Can / Should Fallen Pastors Be Restored?

I do admit that the text is not all that clear, but it is about all we have to say one way or another. Let me try another idea. In relation to sexual sin, the Bible says in 1 Cor. 6, that this sin of joining oneself to another woman not one’s wife is a sin of a special nature. “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.” Does repentance restore completely the broken relationship in the eyes of the world so that the reproach that has been caused is removed as if it had never happened? I don’t know; I am just asking. Perhaps you have some insights that would be helpful to us all.

Just because we are all offering some opinion that doesn’t have strong textual proof doesn’t mean that some opinion may not be better than others, that some opinion may not uphold the general moral teaching of Scripture better than others, that some opinion may not rest upon a more solid base than others, that some opinion may not protect the Church more than others when it comes to the high standard for the ministry. The argument that restoration to the ministry somehow rests upon a more biblical meaning of what grace is doesn’t cut it for me. God was gracious to allow David to go on ruling after his adultery, but things were not the same afterwards. His family suffered a “curse,” his kingdom was rocked with division, and, though he was forgiven and restored to fellowship with God, he never shook off the reproach that his sin caused.

What are the strong arguments for allowing someone who has failed so miserably in modeling the metaphor of Christ and His church (Bridegroom and Bride) back into a leadership position? It surely cannot be on the basis of his gifts or talents because there are a host of ways to use ministry gifts without occupying the office of pastor. Surely, it cannot be simply on the basis of his being forgiven because I think we are all agreed that forgiveness itself doesn’t re-qualify a person to a position. Surely, it cannot be so that the Church, the Body of Christ, may be able to say to the world: “See how much we love one another.”

Restoring a man to ministry who has suffered the reproach of the world doesn’t ever lead to full acceptance. There is always a question about the rightness of this decision. It causes division in the Body of Christ as people take sides. It lowers the high standard that the Scriptures impart to the ministry. There is an interesting and instructive passage in 1 Tim. 4:16, where Paul tells a young minister who is intrusted with helping develop other ministers: “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” Doesn’t it appear here to stress the absolute necessity of maintaining a certain high standard in the ministry so that you will save (i.e., save yourself of much damage as a minister of Jesus Christ, ) and save others who sit under your ministry? I am just asking the question.

Do you think there are questions the Church has had to face in history for which there is not a clear “Thus saith the Lord” to guide the decision? Church councils have met to discuss some of these issues. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was such a case where differing points of view were debated, resting upon numerous Scriptures from the OT that were more applications than solid textual interpretations. With hindsight, we undertand the wisdom and solid Scriptural support that the final decision rested upon. May not this question we are discussing rely heavily on Scriptural application, historical precedent, and good common sense — all three? Just asking.

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.”

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 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.

[BryanBice] 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.

See, I don’t see “one-woman” man as defined in this way. if you defined it this way, it seems to me that 1) and unmarried man cannot be a pastor, 2) a remarried widower couldn’t be a pastor.

Isnt’ the idea of one-woman man a man who is committed in every way to one woman? I think, sensically, this has to be a state that a man could fall from or be restored to, you know?

[Anne Sokol]

[BryanBice] 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.

See, I don’t see “one-woman” man as defined in this way. if you defined it this way, it seems to me that 1) and unmarried man cannot be a pastor, 2) a remarried widower couldn’t be a pastor.

Isnt’ the idea of one-woman man a man who is committed in every way to one woman? I think, sensically, this has to be a state that a man could fall from or be restored to, you know?

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.

maybe you are right, but seems to me there are a lot of ways a man can be not-a-one-woman man and never actually commit adultery, so i’m not sure this logic works all the way through. one-woman man is a state of heart. all men should be one-women men.

are you saying that a man who has committed adultery can never be a one-woman man again? I think this is what you’re saying.

but it doesn’t seem all the way logical with the way you are explaining it. a single man can be a one-woman man, a remarried widower can be a one-woman man, but a restored adulterer cannot be a one-woman man? I am just asking.

if a pastor gets into porn, leaves the ministry, then stops and is restored, can he be a pastor again? can he be a one-woman man or was he still a one-woman man?

i don’t know. seems like it has to be. but i don’t know.

[Anne Sokol] maybe you are right, but seems to me there are a lot of ways a man can be not-a-one-woman man and never actually commit adultery, so i’m not sure this logic works all the way through. one-woman man is a state of heart. all men should be one-women men.

are you saying that a man who has committed adultery can never be a one-woman man again? I think this is what you’re saying.

but it doesn’t seem all the way logical with the way you are explaining it. a single man can be a one-woman man, a remarried widower can be a one-woman man, but a restored adulterer cannot be a one-woman man? I am just asking.

if a pastor gets into porn, leaves the ministry, then stops and is restored, can he be a pastor again? can he be a one-woman man or was he still a one-woman man?

i don’t know. seems like it has to be. but i don’t know.

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.

Bryan:

I think your view that, although the heart relationship is primary, what the text in 1 Timothy focuses on is the outward behavior. Only God knows the heart, and He certainly has ways of passing judgment on the service of His servant. We must judge wrong attitudes and conduct in the church (1 Cor. 6). Quite frequently (perhaps more often than not), what is going on in the heart finds outward expression in due course. “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” “From within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickednes, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these things come from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:21-23). I think we might say, that in every case of these types of sins, the actual sin has been going on in the heart, but is eventually discovered. That is part of the ministry of the Holy Spirit

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

[article] Yet, there is an aspect of this matter that can not be overlooked, the possibility that these qualifications were given as guidelines; not as unbending standards of measure.

The aspect of the relativity of the qualifications of the elder can be seen by comparing the lists of qualities given to Timothy and Titus. . [explanation]…

When examining the qualifications of an elder, it is important to look at the overall idea of the passage as well as the specific grammar and construction. These qualities were meant to show that a leader in the church must be a godly man. The elders of the church were to act as examples, to the church and the community, of Christ-like living. This is seen in Paul’s first qualification, which most believe to be the key to all of the other specifications, “An overseer, then, must be above reproach.” This condition sets the tone for the remaining qualifications, including the question of marital status.

It is important to look at the overall godliness of the prospective elder. All too often, elders and pastors are chosen on the basis of abilities and “work related” activities. Many church leaders are chosen because they are experienced businessmen or because they are influential in their community. Although these are characteristics that are “handy” to have available, they are not nearly as important as true godliness. If the Church is to have an impact on this world, it must strive to understand these important passages. Although a definite interpretation of this qualification for elder cannot be given, Paul’s warning stands clear; a godly church needs godly leaders. We must be very careful who we entrust with this responsibility.

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

[article]… Greek scholars agree that the structure of this passage should be translated “a one-wife sort of husband.” Kenneth Wuest expresses this view in his translation of this passage, “He must be a one-wife kind of man in that he isolates and centralizes his love upon one woman and that forever.”

All of the qualifications given for elders and deacons are to be considered as attributes that men possess with some imperfection. No man would be 100% temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, men of dignity, not double-tongued, etc., to name just a few. In other words, none of the qualifications given for elders or deacons must be 100% present in perfect form for a man to be qualified. If “one-woman man” means, “married only once” it would be the exception to the rule.

Men are frequently tempted toward unfaithfulness. Paul makes it clear that a deacon, or an elder is to be a “one-woman man” - loyal to his wife and to her alone. What is stressed in this context is the character and the nature of a godly man, not a single experience in his life.

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 …

He believed it was possible for a man to be restored, but only after he was known more for his repentance than his sin. I believe a man can become blameless again, but it does take time. Back in the 80’s when Jimmy Swaggart fell, the Assembly of God denomination asked him to leave the pastorate for a year. Jimmy was not willing to do this, and fell back into the same kind of sin later. I am sure this effects his ministry today. He should have gotten out of the ministry, and healed before going back.

When we talk about pastors falling it does almost always seem to be in the sexual arena. But we can fall in other areas as well. We can fall doctrinally or ethically. We can become bullies instead of shepherds. It is possible to lose our, “blamelessness” in a lot of areas. What we have to do is to keep our hearts tender before the Lord and remember that if it wasn’t for Him we would all die and go to Hell.