When pastors fail...

[Mimm]

I'm curious not only what Christians think, but what people of other religions think should happen when their spiritual leaders fail in some way. I'm not talking about abusing a child, but more getting involved in other scandals. Stealing from the church, cheating on their wives (with a willing partner), using funds for things they shouldn't be, bullying and threatening people, abusing their power. And then it all comes to light is a big mess. And the leader resigns. And then what? Yes, they should be answerable to the law, but apart from that, as a Christian, I'm big on forgiveness. But I'm also of the opinion that these leaders have shown they aren't fit for leadership and should not lead again. They should be welcomed back, forgiven, treated with kindness and love.

 

Mark Driscoll's recent apology is trending all over Facebook. I don't know what he did, but that's not really the point here. No matter how penitent he is, it doesn't seem appropriate to me to have him leading a huge megachurch in the future. Ever. Not anyone has suggested he should, but it just got me thinking about situations like this which seem to happen in every denomination, every religion. Our religious leaders are fallible flawed humans. And they're going to be imperfect, they're going to fail in some way. But there are big failings and little failings. Where is that line when you cross it where it's no longer appropriate or wise for a person to be a spiritual leader again? Or do you think that line even exists?

[bolt.]

I'm thinking much the same as you, with the exception that, say, 25 years... That's a long time, and I might possibly reconsider a repentant swindler, bulky or adulterer (for official leadership) after that kind of time frame. It would help if we see a true revolution of thinking: not just a change in persona or "brand" but say, a, sustained change in theology or completely abandoning a pet topic... something like that.

 

Maybe sooner (but not too soon) for something like leading a bible study or chairing a committee or something.

[Tenaj]

 Yes, they should be answerable to the law, but apart from that, as a Christian, I'm big on forgiveness. But I'm also of the opinion that these leaders have shown they aren't fit for leadership and should not lead again. They should be welcomed back, forgiven, treated with kindness and love.

 

 

 

One of our sayings around our family is that "Actions have consequences".  I can forgive but that doesn't make the negative consequences of personal actions disappear.  Forgiveness, kindness and love, yes but there are still consequences when you have abused power or privilege.

 

I do worry about churches or organizations that are very quick to forgive and restore.  Forgiveness should  be a fairly quick process especially if there is obvious repentance and broken-heartedness  but restoration to former positions should be a very, very slow and deliberate process with much accountability and prayer.

 

Our tiny, tiny church has not experienced this in regards to leadership but in regards to an attendee.  A man began attending our church who had been convicted of murder and served 20 years in jail for it.  He testified that he had been saved while in jail (I have no reason to doubt that) and he began regularly attending our church though not in any leadership position.  Just attended, maybe helped with yard work.  My radar was on high alert for several years!  I watched my kids constantly and monitored their interactions with them.  I didn't invite him over to our house . . . really kept him at arm's length on purpose for several years.  Just as I was beginning to relax a bit, invited him for several meals at our home wouldn't you know that he violently, physically assaulted one of our older members, a sweet lady, with a baseball bat!  She lost an eye in the attack and he's back in jail on attempted murder for 11 years.  

 

Would God expect us to welcome him back?  Probably but only if repentance is offered on his part and his actions would have to follow along with that repentance.  It would be a very LONG process before any of us would be comfortable.

 

I think the same thing applies to those in leadership positions.  Acceptance of repentance, yes, but restoration to previous standing, no!  

[Mandylubug]

Well, I don't have an answer or an opinion of when a person can be welcomed back into leadership positions. However, I was visiting a church a couple weeks ago and over heard a conversation about a Pastor that had committed adultery. I personally know this pastor and know the entire story, so I was ready to cringe at the gossip but was pleasantly surprised. An older man spoke up and said "we need to welcome him to worship with us with open arms. He messed up and is paying the consequences. Unfortunately, our county is shunning him but he deserves God's love, too. I say we allow him to worship with us and love on him. He can figure out his mess in God's time"

[sassenach]

I'm wondering if you watched the video, because it wasn't an apology video. He HAS publicly and privately apologized for many of the things he's accused of, and I'm sure he will have to do both again. But that video wasn't an apology.

 

As to your question, my answer is the same with anyone becoming a pastor(including taking the office of elder in any church), first time or not. You better be sure of the calling, it should be confirmed by other pastors, and you should meet all of the qualifications. You will stand before The Lord one day and be held accountable. That should scare you more than any person or blog ever could.

 

Dh says the only thing scarier to him than taking the office of pastor would be to disobey The Lord by not taking it.

[mrsrevmeg]

I think they should be welcome to worship in the church, but not lead it.

1 Timothy 3:1-3:  Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. ² Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

 

 

We were once part of a church that had an all out scandal with the pastor. He came back several years later, to worship, but not lead. It was still hard. Feelings that had been terribly hurt were still very raw. People felt very uneasy around him. I think it might have been better if he had found a different place of worship.

[scootiepie]

If they are truly repentant, I would support welcoming them back into the flock, but not a leadership position.    I would expect they forego any leadership position until they have a period of spiritual mentoring and restoration themselves.   If they didn't --  that would be a huge red flag.

[Twolittleboys]

Honestly, for me it would depend on what failings there are. For me, some would be easier to forgive than others. I would have less problems with a pastor cheating on his wife than stealing from the church. While obviously both is wrong, the first is mostly a sin against the wife and has less impact on the congregation. Depending on the circumstances I might be able to live with that - stealing from the church (other than in very severe circumstances like a dying child) or abusing church power I could not live with.

[Violet Crown]

Some shepherds, in my unasked opinion, would be best sent to spend the remainder of their lives in a desert monastery, working out their silent penance under the old Benedictine rule of fasting, long vigils, and hard manual labor. For the sake of their souls and the good of the Church.

 

If the Vatican phones, I have a list of names for them.

[Mimm]

I'm wondering if you watched the video, because it wasn't an apology video. He HAS publicly and privately apologized for many of the things he's accused of, and I'm sure he will have to do both again. But that video wasn't an apology.

 

As to your question, my answer is the same with anyone becoming a pastor(including taking the office of elder in any church), first time or not. You better be sure of the calling, it should be confirmed by other pastors, and you should meet all of the qualifications. You will stand before The Lord one day and be held accountable. That should scare you more than any person or blog ever could.

 

Dh says the only thing scarier to him than taking the office of pastor would be to disobey The Lord by not taking it.

 

I've not watched the video or read very much about it, just a few headlines, skimmed an article. My question isn't really about Mark Driscoll, but about scandals and religious leaders in general. I read the quote that's going around (paraphrasing). "Yes we could crucify him, but someone has already been crucifies, so let's just accept and love him, etc." (Can't remember the last part.) And yeah, that's all well and good. But at the same time, should someone who has abused his power be given power again? Because being the pastor of a huge church is a position of power. It just feels wrong to me.

 

With regard to the last line of your post, I have a lot of mixed feelings about that. Anyone can say that they feel God's calling on their life to be a pastor. But it doesn't obligate other people to be that person's congregation. If that person has abused their power, broken the trust of the people they were supposed to care for a guide, then, it's really just too bad that they feel God's call on their life. That's between them and God. I don't see the congregation being at fault for saying, "No, you can't pastor us anymore." Or another congregation saying, "No, you can't pastor us because of how you treated your last congregation." Is this unforgiving? It seems responsible to me.

 

The story above about the convicted murderer is so very sad. :( We should welcome repentant people back. All of us are sinners right? That someone had to suffer because she was too trusting, too kind, too forgiving is just heartbreaking.

[chocolatechip]

The Orthodox Church has canons that deal with situations like these. If the failing is grave enough, a priest may not be able to serve Liturgy for a time or again at all, or in extreme cases he might be defrocked. Defrocked priests can participate as laypersons unless they're also excommunicated. And excommunication isn't limited to priests, nor is it permanent, nor is it a punishment: it's a wake up call. An excommunicated person can repent.

 

But defrocked priests are defrocked. They don't become priests ever again.

 

I find it comforting that I don't have to try and make decisions or judgements about these situations. The Church and the bishops take care of problems.

[LucyStoner]

I think there's a lot of similarities between the political comeback and the ministerial comeback.

 

I think Driscoll is apologizing with his potential comeback in mind honestly. And probably resigned more to preserve the ASSETS of the church, not out of any sense of wrongdoing.

 

I mean look at Gothard- sexual misconduct and harassment and he's already trying to stage a comeback. It's been less than a year I think?

 

It's important to remember that not only are religious leaders human, with human flaws, that there are some (not all, but not just a few either) who are human with human sociopathic tendencies. It is always a mistake to expect someone like that to actually change. I can forgive a sociopath, but I can't claim to have trust in them again.

[sassenach]

I've not watched the video or read very much about it, just a few headlines, skimmed an article. My question isn't really about Mark Driscoll, but about scandals and religious leaders in general. I read the quote that's going around (paraphrasing). "Yes we could crucify him, but someone has already been crucifies, so let's just accept and love him, etc." (Can't remember the last part.) And yeah, that's all well and good. But at the same time, should someone who has abused his power be given power again? Because being the pastor of a huge church is a position of power. It just feels wrong to me.

 

With regard to the last line of your post, I have a lot of mixed feelings about that. Anyone can say that they feel God's calling on their life to be a pastor. But it doesn't obligate other people to be that person's congregation. If that person has abused their power, broken the trust of the people they were supposed to care for a guide, then, it's really just too bad that they feel God's call on their life. That's between them and God. I don't see the congregation being at fault for saying, "No, you can't pastor us anymore." Or another congregation saying, "No, you can't pastor us because of how you treated your last congregation." Is this unforgiving? It seems responsible to me.

 

The story above about the convicted murderer is so very sad. :( We should welcome repentant people back. All of us are sinners right? That someone had to suffer because she was too trusting, too kind, too forgiving is just heartbreaking.

Your first paragraph- You should really just watch the video if you want to refer to it, because you're kind of misrepresenting it, and I think that's a big part of the greater story here.  Christians are behaving shamefully on the internet.  Like somehow gossip and slander doesn't count if it's online. I don't mean to come down on you, because your greater question is worth examining, but I do think you should consider watching the video, and then accurately quoting it (because that quote above should not be in quotes- it's not accurate).

 

That said, I don't disagree with your second paragraph.  In fact, I think you may have read into my last line something that I didn't say.  I totally agree, nobody is ever forced to stay under leadership they don't agree with.  I also agree, many people take the office of pastor because they are are seeking for only themselves.  We absolutely need to be watchful for wolves in the church (and there are PLENTY).  

 

I guess my point was, the office of pastor is weighty.  The accountability to God is so incredibly....I don't even think I have the word for it.  It should scare any man who thinks they may be called to it.  Those that self seek, elevate themselves, ect. are going to stand before God.  That's a bigger deal than anything we could do to them.  So in the end, I am not worried about policing those people, because of the suffering they have waiting for them. (ETA: I'm not sure that last sentence accurately represents what I was trying to say.  By "policing" I mean setting up arbitrary rules and time frames.  God calls individuals to do his work, and each individual should be confirmed to that work.  My guess is that most fallen pastors were not called to pastor in the first place, and should never pastor again.  But I do think that it's possible that God would restore a pastor whom He has called back into the pastorate, and I would not presume to know more than God in that case. But I still believe that we should seek God's wisdom and confirmation before we put ourselves under ANY pastor.)  Also, because I am not God, and I would be walking in opposition to God if He indeed does call a man back into pastoring after he has sinned and repented.  I don't consider myself so all knowing as to know what God is doing.  We should seek God for wisdom as to whether or not we put ourselves under that leadership (and I believe we should do it with the same weight as  we would with ANY pastor), but I am not God, and I don't have any answer about what God will do with any given pastor.  

 

Does that make sense?  I hope so!

[TianXiaXueXiao]

The Orthodox Church has canons that deal with situations like these. If the failing is grave enough, a priest may not be able to serve Liturgy for a time or again at all, or in extreme cases he might be defrocked. Defrocked priests can participate as laypersons unless they're also excommunicated. And excommunication isn't limited to priests, nor is it permanent, nor is it a punishment: it's a wake up call. An excommunicated person can repent.

 

But defrocked priests are defrocked. They don't become priests ever again.

 

I find it comforting that I don't have to try and make decisions or judgements about these situations. The Church and the bishops take care of problems.

I agree with you that we have canons to address these issues, but unfortunately they are not always applied evenly and there are many examples of when the bishops did not properly defrock wayward priests, forcing the laity to petition the leaders to take action. Sometimes such pleas have been ignored until civil authorities have taken action, causing much unnecessary pain and humiliation in addition to unwanted media attention. Sometimes the Orthodox hierarchs have be more forgiving to priests who should be defrocked allowing them to continue serving while putting the laity at risk. Sadly the Orthodox Church makes all the same mistakes other churches make in this particular regard.

[happi duck]

Just my two cents...

 

I think some pastors are too independent and have too much power/influence. They can be more "CEO" than fellow Christian, kwim?

 

Scandals and such, imo, should lead to change about how churches are structured and what's expected of pastors instead of just giving someone new "ultimate power" and hoping for a different outcome.

[KingM]

I'm suspicious of anyone outside my own church whose name and face I know. Why do I know who these people are? It's because they have grown personally powerful and often rich, too. Too often these men have that level of power and influence because they have the same ambition you see in politicians and CEO's, except that thousands of people give them money and influence in the name of God.

[Mimm]

The Orthodox Church has canons that deal with situations like these. If the failing is grave enough, a priest may not be able to serve Liturgy for a time or again at all, or in extreme cases he might be defrocked. Defrocked priests can participate as laypersons unless they're also excommunicated. And excommunication isn't limited to priests, nor is it permanent, nor is it a punishment: it's a wake up call. An excommunicated person can repent.

 

But defrocked priests are defrocked. They don't become priests ever again.

 

I find it comforting that I don't have to try and make decisions or judgements about these situations. The Church and the bishops take care of problems.

 

I agree, I wouldn't want to make decisions like this. We can't know whether someone is being truly repentant or even if someone is truly repentant, if they are likely to fall again.

 

Your first paragraph- You should really just watch the video if you want to refer to it, because you're kind of misrepresenting it, and I think that's a big part of the greater story here.  Christians are behaving shamefully on the internet.  Like somehow gossip and slander doesn't count if it's online. I don't mean to come down on you, because your greater question is worth examining, but I do think you should consider watching the video, and then accurately quoting it (because that quote above should not be in quotes- it's not accurate).

 

Ummmm... ok. I think I made it perfectly clear that I couldn't remember the exact quote and therefore, of course I was misrepresenting it (hazards of always posting in between doing other things) but just in case... "We’ve got two choices. One is we could crucify him. But since someone’s already been crucified for him, the other choice is we could restore him with a spirit of gentleness considering ourselves, lest we are also tempted." All good now? I only mentioned Mark Driscoll because that's what started me thinking about this issue. I'm not interested in watching the video or reading the details of what he did or said he did or what other people are saying he did. But the quote does use the word "restore" so what does that mean exactly? Restore him to his former position? Restore him to a fellowship of believers? That makes a difference. In a situation where a pastor abused his power, it seems like restoring him to his position of power isn't wise.

 

I really have no idea what people are saying about him or how Christians are behaving, but I can imagine, having seen how people react to things like this which is why I'm interested in what the right response is. It seems like we have a very cynical view of people only apologizing to get people to forget what they did so they can regain their former position, but at the same time, I can't help feeling that isn't an invalid concern. However to sit back and say, "He doesn't really mean it, we should shun/harass/verbally abuse this guy" is also wrong.

 

I think there's a lot of similarities between the political comeback and the ministerial comeback.

 

I think Driscoll is apologizing with his potential comeback in mind honestly. And probably resigned more to preserve the ASSETS of the church, not out of any sense of wrongdoing.

 

I mean look at Gothard- sexual misconduct and harassment and he's already trying to stage a comeback. It's been less than a year I think?

 

It's important to remember that not only are religious leaders human, with human flaws, that there are some (not all, but not just a few either) who are human with human sociopathic tendencies. It is always a mistake to expect someone like that to actually change. I can forgive a sociopath, but I can't claim to have trust in them again.

 

I agree with a lot of this especially the bolded.

[PrincessMommy]

we had a scandal along those lines (stealing from the "Widows and Orphan" till - yeah horrible) with the leader of our church and several others.  This was more than just one pastor - it was *the* leader (Called Metropolitan, but like a Cardinal in Catholic parlance).  Anyway, when they finally (and it did take too long) dealt with it... the Metropolitan was relieved of his duties and basically sent home to retire.  He is only allowed to participate at *one* church and then only goes to church...not as a heirarch.   Another priest was defrocked and he is a layman now.   I cannot remember the details about how they were able to avoid jail. It was somewhat controversial since some people wanted their heads on a plate- but others wanted to show some mercy (within reason). 

 

That was money issues.

 

If a priest was found to be dallying with the secretary (so to speak) he would probably be defrocked - or at the very least lose his parish and not be allowed to be a parish priest anymore (he may keep his priestly title, but would probably no longer be allowed to work in a parish setting).  It would probably depend on his family situation and age, as the Church does try to be merciful too.  If it were an unmarried priest he would probably be sent to the monastery and would live out his life there under the guidance of the Abbot. 

 

The goal in any of these situations would be that everyone involved would be reconciled to God, but the priest should not be put in a position of trust again.

[Joanne]

This answer is not meant to be snarky. Please, please, please don't read it that way. It is written from my standpoint when I was a Christian.

 

Having vetted my church, denomination, and theology, I trust the process in place by the church.

 

When I was being processed as an Elder in my church ( 18 years ago now, when I believed), I was asked about my "call." (Presbyterians are big on "call" ;)). My answer to the then current board of Elders was that I trusted the process. The church structure had been prayed over, the committees prayed over, the nominating committee prayed about their nominations, presented those to the Board who prayed and I prayed when asked to consider being an Elder.

 

So, my "call" was the living Holy Spirit in my church.

 

My answer to the questions in the OP would be the same: I trust the process of the church and individual prayer. Yes, there are flawed (sinful, I guess) congregations and unhealthy culture - that IMO is a manifestation of NOT honoring the Holy Spirit.

 

Another example - 12 Step settings, particularly AA have "group conscious" meetings which ostensibly allow the groups to decide on practical, business matters. They begin and end with prayer and are supposed to reflect "God as he may be reflected in the group conscious." My local/home AA group recently made a decision I ***vehemently*** disagreed with. I expressed my concerns and feelings in the discussion leading up to the vote, but the vote went the other way. As I see it, my responsibility then became honoring and respecting that the group conscious had "spoken" and MY part as a member of that community is to move on mentally and emotionally and not stay focused negatively on being "right."

It turns out the decision has had some benefit to the group and individuals. :)

 

So, I believe that each individual community needs to respond to and process their particular drama - just like a significant percentage of the NT suggests.

 

 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

If a priest was found to be dallying with the secretary (so to speak) he would probably be defrocked - or at the very least lose his parish and not be allowed to be a parish priest anymore (he may keep his priestly title, but would probably no longer be allowed to work in a parish setting).  It would probably depend on his family situation and age, as the Church does try to be merciful too.  If it were an unmarried priest he would probably be sent to the monastery and would live out his life there under the guidance of the Abbot. 

 

The goal in any of these situations would be that everyone involved would be reconciled to God, but the priest should not be put in a position of trust again.

 

This is what would happen in an ideal situation but my jurisdiction has recently seen a few examples of where sexual misconduct was covered by other clergy and hierarchs. It is very disillusioning and hard for the laity to trust hierarchs after such things happen. We are not immune to these problems and we must pray that through God's will the wolves in sheeps' clothing will ultimately be disrobed and revealed.

 

[gardenmom5]

in our church - there would be an investigation to determine what exactly happened.  (and of course, those involved would be prayerfully seeking the guidance of the spirit the entire time.)  depending upon the infraction - and the attitude of the person committing the infraction, it could lead to different results.  assuming guilt, they would immediatly be released from their position at a minimum. (at no choice to the person.) with limits placed upon what they could do to participate at church.  they could also be excommunicated and lose their membership altogether - not to be taken lightly. (if it was something illegal - it would also be reported to appropriate authorities.)   the goal is to get the person to take responsiblity of their actions and repent.  (and they have to prove repentance through their behavior, monitored over a period of time.  even for those who do repent - it would be almost unheard of for them to be placed in such a position again.)

 

 

I'm up here where the mars hill guy lives - so I've been astounded by how they tried to hush things up and do nothing - until it got too messy as more and more people went to the local media.   (and I agree with lucy about him.  he's plotting his return, and has zilch remorse.  well, maybe for getting caught . . . )

 

 

[gardenmom5]

 

 

With regard to the last line of your post, I have a lot of mixed feelings about that. Anyone can say that they feel God's calling on their life to be a pastor. But it doesn't obligate other people to be that person's congregation. If that person has abused their power, broken the trust of the people they were supposed to care for a guide, then, it's really just too bad that they feel God's call on their life. That's between them and God. I don't see the congregation being at fault for saying, "No, you can't pastor us anymore." Or another congregation saying, "No, you can't pastor us because of how you treated your last congregation." Is this unforgiving? It seems responsible to me.

 

:iagree: