Fallen Pastors

Lorelei,

I agree with you Peter did not have the fullness of the Holy Spirit as we do but he certaintly was an Apostle. A office that was actually higher than that of a pastor since the foundation of our faith is the Apostles. Peter messed up as did all the Apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane in forsaking Christ. The fact is Peter publicly renounced Christ yet repented later and is remembered as one of the greatest preachers of all time. He fell and was restored after repentance. I know of no pastor today who is of the moral or spiritual character of Peter.

P.S.
While I respect Jim Bakker's repentance I think the fact that afterwards he remmarried for UnBiblical reasons disqualifies him from the ministry.

[ April 03, 2002, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Amen and Amen!

 

Amen and Amen was in response to Bro larry'post...sorry Kiffin.

 

No problem Molly

 

Smoke_Eater said:

As much as I couldn't stand Jim Bakker back in his "PTL" days, I've got a lot of respect for him now.

Oh, I agree he's a better man now than he was in 1987 (though if you read his autobiography I Was Wrong you come away with the impression that he's sorry for everything but what got him into prison in the first place).

But is it not true that Bakker's name is still a by-word for sleazy preachers? He's not the only person I could have named in this regard (Jimmy Swaggart and Oral Roberts also come to mind), he's just the first name that pops into my head when someone says "crooked televangelists."

And although I'm glad that he has found a way to minister and hopefully restore his reputation, I personally hope that he isn't back in a position of prominence for some time, because someone of his current reputation can only scandalize the church and Christ.

[ April 03, 2002, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Then why qualifications?

--Brian C.

 

So why did God call men? Why did He give qualifications?

That's not the real issue. The issue is that we must have men of good character who are strong in doctrine to be leaders. I personally think a lot less men should be preaching than are. As someone already said, we elevate men who have been married only once but ignore their lack of self-control, and I would add particularly in regards to their anger.

--Brian C.

 

He messed up because he didn't have the power not to. We do. We can not use that excuse.

He received the Power when the Holy Spirit came upon him. He never denied Christ after that. Peter was given the title of an Apostle and some of the duties thereof, but until the day of Pentecost he was not fully equipped to do the job. I would hope a pastor of any church would aldready be filled with the Spirit. We are to walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh. We don't have the choice to do it at our leisure yet still be the leader of a church. What were the requirements for a deacon?

If you are full of the Spirit and led by the Spirit then you can be held to the standards that are required by the Spirit and those are the requirements mentioned in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1.

You can't use Peter as an example to say otherwise. Those circumstances only hold true for those were alive when Christ walked the earth. Those were the only one who could "believe" in Christ yet not be filled with His Spirit. For Christ could not send his Spirit until after he ascended into heaven.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei, a discussion on the Holy Spirit on this thread is not appropriate but if I take your argument to it's logical extreme, believers who sinned before Pentecost were not responsible for what they did and is certaintly untrue and lacks Biblical basis. It also makes the Bible more of a dead historical book that we cannot learn from the lives of the saints.

According to your argument if a pastor in the first century after Pentecost would have denied Christ like Peter did, He would never pastor again and Peter would have to tell him "You don't understand I wasn't reponsible for my sin and you are...I was impaired but you aren't" Regardless, Peter was held to same standard we are and we cannot dismiss his actions.

 

Amen.

I knew a pastor (20 years ago or so) who fell in love with the church organist. Two homes and six children's lives were destroyed and the church still has a black mark on it's name even today. It was a community scandal. The pastor ended up leaving the ministry and married the organist. They stayed in the community, but attended a church out of town. I remember this pastor. I remember how his eyes used to sparkle, how he had a wonderful sense of humor, how he was always ready to help anyone at any time, how God was blessing the ministry. I remember his vibrancy. I ran into him about 10 years after the incident. Gone was the sparkle. Gone was the joy. Instead, I saw in his eyes, a hollowness, a deep regret, a sadness, a sense of loss. He was in sales. He was doing "fine." But he was a changed man, totally different than the person I used to know. Sad.

Not all pastors are called of God. Some choose the vocation, for whatever reason. A true pastor who is called of God will cherish that calling, will have the heart of a shepherd and will guard the flock, will be wise in doing so, such as not placing himself in a situation where temptation could arise--especially in counseling the opposite sex.

My opinion about Jimmy Swaggart---if he was on his knees in prayer as many hours as he claimed to be and in the Word as much as he claimed to be, he would not have been driving around looking for women. I don't claim to be nearly as spiritual as some "pastors" or evangelists, but I have never committed adultery. Let's face it--in today's world, any Christian can be tempted. But that doesn't mean we need to act on the temptations. I would think those who are in a large public ministry especially would stop and ask themselves, what if? What are the possible consequences of this sin?

There is no excuse for a pastor/evangelist, or other spiritual leader to "fall" into adultery. It is a black eye on the Body of Christ. As Christians, we must forgive and seek to restore into fellowship, but that doesn't mean placing that person back into a leadership or pastoring role. It is one shot, and one shot only. A precious gift to be guarded and cherished, in my opinion.

 

See the problem is, those qualifications still stand if the minister has repented and turned from his sinful ways, no one has stripped him from being qualified. While he is in the sin of course those qualifications are temperarily not there, but once the sin has been delt with and that person is no longer performing what was wrong then those qualifications still very much remain, only we as men disqualify ...not God.

The minister of course must stand accountable for his actions and recieve help and healing as well as be repentant, once he does all those things and he has been able to overcome the sin thru the power of Jesus then those same qualities which placed him in leadership still hold true. This is a very good reason why independent preachers are in a bad position, because they have no one to be accountable to....but that's another thread in itself.

Karen

 

No they are not. The sin can be forgiven but the blamelessness or testimony may not have been regained. A man who molests children can be forgiven but he will always be known as a child molester and he will not have a good reputation from those outside the church. The testimony is no so easily gained as you think. Think of you own life where someone hurt you and though you forgive them, you find it hard to trust them. It that is true in your life (and it most surely is), then how much more true is it of someone we trust with the Word of God and the leadership of the church. I am not saying that a man cannot get his testimony and reputation back. But the fact that 15 years later we are still talking about Jim Bakker and what he did is ample testimony that refutes your point. He did not get his reputation back.

 

Pastor Larry,

Yeah, that sounded pretty bad. I am having trouble explaining it. I started another thread about Peter before Pentecost, I would appreciate any insight you could give on the differences.

Kiffin,

Yes, he was accountable for his actions, I never really meant that he wasn't accountable at all, just that there was a significant difference. Since I am having trouble explaining what I am thinking, maybe you can join us in the other thread as well and help me shed some light on this subject.

~Lorelei

 

What if he hadn't been caught? The only reason he is repenting is beacause he was caught or did he come under conviction and humbly ask forgiveness?

In either case a man of ehtics would resign and not expect to ever pastor again. He is guilty of violating the greatest trust given to man; that of looking after the souls of others. If he can not be prayerful and spiritual enough to keeps his own life under control how can he possibly help others?

Some take the office of pastor too lightly, this is not a game, it is God's highest calling and equires men of the highest character; unfortunately, too many today overlook this and recognize any one who "claims" to be called to pastor. This is why so many churches fail, they lack spiritual leadership. Witnessed this, have seen men of questionable character get saved, desire to "join the crowd" and surrender to preach, only to fall on their face when required to meet the demands of a pastor, or never make it through training. Praise god for those who realize their lack and quit before they destroy lives and churches.

Ernie

 

So, we are simply going on how WE feel about the minister and not how God feels about him. According to God, he forgets the sin once it's been repented of so those qualifications where God stands...are still very much in tact. What we are doing here is holding one's past against him instead of realizing that the blood of Jesus covers all sin and wipes it clean, even a bad reputation. So is the blood of Jesus powerful enough to wash as white as snow or not? Are we going to just sing about it, preach and yet not believe it deep down inside?

Karen

[ April 04, 2002, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: redwhitenblue ]

 

But what about this?

 

I haven't seen anyone here appealing to feelings from our side. We have been consistent that while we might have great personal feelings towards someone, we cannot jettison the dictates of God's word to allow that person in leadership. If we believe the Book, than we must believe it all, even the part that the minister must be blameless.

 

I am amazed that not one person deals with the scripture that says that the Calling of God is without Repentance.

This does not mean that they don't have to repent nor does it mean they don't need to step down for a season. We all seem to forget that King David murdered and then committed Adultery but God forgave him and even called him a man after his own heart. Why? David genuinely repented.

God judged King Saul for disobedience but forgave David for what we call moral sins and failures.
In our mind these would seem to disqualify someone more than disobedience but not to God.

Samuel had two sons who were dishonest, liars, sinners but in the priesthood. Did this disqualify Samuel because he like Eli did not correct this situation. Why did not God punish Samuel like he did Eli for the same reason.

The Bible said God hated Esau but loved Jacob who was a liar and a deceiver yet Jacob became the great patriarch and became Israel.

Hosea was married to a prostitute and when she left him to go back to this line of work God told him to go and take her back. Did this disqualify Hosea from being God's prophet.

You can quote all these qualifications in Timothy
and Titus but there are Pastors and Deacons in churches all over this country that are technically disqualified for their positions because of what their wives do. Do we throw them out of office because their wives are trouble makers or gossips and tale bearers. There are even preachers who are big gossipers but no one throws them out of office. There are also a lot of ministers who have bad financial difficulties but they don't get thrown out of office either.

I have had preachers right out lie to me. Promise to do something and not follow through. I have heard them deny they were going to buy something for the church or buy property or other things and when someone asks about them they lie about it but do we disqualify preachers who lie.
No. We focus on sexual sins or what we think are great moral failures.

If I am not mistaken The Bible holds Christians to just as much moral standards as it does ministers but we forget that.

Jesus told us not to judge others lest we be judged.

 

This is about salvation and specifically the calling of God on the nation of Israel. It is why we believe that Israel still has a future ... because God does not change his call. It has nothing to do with the call to the ministry. IN fact, I do not believe "call" is ever used in Scripture with respect to the pastorate.

Yes

They should be.

We should.

We should.

Ministers are Christians and they are held to a higher standard with regard to their leadership position. Leadership has responsibilities that others do not. We do not excuse sin in the membership but there is a higher cost for leaders. James reminds us that not many of us should desire to be teachers because we will be judged by a higher standard. It is the nature of leadership to be held to a higher standard. If you desire the office of a bishop, it is a good thing, but you also accept the responsibilities of that office.

The point of the is unjust judgment because you will be judged by the same standard that you use. You cast out a speck while you have a pole in your eye. That is unjust. This would apply to pastors who preach against sin while participating in it. We cannot exempt ourselves from it. Elsewhere in Scripture, we are commanded to judge. Paul says, "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning" (1 Tim 5:19-20). We would do well to heed this.