Restoration after a moral failure

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LooneyLucy

The WAY people take something said/typed is one thing. Calling them a liar is totally different. I'm certain this forum is not for calling people liars. I have a difference of opinion from you and the way you have written things and the way I take them are based on my life. Your opinions and the way you take things are based on your life.

Enough said.

Lucy you have done it over and over and over. MrsB pointed it out too! You have falsely attributed ideas and motives and words to others. I pointed it out several times and asked you to stop but you continued. Not once did you acknowledge your error

At some point you gotta call a spade a spade

BTW how is it you can say others are confused but we can't say you are being dishonest?

[CC1]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Lucy, when you consistently mischaracterize people's posts, you lose your own credibility. No one has alluded to the idea of shunning a repentant sinner. Or even an unrepentant one, for that matter. I certainly wouldn't want to be shunned and I wouldn't support that kind of treatment of ANYone else.

Even if a man commits terrible sins, if he repents, he should be forgiven. If God forgives, who are we to hold a grudge?

I'm just getting frustrated with the intertwining of "forgiveness" with "retaining one's position." One MIGHT retain a position if the congregation is okay with it, and one's authorities are okay with it--but if the congregation and/or the authorities are NOT okay with it, it doesn't make them wrong. It doesn't even mean they aren't forgiving. It means they don't trust the person to do their job OR at the very least, they don't think they can do it effectively. Which has merit!

I personally know of churches who have been so forgiving upon someone's confession that they allowed them to keep their job--and kudos to them for their compassion and magnanimity! However, it isn't necessary for the person to keep their job in order for forgiveness to take place. Further, you aren't thinking of the person who has fallen. Leadership is actually a very stressful position. It is OFTEN, if not always in the best interest of someone who has stepped very far out of line to take a step back and get their priorities straight. Think about what might lead to this kind of failure: a lack of prayer, a lack of relationship with God, a lack of relationship with a spouse, a lack of rest, too much stress, too many things on the schedule, overwhelming obligations---the list of contributing factors is lengthy.

Stepping down and going back to square one isn't just in the best interest of the church; it may also very well be in the best interest of the leader. Thinking of my pastor, if he committed some kind of immoral act, I would think that he would need to take time off first and foremost to restore his relationship with his wife--with no distractions or outside pressures. To restore his relationships with his children. And eventually to restore relationships and trust with the church and community. Those things take time and healing doesn't happen overnight. It really doesn't. Not unless God performs a miracle.

Never has an AFF member given themselves a more appropriate screen name!

[LooneyLucy]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Lucy you have done it over and over and over. MrsB pointed it out too! You have falsely attributed ideas and motives and words to others. I pointed it out several times and asked you to stop but you continued. Not once did you acknowledge your error

At some point you gotta call a spade a spade

BTW how is it you can say others are confused but we can't say you are being dishonest?

confusion and dishonesty are 2 different things. I am done responding to ANYTHING from you.

[LooneyLucy]

Originally Posted by CC1

Never has an AFF member given themselves a more appropriate screen name!

maybe you should remove yourself as administrator.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by LooneyLucy

confusion and dishonesty are 2 different things. I am done responding to ANYTHING from you.

Again if that is the only way you can keep from telling me I am saying something I am not, so be it

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Lucy, when you consistently mischaracterize people's posts, you lose your own credibility. No one has alluded to the idea of shunning a repentant sinner. .

See MissB noticed it too. This is a pattern with Lucy.

[houston]

I think it's an issue of I.Q. Bwahahaha!

[CC1]

Originally Posted by LooneyLucy

maybe you should remove yourself as administrator.

Why? Because I commended you on your choice of screen name?

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Jay

I have heard of some very conservative ministers who found another preacher or a preacher's wife to be in adultery, who quietly went to the man, reproved him, and enabled him to be restored, and might use him as a nameless example. They also kept an eye on him to catch him before he fell again, and could say that the man went on to do a good work. It is only if the sin must be confronted openly that the minister actually forfeits his position. This might actually have been the case with David. Nathan could have confronted him before all the children of Israel, but the confrontation was done in private where David could repent. Had Nathan taken him before the people, then there David would have gone beyond the place of repentance.

Hello,

Although David was confronted privately by Nathan, it appears the sins of David may have already been widely known, because Nathan said:

"Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme," (2 Sam 12:14).

[Jay]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

This is what happened to my former pastor. The district superintendent and presbyter confronted him, but apparently the outcome was not as David's outcome. Apparently the problem was too deep and complicated for reconciliation/restoration.

Which still makes me wonder what that process is? I mean most churches have written procedures for everything else, why not for a restoration process?

Restoration to the body is one thing. However, I do not believe that when a sin such as this becomes public, that the man can or should continue to be in his position of authority. If I am caught with drugs on my person, I am going to be a felon which bans me from certain rights or positions of power. This is the same reason that pastors, elders (whatever their title), and others of influence of the church must be careful to never let their good names be compromised. This is so that the church may always be seen as clean, moral, pure, and honest. We should not try to hide sin, but should always do our best to ensure that sin is never allowed to tarnish the name of the God whom we represent.

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Hello,

Although David was confronted privately by Nathan, it appears the sins of David may have already been widely known, because Nathan said:

"Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme," (2 Sam 12:14).

However, this could mean that the enemies of the Lord did not know of it as they were only provided the opportunity, not that they had taken advantage of it. Thus it could be understood either way. Either way, David had caused the glory of God to put in jepordy because of his sin.