Quote:

---

What do you people want to hear?

---

That he brought scandal on the church and is disqualified from ministering. But lucky for him he doesn't believe in church oversight so he can find any baptist/nondenom church that will take him.

That's a really facile interpretation of the situation. There is mercy available for everyone - as St Isaac the Syrian says, "As a handful of sand in the boundless ocean, so are the sins of all flesh in comparison with God's providence and mercy. As a copious spring could not be stopped up with a handful of dust, so the Creator's compassion cannot be conquered by the wickedness of creatures." No one is denying second chances, improvement, becoming holy. That is part and parcel to being a Christian. The Church is full of sinners, its a hospital for the sick, that's why we go.

At the same time, being a priest or a clergyman has requirements over and above that. The Church has held this since the beginning - way back in Nicaea in 325 AD the principle was established that for the priesthood "the Church requires that which is blameless." St Basil the Great writes "On the matter of priesthood, if you fell into a sin of the flesh...even if you didn't know that these sins are impediments to the priesthood, you are not allowed to become a priest … examine yourself well, and if you fell even once even out of ignorance you cannot become a priest. No matter how great a need the Church has. God will care for His Church...If you have an impediment to the priesthood, you are able by repentance and confession to perform miracles and to become a saint, but not a priest."

There are, and should be, higher standards for being a clergyman than being a layperson. For example, the Apostolic Canons (c 400) say "If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon is caught in fornication, perjury, or theft, let him be deposed."

St Cyril of Alexandria (c 442) wrote "if [a bishop is] unworthy, do not let them leave by retiring, rather let them be judged for [their] actions." In other words, a bishop who should be deposed does not have the option of simply retiring to avoid it. It certainly is not acceptable for a clergyman who has some kind of scandal worthy of being deposed to move churches and continue to act in a pastoral capacity. As St Basil says, they can become saints, but they should no longer be pastors.

Edit to add - I am speaking in generalities. I know nothing about this particular matter, and am not commenting on it at all.

Titus 1:7 Since an overseer manages God's household, he must be blameless.

Seems like your attitude here is "I don't like cultural Christianity so let me find reasons to criticize it."

Why not say "oh, so there is a consistent historical practice, witnessed to in the scriptures, that makes good common sense"?

It's pretty straightforward: being a leader has higher requirements. This is not just true in the church, it's universal.

Again, I know nothing about this case in particular, but if a pastor had an affair, he shouldn't be a pastor any more.

Malibu2 said:

---

Right that's all well and good. I don't have a particular issue with a pastor being fired over conduct when they're leading a congregation. What I do have issue with is bumping an 18 year old thread and being upset that that pastor, who may or may not have undergone counseling and has been well on the straighten arrow for a very long time after whatever indiscretion happened, and getting indignant that they are still no longer qualified.

---

With all things, sometimes we cannot go back after a line has been crossed. The abused spouse may not be able to trust the abuser even if we wished reconciliation for the marriage and the children. The faithful spouse may always struggle to trust the unfaithful even years after the fact. Likewise a pastor may never be able to have the full trust of a congregation or general public to whom they wish to minister. It is not harsh to expect them to find another vocation and give it up; on the contrary it keeps the church and office free from controversy.

This advice is worth exactly what you paid for it, you may want to Google "Streisand effect."

Forgiveness of sin does not erase consequences of sin. This is also a fundamental message of Christianity.

A pastor who does something that is an impediment to the priesthood can be assured of forgiveness of his sins from God through repentance. He should also receive forgiveness for wrongs from those he wronged. And he still should not be a pastor.

Like St Basil said - he may become a saint, but not a priest.

Dwightfam said:

---

In what world do you think you, a random stranger on the internet, is entitled to know the full story of Dwight's personal family life?

---

You came here spitting fire calling people pathetic and accusing them of gossiping. Then you asked what we wanted to hear and assured us you knew how this worked because you used to post here. Then you called someone a troll and made a comment about their representation of Christendom.

I told you what I wanted to hear: the whole truth. If he left his family for a woman in Colorado that he was having an emotional affair with I assume you'll confirm it. If my details are wrong you can correct the record. If you just want to launch barbs at people and hypocritically accuse them of not being Christian's by all means continue. But until you tell me I'm wrong I have a hard time squaring his behavior with what the office of pastor should look like. Tragedy isn't a competition, there are no awards and it does not confer authority. His kids' issues are tough but hardship isn't a qualification for ministry.

Since the posts about what this guy did got scrubbed...I am going to assume it was sexual in nature.

Malibu2 said:

---

When I was a Christian I distinctly remember that message. Screw up once and that's that. The real Christian message is distinctly one of no second chances or ability to have a change of heart and be a better person.

---

It is literally in the Bible. 1 Timothy 3 I believe

Quote:

---

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. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect

---

Restore their faith and forgive their sin but a biblical church can not restore them to a position of authority.

If you find yourself wondering why "none" is the fastest growing religion, this is your answer.

The local megachurch has institutionalized sexual abuse and rape to the point where they are literally spending millions of dollars to build a retreat center for church leaders to recover from their sexual exploits, assaults and rapes.

https://julieroys.com/scandals-megachurch-invests-millions-restore-pastors/?fbclid=IwAR3PyJG7QMHwDsDLwBvWEnl9USh2ITpAK00m7xBXfqhkVp9hs1ZwlprC3FQ

Dwightfam said:

---

Luckily the opinions random strangers on the internet have no bearing on his life or that of his family.

Pathetic to be inquiring on these matters all these many years later. You're as bad as bait shack for gossiping in the first place

---

Tell us these things are untrue. Tell us he didn't leave his marriage, his wife and children. This is really easy to do if it's true (and you have yet to do it directly, by the way, you've just accused everyone of gossip and unchristian behavior and dances around the actual accusations).

I don't need to inquire; I learned of it when it happened from friends who were attending and I still have friends that attend there. It's not a secret.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Eventually was about 30 years. The indiscretions occured with women in "private counseling sessions". So you'd probably categorize it as predatory behavior. He won't have private meetings with women now. Husbands, other family or church deacons have to be present for any such meetings.

---

The fact that he can't meet with half of his congregation with the same level of trust as the other half is a perfect reason as to why he is ineligible to maintain a position of spiritual leadership.

I love it how some preacher, who made his living explaining God's law, can throw up the force field of "family privacy" when he violates God's law so brazenly.

Yes, it is different for those who go into this line of work. Much as I'd doubt the qualifications of a 300 lb fitness instructor, I likewise discount the words of a guy who boinks his flock.

Ok…. That's actually how they do things at every church I've been to in the last 20 years. No mixed gender private meetings and no adults alone with kids. So technically he can only be alone with less than 1/3 of the congregation. So that part didn't even strike me as strange