Should Fallen Pastors/Elders be restored to Office After Repentance

[toddpedlar]

I fear by your criteria, Christiana, every pastor and elder in office is unBiblically there. Every one has failed to overcome perfectly. None shall ever overcome perfectly this side of glory. You should pay attention to the statements others are making... not a SINGLE one is arguing that instantaneous reinstatement of elders after an "I'm sorry, I repent" statement escapes their lips. Let's listen to each other, please?

 

[DMcFadden]

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.

Hmmm. I am one Baptist who believes that the larger church needs to be involved in cases of appropriate restoration. It is not a matter of forgiveness, public ministry is not a right but a privilege. Sometimes the consequences of a particular action render it unwise for someone to continue in public ministry -- whether it is illegal or not. Other times, even an illegal act should not be a bar to continued ministry. The biblical standard is "above reproach" not sinless nor well closeted.

My objection is to using simplistic legalisms (e.g., no divorce) OR sloppy agape permissiveness which are contrary to the proper exegesis of 1 Timothy 3 in place of discernment. Some repentant murderers may legitimately serve in public ministry (e.g., Paul), some may not. The same applies to most of the other sins you can imagine (e.g., gossip, gluttony, materialism, womanizing even though there is no divorce, pugnaciousness, etc.). Rather than automatically excluding someone from office because of a sin in their past (while excusing others who are chronic offenders in other areas such as schismatics), we ought to be BIBLICAL in our standards for office and SERIOUS (i.e., neither legalistic nor antinomian) in our discipline of office holders.

 

[DonP]

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.

I agree. And that help should be received from their elders, and presbytery to whom they are accountable. How sad if they won't. But they can not cannot continue in known sin as a lifestyle and stay in ministry. They are not above a member, and yes they are held to a higher standard. But not a perfect standard.
And as mentioned, forgiveness is not equated with reinstatement. They may or may not be reinstated and are not to run from the denomination to avoid the consequences. That is all I am saying. We all need to seek to be in accord with 1 John members and elders alike. And we need to be encouraging and admonishing one another for their good not because we are hurt or angry or to get even but from a concern for the holiness of God and His good name and love for our neighbor and concern for his soul.
Even if we are ill thought of or misjudged.

 

[christiana]

Peter's sin wasnt lust but pride, the same sin that gets all of us in trouble when we deny our Lord in multitudinous ways! Christ allowed this to give a great example that shows us up front with without Him we can do nothing. I have nothing adademic to bring to this 'discussion', only a great love for truth and the accurate presentation and upholding of how God said it to us!
In looking back it appears to me there is much leniency, rationalization and defense expressed. I certainly would hope that you pray daily to be protected from like sin and cling to Him who alone allows us to learn hard lessons at times and more clearly see what Peter saw about His Lord!
How much I know and understand about Peter's denial is not the purpose of the OP or the rest of this thread. No amount of diverting can reduce the damage done to so many young people when seeing a revered pastor commit such sin, especially then to witness his being restored to his same position! What does this tell those in the world who are watching?

 

[a mere housewife]

Dear Christiana, I have been thinking about this because I think you raise worthy objections. I was thinking that there is a testimony to the world, and to the church, to consider of God's efficacious grace, as well: His grace is so strong He not only saves, but uses sinners to bring about His gracious purpose for the earth. That is a beautiful and hopeful testimony at least to me, and I think one reason why God allowed us to see some of his ministers in Scripture fall into sins.

I believe, and I think most commenting here would agree, that a minister who has fallen into sin of such a nature that he can't restore confidence (in the church or 'those that are without') in his ability to perform ministerial functions without needing to be babysat, and without leading them and himself into grave sin, should not be restored to office. If the measures of common prudence are not enough for a man as he goes about normal duties of his calling, then I do not believe he is *gifted* or *qualified* to fulfil that particular role -- nothing to do with forgiveness. I think that is probably the kind of consequence that is 'natural' to some kinds of sins.

 

[EricP]

Fallen leaders

To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, perhaps a few random thoughts on the passing scene. Clearly, falling and fallen men restored by God is a recurring theme in Scripture--even the Israelites were eventually restored by God each time they shot themselves in the foot with a calf or some other idol; Peter and Paul had their difficulties; David and Solomon theirs. Only one Man got it right. In so many ways, God is far more forgiving and loving than we are--we draw lines in the sand that He has the temerity to cross all the time. And yet, isn't it sad that, like the frog in the cold water, we have all gotten used to hearing and seeing things that would have caused our grandparents to blush--hundreds of years ago it was lawn bowling on the Sabbath and playing cards, today if those were our ONLY problems we'd all feel blessed! Our hearts, skins, eyes, and ears have gotten thick and hardened to many sad things going on around us, to the point that in a few years it may be difficult to find many pastors who HAVEN'T been divorced, had an affair at some point, or whatever. And yet, preachers preach to fallen men and women, and the ultimate voice is God's , expressed through the Scriptures as voiced by a bunch of cracked pots in pastoral clothing. Since God can make a donkey talk and bones walk, we shouldn't perhaps be surprised that He can even take a repentant fallen sinner and make him an effective religious leader to a fallen and dying generation. I hope and pray some day to be one!!

 

[harvelljr]

I was asked by James Farley:

"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?"


Ah, but did I not say that some would disagree with my statement. When was Peter converted, show me from the scripture if though knowest? I have to go by what Jesus stated and not what men have. The example you gave was Peter's great confession, but if I remember correctly it is just 6 scriptures later and the same day and Christ is rebukinmg the spirit of Satan that is working through Peter.

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


I believe that there is a dispute within the Reformed Church whether Solomon was ever converted or not. Am I correct on this?

But back to what I was stating: Jesus tells Peter that when he is converted to strengthen the bretheren. I will ask this of thee: If Peter and the apostles were converted prior to Pentecost [this is when they received the Spirit] then why would they have to wait to receive the Spirit if they already have the Spirit for only those born of the Spirit are actually born again?

Today there is an error in the church that is rooted in the second century heresy of Montanism. Montanus taught that there was a second outpouring of the Spirit and that in the church there are have' s and have not's. Those who are born again and have the Spirit and those who are born again and do not have the Spirit. This is the charasmatic doctrine and heresy of today. This places us back into a pre-pentecostal position.

Reformed Theology teaches that now when one is born again they recieve the Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Now my question is when did Peter receive the Spirit? Before Pentecost or at Pentecost?


As for those picking on Christina I will say this:

Even though I do not care to read John MacArthur's statement concerning these matters and this being because MacArthur is riding a high fence between Dispensationalism and reformed and he accuses Reformed people who hold to A-mill as being not truly Reformed, even though it is he that distorts the very word of God by seperating God's purpose of combining Jew and gentile into one body, I will say that Christina should not be treated so harshly. What are we discussing: The forgiving of someones sins before God, in Christ. Certainly God forgives all manner of sin that his children commit and were it not for his restraining hand we would commit even blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but God keeps us and preserves us to his heavenly kingdom.

But what we should be defending is God's honor and God's glory. If a man is a Pastor, Elder, Bishop, ever what you want to call it, if he is truly repentant then he would not be willing to step into the pulit again because he would see the reproach that he brought upon the very one who gave his life that we might be saved. Certainly we all bring reproach upon Christ at times, but an elder is to be the example, the one who leads, again he must have a good report among those outside the faith. In other words they may not like his Christianity, but they will respect his stance or see that he stands firm on what he believes.

Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

self willed means to be self pleasing


Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.


How is he to convince anybody if he himself lives as the world?




EricP stated:

"Our hearts, skins, eyes, and ears have gotten thick and hardened to many sad things going on around us, to the point that in a few years it may be difficult to find many pastors who HAVEN'T been divorced, had an affair at some point, or whatever."

I do agree. I am no longer a Pastor because my Reformed got in the way of the Arminianism in the Senior Pastor and a few of his cohorts. I was asked to leave. But to show that they had no discernment in doctrine I was called a few weeks ago by the Senior Pastor because he wanted me to come and preach for them. Needless to say I did not call him back. He left a message on my machine. [Not because I am bitter or do not love them, but Reformed will not mix with their dispnesational, Arminian, charsmatic, humanistic doctrines].

 

[py3ak]

Lee, look again at the verses you quoted, specifically v.17. Christ pronounced Peter blessed because of the revelation the Father had given him. That is hardly consistent with a condition of unregeneracy.

"Converted" means "turned again": it is a good word to use after a lapse.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I was asked by James Farley:

"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?"


Ah, but did I not say that some would disagree with my statement. When was Peter converted, show me from the scripture if though knowest? I have to go by what Jesus stated and not what men have. The example you gave was Peter's great confession, but if I remember correctly it is just 6 scriptures later and the same day and Christ is rebukinmg the spirit of Satan that is working through Peter.

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


I believe that there is a dispute within the Reformed Church whether Solomon was ever converted or not. Am I correct on this?

But back to what I was stating: Jesus tells Peter that when he is converted to strengthen the bretheren. I will ask this of thee: If Peter and the apostles were converted prior to Pentecost [this is when they received the Spirit] then why would they have to wait to receive the Spirit if they already have the Spirit for only those born of the Spirit are actually born again?

Today there is an error in the church that is rooted in the second century heresy of Montanism. Montanus taught that there was a second outpouring of the Spirit and that in the church there are have' s and have not's. Those who are born again and have the Spirit and those who are born again and do not have the Spirit. This is the charasmatic doctrine and heresy of today. This places us back into a pre-pentecostal position.

Reformed Theology teaches that now when one is born again they recieve the Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Now my question is when did Peter receive the Spirit? Before Pentecost or at Pentecost?


As for those picking on Christina I will say this:

Even though I do not care to read John MacArthur's statement concerning these matters and this being because MacArthur is riding a high fence between Dispensationalism and reformed and he accuses Reformed people who hold to A-mill as being not truly Reformed, even though it is he that distorts the very word of God by seperating God's purpose of combining Jew and gentile into one body, I will say that Christina should not be treated so harshly. What are we discussing: The forgiving of someones sins before God, in Christ. Certainly God forgives all manner of sin that his children commit and were it not for his restraining hand we would commit even blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but God keeps us and preserves us to his heavenly kingdom.

But what we should be defending is God's honor and God's glory. If a man is a Pastor, Elder, Bishop, ever what you want to call it, if he is truly repentant then he would not be willing to step into the pulit again because he would see the reproach that he brought upon the very one who gave his life that we might be saved. Certainly we all bring reproach upon Christ at times, but an elder is to be the example, the one who leads, again he must have a good report among those outside the faith. In other words they may not like his Christianity, but they will respect his stance or see that he stands firm on what he believes.

Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

self willed means to be self pleasing


Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.


How is he to convince anybody if he himself lives as the world?




EricP stated:

"Our hearts, skins, eyes, and ears have gotten thick and hardened to many sad things going on around us, to the point that in a few years it may be difficult to find many pastors who HAVEN'T been divorced, had an affair at some point, or whatever."

I do agree. I am no longer a Pastor because my Reformed got in the way of the Arminianism in the Senior Pastor and a few of his cohorts. I was asked to leave. But to show that they had no discernment in doctrine I was called a few weeks ago by the Senior Pastor because he wanted me to come and preach for them. Needless to say I did not call him back. He left a message on my machine. [Not because I am bitter or do not love them, but Reformed will not mix with their dispnesational, Arminian, charsmatic, humanistic doctrines].

I believe that all of the apostles were saved except Judas before Peter's denial according to Jesus Christ Himself in John 17:

Jhn 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Jhn 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
Jhn 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
Jhn 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Jhn 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Jhn 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].
Jhn 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

none of them are lost but the son of perdition

 

[DonP]

The unusual issues around the holy Spirit in the early NT are usually attributed to a transition time.
Also Penetecost could be understood as a special work of the Spirit in ordaining or setting these men apart as apostles and for the work of the ministry to which they were called.
It does not have to imply the did not have the Spirit previously.

Also consider Christ served Communion to them. I do not think He would have done this, having all knowledge, if He knew they were unregenerate.

One may ask at what point was Saul Regenerated? On the way or after he was healed by Annanias and received the Spirit??

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. NKJV

Again I see the special filling as commission for apostleship, not regeneration. I think the moment any of us saw Christ we would Convert immediately.
Or die.

 

[harvelljr]

I appreciate the responses and will cease from this point on to post. My post was edited because I gave a testimony of what God had done in my life. If someone is to edit what God specifically commands you to publish abroad, then what is the point of discussing. I cannot but relate in my life what God has done for me. My testimony of what I have overcome will be known in heaven for eternity, how much more should it not be proclaimed among Christians now. I am glad Paul did not hold to this policy, but specifically proclaimed that Alexander the coppersmith had done him much evil.

No hard feelings, but I do not agree with anyone editing another's testimony unless that testimony does not give glory to God.

God bless,

I am out. It has been nice chatting with thee.

 

[DonP]

I think there is a collapsing of the distinction between forgiveness and consequences in the church today.

Just because God forgives a man it does not make all go away as if it never happened in our realm on earth.

We do not "forget" as God does.

1st we do not know if the man is converted or not. We can not see who are elect.

So we do not know if he is forgiven with God.

2nd God lets us endure the consequences of our sins and even just mistakes sometimes.

So the church can forgive them man if he repent, and if he shows fruits fitting of repentance. But will all of the members forgive him? Say his family? the family of the other party if they were in that church or another?
People are sinful and may not forgive. It may take time.

So obviously there will be time before any consideration of what responsibilities he will have back and it should not be a given that he will one day be able to return to the ministry.

To forgive does not mean no consequences.
If a man gets a woman pregnant who is not his wife and she has a child, he can be forgiven but his life will be forever changed in many ways, not the least of would be the financial responsibility of the child, possibly the mother.
Because of the visibility of the child and public scandal he may never be allowed to take a pulpit again though God could forgive him and the people do.

Scriptures supporting this posted in my previous post.

Because God's people are sinful is not an excuse to say we forgive to the extent it is as if it never happened. That is for God's domain.

 

[akennethjr]

Preachers are quick to forgive
and the last to be forgiven.
How sad that they are last
to be restored and forgiven.
I believe in restoration.

 

[kevin.carroll]

For what it's worth, all of the qualifications in Timothy and Titus are in the Greek present tense, suggesting that they describe the candidate right now. The effect of injurious sins on one's ability to preach the gospel should be judged by the courts of the Church.

I for one praise God that he does, in fact, restore men with a past to gospel ministry. If not, the Church would not have had Augustine.

In our presbytery we had to do deal with this very issue recently (though the sin was p0rnography and not physical adultery). We suspended the man from the pulpit and Sacraments for a year. He submitted to that and after a year we did restore him to the Table. We felt, however, that he had not manifested the proper fruits of repentance and left the suspension of office in place. We also warned him that, for aggravating circumstances that I will not share, he was danger of facing charges and beind deposed. At our urging he has petitioned the presbytery to demit the ministry.

Every step of the way our goal has been his restoration. I can envision a time when he may yet be restored to ministry, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

[pepper]

It has been most interesting to read the various post on this issue. I believe I have learned alot

 

[chbrooking]

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.

And no wonder, given the attitude of many on this thread. You hard line no-restoration folks are robbing your pastors of your support. You are making him pretend to be something that none of us are -- a recipe for disaster. And then when, having kept from him the tools that might have prevented his fall, he falls, you refuse to own up to your own guilt in the matter.

James 5:16 is out of the question, then, for a minister.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

just to note, if this Pastor was living in Puritan New England he would have been promptly executed, hence this discussion wouldn't be warranted. But also where the Civil Order is not explicitly Christian or even pagan, adulterers, murderers etc once truly repentent are allowed somewhat depending upon their maturity and diligence. Paul is a prime example. Here is a guy that was a murderer that became the greatest of the Apostles.

But if a Pastor falls into sin, as opposed to an adultering sinner converting to the gospel is too unique, I would say for the weakness of certain brethren the pastor should be forbidden to preach in a particular congregation or congregations. The pastor should also be forthright with his former short coming with any new congregation so as to kill any potential gossip that might rear its ugly hear.

 

[akennethjr]

I may have already said this but
Lester Roloff said that "The preacher is the first to forgive
and the last to be forgiven."
Sad but true
This may not be an exact quote