‘Disqualified’ Pastor Ted Haggard Starting New Church

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What you just described above is not disciplinary action. That is abuse. The Bible gives progressive steps for dealing with sin in the congregation. I am sure this girl was penitant without having to be reprimanded. Which is the whole purpose in Church discipline. Once repentance is secured their is no need for shame or condemnation. But the standards for those shepherding the flock is set higher given the higher degree of responsibility. Which is the whole issue on this thread.

I have absolutely no argument with the theology. But given the fragmented state of today's church, if Mr Haggard wants to start his own church and there is a group of people willing and happy to go along with him, then there is not a lot anyone can do about it, except continue to criticise and exclude him. But what would that achieve? If he and his group are isolated by the Christian community you then have the beginnings of a new cult which could potentially cause a lot of damage to the Christian community in the region. Wouldn't it be better to put the differences aside, support the new church, include it in the Christian community and thereby preserve a group of people worshiping God in the environment of sound doctrine and having the support of other Christians in the region?

 

[silence_dogood]

If he and his group are isolated by the Christian community you then have the beginnings of a new cult which could potentially cause a lot of damage to the Christian community in the region.

Then so be it.

That he and his new church are disobedient is not an excuse for us to disregard the Word of God.

Wouldn't it be better to put the differences aside, support the new church, include it in the Christian community and thereby preserve a group of people worshiping God in the environment of sound doctrine and having the support of other Christians in the region?

No. It would be better to follow God's word.

 

[resistingrexmundi]

I have absolutely no argument with the theology. But given the fragmented state of today's church, if Mr Haggard wants to start his own church and there is a group of people willing and happy to go along with him, then there is not a lot anyone can do about it, except continue to criticise and exclude him. But what would that achieve? If he and his group are isolated by the Christian community you then have the beginnings of a new cult which could potentially cause a lot of damage to the Christian community in the region. Wouldn't it be better to put the differences aside, support the new church, include it in the Christian community and thereby preserve a group of people worshiping God in the environment of sound doctrine and having the support of other Christians in the region?

No it would not be better to put differences aside. Those rules for qualification as a pastor are there for a reason. Forgive him, yes, restore him to the body of believers, sure, allow him pastoral leadership again, Absolutely not. He is disqualified to lead a church. If some people still wish to be under his leadership then allow them to go there own way but let us not pretend that what they would be doing is not contrary to Scripture. We may not be able to stop him from doing what he is doing but it does not mean we should condone it or support it. We are meant to seperate ourselves from such disobedience. If Haggard was truly penitant then why would he not subject himself to the authority of Scripture, accept his discipline like a mature Christian, and be content to have the role God gave him within the body of believers? Scriptures tell us that a wise man recieves correction. Haggard has shown rejection by disobeying the mandate of the Holy Spirit and ignoring the clear teaching of scripture on the matter.

I can tell you are a compassionate man Oscarr and that is great. However Jesus never let His compassion compromise the truth. Love without truth isn't love. It is hypocritical sentimentality. If we truly want to show Haggard love then we should continue to encourage him to submit to the teachings of Scripture on this matter.

God bless

 

[katautumn]

Would a pastor who has a teenager daughter who gets pregnant out of wedlock be permanently disqualified from being a pastor? I'm just curious, because the Bible says he must be in control of his home and family.

By the way, it should also be mentioned that the pastoral qualification passages were authored by Paul and address, specifically, to Titus and Timothy, neither of whom were pastors. Furthermore, no one has provided a single shred of evidence that sinning once permanently disqualifies someone from being a pastor once they have sought full repentance and restoration in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Would a pastor who has a teenager daughter who gets pregnant out of wedlock be permanently disqualified from being a pastor? I'm just curious, because the Bible says he must be in control of his home and family.

By the way, it should also be mentioned that the pastoral qualification passages were authored by Paul and address, specifically, to Titus and Timothy, neither of whom were pastors. Furthermore, no one has provided a single shred of evidence that sinning once permanently disqualifies someone from being a pastor once they have sought full repentance and restoration in the Holy Spirit.

It is interesting that you bring up about the teenage daughter, because I could be disqualified from being pastor because my 18 year old daughter has been living with her boyfriend for the last 18 months. She has just broken up with him. I did pray at the start that God would put a worm in the relationship, which He did. I think that it is not the getting pregnant that is the problem but what leads up to it (if you get my drift). Also, there would be many on this forum who would disqualify me from being a pastor because I am divorced and remarried.

It is interesting though, that when I have taken meetings, the Holy Spirit has moved very graciously in ways that have shown me that He does not hold anything against me. But then, I have no aspirations of being a pastor. That is not my calling, so it is a non issue with me.

But when it comes to judging pastors who have teenage children, the difficulty would be to fairly evaluate whether the problem with the teenager is because of dysfunction within the home, or because of the wilfulness of an unconverted teenager. We must remember that Christian faith is not transferable. God has no grandchildren. Every individual must make their own decision for Christ. It is quite possible, and there are thousands of heartbreaking stories out there, of unconverted children going off the rails in spite of faithful, praying parents who have sought God with tears that their children would be converted. Bear in mind that election is not hereditory either. Just because a parent is elected to be born again, it does not mean that the child is also elected.

So, the issues around this are complicated. Anyway, it would be good to see what opinions are generated as people think about these issues.

 

[silence_dogood]

Would a pastor who has a teenager daughter who gets pregnant out of wedlock

By the way, it should also be mentioned that the pastoral qualification passages were authored by Paul and address, specifically, to Titus and Timothy, neither of whom were pastors.

Even if this were true, which it is not (they were both acting in the role of overseers over these churches and so the presbuteros qualifications still apply to them), so what? How does that make these passages of God's word untrue?

Furthermore, no one has provided a single shred of evidence that sinning once permanently disqualifies someone from being a pastor once they have sought full repentance and restoration in the Holy Spirit.

I have. At least one other poster has. Someone else showed you the text of a John McArthur sermon in which he discusses this in great detail.

Rather than just dishonstly claiming that nobody has shown you what the scriptures say on this, why don't you take a minute to try to refute what we've said.

 

[WaltonM]

Here are some interesting comments by Susan Wise Bauer. Seems Haggard is starting a church in his home.

Ted Haggard, Resurrected – Religion - CNN.com Blogs

 

[marklbernard]

^because while I agree with forgiving the man, the Bible says that a Pastor or elder has to be "above reproach", this doesn't mean that a man must be perfect or sinless, but what Haggard did totally disqualified himself.

Thats right, have to "be" not "been". I am not suggesting the door should be automatically opened for him. He must prove his repentance and submit to godly accountability for a time, but to say that he is totally disqualified? Have you never read the OT. If this was an unredeemable act then David had no business remaining on the throne. I think you are limiting the power of God to restore a man

 

[silence_dogood]

Thats right, have to "be" not "been". I am not suggesting the door should be automatically opened for him. He must prove his repentance and submit to godly accountability for a time, but to say that he is totally disqualified? Have you never read the OT. If this was an unredeemable act then David had no business remaining on the throne. I think you are limiting the power of God to restore a man

Was David a pastor? Because I was under the impression that the church was established some time after David ruled.

 

[marklbernard]

Was David a pastor? Because I was under the impression that the church was established some time after David ruled.

Oh for petes sake, he was Gods appointed leadership, same as a pastor. Different time period, differnt name same principles. Semantics is not a nice game to play

 

[dies-l]

Thats right, have to "be" not "been". I am not suggesting the door should be automatically opened for him. He must prove his repentance and submit to godly accountability for a time, but to say that he is totally disqualified? Have you never read the OT. If this was an unredeemable act then David had no business remaining on the throne. I think you are limiting the power of God to restore a man

I think that this is a good observation. All of us are sinners in need of God's grace and mercy. Some of the best pastors are those who have experienced God's mercy most profoundly. But, it is foolish to place a person who has fallen hard immediately into a position of authority without requiring of him the fruit of repentance.

This question is a little closer to home for me, because I have a close friend who was an associate pastor at my church. He was asked to resign after he was arrested for drunk driving. I agree with the church's decision and I believe that it is best for everyone that he focus on his own recovery for a substantial period before returning to ministry. But, I also believe that part of his recovery may involve a return to pastoral ministry. He made a foolish choice and one that cost him, his family, and his ministry greatly. However, at the heart of the Gospel is the reality that God can and will restore him if he submits to God's will.

From what I know about the Haggard situation, I would guess that Haggard is not yet ready for pastoral ministry. However, I think it an extreme misapplication of Scripture to suggest that he will absolutely never be able to pastor again.

 

[katautumn]

But, it is foolish to place a person who has fallen hard immediately into a position of authority without requiring of him the fruit of repentance.

I agree fully. I think what I'm struggling with here is the bold assertion that once a pastor sins he has permanently disqualified himself from the ministry. Silence_dogood keeps accusing those of us who are asking for Scriptural basis for this stance of being dishonest.

Silence, I'm not trying to be willfully obtuse here, but I have read the passages over and over and over again and do not see anywhere that it states once a person in the ministry has sinned that they may no longer pastor a church, despite showing evidence of full repentance. And I'm not interested in what John MacArthur has to say on the subject. That's one man's fallible interpretation. I'm interested in what the Scriptures actually say.

ETA: The general consensus in most Christian circles is that if a pastor sins he is to be extended the same method of Christian discipline as anyone else. If the sin is witnessed firsthand, a brother in Christ needs to approach him in private. If he shows full repentance and turns away from his sin, he is restored. If he is unrepentant or unwilling to discuss the matter in private, then the next step must be taken. The goal is to avoid a full blown public spectacle of the man's sin. If he is still not contrite, then he is to be asked to step down from his position.

There is no Biblical evidence to support the theory that once a leader or elder sins there is no possibility for them to be restored and brought back into a ministering position. Does it take a long time, possibly even years to come back to the point where he fulfills the Biblical criteria for a pastor? Yes. Will some people never be fit to pastor again? Absolutely. Does this mean every single pastor who sins will never be fit to preach again? No, and I challenge anyone claiming otherwise to back it up with Scriptures, not legalistic, extra-biblical commentary by popular evangelists or fuzzy personal interpretations.

 

[silence_dogood]

Silence, I'm not trying to be willfully obtuse here, but I have read the passages over and over and over again and do not see anywhere that it states once a person in the ministry has sinned that they may no longer pastor a church, despite showing evidence of full repentance. And I'm not interested in what John MacArthur has to say on the subject. That's one man's fallible interpretation. I'm interesting in what the Scriptures actually say.

And I showed you what the scriptures say. You didn't want to hear it.

 

[katautumn]

And I showed you what the scriptures say. You didn't want to hear it.

Then would you be so kind as to point out a post number so I may refer back to it? I don't feel like wading through ten pages of tl;dr responses with walls of C&P'ed Bible verses to find this overwhelming evidence that proves a pastor who sins is beyond the scope of repentance and restoration to the ministry. I'm guessing such a clearcut passage does not exist.

 

[nChrist]

Then would you be so kind as to point out a post number so I may refer back to it? I don't feel like wading through ten pages of tl;dr responses with walls of C&P'ed Bible verses to find this overwhelming evidence that proves a pastor who sins is beyond the scope of repentance and restoration to the ministry. I'm guessing such a clearcut passage does not exist.

Try the first post in the thread for a start - the one you first answered. You're post number 2. I assume that you read it, and there's more you can find and read for yourself.

 

[katautumn]

Try the first post in the thread for a start - the one you first answered. You're post number 2. I assume that you read it, and there's more you can find and read for yourself.

I did read it. I have also been studying the entire passages on qualifications for a religious leader and have yet to find anywhere it states a pastor/elder/deacon who sins can never be restored to a ministry position. There is nothing that mentions permanent disqualification from the pastorate. I even read the essay written by John MacArthur and he provides absolutely zero Scriptural basis for his opinion that a fallen minister is permanently disqualified. Even John Armstrong, a huge proponent of permanent disqualification, admits there is no Biblical evidence to support this opinion.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

And I showed you what the scriptures say. You didn't want to hear it.

The religious leaders of Israel knew the Scriptures intimately as well, but they still missed the point of exactly who Jesus was when He was among them. Having a natural academic knowledge of the Scriptures is one thing, being filled with the knowledge of God's having all spiritual understanding through a spirit of revelation and wisdom in the knowledge of God is quite another.

 

[silence_dogood]

The religious leaders of Israel knew the Scriptures intimately as well, but they still missed the point of exactly who Jesus was when He was among them.

Ah, yes, I knew it would only be a matter of time until you played the Pharisee card.

We're not talking about who Jesus is. We're talking about the Biblical requirements for holding the pastorate.

 

[marklbernard]

Ah, yes, I knew it would only be a matter of time until you played the Pharisee card.

We're not talking about who Jesus is. We're talking about the Biblical requirements for holding the pastorate.

well it is a card Jesus and Paul played often

 

[DRD4Him]

An "ex" homosexual as a pastor?

Sounds very biblically acceptable to me.

Don't the LGBT activists say that David had a homosexual interaction with Jonathan?

And we see how David repented in Psalm 51.

If Haggard follows the same path, his preaching against gay behavior should be even more effective. After all, look how it destroyed him.