Should Fallen Pastors/Elders be restored to Office After Repentance

[Herald]

If I may, a different take on this topic. Since the problem of sexual temptation is an issue for men at large, we must conclude that it is a problem for ministers of the gospel. It is easy for us to have righteous indignation towards those ministers who commit immorality by deed. But what of those who are fighting the battle privately? Maybe it's a too-close for comfort relationship, bad reading material, or the anonymity of the internet. It could be past sins before becoming a Christian, or before entering the ministry. While it's good to know how to deal with a moral lapse once it happens, what should we be doing to keep it from happening? Pastors often feel trapped. How can they be transparent with their own temptations? Who is the pastor to the pastor? Elders should fill that role, but that's not the reality in every church.

 

[DMcFadden]

We need to separate the strands for a more adequate discussion:

* Pre vs. post conversion - can't a person guilty of murder as a non-Christian be allowed to hold office after he becomes a Christian and have been released from prison?

* Kind of offense - would a person guilty of vehicular manslaughter be forever banned from office? What about a misdemeanor? Would some crimes that are judged less severe in a court of law be more significant disqualifiers in the church than those that are punished more severely by the secular authorities (e.g., same sex actions are not illegal but a disqualifier in the church; serving time on a criminal count might be a badge of honor in the church if it resulted from civil disobedience to a godless law).

* What role does the reputation to outsiders have in the equation? Would a serial child m*****er be treated the same as a man who sinned by a one-time inappropriate relationship with a close friend and co-worker?

* How do you factor in the issue of repentance? Paul lists qualifications for ministry that include being a "one woman man." Exegetically, I am of the opinion that he is establishing a high standard of fidelity as a benchmark of the leader, not (necessarily) whether the man has been divorced or widowed. My mentor in ministry had affairs with more than triple digit women, including a 10 yr. affair with his wife's best friend. He NEVER divorced her and they still live together!!! In my mind he is NOT qualified for ministry while a person who was married and divorced as an 18 year old might be. Paul seems to be saying that we are called to be "one women" kind of men, not adult****s, p**n addicts, or men who make coarse jokes. Rather than letting my mentor off the hook because he is still married, I believe that one may be disqualified for misbehavior even if they have never left their spouse or divorced.

* Practical and psychological issues - I would NEVER hire a child molester (no matter HOW professedly repentant) to watch young children. My mentor example in the last bullet was a man who said he was "sorry." However, common sense would lead me to avoid putting an alcoholic struggling with drink in a "bar ministry," a repeat embezzler around church money, etc.

 

[nasa30]

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.

Wise words! "Until his repentance is as notorious as his sin"

 

[Blueridge Believer]

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.

Are you trying to say that Peter was not regenerate before his denial of Christ? The same Peter who made the great confession of faith and whom the Father revealed the Son?

 

[DonP]

If I may, a different take on this topic. Since the problem of sexual temptation is an issue for men at large, we must conclude that it is a problem for ministers of the gospel. It is easy for us to have righteous indignation towards those ministers who commit immorality by deed. But what of those who are fighting the battle privately? Maybe it's a too-close for comfort relationship, bad reading material, or the anonymity of the internet. It could be past sins before becoming a Christian, or before entering the ministry. While it's good to know how to deal with a moral lapse once it happens, what should we be doing to keep it from happening? Pastors often feel trapped. How can they be transparent with their own temptations? Who is the pastor to the pastor? Elders should fill that role, but that's not the reality in every church.

Then we need to stop ordaining elders just so we can serve communion and start praying for God to raise up true elders who will rule the people with justice.
Not just good ole boys who will go along with the pastors agenda, or are easy to get along with, but men sound in the faith and word who wil challenge the Pastor for his own good.

Prov 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
NKJV

 

[Herald]

If I may, a different take on this topic. Since the problem of sexual temptation is an issue for men at large, we must conclude that it is a problem for ministers of the gospel. It is easy for us to have righteous indignation towards those ministers who commit immorality by deed. But what of those who are fighting the battle privately? Maybe it's a too-close for comfort relationship, bad reading material, or the anonymity of the internet. It could be past sins before becoming a Christian, or before entering the ministry. While it's good to know how to deal with a moral lapse once it happens, what should we be doing to keep it from happening? Pastors often feel trapped. How can they be transparent with their own temptations? Who is the pastor to the pastor? Elders should fill that role, but that's not the reality in every church.

Then we need to stop ordaining elders just so we can serve communion and start praying for God to raise up true elders who will rule the people with justice.
Not just good ole boys who will go along with the pastors agenda, or are easy to get along with, but men sound in the faith and word who wil challenge the Pastor for his own good.

Prov 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
NKJV

Don, elders are often times not consulted by pastors who are struggling with sin issues. The fault on this goes both ways; the pastor who resists going to his elders, and the elders who are not actively seeking the welfare of the pastor. Your suggestion of seeking "true elders" isn't helpful. There are many godly pastors and elders who fail in this one area. They need help, not necessarily replacement.

 

[lynnie]

"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. "

Well said.

If we really believe the gospel, and in the power of God to sanctify, then repentance and change are available to the most notorious sinner. So the potential exists for anybody to truly repent and truly change.

But yes- until there is serious counseling and deep grief and deep repentance, of course the person should not go back.

I would think one sign of such deep repentance is that the person finally grasps their own depravity and sinful heart and finally faces up to the damage they did. And they would be so scared of possibly doing the same thing again under temptation, and dishonoring God again, that they would not even want to go back to public ministry. If they want to, you wonder if they "get it" or if it is just ambition.

I've also noticed that no matter what people say positively about a guy, its the wife who gut level trusts him or doesn't trust him. The wife ought to be a major voice in the decision.

 

[DonP]

Don, elders are often times not consulted by pastors who are struggling with sin issues. The fault on this goes both ways; the pastor who resists going to his elders, and the elders who are not actively seeking the welfare of the pastor. Your suggestion of seeking "true elders" isn't helpful. There are many godly pastors and elders who fail in this one area. They need help, not necessarily replacement.

Not consulted??

Should it not be a shepherds job to check into the affairs of the sheep, not wait until they ask for help?

I think it is the elders job to care for his minister and ask him how he is doing.
For the sake of protecting the sheep as well.

But I do not mean one is not a fit elder if he is weak in his duties but I would say many today are installed for wrong reasons and the are completely unfit for their job.

 

[Herald]

Don, elders are often times not consulted by pastors who are struggling with sin issues. The fault on this goes both ways; the pastor who resists going to his elders, and the elders who are not actively seeking the welfare of the pastor. Your suggestion of seeking "true elders" isn't helpful. There are many godly pastors and elders who fail in this one area. They need help, not necessarily replacement.

Not consulted??

Should it not be a shepherds job to check into the affairs of the sheep, not wait until they ask for help?

I think it is the elders job to care for his minister and ask him how he is doing.
For the sake of protecting the sheep as well.

But I do not mean one is not a fit elder if he is weak in his duties but I would say many today are installed for wrong reasons and the are completely unfit for their job.

Don, are you not even attempting to follow what I am saying?

Pastors struggle with temptation, just like any other man struggles with temptation. There is pressure on some pastors not to share their own personal struggles out of fear or shame. Although there should be a close relationship between pastors and elders, pastors are sometimes resistant to share certain things with their elders. I know of pastors who have become accountable to other pastors; ministers who are in other churches, and even other denominations.

Elders should be concerned with the welfare of their pastor. Many elders are concerned, and display their concern appropriately. But just because an elder is approachable doesn't mean a pastor who is struggling with sin will share his struggles with that elder. This invisible wall often times leaves the pastor to deal with his struggles alone. Elders have the same problem. As spiritual leaders of the church they may be ashamed to share their own private struggles.

Christians should be aware of this reality and pray diligently for their pastor and elders. Pray that God would keep them from sin. Pray that they have godly men they can confide in to help keep them from falling.

 

[christiana]

After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!

 

[Herald]

After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!

Christiana, while I take a more conservative view, in line with Spurgeon and MacArthur, it is not an area that scripture speaks to in black and white terms. Nowhere does scripture preclude a man who has fallen into gross sin from being restored to ministry. I am personally resistant to the idea, but I cannot patrol the conscience of a brother who is convinced otherwise. Their position may disappoint you, but I urge you to be careful with the critical language.

 

[DonP]

1 Cor 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. NKJV

1 John 2:3Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. NKJV

1 John 5: 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. NKJV

1 John 3:9-10
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God,
NKJV

 

[christiana]

Thanks for your warning. It is well taken. Though scripture doesnt speak to 'fallen brother' per se, it does most specifically speaks to the qualities of an elder. Those are current, consistent, unwavering and not iffy or conditional. I'm sorry if I come across as offensive but not for taking a stand for scriptural truth. Everyone has an opinion these days on what is right or wrong but not all are based on God's words to us. When we all seek what He has to say perhaps there will be more hearts united to fear His name.

 

[DonP]

1 Tim 3:2-7
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. NKJV

BLAME, BLAMELESS
anenkletos NT:410 signifies "that which cannot be called to account" (from a, negative, n, euphonic, and enkaleo, "to call in"), i. e., with nothing laid to one's charge (as the result of public investigation), in 1 Cor 1:8, RV, "unreproveable," KJV, "blameless"; in Col 1:22, KJV and RV, "unreproveable"; in 1 Tim 3:10 and Titus 1:6-7, KJV and RV, "blameless." It implies not merely acquittal, but the absence of even a charge or accusation against a person. This is to be the case with elders.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

I don't know why it is acceptable to accept such sinful and worldly lives today when we read of our fathers who would not have tolerated such in members.

Not a judgment on this case, just general comments regarding the other comments on this thread.

 

[Herald]

1 Tim 3:2-7
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. NKJV

BLAME, BLAMELESS
anenkletos NT:410 signifies "that which cannot be called to account" (from a, negative, n, euphonic, and enkaleo, "to call in"), i. e., with nothing laid to one's charge (as the result of public investigation), in 1 Cor 1:8, RV, "unreproveable," KJV, "blameless"; in Col 1:22, KJV and RV, "unreproveable"; in 1 Tim 3:10 and Titus 1:6-7, KJV and RV, "blameless." It implies not merely acquittal, but the absence of even a charge or accusation against a person. This is to be the case with elders.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

I don't know why it is acceptable to accept such sinful and worldly lives today when we read of our fathers who would not have tolerated such in members.

Not a judgment on this case, just general comments regarding the other comments on this thread.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her

.

 

[Herald]

1 Tim 3:2-7
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. NKJV

BLAME, BLAMELESS
anenkletos NT:410 signifies "that which cannot be called to account" (from a, negative, n, euphonic, and enkaleo, "to call in"), i. e., with nothing laid to one's charge (as the result of public investigation), in 1 Cor 1:8, RV, "unreproveable," KJV, "blameless"; in Col 1:22, KJV and RV, "unreproveable"; in 1 Tim 3:10 and Titus 1:6-7, KJV and RV, "blameless." It implies not merely acquittal, but the absence of even a charge or accusation against a person. This is to be the case with elders.
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

I don't know why it is acceptable to accept such sinful and worldly lives today when we read of our fathers who would not have tolerated such in members.

Not a judgment on this case, just general comments regarding the other comments on this thread.

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

 

[DonP]

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

there is a difference between committing a sin and practicing sin, or continuing in sin, yes?

Are these vrs contradictory to yours above or is there a place for both?

Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, NKJV

2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. NKJV

1 Tim 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. NKJV

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. NKJV

 

[satz]

After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!

You still haven't addressed the fact that David, Moses and Peter remained in leadership positions after their sins.

The idea that after a man sins he is forever blameworthy (i.e. not blameless) is completely contrary to the message of forgiveness in the bible. If God says he will remember their sins no more (Heb 8:12), why should we continue to hold it against them? Paul said repentence can clear a man from the stain of sin (2 Cor 7:11). I don't get where we are getting the idea that you cannot clear yourself from the stain of past sin and thus be blameless again.

If we look at Titus 1:6, it helps us explain the how the bible uses the word "blameless": "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."

Blamelessness is having a your family properly managed, i.e. children not acccused of being unruly etc etc. It speaks of man's present situation - not the fact that he has never committed any griveous sin, ever.

I am happy to admit that there may be practical reasons for not letting a person who has committed certain types of grevious sin back into the ministry. But I (currently) see no warrant for saying that the issue is settled just by quoting the word "blameless" from the pastoral epistles, without looking at what Paul actually meant.

 

[Edward]

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.

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.

I generally agree, but would add one more stipulation - it probably shouldn't be the same call, but the new call should be issued by a body completely familiar with the history of the matter.

In addition, as Rome has discovered, there are some defects that aren't curable - those men should never hold a position in ministry again.

 

[DonP]

You still haven't addressed the fact that David, Moses and Peter remained in leadership positions after their sins.

The idea that after a man sins he is forever blameworthy (i.e. not blameless) is completely contrary to the message of forgiveness in the bible. If God says he will remember their sins no more (Heb 8:12), why should we continue to hold it against them? Paul said repentence can clear a man from the stain of sin (2 Cor 7:11). I don't get where we are getting the idea that you cannot clear yourself from the stain of past sin and thus be blameless again.

Forgiveness has nothing to do with consequences. You have to keep in mind a man can be forgiven and the penal aspect of his sin remembered no more, which is only figurative, it is paid for so will not be accounted.

But as David was forgiven yet he had consequences. He should have been put to death, but God took his son instead.
He was not allowed to accomplish the greatest desire of his heart, build the temple.

So people thought forgiven so not just get to go back to the same work, or ministry or level of trust they once had.
They, like David, may lose it forever.

If one had committed a sexual crime and was caught by the law, he would never be allowed to teach sunday school or work with kids in our church due to their insurance and legal issues.
He is still forgiven.
An accountant who embezzles may be forgiven by God and his congregation but they will not temp him with handling the church money again.

So an elder who abuses his office may not be allowed back again. and for him to leave the denomination to go elsewhere where he is not known without exposing his past would be as wrong as it would be for the accountant or the sexual criminal.

 

[satz]

Forgiveness has nothing to do with consequences. You have to keep in mind a man can be forgiven and the penal aspect of his sin remembered no more, which is only figurative, it is paid for so will not be accounted.

But as David was forgiven yet he had consequences. He should have been put to death, but God took his son instead.
He was not allowed to accomplish the greatest desire of his heart, build the temple.

So people thought forgiven so not just get to go back to the same work, or ministry or level of trust they once had.
They, like David, may lose it forever.

If one had committed a sexual crime and was caught by the law, he would never be allowed to teach sunday school or work with kids in our church due to their insurance and legal issues.
He is still forgiven.
An accountant who embezzles may be forgiven by God and his congregation but they will not temp him with handling the church money again.

So an elder who abuses his office may not be allowed back again. and for him to leave the denomination to go elsewhere where he is not known without exposing his past would be as wrong as it would be for the accountant or the sexual criminal.

I never denied sin may have consequences, sometimes ones that last a lifetime.

However, what you have described in David's life was God's sovereign acts. Those around David did not get together and tell him he was no longer fit to be their leader.

God may, in his providence prevent a pastor who fell into sin from re-entering the ministry. That pastor should also not feel entitled to be accepted back.

What I am saying is that you cannot show, from the bible that God has declared that a pastor who sins greviously is permanently and absolutely barred from office.

 

[Pergamum]

After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!

Being Biblical means being neither more lax than Scripture nor more strict than Scripture.

Showing grace to repentant sinners does not indicate "encroaching liberalism."

 

[Mayflower]

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.

It is clear that Todd Bentley is living in unrepented adultry, so it's not a matter of having a restoration. he even says that his ex-wife and he has now a better relationship in their communcation than in their marriage, so for me it's clear as long as the spounse lives and he marrias another women, what a damengd to his children, his wife of his first marriage!!!!!!

 

[Blueridge Believer]

After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!

Big Mac is not an end-all to the issue. While for the most part he is right in this piece but not entirely. John holds to several anti-biblical doctrines such as dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture as well as total abstinance and is not reformed. We must weigh everything by the Word of God and not on the speculations of any one theologian, especially those in the Dispensational camp.

 

[toddpedlar]

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.

For many of us the question is not his restoration but whe the man had any legitimate public ministry to begin with...

 

[Herald]

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

there is a difference between committing a sin and practicing sin, or continuing in sin, yes?

Are these vrs contradictory to yours above or is there a place for both?

Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, NKJV

2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. NKJV

1 Tim 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. NKJV

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. NKJV

Don, my point is that pastors and elders are not without flaws. They are not perfect. We err when we hold our spiritual leaders up to a level that they cannot possible obtain. They need godly men they can confide in; whether they be in the local fellowship or outside. I am not trying to lower the standard set forth in scripture as to the qualifications of pastors and elders. I am simply acknowledging that they are men, and suffer the same frailties that all men face. Their own piety notwithstanding, they need help in their journey.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

It seems to me thus far, that many of you have forgotten who calls a man to ministry, God does that. God graciously gifts him for that service to the church and he is thereby obligated to use his gifts for the benefit of the body, as providence allows. If an officer falls, is deposed, and then repents of his sin and makes proper restitution so far as is possible, what would keep him from continuing to use his gifts? If the church recognizes his repentence, restores him to full fellowship, he must serve with his gifts as any other member of the body. And if they still see he is gifted by God for ordained ministry of some kind, then there should be no objection to calling him to serve in that capacity.

As I quoted in the OPC BCO above, the only restriction or objection is whether his reinstatement will injure the cause of the gospel, as judged by the judicatory. Granted, that is a loaded clause, with broad implications, and it is a process that certainly requires a lot of time, but at least the fathers and brothers in the OPC (and I'm sure in other Reformed denominations) understood that the Scriptures do not teach an infallible NO to reinstatment of fallen officers.

We've already seen the example of Peter. He was a commissioned preacher of the gospel by Christ himself, and he comitted apostacy. If that is not injurious to the cause of the gospel, I don't know what is. But God in his grace used his fall and restoration to promote the gospel of grace. We must at least be open to that possibility that God can use great sinners to become great leaders.

 

[kevin.carroll]

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)

I'm not sure you understand the nature of Peter's sin, nor of the interplay between divine decree and personal responsibility. I do appreciate your zeal for the pastoral office, however.

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 11:11:10 EST-----

As I read through the rest of the posts, it appears that a dichotomy between baptists and presbyterians have appeared. According to most Presbyterians polity, a minister may be restored, if the Court judges that his restoration would not be injurious to the Church.

This discussion reminds me of a debate I was having with a Baptist friend over whether or not those who had been divorced could serve. He said no. I said, "So you can murder your wife and be a minister, but you can't divorce her and be one?" The discussion kind of whithered after that. Hehheheh.

 

[christiana]

The bottom line is that though he is now forgiven, he no longer meets these qualifications and must not attempt to lead by example or to be a role model; he isnt!

Biblical Qualifications for Elders
He does not meet these criteria, at all after failing to be an overcomer and restraining himself from blatant sin. Forgiven, yes; reinstated, no.
How much more lenient is it going to become before Christ returns? Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus! Is there no accountability? No consequences?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The bottom line is that though he is now forgiven, he no longer meets these qualifications and must not attempt to lead by example or to be a role model; he isnt!

All men, regardless of their status, are role models and called to lead by example (see Titus 2). We don't attempt to be one, you are one. You can be a good one or a bad one, officer or not. In the case of a fallen minister, he becomes a role model for how a man must humbly submit to Christ, receive correction, and repent of his sins, relying upon the prayers, accountability, and encouragment of the church.

Biblical Qualifications for Elders
He does not meet these criteria, at all after failing to be an overcomer and restraining himself from blatant sin. Forgiven, yes; reinstated, no.
How much more lenient is it going to become before Christ returns? Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus! Is there no accountability? No consequences?

The criteria for officers are not perfection. If he has fallen before, that doesn't mean that he can't become an "overcomer" later, after learning the hard way, and being brought back by the grace of Christ. The qualifications can reflect his character development later on.

And isn't it exagerating a bit to say that reinstating and officer means there is no accountability or consequences? Having your sin publicaly condemned by the church, your office publically stripped from you for that sin, and suspension from the priviledges of church membership are not consequences or accountability? Having the church publically discuss and decide whether your reinstatment will injure the gospel is not consequences or accountability?

I don't know who you are talking about, but no one here is advocating simply reinstating an officer without any consideration to his repentence or public consequences to the gospel.