This is a problem: Darrel Gilyard asked to leave association
I appreciate that the story is old, but
there are a number of problems with this that need to be discussed.
The first is that the point of church is to bring brotherhood to its
community, inclusiveness not exclusivity. A church, the individual
building not the larger institution, is a building where a group of
believers gather for the sake of sharing their belief. Even if each
has a different personal belief, they share a general belief in some
sort of deity, and get together for the sake of gathering a little
strength from the group. People need other people; it just how we are
built. Church is not necessarily important as a symbol of religion,
but as a symbol of the community; but coming together they gain a lot
of strength.
You want to see an example of this?
Take a few branches. Now, any given branch can be broken rather
easily; it just takes the right amount of force. But, if you band the
branches together, you create something that takes a lot more
strength to do something about. Even if the bundle is put to flame,
thee is the possibility that some of the branches will survive. By
banding the branches together you create something that is a little
more powerful.
A church is the same. By banding
together you get a group of people that can do a lot more than just
one can do. You get the combined resources of the group, with people
that can contribute resources, time and effort, and can be a great
force for good. You can get a lot of good done, especially if they
apply their strengths to projects agreed upon by the group. A church
that has been powered up can do a lot of really great things.
And then you have this idiot. A church
should be somewhere that all of the congregation, regardless of age,
should be able to gather at the same time. If you need to make sure
that part of the congregation is kept separate for their own good,
then the preacher you have chosen is probably not the best choice.
The congregation should not be having to make changes for the pastor,
but the pastor should be willing to change for the congregation. If
the pastor was chosen in order to make changes, that's fine, but
working around a restraining order is not something that should even
be considered, especially if it means that the congregation must be
split in order to listen to the preacher.
Churches are already suffering enough
bruises to the reputation. It's a nice message of redemption to
enable a pastor that has suffered a setback, but if that pastor is
one that has committed a grievous enough crime that he has to endure
a restraining order, the message should be really debated.
Forgiveness is fine, but the church should come above any individual,
not have to lower itself to another.
