I tweeted this morning about pastors who have disqualified themselves, saying that they should not enter back into the eldership for the duration of their time on earth. It’s absurd and disgusting to me how pastors who have disqualified themselves from the pastorate are already looking forward to the next time they are in leadership. Here are some reasons (Scriptural, logical, and personal) why I think this should be the norm. I will also address my perceived objections to my thinking. Feel free to comment. I’m sure you will anyway.
1 Timothy 3:1-7
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
These are, in short, the Biblical qualifications for an overseer/elder/pastor (interchangeable terms). There are others as well, including Titus 1, but for our purposes, these work. The main reasons why a pastor is a pastor is not because he is a great teacher, a great shepherd, an incredible preacher, or an awesome leader. The main reason why a pastor becomes a pastor is because he is a great follower of Christ.
As an example, let me examine my own life. Now, do I, as pastor of Harmony Church, fit all of the above qualifications at all times in my life? Bluntly and plainly, no. Ask my wife how often I’m quarrelsome, gentle, or sober-minded. But then ask her how much I, since becoming a Christ-follower, have grown in all of the areas. My life is visibly and radically conforming to the life of Jesus over time. This is sanctification, which is a sure sign of salvation. In addition to this, Christ has gifted me by His Spirit in leadership & teaching in order to lead others to do the same. In short, those two qualifications (visible conformity to the life of Christ and leadership/teaching abilities), are what qualifies a pastor. If either is lacking in a man, whether it’s leadership/teaching ability or visible conformity to the life of Christ, then that man is not to be a pastor.
In the case of the fallen pastor, there’s a major “dip” in the trajectory of his life with regards to the qualifications listed in Scripture. This major dip (whether it’s an affair, stealing money, etc.) calls into question at least 2 qualifications: the qualification broken and the “above reproach” qualification. Depending on the sin, there may be other qualifications severely hampered as well (outsider reputation, etc.) The reputation of the person with regards to others is huge in any ministerial role (see Acts 6:3 for deacons being men of “good repute”). Once a pastor has been a pastor, and has publicly sinned to the point of disqualification from the pastoral role, his reputation is blemished for the rest of his life. That blemish on the reputation, in my interpretation of Scripture’s high view of ministry leaders, is enough to disqualify him from leadership for the rest of his life.
Now for the objections:
What about Matthew 18:15-20? Shouldn’t he be restored?
A pastor who has fallen should absolutely be restored, if possible, to right relationship with Christ and His Church, in accordance with Matthew 18 (and other texts [Galatians 6, eg]). This passage of Scripture does not refer to leadership within the Church. Leadership in the church is privilege/honor even after one accepts Christ. Fellowship with the church is a right because one has accepted Christ. This section of Scripture is the basis of church discipline for restoring individuals (regardless of role) back into relationship with the Church community. It does not refer to leadership roles. Don’t take it (or any other ‘restoration’ verses) out of context.
What about all sins being equal? Derek, if you struggle with pride or stumble with being gentle, doesn’t that disqualify you the same way that an affair does?
Well, I certainly hope not. When we talk about sins being equal, we talk about in respect to their rebellion with regards to God’s character. All sins offend Him equally. But not all sins have equal consequences. For instance, premarital sex resulting in a child has a larger consequence than lying to your mother. They are both sins with respect to God, but one has a lifelong consequence whereas the other is easily forgiven and forgotten. Sins that publicly and blatantly break the qualifications to be an elder have more severe consequences than “stumbling” sins do. And rightfully so. But I definitely affirm that they are equally as revolting to the character of God.
What about St. Pete? Didn’t he sin against Christ and then was restored to leadership?
Sort of. I honestly don’t think Peter was a Christian when he denied Christ 3 times. After all, the Cross and Resurrection hadn’t even happened yet. And Peter definitely still had questions about the identity of Christ with regards to redemptive history. In addition to all that, would you really be willing to say that Peter was the leader/pastor of the disciples when he denied Christ…considering Christ was walking on earth? If so, what do you think about the “digs” at Peter by John in his Gospel? But that’s another topic…heh.
Any other questions/comments I will address below.
