The reason for disqualification

This is a call only the discerning at heart can make. If a church sends a recovered drug addict to evangelize other drug addicts, then both the individual and the sending church should feel confident this person is not going to relapse into a previous weakness. This assurance can only come through time, evidencing the maturity of faith and growth of spiritual fruit in a person's life.

 

In most states, it is against state law to allow convicted and confirmed pedophiles (who must be registered and monitored) to have anything to do with children, or even to live close to a school or daycare facility. The same restrictions apply to church activities. In addition, our insurance carrier requires FBI background checks for nursery workers and teachers of small children. We have no solo teachers in children's classes under 18 years of age, and all classrooms with students under 18 must have a window on the door of sufficient size to see the whole room from the door. Pedophilia has only one cure--a .44 magnum through the skull.

 

I see what you mean and this is certainly food for thought so thanks for sharing. However I would point out that Paul was not a pastor. We was a missionary and evangelist. Notice that not one verse places the same qualifications on a missionary that are placed on a pastor. So I don't believe that the example of Paul can be imposed onto the divorced pastor. Its apples and oranges.

God in His will placed some specific demands/qualifications on those seeking to be pastor/elder/deacon....not evangelsit/missionary.

 

I will add one other thing to MajorB's good list: why would a confirmed pedophile want to work with kids? Most recovering alcholics want to work with alcoholics, not with bartenders. Most porn addicts who are recovering want to work with strugglers, not with salespeople. A red flag would shoot to the sky if a pedophile wanted to work with kids. And lazy churches who will put any warm body in a classroom need to repent.

That all said, if you want to argue that churches are unwilling to restore/accept the genuinely repentant, you'll get no argument from me. We pick and choose the sins we forgive. We exalt the guy who kicked the drug habit, but the divorced man is an albatross. We love hearing testimonies of people who were saved out of a homosexual lifestyle, but hear a man confess that he used to use porn, and watch people recoil.

Paul is used as an example. First, Paul didn't immediately charge forth into ministry (today, some church would have him as the keynote speaker 30 seconds after his conversion - see Deion Sanders). Second, it took God audibly speaking to someone to have them accept him. Third, I'm willing to bet my hat and my horse that there were some who would not accept Paul. Just my guess.

 

He would NOT be teaching MY kids, I can tell you that!

 

Difference between forgiveness and qualification

Tom, I would argue that you are mixing two different things--forgiveness and qualifications. The idea of forgiveness is closely associated with the idea of forgiving a debt. Now, if a guy owed you a debt, you could forgive the debt but you are not obligated to loan him any more money. Do you see my point? Forgiveness is not carte blanche. How do you deal with Moses' situation. Did God forgive him for disobedience? Yet, he was forbidden to enter the Land of Promise. Also, God forgave David but his child died. Thus, I would argue that you are using forgiveness as an invalid argument.

On the other hand, Tom, you have made some good, strong points above with which I heartily agree. The Bible specifically warns against exalting a novice. This is what happened, I think, with Eldridge Cleaver.

 

Paid...I didn't realize I was arguing that.

Devil's advocate: Paul was used greatly despite his horrible past. Peter was forgiven and used despite his atrocious sin. So we can see examples in Scripture of God punishing an act of disobedience, and God restoring someone graciously.

And to me, that could be the difference. We may be talking about two different things on two different planes. Does "disqualification" occur to someone only for post-conversion sins, or pre-conversion sins? IOW, if a lost pedophile (I hate using that one) gets saved, is that different than a Christian who sins by posessing child porn, repents, and now we ask do we restore him or not? And who does the disqualifying...God or man? (I know, I know.....I know where we're going there).

Again, I'm not necessarily espousing anything here. Just offering food for thought.

 

I do not see this as a violation of seperation of church and state. I am still trying to find any law that defines seperation of church and state.

 

First, I'd like to know why a post-conversion man who had this issue wanted to work with kids. Even alcoholics I know who get saved wouldn't want to be around alcohol.

I digress....Did the judge rule this after learning of the person working with kids, or is this before the fact? If the former, yes, IMHO it's a violation of church and state. If it's the latter, no, since it's not on point with the church, but in a general sense, though you could argue that I'm making a distinction without a difference. Remember though, I'm practically libertarian - I think the govt/courts should stay out of the church.

 

Separation of church and state

Separation of church and state specifically regards any "establishment" of religion--that is to give preferential status to one church or sectarian interest over another. On the other hand, I will argue that the founding fathers only had the Christian religion in mind--they saw no problem in excluding heathen (i.e. non-Christian) religions. Now, most folks today think of "separation of church and state" in the pluralistic sense of all religions. Furthermore, I would argue that the founding documents, namely the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Consitution, give tacit recognition of the Christian faith, although with no sectarian bias.

 

Another possibility................

Good questions. Also, could Moses' punishment have something to do with the impact that it would have had on Israel if he had gone into the land scot-free? Perhaps, God was saying to Israel that actions have consequences. After all, they did specifically what God told them not to do and they spent time in captivity as God had warned.

The problem today, I think, is that people see forgiveness as an opportunity to sin with impunity.

What do you think?

 

Criminal penalties...........

Depending on the state and judge, sex offenders are routinely prohibited from working with or even being in close contact with children. Some even require supervision around their own offspring.

 

How do you know?