Slightly off topic: My friends’ preacher was caught soliciting prostitutes. He was asked to resign by the church council.
Christians: if your pastor was involved in an extramarital affair, would you want him/her to resign?
The brother of a friend of mine was an Episcopalian minister. The brother was married. He had an affair and then confessed to his wife. His wife unwisely spilled the beans to one or more members of the Women’s Vestry. The following Sunday several members of the Women’s Vestry (including more than one massive specimen) phsically barred the way when the brother tried to enter the Church. They said they would not tolerate administration of the sacraments by a adulterer. The brother resigned that day.
If my pastor was involved in an extramarital affair, that would be a significant concern for me. After all, she is my wife.
If I may advocate for a moment. Some flavor of this line of thought seems to run fairly consistently in this thread’s responses.
It occurs to me a fundamental teaching of the religion is that humans are imperfect and prone to sin–to break those rules laid down by God, not necessarily by other humans. It’s expected, and because that’s how God put us together, what matters is how we deal with our own sins. As the offenses are necessarily against God, why is a sin anyone’s business apart from the sinner and God? Something about judging not lest, throwing the first stone, etc. I’m sure I’m off the track, though. More to the point, while a pastor can lead by example, is not his principle duty to teach & expound on doctrine? And in the event of err, which is expected, to settle the matter with God? As a leader whose sin has become public, he may have the additional duty to involve the congregation in his reconciliation. To show them, as a teacher, what pennance looks like. But does it necessarily mean he needs to step down in order for another imperfect, but maybe more discreet (dishonest?), human to replace him? Especially after he has, through whatever coercion, mustered the courage to set aside his own shame and share his own deeply personal moral learning?
Presbyterian here. Any who knows our sect knows that we have very specific rules on this. The official word from the Book of Order is that the Presbytery removes someone from office, but the Congregation can make the request:
It is a waste of time to go into the “all humans are imperfect” thing. Of course, there is NO DOUBT EVER, in re that line. That’s why Jesus came and died.
There are few sins that I haven’t committed, and for which I have been forgiven. Do you want me to be your spiritual leader? No. Among other reasons, I am not called for it, and another, I am not competent. What is a good sign of one’s competency and calling? Being able to control one’s self from doing the dirty with one of the flock, if either of them are married. I think that that should be one of the first things that is a giveaway that one should not lead. Can an adulterer be forgiven? Of course. Do we want adulterers to tell us how to live non-adulterous/non-fornicating lives? No, if he doesn’t know how, how can he teach us? The Bible points out that adulterers shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven. So, this person is going to teach me…what?
Billy Sunday once said “I’m all for whores being converted, but I’m against having her lead the choir the next day.” Or, words to that effect.
Also, as Christians, we do not need an adulterer to teach us penance. We have a Bible. We can also use non-adulterers as teachers. Christians also know about penitence; that’s how they became Christians. And, speaking of penance, Martin Luther pointed out that ‘penance/penitence seeks punishment.’ If we have a pastor who ruins lives, we should see some sort of contrition, not a clinging onto of a job for which he is unfit.
The Book of Timothy gives some general requirements for leadership in a church, and self-discipline and maturity is something of a requirement. The ability not to steal somebody else’s spouse, or cheat on your own should be a stepping off point.
This reminds me of a local university coach, who got busted for drunk driving. I can’t remember his name, but, about a week later, he was on the lecture circuit about not drinking and driving, and telling how to overcome…
We aren’t interfering with his dealing with his own sin…we are just not paying him to have his orgies when he should be helping us.
In short, forgive him, kick him out of the pulpit, and help him find a new job, if you can.
My attitude is that yes, this would compromise his ability to be shepherd to his flock, and I would expect him to step down without a public to-do to make it happen.
Forgiveness is central to Christianity. But that means you’re welcome as a member of the flock. It doesn’t mean you can get away with anything and still think you’re entitled to lead it.
Please tell me you were taping the services, and that youtube either has, or will soon have a copy of said events?
I’m Catholic: if my pastor was involved in an extramarital affair I wouldn’t want him to resign, I’d want him defrocked.
I voted as I did for 2 reasons (condensed versions):
- I believe humans created “comparitive sin severity”, not God. I know of nowhere in the Bible where it ranks sins by severity. In fact, it says that lust=adultry and hate=murder. How can a thought be on par with an action? Because they both reveal human imperfection which is incompatible with God. He is perfect, we are not. There are no degrees of perfection - it is binary, therefore any imperfection, no matter how small precludes perfection.
- I believe these matters should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. David, of Biblical fame, was a warrior, adulterer and murderer - yet is described as a “man after God’s own heart”. OTOH, Saphira and Ananias were struck dead for witholding a small portion of the sale of their land and repeatedly maintaining that they gave it all - IOW lying and stealing - sins that humans would consider much less severe than murder or adultry.
TL/DR - ours is not to judge or try to determine what sins is worse than another(much easier said than done)
An incident similar to this was one of the reasons I ended up moving away from christianity. At a church I went to, two young men involved in the leadership had some form of sexual experimentation between them, I never heard (nor sought out) any details. This was before I acknowledged my bisexuality, but even at that point I considered the public shaming and stripping of teaching roles, and the associated homophobia to be disgusting and immoral. Not to mention hypocritical.
It is an absolutely fundamental teaching of the church that we are all sinners, and without Jesus’ intervention we are basically worthless scum in the eyes of God, none better than any other. Anyone who says they are better than an adulterer, who refuses to forgive one, or refuses the teaching of one if the teaching is sound, is not a Christian. The sickening hypocrisy in every church I went to, and the vast majority of Christians in general, forced me out. Fortunately, I investigated logic and science and realised it was all built on nonsense anyway.
There’s several people in this thread who have proved me right, Nava and handsomeharry being the most notable, who have clearly demonstrated that they are hypocrites and not Christians, and should I be wrong and you be right, by the teachings you profess to follow, your own God will turn his back on you before he ever does me.
Er, if that was a joke by Nava I missed, I owe her an apology… I may have messed up in my vitriol.
I was just playing with a joke that presented itself to me: defrock => nekkid => sexytime => Nava recognizes the value of nekkidness in sexytime. Which is probably not at all what she meant, but the joke was there, for me, nevertheless.
In your mind, can someone who has committed a serious sin (adultery, or something on par with it) ever serve as a pastor? If it emerged that your pastor had been involved in an extramarital affair 20 years ago, pre-conversion, would you have the same problem? What if it was post-conversion, but they were able to speak frankly about their sin, how they dealt with it, and that they have moved on?
I am not a Christian, but for me, I think how it came to light would make a significant difference. If someone discovered illicit behavior that they apparently had every intention of continuing, I would be a lot less receptive to forgiveness than if they voluntarily came forward.
You said it better than I would have. I wouldn’t even say that pastor couldn’t be a pastor again once he’s gotten the whole thing straightened out. But he owes it to his church to step down as their Spiritual leader while the adultery is going on and while sorting it all out.
I do not really recognize a difference between adultery and abetting another’s adultery, as the sin of one is the sin of the other–the actual sin involves the two of them becoming one flesh. So all that’s left is the outing.
I’m actually less sure on these options now that I’ve read the thread. I said that he should announce it publicly, and that I should out him if he refuses to confess. The latter still stands, but who he’s confessing to is not firm as the former I’m less sure about. Strict reading of the scripture in Matthew would indicate only a need to confess to his wife, as he’s repented. But there’s also the command to confess your sins one to another. Still that doesn’t necessarily mean the entire congregation.
The only reason I stick with my former decision is that I think it’s likely that word would get around, and it’s better if he tells than for it to just be rumors. If it wasn’t for that, I’d prefer him not telling, so that other relationships wouldn’t be ruined. (There’s no way he can even stay at the church after his confession, unfortunately. Not without being a stumbling block to others.)
I would not understand any claim that this is being judgmental or hypocritical.
Tru dat. With respect to matters of salvation and redemption, humans’ sin and God’s forgiveness, this is true: sin is sin.
The judgments of God regarding a person’s heart are beyond me. That goes without saying, though.
But here we’re talking about those who are leaders in the faith, whether we call them pastors or bishops or what have you. And Scripture certainly suggests standards for persons filling those roles. (1 Tim. 3:1-13, for instance.) With respect to such a role, some sins are more grievous than others. And that is as it should be. If last week, your pastor swindled a bunch of widows out of their meager pensions, then spent the money on hookers and blow, the fact that he repented of his sins yesterday doesn’t entitle him to be back in the pulpit this Sunday. We are called to be wary as serpents as well as innocent as doves. His sin and redemption are between him and God, but we are called to use judgment about who we entrust our leadership roles to.
I’m not handsomeharry, but I’ll give it my own best shot. As I said in my response to Doctor Jackson, I believe we are called to use judgment about who we entrust our leadership roles to. I’d want not just a sense that this person has dealt with his/her sin and moved on, but also the passage of enough time to be sure this change is robust. How much time? That’s a judgment call.
But I remember all too well the Bakker/Swaggart era of well-known pastors committing grievous sins, then turning around and saying, “I’ve repented” and expecting that they should be able to step right back into their leadership roles. It seemed crazy to me at the time that anyone would buy into that (but a lot of people did at the time), and it still seems crazy now.
Also, if the affair - or any other outward sin - caused divisions or bad feelings within the congregation, it would be important that those divisions or bad feelings had died down before restoring the person to leadership. It does no good to elevate someone to a leadership role that people aren’t going to accept as a leader.
One last thing while I’m on a roll: I’m not big on the whole outing business, and would not go that way except as a last resort. A person has a right to deal with their sin as sin privately, without its being everyone’s business. (Now if they were defrauding widows out of their pensions, that would be an issue for law enforcement personnel, and not merely a sin issue or a church issue.)
The issue at hand is whether that person should continue to be the minister/priest/pastor/whatever. If I felt they shouldn’t continue in that role, I’d want them to step down in a manner that minimized upheaval in the congregation. Being specific about their sin wouldn’t help.
No, no, I’m with you on that too - to a point. I don’t think we can make a blanket call that x sin should = automatic loss of leadership role or, even if it does, for how long. I was pushing back against anyone who said “absolutely yes” or “absolutely no”. Each congregation, working within the structure of their denimination/board/elders should handle this stuff on a case-by-case basis. The overriding concern should be to deal with the issue compassionately with all involved (and ignore those who weren’t :p).