Fallen Pastors

I agree.

Pastors are no less sinners than anyone else and they should have a chance to be restored.

Mike

[ April 02, 2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

how about a fallen deacon?

 

I hope I am not being obnoxious here,but yes,he can and should be restored to God....but not to a position of leadership of a church. Do you see the difference...allowing it(even with repentance,counseling,etc) is like lowering the standards,and making sin more tolerated in the church. How can those of us who claim God's Word as our ultimate guide dismiss this because you simply have compassion on sinners. That compassion is great and I can commend your heart,BUT....he can no longer pastor a church! We can still love him and allow him in our church,if he has repented. I would be amazed that a man who has comitted those sins would even feel like he could step back up to a role of pastor. If he felt so sure that God wanted him to pastor,he should have kept his life in order.

Look at 1st Timoth3:2...it says "he MUST be blameless,husband of one wife,teperate,etc." It goes on to list the requirements. Why does it say MUST??? Because he MUST!

Noone is saying anybody can be perfect,because we know Christ was the only sinless perfect man,but there standards set forth in God's Word on men in leadership.We should uphold those standards,not say... bu...if....what if....why did he do it,etc.

Now,I will say that a man who is not saved and sins that way,can then become a pastor once he is saved. Like for example,before knowing the Lord a man was divorced...then later saved and called to be an elder,pastor,bishop. Those qualifications are then held for his state as a man of God. I still don't think that is the best of situations,but that would be the only way to later be a pastor,if he wasn't a saved man and still living in darkness. But,if he was saved and sinned like this,he disqualifies himself. Well,actually God disqualifies him.

 

The same goes for a deacon 1 Tim goes on to say the requirements for a deacon,he say he must...,so if he is no longer qualified,he should be dismissed from that role of service.

 

This is not true. Being "above reproach" and being perfect are not the same. Many people are above reproach but not all of them have been called to ministry. But those who desire the office of an overseer must be above reproach

This idea that those who are fallen are somehow better able or better qualified to empathize with and counsel people who are struggling in sin is the most dangerous part of this whole thing. It devalues the integrity of men who have "done it right." We don't need to be drug addicts to counsel them and we don't need to be adulterers to counsel them. What we need to do is get away from this idea that in order to counsel and assist you must have first suffered with the sin. Paul says there are two qualifications for counseling others: goodness and knowledge (Rom 15:14). Let's not exalt men who can't keep their pants on to a status of leadership and honor that they have biblically forfeited. The same goes for those who have had financial misdealings, attitude problems, self-control problems, etc.

 

Smoke_Eater said:

As I understand the phrase, "above reproach", it means not having a history of habitual bad behavior, not a one time lapse in moral judgement.

One of the qualifications for elders is that he "must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:7). If he is not of good reputation outside the church, he is not qualified to pastor the church.

Jim Bakker was disgraced by a single sexual fling. It's been fifteen years since his fall from grace. How's his reputation doing these days?

 

Amen! I agree, if he truly is repentant, then he would realize that he was not meant to pastor any longer.

He should gladly be accepted back into the church and he will find ways of serving God and using those experiences to teach others, but he must not lead again. I think he should realize this. If he does not, he is most likely trying to serve his own goals not God's (which is how he fell in the first place)

If a child molestor repented and asked for forgiveness would you then allow them to have a leadership role over children?

Forgiveness does not mean placing children in danger if that person were to "fall" again. The same goes with the pastorate. He fell, and we can't risk the harm that could be done to his flock if he were to be reinstated. I think in both cases the person would want to be as far from that temptation as possible.

~Lorelei

 

Pastor Larry I believe said it very well, We have taken one qualification (one woman man) and elevated it to a place above all and this is what I see in this conversation. Often times if the fella is not divorced and remmarried then it is stated he is qualified but to me that is superficial and focuses on one qualification. 1 Timoty 3 covers more than just that and at the time the Apostle Peter denied Christ he certaintly was in violation of 1 Timothy 3. A short time later however he was restored back. I think there is a dangerous view in looking to preachers as spiritual supermen who have no bad thoughts and commit no sin. Pastors, Deacons are also sinners and if we applied some of the thoughts expressed on this thread then we would probably have to vacate all pulpits by next Sunday.

 

You can have your opinion,that is what it is,not one thing you said was based on scripture. I totally disagree.

 

So that I am not misunderstood, I am on the stricter side of this discussion. I believe we need to be very reticent to let someone back in the ministry if they fail any of these qualifications. Being "spiritual supermen" is not the issue; being a model of what it means to be a Christian is.

 

Kiffin,

I guess what I am having a problem with is that you said we have elevated that one issue above all...I've always staed they have to meet the qualifications in 1st Timothy Ch.3 and Titus. I have never said one is more imporatnt than another. In fact,this particualr one that crazycat mentioned does not meet very many of them. The adultery is one,there are many other issues,in addition to that one, that should not allow him to pastor. I don't get the superman mentality,noone has said he has to be Perfect...he must be blameless,etc,etc.We've only said what the bible says he should be and perfect is not listed! The Bible list the qualifications,it's like you want to overlook the issue,because no one if perfect,so let's help him out,let him still be our pastor,don't worry about what he's done,we all do it and so on and so on.

 

Molly,

I have never stated a blanket pardon for all fallen pastors and you are misinterpreting my view. I am stating that a blanket statement Yes or No on whether Fallen Pastors can be restored cannot made. It depends on what the fallen Pastor did and the circumstances. I am actually more stricter than you think since I am against the ordaination of divorced Pastors and I am in total agreement with 1 Tim 3. It is how we define beyond reproach is the issue not whether we agree with 1 Tim 3.

Do you think the Apostle Peter was "BLAMELESS" when he denied Christ? He certaintly was in violation of 1 Timothy 3 in that he publicly renounced Jesus. Yet, he repented and was restored and certaintly Peter was "blameless" in Acts 2. Peter would not have been right to be an Apostle if we follow the thinking of many Baptists today however. Columba, the Irish missiory to Scotland in the 5th century was not one of the most model pastors in that he helped cause a clan war that killed many. He repented of this and this is overshadowed by the later missionary work he did. He certaintly was BLAMELESS in the years following.

There are 2 extremes I see today. One is laxity toward the fallen pastors and say we are all sinners so it doesn't matter and the other is to condemn them to ministerial purgatory. There must be balance between these 2 extremes.

 

That's where accountability to other churches comes in. The fallen pastor can be counseled and ministered to by a local church. The SBC has ministry programs in place to pay for counseling, help with these kinds of issues, and provide every resource available for recovery. It's up to the fallen pastor to seek out this help. But it is available, especially in Southern Baptist life.

 

This is quite sad. No wonder christianity is considered such a hateful religion because we are the only ones who eat our own alive. There is no one who could possibly be worthy enough to stand behind a pulpit...I don't care who you are you are not worthy enough there is sin in your life period. When God has forgiven someone that sin is forgotton why is it that we can't forget it too? God does not hold that sin against us any longer, he doesn't disqualify us from the calling he placed on our lives, yet we disqualify each other.

I would place Jim Baker in a leadership position faster than I would place some pastors behind the pulpit now....I've seen Jim on interviews since and I've heard his testimony and I can see a total change in that man, God really did a serious cleaning out with him and Jim is without a doubt a renewed creation in Christ.

I'm not saying any other pastor would be less equipt to deal with people in problems than a pastor or leader who has been in the same sin, I'm just saying that people do listen more intently to those who have walked a mile in their shoes and those leaders are able to share from personal experience how God was able to change the situation and help them to turn thier lives around as well as the ability to share some pointers with family members in how to reach out and help that person dealing with issues.

I am very against blocking ministers from leadership just because they were human like we all are. Many pastors have serious sin struggles that they are even too ashamed to speak of for fear of being "disqualified", so instead of being helped and and having strength to turn from it they end up in trouble down the road.

IMHO shame on we fellow christians that we can't love and support but we have to put our man made qualities on someone else instead of letting God do it.

karen

 

You seem to put all the blame on those of us who want to support scripture as harsh as it may sound to you,you are forgetting that we did not put him in that position,he did by making those choices of sin. And if he knows the Word he knows that he chose to disqualify himself,we didn't,he did.

Do you disagree with Matt 18 and church discipline,or because everyone sins,we are not to hold anyone accountable? See,what is wrong with the church today is we have become complacent with sin in the church,pastors and everybody....people live however they want to and we lose our witness to a lost world,it is true.Esp in the leadership. 1st John says if we are children of God,we will NOT live in sin.(as a habit of life) If we restore every pastor who sins and then says I'm sorry,we allow the standards to be lowered each time that happens. We are not condemning anyone,he chose to sin and therefroe the spiritual and natural consequences are,he can not pastor....it doesn't mean we don't love him,it just means he can not pastor a church...the standard is high,but a man called of God has everything from Christ he needs to live a holy life,there are men like this who can pastor. Like I said before,they are not perfect but their life shows evidence of godliness,moral character,and a sensitivity to sin.

 

Hey Ransom,

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

He could have take, the Mike Warnke approach and just waited 'til all the hubbub died down and pretended like nothing ever happened (by the way, Warnke's still doing the same thing that got him into trouble in the first place) or even tried to capitalize on his troubles but, instead, he went away got counseling and is now trying to find a place in ministry. The last I heard, he had started back at the bottom working with the homeless.

From what I hear, he's also worked to bring his doctrinal beliefs into line with scripture.

I've got to respect somebody who has the guts to take his lumps like a man.

It certainly looks like he's come back a better man than he left.

Mike

http://www.keylife.org

 

When Peter denied Christ, he lacked something that we have. The Holy Spirit. It was after the Holy Spirit baptism in Acts chapter 2 that Peter became the leader he was intended to be. You will not find Peter "fall" after this event.

We can and should hold pastors to the standards laid out in scripture. If they were impossible to obtain they wouldn't be expected. Remember with God all things are possible. Again, blameless does not mean perfect.

~Lorelei

PS. The fact that Jim Baker wants back into the ministry tells me he is thinking of Jim Baker and not God.

 

Karen, this discussion is not about manmade qualifications. It is about the text of Scripture (God's word) in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. We do not have the option of discarding God's word in order to not appear "hateful." It seems to me that what we need to do is redefine our definition of "hateful." Obedience to God is never hateful. This is not an issue of forgiveness; men (or women) who fall can be forgiven. It is not an issue of fellowship; they can have fellowship. It is an issue of leadership. It is not an issue of eating our own; we should restore them to fellowship and help to reestablish their personal lives. To say that people listen more to those who have walked a mile in their shoes is to lessen the authority of the Word of God. Jesus Christ is our great high priest who sympathizes with our weakness and he never sinner. That alone shows how wrong you contention is. Scripture is the authority, not experience.

No one here is for blocking men from the ministry because they are human. What we are talking about is obedience to God's word regarding humans. Humans do not have to commit adultery or be a womanizer. These sins are not unavoidable. When they happen, they happen because people love self more than God.

Jim Bakker was never really in ministry. He was a charlatan who bad choices sprung from bad theology. He was morally bankrupt and even if he got saved, he is disqualified from ministry because he is not blameless. He abused his position when he claimed to be a man of God and then acted in the ways that he did. I hope he is sincerely repentant and has turned to Christ for salvation. I don't think he will ever meet the qualifications of 1 Tim 3:1-7. You read those qualifications and see if you think Bakker meets them.

These are not man made requirements. It is God has been very specific about leadership and its requirements and all people are not qualified. That is not hateful in the least. To uphold these qualifications that God has given us is loving to God because it shows that we value his word.

We need to bring our own expectations in line with God's word.