Restoring fallen ministers

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Liberal

I'm not claiming to have the absolute answer here, but long, drawn-out times of "proving" are ridiculous and unscriptural, in my opinion.

Men in leadership have to be trustworthy and trustworthy is something that is by experience over time

Act 6:2 And the Twelve called near the multitude of the disciples and said, It is not pleasing to us, leaving the Word of God, to serve tables.
Act 6:3 Therefore, brothers, look out among you seven men being witnessed to, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this duty.

1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
1Ti 3:9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.
1Ti 3:13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--
Tit 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
Tit 1:7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
Tit 1:8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.
Tit 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Positions like that take time and experience of proving one's character

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Exactly but right standing with God and being a leader are not the same things

Yes, that's exactly the original point I made with that statement so we're saying the same thing.

We aren't merely talking about a brief lapse of faith are we? I was thinking more of someone that walks away from God. From the day he claimed to not know the Lord till the day he was filled with boldness to preach, was actually quite a while with a lot of healing going on and apparently enough.

But remember he hadn't yet taken the leadership helm yet. It was not till after the fact, so he was not the fallen leader of the Apostles.

Welllll.....I don't know....I think he did have a leadership position. Jesus had made it clear that Peter had the "keys to the Kingdom", clearly placing him in a place of privilege, at least, somewhat.

But even going with your presumption, that he wasn't yet a leader, I'm asking, what is the scriptural principle for not restoring someone completely to what they were previously? Like I said earlier, if we use the "Jesus Standard" for moral failure, no one would ever qualify for the ministry at all.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Welllll.....I don't know....I think he did have a leadership position. Jesus had made it clear that Peter had the "keys to the Kingdom", clearly placing him in a place of privilege, at least, somewhat.

But even going with your presumption, that he wasn't yet a leader, I'm asking, what is the scriptural principle for not restoring someone completely to what they were previously? Like I said earlier, if we use the "Jesus Standard" for moral failure, no one would ever qualify for the ministry at all.

I think he was being groomed for a leadership position. He hadn't actually stepped into it yet

Im not arguing someone should not be restored. I just think it takes some time

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Men in leadership have to be trustworthy and trustworthy is something that is by experience over time

Act 6:2 And the Twelve called near the multitude of the disciples and said, It is not pleasing to us, leaving the Word of God, to serve tables.
Act 6:3 Therefore, brothers, look out among you seven men being witnessed to, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this duty.

1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
1Ti 3:2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1Ti 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
1Ti 3:5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?
1Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
1Ti 3:9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.
1Ti 3:13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--
Tit 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
Tit 1:7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
Tit 1:8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.
Tit 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Positions like that take time and experience of proving one's character

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Ok, I see where you're coming from, but again, if we use this criteria, absolutely as it stands, very few of us would pass the test for ministry. I've taken strong stands in some areas, as have most who are in the ministry, and I'm not well thought of at all by many, many people. I've been called a "Christian shock-jock", "False teacher" more times than I can count, "Wanna-be rock star"...and the list goes on.

I Ti 3:10 is speaking in the context of being given responsibilities before entering the ministry in order to see if a person is capable, not a time of "testing" following a sin.

And "Blameless"? If we take that to its absolute finality, again, none of us are completely blameless.


When one realizes that none of us, at all times, keeps these standards as Paul stated here, it seems the context of his instruction was this: If we fall into any of these areas, get things fixed. One cannot fulfill the office of ministry while existing in these areas.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Liberal

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Ok, I see where you're coming from, but again, if we use this criteria, absolutely as it stands, very few of us would pass the test for ministry. I've taken strong stands in some areas, as have most who are in the ministry, and I'm not well thought of at all by many, many people. I've been called a "Christian shock-jock", "False teacher" more times than I can count, "Wanna-be rock star"...and the list goes on.

I Ti 3:10 is speaking in the context of being given responsibilities before entering the ministry in order to see if a person is capable, not a time of "testing" following a sin.

And "Blameless"? If we take that to its absolute finality, again, none of us are completely blameless.


When one realizes that none of us, at all times, keeps these standards as Paul stated here, it seems the context of his instruction was this: If we fall into any of these areas, get things fixed. One cannot fulfill the office of ministry while existing in these areas.

I think the main emphasis is being in good standing. Not necessarily perfect

[Liberal]

[QUOTE=Praxeas;980930]I think he was being groomed for a leadership position. He hadn't actually stepped into it yet

Im not arguing someone should not be restored. I just think it takes some time[/QUOTE]

...and I don't disagree. But I think stripping someone completely of everything including any ounce of self-dignity they have left, and run them through the wringer of a two-year program, isn't a proper representation of grace. Speaking of outsiders...I believe quite frequently, when those outside the faith see how we treat the fallen, it pushes them away rather than reinforcing our righteousness. In fact, I've heard people say, "If I'm every gonna sin, I sure don't wanna be a Christian when I do it."

[Praxeas]

I think some of this can be subjective, being held in high esteem by outsiders or low esteem...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Liberal

[

...and I don't disagree. But I think stripping someone completely of everything including any ounce of self-dignity they have left, and run them through the wringer of a two-year program, isn't a proper representation of grace. Speaking of outsiders...I believe quite frequently, when those outside the faith see how we treat the fallen, it pushes them away rather than reinforcing our righteousness. In fact, I've heard people say, "If I'm every gonna sin, I sure don't wanna be a Christian when I do it."

See I think it's more a matter of restoring their dignity, restoring their faith, their mental capacity

A building up program not a 2 year sentence of punishment. BTW I don't think you can quantify this process, but I doubt it takes 2 years

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I think the main emphasis is being in good standing. Not necessarily perfect

And that seems like it could be subjective. What's "good standing" to one, certainly won't be "good standing" to another.

And I think there's an argument for precedent. Is there a pastor who has repeatedly befriended the secretary (or whatever), even after being restored? Maybe he should consider another line of work.

But I've never had a problem receiving spiritual direction from someone who has "failed." I have a good friend who has experienced a significant moral failure and when he speaks, it is with every ounce of the power of God that was ever there to start with, in fact, even more so now.

True enough, there are some who cannot listen to someone like that, but I think it's their loss.

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

See I think it's more a matter of restoring their dignity, restoring their faith, their mental capacity

A building up program not a 2 year sentence of punishment. BTW I don't think you can quantify this process, but I doubt it takes 2 years

Well, I know the Ted Haggard thing was a 2-year program, of which he dropped out of...and I didn't blame him. I thought the details of that program were ridiculous.....my opinion only, of course.

Obviously, the condition of the person's family is an issue as well. If the family is in trouble, that has to be resolved first.