On restoring fallen pastors - by Elizabeth Prata

Excerpted from here. Our comments in bold.

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

Ms. Prata is back on the topic of restoring fallen pastors after only a couple of weeks, and it's also a truly awful teaching. She has a theory that a fallen pastor cannot under any circumstances be a pastor again. Permanently disqualified. So she goes looking for Bible verses in hopes of finding backing for this opinion.

Unfortunately, there are no such Bible verses. Ms. Prata tries really hard to make some verses say this, but she mangles them beyond recognition. Yes, it's that bad.

We don't wish to be disrespectful, but this sorry situation reminds us again that this woman should not be teaching anyone. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

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

(...)

We all sin and we all need to repent and receive grace. We are fortunate to believe in the One True God who is love, who dispenses grace to those who humbly come to Him. If a layperson sins, repent. You and I will be forgiven. For leaders though, there are more dire consequences.

Do not become teachers in large numbers, my brothers, since you know that we who are teachers will incur a stricter judgment. (James 3:1). (Indeed, God will judge teachers to a higher standard. Those are the "more dire consequences," but this does not speak to the topic. 

 

One, because this judgment may or may not be judgment in this life as opposed to when we stand before the Throne.

Two, because the verse is about teachers, not pastors.

Three, there's nothing in this verse that speaks to disqualification, whether permanent or otherwise.

Sadly, Ms. Prata's application of the Bible will go downhill from here.) 

While we all must behave well, remembering we were bought with a price, (1 Corinthians 6:20), pastors and teachers have a heavy burden on them particularly. They speak and teach in Jesus’ name. They are front line. Nothing must be done doctrinally or behaviorally to besmirch His name or ruin His reputation among the flock. (This is certainly true. But again, the topic is permanent disqualification. The following two verses have nothing to do with this.)

But as for you, proclaim the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1)

But you, O man of God, flee from these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness. (1 Timothy 6:11). (These admonitions from Paul are certainly fitting and valuable. But neither is about church leadership, since neither Titus nor Timothy were pastors.)

Since God is God and is the most supremely intelligent Being in the universe, and since He is our creator, He knows us. He knows we will sin and He knows leaders will fall. His word contains many directions for what do to after.

1.First, Matthew 18 gives advice on how to handle a sinning congregant. (It does not. Let's quote: 

Mt. 18:15-17 If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that "every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." [Deut. 19:15] 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Matthew 18 is about reconciling with a brother. There is absolutely zero advice given to churches.)

If the person does not repent, there is a process that ultimately leads to excommunication. (Sighhh... Again, there is zero advice given to churches, including nothing about excommunication.)

If they do repent, we forgive him. However, there is an additional layer of protection and procedure to follow when an accusation is made against a pastor/elder. Erik Raymond at For the Church explains in this essay on the basis of Matthew 18:15-18 and 1 Timothy 5:21- (We already quoted the Matthew text. Here is 1 Tim. 5:21:

I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

Nothing here about sinning pastors.)

Is There a Different Process of Church Discipline for Elders? (The linked article is actually centered around the previous two verses, not verse 21:

1Ti. 5:19-20 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20 Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

The problem here is that while it is good that elders are given protection against accusations, this does not come to bear on the topic. We yet await Ms. Prata's biblical explanation of why a sinning pastor is permanently disqualified from the ministry. If she has one...)

Keep in mind that there may indeed be 5 Situations in Which Matthew 18 Does not Apply (Which Ms. Prata apparently did not read, because the author clearly states, "Matthew 18 deals with how to handle personal grievances within the same local church." But Ms. Prata claimed the passage is about a sinning congregant and excommunication. Hmm.)

2.Second, the issue of restoration. It’s this issue that’s sparked the most discussion in recent years. Some say that we forgive the person and eventually after a period of reflection and humble living, they can resume their pastoral or teaching position. That they can be restored to their office. David who committed adultery is often cited in support of this stance.

Differences with David:

-David’s kingship was civil position, not a religious one. (Oh, my. This is spectacularly false. David was chosen by God's prophetic direction to Samuel: 

1 Sam. 16:1 Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.

David's kingship is a type of Christ's kingship. David's throne is an eternal one.

Can Ms. Prata be any more wrong?)

-David instantly confessed. He confessed without qualification or prevarication. There was no delay. (Irrelevant if point #1 is true. Further, this begs the point. If a fallen pastor confesses "without qualification or prevarication," is that acceptable to restore his pastorship?)

-David wrote Psalm 51. Notably, he did not package it as a stand-alone essay and sell it. (This is just dumb. Psalm 51 is inspired, as is all the Bible. There's no correlation to a fallen pastor selling a confessional book.)

-He endured dire consequences afterward but did not blame God, nor did he shift the topic to himself and exclude God. He kept the focus on God’s righteousness and his own sin. (Irrelevant if point #1 is true. Once again, this begs the point. If a fallen pastor does not "blame God" or "shift the topic to himself," is it acceptable to restore his pastorship?)

Others say they can never be restored to office but can be restored to God’s good graces. Forgiveness is the restoration. The support for this viewpoint is 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6-7. (Hmmm. Ms. Prata's key proof texts remain unquoted. We shall remedy that situation: 

1 Tim. 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach... 

Tit. 1:6-7 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless — not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

We see these verses are the qualifications for overseers and elders. Ms. Prata will need to demonstrate her presently unproven theory that violation of any of these inevitably leads to a pastor's permanent disqualification. This is what we are demanding from her.)

I’d like to add Proverbs 6:32-33 NASB to the mix, which says-

One who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense;

He who would destroy himself commits it.

He will find wounds and disgrace,

And his shame will not be removed.

This means when a pastor/elder commits adultery, (No, we can read it for ourselves, Ms. Prata. It's about any man, not just pastors or elders.

Unfortunately, Ms. Prata does not continue the quote: 

Prov. 6:34-35 for jealousy arouses a husband’s fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. 35 He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.

Notice that the shame is not removed because the husband of the adulterous wife will never be satisfied. This is not about sinning pastors.)

he can be forgiven, but he is permanently under reproach because his shame for this sexual sin remains forever. It is never removed. (This would mean that any man who has ever committed adultery is disqualified from being a pastor. If the sin is never removed, repentance fails. Getting saved fails. In fact, just thinking lustfully about a woman is adultery [Matt. 5:28], thus disqualifying pretty much everyone from ministry.

This apparently is the unforgivable sin, forever tainting a man.

It is of course complete nonsense. Ms. Prata hasn't considered the ramifications of her false understanding, and therefore has not seen its absurdity.)

Pastors who have fallen due to this sin can never be a pastor, elder, deacon, or teacher again. They are not above reproach anymore, as 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6–7 says they must be. (Well. We finally discover Ms. Prata's criteria: "above reproach." 

The Greek word for "above reproach" is anepilémptos [ἀνεπίλημπτος]: 

describes a moral and spiritual condition that renders a person “above criticism,” free of anything that could justly be seized upon by an accuser. The word does not claim sinless perfection but denotes a life in which no legitimate charge can be sustained because conduct is consistently aligned with revealed truth.

What is the standard for "above reproach?" For example, a man who has led a life of egregious sin but gets radically saved might be subject to criticism regarding his former life, which according to Ms. Prata would mean he would be disqualified from being a pastor.

We are requesting some clarity of thought from Ms. Prata. We have not obtained it.)

Personally my stance (??? Ms. Prata's position is completely arbitrary. Oh.)

is that the fallen pastor or teacher can never be restored to that office or position. He squandered it. The shame of his reproach remains. YES, definitely forgive him if he is repentant. YES definitely ‘forget’ his sin and treat him as the beloved brother he is. (But, but... "Reproach" is from the viewpoint of the observer. If indeed we can forget the sin there is no longer reproach.)

But no, he cannot re-attain that official position of leader. 

People say. ‘But, but, DAVID! (Back to David with some additional reasons.)

He was forgiven and remained king!’ King was a civil position, not a religious one. Also, be aware that David was disqualified from building the temple, something he dearly wished to do. He also lost his children, and endured many other dire consequences due to his sin. (Yes, of course. Consequences. But David remained king. Did Ms. Prata miss that fact?)

Moses disobeyed God and also was disqualified from entering the Promised Land. (Yes, of course. Consequences. But Moses did not commit adultery, and he also remained leader of Israel. Did Ms. Prata miss that fact?)

Eli and his sons were actually killed for their sins and squandered their opportunity to honor Jesus while occupying their priestly positions. (These men were not leaders.)

Trust lost by a leader or pastor is trust gone for good. (But, but... didn't Ms. Prata say to forget the sin? It seems that Ms. Prata wants the sin kept at the forefront for as long as the person is alive. We search in vain for any biblical principle that a person must wear the red "A" for the rest of His life.)

Disobedience has consequences. Personal relationships can recover, beautifully and according to the grace of the Gospel but not the office.

I am often puzzled by people who reject this reality. (She's puzzled that people reject her "personal stance?" What?)

Never mind the Bible verses that state so, (We must have missed it. Which Bible verse was that?)

but there is illogic of re-installing someone who has disqualified themself (sic) from the job. In the secular world, would a company hire an embezzler to be their treasurer? (Not a leader.)

A pedophile to run a daycare? (Not a leader.)

A gigolo to manage a singles ladies night? (Not a leader.)

A drug addicted doctor? (Not a leader.)

There are ethical standards for secular jobs and consequences for falling under those standards. A spokesman for God has an even higher calling and a more weighty position. Thus the consequences are deeper and more lasting. (Thus she concludes that the church should function like the secular world...)

I agree with MacArthur’s advice in his essay Should Fallen Pastors Be Restored? (We critiqued this article here.)

Restored to the pew- yes. Restored to the office- no.

(...)