Makes me think of Greg Locke. Cheated on his wife with the married church secretary. Divorced his wife, and married the secretary. Still a pastor.

It's inexcusable.

c-jags said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

c-jags said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

I get trying to help these guys get on the right track and possibly save their marriages but I can not wrap my head around putting them in positions of leadership much less letting them preach on a regular basis.

---

i am all about forgiveness. i know a lot of people that have cheated and then were able to save their marriages and have a blessed life honoring Christ afterwards.

However, that happens and you're out of vocational ministry forever in my opinion. That's a personal take and not necessarily a take i get from the Bible, but logically that just only leaves room for divisiveness and issues down the road. I know more than once where the affair from a new pastor at an old church came out after the fact and the church had a strong split because of it. it's almost always known by some and then hidden.

Not saying they can't be restored and continue doing ministry in other areas, but it takes a lot of arrogance to think you can get back in the saddle as a full time minister after that.

---

I agree but there's nothing to stop pastors from doing it. All they have to do is win some people over or start a new church. Hence the almighty power of the individual in Protestant churches.

---

as opposed to a particular other denomination that has bounced around sexual abusers to different parishes? i know you're not catholic, but i think it's funny to single out protestants on that one.

---

Ya they got major issues but similar situations are seen at the beginning of the reformation as it bleeds through today. There were numerous scandals during that time with leaders throughout Europe. Orthodox aren't perfect either but it's far more strict.

"Concerning ordination, married men may be ordained to the diaconate and priesthood. However, they must be married only one time to a woman who also has been married only one time. If a man is a widower, he too may be ordained, provided that he has not remarried, and he may not marry after his ordination. The Tradition of the Orthodox Church is that both the priest as well as his wife must have been married only one timeto each other. And this would apply regardless of whether the person is no longer married due to divorce or to widowhood.

There have been a few rare exceptions to this, but I emphasize that in each case it is a "rare" exception, if not an abnormality which is not generally in keeping with the Tradition and canons of the Church."

Best pastor I ever had was run out of his first megachurch after a giant sex scandal. He left the ministry for decades but came back to work at a small community church. He had a big impact on my life and many other people's lives. He was humbled by the whole experience and was greatful to God to get a chance to preach, evangelize and lead again. He's still no perfect by any means, but it would have been a shame if he could never run a church again.

If you're looking for perfect people who have never sinned, then you're going to either be looking for a long time, or you're going to hire a bunch of liars. Repentence,humility, and forgiveness are the essence of Christianity, and that should apply to clergy as much as laiety

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Best pastor I ever had was run out of his first megachurch after a giant sex scandal. He left the ministry for decades but came back to work at a small community church. He had a big impact on my life and many other people's lives. He was humbled by the whole experience and was greatful to God to get a chance to preach, evangelize and lead again. He's still no perfect by any means, but it would have been a shame if he could never run a church again.

If you're looking for perfect people who have never sinned, then you're going to either be looking for a long time, or you're going to hire a bunch of liars. Repentence,humility, and forgiveness are the essence of Christianity, and that should apply to clergy as much as laiety

---

The Orthodox Church sees marriage differently than many in the west. It's a sacrament and held at a higher standard. Repentance, humility, and forgiveness are available to anybody but that does not mean a priest can continue to lead his parish after divorce or a sex scandal. His new duty can be found elsewhere. These topics are nothing new though. The reformers took similar issues into their own hands as it continues today. I'm sure your former pastor did a lot for people but I guess it's a different situation since he's outside the Church. I would guess The Holy Spirit worked that out according to your testimony.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Best pastor I ever had was run out of his first megachurch after a giant sex scandal. He left the ministry for decades but came back to work at a small community church. He had a big impact on my life and many other people's lives. He was humbled by the whole experience and was greatful to God to get a chance to preach, evangelize and lead again. He's still no perfect by any means, but it would have been a shame if he could never run a church again.

If you're looking for perfect people who have never sinned, then you're going to either be looking for a long time, or you're going to hire a bunch of liars. Repentence,humility, and forgiveness are the essence of Christianity, and that should apply to clergy as much as laiety

---

I don't think people are advocating for only having pastors who have never sinned, I think its more that the specific sins that would amount to abuse of one's authority could reasonably be disqualifying for that or higher positions of authority in the future.

I tend to fall in the middle, that I think there should remain a way back to ministry leadership as a general rule, but that is should be used with extreme caution and discretion, especially in cases where abuse of power/authority played a role.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

c-jags said:

---

Orthodox Texan said:

---

c-jags said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

I get trying to help these guys get on the right track and possibly save their marriages but I can not wrap my head around putting them in positions of leadership much less letting them preach on a regular basis.

---

i am all about forgiveness. i know a lot of people that have cheated and then were able to save their marriages and have a blessed life honoring Christ afterwards.

However, that happens and you're out of vocational ministry forever in my opinion. That's a personal take and not necessarily a take i get from the Bible, but logically that just only leaves room for divisiveness and issues down the road. I know more than once where the affair from a new pastor at an old church came out after the fact and the church had a strong split because of it. it's almost always known by some and then hidden.

Not saying they can't be restored and continue doing ministry in other areas, but it takes a lot of arrogance to think you can get back in the saddle as a full time minister after that.

---

I agree but there's nothing to stop pastors from doing it. All they have to do is win some people over or start a new church. Hence the almighty power of the individual in Protestant churches.

---

as opposed to a particular other denomination that has bounced around sexual abusers to different parishes? i know you're not catholic, but i think it's funny to single out protestants on that one.

---

Ya they got major issues but similar situations are seen at the beginning of the reformation as it bleeds through today. There were numerous scandals during that time with leaders throughout Europe. Orthodox aren't perfect either but it's far more strict.

"Concerning ordination, married men may be ordained to the diaconate and priesthood. However, they must be married only one time to a woman who also has been married only one time. If a man is a widower, he too may be ordained, provided that he has not remarried, and he may not marry after his ordination. The Tradition of the Orthodox Church is that both the priest as well as his wife must have been married only one timeto each other. And this would apply regardless of whether the person is no longer married due to divorce or to widowhood.

There have been a few rare exceptions to this, but I emphasize that in each case it is a "rare" exception, if not an abnormality which is not generally in keeping with the Tradition and canons of the Church."

---

out of curiosity, why can't a widower remarry?

I'd agree with that. It's hard to really know whether someone is truly repentant and grateful for a second chance, or if they are just faking it to get another opportunity to do wrong.

I just wanted to throw in my $0.02 as I was positively affected in a big way by a pastor who at one time had abused his authority for sex multiple times for many years. Even the worst of us can be better if we let God remake us.

Good question and I'm not sure. I could ask my priest. My guess goes back to marriage as a sacrament between one person and maybe that standard is held higher for priests. There are different paths for clergy, monastics, and laymen although anyone can reach theosis.

Orthodox Texan said:

---

"Concerning ordination, married men may be ordained to the diaconate and priesthood. However, they must be married only one time to a woman who also has been married only one time. If a man is a widower, he too may be ordained, provided that he has not remarried, and he may not marry after his ordination. The Tradition of the Orthodox Church is that both the priest as well as his wife must have been married only one timeto each other. And this would apply regardless of whether the person is no longer married due to divorce or to widowhood.

There have been a few rare exceptions to this, but I emphasize that in each case it is a "rare" exception, if not an abnormality which is not generally in keeping with the Tradition and canons of the Church."

---

I don't have an disagreements with that. It's pretty identical to our church.

The only exception I've seen in our church was a minister's wife cheated on him and he refused divorce and did everything possible to reconcile but she just bailed.

Because he refused the divorce until it was legally impossible to do, he was allowed back on staff.

Not saying that it was the correct thing to do, but he fought as hard as he could for the marriage and did everything in his power to not divorce.

PacifistAg said:

---

In the context of which I'm speaking, as a trans woman and member of the LGBTQIA community, I think it's clear what I'm talking about. I'm not going to play this game though. Get off social media...stay on...doesn't matter to me. For me, I've found a community of Christians, and others, that's healthy for me. For people like me, social media is often the only place that type of community can be found.

It's clear what I'm talking about though, so y'all can debate endlessly about it if you want. I was simply explaining why "get off Twitter" isn't some broad brush solution.

---

Probably for a separate thread, but what is a LGBTQIA Christian?

It's a Christian who is LGBTQIA.

craigernaught already explained, but yes, it's a Christian who happens to also be a member of the LGBTQIA community. For example, I'm a trans woman. I'm also, and far more importantly, a follower of Christ.

AGC said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What ever happened to him? In fact, I haven't heard much from that whole crowd - John Piper, Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung.

---

Spectacular fall. The podcast is a great listen. It's part of what spurred my posts in the other thread.

Chan is catholic now of course. DeYoung is being accused of white supremacy despite not trying to be a white supremacist by Duke Kwon. Chandler is full SJW and ironically tied in to SBC sermongate because several years ago he endorsed Docent Research Group which hires non pastors without theology degrees to do exegetical analysis to create sermons for mega church pastors like Keller, Greear, Litton, etc.

---

How has chandler gone SJW? Just curious - I haven't been listening to his stuff the last few years

94chem said:

---

Fredd said:

---

AGC said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What ever happened to him? In fact, I haven't heard much from that whole crowd - John Piper, Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung.

---

Spectacular fall. The podcast is a great listen. It's part of what spurred my posts in the other thread.

Chan is catholic now of course. DeYoung is being accused of white supremacy despite not trying to be a white supremacist by Duke Kwon. Chandler is full SJW and ironically tied in to SBC sermongate because several years ago he endorsed Docent Research Group which hires non pastors without theology degrees to do exegetical analysis to create sermons for mega church pastors like Keller, Greear, Litton, etc.

---

How has chandler gone SJW? Just curious - I haven't been listening to his stuff the last few years

---

If you admit that the first 300 years of black experience in the New World has lingering multi-generational effects that persist to this day, you are an unredeemable SJW. Only self-loathers try to learn anything from the past.

---

Sadly, this seems to be the criteria they use.

Is sins of the father not a thing then?

94chem said:

---

Fredd said:

---

AGC said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What ever happened to him? In fact, I haven't heard much from that whole crowd - John Piper, Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung.

---

Spectacular fall. The podcast is a great listen. It's part of what spurred my posts in the other thread.

Chan is catholic now of course. DeYoung is being accused of white supremacy despite not trying to be a white supremacist by Duke Kwon. Chandler is full SJW and ironically tied in to SBC sermongate because several years ago he endorsed Docent Research Group which hires non pastors without theology degrees to do exegetical analysis to create sermons for mega church pastors like Keller, Greear, Litton, etc.

---

How has chandler gone SJW? Just curious - I haven't been listening to his stuff the last few years

---

If you admit that the first 300 years of black experience in the New World has lingering multi-generational effects that persist to this day, you are an unredeemable SJW. Only self-loathers try to learn anything from the past.

---

This would be the motte of the motte and bailey fallacy. Or a straw man. Either way it's not a good look.

Fredd said:

---

AGC said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What ever happened to him? In fact, I haven't heard much from that whole crowd - John Piper, Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung.

---

Spectacular fall. The podcast is a great listen. It's part of what spurred my posts in the other thread.

Chan is catholic now of course. DeYoung is being accused of white supremacy despite not trying to be a white supremacist by Duke Kwon. Chandler is full SJW and ironically tied in to SBC sermongate because several years ago he endorsed Docent Research Group which hires non pastors without theology degrees to do exegetical analysis to create sermons for mega church pastors like Keller, Greear, Litton, etc.

---

How has chandler gone SJW? Just curious - I haven't been listening to his stuff the last few years

---

Then I suggest you go listen to his sermons and race panels. There's a lot in the past two years if nothing else.

Saxsoon said:

---

There is a large gap between critical race theory which is anti-Christian and discussing race relations

---

This is true, though more often in theory than reality. The present day discussion is typically inspired by the former, mainly because the tools/praxis is taught and applied without discussing the origins of it. That's why the conversation is difficult, one must distill the genesis of the conversation to engage it in a healthy manner. There's also an element of time passage, nature of wealth, and theology involved (even something as simple as descriptive vs. prescriptive) none of which are easy.

Saxsoon said:

---

There is a large gap between critical race theory which is anti-Christian and discussing race relations

---

Can you explain 1)what you believe CRT is and 2)how it is anti-christian?

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

Fredd said:

---

AGC said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What ever happened to him? In fact, I haven't heard much from that whole crowd - John Piper, Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung.

---

Spectacular fall. The podcast is a great listen. It's part of what spurred my posts in the other thread.

Chan is catholic now of course. DeYoung is being accused of white supremacy despite not trying to be a white supremacist by Duke Kwon. Chandler is full SJW and ironically tied in to SBC sermongate because several years ago he endorsed Docent Research Group which hires non pastors without theology degrees to do exegetical analysis to create sermons for mega church pastors like Keller, Greear, Litton, etc.

---

How has chandler gone SJW? Just curious - I haven't been listening to his stuff the last few years

---

If you admit that the first 300 years of black experience in the New World has lingering multi-generational effects that persist to this day, you are an unredeemable SJW. Only self-loathers try to learn anything from the past.

---

This would be the motte of the motte and bailey fallacy. Or a straw man. Either way it's not a good look.

---

I don't know what you are talking about. I do know that my white friend who adopted black boys from Africa had to teach them some special rules that apply to them before they started driving. Whether this is a commentary on their community, their state, the US, or the entire world, the issue is real. It is also real that pointing it out makes some people uncomfortable, cover their eyes and ears, shoot the messenger, point out all the places in the world that have more bigotry (which is just about everywhere), etc. Calling someone an SJW is like calling someone a Karen or a snowflake. If you're gonna use a tired cliche', be prepared to provide specific evidence.

and i have a white friend who was pulled over by a cop in baltimore and tomd he was the wrong color to be there

94chem said:

---

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

Fredd said:

---

AGC said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

What ever happened to him? In fact, I haven't heard much from that whole crowd - John Piper, Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung.

---

Spectacular fall. The podcast is a great listen. It's part of what spurred my posts in the other thread.

Chan is catholic now of course. DeYoung is being accused of white supremacy despite not trying to be a white supremacist by Duke Kwon. Chandler is full SJW and ironically tied in to SBC sermongate because several years ago he endorsed Docent Research Group which hires non pastors without theology degrees to do exegetical analysis to create sermons for mega church pastors like Keller, Greear, Litton, etc.

---

How has chandler gone SJW? Just curious - I haven't been listening to his stuff the last few years

---

If you admit that the first 300 years of black experience in the New World has lingering multi-generational effects that persist to this day, you are an unredeemable SJW. Only self-loathers try to learn anything from the past.

---

This would be the motte of the motte and bailey fallacy. Or a straw man. Either way it's not a good look.

---

I don't know what you are talking about. I do know that my white friend who adopted black boys from Africa had to teach them some special rules that apply to them before they started driving. Whether this is a commentary on their community, their state, the US, or the entire world, the issue is real. It is also real that pointing it out makes some people uncomfortable, cover their eyes and ears, shoot the messenger, point out all the places in the world that have more bigotry (which is just about everywhere), etc. Calling someone an SJW is like calling someone a Karen or a snowflake. If you're gonna use a tired cliche', be prepared to provide specific evidence.

---

Just in case you're not sure what he meant by Motte and Bailey part of the argument.

Motte is an easily defensible argument (racism is bad) that most people will agree with. Most attack from the Motte and then retreat back into the Bailey (if we don't enact reparations, then we're an inherently racist country) and then defend the second position as if it were the first.

What I think he means is that it's very easy to lob bombs of racism against everybody if you have extremely loose definitions of the word.

The problem is that a lot of claims of racism come from secular uses of the word meant to get a political outcome. Not a gospel one.

My angst with people like Chandler (who I value and cherish as a brother in Christ who I think has handled the scriptures well) is that they start throwing out terms that "SJWs" also use and then all of the sudden you're saying you want the same justice as people that you have nothing in common with. And their definition of justice is different than yours and the Bible's (see BLM's purpose statement as of last year.)

Tough look on the "origin story"

RebAg13 said:

---

Tough look on the "origin story"

---

Hope he doesn't read the gospels too closely

I am not very familiar with or ever followed Driscoll, so i admit my knowledge about him and Mars Hill is basically from the podcast.

I have listened to half of the episodes so far and it seems that Driscoll just seemed to like to be confrontational and controversial, and not in the good ways (imo). But I'm sure that is what a lot of people liked about him.

I'm looking forward to listening to the remaining episodes.

I agree, but Mars Hill had a strong elder structure and good governance documents. (I actually met one of the elders around 2007, seemed like a great guy doing all the right things).

Then Mark wanted to do things differently, and those elders and documents couldn't stop him. Or rather they did stop him, but at the expense of the whole church (though I think a few of the satellites continued in some form).

For me the most insightful thing from the podcast is that the congregation wanted him to be the sole leader. And eventually he wanted it too. We all want a preacher/hero/prophet, and he was charismatic enough to be the preacher/hero/prophet for a while.

The one thing that could have stopped him was a strong denominational structure. But lack of denominational oversight wasn't a concern back then.