Chandler asked for anyone else the leadership there has wronged to come forward so they can get an apology. Is that correct? If so, there ought to be alarm bells going off everywhere. That is an old tactic by bully leaders because they know in a public forum where they are definitely in control, and a public setting, no one is really going to come forward for such a thing. It is almost like “I dare you to do it.” Now, if he had said specifically that the way the elders had handled this situation was sinful and that they owed Karen an apology and the church, and that they were going to do a total overhaul of their theologies about who can be an elder, and do a deeper study on divorce and annulment and child abuse, and make big changes, then that is far different. As far as anyone else in the church coming forward, no Matt. It is up to you to go to them once convicted and seek forgiveness.
I’ve sat through a videoed Bible Study Matt did. Style wise, he’s a good speaker. I want to like him – I’m sure I would if I met him. It isn’t about is he a likable person. It is about sincerity with God’s Word and clear understanding. I believe they are flawed with their doctrine, and we are seeing the outcome of that.
I think, in general, multi-campus churches are problematic in that the set up completely alienates the shepherd from his flock. Combine that with the harsh doctrine and “good ole’ boys’ club” mentality of “elders” and “leadership,” you have a recipe for spiritual bullying.
That is not correct. You should listen to the sermon and apology 🙂
Pertinent information begins about the 25 min mark
http://www.thevillagechurch.net/resources/sermons/detail/wanderer–restorer/
I’m also not sure why there is a problem with asking someone to tell you if they were hurt. It seems like there is biblical precedent for approaching someone who has offended you (Matt 18:15)
It seems to me like they are trying to own all the wrongs and are asking for anyone else they might not be aware of to let them know so they can correct it. Maybe someone was hurt and it was just a misunderstanding.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect them to remember every instance. I have wronged people multiple times and I had no idea. I would hope anyone who I have offended or hurt that I am not aware of would come let me know.
I listened to quite a bit of the sermon,now. Thanks for posting the link. Forgive me if I sound overly critical, but this is a HUGE issue and the lost folks in America watch Believers VERY carefully on the issue of victimization of women and children. it is a HUGE deal to them. We tend to brag in our Christian dogma that we are all about lives of women, children, and unborn. But then it is time for action.
I heard no specific apology forthcoming to Karen. I heard defensive posturing and in my mind, it seemed like he was inferring that it was the elders who had gone to Karen to let her know she had erred and seemed to be faultering. I want to know how she sinned? Or if he is apologizing, I want to know specifically what sin he is apologizing for and to whom? Matthew 18 is about offenses committed one on one. I see this being applied as though a person sinned against a group collectively.
Listen, I like Matt’s style of preaching, but watching that video, he seems even physically defensive.
I disagree with their stance on counseling someone to stay in an unfaithful and fraudulent relationship. There are no grounds for that in this case. She did not sin by not wanting to stay in that relationship. She does not have to be counseled to stay by church leadership.
I don’t know if Matt Chandler has personally contacted Karen recently, but MPT stated above the did not ever contact her when this situation first surfaced. If I were Karen, I’d want to just move on and cut off all contact from TVC. I don’t think I would talk to anyone from there again. I think it would be too painful. Maybe in time, but not now.
I read yesterday a report by Karen that said Matt and another minister had a few days ago met with Karen. Apparently, this time the apology was much more sincere and personal. She stated she feels her story is now finished but there are others whose stories continue.
I’m very glad to hear that Matt Chandler did the right thing finally. I don’t think it makes him a “great pastor” and if he seeks true humility, he wouldn’t want to be called that. I do think it shows he did what needed to be done months ago. Many “super” star preachers would have just ignored this, so I’m glad he felt compelled and convicted to get this right.
“Acts29 churches are known for being strong-willed congregations that take their theologies and doctrines very seriously.”
Yeah, because if there’s One thing you don’t want to take seriously, its your theology. Jeez…
Reformed Theology is strong willed. Maybe that’s because God is strong willed. It takes alot of character, determination and, moxie to go against the grain. One day the culture will find that it was wrong and imperfect people like Matt Chandler were right. He made a mistake, he was wrong, and he apologized.
Leadership at the Village has been reviewing past discipline cases and calling to apologize and listen to victims feelings. One such friend of mine, called to let me know an elder had contacted her and very humbly apologized for mishandling her divorce situation. He also listened to her pain and said her feelings and specifically anger were completely valid. This gives me much hope as a Village member.