What Actually Disqualifies a Pastor?

Yesterday I learned of another pastor who has been disqualified for moral failure of some kind. I won’t name him or the particulars because I don’t think it is the business of believers to be spreading such stories. This is not to say there is no place for public disagreement or critique. I have, at times, responded publicly to other pastors where I believed they were in error, but that is different from spreading details of personal sin. If announcements need to be made, I believe they should be carefully worded so as to lovingly cover sin and to avoid bringing further reproach upon the name of Jesus—except in cases involving predatory and/or criminal behaviour.

But I bring it up because I believe the evangelical Church is often getting this wrong.

We say that a pastor is disqualified, and sometimes we add that he is permanently disqualified. But what kinds of sin actually disqualify a pastor? And is there a difference between temporary disqualification and permanent disqualification?

Consider some possibilities.

A pastor mismanages money entrusted to him, essentially stealing from the Church (1 Tim. 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7).
A pastor’s child rejects the gospel and either joins a false Church or walks away altogether (1 Tim. 3:4–5; Titus 1:6).
A pastor views pornographic material (Matt. 5:28; 1 Thess. 4:3–5).
A pastor publicly loses his temper (1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7).
A pastor has lost his first love (Rev. 2:4).
A pastor engages in fornication (1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Thess. 4:3).
A pastor commits slander (Titus 1:7; James 4:11).
A pastor has an affair, emotional or otherwise (Ex. 20:14; Heb. 13:4).
A pastor is caught in a lie (Col. 3:9).
A pastor has no meaningful prayer life (Acts 6:4; 1 Thess. 5:17).
A pastor’s children are unruly and disobedient (1 Tim. 3:4; Titus 1:6).
A pastor is consistently proud or domineering (Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:3).
A pastor is quarrelsome or divisive (1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 3:10).
A pastor shows partiality (James 2:1; 1 Tim. 5:21).
A pastor lacks self-control in ordinary life (Titus 1:8; Gal. 5:22–23).
A pastor spiritually manipulates or controls people (2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Pet. 5:2–3).
A pastor rules harshly rather than shepherding gently (1 Timothy 3:3).
A pastor neglects his family (1 Tim. 3:4–5; 5:8).
A pastor is not hospitable (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8).
A pastor is a lover of money (1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7).
A pastor is found guilty of sexual abuse.

While the Church sometimes gets it right, I think we are often extreme in our reaction, falling into one ditch or the other. In some cases the Church is overly severe, but in others we are far too lax, so that many of these things are actually tolerated. A pastor lacks self-control when it comes to eating and jokes about it in the pulpit. A pastor is easily angered, sometimes losing his temper, and “it’s something to work on.” A pastor neglects his family and “he just works too hard.” He admits to neglecting prayer, but at least he preaches good sermons. He is harsh rather than gentle, but he’s gifted. He loses his first love, “but he’s faithful.” He admits to viewing pornography and is told to get accountability software. He is divisive, quarrelsome, and proud, and still is given a pass.

The truth is all of these things are taken very seriously by Scripture, and many of them—unimportant as they may seem to us—are explicitly listed as indispensable qualifications for ministry. He is to be gentle rather than harsh, peaceable rather than quarrelsome, hospitable, self-controlled, full of the Spirit, devoted to prayer, etc.  

So why do these things often seem not to matter? Ironically, we live in an age where the character of the pastor seems far less important than his giftedness—and yet, when certain kinds of moral failings are uncovered, the Church is swift, severe, and even merciless in its judgment.

I am not arguing for leniency toward sin, but for a more careful and biblical distinction between kinds of failure.

For example, a pastor is caught slandering fellow believers and then lying about it, and he is not only disqualified, he is permanently disqualified. Worse, his entire life’s work is scrubbed from parts of the internet—not just the sermons preached after or during the season of backsliding, but everything. This, in my mind, represents one extreme. And then there is the other extreme, where sins are not only committed once or twice but are allowed to continue for months and even years with hardly a word.

I believe most of the things I listed are in and of themselves disqualifying—and yet most pastors, at one time or another, have been guilty of failing in one or more of those areas.

And so I think it is important to make a distinction between that which is permanently disqualifying and that which, though temporarily disqualifying, may be followed by a process of repentance and restoration.

But there are some important questions that need to be asked:

• First, was the sin freely and voluntarily confessed, or was it found out?
• Second, how long has it gone on?
• Third, is it public or private?
• Fourth, is the sin of a predatory nature?

There can be no question that sins of a predatory nature are permanently disqualifying—whether it is fleecing the congregation or some kind of sexual abuse. Such people may be forgiven, but they can never be trusted in leadership again.

But I would submit that other kinds of sin are not necessarily permanently disqualifying. Though David was guilty of adultery, and though there were real consequences, he was restored; and while he was not a pastor, he remained the king of Israel, and his Psalms are still read and sung in churches to this day. Though Peter denied Jesus three times, he too was restored. And though he later compromised on the gospel out of a fear of man, he was rebuked but not removed from ministry.

So if we are biblical, it is clear there is ordinarily a path to restoration for pastors (and other leaders) who fail.

But I would suggest the following be kept in mind.

Most of the sins listed above should be seen as at least temporarily disqualifying, which means if the elders find that he is guilty, the pastor should step aside for a time. In my mind, the one exception is the pastor whose child joins a false church or rejects the faith altogether.*

1. If the sin was not voluntarily confessed but discovered, the process of restoration should be longer.
2. If the sin has gone on for a long time unchecked, it is almost always permanently disqualifying.**
3. If the sin is public, repentance needs to be as widely known as the sin before there is restoration—but if it is private, it should not be made public.

I admit that there is something particularly egregious about adultery as compared to slander or prayerlessness or a lack of hospitality, for example. My instinct is to say that such sin is permanently disqualifying, yet I can’t help but notice it wasn’t for David. And he also did not freely confess his sin until he was confronted and pressed by Nathan. I realize that some may counter that David wasn’t a pastor—and yet he was writing inspired Scripture and continued to do so after his moral failure. So I’m not entirely sure what to think of such sin in the lives of pastors. My point is that, if we are to be strictly biblical, we should be slow to declare someone permanently disqualified.

But what about the qualification that an elder be above reproach? My answer has three parts. 

First, it is the Church—sadly—that often makes these things public, so that what was known by a small few becomes known everywhere. Regretfully, I have been guilty of this very thing more than once and, where appropriate, have confessed and asked forgiveness.

Second, if “above reproach” includes even those few who are in the know, what pastor is above reproach? Do our wives and close friends not know things about us that would tarnish our reputation if widely known? Are we truly above reproach in their eyes? I trust most pastors will be able to say that their wives and those closest to them can testify to a pattern of life and conduct that is above reproach, even if there have been failures.*** But there have been failures of some kind or another, known to some. And if we really believe that a pastor should be above reproach, what do we say of the pastor who has a known temper problem, or the pastor who has a reputation for being quarrelsome or proud? It seems to me that “above reproach” refers to a man’s pattern of life and conduct—which means that a temper problem, for example, needs to be taken more seriously than it ordinarily is.

I say this not to minimize the egregious nature of some sins, which should be unthinkable in the life of a Christian, let alone a pastor. I say this rather because I cannot find a biblical precedent for permanent disqualification except where sin is part of an ongoing pattern, is not repented of, and/or is predatory (Ezek. 34).

Third, I do believe that public trust can be broken, and that in some cases a reputation marred may not be recoverable.  At the same, I believe we underestimate the impact of some sins while overestimating the impact of others.  

It would do well for churches, elders, and pastors to take to heart the words of Jesus: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7). In other words, let the pastor who cannot find his “name” in the list above cast the first stone. By this I do not suggest that there is no place for rebuke, discipline, or even permanent disqualification. In fact, I think we should see many more sins as at least temporarily disqualifying. In short, we should take the role of the pastor more—not less—seriously. But at the same time, we need to be sure that we are using equal weights and measures, that we are dealing first with the plank in our own eye, and that our response to sin is less emotional and more biblical.  

Which brings me back to the person I mentioned at the outset, whose name I did not name. I don’t know exactly what he did. But here’s what I wish would happen in such cases.

Step 1. His elders identify whether his sin was predatory or part of a long pattern of unrepentant sin. If so, he is permanently disqualified. If not, they move on to step 2. Where the sin involves criminal activity (especially predatory behavior), it is reported to the appropriate authorities.

Step 2. In cases where sin is voluntarily confessed and repented of, the elders determine whether he needs to step down for a season. I believe such matters must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In my view, a pastor who confesses that he has been virtually prayerless over the last month need not step down if he is repentant. Similarly, a pastor who has been inhospitable or who has, on one occasion, had a public outburst of anger need not step down if repentant. But I suspect many other sins listed above should be taken more seriously than they are and should be followed by a break from ministry—even if brief—and a period of restoration. If the elders determine that he should step down for a season, or if his sin was discovered rather than confessed, they move on to Step 3.

Step 3. He steps down for a season during which he submits to a restorative process. While restoration to some form of ministry is the goal, it is not guaranteed.

Step 4. The church announces that he has stepped down and is submitting to a restorative process, without naming the sin. This assumes there is no ongoing risk to the church or the community. Where such risk exists, it should be handled with appropriate transparency, and privacy must never be used in a way that allows abusive behaviour to continue.

Step 5. His sermons, articles, and books may continue to be used—unless it is found that some were produced during a period of unrepentant sin.

I believe if we took this approach to pastoral failure, we would see far fewer stories of it. If these men knew they could go to their elders for help and be assured they wouldn’t be shamed and ruined, they would almost certainly do so long before the problem became something far more serious.

If I could speak to that unnamed pastor, I would speak hope and grace. While not minimizing what he has done, I would remind him that his sin is why Jesus came, that the Saviour's blood speaks better things than the blood of Abel, that nothing can separate him from the love of God in Christ, that this too may be turned for his good and the good of the Church, and that his work is not necessarily done. He may yet be used to magnify the Saviour and feed the sheep.

--

* I disagree with those who would say that a pastor is disqualified if his child abandons the gospel or rejects the faith.  A pastor’s children should be obedient; he should manage his household well, so that they respect him and are under his authority. But if God is sovereign in salvation, it makes no sense to hold a father accountable for the salvation of his child.  

** While I would like to think that, in some cases, a pastor who is guilty of an emotional affair may be restored, if it has been indulged over a long period without repentance, it suggests something is very wrong at the heart. I expect many readers will want to point out that some of these sins, committed even once, are already indicative of something very wrong. I agree, and I believe that in more egregious cases, like an emotional affair, the process of restoration should be long and thorough. But I would also caution that sometimes what we think is most egregious are the sins we ourselves do not struggle with. A pastor who has previously failed in the area of pornography, for example, may tolerate that sin more readily than he does the sin of a man found out for losing his first love and backsliding into lukewarm religion. But both are serious, both disqualify at least temporarily, and both tell us something about his heart. Similarly, if a man lashes out in anger—if he is not self-controlled and gentle—what does that tell us about his heart? Whatever else we may say about him, we know that such anger proceeds out of the abundance of the heart.

*** Think, for example, of an unkind word or an outburst of sinful anger. We may appear perfectly composed and above reproach in public, yet we have all had moments of failure behind the scenes.

Note: I have done some thinking out loud in this post. This is something I have been reflecting on for quite some time, and while I still have questions, I offer this as an attempt to think carefully and biblically about a pattern I have found increasingly disconcerting.