Could Haggard be restored???

[Ivan]

Ditto and Amen. I can forgive but I am not stupid. And Bushey's "above reproach" argument hasn't been answered either.

Frankly, I didn't know much, really nothing, about Haggard before this mess. I believe at this point for me to speculate as to what should or should not be done is none of my business. I pray that he repents and if he does, I know God will forgive him. I am content to leave it there.

 

[satz]

Ditto and Amen. I can forgive but I am not stupid. And Bushey's "above reproach" argument hasn't been answered either.

Prehaps then, you could show from the bible that 'above reproach' means never ever having committed gross public sins before and that a reproach incurred by a pastor cannot be removed though sincere and godly repentance.

 

[Founded on the Rock]

I do not mean to be disrespectful, and the Lord knows that I am a terrible awful sinner. I have committed so many stupid and senseless sins and have rebelled against my Savior. Ted Haggard and I both law breakers, regardless of if we have broken one law or many. In the same way, the restoring work of Jesus Christ can cover those sins.

I am not in the position to judge, but I cannot believe that the question of wheter or not Haggard should be forgiven and restored in the church. To me, it sounds like a self-righteous question. Yes Haggard committed gross sin, but when he repents and acknolwedges it, we accept him back in as a brother. He has acknowledged and repented of his sin. So we should in turn accept him as a brother. It is absolutely incredible to think that someone could be so proud as to disqualify him from the grace of God because he committed sin. I would hope anyone who would do that would not want to same standard applied to themselves...

(this is not aimed at any particular person)

 

[Blue Tick]

I do not mean to be disrespectful, and the Lord knows that I am a terrible awful sinner. I have committed so many stupid and senseless sins and have rebelled against my Savior. Ted Haggard and I both law breakers, regardless of if we have broken one law or many. In the same way, the restoring work of Jesus Christ can cover those sins.

I am not in the position to judge, but I cannot believe that the question of wheter or not Haggard should be forgiven and restored in the church. To me, it sounds like a self-righteous question. Yes Haggard committed gross sin, but when he repents and acknolwedges it, we accept him back in as a brother. He has acknowledged and repented of his sin. So we should in turn accept him as a brother. It is absolutely incredible to think that someone could be so proud as to disqualify him from the grace of God because he committed sin. I would hope anyone who would do that would not want to same standard applied to themselves...

(this is not aimed at any particular person)

I think the real question is, should he be in ministry?

Yes, he can be forgiven and receive God's grace and mercy but he should not be allowed in a position of leadership.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Define 'reproach' according to 1 Tim and there you will have your answer. Paul uses the term 'disqualified' for a reason, no?

1 Corinthians 9:26-27 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

<96b> avdo,kimoj (adokimos)
Meaning: not standing the test, rejected
Origin: from 1 (as a neg. pref.) and 1384
Usage: depraved(1), disqualified(1), fail the test(m)(2), rejected(1), unapproved(1),worthless(2).

Notes: (1) Lit., bruise (a) Rom 8:13

 

[satz]

Scott, I'am sorry but you've completely lost me. Are we talking about 3:2 or 3:7 ? And how does 1 Tim 3 define 'reproach' internally?

To prove that to be reproached is to be disqualified doesn't mean anything as that still begs the question if one can be re-qualified again after that.

 

[Scott Bushey]

1 Timothy 3:1-7 NAS 1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

An elder must be, in the least, above these types of reproachs..........

 

[satz]

Scott, I agree with that (obviously so, since the verse says so) what I don't see is that if the elder falls down on one of those at one time, he is permanently disqualifed from holding office again. Where does the verse say that?

I think the tenor of the new testament is that when one repents of a sin, the practical forgiveness should be absolute. There will off course contiune to be practical effects of the sin that repentance will not remove, but where does the bible teach that christians can accumulate a 'black mark' against themselves (held by the church no less) that can never be removed?

 

[alwaysreforming]

Haggard simply does not meet the qualifications given in 1 Tim 3:2-7 AT ALL!

I'm surprised there is so much controversy about whether or not he should be
restored to the ministry. Being restored to Christ is one thing, being a shepherd over Christ's flock is quite another. ANYONE can be restored to fellowship after sin and repentance, but not anyone can take the role of an elder, even Christians who have not committed such gross sin.

"It behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be BLAMELESS, of one wife a husband, VIGILANT, SOBER, DECENT, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not given to WINE (OR METH), not a striker, not given to FILTHY LUCRE, but gentle, not contentious, not a LOVER OF MONEY,
1Ti 3:4 his own house LEADING WELL, having children in subjection with all gravity,
1Ti 3:5 (and if any one his own house how to lead hath not known, how an assembly of God shall he take care of?)
1Ti 3:6 not a new convert, lest having been puffed up he may fall to a judgment of the devil;
1Ti 3:7 and it behoveth him also to have A GOOD REPUTATION WITH OUTSIDERS, that he may not fall into reproach and a snare of the devil."


It says he must have a good reputation with outsiders.
Haggard has a DEPLORABLE reputation now, and he has inflicted GREAT HARM on the cause of Christ in America and possibly beyond.
This was not some willy nilly sin of temptation beyond what one could bear, but a THREE YEAR premeditated, planned, ongoing lifestyle of deception, adultery, deceiving his congregation, using the churches money for evil ends, etc.

It says he must be blameless: this goes without saying in his case...
He must be sober: meth amphetimines
He must be decent: he could hardly be more INDECENT

If you look at the other qualifications, he probably barely meets any of those as well. How could he not be a "lover of money" when he was probably making a fortune off of his "celebrity" as Mr. SuperChristian and recieving tithes off of a wealthy 14,000 member church?

No one can be given such a great trust, in such a high profile capacity, and sin so grievously, and then expect to be restored to a position of such great honor and trust.
For him to even apire to such would show a severe lack of repentance.

We need to be wise, people! There needs to be some common sense and Biblical judgment on the part of God's people that putting such a man in ministry would be unseemly and a WRONG THING TO DO!

Sure we need to be graceful, and merciful, and forgiving. Sure we should pray for him, and his wife and kids, and his congregation.
But to put him in a place where he shepherds other people's souls, and recieves great honor, and great income from the flock's sacrifices....... NEVER!

This was not a sin from ignorance. He was a Bible preacher and teacher for years! This is like if our president were to secretly take millions of $$$ from the govt., sell secrets to Al Quaida for 3 years, and undermine our country in front of the whole world, and then we ask,
"Hey, he feels really bad about what he did. Do you think he should ever be president again?"

President???? How about barely a citizen!

 

[KenPierce]

Christopher,

You are undoubtedly right, when one looks at the complex of sin in Mr. Haggard's life, especially its ongoing, reckless, and public nature.

I think, too, we don't want to lose sight of the fact that homosexuality is a sin against nature, and that makes it especially heinous ,singled out by Paul in his litany of man's rebellion against God.

Yet, Ortiz's post was just nasty. Paul says that it is shameful even to speak of what the disobedient do in secret. Ortiz did not seem to think it too shameful to evoke a lot of powerful and gross mental images.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

What if it were and Elder in your church who you knew was having extreme marital difficulties due to his wife's depression. His wife wouldn't sleep in the same room with him for years but he hung in there just the same. Finally, after 17 years he snapped. He started having an adulterous relationship on the side which went on for about 2 years. He fell in love with the woman and left his wife intending to divorce her and marry the other woman. He had taken his wife to marraige counseling on at least 3 occasions before this happened.
After he left(his wife had asked him to leave) his wife decided she loved him and wanted him back. She went to the doctor, got on medication and made a 180 degree turnaround. Meanwhile this brother was miserable living with the other woman. He came to his pastor one day in tearfilled repentance asking forgiveness, went back to his wife and over a year later they are happier than they have ever been in years. He calls me from time to time still crying over the whole mess and how it came about. His wife got over it a lot easier than he did. His big hang up is that he let his wife's depression and sexual problems be used as an excuse to sin against God.
I only ask this because this happened in my church. What do we do with this brother now? He is now closer to God and more spritual than he has ever been. He really can't seem to forgive himself for what he did.
Can he be restored to Eldership?

 

[CDM]

Haggard simply does not meet the qualifications given in 1 Tim 3:2-7 AT ALL!

I'm surprised there is so much controversy about whether or not he should be
restored to the ministry. Being restored to Christ is one thing, being a shepherd over Christ's flock is quite another. ANYONE can be restored to fellowship after sin and repentance, but not anyone can take the role of an elder, even Christians who have not committed such gross sin.

"It behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be BLAMELESS, of one wife a husband, VIGILANT, SOBER, DECENT, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not given to WINE (OR METH), not a striker, not given to FILTHY LUCRE, but gentle, not contentious, not a LOVER OF MONEY,
1Ti 3:4 his own house LEADING WELL, having children in subjection with all gravity,
1Ti 3:5 (and if any one his own house how to lead hath not known, how an assembly of God shall he take care of?)
1Ti 3:6 not a new convert, lest having been puffed up he may fall to a judgment of the devil;
1Ti 3:7 and it behoveth him also to have A GOOD REPUTATION WITH OUTSIDERS, that he may not fall into reproach and a snare of the devil."


It says he must have a good reputation with outsiders.
Haggard has a DEPLORABLE reputation now, and he has inflicted GREAT HARM on the cause of Christ in America and possibly beyond.
This was not some willy nilly sin of temptation beyond what one could bear, but a THREE YEAR premeditated, planned, ongoing lifestyle of deception, adultery, deceiving his congregation, using the churches money for evil ends, etc.

It says he must be blameless: this goes without saying in his case...
He must be sober: meth amphetimines
He must be decent: he could hardly be more INDECENT

If you look at the other qualifications, he probably barely meets any of those as well. How could he not be a "lover of money" when he was probably making a fortune off of his "celebrity" as Mr. SuperChristian and recieving tithes off of a wealthy 14,000 member church?

No one can be given such a great trust, in such a high profile capacity, and sin so grievously, and then expect to be restored to a position of such great honor and trust.
For him to even apire to such would show a severe lack of repentance.

We need to be wise, people! There needs to be some common sense and Biblical judgment on the part of God's people that putting such a man in ministry would be unseemly and a WRONG THING TO DO!

Sure we need to be graceful, and merciful, and forgiving. Sure we should pray for him, and his wife and kids, and his congregation.
But to put him in a place where he shepherds other people's souls, and recieves great honor, and great income from the flock's sacrifices....... NEVER!

This was not a sin from ignorance. He was a Bible preacher and teacher for years! This is like if our president were to secretly take millions of $$$ from the govt., sell secrets to Al Quaida for 3 years, and undermine our country in front of the whole world, and then we ask,
"Hey, he feels really bad about what he did. Do you think he should ever be president again?"

President???? How about barely a citizen!

See this link. They have been sounding the alarm on Ol' Haggard for many years before this latest evidence of the fraud that is Ted Haggard. From my perusal of the site, they have documented evidence of most, if not all of the qualifications of elder he fails.

It makes me sick that anyone would even entertain the idea that this man be a shepherd of God's people again. Nevermind this false prophet never should have been in the first place.

 

[CDM]

What if it were and Elder in your church who you knew was having extreme marital difficulties due to his wife's depression. His wife wouldn't sleep in the same room with him for years but he hung in there just the same. Finally, after 17 years he snapped. He started having an adulterous relationship on the side which went on for about 2 years. He fell in love with the woman and left his wife intending to divorce her and marry the other woman. He had taken his wife to marraige counseling on at least 3 occasions before this happened.
After he left(his wife had asked him to leave) his wife decided she loved him and wanted him back. She went to the doctor, got on medication and made a 180 degree turnaround. Meanwhile this brother was miserable living with the other woman. He came to his pastor one day in tearfilled repentance asking forgiveness, went back to his wife and over a year later they are happier than they have ever been in years. He calls me from time to time still crying over the whole mess and how it came about. His wife got over it a lot easier than he did. His big hang up is that he let his wife's depression and sexual problems be used as an excuse to sin against God.
I only ask this because this happened in my church. What do we do with this brother now? He is now closer to God and more spritual than he has ever been. He really can't seem to forgive himself for what he did.
Can he be restored to Eldership?

The pertinent question here would be: Is he the husband of 1 wife?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

The pertinent question here would be: Is he the husband of 1 wife?

As far as I know he's only married to one woman.

 

[alwaysreforming]

To Blueridge:

Why does this man need to be an elder? > would be my question

Why doesn't he just be a great Christian, and a great employee, and a great witness to outsiders, and a great church member, and a great husband? Perhaps he could be satisfied with this, as its a great goal in itself. Why must he aspire to rulership over the flock?

Certainly there are godly men available in the church who may not have had such an unfortunate set of circumstances befall them. And especially with him "not being able to forgive himself"..... that doesn't put him in the greatest position to assist others with their own healing, and their own spiritual restoration.

That also removes all of the sticky untangling of the past events that must take place if he wanted to be considered for eldership.... just let someone with a less cumbersome background provide the church's leadership... In my humble opinion.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Scott, I agree with that (obviously so, since the verse says so) what I don't see is that if the elder falls down on one of those at one time, he is permanently disqualifed from holding office again. Where does the verse say that?

I think the tenor of the new testament is that when one repents of a sin, the practical forgiveness should be absolute. There will off course contiune to be practical effects of the sin that repentance will not remove, but where does the bible teach that christians can accumulate a 'black mark' against themselves (held by the church no less) that can never be removed?

"Above reproach" refers to present past and future. For instance, would these past sins effect the council of this man? How could he council anyone on sexual sins or lying (to name a few)? God lifts up and God brings to ruin........The plans of a man are many, but God directs (or determines) the path.

 

[gwine]

"Above reproach" refers to present past and future. For instance, would these past sins effect the council of this man? How could he council anyone on sexual sins or lying (to name a few)? God lifts up and God brings to ruin........The plans of a man are many, but God directs (or determines) the path.

Then by this standard someone who was not married and fathered a child before his conversion should never be allowed to become a pastor, correct?

 

[Archlute]

"Above reproach" refers to present past and future. For instance, would these past sins effect the council of this man? How could he council anyone on sexual sins or lying (to name a few)? God lifts up and God brings to ruin........The plans of a man are many, but God directs (or determines) the path.

Actually, the phrase translated "must be" is the combination of a present verb with a present tense substantival infinitive acting as its subject. All factors being considered about this construction, it is saying nothing other than when a man is being examined for his fitness as an elder, that he currently have a life considered above reproach.

It does not bar a man who has had a wicked past who having been changed by the grace of Christ, and who having shown a pattern of godly living since that time, so desires the office of overseer. Nor does it have anything to say about that man's future living, which may or may not remain sound. It is a simple statement of observation about a man's current character and standing.

There is nothing in this passage that would permenantly prohibit Ted Haggard's session (or whatever they have) from reinstating him as a minister in the future after a time of serious public and personal repentance, followed by accountability in this area along with discipline and discipling by the elders. We can debate the merits and wisdom of such a decision, but the right of the church to make that decision is in no way hindered by Paul's instructions here.

I am not taking sides here, just wanting to make sure that we allow Scripture to speak for itself on this point without imposing extrabiblical limits where they have not been imposed.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Then by this standard someone who was not married and fathered a child before his conversion should never be allowed to become a pastor, correct?

When I mention the past, I refer to things that have occurred while the man was a believer. For instance, a unbiblical divorce would create reproach and disqualify the man from the position.