I want to continue on the topic of restoring a Christian leader to their ministry, as Rick Joyner is doing with Todd Bentley. (See Part 1 here.)
I closed the last post with the point that not everything gets restored after someone sins. The question for this post is:
Should a Christian leader's ministry be restored after moral failure?
I think there are only two possible answers to that question: Never, or Sometimes.
I don't think many would argue that a leader should always be restored, because at minimum it requires repentance, and not everyone repents. So it boils down to a question of restoration to church leadership being possible or impossible.
There is also an assumption of the seriousness of the sin. Obviously all Christian leaders sin to some degree, because no one leads a sinless life. What we are talking about is some kind of serious, moral failure that is blatantly inappropriate for a Christian leader.
Restoration: Never
One position is that a Christian leader is permanently disqualified from church leadership after falling into gross sin. John MacArthur is one prominent person in this camp. His argument is based on the following points:
- Disqualification in the character requirements of church leaders is permanent.
For instance, John argues that one can never be "above reproach" (1 Tim. 3:2) after shattering one's reputation with sin. Therefore, one can never meet the qualifications to be a church leader again. - Restoration to fellowship, not leadership.
Forgiveness is offered for the sinner's return to fellowship with the church, but not for return to leadership in the church. Galatians 6:1 is not talking about restoring a person to leadership, but rather relationship. We need to help, encourage, exhort, support, and minister to the fallen leader, but we do not put them back in charge. - Church health takes priority over the leader's expectations.
By putting a fallen leader back in a position of leadership, John argues the reputation of the church is damaged. Further, the message is sent that sin is not serious and there are no long-term consequences from it. By preventing a fallen leader from returning to their former position, it shows both the world and the church that sin is serious and that it holds its leaders to a higher standard than the world does.
Restoration: Sometimes
Another position is that a Christian leader can be restored to public ministry, providing certain conditions are met. Rick Joyner obviously holds this position and feels that it applies to Todd Bentley. Leadership Journal featured a story in 2006 about a pastor who had an extramarital encounter and was eventually restored to a pastoral role in a different church. The frequent arugments for this position include:
- Christians must offer grace and forgiveness to everyone who sins, including leaders.
Galatians 6:1 applies to everyone, including restoration of fallen leaders to their former roles once they have repented and addresssed their sin. If a leader disqualifies himself from leadership, he can requalify himself given sufficient time. Character failures can be mended. - Restoring fallen leaders gives hope to others who have sinned.
When a leader repents and is restored to leadership, it gives hope to others inside and outside the church who are in similar circumstances. - Fallen leaders who are restored can relate well to others who have sinned.
Because of their experience with the sin and their repentance, they can relate to others in serious sin and can provide practical guidance during their restoration process.
So Which Position Is Correct?
Unfortunately the New Testament does not include a story of a church leader who sinned, repented, and was either restored to leadership or prohibited from being restored to leadership. That would've made things much easier to discern.
I believe both of the above arguments have some degree of Biblical basis, but neither side can point to a clear passage or verse to justify their position entirely. There seems to be strengths and weaknesses in both camps.
Interestingly, I think both sides can cause harm to the church. There are instances where a fallen leader was restored to his position, bringing scorn on the church from the outside world and division inside the church between those who trust the leader and those who do not. There are also instances where a fallen leader is not given the option of returning to leadership, but is neither offered any forgiveness or fellowship in the church. Their options are to hide their history and find a different, unsuspecting church, or to give up on church altogether.
This is one key weakness of the "never restore" position: while in theory a fallen leader can be offered fellowship without leadership, in practice I think it seldom happens. People used to relating to a person as their leader have trouble relating to them as just another follower, just as the former leader must get used to relating to his former followers as peers. Further, if the church was severely wounded by the leader's sin, it takes a long time before fellowship can be freely offered again. Deep wounds are never healed quickly. Restoration to fellowship but not leadership seems to be a theoretical position more than a practical one.
On the other hand, arguing a fallen leader can relate to sinners better because of their sin turns Scripture on its head. If sin makes such a great qualification for a pastor, then seminaries should have adultery practicums, or fraud courses. Such a claim is ridiculous, as it disqualifies Jesus from leading his church. Hebrews 2:18 says that "Because he himself [Jesus] suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." Sin is not required to relate well with sinners, just the temptation to sin. And everyone is well-qualified in the area of temptation.
It just shows how messy things get when leaders sin. The consequences are significant and complex, and the possible solutions to the problem are equally complex.
So how do we sort through the complexity? More to come in the next (and final) section.
