Restoration after adultery

[Pittzburghkid]

I was involved in a bit of a debate on a Facebook post about a mega church pastor who had an affair and recently stepped down. My position was that he can be forgiven and repent but that he should not be restored back into a church office position. The members of his church believe when he is ready he should be restored back to head pastor. Various arguments used included Jesus' immediate restoration of Peter after denying him or that we only serve the evil that brought him down when we chastise him. I know the scriptures teach that teachers are held to a higher standard. What do you think?

 

[Gforce9]

Moody radio in Chicago carried this story this morning. I usually can't stomach the pop-evangelical nonsense, but turned it on during the morning ride. The hosts were talking amongst themselves trying to come up with a solution for more accountability to avoid situations like this. As I heard them talking, I was reminded that this is an inescapable reality with independency. While there are sinners in presbyterian governments too, ministers and men under care are subject to vetting processes, oversight, examinations, more examinations, and submission to the local session.
As to restoration, who decides when/if this man is fit? Grandma Johnson or men who have been examined thoroughly and approved? In independent denominations (or non-denominational congregations), using John MacArthur's phrasing, "any yah-hoo off the street can become a pastor" and there is no structure in place for the sheep's protection or overseers guidance.

 

[Scott1]

Biblically, there is always the possibility of a way back.

But there is no quick, easy way back.

Luke 12:48

King James Version (KJV)

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

 

[arapahoepark]

Biblically, there is always the possibility of a way back.

But there is no quick, easy way back.

Luke 12:48

King James Version (KJV)

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

I agree. Sometimes there should be no way back. I remember the whole Ted Haggard thing from my state. Not too long after he again started another church and he basically said he was born to always be leading a church...he is someone that should never have started another church. Maybe he is repentant but running a church isn't a right or a talent.

 

[jambo]

The adulterer may be restored in terms of his relationship with God after repentance. However being restored to the pastoral office is a different matter. People always remember the adulterer. They may forget the dunkard or the guy who cheated on his tax returns but nobody forgets the adulterer. Secondly mistrust and suspicion follow the person and you need to to be able to trust the pastor. Thirdly it has an impact on those outside the church looking in who may see hypocrisy in preaching a holy life yet being involved in illicit relationships or indeed if any man in the congregation is tempted along the same lines, he may well think "if the pastor got off lightly then so might i". There are so many pressures on young people today to be sexually active that the example of an adulterous pastor all adds to the pressure.

I know sin is sin and some may argue why should sexual sin be treated any differently. However different types of sins have different consequences and the consequence of sexual immorality for the pastor bars him from office.

It is a sad fact that adultery is a powerful weapon of Satan to destroy men in the ministry, tearing families apart, harming churches and congregations as well bringing dishonour to the gospel and the pastoral office.

 

[Edward]

If his victim was someone associated with the church, I'd say 'never'. If it was someone with no connections with the church, I'd say 'perhaps', but not at that congregation or withing commuting distance and only after establishing a long track record of faithfulness outside the ministry.

 

[Cymro]

Jambo, I would follow you on this. I think the ministerial office precludes any coming back
after this particular sin. I had occasion to register a complaint about a visiting minister who had fallen
to this temptation and was allowed back into the pulpit. The response was, well David was repentant,
and he was brought back. My reply was that David was a King not a priest. Those who compass the altar
must have clean hands publicly. For such a one to preach again, he would be hamstrung in dealing with
marriage, divorce, keeping your vessel clean etc. And those outside the church would use him as an example
of Christian hypocrisy. Someone who was truly repentant would not want to re-engage in the ministry, seeing
the consequences and the stumbling block placed before unbelievers.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

There is not a hard and fast simple answer to this question. "It depends" is the correct biblical answer. And the evaluation should be left to others: it should be a matter of others encouraging the man to return to the ministry of the Word, not his forwarding his own case.

I do think that repentance on the part of an adulterer would include reticence for a return, certainly a quick return, to public ministry. But I have known of a case or two in which a man was truly broken and repentant and returned to the pastorate after due time at the urging of others and had a far more effective ministry than ever.

There are plenty of men in the ministry who have never committed adultery but are not broken men. I'd rather have a man who is broken and proven, even after a fall, than one who's never been humbled. There is simply no biblical warrant to say that "if someone has done X, they can never, anywhere, minister again." Having said that, we tend to take all of this too lightly and to quickly restore men who express any sort of regret. This is its own problem, however, and should not lead us to adopt a policy of "nevermore" to those fallen and truly broken. We all need to be broken and we come to such by different paths. We have no warrant to lay down ironclad rules with respect to this.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Hamalas]

There is not a hard and fast simple answer to this question. "It depends" is the correct biblical answer. And the evaluation should be left to others: it should be a matter of others encouraging the man to return to the ministry of the Word, not his forwarding his own case.

I do think that repentance on the part of an adulterer would include reticence for a return, certainly a quick return, to public ministry. But I have known of a case or two in which a man was truly broken and repentant and returned to the pastorate after due time at the urging of others and had a far more effective ministry than ever.

There are plenty of men in the ministry who have never committed adultery but are not broken men. I'd rather have a man who is broken and proven, even after a fall, than one who's never been humbled. There is simply no biblical warrant to say that "if someone has done X, they can never, anywhere, minister again." Having said that, we tend to take all of this too lightly and to quickly restore men who express any sort of regret. This is its own problem, however, and should not lead us to adopt a policy of "nevermore" to those fallen and truly broken. We all need to be broken and we come to such by different paths. We have no warrant to lay down ironclad rules with respect to this.

Peace,
Alan

Thank you Dr. Strange for such a beautifully balanced and pastorally rich response.

 

[Edward]

We have no warrant to lay down ironclad rules with respect to this.

One who preys upon the flock has proven himself not the shepherd, or even a hireling, but a wolf, and should never be trusted to watch over the sheep again. Thus I would contend that there should be a hard and fast rule as to he who has taken advantage of a member of his congregation. and the distinction I made above between one who victimized a member of his congregation and someone who 'merely' committed adultery.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Is He Above Reproach? That is the Question.

I think it comes down to one question: Is this man above reproach? And that is always the question for candidates to the ministry. Can this man serve as an example to the flock in all matters of faith and holiness? If the answer is yes, he may serve again. If the answer is no, then he may not.

I tend to believe that a man who is guilty of a very scandalous sin while in the sacred office puts himself beyond the point of ever serving as an effective example to the flock again. That isn't to say he hasn't truly repented of his sin, but that the very public and scandalous nature of his sin would hang over him and his ministry. In short, he would not be above reproach. And placing him back into the sacred office would likely bring a reproach upon Christ and his Church.

Pastors are gifts from Christ to his Church. If a man desires to be placed back into the Christian ministry after some terrible public fall; and thinks nothing of the further scandal it might bring upon the Church or the consciences of God's people, or the opportunity it would afford Christ's enemies to blaspheme his name, it may be safely said, that such a man is no gift from Christ to his Church.

 

[Miss Marple]

"a very scandalous sin while in the sacred office puts himself beyond the point of ever serving as an effective example to the flock again. "

I think this hits the nail on the head. As a church member, I don't know what if any trust I'd have in such a pastor. I could, I think, easily get on with him as a fellow member of the church, and trust him over time with limited authority on committees or similar.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Edward:

I don't disagree that there are men who have preyed on their flock in such a way that they should never be restored to ministry again anywhere. I was responding to those who more broadly argued that adultery as such is uniquely disqualifying.

Peace,
Alan

 

[ZackF]

The things is, most mega-churches are personality driven. Without the personality people stop giving and then financially they are doomed. If the staff can drag along the congregation during the fallen pastors "restoration" and "healing" period to convince them of his sincerity (and real it may be) they will do so. The temptation to do so is overwhelming. Call me a cynic.

 

[Hamalas]

The things is, most mega-churches are personality driven. Without the personality people stop giving and then financially they are doomed. If the staff can drag along the congregation during the fallen pastors "restoration" and "healing" period to convince them of his sincerity (and real it may be) they will do so. The temptation to do so is overwhelming. Call me a cynic.

True. But statistically the vast majority of churches in America have congregations of less than 100 people. Exceptions make for bad policy and I'd hate to law down a rule beyond what Scripture clearly teaches.

 

[Pittzburghkid]

Wise and Christ centered replies as always. I think the maybe, after some time approach is the wisest

 

[Edward]

I don't disagree that there are men who have preyed on their flock in such a way that they should never be restored to ministry again anywhere. I was responding to those who more broadly argued that adultery as such is uniquely disqualifying.

As a general rule, then, we don't appear to disagree.

 

[ZackF]

The things is, most mega-churches are personality driven. Without the personality people stop giving and then financially they are doomed. If the staff can drag along the congregation during the fallen pastors "restoration" and "healing" period to convince them of his sincerity (and real it may be) they will do so. The temptation to do so is overwhelming. Call me a cynic.

True. But statistically the vast majority of churches in America have congregations of less than 100 people. Exceptions make for bad policy and I'd hate to law down a rule beyond what Scripture clearly teaches.

Of course. I hate laying down any rules even the ones Scripture teaches.