Can / Should Fallen Pastors Be Restored?

Proverbs 6:32-33

A point that cannot be emphasized enough (unless you are part of a denomination that has a governing body outside of the local and then obviously you accept denominational rule but even in that case they accept that one local church cannot impose upon another local church something it rejects).

I do find issue with categorizing Peter's denial of the Lord on 3 occasions as a theological failure or one due to faulty thinking but it still is rightly differentiated from a moral failure.

To what passage(s) are you referring and what is your exegetical justification for applying them in this case? And you ask, can he possess again the requirement of blamelessness? Well if he can recover from being an erring teacher (unfaithful to the truth) and we can view him as recovered from such (meaning we can now trust his doctrinal judgments and direction though once he succumb to whatever forces internal and external that led him astray) then what is the magic ingredient that renders such a moral recovery impotent? But again this begs the question earlier, how long does the context of his moral failure persist?

Obviously here you have a singular case of possibly hasty re-initiation. But the possible misguided decisions of others based on the misuse of something permissible in Scripture (I speak for the sake of argument here as if it is permissible, I understand not everyone views it this way) does not speak to a problem with the process or the license granted by Scripture, rather it speaks to those wrongly or hastily employing it.

With regard to a lowering of the standard, if the Scriptures allow for a person in ministry, namely the Pastorate, to be restored then by accepting this, no biblical standard has been lowered. That would be within the biblical standard. Now if you don't believe in such a thing, that one can be restored from moral failure, then of course a person would take the view the standard of the bible has been lowered. Clearly I don't agree.

Sentiment unfortunately is the reason for too many things within the church and your point couldn't be better. And if one has recovered from moral failure and is no longer in the context of blameworthiness regarding this but is now in the context of fidelity with the confidence of those he will lead, then it will be up to those making that decision and no doubt they should always have a view of the office bound by the principles in Scripture and not their feelings.

While I recognize within your statement some valid principles I would also note that the structures of the world do not consider within them the supernatural transformation and empowerment of God's Spirit which the church does. I do not compare the world's standards with those of the Scriptures and end up finding myself distressed when they do not match up. I am not so naive as to fail to note that sometimes we have similar expectations but I have yet to find any organization outside of the Scriptures (which is the declaration of the church) making a point to tell everyone that they prefer the fools of the world over the wise. And I realize this does not address the office of the Pastor but it does make the point that parallels between the world and the church (the body of Christ) are rather limited. Misuses of a valid process, again, do not speak to a problem either with is validity or process, rather with those who misuse it.

I personally know of two instances (MacDonald's being one) where a pastor who was guilty of adultery was restored to leadership. In both instances the churches split creating broken hearts and bitter spirits on both sides that wouldn't have been created had not the offending individual asked the people to take sides. Is it worth it?

Obviously each situation has its own merits. I suspect there is a more full story here, though.

On the other hand I know of two Pastors who did recover from moral failures and go on to Pastor churches where the members were quite grateful and edified into maturity through their teaching. Was it worth it? Of course, it is always worth having a valid Pastor lead their congregation into mature faith.

Just thinking and digesting these posts -- and now I'm going to throw out a few thoughts.
I am still hostile to the idea of adultery being an offense from which the preacher can be restored. But...

I'm thinking about I Timothy 5:20, which clearly leaves open the option to rebuke a pastor/elder found to have sinned -- which strikes me as implying the possibility of a lesser sentence than removal.

So, a pastor/elder sins in some fashion -- let's leave adultery off the table for now -- and the investigating officers of the church rebuke (censure) the pastor.
Of course, if this verse tells us that there are sins that don't require removal -- perhaps sins that do not contravene the list of qualifications -- then that raises a question.
How does a pastor's "blameless" reputation remain intact if it is announced publicly that he sinned and has been "rebuked"?

I ask this because "blamelessness" seems to be one of the criteria around which this argument revolves.

Not, it is my understanding that "blamelessness" is an umbrella statement over the other requirements, and that it implies "nothing that can be grasped". So, there are no areas in the preacher's life that can be pointed at as violations of the requirements that are not being dealt with or that have not been dealt with. The "blameless" person is not sinless (for who is?), but is one who makes right and fixes and corrects the errors in his life, which hopefully are few, infrequent, uncommon.

Is it possible, then, that a pastor might come to recognize a sinful state in which he has been, repent, and then have it dealt with so as to maintain blamelessness? A rebuke could be issued, but the position held.
Is it possible, then, that a pastor might confess a sin committed in the past, and repent, and establish that he has dealt with it so as to remain blameless? A rebuke could be issues, but the position held.

Just thinking out lout -- a dangerous practice here on SI.

What I'm shooting for here is room for an errant pastor to correct his course without flushing his entire life's work down the drain.

Now, I'm not yet applying this to adultery -- which may be different on several levels. But I am applying it to other possible failures.

Thoughts?

We get into difficulties with these qualifications if they are interpretted in an absolute sense: If applied absolutely no person would be qualified. (E.g., if my pastor get's irritated and raises his voice at his child in a moment of impatience, is he no longer "gentle"?) It's obvious that these spiritual qualities don't have to be true in the sense that they are always exemplified perfectly. However, they should be true in the sense that people will readily agree that the man under consideration can be designated as having this sort of character. If you say "John Doe is man who is gentle" and someone in the church can think of a case where he was not gentle, that doesn't necessarily disqualify him. However, if that statement elicits rolling of eyes, he's not qualified. Regarding having to rebuke and confront an elder, the question of his being "blameless" would depend upon (1) the nature of the sin for which he was being rebuked and (2) how he responds to the rebuke (an elder should be "easily entreated").

Some sins bring reproach because committing them requires a "high handedness" that reveals serious underlying character issues (e.g. embezzlement of church funds). These sorts of sins stick to a man and make people lose confidence in his character & leadership.

Since no one is without sin, you could probably make the case that all of the qualifications for an elder have some degree of subjectivity. In the end, the Scripture points out the qualities on which we should be focused if we are to select the most qualified elders (implicitly comparing the man under consideration with other men). I believe there are flaws (like adultery) that disqualify a man from the office of elder in any church, period, end of story. However, I also believe that the Scripture provides enough subjectivity to make possible situations where believers prayerfully consider the qualifications and God leads them to choose a man as an elder in one church that would never be chosen in another church (simply because they have candidates who exemplify those characteristics even better). To give a specific example: the practical result of choosing a man who was "not a novice" would be quite different if applied in a 2000 member church in Greenville, SC vs. a five-year-old church plant in Haiti. Obviously, a certain minimum level of training and experience is required to meet the threshold at all, but there is also a situational, subjective threshold that is specific to the individual church situation. In my hypothetical Haiti church, that latter threshold might be 5 years as a Christian and some number of years of Bible training under the tutelage of the local missionary. However, God would likely lead my hypothetical Greenville congregation to judge that same experience and training quite inadequate for eldership in their church.

Alex:

Both Thomas' and Peter's errors stemmed from a theological misinterpretation of Jesus' teaching. Thomas found it impossible to believe in the resurrection. Peter struggled with Jesus' prophecies about his death and resurrection (Matt. 16:21-23). Both of them saw him as Messiah, but not as Savior. Their misunderstanding of these doctrines cannot equate to the failure of one in Christian leadership who fails morally.

The passage in 1 Cor. 9:25-27 certainly has application to the issue we are discussing. Paul understood that, if he didn't keep his body under control, this could disqualify him from ministry. Quite obviously, Paul believed that some things might eliminate him from ministry. Why is this not applicable to the subject at hand?

You ask: "how long does the context of his moral failure persist?" As long as it affects his reputation with those who are without. Sins may be forgiven, but there are some sins that bear ongoing consequences as relates to one's capacity to lead. Grace is greater than all our sins, but grace doesn't cancel the consequences of sin, e.g. the adultery of David left a blot upon his life. The pastor must have "a good testimony among those who are outside." A pastor who was arrested for a DUI would most certainly damage his testimony in a community and might find it impossible to continue being a leader. Certainly, a man who was arrested for domestic violence would not easily escape the condemnation of the community, thus impairing his ministry. A pastor who is discovered in pornography would damage his moral leadership. A pastor I know who visited prostitutes could surely not regain his reputation in a community. He would be the brunt of jokes. No committee of pastors would be able to restore a man to leadership when the community continued to condemn him.

Unfortunately, what you deemed as a singular, and possibly misguided re-initiation to ministry is altogether too frequent. Men who have obviously disqualified themselves from public ministry and leadership are often continuing in their positions. And the damage done to churches which often split because a congregation cannot agree to restore the pastor is considerable. Take the case in question -- that of Gordon MacDonald; the restoration committee failed to foresee that his congregation would split over this issue. In my opinion, those who rejected his return to the pastorate were on stronger ground biblically than those who reinstalled him.

Just what, in your opinion, might a pastor do which might represent a lowering of the Bible's standard for ministry? Is there anything that might disqualify him from ministry?

Do you think Paul had in mind temporary and current fidelity in marriage as a pre-requisite for leadership, or was he speaking of a history of fidelity? How many acts of adultery violate the qualification of fidelity in marriage? When it comes to the opinion of those outside the church, does not infidelity at some point in a person's life raise questions about the strength of his requirement that others be faithful to their marriage vows? What is there about a pastor that makes him think that infidelity in marriage, drunkenness, domestic violence, pornography ought to be overlooked by those outside the church?

Your view is one I am sure its eccentricity has some supporters but categorizing either one as a "theological misinterpretation" is something on which we will have to disagree and I will appeal to the volume of commentary that would weigh in against this unusual view.

And as I have observed (as have many within the body of Christ) this affect is reparable. It is good to see your response not with the view all such incidents are perpetual.

I draw back from attempting to describe scenarios and then placing values for others on them. That is, I don't know what a community would do and I do not wish to project my speculations onto community regarding what it might or might not do in any instance and from that attempt to issue boundaries or propositions that are binding or conclusive. I am not saying what you are proposing isn't possible but it seems to treat any similar context with a conclusive view before any community concensus has been drawn.

I cannot comment on that particular case but I cannot agree with you more that such sincere efforts often are done hastily, without due consideration to all higher principles and those being lead by such persons.

Not permanently.

I believe what is in mind with respect to the qualifications of a man seeking the office of Pastor (bishop) is just what is presented which is what his reputation is. It does not have in view the nullification of a man with a good reputation that is one which has occurred with reconstitution or without reconstitution, it condemns or commends neither,. Rather it is based in what that man's status is at that time, obviously based on some undetermined period of time during which such a reputation was built.

Do understand that I do not miss your position and won't contend that it is without its merits but I do not subscribe to it, therefore in responding I will assert the position to which I have come myself. But I do recognize your concerns and the issues you raise.

i have had different views on this topic. i think in my younger days (cough), i was pretty much like, you messed up, you're outta here. but now that Vitaliy is listening to everything in the world associated with the concept of God's grace to us , . . .

well, I'm re-thinking.

bottom line, i guess my own worthless opinion is that it's really a case-by-case call. Steve Brown, some relatively-famous radio preacher, says that, for example, committing adultery is not necessarily a pastoral death sentence. That man needs to get back into the pew so he can repair and grow again, but restoration is possible if God leads that way.

i was thinking, too, like, what if the disqualifying sin wasn't sexual. what if the disqualifying sin for a pastor or ministry worker was gluttony? . . . or greed? . . . not sure where that hypothesis was going, but it was sure interesting to think about (if only for a short while).

And it's noteworthy that the pastoral qualification passages in 1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1 don't deal specifically with gluttony or a bunch of other sins. But both lists begin with "blameless, the husband of one wife..." Some seem almost to have the view that if a pastor has committed adultery/fornication, repented, & been forgiven by God, wife, and church, then forgiveness should mean he can be restored to pastoral leadership. That view fails to see a distinction between forgiveness and restoration--they're not the same. Furthermore, on that basis, any Christian would be qualified for pastoral ministry, would he not? After all, he's been a sinner, repented, and been forgiven. No. Adultery/fornication bars a man from pastoral leadership, for his sin has destroyed the "one-woman man" trait, which can't be restored. In his life, there will always be that "other woman." That doesn't mean--if repentant--he can't serve in other areas, have some other kind of ministry, etc. It simply means he cannot legitimately hold the office of bishop/elder/pastor in a local church. For example, I've read three or four of Gordon McDonald's books, and found some very good material. He can have a fruitful writing ministry, and I can "sit under" that. But I would've been part of the congregation who left when his church voted to restore him to the position of pastor.

I agree, Jay, that a man who's a glutton at the time of his consideration for the ministry is not blameless, and is therefore, unqualified. I would also concur that a man who's been in the ministry for a number of years and falls into a sinful lifestyle of gluttony or uncontrolled anger, etc. has disqualified himself and should step out of pastoral ministry, at least for a time. In contrast to adultery/fornication sins, though, gluttony can be repented of & forsaken without leaving a permanent "hook." In time, he can (once again?) be marked by a lifestyle of self-control, sober-mindedness, and respectability and perhaps be pastor material. Scripture indicates that such is not the case with adultery.

I realize that NT pastors are not the same as OT priests, but there are some instructive parallels. For example, an adulterous priest would be permanently & immediately removed from office--by stoning, if the sentence were properly executed. I also find it instructive that there are no biblical examples of men who were unfaithful to their wives who went on to serve as priests (in the OT) or apostles/pastors/elders/deacons (in the NT). In contrast, we do have, as noted in other posts, Paul's expression of fear-motivated discipline to keep his body under control lest he be disqualified from service. Isn't it interesting that Paul didn't say, "I love the Lord too much to do something that would disqualify me," but, "I'm afraid if I do ____, I'll be disqualified."

It seems to me that a century ago, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Perhaps the last several decades of ever-increasing moral laxity in the culture has infiltrated the church. I wonder if men in general and even pastors in particular have lost an appropriate fear that compels self-discipline. And maybe the (broader evangelical) church's willingness to restore to pastoral ministry those who've disqualified themselves through moral failure effectively erodes that Pauline fear. I suggest that we who are pastors need to hold onto that fear tenaciously.

The Scripture here does not reveal what was in Peter's mind specifically so I can only offer conjecture based on what I can observe by way of the text. Peter appears to have been afraid of the consequences of his identity with the Lord seeing the hostile disposition of the crowd hence his denial is based in a selfish interest to preserve his person when asked about his association.

Thomas, I don't believe, was rejecting the resurrection, rather that he insisted on a personal investigation. He did not question the Lord's resurrection but the account of others. And when he saw and the Lord afforded him forensic authentication he did not deny it was the Lord, meaning he believed in the resurrection but in this particular case he wanted to verify it for himself. I don't find cause for faulting with Thomas here.

I do agree, though, that the premise that wrong thinking and wrong behavior are not synonymous. How such a distinction impacts what we are talking about is worthwhile but I do not believe it ultimately creates two classifications which preserves a man in one and permanently disqualifies one in the other.

As to your example of man who was "a serial adulterer or married/divorced several times" and whether or not he can "somehow be qualified for ministry if he had afterward remained ten years faithful to his last wife" I would say, without agreeing to prescribe a certain amount of years rather that it can be said of this man that his fidelity to his wife is his reputation and if all other issues are satisfied with respect to a man qualifying for the Pastorate, yes, in my view he would be an appropriate candidate for the Pastorate.

The scorn of some of these men is not their return to ministry but in some cases their pitiful excuse making, minimization and justification. It is not commentary on the validity or invalidity of the process, rather on the casual and imprudent manner in which they rapidly reclaimed their previous ministries.

And I believe you are wrong about community consensus. Most people saved and unsaved, receive honest confessions. While it might be true that Christians will have more antagonists who are less inclined to receive their confession and reparations such extreme personalities, I do not believe, are what are in view with respect to the issue of reproach from those without.

The passage is not a reference to the qualifications for Pastoral office (1 Corinthians 9:24-26).

A church is more than free to decide they don't wish to hire someone based on their background. I have not contested any such view. However we are discussing whether Scripture demands that we take the view that a man can be permanently disqualified from the Pastorate, not the license of any assembly to hire whomever they wish. For every example of a man whose past failures were not remedied but he allowed them to persist there is an example of a man who restored himself and his reputation and excelled. The number of stories for or against one's view isn't what justifies their position. They are merely anecdotal.

Interestingly Judas was commissioned as an Apostle by our Lord who knew full well the future of Judas' betrayal. I would shy away from this citation noting its exceptional circumstances.

Again for every story on one side there is another on the other side, these are not weight in the argument. The case of Shimei is worth learning principles from, however they do not serve to rule regarding the ecclesiastical determinations. But your attempt to thrust it upon the story of your friend lacks adhesion.

You clearly state, "he was "restored" to ministry because of his great ministry gifts". Obviously this is a case of an imprudent restoration. This, again, does not speak of the process or its validation, rather toward the haste of those in this case.

Your bible references, while having in view immorality, do not pass muster with respect to their ecclesiastical rule on the matter. First, whether it is one time or many the issue of the joining of one to another in fornication is the context here and it does not have in view once or many time. The passage nor any hermeneutic provides such a position. Rather it is a commentary on the sin itself. What you have done here is violate a basic hermeneutic by projecting onto it your view of "how many times" and then exporting it from its context and attempting to import it into another context as a ruling text.

As to the judgment of teachers, yes they will be judged but this judgment is referring to divine judgment and has no bearing regarding our determinations about the qualification for office of a man.

But I understand your earnestness and the seriousness of the issue to you as it is to me.

Anne:

If one case of adultery doesn't disqualify a man from ministry, how many cases would require it. If a man can be a "two-woman" man and not be blamable, why couldn't he also be a "three-woman" man?

Do "those who are without" view gluttony on a par with adultery? No.

Yes, a man may return to being faithful in the future to his wife, but can he remove the stigma that the sin of adultery leaves on his life? Wouldn't there always be a question and a doubt in the minds of others? Take an unsaved man, for example, if he hears that the minister violated so sacred a trust with his wife, wouldn't he tend to view this man with suspicion? This is the where the real world lives. It is not the world where "we ponder all these ideas, play with our logic and minds, evil grin." The ministry is the most sacred employ of all. No other responsiblity in the church has so high a list of expectations. We dare not lower or weaken that standard.

Yes, a local church is autonomous in making its decisions, but I never sought to imply that an autonomous local church is free to take a weak position on the qualifiecations for the pastorate. Scripture holds the final authority.

To imply that many people hold to a strict standard for the pastorate because they "don't like the idea of grace" seems unfair. That is like saying someone is "legalistic" because they adhere to a strict reading of the Scripture.

If one holds to what the Scripture says, that cannot be equal to "excusing it away" because they don't want to call their sins "sin." The fact that everyone is often in violation of the 10 commandments, even if only it one's heart, does not remove the Pauline standards for ministry leadership as required in his Epistles.

To imply that holding to the standards of Scripture is somehow preempting from Christ the responsibility for sanctification is just a stretch. Obeying the plain commands and instructions of Scripture does not imply "lowering godliness to some level of human conformity." We are not discussing legalism in this thread, but the biblically-stated standards of leadership.

Since marital faithfulness is thought by most to be a critical condition, if even that is not now in play, then just about anything goes. All the other qualifications might easily be rationalized to be of lesser value.

I appreciate your questioning mind, but in the end, let's test our thoughts by the plain sense of Scripture.

Well, so far the passages you have cited have either been out of context (which you have not acknowledged such as the mention by Paul of being disqualified which has nothing to do with Pastoral qualification) or general principles that are not sources of ecclesiastical adjudication. You seek to press an absolute case where no Scriptural absolute exists for the context. You and others have pointed out principles that must come into view with regard to such situations but they are only part of the formula. Your frustration lies at your own doorstep here Jim because such descriptions do not come conjoined to absolute statements about permanency, persistence or every possible scenario, and namely because as the context reveals, these things are determined by each case and context (ah the wisdom of God's license).

First and again, the argument is not being by anyone whether or not moral failure disqualifies someone from ministry, it does. The argument is whether the Bible teaches that it is a persistent state. There is no Scripture that provides such an absolute posture.

When you present an absolute as being communicated in Scripture, it is your burden to reveal where this absolute is articulated. So far what you have done is decided what above reproach means in your mind and in your way of thinking and demanded that all scenarios that can be treated with your view of above reproach acquiesce to your a priori conclusion that there can never be any exceptions. I am sorry but your view does not get to be imposed upon and projected onto the views of others. If others believe a man who has failed morally has restored his reputation and is above reproach then he meets such qualifications and may Pastor such a group.

As far as asserting that "most reasonable people" understand those who have violated the qualifications of the office of Pastor are to be removed, who is arguing otherwise? However, those same very reasonable people to whom you refer also often and reasonably accept the process of restoration and reconstitution of one's person to the point of qualifying again for Pastoral office and re-entering the Pastorate.

To shed a little historical perspective, the following Church "Fathers" insisted that "husband of one wife" demanded that pastors not be remarried unless their first spouse died (in other words, no room for polygamy or divorce & remarriage): Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ambrose, Tertullian, and Jerome.

In addition, Jerome states

Ambrose: the bishop is

Theodore of Mopsuestia:

Again, I suggest that until the last half-century, at most, there was no question but what an adulterous pastor was disqualified from pastoral ministry, even if he thoroughly repented. And the root of that standard was the biblical qualifications of blamelessness (or above reproach) and the "husband of one wife" (or a one-woman man). I have yet to read or hear a plausible argument for overturning nearly 20 centuries of understanding, interpretation, and application of this matter.

i like the historical aspect, but i think these men are maybe saying what we all agree with? i agree with all these statements.

Larry:

Let’s see if I get this right. You are saying that adultery, divorce, sexual infidelity, etc. are on the same par as the other violations mentioned in this passage. You are saying that being above reproach in the matter of being a “one-woman man” is of no greater consequence than being inhospitable. It is interesting that in both Titus 1 as well as in 1 Timothy 3, the word blameless is directly followed by “being the husband of one wife.”

What does “blameless” mean? Not presuming to be a Greek scholar, I would suggest that Vine’s definition and notes are worthy of consideration.
“Anepileptos,” lit., that cannot be laid hold of, hence, not open to censure, irreproachable (from a, negative, n, euphonic, and epilambano, to lay hold of), is used in 1 Tim . 3:2; 5:7; 6:14 (in all three places the R.V. has “without reproach;” in the first two, A.V., “blameless,” in the last “unrebukeable;” an alternative rendering would be ‘irreprehensible’). See REPROACH, UNREBUKEABLE.”

“Anenkletos” signifies that which cannot be called to account (from a, negative, n, euphonic, and enbaleo, to call in), i.e., with nothing laid to one’s charge (as the result of public investigation); A.V. and R.V., “unreproveable:” in 1 Tim. 3:10 in 1 of. 1, R.V., “unreproveable,” A.V., “blameless;” in Col. 1:22, A.V. and R.V., “nreproveable’” in 1 Tim. 3:10 and Tit 1:6, 7, A.V. and R.V., “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. (emphasis mine)

You ask: “Can a man who has committed some type of sexual sin regain the status of blameless,” and your answer is “IMO possibly, but very difficult and probably unlikely.” I notice that your answer is based upon your opinion, but not upon Scripture.” In light of the fact that the historic understanding of this issue does not agree with your opinion, it would seem that the prohibition of continued pastoral ministry has been understood to mean, “No.”

Yes, I would be prepared to say that the response to your illustration about the 50-year-old man who is asked to be a pastor by his church, would be unreasonable, not because, as you say, it violates my definition of “reasonableness,” but because it most assuredly seems to violate the clear understanding of “blameless” that has been held throughout church history. It only seems to appear to be a reasonable idea in the last century or less.

Does it all come down to what “to me, I think it is virtually impossible,” but who is say that what to you seems one way or another cannot be held by others to be possible? Surely, such an important question cannot be left to personal opinion. Are we willing to surrender what appears to even you an impossibility to opinion? Either there is a Scriptural principle here, or there isn’t. I, for one, am not comfortable leaving such an important issue to the variety of personal opinions that plague the church today.

I am saying that the Bible makes a list, and so far as I can see in the text, there is nothing that distinguishes one sin as being greater than another with respect to "blamelessness." Again, my point is not about opinion, but about the text. You are of the opinion that one of the fourteen is a permanent disqualification. Fine. My point is that the text, so far as I can see, does not make that distinction.

So to ask it clearly, on what textual basis in 1 Tim 3:1-7 or Titus 1:6-9, do you assert that one qualification has more serious ramifications than another? I am not asking about what historically may have been the case, or what reasonable conclusion you might draw. I am asking specifically for a textual argument. Show me some words in those passages that make your point that one is permanent disqualification and the others are not.

I would say your position about permanent disqualification is warranted if you apply it to all things in the list, but you didn't. You picked one out of many, and for no reason that I can see.

So you are suggesting that the order of qualifications is an order of importance? That because "husband of one wife" directly follows blameless, it is more closely attached to being blameless than laziness or greed or inhospitality? Does that mean that "good reputation with outsiders" is not important since it comes last? Or refuting false teacher is not important since it comes last?

I admit that I don't recall ever having seen someone argue on the basis of the order as to which is more important. I will also admit that is about the only textual argument you have made, (and it's a pretty weak one, I think). But again, I am willing to entertain a textual argument.

I think you are about right on your definition there.

You should also note that your answer is based on your opinion, because Scripture simply does not use the word "permanent" (or any such word) with respect to "one woman man" and not with respect to the others. You are of the opinion that the "one woman man" is a permanent disqualification while others are not. But that is not a distinction I see in the text. Again, feel free to show me in the text some words that warrant your dogmatism (with which I almost agree).

First, I am not sure our grasp on history is sufficient to say what every church in every generation did on this matter. I certainly don't know enough to say that. Perhaps you do. Second, shouldn't we remember that history is helpful but not authoritative.

So what if that man was unsaved at 25, got saved at 28, and now has 22 years of clear Christian testimony. Is he qualified?

You have no other choice. Remember, you yourself are offering an opinion about what the text requires, and no matter how strongly you might offer it, it is still an opinion. The text, so far as I can see, does not speak of permanent disqualification for one violation and temporary disqualification for others.

Again, I am willing to entertain a textual argument that violating the "one woman man" standard is permanent while the others are not (as you have said), but I want to see the argument made textually. You have argued from history, from reason, (kind of from bullying in a sense, insisting that you are right and those who disagree with you are obviously wrong) but not from the text.

To be clear, I think the chances of someone being restored from adultery are somewhere between slim and none, and much closer to none than slim, but the certainty that is being espoused here seems, to me, to fail to have textual warrant. And that is my concern.

I wasn't arguing that the order necessarily suggests importance. I was making the observation that the first thing that Paul thought of in his list of qualifications in both texts was "blameless, the husband of one wife." Furthermore, when you put the two texts side by side, few other specific qualifications are repeated verbatim. Whether this suggests one item is more important than another is debatable, and pointless. What I think the parallel does suggest is simply that the "blameless, husband of one wife" points were very prominent in Paul's mind--so much so that they were the first things that spilled from his pen.

Perhaps the textual point you're looking for concerns the nature of what "husband of one wife" (or more literally a "one-woman man") entails; that is, what does the term actually mean? More to the point of this thread, what does it take for that qualification to be violated? If, as some believe, a single act of adultery results in a man no longer being a one-woman man (see 1 Cor. 6:15-16 for the basis for this idea), then nothing he does can restore him to that "status"--he has become "one flesh" with two women, and nothing can change that. The "one-woman man" tag cannot be restored to him any more than the term "virgin" could be restored to a repentant girl who went all the way with her boyfriend last Friday evening. In contrast, some of the other qualifications demand a pattern of behavior. For example, a single outburst when under duress doesn't make a man a striker or "soon angry." Overeating at a church potluck doesn't mean the man has no self-control. One bad judgment doesn't mean he's not soberminded, and so forth. Likewise, having the children in subjection and managing his household well reflect dominant patterns of behavior.

To summarize, a man can be "soberminded" (even though there are occasions when he shows bad judgment) if that's his dominant pattern of behavior. In contrast a man is not a "husband of one wife" (even though there are rare occasions of marital infidelity) simply because that's his "dominant pattern of behavior"--the exception to the pattern destroys the description.

Regarding "it seems to me that 1) an unmarried man cannot be a pastor, 2) a remarried widower couldn't be a pastor", neither of those positions has been seriously held through the centuries. Every commentary I've ever read on the term demolishes those conclusions.

Regarding "Isnt' the idea of one-woman man a man who is committed in every way to one woman?", the answer is yes, but "this has to be a state that a man could fall from or be restored to" doesn't necessarily follow, at least in terms of meeting the qualification for pastoral leadership. He may recommit himself to his wife and their relationship be restored. He could demonstrate his commitment to her by never having another affair for the rest of their lives. But he's disqualified himself from the position of pastor, and that cannot be undone.

At the core, you're right that a "one-woman man" is a heart matter. However, the list of qualifications isn't focusing on what a man is in his heart, but what he does in his life. That isn't to say that the heart is irrelevant; it's simply to acknowledge that the heart can't always be seen, but one's actions can.

You raised the issue of porn, and it's certainly a good one. A guy who's been viewing porn undoubtedly betrays a heart that isn't "one-woman" and he's likely "committed adultery with her already in his heart." These are serious moral issues, but most likely they don't rise to the level of actual adultery. Keeping in mind that men (and now women, too) get into porn for a variety of underlying reasons, I think restoration to the ministry may be possible for such a non-adulterous moral failure.

I don't think I can logically come to this conclusion from this passage--that a pastor who commits adultery is never again able to be a one-woman man. However, I used to think this myself: that a man can, in his heart, become a one-woman man again, but somehow, in the application of this passage as a qualification, he never can be. But now that I am thinking about it, it doesn't seem to make complete sense.

Once a pastor commits adultery, it's clear that he is in an unqualified place and not just for the one-woman man reason. The "blameless . . . temperate . . . of good behavior . . . good testimony" qualifications are struck as well. And any plan of restoration to the pastoral ministry would be a ways off, if ever, so i'm not even advocating for that in a sense. But I'm not really sure it could be never.

I looked around at some other applications on this passage, and I didn't find many that come to the conclusion being discussed here. One guy just talked all about how the pastor must be married. If he becomes a widower, he has to quit pastoring until he marries again. I found this here (remove space): http://www.ccel.org/ contrib//exec_outlines/eld/eld_04.htm. Interestingly, this interpreter is OK if the pastor is "Biblically divorced" and remarried.

But i think the guy finds the spirit of it--he also overviews several other views before stating his own conclusions; it is interesting to scan the whole page: http://www.christiananswers.net/ q-eden/edn-f008.html

Another site states: http://www.scripturessay.com/ article.php?cat=&id=712

Anyway, not that it matters to anyone here, I just had never thought about this really, and then Vitaliy was talking to me about what Steve Brown said, then I see this thread, then I start wondering about it . . .

In Ukraine, because of this phrase, unmarried men are not allowed to be pastors unless they promise that they will not marry, saying that they have the gift of singleness. Not sure why this is, but that is yet another take on this.

so anyway, i'm still thinking. got me thinking about all the instructions to timothy to be a pure young man, so it is a very important issue.

it gave me some other questions--like if timothy wasn't married at the time and didn't have a household, would he not have been considered for this postion? i'm not sure what his position was in the church though. . . . anyway . . .