Convicted Pastor Seeks Leadership Post

[Guest]

In Corinth, a man was having his father's wife. Paul instructed the Corinthiians to remove the man from among them (excommunicate him).
He instructed them to deliver the man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh (I understand this to refer to his "fleshly nature" or "self-serving nature"). Paul told them to "cleanse the old leaven" from their assembly. He had previously written to them not to associate with fornicators. He had written to them "not to associate with any one called "brother" if he is guilty of fornication or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one."

Paul was not tolerant of sinful practices in the church!

Yet, when the man had truly repented, consider the forgiveness and acceptance Paul himself showed toward the man, and exhorted the Corinthian church t do the same!

But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure—not to put it too severely—to you all. For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.
So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs. 2 Corinthians 2: 5-11 RSV

Every one in the early churches had a ministry to the other members of the local body of Christ. I don't know what this man's ministry was, but can you imagine Paul saying to the Corinthians: "Though we have forgiven this man, and have reaffirmed our love for him, you must never allow him to minister to the body again!"

I can't conceive of Paul saying such a thing ---- and there is no evidence that he ever did.

[Guest]

Paidion,


Being in the body, and being a leader in the body are two different things. Again, I think that if he is repentant, he should be restored to fellowship, not leadership. He has shown that he can't deal with it.

Perhaps years down the road, he could be restored to leadership, but not right out of jail, for crimes he was guilty of. I would be be very cautious even at that point.

[Guest]

Paidion,


Being in the body, and being a leader in the body are two different things. Again, I think that if he is repentant, he should be restored to fellowship, not leadership. He has shown that he can't deal with it.

Perhaps years down the road, he could be restored to leadership, but not right out of jail, for crimes he was guilty of. I would be be very cautious even at that point.

This is especially true of someone who wants his leadership position back. Why desire something that causes yourself and others around you to stumble. Didn't Jesus say that if something causes you to sin to rid it from your lives? (Matt 5:29-30)

To say a leader, once forgiven "should" get his position back, I would ask: on what basis? This person has already failed the requirements given by Paul. And since individual gifts are given by God and not earned, it would be jumping the gun, IMO to place someone back into leadership when they have shown they cannot lead in the first place. In other words they don't have the gift of leadership. While we can and should "desire the best gifts" that doesn't mean we shouldn't be content with the gifts we actually do get.

[Guest]

This pastor rocks! I want him to be in authority over me!!!

Just kidding.

[Guest]

Do we believe, or do we not believe, that God can completely change a person who has fallen in a bad way? If they have been changed in such a way that "old things have passed away; behold all things have become new", why should they not be able to hold any position that any other Christian holds? If we think that they "are more likely to repeat their offense", then we do not really believe Christ can change a man so as to make him completely new.

I know nothing about the particular pastor in question. For all I know, he may be a complete charlatan. But men of wisdom and insight can determine whether or not there has been a true repentance. To "repent" is to have a change of mind and heart, about one's behaviour. It is sad that many today think of "repentance" as just having an emotional feeling of sorrow concerning one's behaviour. In no way am I arguing in support of this particular pastor being restored to leadership. I do not have the information to take any stand about that. I am arguing for a general principle, where a disciple has fallen, and been genuinely restored to righteousness by the cleansing fire of God.

I recall a church I attended which was led by three elders. I found out that, before I began attending, there had been a period in which one of these elders had fallen away from the Lord. He been devastated by his wife's death, and especially the great suffering which she had endured before her death. This elder made the mistake of blaming God. He turned to drink to "drown his sorrows", and became an alcoholic. He also became involved in other sinful activities, including adultery. It was hard for me to imagine that this elder had ever done such things. He was filled with such joy, and he was able to give the congregation such encouragement and hope. He exhibited the love of God in every contact he had with people. He had a special ministry to alcholics. One one occasion, when this elder was over 200 miles away in a city, he heard from God. It seems that God told him to drive home immediately, and visit a certain man. The elder ceased what he was doing, drove home, and knocked on this man's door. The man greeted him by name (Let's call the elder "Joe"). The man said, "Joe, am I glad to see you!" And Joe, by God's grace, led that man to the Lord that evening.

My aunt, a retired minister in one of the local churches, used to lead a small study and prayer group in the senior citizen's residence where she lived. Several times she invited me to speak to this little group, and I did. One time, when she invited me, I thought the group could be greatly helped if they could hear the Joe, the elder, and so I suggested it to my aunt. She initially agreed, and Joe also agreed to come. But later, my aunt phoned me and said, "No. It wouln't be right. This man fell away from the Lord and became an alcholic and a sinner, even to the point of adultery."

"But he has been totally restored to the service of Christ," I protested.


"No. I think it would be wrong to have him," she replied. "I'd like you to speak again."

Now I knew that, compared to me, Joe was a spiritual giant. So I said, "If this man is not qualified to speak to your group, then neither am I!"

My aunt felt that I had let her down. Needless to say, she never invited me again.

[Guest]

I am arguing for a general principle, where a disciple has fallen, and been genuinely restored to righteousness by the cleansing fire of God.

I don't think we disagree with each other in your last post. And your example of "Joe" is one that shows the difference between someone who fell away because of a great trial and was "brought through the fire" as it were and grew stronger in faith as a result. To me this is completely different from someone who has faced no such great trial as the loss of a loved one, but instead has used their position to live a blatantly sinful lifestyle while, at the same time giving the image of a church leader. In your example, when "Joe" was mad at God it was obvious that he was in torment. Where as Henry Lyons seemed to be in rebellion against God with a "clear conscience" until he was caught, that is. To me, there is a big difference.

[Guest]

The man is not qualified to be an elder, nor even a deacon. An elder must be "blameless" and have "a good testimony among those who are outside". Deacons must be "proved" (tested), not greedy for money, and also be blameless.

The man has proven himself to be subject to temptation with money and women. He has been tested and failed. His testimony among those who are outside is non-existent.

Certainly he can be forgiven. His sins may be covered by the blood of the Lamb if he has repented (had to say that Paidion ). Nevertheless, it seems to me to be a lack of humility to think a high position, or any office at all, should be given to him.

People in office in the Church should be trustworthy. Trust takes time to develop, especially in one with his track record. If a youth leader molested kids and was caught, even though he repented with apparent great sorrow, how soon do you believe he should be restored to his former position? Did I hear never? Certainly God can reform him and help him overcome his weakness, but he also must "flee from temptation".

Lyons has demonstrated a weakness for women and money. Why should he be trusted any more than one who has a weakness for children?

To me it is appalling when people in positions of leadership think they ought to be restored to their former status when they have brought disgrace to the name of Christ. After all, "servant" is as high as it gets in the Kingdom of Christ. Some of the greatest Christians serve quitely behind the scenes with little notice. So can Lyons, there are many ways open to him.