pastoral leadership and sexual immorality
- Thread starter jogri17
- Start date
- Status
Anton Bruckner
Puritan Board Professor
nope.
staythecourse
Puritan Board Junior
That's like saying "a person cannot be an accomplice to murder and be an apostle" Paul would fail. If Christians were not put to death, the point still holds because he says "I am the least of apostles because I persecuted the saints"
You can't deny Christ and be an apostle: Peter
I am trying to use only Biblical examples but Augustine was recently brought up in a post who fornicated before salvation but after conversion was used to continue to change the Western world with the gospel.
You can't deny Christ and be an apostle: Peter
I am trying to use only Biblical examples but Augustine was recently brought up in a post who fornicated before salvation but after conversion was used to continue to change the Western world with the gospel.
Calvin'scuz
Puritan Board Freshman
Based on Mt 5:28, that would leave everybody out.
Joseph,
Everything within context. Sexual immorality usually is an iceberg. The one third you see is often eclipsed by the two thirds you don't. That said, if the root cause of fornication has been dealt with and the individual is currently guarding their heart well, then they are eligible for ministry.
P.S. My comments do not extend to more grievous acts of immorality such as criminal sexual behavior. In those cases a person should never enter into vocational ministry.
Everything within context. Sexual immorality usually is an iceberg. The one third you see is often eclipsed by the two thirds you don't. That said, if the root cause of fornication has been dealt with and the individual is currently guarding their heart well, then they are eligible for ministry.
P.S. My comments do not extend to more grievous acts of immorality such as criminal sexual behavior. In those cases a person should never enter into vocational ministry.
Last edited:
Calvin'scuz
Puritan Board Freshman
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
The qualification of "criminal" sexual behavior as an absolute bar to future ministry is problematic to make on several levels. What constitutes a criminal act? A nineteen year old youth having sex with his seventeen year old girlfriend? Should that really be a bar? It is criminal behavior as defined by the law. Even if we include more serious crimes, we would seem to be denying the radical work of God's grace upon one's life, even as the example of the murderous and blaspheming Paul has already been brought into this thread. We might want to add that "never" is a really long time. What if the man has been living righteously for fifteen years? For twenty five? Is this position really consonant with the merciful nature of our Savior who called the chief of sinners into his service?
For what it's worth, a discussion of this issue came up during our Ministry of Discipleship/Christian Education course. It went nowhere, and there were students who passionately argued both sides. However, the prof (an experienced minister of some years) agreed with those of us who would hold to the ability of God's grace to make a radical change in any man's life, no matter how wicked their earlier history (how's that for an appeal to authority?).
Placing extra-biblical qualifications such as these upon a man with a past who yet feels called may seem wise, but they are still man-made categories that infringe upon the domain of God's grace.
oops. Fixed!
The qualification of "criminal" sexual behavior as an absolute bar to future ministry is problematic to make on several levels. What constitutes a criminal act? A nineteen year old youth having sex with his seventeen year old girlfriend? Should that really be a bar? It is criminal behavior as defined by the law. Even if we include more serious crimes, we would seem to be denying the radical work of God's grace upon one's life, even as the example of the murderous and blaspheming Paul has already been brought into this thread. We might want to add that "never" is a really long time. What if the man has been living righteously for fifteen years? For twenty five? Is this position really consonant with the merciful nature of our Savior who called the chief of sinners into his service?
For what it's worth, a discussion of this issue came up during our Ministry of Discipleship/Christian Education course. It went nowhere, and there were students who passionately argued both sides. However, the prof (an experienced minister of some years) agreed with those of us who would hold to the ability of God's grace to make a radical change in any man's life, no matter how wicked their earlier history (how's that for an appeal to authority?).
Placing extra-biblical qualifications such as these upon a man with a past who yet feels called may seem wise, but they are still man-made categories that infringe upon the domain of God's grace.
Adam, I was trying to be delicate in what I typed. By criminal sexual behavior I mean rape, pedophilia, sexual assault - things of this nature. I don't believe we would be denying the work of God's grace if we prohibited such men from ministry. While my view is purely subjective, the nature of these crimes is so heinous that I could not see such a man being a shepherd to others. Crimes such as pedophilia have been proven to be habitual. It becomes ingrained in the character of the person. I could not support a person who committed such an act in becoming a minister of the gospel. I do not speak for others, just for myself.
While I stand by what I said in my previous post, I realize that there may be men in pulpits today who have succumbed in one of these areas, yet have remained faithful to God since their offense. I am not saying they should step down or even make known what they have done in the past. I am speaking mainly of a candidate for ministry in which their sexual offense(s) is known at the time of their candidacy.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
The qualification of "criminal" sexual behavior as an absolute bar to future ministry is problematic to make on several levels. What constitutes a criminal act? A nineteen year old youth having sex with his seventeen year old girlfriend? Should that really be a bar? It is criminal behavior as defined by the law. Even if we include more serious crimes, we would seem to be denying the radical work of God's grace upon one's life, even as the example of the murderous and blaspheming Paul has already been brought into this thread. We might want to add that "never" is a really long time. What if the man has been living righteously for fifteen years? For twenty five? Is this position really consonant with the merciful nature of our Savior who called the chief of sinners into his service?
For what it's worth, a discussion of this issue came up during our Ministry of Discipleship/Christian Education course. It went nowhere, and there were students who passionately argued both sides. However, the prof (an experienced minister of some years) agreed with those of us who would hold to the ability of God's grace to make a radical change in any man's life, no matter how wicked their earlier history (how's that for an appeal to authority?).
Placing extra-biblical qualifications such as these upon a man with a past who yet feels called may seem wise, but they are still man-made categories that infringe upon the domain of God's grace.
Adam, I was trying to be delicate in what I typed. By criminal sexual behavior I mean rape, pedophilia, sexual assault - things of this nature. I don't believe we would be denying the work of God's grace if we prohibited such men from ministry. While my view is purely subjective, the nature of these crimes is so heinous that I could not see such a man being a shepherd to others. Crimes such as pedophilia have been proven to be habitual. It becomes ingrained in the character of the person. I could not support a person who committed such an act in becoming a minister of the gospel. I do not speak for others, just for myself.
Thanks for clarifying, Bill, although I understood what you were getting at. Thank you also for clarifying that your were setting forth your personal and subjective position.
I also would be quite cautious about a man with a serious past, but I think that we allow too much social psychology to influence us when we start talking about habitual sins. Crimes such as pharisee-ism have proven to be habitual as well, yet we don't often talk about that being a bar from ministry. Most people in our culture would say that being a pedophile is worse than being a Pharisee, but I am not so certain that God sees it this way.
It really doesn't matter very much to me, since in either case I would expect to see a long term track record of spiritual fruit, sanctified living, and God-given gifts of preaching, instruction, and wise counsel.
North Jersey Baptist;
Yes, many sins become ingrained in a man's character, yet even so Christ CAN change that character. All mankind struggles with being tempted by various sins, which is why we are all commanded to FLEE temptation.
If a pedophile has not given into his temptation, and has walked closely with the Lord, why should that bar him from ministry? He, like any other minister would still need to flee temptation if it were brought upon him. IF he falters and gives in..then he should step down from said ministry, just as a pastor who falters and gives into his temptation of adultery, p0rnography, homosexuality, or stealing, should step down.
Why do we think one sin is worse than another before the eyes of God?
It is our character flaw, I believe that we prefer to compare ourselves to each other as far as 'how sinful' we think we are, as opposed to comparing ourselves to God's standard..HIS SON, who was/is and always will be perfect, that really shines the light on our own sinfulness.
My daughter and I were talking about something similar recently, she was talking about how in light of various choices some of her friends have made, she's not such a bad kid, to which I said..."but it is NOT our friends God holds our sin's up against when He looks at us..it is HIS SON that He holds us up against and makes that judgment, and we ALL fall short, and we are all declared sinners, guilty, and deserving of God's wrath, and it is here that we find our hope, that God in HIS MERCY, took His wrath out on His Son, so that we do not have to suffer it."
Having been molested as a child, this is one of the things I had to work through with God and thinking this man's sins against me were some how worse than MY own sin's against God and anyone else, even though they were not the same sins..they were still vile before God, and He declared me just as guilty.
So when we look at what qualifies a man for service, we should not look to his past sins, we should look to his current condition, has he repented and turned from His wicked ways? Has God called Him to serve in that position?
Lest *man* look at our own past sins and say we can not serve God either..and bar us from ever serving where God has called us to serve..
If others know this man's past, that is a good thing, as they can help hold him accountable in those areas of struggle and weakness and encourage him to remain faithful and to remember God has saved him from his wretchedness.
Yes, many sins become ingrained in a man's character, yet even so Christ CAN change that character. All mankind struggles with being tempted by various sins, which is why we are all commanded to FLEE temptation.
If a pedophile has not given into his temptation, and has walked closely with the Lord, why should that bar him from ministry? He, like any other minister would still need to flee temptation if it were brought upon him. IF he falters and gives in..then he should step down from said ministry, just as a pastor who falters and gives into his temptation of adultery, p0rnography, homosexuality, or stealing, should step down.
Why do we think one sin is worse than another before the eyes of God?
It is our character flaw, I believe that we prefer to compare ourselves to each other as far as 'how sinful' we think we are, as opposed to comparing ourselves to God's standard..HIS SON, who was/is and always will be perfect, that really shines the light on our own sinfulness.
My daughter and I were talking about something similar recently, she was talking about how in light of various choices some of her friends have made, she's not such a bad kid, to which I said..."but it is NOT our friends God holds our sin's up against when He looks at us..it is HIS SON that He holds us up against and makes that judgment, and we ALL fall short, and we are all declared sinners, guilty, and deserving of God's wrath, and it is here that we find our hope, that God in HIS MERCY, took His wrath out on His Son, so that we do not have to suffer it."
Having been molested as a child, this is one of the things I had to work through with God and thinking this man's sins against me were some how worse than MY own sin's against God and anyone else, even though they were not the same sins..they were still vile before God, and He declared me just as guilty.
So when we look at what qualifies a man for service, we should not look to his past sins, we should look to his current condition, has he repented and turned from His wicked ways? Has God called Him to serve in that position?
Lest *man* look at our own past sins and say we can not serve God either..and bar us from ever serving where God has called us to serve..
If others know this man's past, that is a good thing, as they can help hold him accountable in those areas of struggle and weakness and encourage him to remain faithful and to remember God has saved him from his wretchedness.
- Status