Limping Forward

[Jim Peet]

[Susan R] Is there Biblical support for the idea that certain sins permanently disqualify someone for ‘the ministry’? What is restoration if one is not again brought back to the place they once were? What ministries would a person who had committed one of these particular sins be qualified for? For instance, they can’t pastor the church, but they can teach Sunday School or lead the youth group… or just have a supporting role, and never lead anything besides the line at the all-you-can-eat buffet?

I Tim 3:2, “A bishop then must be blameless”

Comment: Doesn’t say “perfect” but I suggest there are some sins that permanently disqualify from the role of Bishop. Whether repeated visits to the porno store disqualify someone would be an interesting discussion.

You used the phrase ” permanently disqualify someone for ‘the ministry’”. I think the term “the ministry” is perhaps too general for this discussion.

I was using the term ‘ministry’ to mean one’s ‘full-time’ vocation. So when we say ‘bishop’, do we mean just the pastor? Or does that include the assistant pastor, music leader, youth pastor, Sunday School superintendent… I’m just wondering where the boundaries are.

I agree that blameless isn’t perfect, but the principles of repentance, restitution, and restoration clearly say in my mind that someone is allowed to fully reclaim their earlier position regardless of whether they cheated on their wife or cheated on their taxes.

[Susan R]…. the principles of repentance, restitution, and restoration clearly say in my mind that someone is allowed to fully reclaim their earlier position regardless of whether they cheated on their wife or cheated on their taxes.

I don’t agree that every forgiven sin results in a restoration to a position of leadership. Specifically I disagree with your statement above.

In 40 years of being a Christian I’ve known Pastors who have run off with their secretaries, had sex with a teen (in a youth group), met someone on the Internet and driven miles to met them to have sex, etc. These should never Pastor again!

[Jim Peet]

In 40 years of being a Christian I’ve known Pastors who have run off with their secretaries, had sex with a teen (in a youth group), met someone on the Internet and driven miles to met them to have sex, etc. These should never Pastor again!

Why not? Jesus said, “But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.” I’m not saying that things like this should be shrugged off, treated casually, or shoved under the rug. However, you have not adduced any biblical support for your statement. Spurgeon said something about letting a man regain his position when his repentance is as infamous as his sinning. That’s a high bar, but it always leaves room for hope. Christianity knows no punishment, only discipline for correction. If we will eventually “forgive” a pastor’s drunkenness but not his fornication, we have emptied the cross of its grace.

Or to put the question in another way, what if the pastor who ran off with his secretary eventually ceased that relationship, was reconciled to his wife, and announced that through this process he realized he was not really a Christian and believed in Christ. Now, can this man ever be a pastor again? If you say no, then we must reach the quite awkward conclusion that a man’s pre-conversion sins can disqualify him from ministry. However, if you say yes, then we’re right back to Tertullian and baptismal regeneration. The cross is more efficacious for pre-conversion than post-conversion sin.

[Jim Peet]

While filling up at a truck stop service station off the interstate, a member of my church watched a man enter an adult bookstore across the street. [I was recognized as that man.]

I don’t see the situation as a Matthew 18 issue

Moreover if your brother sins against you

The sin was not against the one who recognized him, but against the whole church! I rather see that I Tim 5:19 applies.

I think the point is being missed that part of the wisdom of the Matt. 18 process is that a charge can be confirmed before it is made public knowledge. This is especially true in this case. The person did not see his face but was sure it was him. Does this mean that it was impossible that anyone else in the world limped like him? Even if the person were 95 or 98% sure, private confrontation and verification should have happened first. (After verification, things could and probably should move quickly to the public steps.)

Instead, what happened was 1 month of burning phone lines and juicy discussions culminating in a “ambush” meeting. If somehow the charge would have not been true and he was able to prove convincingly his innocence, his ministry in that church would still probably be over.

[Jim Peet]

[Susan R] Is there Biblical support for the idea that certain sins permanently disqualify someone for ‘the ministry’? What is restoration if one is not again brought back to the place they once were? What ministries would a person who had committed one of these particular sins be qualified for? For instance, they can’t pastor the church, but they can teach Sunday School or lead the youth group… or just have a supporting role, and never lead anything besides the line at the all-you-can-eat buffet?

I Tim 3:2, “A bishop then must be blameless”

Comment: Doesn’t say “perfect” but I suggest there are some sins that permanently disqualify from the role of Bishop. Whether repeated visits to the porno store disqualify someone would be an interesting discussion.

You used the phrase ” permanently disqualify someone for ‘the ministry’”. I think the term “the ministry” is perhaps too general for this discussion.

I taught in a pastors’ seminar on this subject and found the same very good point in a number of sources: the qualifications of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 relate to what the man is now rather than what he might have been. Now I agree there are some sins that would seem to disqualify a man longer than others (based on the “blameless” qualification which has to do with testimony and character). However, at times churches and church leaders pick and choose among the qualifications as to which should be pressed and which are “no big deal.” This is not biblical.

The author himself verified it

The pastor read a prepared statement that began, “It has come to our attention that you visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address.” … I didn’t try to lie. I told them about previous visits to adult bookstores to view pornography.

[Jim Peet]

[Susan R]…. the principles of repentance, restitution, and restoration clearly say in my mind that someone is allowed to fully reclaim their earlier position regardless of whether they cheated on their wife or cheated on their taxes.

I don’t agree that every forgiven sin results in a restoration to a position of leadership. Specifically I disagree with your statement above.

In 40 years of being a Christian I’ve known Pastors who have run off with their secretaries, had sex with a teen (in a youth group), met someone on the Internet and driven miles to met them to have sex, etc. These should never Pastor again!

I do agree somewhat with this point, but what is your biblical basis for this? Here in Liberia we have had a number of warlords who became “pastors” after the war. I find this personally to be rather ludicrous (mostly because there is no taking responsibility for past sins/crimes) but what if they truly did repent and get saved? What could they be or do for God?

In the examples you mention, I would seriously doubt the salvation of these “pastors”. Before they could do anything for God they not only would have to repent but also examine their entire lives and their reasons for going into the ministry. Maybe they never really were Christians to begin with?

[Jim Peet] The author himself verified it

The pastor read a prepared statement that began, “It has come to our attention that you visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address.” … I didn’t try to lie. I told them about previous visits to adult bookstores to view pornography.

No, my point was, was it ever verified before discussing it with others for a month? Since they didn’t do it, this clearly was wrong. Going to him privately and then with witnesses (if needed) could have served to verify the charges before possibly ruining a man’s testimony and ministry over gossip.

[MShep2]

[Jim Peet] The author himself verified it

The pastor read a prepared statement that began, “It has come to our attention that you visited such-and-such establishment located at such-and-such address.” … I didn’t try to lie. I told them about previous visits to adult bookstores to view pornography.

No, my point was, was it ever verified before discussing it with others for a month? Since they didn’t do it, this clearly was wrong. Going to him privately and then with witnesses (if needed) could have served to verify the charges before possibly ruining a man’s testimony and ministry over gossip.

Yeah…I have to agree with this.

Interestingly enough, SI member Kevin Subra posted this on his facebook today…

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is condemnation before investigation.”- Herbert Spencer(1820-1903) British author, economist, philosopher

The qualification in 1 Tim. 3 that a pastor be “blameless” obviously does not refer to being “sinless” but rather has to do with his reputation. The word carries the idea that no one can “grab ahold” of anything in his life to accuse him of something; irreproachable, not open to accusation or censure. Think Daniel in the OT, where those who were trying to trap him couldn’t find anything of which to accuse him (except praying). Obviously a man who has repeatedly gone into a porn store to buy porn has opened himself up to public accusations. He might also not meet the criterion of being a “one-woman man” (if taken in the sense of “faithful to his wife”).

However, I do not believe the offense mentioned in the story would by itself necessarily permanently disqualify a man from ministry, although many issues would need to be addressed before he would be ready for pastoral ministry again.

Well, I am troubled by a lot of the data (and non-data) here so far. I posted a “thank you” early here, because I believe what we need to walk away with from this story is this: We should never let the politics and business aspects of church supersede our responsibility to shepherd.

Assuming that the story here related is true and inclusive of all relevant facts…

I am troubled that the first response to this young man’s problem was a group meeting at which he was fired. The first thing a pastor should do is be concerned for the spiritual well-being of the person in question. He should have built bridges to understand, rebuke, correct, and instruct, and then all disciplinary action should have arisen from the results of those conversations. That’s a pastor’s heart at work.

Instead, he was ground up in the machine first, with concern first for the good of the ministry. In so doing, the pastor built walls instead of bridges. It is a testament to this ex-music minister’s character that he stayed on in membership.

I am opposed to this model, that makes the church staffing problems into a Christian College-like environment that expels first and asks questions later. Nor should it be a business model that predominates, that fires for violations of “policy” without regard to heart issues. The spiritual leaders ought to be held to a higher standard, indeed, but that does not remove the obligations of everyone to deal with them with love as they would any other believer for their spiritual well-being. The discipline process as outlined in Matthew 18 and 1st Cor. 5 is God’s program to fix people (if done properly). Neglecting it is equivalent to caring less for their well-being.

In terms of process and Scripture, I think a few points need to be made here also:

Matthew 18’s use of “against you” is a textual variant. For those of you who accept critical text readings, I would point out that the NASB, for instance, excludes the words.

Regardless of whether the words “against you” should be included or not, which I leave to another thread to debate endlessly, one thing is clear: It is a mistake to set I Timothy 5:19 against Matthew 18. I Timothy 5:19 is all about Matthew 18. It is emphasizing that the pastor (Timothy, in this case) can’t receive the accusation about an elder unless it is brought by two or more — meaning the process of Matthew 18 has occurred prior to the Pastor’s involvement.

Think it through. It’s what Paul is really saying.

Regarding I Timothy 3 and the word “blameless”, I resist the word “reputation” as being the subject. If “reputation” is key, then this man could legitimately stay in the ministry if he had never been caught. Instead, let us use the word “character”. In a thread several years ago, we painstakingly went through the I Timothy 3 qualifications. Through the study that attended that thread, many of us came to realize that the word “blameless” is an umbrella word, overshadowing all. It is about having nothing that can be grasped in the life. But it is about character rather than reputation.

For example, “husband of one wife” (literally “a one woman man” in the Greek) is about character. Saying “He can’t be divorced” misses the point. He has to be a “one woman man” by character. Note that this is a FAR higher standard than “can’t be divorced”. Many men who have only been married once are not “one women men” in heart or deed.

If the author of this article was doing what I imagine most men would do in such places, he ceased to be a one woman man at some point prior to entering. But his character can change. He can become a one woman man again someday. That may take some time – and a great deal of time for trust to be rebuilt. But I believe it is attainable.

I’m not saying this man can be restored definitely. I’m saying that I’m not prepared to cut him off from all hope of restoration till I see what he does with the problem over time.

I have been involved in the restoration of one such, and I firmly believe that the right thing was done. It took time, Biblical counseling, and much prayer. The man actually now is involved in counseling others in the same area.

The author asked me to pass on a few of his observations regarding the discussion.

They appear below verbatim.

---

A good point has been made about my choice to use Matthew 18:15-17. Other passages have been cited as also dealing with this issue, each one valid. I used that passage because, while my recollection of those events is a little fogged by emotion and time (it was 16 years ago), I can only remember one passage the pastor mentioned to the church the night I resigned: Matthew 18. He may have quoted others, but that’s the only one I recall clearly. Because he specifically used that scripture, I believe using it as a grid for the discussion is fair.

Another good point: you’re only getting my side. My intentions are to give a lesser-known perspective while trying to be as fair as I can. I hope it doesn’t come across as simply sour grapes–it was an honest attempt with an awareness of my bias.

On the question of whether I believe I should have been fired, the answer is yes. I believe I was disqualified from the ministry because of my sin.

Clarification: I was not an elder or deacon. I was the minister of music only–though I don’t believe that makes much difference.

Concerning the man who reported my activities to the pastor, he called me that night, after I returned home from the deacon’s meeting. He was a wreck–particularly because he himself had experienced an on-going problem with pornography. He had debated whether to come to me directly, or if he should say anything at all. He said he regretted his decision to go to the pastor. In the month before the confrontation, the pastor asked him to follow me around in the evenings in case I again went to view porn. He told me the pastor made a distasteful joke about the situation, to which he replied, “I wish I’d never told you.” He actually became a good friend to me in the days that followed, offering hope in my struggle against lust. I do wonder how things would have been different if he had come to me first. It’s difficult to remember my mindset and predict my reaction.

Someone wondered what kind of restoration I was expecting. The night I resigned, the pastor spoke at length to the congregation about his commitment to my restoration, to walk alongside me through every step of the healing process. In light of those words, I expected him to still be my pastor through this time.

To answer another question: yes, I was married at the time. In the interest of “not tackling too many topics at once”, I did not include that whole aspect.

As far as going to that pastor and discussing all this, last I knew he was in poor health in a nursing home and I’ve moved many miles away. To be honest, even if that was not the case, I’m not sure I’d have the courage to meet him. Maybe writing this article without taking that step first is wrong–that’s valid feedback. That is something I need to consider.

[Aaron Blumer] Concerning the man who reported my activities to the pastor, he called me that night, after I returned home from the deacon’s meeting. He was a wreck–particularly because he himself had experienced an on-going problem with pornography. He had debated whether to come to me directly, or if he should say anything at all. He said he regretted his decision to go to the pastor. In the month before the confrontation, the pastor asked him to follow me around in the evenings in case I again went to view porn. He told me the pastor made a distasteful joke about the situation, to which he replied, “I wish I’d never told you.” He actually became a good friend to me in the days that followed, offering hope in my struggle against lust. I do wonder how things would have been different if he had come to me first. It’s difficult to remember my mindset and predict my reaction.

Someone wondered what kind of restoration I was expecting. The night I resigned, the pastor spoke at length to the congregation about his commitment to my restoration, to walk alongside me through every step of the healing process. In light of those words, I expected him to still be my pastor through this time.

Wow. So much for ‘shepherding the flock of God’.

It sounds to me like the pastor of Berean lost sight of the fact that he was called to shepherd his sheep first, and to ‘be the pastor’ second. This church sounds like it was dysfunctional, and I hope things have gotten better there since then.

Right on Durning!

jt

[Mike Durning] Well, I am troubled by a lot of the data (and non-data) here so far. I posted a “thank you” early here, because I believe what we need to walk away with from this story is this: We should never let the politics and business aspects of church supersede our responsibility to shepherd.

Assuming that the story here related is true and inclusive of all relevant facts…

I am troubled that the first response to this young man’s problem was a group meeting at which he was fired. The first thing a pastor should do is be concerned for the spiritual well-being of the person in question. He should have built bridges to understand, rebuke, correct, and instruct, and then all disciplinary action should have arisen from the results of those conversations. That’s a pastor’s heart at work.

Instead, he was ground up in the machine first, with concern first for the good of the ministry. In so doing, the pastor built walls instead of bridges. It is a testament to this ex-music minister’s character that he stayed on in membership.

I am opposed to this model, that makes the church staffing problems into a Christian College-like environment that expels first and asks questions later. Nor should it be a business model that predominates, that fires for violations of “policy” without regard to heart issues. The spiritual leaders ought to be held to a higher standard, indeed, but that does not remove the obligations of everyone to deal with them with love as they would any other believer for their spiritual well-being. The discipline process as outlined in Matthew 18 and 1st Cor. 5 is God’s program to fix people (if done properly). Neglecting it is equivalent to caring less for their well-being.

In terms of process and Scripture, I think a few points need to be made here also:

Matthew 18’s use of “against you” is a textual variant. For those of you who accept critical text readings, I would point out that the NASB, for instance, excludes the words.

Regardless of whether the words “against you” should be included or not, which I leave to another thread to debate endlessly, one thing is clear: It is a mistake to set I Timothy 5:19 against Matthew 18. I Timothy 5:19 is all about Matthew 18. It is emphasizing that the pastor (Timothy, in this case) can’t receive the accusation about an elder unless it is brought by two or more — meaning the process of Matthew 18 has occurred prior to the Pastor’s involvement.

Think it through. It’s what Paul is really saying.

Regarding I Timothy 3 and the word “blameless”, I resist the word “reputation” as being the subject. If “reputation” is key, then this man could legitimately stay in the ministry if he had never been caught. Instead, let us use the word “character”. In a thread several years ago, we painstakingly went through the I Timothy 3 qualifications. Through the study that attended that thread, many of us came to realize that the word “blameless” is an umbrella word, overshadowing all. It is about having nothing that can be grasped in the life. But it is about character rather than reputation.

For example, “husband of one wife” (literally “a one woman man” in the Greek) is about character. Saying “He can’t be divorced” misses the point. He has to be a “one woman man” by character. Note that this is a FAR higher standard than “can’t be divorced”. Many men who have only been married once are not “one women men” in heart or deed.

If the author of this article was doing what I imagine most men would do in such places, he ceased to be a one woman man at some point prior to entering. But his character can change. He can become a one woman man again someday. That may take some time – and a great deal of time for trust to be rebuilt. But I believe it is attainable.

I’m not saying this man can be restored definitely. I’m saying that I’m not prepared to cut him off from all hope of restoration till I see what he does with the problem over time.

I have been involved in the restoration of one such, and I firmly believe that the right thing was done. It took time, Biblical counseling, and much prayer. The man actually now is involved in counseling others in the same area.

Great post, Mike! Thanks for the well thought out response.