Should Fallen Pastors/Elders be restored to Office After Repentance

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pepper

Puritan Board Freshman
Should pastors/elders be restored to office once they repent of extreme sin such as adultery or theft?
 
I think so. I see King David as our example, but I think I'm in the minority, and I wouldn't die on that hill!
 
Why shouldn't they be?

Proper repentence may be harder to prove if one has fallen from a position of high responsibility, but once repentence is proven, I am not sure it can be biblically proven that such a repentent sinner may not resume the work of ministry.
 
In the OPC, the Book of Discipline allows for the restoration of an officer "only after the judicatory has assured itself that the restoration will not be attended by injury to the cause of the gospel."
:2cents:
 
Spurgeon wrote:

The highest moral character must be sedulously maintained. Many are disqualified for office in the church who are well enough as simple members. I hold very stern opinions with regard to Christian men who have fallen into gross sin; I rejoice that may be truly converted, and may be with mingled hope and caution received into the church; but I question, gravely question whether a man who has grossly sinned should be very readily restored to the pulpit. As John Angell James remarks, "When a preacher of righteousness has stood in the way of sinners, he should never again open his lips in the great congregation until his repentance is as notorious as his sin." Let those who have been shorn by the sons of Ammon tarry at Jericho till their beards be grown; this has often been used as a taunt to beardless boys to whom it is evidently inapplicable, it is an accurate enough metaphor for dishonoured and characterless men, let their age be what it may. Alas! the beard of reputation once shorn is hard to grow again. Open immorality, in most cases, however deep the repentance, is a fatal sign that ministerial graces were never in the man's character.
Click to expand...
 
Herald said:
Spurgeon wrote:

The highest moral character must be sedulously maintained. Many are disqualified for office in the church who are well enough as simple members. I hold very stern opinions with regard to Christian men who have fallen into gross sin; I rejoice that may be truly converted, and may be with mingled hope and caution received into the church; but I question, gravely question whether a man who has grossly sinned should be very readily restored to the pulpit. As John Angell James remarks, "When a preacher of righteousness has stood in the way of sinners, he should never again open his lips in the great congregation until his repentance is as notorious as his sin." Let those who have been shorn by the sons of Ammon tarry at Jericho till their beards be grown; this has often been used as a taunt to beardless boys to whom it is evidently inapplicable, it is an accurate enough metaphor for dishonoured and characterless men, let their age be what it may. Alas! the beard of reputation once shorn is hard to grow again. Open immorality, in most cases, however deep the repentance, is a fatal sign that ministerial graces were never in the man's character.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

He very well could be right. David was the king not the priest.
 
satz said:
Why shouldn't they be?

Proper repentence may be harder to prove if one has fallen from a position of high responsibility, but once repentence is proven, I am not sure it can be biblically proven that such a repentent sinner may not resume the work of ministry.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with this.
 
Repentance being genuine, the question is the reputation of the ministry and the impeccable demand that we be 'above reproach'. Is a repentent adulterer 'above reproach'? He may be forgiven, he may be 'above condemnation' in the eyes of God, but is he 'above reproach' in the eyes of the watching world?
 
A repentant person may actually, in some cases, have a better witness to a hurting community and be a visible example of the grace of God.
 
I would say it is permissible and appropriate in some circumstances. I like Spurgeon's remarks above.

If I made the rules, this fallen minister would have to be observed in the pew and in humble service over a period of years, before restoration to office was considered.
 
What do people think about the very quick 'restoration of Todd Bentley to public ministry? Rick Joiner has been releasing video interviews on his website at morningstar.

I'm not sure if anyone here is aware of what has being going on. But already Joiner is taliking about the restoration of Todd to public ministry even though he is still 'working things through'. Not to mention the fact he divorced his wife after having an affair. etc etc

Joiner is condemming those who question Todd's immediate restoration, as being phariseeical etc etc

What I find distressing is the lack of 'discipline' and 'repentance' and the messages that this is sending to the body of Christ who are being decieved already. :think:
 
I wonder if Peter had a hard time preaching after he had publicly denied Christ and swore an oath that he didn't know Him thereby breaking the 3rd commandment.
 
I think as long as they can be help "beyond reproach" Paul ran around terrorizing and overseeing the death of church members, and look how far he made it. I would give it some time however. Five to ten years.
 
With proper oversight and accountability - yes.

Moral failure uncovers a besetting weakness in a pastor that was active much longer than was made public. There must be certain safeguards and accountability procedures put into place. In other words, it CAN'T be business as usual.

Examples, the pastor can't counsel a woman without another woman present. He should have some form of online accountability. This is why it should be left up to the elders who are the over seers.

In our church we have an effective prison ministry. This results in men coming to Worship who are also on a sexual predator list. We let them know right from the start how wonderful it is to have them there but if they should get up and leave the sanctuary during worship, an elder or deacon will follow them. This is a consequence of their previous sin. Forgiveness is complete, as King David learned, but the consequences of our sins may follow us all of our lives, which David also learned.
 
Jon 316 said:
What do people think about the very quick 'restoration of Todd Bentley to public ministry? Rick Joiner has been releasing video interviews on his website at morningstar.

I'm not sure if anyone here is aware of what has being going on. But already Joiner is taliking about the restoration of Todd to public ministry even though he is still 'working things through'. Not to mention the fact he divorced his wife after having an affair. etc etc

Joiner is condemming those who question Todd's immediate restoration, as being phariseeical etc etc

What I find distressing is the lack of 'discipline' and 'repentance' and the messages that this is sending to the body of Christ who are being decieved already. :think:
Click to expand...

Bentley needs to repent of his heresy and false practices as well as his sexual immorality, before being in ANY ministry In my humble opinion. Joyner is false prophet, why listen to him?
 
Preposterous responses here! There are consequences to moral failure and one who goes there is not to be in position of leadership again! How can he be an uplifting, persevering role model?
Even Moses and David lost their great desired goals after their failures.
God forgives, yes, but the consequences remain intact as long as we're on earth!
He must be blameless, not self-willed, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught! Titus1:7-9 We too would forgive him but reinstate him as a leader, never!!!
 
christiana said:
Preposterous responses here! There are consequences to moral failure and one who goes there is not to be in position of leadership again! How can he be an uplifting, persevering role model?
Even Moses and David lost their great desired goals after their failures.
God forgives, yes, but the consequences remain intact as long as we're on earth!
He must be blameless, not self-willed, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught! Titus1:7-9 We too would forgive him but reinstate him as a leader, never!!!
Click to expand...

So Peter should not have been reinstated?
 
Peter didnt have moral failure as I recall. His fall was a fulfillment of prophecy and used by Christ Himself for His purpose to expose our weakness and draw him close to Himself.
He does the same with us with our daily failures and sins but that doesnt include the moral failure of a minister of the gospel. He's forgiven but is not again in leadership.
(unless hes Jimmy Swaggert of course)
 
christiana said:
Peter didnt have moral failure as I recall. His fall was a fulfillment of prophecy and used by Christ Himself for His purpose to expose our weakness and draw him close to Himself.
He does the same with us with our daily failures and sins but that doesnt include the moral failure of a minister of the gospel. He's forgiven but is not again in leadership.
(unless hes Jimmy Swaggert of course)
Click to expand...

Swearing an oath that you don't know Christ accompanied with cursing and blasphemy in public is a pretty big moral failure regardless of the circumstances. I just find it odd that people are ready to forgive this so quickly and not a sexual sin, particuarly when the one in question has wept 'bitterly' over it and shown fruit of repentance.
 
You must have misunderstood! I definitely believe he should be 'forgiven'. I do not believe he should be in leadership again! He forfeited that and scriptural guidelines forbid such in leadership roles, do they not?

(even criminals are forgiven but they forfeit their right to vote)
 
This triggers the thought that we should pray earnestly for our elders & pastors that they would never fall into sin like this in the first place to the shame of the Gospel... Also we should thank God for those godly men He has given us that watch over us faithfully.
Matt
 
Repentance involves:

1) confession
2) forsaking
3) seeking reconciliation/restitution

A leader who falls into great sin causes harm to many. A Christian leader many more.

There is always forgiveness for sin in God's Kingdom. But the consequences can take a long time to get through. God often uses them to chasten us and bring out more sin to deal with. There is no quick, easy way back.

Rather than focus on how quickly a forgiving God might fully restore the effects of the sin, it is better to pray God will give us grace not to presumptively sin.

A leader who has sinned ought beseech God's grace to repent of sin and believe, rather than focus on demanding forgiveness and restoration of privilege from others.


Psalm 19:13

13Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
Click to expand...
 
Gomarus said:
I would say it is permissible and appropriate in some circumstances. I like Spurgeon's remarks above.

If I made the rules, this fallen minister would have to be observed in the pew and in humble service over a period of years, before restoration to office was considered.
Click to expand...

Bolded for emphasis.

This is one of those issues that hits close to home. Shortly before I left my Oneness Pentecostal roots, the pastor of my former church resigned publically at a Wednesday night Bible study due to "sin." That was in April of 2004. The church's retired Senior Pastor ended up coming out of retirement so that the church would not be pastorless.

In January 2005, without as much as a Congregational meeting or anything, the pastor who resigned due to "sin" was fully reinstated as pastor, without as much as a letter to the congregation or a congregational meeting. A number of folks left the church as a result of this.

That was one of those moments that led me to realize that there were other problems afoot in this church, but I digress.

Looking at restoral from a Child Protective Services standpoint, we don't send kids back to homes with abusive or neglectful parents until Mommy and Daddy (a) admit what they did wrong, and (b) undergo some form of treatment to try to fix the problem (drug/alcohol treatment, sex abuse/offender treatment, etc). Only after that can we try to reunify the family. It's only when situations occur when the parents have either dragged their feet on treatment or if they refuse that we consider other options for children in care, such as Termination of Parental Rights, Adoption, or Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (affectionately known as APPLA).

In a church setting, we're dealing with folks who have been adopted as children of God. If society at large is this protective of our natural children, how much more should we be protective of His children? I think it sets a bad precedent and example to believers and unbelievers if we're going to quickly restore someone to ministry without any repercussions.
 
puritanpilgrim said:
I think as long as they can be help "beyond reproach" Paul ran around terrorizing and overseeing the death of church members, and look how far he made it. I would give it some time however. Five to ten years.
Click to expand...

Slight difference in that he did wicked things BEFORE he professed faith, and not afterward in the case of the 'restoration' of a 'fallen' minister.

Todd Bentley - no comment as this is a public forum. Facts is facts.
 
When I first read this post my immediate thoughts went to what Spurgeon wrote in his "Lectures to my Students." Since Brother Bill has beaten me to it, I will not post it again.

But I notice two post that I did want to respond to. One argued that Paul killed Christians and even though he did this he went on to do great things for Christ. But this is not an adequate example for what is being discussed. What Paul did was done before or in a pre converted life, therefore this was forgiven by the Lord and also was not used against him by the church, but instead when they heard that he had come to the faith the had rest and gave God glory.

Also Peter's denial was a pre-converted life. I know many could argue that Peter was converted before his denial, but Jesus even told him that Satan would have him to sift him as wheat, but Jesus stated that he had prayed for him and that when he is converted to strengthen the bretheren.

Therefore both examples do not fit the question asked. I believe that the Pastoral epistles make it very plan what the qualifications are for a minister. He must have a good report of them that are without lest he fall into reproach and a snare of the devil 1 Tim 3:7. So I am with Spurgeon when I state that his calling should be questioned or it should be questioned whether God has called him and given him the grace to stand before the people. Peter makes it very clear in his epistle that the elders should feed the flock of God .........neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock 1 Peter 5:1,3.
 
christiana said:
Preposterous responses here! There are consequences to moral failure and one who goes there is not to be in position of leadership again! How can he be an uplifting, persevering role model?
Even Moses and David lost their great desired goals after their failures.
God forgives, yes, but the consequences remain intact as long as we're on earth!
He must be blameless, not self-willed, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught! Titus1:7-9 We too would forgive him but reinstate him as a leader, never!!!
Click to expand...

Moses and David faced consequences that never went away due to their sins, but that was God's choice to take away from them, not people continuing to sit in judgment on them after they had repented. Both continued in leadership positions.

As for being blameless, isn't the very concept of forgiveness that there is nothing more to blame a person for? How can you say someone is forgiven but still treat them as if their sin if following them around? God may chose to afflict them with long lasting consequences for their sin but it is not our place to do so, if repentance is clear. Even the previous verse, Titus 1:6 links blamelessness with being "husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." By the bible's definition blamelessness is about your current state of life, not what is in the past. Again, it goes completely against the very heart of christianity to say once you sin you can never be blameless again.

If those old and more experienced than me think restoring such a man is rarely a good idea, I can accept that. But I don't think the question can be answered simply by quoting Titus 1:6-7 and other places. I do not think that is what the bible is teaching (open to correction, though).
 
What are these?

Matt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them,"Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, NKJV

I don't think they are this.

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him."
NKJV

I think it would be wise to have some time for observance of these fruits of repentance in a case of scandalous sin, though we may forgive upon saying he repents, for trusting with other matters he would need to show himself trustworthy as would an accountant who embezzled, we would not make him church treasurer the next week.

If for no other reason that to support him from being tempted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top