Forget Ken, Ingrid, Sammo, C?N, Slice of Pie and tell me what you think…
Posted by Joe on Aug 21st, 2007
2007
Aug 21
Seriously, this post has nothing to do with any of the aforementioned people or sites. What would you do if a sex offender showed up in your church and the leadership made him part of the pastoral team? I had a gut reaction last march that you can read here when I found out there was a guy living down the road from me.
I found this article to be extremely interesting. I especially chewed on the sentence, “We believe in forgiveness.”
So, what do you think?
HT: Slice
August 21st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Thanks for posting this… I tried to post over there, and of course didn’t get approved.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that it is alot more difficult and unclear than the crew at Slice make it out to be.
So I want a sexual predator working in church leadership? Of course not…
But where does forgiveness come in? Where does redemption come in? What makes someone ineligible to serve in a pastor role? Being a felon? Or is it just sex crimes? And can one repent and be forgiven and move into leadership within a church?
I do not think that we are really in a position to address this, as we have no idea what the full story is. I do not know if this man was repentant.
I do know that this man did not hide what he did. The church was aware, and the church was okay with him in leadership. I trust the people in the church, who actually know the man, more than I trust the people at Slice (or us here, for that matter) to make a decent judgment on the situation.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Forgiveness, yes. But to put him in a place of leadership, absolutely not. Only in this generation would it even be considered. Paul said he kept his body under subjection lest he be unusable.
There are many things that could be restored, but having sex with multiple teenage girls while in a place of leadership and supposed protection for them? It is so grevious a breach of trust that the man has forfeited that high place of trust, authority, and example. He might be a Sunday School teacher, but never a pastor.
August 21st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Sex offender can be a loaded term. I think in my state, if you get popped for public urination three times, no matter how discreet you try to be, you go in to the sex offender registry. Or if you get caught once in the Michigan Mile or a are a woman who bears her breasts during a college riot, same thing.
Then again, there are many sexual predators in leadership postions in churches (not just the RCC). They just haven’t been tried and convicted yet.
This is one of those areas I wrestle really hard with my cynicism. Nowadays it’s gotten harder to distinguish who has truly changed and who has just gotten better at hiding who/what they really are.
Then again, Paul’s record before his conversion (which has no record of sexual predations btw, so it’s moot) speaks volumes of what Jesus can do with the worst sinner.
Or do we employ OT law and kill them? Okay, we can’t do that literally, but if they were dead, or had a millstone tied around their neck and thrown in the ocean, they couldn’t serve in leadership positions.
I have to wonder if the (former) sexual offender should want to serve in such a position given the potential distraction and liability it could create. It can really take a church off track, and maybe such a person should choose discretion over being used to make a statement.
August 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
A couple of things.
1. I went in to this thinking that this was a child molester. Which is a different matter than statutory rape. Is it just me or should there be some sort of way to distinguish between the two in our short hand?
2. No, he shouldn’t be in leadership.
3. There shouldn’t be any question that he should be welcomed into the body.
4. There shouldn’t be any question that steps should be taken to protect girls 15-17 years of age.
5. He should also be provided with people to provide accountablity/alabi for his protection.
August 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Joe, didn’t you also do a post on child molesters on your personal blog a few months ago - separate from the one you refered to above? I think I commented on your site on that topic.
As someone who allows a child molester in my house (I have children) I have a few thoughts:
1) There is a big difference between a child molester and a sex offender. Sex with a 5 year old and sex with a 15 year old are different. I didn’t say either was okay but I agree with Sandman that there needs to be distinction about what being a sex offender means. However, having sex with several girls show that he does have a serious struggle with sexual sin.
2) I believe that there is a difference between the sins we commit before we are saved and those we commit after, which are reflected in God choosing to use Paul who then writes about the standards we should have for those in leadership. This man commited these acts as a professing Christian.
3) Forgiving is in the Bible, forgetting is not. Putting him back in the same position (or even in a more elevated position depending on how you look at it) is a smart as putting the reformed alcoholic in charge of the bar. If they had welcomed him back to the flock I would be okay with it, putting him in charge offends me.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 am
What is sometimes missing is pentience. Sometimes a sin can be such that, although forgiven, an act (or acts) of penitence can help restore the person to the community. Loving this person would involve acceptance AND encouraging penitent acts, expecting submission to accountability (with the necessary boundaries that would entail regading proximity, contact etc). Such penitence should lead the person to not seek leadership.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:46 am
If Slice believes that homosexuals can change as a result of God intervening in lives, why not sexual offenders? Seems like Slice has a double standard.
I can see both sides of the argument on this one, personally. On one hand, what if the guy has really cleaned up his life. On the other, he did violate the trust we put in Christian leaders.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:14 am
There seems to be some weirdness in that article about the pastor. I find it odd that he resigned so quickly, and also that article makes it sound like he hasn’t really owned up to his crime and that is blaming his wife for it in a way. It’s this sentence from his interview that troubles me -
Now there might be context around that quote that’s not shown, so I don’t want to jump to a conclusion too quickly. But that paired with his abrupt resignation throws up red flags for me.
That said, I do think, overall, the church still has a lot to learn about forgiveness. I think the fact that Christians are slow to forgive actually makes much harder for people to come to repentance. It is ironic that the Christians who make themselves moral watchdogs of everyone may actually be making it harder for sinners to truly repent, all the while claiming that is what they want to see.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
A Christian I know who I’ll call Mike had a small group at his house - some Christian guys he was trying to disciple.
One day the police showed upat Mike’s house and told him that one of the guys in his group was a registered sex offender and that he was not supposed to be in Mike’shome because Mike had young daughters. Basically, Mike got the idea that if he allowed this man in his home, he himself could get in trouble with social services.
From all I could tell Mike’s relationship with this guy did not change after he was told about the sexual offense. He would have been willing to keep having the guy in his study . . . but he couldn’t continue doing that at home without risking having his kids taken away.
This happened quite recently. Since I heard about it I’ve wondered just how far laws like this go, or if states/cities interpret them differently.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Amy,
It sounds like the guy in Mike’s Bible study has some sort of ‘restraining order’ as part of his agreement with law enforcement (Indiana does something similar to this, I believe). As such, while Mike might be in danger with social services (though if he were always supervising this guy, the danger would be minimal), this guy would probably be in more danger of legal consequences for violation of probation/plea agreement. (At least, this is how I’ve seen it work out in Indiana. It’s always best to check with the local DA’s office.)
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Chris,
Thanks for the explanation.
The issue of the pastor in question is much more than a simple “forgiveness” issue. For a group of people to decide to have a person with a history of child sexual abuse as a pastor brings up all kinds of issues. Forgiving a person is one thing - actually trusting a person and putting him in a position where others must have that same trust in order for him to carry out his pastoral role doesn’t seem wise to me.
Even in a very small church there are likely to be people who have been sexually abused as children, or who have connections with someone who has personally suffered from that abuse. It would be difficult for such people, especially the victims of child abuse, to want to trust such a person as pastor.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Phil,
I would agree with you.
My questions would be:
Besides the ones mentioned in the bible are their other sins that disqualify someone from being a pastor?
How long are they disqualified for? The rest of their ministry?
I will be honest, as a parent, I struggle with sex offenders and predators. Our they any worse than the adulterous person, the liar, the murder?
What does Jesus mean in Psalm 32 when he says this?
Blessed is he
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
2 Blessed is the man
whose sin the LORD does not count against him
and in whose spirit is no deceit.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Erica - if you will excuse my interjection. Sex offenders involving minors are definitely more culpable (in a horizontal way) than two consenting adults. When a 24 year old youth minister manipulates a 15 year old girl to engage in sex it is in some respects rape through ecclesiastical authority and the abuse of emotional attachment. Admittedly it is complicated, but to offend with a teenager, especially one who was given to you to train and protect, is such a violation of every standard of morality that for the offenders well being in the future as well as any teenagers it is wise to help him recover and serve in other areas.
Adultery as a pastor is a little more subjective however still serious. Ever case is different, but I would say that more than one instance disqualitfies the man from church leadership in the future. The length of the affair would also be a consideration as well as determining if the lady involved was the pursuer, which does not excuse the preacher but may provide some extenuating circumstances.
I can see a one strike and you are out policy as legitimate, and I can also see a restoration of a pastor who offended with one woman in a short time. All of the above examples can receive full forgiveness from the Lord and be welcomed back into church fellowship, that is not the issue. Restoring one to a place of leadership must be garefully looked at for the sake of everyone involved.
The qualifications of a pastor/elder are listed in the New Tesatment and they are higher than an average believer. The Scriptures even command that it is unwise to ordain a young and untested man to eldership. It is a very sacred and important office to which God holds in high esteem and commands us to do likewise.
Thank you, Erica, for allowing me to respond to your question.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Erica,
The way I see it, the Bible gives us kind of “bare minimum” requirements for pastors and elders. I think individual churches should be free to set other standards within reason.
I think one major thing to consider is whether one’s crime was commited before or after he became a Christian. In Acts, the Church was at first reluctant to accept Paul, but it then became obvious to them that he had a real life-changing experience with Christ. I still think similar things are possible today, as I have heard stories of people who did horrible things becoming Christians and God using them in leadership roles.
If a Christian falls into a sin, I would think it’s kind of a different story. He should know better, and like Rick said, he should be striving for a higher standard. Some sins just have very serious consquences, and a pastor that commits adultery or is involved in sexual abuse, in my mind, should not be put back in that position. That may be harsh, but I think in the end, it is probably better for the pastor and the congregation. I would say another sin that is a “deal-breaker” for me would be anything involving theft or fraud. I think anything that involves breaking trust like that would be a disqualifier.
That’s not saying those people can’t be restored in the church and given some authority. I just think the role of pastor and elder is something that is built on trust, and the people who fill those roles need to be able to be trusted by people inside and outside the church.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Here’s what I’m struggling with:
The guy’s been paroled for almost 7 years. What exactly is forgiveness? He hasn’t “regressed” since his parole (at least that seems to be what is reported). How is this different than murder, fraud, or countless other sins? I can see not letting him be in charge of teens, but to forbid him from leadership forever (which is what I want to do) does seem to fly in the face of Biblical forgiveness. I don’t know, the truth is at this point I’m just thinking out loud.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Joe,
If we hold whoever is preaching up to the same standards as elders one of the requirements is a good reputation with the community (1 Timothy 3:7).
After seeing the problems this causes I’d think someone following Christ wouldn’t have a problem stepping aside, putting their desires aside for the sake of both scripture, and the church itself.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Tim, I see what you are saying, I do. But let me come at this from another angle for a minute:
…or seeing the problem this has caused with the community can create an opportunity for the church to teach what true repentance looks like and what true forgiveness and restoration looks like.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Joe - that tension you feel should always be there even when we must restrict someone. If you ever lose that feeling of redemption that makes it difficult to administer correction then you will be as those at SOL and CRN who seem to relish in it.
Keep your heart always soft and redemptive.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Word.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:02 am
It is a hard one for me. I borderline, struggle with hating sex offenders. My problem is Moses’s ministry did not stop because he killed someone. God forgave David for committing adultery and still used him. Samson sinned and God still used to him.
I would say if it is a public sin. It is a possibility the person will never be restored back as a pastor or they will have to wait along time. If it is a private sin, that is between the pastor and God. Their are pastors out there I am sure who have committed sexual sins, looked a pornography, etc. who get up and preach every week.
To me, murders, sex offenders, adulterers, they are the “worst” but does God look at some sins as being worse than others? Is the sex offender any worse than the liar or gossiper?
I don’t know. One of mine and Joe’s favorite sayings is God has given each of us a story. A lot of that story starts when we come to know the Lord. That story includes are failures, are screw ups, our mistakes, but everything God does, and how He works through are lives is for His glory! We all have a story to tell!
The list is small in the bible you are right. I think God can use anyone’s past failures to share with others. Obviously if the person is still living in sin they can not be a pastor. If after a few years the person has changed their life I am not sure why they could not be a pastor again.
God is a forgiving God. It is hard thing for me to understand and wrap my brain around.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Erica,
I think what tends to happen is that we blur the lines between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘consequences’. The temporal consequences for different sins are different. So, while God sees that no sin is greater than any other in separating us from Him, that does not imply that the earthly consequences should be no different from one another.
There are certain types of sins which we may determine hold an earthly consequence that is prohibitive in allowing “the normal state of things” as existed before the sin occurred. This is not only logical, but also Biblical, as you read the consequences of certain sins in the OT. This does not mean that we don’t forgive, but it means that for the sake of all - including the sinner - we don’t allow the same ‘perfect storm’ of circumstances to occur again, creating temptation or sin, in the process…