Actually, after careful consideration, we have gone about this biblically, according to Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Timothy 5:19-20.
You see, over the years, many of us individually shared our concerns directly with leadership. In some cases a leader seemed to be open to our concerns and even agree with them—but no changes ever resulted. In other cases, leadership immediately fired the staff member and told them to clear out their desk that day.
This failure of adequate response from GFA when we approached individually according to Mat 18:15 prompted us to move to the next step of taking multiple witnesses, per Mat 18:16. We did this through our initial group letter. GFA leadership had already proven they had no intention of acting on our individual concerns, so we felt we must dialogue only as a group to hold GFA leadership to a higher level of accountability. This is why we chose to not dialogue further individually with GFA leaders when they tried contacting each of the initial letter signers.
The scope of GFA’s problems goes beyond restoring personal offenses in Matthew 18:15-17. It is now apparent that 1 Timothy 5:19-20 is also appropriate here to address doctrinal errors that are hurting people.
“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.”
Additionally, we sought out pastoral counsel to ensure we had not violated scripture’s guidance but had handled this process in a godly manner. We invite you to read our notes from the counsel of Pastor Bruce Morrison.
For further clarity on the issue, we invite you to read When a Pastor Sins, written by Pastor Bruce. The following are a few quotes we thought were helpful in clarifying this issue:
“If a pastor wrongs a person and the wrong done does not affect the whole church, the pastor is in a position to resolve the matter privately. Once the same type of behaviour is experienced by two or three people it becomes a public matter. In this case the whole church is to be told what the sin was and the pastor needs to publicly take responsibility….”
“Depending on the nature of the sin, and the contriteness of the pastor, a determination of future ministry needs to be decided. If the sin is habitual, meaning there is an obvious need to mature in one of the character requirements for ministry, the pastor needs to take time to mature in that area before returning to ministry.”
“When any of us sin, including a pastor, a restored conscience only comes through confession of the sin, acknowledging the damage done to others, and true repentance. A pastor who meets the qualifications for ministry, but then sins, will, by the very virtues he has developed that qualifies him for ministry, be the first to want to stand before a congregation, acknowledge the sin, and ask forgiveness.”
“Through a public rebuke the church is taught a healthy fear of the Lord. A good example is thereby set before the congregation, that when any one of them sins they should take responsibility for it. The public rebuke of a pastor is not punitive, but restorative. It is not about vengeance, it is about correction.”
“…elders…who are in a position to correct a pastor who sins, but fail to do so, “share” in the sin. They…become party to the sin. The same applies to church members who know that a minister has sinned but do nothing to address the sin by not taking the matter to other leaders.”