Rehabilitating ministers? Why churches and organisations need to be careful about the idea of 'restoring' their leaders - by Andrew Roycroft

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

It has been said that the Church is the only organization that shoots her wounded. Or in this case, even if it heals the wounded it still treats them as wounded. The transformative power of the Holy Spirit that brings new life to the condemned soul apparently cannot operate in a fallen pastor. 

However, we believe the idea that a church leader, having done particular sins, is permanently disqualified from ministry is not a Biblical one. We are not saying that restoration ought to be quick, universal, or without conditions or careful consideration. But such a person, faced with the situation where he can never, under any circumstances, be completely cleared of charges, might understandably never bother with the littler repentances required of him. Really, what good would it do to clean up one's life (or even, be renewed by the Holy Spirit) with no prospect of obtaining one's calling, or perhaps even a higher one?

Now, it might be years or even decades before a person might be restored, but in any case we should not deal with these things like the world does. Further, we should have the discernment to ascertain the quality of fruit of the truly repentant church leader:

Matt 7:17-20 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.

A repentant sinner who consistently bears good fruit for a long time must at some point be relieved of his scarlet letter.

But more important to us is the unwarranted and unbiblical high and lofty position most pastors occupy. Churches are to be led by a council of elders (1 Peter 5:1-3). If we want fewer pastoral failures, we should reform the unbiblical idea of a CEO pastor.

Also, the author writes over 1700 words, but not a single Scripture quote, and but a single (irrelevant) Scripture reference. We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

---------------------

The Christian news this week has been alive with tough and tragic things, which carry the common thread of leaders who fail and the terrible damage that they do to others. These stories have become so commonplace that it is easy for those of us within evangelicalism to lose our focus on how the church responds and what should become of those who abdicate or make derelict their position of trust within ministry.

Every situation of ministerial failure is unique in some aspects and nauseatingly and monotonously similar in others. As news of one scandal overtakes another, there is a common question that is almost always asked: can the failed minister be restored to ministry? In this article I want to examine the concept of ‘rehabilitating’ ministers when they fail, and to suggest some categories that might help us to decide when this is prudent and when it is not.

The grace of God to all of us is rich and deep and wide. Were this not the case, none of us could stand, not for one moment. The patience of God is long, his willingness to help us back to our feet time and time again is overwhelming. Which of us, having failed, has not marvelled and wept at the goodness of God even in the wake of our declensions? This mercy from the Lord must underpin our whole understanding of Christian progress, and I want it to be a firm preface to all that I share below. The Lord is gracious to the fallen; he does not snuff out smouldering wicks, he does not break bruised reeds.

There is a need, however, for us to understand how this grace works when a leader fails and falls, (The author will go to great pains to explain that pastors and their sins are unique and thus must be treated differently. But he is not going to explain " how this grace works when a leader fails and falls." Astonishingly, despite this statement he will never discuss grace at all, let alone how it applies to a pastor.)

and what restoration can look like. In this post, I am challenging the myth that the restoration of a fallen minister should necessarily mean restoration to ministry, expressing my misgivings about a narrative that is repeated with disturbing frequency, seeking to put perpetrators back into the pulpit and back into pastorates.

Classifying ministerial sins

Understanding exactly what we are talking about is a basic prerequisite for good conversation and wise decisions, especially around how leaders should be treated with regard to failure and sin. A large homogenous category for sin or failure can either lead to laxity (‘we all sin, who are we to judge’) or selective legalism (an impossibly fine filter applied to leaders and their families). For the purposes of this article, I am offering three broad categories that can be applied to ministers and leaders in the Christian church. (Biblical categories, perhaps?)

Sins as believers

A sad fact of our fallen world is that everyone, without exception, will face temptation and sin. Church leaders and ministry leaders are no exception to this. Bursting the bubble on ministerial perfection is a vital part of how we break the mystique that can surround ministry, the illusion of a special level of sanctification for those who lead. (This is certainly true and needed. Such an idea is part of our oft-repeated thesis that biblically speaking, pastors do not lead churches, elders do. So "bursting the bubble" on this false idea of church leadership would go a long way to preventing pastoral falls.)

Any person serving in ministry will find themselves beset by the same inducements to sin as those they minister to. The draw of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth is not abated by the taking of vows or oaths to serve Jesus Christ. In some ways, these temptations can even be greater, given the spiritual nature of the work and the pressures that it brings.

These are sins as believers, the parts of a person’s soul and psyche that will remain vulnerable to declension and compromise until the Day of Christ. As with every other Christian, part of the Spirit’s work in these areas is to raise the individual’s awareness of sin, draw them constantly to the cross of Christ, and to fulfil the painful work of mortification and sanctification. Any ministry leader who pretends that this pain and this process are not part of their spiritual journey is either immature, untruthful or in utter denial. This daily wrestling with the world, the flesh and the devil can lend tremendous empathy to a person’s ministry, as they identify themselves as a fellow struggler, sinner and learner. These sins are not the defining mark of the person’s life; they are not in bondage to these behaviours or attitudes, but acknowledge that failure and growth are part of the journey of faith. (So the author has postulated a general category of sin which afflicts everyone, pastoral or not. Now he moves on to his next category, where he will need to demonstrate that it is a kind of thing unique to pastors.)

Sins that spring from ministry

Aside from the general temptations that all believers face, there are temptations and sins which are specific and bespoke to ministry. One example is pride. (Sorry, pride is not a sin unique to the ministry. Only the object of pride is different, while pride itself is still endemic to the human race.)

To be recognised as a leader in a local church or a gospel ministry, to be entrusted with responsibility and to be given a degree of authority, presents its challenges. There are sins that spring from ministry, declensions that are unique to those who lead. (No sir. They are not unique to the ministry. They are the same old sins simply manifesting in a different context.)

Neglecting one’s family, overdirecting one’s leadership team, leveraging one’s voice at the cost of a congregation, or failing to fulfil the charge that Christ places on our lives, are all serious problems in any leader’s life. 

Sins that spring from ministry are not necessarily disqualifying, however. Where good lines of accountability are maintained, where loved ones and/or other leaders can speak into the minister's life, there is hope that they can be helped to better health in the discharge of their responsibilities. A Christian leader who recognises failure in their ministry can be renewed and even equipped to help others avoid the pitfalls that they have succumbed to. Some of the most helpful messages I heard at ministers’ conferences over the 25 years when I was a pastor were from men who had made ministry mistakes, acknowledged them, repented of them, and were restored to better health as Christians and ministers. (It just doesn't sound that unique compared to the generic Christian experience...)

Sins against ministry and against the sheep

The final category I want to suggest for ministerial sin, is where a minister directly acts against the charge they have been given by Christ. In this instance, a man (and let’s face it, it usually is a man) in some way leverages his position for gain, for gratification or the control or damage of another party. This is abusive sin, either directly towards another person, or indirectly through the use of their leadership for nefarious ends. That abusive edge goes beyond situations of deliberate and coercive control, with the position of ‘leader’ in a local church or ministry meaning that almost every serious or egregious transgression on or with other parties carries an element of abuse locked into it. (Well, any person in leadership, whether in the church or in a business, has these very same risks. But they spring from the same root even though they may manifest differently.

We think the author is perversely elevating the position pastor via the "severity" of sin at issue. That is, a pastor is so special that his sins are also so special, and thus need special treatment and special procedures.)

Regardless of its expression, this kind of sin must be treated with the utmost gravity. This is cynical sin, the ability on the part of an individual to use their position of trust, their access to people or finances, to pursue wickedness. This is also a sin which marks the person in question as more of a wolf than a sheep, as the kind of degenerate whom Jesus highlights in John 10 as a ‘thief and a liar’. (Oooo, our first and only Bible reference, but not really applicable to the issue.)

Such individuals have a keen instinct for vulnerability in others; they are skilled at compartmentalising their behaviour, at drawing other protective leaders around them, and at abusing the trust placed in them so subtly or so openly that others find it hard to lay a charge at their door.

As explained below, I believe that restoration to ministry for such persons should be impossible, and is utterly immoral when it happens. (A person who engages in this sort of narcissism and manipulation was never suited for the ministry in the first place and possibly was never saved. We would fault church boards and selection committees for being undiscerning.

The question here is, what is the effect of conviction, repentance, and the work of the Holy Spirit? Can such a person, genuinely transformed by the power of the blood, possibly get treated in a similar manner as a formerly grievous sinner now a fruit-bearing Christian? If the evils of an abusive, sinful pastor excludes restoration, on what basis can anyone else be qualified to serve?)

Denying restoration

It is my view that a leader who sins against their ministry and against the sheep is permanently disqualified. By this, I do not mean that their lives are beyond hope, but their leadership is. (Artificial distinction. Redemption does not stop at some arbitrary level.)

Where such a person is not a Christian (and I believe many such people have not experienced the grace of God), they can be brought to faith. Where they are a believer, they can be restored, through repentance to the Saviour who loves them enough to discipline them. Where they have been a church member (and my ecclesiology would tell me that such a person should be publicly rebuked and removed from membership of the local church), they can, with true repentance, be reinstated. Such measures can speak clearly and powerfully about the gracious justice and tough mercy that God shows in such circumstances. (God is gracious and able to do all this, but...)

What they cannot be restored to is their position of trust, their ministerial office. To do so is an absurdity at so many levels. (...He apparently cannot effect a total transformation of a pastor who sinned...)

It is a psychological absurdity. Why would such a person, if truly repentant, have any desire for leadership again? (...and he ought to live in a state of perpetual regret.

It is important to know that the Holy Spirit gives people spiritual gifts apart from their ability to operate in them with maturity. If the person in question is a gifted teacher, for example, that does not speak to his maturity.  It therefore should not surprise anyone that teachers want to teach. 

A combination of gifting and maturity is required of anyone in church leadership. So a gifted leader, sanctified by the Holy Spirit and the power of God, would quite naturally want to lead , and a truly repentant one would want to lead again.)

Why would a preacher who has cynically sinned against their ministry have any compulsion to be in the pulpit again? Is such an impulse not the firing of the same narcissistic traits that led them to manipulate others and abuse their position in the first place? I fear that in many such cases, ‘restoration’ is simply an annexe of the pride and character flaws that made the sin possible in the first place, a foil for saving face, family and finance rather than any concern for the harm done or the churches destroyed. For the local church, we can do without such pastors, and we can certainly do without their preaching. (These are all fleshly arguments.)

It is a professional absurdity. It is hard to conceive of any other profession where gross and/or abusive professional misconduct would not be a bar to future responsibilities, but churches entertain, expect, and often celebrate such things. (Does the author want the church to operate like the world? Really?)

We might be tempted to think that this is a testimony to the world, and it is. It is a testimony to how cheaply we have come to view grace, it is a testimony to how poorly we privilege character, and it is a testimony to the world that their suspicions of our hypocrisy and special pleading for our pet sins are well grounded. I cannot think of a single private, public, or ministerial good that flows from a manipulator holding on to their position, being moved to a new post, or being ‘restored’ to some other form of ministry. (Apparently optics is a biblical criteria.)

Conclusion

The grace of God to all of us is rich and deep and wide. Where failure becomes apparent on the part of any Christian, our approach must be gentle, gracious, and with the grain of redemption that the gospel embodies. Denying ‘restoration’ to ministry to those who have sinned against their charge is not a lack of grace but the exercise of wisdom and discretion, it is a testimony to congregations and stakeholders in ministry that character is king, and that some failures simply disbar individuals from having authority, carrying responsbility, (sic) and enjoying access to the lives of others whom they have proven themselves unworthy of. (Permanently. 

Sorry, this is not a biblical perspective.)