What virtually every Pentecostal denomination believes about Restoration after ministerial misconduct

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

Restoration after ministerial misconduct?

What is virtually every Pentecostal denomination teaching?

What virtually every Pentecostal denomination believes about Restoration after ministerial misconduct

AN UNFORTUNATELY COMMON STORY
I will never be able to remember the exact day of the week as clearly as I can
remember what happened. It was about mid-morning that day when I turned on my
computer to check my e-mail as I normally do. I expected to find some mail from
ministry colleagues and I did. However, what I read was very disheartening. My dear
friends in ministry, Fred and Mary, were in crisis. Fred had just confessed to a recent
marital infidelity and Mary felt suddenly, after 30 years of marriage, that the bottom had
dropped out of her world.
Fred and Mary had separately received a call to ministry before they were
married. They had served faithfully and well over the years. They loved their
congregations and were compassionate shepherds. Their marriage seemed strong, built on
mutual respect and love. They had raised their two children well. Both Fred and Mary
were committed to God and to ministry. Over the years they had shown themselves to be
people of honesty and integrity. No wonder it was a shock to receive such news.
What was even more difficult to absorb was the manner in which the
denominational leaders dealt with Fred. He and Mary were given a month to pack all of
their belongings and move to another location far from their present ministry. They were
informed that their salary, along with their housing allowance and their health coverage,
would be terminated after a month. Fred was told he could have no public ministry for at
least two years.
The church that Fred and Mary decided to become a part of was pastored by a
man who knew them, but they were not well-known in the congregation. It was a large
church and was considered to be an exemplary church in the denomination. Before Fred
v
Vl
could begin attending the church, however, the pastor had outlined a number of
requirements that had to be met. Fred felt completely beaten. He was required to publicly
confess his sin to the congregation, though he had no relationship with the majority of
people in the church. Then a “restoration” committee was formed to meet with Fred and
keep him “accountable.” Fred was not consulted regarding the people he would like to
have on this committee. He was also required to receive counseling, without any financial
assistance from the church.
Fred was a broken man. Mary was trying to figure out her part in all that had
happened and how to deal with the present circumstances. Fred had been in ministry so
long that finding a secular job in an area totally new to him was a daunting task. The
church offered no help either financially or emotionally for Fred and Mary.
So Fred and Mary were left without a home, without a job, and with a long list of
expectations that they were required to fulfill in order to be allowed back into ministry,
although there was no guarantee of their ever being allowed to minister again. The pastor
of their church chose not to associate with Fred and Mary. The elders ofthe church
expected the restoration committee to do what was necessary to keep Fred accountable.
The committee believed that Fred had not been sufficiently repentant, but never clarified
what that was to look like. At one point there was an extensive time of “casting out
demons” and praying for “inner healing.” Fred diligently sought to meet all that was
required. He joined a support group apart from the church and attended counseling
sessions. He consistently attended church and tried to take part in the life of the
congregation.
Vll
In spite of the negative aspects of the disciplinary period, Fred and Mary did what
was asked. Eventually the discipline was satisfied and Fred was allowed certain ministry.
Fred insisted that because he had had to make public confession of sin, he also needed to
have a public recognition of restoration before the congregation. Thankfully, the pastor
agreed. However, it was Fred who designed the service and not the pastor. The pastor had
never presided over such a service and was unsure of what needed to be done. He left the
planning to Fred.
Fred and Mary are back in ministry, although their ministry is different now. Fred
and Mary relocated in order to be more effective in their present ministry. Fred speaks to
pastors and leaders whenever he can about his failure and the need for leaders to deal
more compassionately with fallen colleagues. He has learned much from his experience.
He was fortunate. Other people in Fred’s place would have simply faded out of
the ministry picture in order not to endure what Fred and Mary went through. Some go to
other denominations that either do not investigate the background of ministers or tend to
be more lenient toward offenders.
Fred and Mary’s story hit close to home because of my own deep affection for
them. Because we had worked together, they were my friends as well as my mentors in
ministry, so my heart ached for them.
Since that day when I opened their e-mail, I have become increasingly aware of
cases of clergy moral failure and the inability of churches to handle these cases well. In
general, while Christian organizations have guidelines for the discipline of clergy guilty
of moral misconduct, these rules and practices tend to reinforce shame rather than bring
about the spiritual and emotional restoration of the person.
INTRODUCTION
With the publication of Peter Rutter’s Sex in the Forbidden Zone: When Men in
Power-Therapists, Doctors, Clergy, Teachers, and Others-Betray Women’s Trust
(1986), Sex in the Parish by Karen Lebacqz and Ronald G. Barton (1991), and Marie M.
Fortune’s Is Nothing Sacred? (1992), the general public became painfully aware of
sexual misconduct on the part of helping professionals. There were, of course, the
sensational cases of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker in the late 1980s, but these were
very high profile and appeared to be exceptions. Then the sex abuse scandal in the
Roman Catholic Church-reaching back for years-came to light and is something the
Catholic Church is presently trying to resolve. The fact of clergy sexual misconduct has
been set before us in such a way that it has become no longer possible to ignore the
proverbial elephant in the living room.
Early on, Don Baker had written about clergy misconduct in his book, Beyond
Forgiveness: The Healing Touch of Church Discipline {1984), which was a kind of case
study of one of his own pastoral staff people. In its winter 1988 issue, Leadership Journal
published the results of their survey entitled, “How Common Is Pastoral Indiscretion?” In
light of the results of this survey, Leadership Journal also published a series of articles
such as “Private Sins of Public Ministry,” “How Pure Must a Pastor Be?” “The Character
Question,” and later a forum on the question of”Creating a Restoration Process.”
While on the one hand these books and articles have contributed to the necessary
public discussion of clergy sexual misconduct, on the other hand they have provided
limited understanding of the problem. The Leadership Journal articles focused mainly on
the mechanics of dealing with the misconduct.
1
2
Since the late 1980s many more books and articles have been published dealing
specifically with clergy sexual misconduct. 1 Other journals such as Christianity Today,
The Christian Century, Quarterly Review, Fundamentalist Journal and Crux, a journal of
Christian thought and opinion, also included articles, opinions and studies related to
clergy misconduct.
At the end of the 1990s other books that dealt in depth with particular aspects of
clergy misconduct began to appear. One such book was Bad Pastors: Clergy Misconduct
in Modern America, by Anson Shupe, et al. If so many books, journals and popular
publications have dealt with the topic of clergy sexual misconduct, what need is there of
another article or paper on the subject? What new or fresh insights can be added to the
accumulated knowledge we now possess?
It is not the intent of this project to add new data on the subject of clergy
misconduct. Rather, the intent is to bring together in one place the insights and
understanding from the various disciplines and set them within the context of Scripture,
church history and theology. An interdisciplinary approach to the subject of clergy
misconduct avoids simplistic conclusions about how to deal with fallen clergy. It is
1 See Raymond T. Brock and Horace C. Lukens, Jr., “Affair Prevention in the
Ministry,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 8, no. 4 (1989), 44-55; Peter Rutter,
“Interview with Dr. Peter Rutter, Author of Sex in the Forbidden Zone,” interview by
Lewis Rambo (27 July 1990), Pastoral Psychology 39, no. 5 (1991): 321-334; Marie
Fortune, “Interview with Reverend Marie Fortune,” interview by Lewis Rambo (8
August 1990)Pastoral Psychology 39, no. 5 (1991): 305-319; Mark R. Laaser, “Sexual
Addiction and Clergy,” Pastoral Psychology 39, no. 4 (1991): 213-235; Mark G. Davies,
“Clergy Sexual Malfeasance: Restoration, Ethics, and Process,” Journal of Psychology
and Theology 26, no. 4 (1998): 331-339; Donald Capps, “Sex in the Parish: SocialScientific Explanations for Why It Occurs,” The Journal of Pastoral Care 47, no. 4,
(Winter 1993): 350-361; John D. Vogelsang, “From Denial to Hope: A Systemic
Response to Clergy Sexual Abuse,” Journal of Religion and Health 3 2, no. 3 (Fall 1993):
197-208.
necessary to understand clergy misconduct in a wholistic manner in order to develop a
process of restoration that facilitates transformation.
3
Stanley Grenz and Roy Bell, in their book (Betrayal of Trust: Confronting and
Preventing Clergy Sexual Misconduct), have done a very fine job dealing with the topic,
but their approach treats not only the offender but also the victims and then provides
practical steps for the betrayed congregation to follow. Books such as Ted Kitchens’
Aftershock: What to Do When Leaders (and Others) Fail You, and Restoring the Soul of a
Church: Healing Congregations Wounded by Clergy Sexual Misconduct, edited by
Nancy Myer Hopkins and Mark Laaser, have in mind helping local congregations
through the crisis of clergy failure.
While Restoring the Fallen: A Team Approach to Caring, Confronting &
Reconciling by Earl and Sandy Wilson, et al. is aimed at offering concrete ways to help a
fallen clergy person, it does not examine the biblical and historical record for help in
deciding how to deal with the person. Other writers, such as Jack Hayford in Restoring
Fallen Leaders, Tim LaHaye in If Ministers Fall, Can They Be Restored? and Richard
Exley in Perils of Power: Immorality in the Ministry, have addressed different aspects of
fallen clergy in their books. They deal with either how to restore the fallen clergy person
or how to help the church through the turmoil and crisis of clergy misconduct. Some of
these authors base their arguments on Scripture; some, such as Candace R. Benyei in her
book Understanding Clergy Misconduct in Religious Systems approach the subject from a
more therapeutic framework.
While all of these add to our understanding, unless they are brought together and
examined in the light of Scripture, church history and theology, the studies, articles and
4
books give only a fragmented picture. Scripture naturally provides the starting point for
an examination of clergy misconduct. In the Bible we find people who were leaders, who
committed sins and yet, in some cases, continued to lead.
Biblical scholars such as David M. Gunn in his fascinating studies The Fate of
King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story and The Story of King David: Genre and
Interpretation provide insight into the nature and context of the sins of Saul and David.
Baruch Halpern’s book David’s Secret Demons and Robert Altman’s The Story of David
provide fresh perspectives on the life ofDavid. Likewise, Walter Brueggemann, in his
book David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory, as well as his interpretation of 2
Samuel, provides further insight surrounding David and Saul, although he does not draw
conclusions related to clergy misconduct.
Eugene Peterson’s book, Leap Over a Wall: Earthy Spirituality for Everyday
Christians, while pastoral in nature does not, once again, go on to draw implications for
fallen leaders. As the discussion that follows in these pages will show, the lives of Saul
and David especially provide an important piece to constructing a process of restoration
for fallen clergy.
Another important piece to the process of restoration is the historical one found in
the Donatist controversy. While it originated before the time of Augustine, it was one of
the major controversies that faced him when he became Bishop of Hippo and about
which he wrote extensively. W. H. C. Frend and Maureen Tilley are the leading scholars
in understanding the Donatist controversy. Peter Brown and G. G. Willis provide detailed
5
information that examines and explains Augustine’s part in deciding the controversy
which became the practice ofthe Church in cases of clergy misconduct. 2
While the Donatist controversy was not about sexual behavior per se, the
controversy dealt with the question of restoring “fallen” clergy to leadership. Though
many other authors have contributed as well to the understanding of the Donatist
controversy, 3 what these excellent historical/theological studies fail to do is discern
implications regarding contemporary clergy misconduct. Certainly there are many factors
in the Donatist controversy that have no bearing on our present discussion; there are,
nonetheless, factors that do indeed relate to the subject.
The subject of clergy misconduct must also be dealt with in the context of good
theology. While theologians of the stature of John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
Religion, and RudolfBultmann, Theology of the New Testatment, and Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, provide some guidance and help in the area of church
discipline and restoration, they do not specifically deal with fallen leaders.
Donald G. Bloesch and Ray S. Anderson provide a solid theological framework
for establishing a sound practice of restoration. But it is L. Gregory Jones who provides
2 See W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman
North Africa (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1952); Maureen Tilley, The Bible in
Christian North Africa: Jhe Donatist World (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1997);
Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 2000); G. G. Willis, Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy (London, UK:
SPCK, 1950).
3 See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco, CA:
HarperCollins Publishers, 1978); John Anthony Corcoran, Augustinus Contra Donatistas
(Donaldson, IN.: Grace Theological Foundation, 1997) and Gerald Bonner, St. Augustine
of Hippo: Life and Controversies (Norwich, UK: The Canterbury Press, 1986).
6
the theological rationale and the means by which the church can responsibly deal with
fallen clergy. 4
There are some, of course, who believe that Scripture clearly does not allow fallen
clergy to return to ministry. John H. Armstrong, in his book Can Fallen Pastors Be
Restored? The Church ‘s Response to Sexual Misconduct, argues against restoring fallen
clergy. The book appears to be a response to Jay E. Smith’s lengthy article in Bibliotheca
Sacra entitled “Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership?” Armstrong presents a
biblical argument against restoration. The difficulty with Armstrong’s book is that while
he uses Scripture he limits himself to only those New Testament passages that deal with
the qualifications for elders. He does include one chapter that deals with church history
and mentions T ertullian and Basil but then jumps to the Reformation. He ignores the
contribution of Cyprian and Augustine, who indeed had to deal with clergy immorality.
In ·the end, what makes this project unique is the fact that it brings together
insights from the Scripture, church history, sociological and psychological studies,
theology and spiritual disciplines in order to propose a theologically based process of
restoration for fallen clergy. In other words, this project is an attempt to integrate the
wealth of study and information that already exists regarding clergy misconduct in order
to propose a compassionate and Christ-like way of dealing with failed clergy. The intent
is not to make the process of restoration less rigorous; rather it is to demonstrate how the
4 See Donald G. Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002); RayS. Anderson The Shape of Practical
Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2001); L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological
Analysis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995).
care and restoration of the fallen ones can be dealt with in the context of the faith
community in a redemptive and responsible way.
7
What really is in a name or a phrase? Clergy sexual malfeasance, clergy sexual
misconduct, clergy moral failure or clergy sexual abuse are phrases that are becoming
more and more a part of contemporary public discourse as cases of clergy sexual
immorality are being more frequently reported. In sorting out the complications, pain,
hurt and damage that arise from such harmful clergy behaviors, churches and
denominations are learning to deal with offending clergy in ways that satisfy ethical and
legal demands. Often these same churches and denominations, in an effort to help people
and bring some kind of healing, encourage and provide for psychological treatment for
the offending clergy.
It is indeed time to respond to clergy misbehavior in ethically, legally and
psychologically responsible ways. But what of the spiritual issues involved? What roles
do theology and spirituality play in dealing with clergy immorality? Is it enough to send
the offending person off to a counselor and keep him or her out of ministry-at least for
a time, if not permanently? How do we determine whether an offending clergy person is
fit to return to ministry? Or should he or she return at all?
Though Christian organizations may rightly seek to enunciate and clearly define
ethical norms, as well as bring greater accountability into ministerial relationships, the
reality is that cases of clergy sexual misbehavior will continue. While prevention of
sexual misconduct is of vital importance and unquestionably should be pursued,
prevention alone does not help when dealing with the failed clergy person after the fact.
Is a clergy person disqualified from leadership as a result of sexual misconduct? Does all
manner of sexual misconduct disqualify a person from ministry? If not, is there a
responsible way to bring that person back into professional ministry? What can be done
to bring that person to a place of restoration that does not ignore or minimize the
seriousness of the misconduct, but at the same time extends true grace to the fallen one?
These are the questions that will be the subject of the following discussion.
The discussion will unfold in the following manner:
I) three biblical characters, Saul, David and Peter, will be examined to help
determine whether or not there exists biblical precedent for restoration of
fallen clergy;
2) the historical example of the Donatist controversy will be examined to
determine what light it can shed on the current situation;
3) the biblical arguments, both for and against returning offending clergy to
ministry, will be examined;
4) the psychological literature and studies related to the topic will be touched
upon in order to deepen our understanding of clergy misconduct;
5) and, finally, the elements that are necessary to the process of restoration if a
clergy person is to return to ministry will be introduced and explained.
Before proceeding with the discussion I wish to make clear the scope or, rather,
the limits of the topic at hand. In recent years the press has reported several cases of
clergy misconduct that have become the topic of public conversation and caused much
concern in the Christian community. The cases reported, studied or discussed may all
seem to be of the same nature. However, sexual misconduct can be a very broad term. It
can include, but not be limited to, sexual harassment, sexual abuse of minors and
8
9
extramarital affairs of clergy. For the purpose of this project I wish to narrow the
discussion to the area of clergy affairs.
Therefore, for the purpose of this paper, the terms sexual misconduct, moral
failure, clergy malfeasance, fallen clergy, or clergy immorality, refer to those clergy
persons, married or single, who have a sexual relationship, regardless of duration, with
another adult outside of marriage. In restricting the focus of this discussion I purposely
exclude any discussion of those clergy persons guilty of child molestation or sexual abuse
of minors, or ofthose addicted to pornography. Nor is it my intention to imply either
directly or indirectly that the process of restoration discussed here can be or should be
applied to the kinds of sexual misconduct that have been excluded. Whether or not
persons guilty of these excluded behaviors can be or ought to be restored to leadership is
a subject for further study and discussion.
One other word is needed before moving on to the topic of discussion. In focusing
on clergy persons I do not wish to imply in any way a lack of compassion for the victims
of their misconduct. It is my hope that the following discussion will offer a way for the
offending clergy person to take responsibility for his or her own actions and, at the same
time, break the destructive behavior pattern.
The purpose ofbeginning with Scripture is to go beyond dealing with the problem
of clergy misconduct from a merely therapeutic perspective and introduce a decidedly
more theological focus to the topic. The end in view here is to understand true biblical
compassion for those who have failed.
Compassion must not be understood as being soft and overlooking, minimizing or
covering up destructive behaviors. By compassion I mean the kind of compassion
10
exhibited by Jesus. When Jesus felt compassion He was moved to do something in
response to a particular need. (See for example Matthew 14: 14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; Luke
7:13.) To have compassion for clergy guilty of sexual misconduct does not lead us to
excuse or minimize or deny their behavior or the damage done by that behavior. Rather to
have compassion on them is to take seriously the spiritual disciplines of confession,
repentance, forgiveness, penance and reconciliation as a means of restoring a fallen
clergy person.
CHAPTER ONE
FALLEN LEADERS:
THREE CASE STUDIES FROM SCRIPTURE
We begin our discussion by looking into the biblical record for guidance relevant
to the restoration of fallen clergy. In this chapter I will discuss the three biblical
characters ofKing Saul, King David and the Apostle Peter. At least two of the three were
guilty of committing sins that the Church has traditionally considered the gravest kind:
adultery, murder and apostasy or denial of the faith.
The purpose for choosing Saul and David is to examine the striking difference in
how God responded to their sin, as well as the results of their respective sins. Both were
guilty of committing grave sins. In Saul’s case we understand that his sin was serious
because ofthe result: it led to Yahweh’s rejection ofhis kingship. Specifically, in what
way was Saul’s sin more grievous than that ofDavid? What exactly was the nature of
Saul’s sin? For if Saul’s rejection was not based on moral failure as such and David was
not rejected as king even though he failed morally, then what implications or insight can
these two examples lend in cases of clergy misconduct? In other words, can we conclude
from these examples that moral failure must automatically exclude a clergy person from
leadership?
In the case of the Apostle Peter, we have not only a case of denial of Christ, but
also a very public reinstatement of Peter to leadership by Christ Himself. Was Christ
making an exception with Peter? Can Peter’s denial be considered apostasy? Is his
11
12
The Case of King Saul
Yahweh’s disapproval and rejection of Saul is the result ofwhat takes place in 1
Samuel chapters 13 and 15. First Samuel13:8 -15 records Saul’s first offense. He was to
wait seven days for Samuel to come and tell him what to do. Samuel does not arrive and
Saul’s situation grows desperate when his army begins to desert. Saul then takes matters
into his own hands and offers the burnt offering. Samuel appears almost immediately
thereafter and tells Saul that his actions have displeased Yahweh to such an extent that
now the kingdom of Saul will not continue. 1 Samuel tells Saul that the “Lord has sought
out a man after his own heart; and the Lord has appointed him to be ruler over his people,
because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you” (1 Samuel13:14).
The final rejection of Saul comes in 1 Samuel 15. Saul is told to attack the
Amalekites and to completely destroy everything including their king, Agag. Saul attacks
but chooses to spare the life of Agag and the best of the livestock (1 Samuel15:4-9).
When Samuel finds Saul, he confronts him and declares that Saul has now been rejected
by the Lord (1 Samuel15:23).
What is important to note here is Saul’s response to Samuel’s words. In the face
of the Lord’s displeasure, Saul repents and confesses his sin (vs. 24-25). However,
Samuel does not accept Saul’s confession and repentance and only repeats the sentence
of rejection one more time (vs. 26-29).
It has been necessary to describe these events at length in an attempt to
understand the nature of Saul’s sin. The judgment on Saul is harsh and both Samuel and
1 Peter Ackroyd, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible:
Commentary on Samuel (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 106.
Yahweh appear to be unrelenting in their treatment of him. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg,
commenting on 1 Samuel 13, states:
Saul justifies his conduct in a modest and at all points irrefutable way. From the
description of the affair we seem to have a vindication of Saul rather than a
charge against him. Saul has done what he had to do as commander-in-chief,
especially in view of the dwindling of his manpower.
2
13
Hertzberg then goes on to say, however, that Saul’s “kingship was perverted right
from the beginning,”3 but it is by no means clear in what way this was so. Ackroyd
believes, as many do, that Saul had disobeyed a clear command from God.4 David M.
Gunn believes that Saul’s rejection was not based so much on moral culpability, though
he admits that in some “technical” way Saul disobeyed, but rather as some decision on
the part ofYahweh to reject Saul’s dynasty no matter what he did. 5 Tamas Czovek
contends that Saul was rejected because he directly challenged Samuel’s authority.6 Keil
and Delitzsch declare that Saul’s conduct “was nothing but open rebellion against the
sovereignty ofGod.”7 Finally, Brueggemann believes that ultimately Saul did not listen
to Yahweh. 8
2 Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden
(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1964), 105-106.
3 Ibid., 106.
4 Ackroyd, 126.
5 David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story
(Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1984), 124.
6 Tamas Czovek, “Three Charismatic Leaders: Part One: Saul,” Traniformation
19 (3 July 2002): 173.
14
The judgment of Saul’s sin is clear and sharp. The nature of that judgment
suggests that the sin was very serious. Nonetheless, “Saul was never as guilty of any sin
half as detestable as the sin of his successor.”9 Saul’s sin did not fall in the category of
adultery, murder or apostasy. While the study of the nature of Saul’s sin can be a
stimulating experience, the purpose of the discussion here is not to discover the exact
nature of that sin. Instead we need to ponder the fact that the Lord’s judgment of Saul
appears to be far more harsh that His judgment of David, who committed adultery and
murder.
Can we conclude from Saul’s experience that we need to be more severe with
other sins committed by clergy? Are there sins greater or more serious than adultery,
murder or apostasy that could disqualify people from leadership? Saul’s case clearly
indicates there are sins for which a leader can be disqualified for leadership. While at the
same time, it must be said, that the Scripture is not clear as to what those sins are or why
exactly Saul was rejected as king.
The Case of David
Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann observes that “the power ofDavid
endures, and therefore the David that emerges in these narratives is not a helpless, passive
7 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 2, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, I and II Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1986), 150.
8 Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Louisville, KY: John Knox
Press, 1990), 113.
9 Clovis G. Chappell, Sermons on Old Testament Characters (New York, NY:
Harper, 1925); quoted in David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a
Biblical Story (Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1984), 43.
15
product … Rather, David is like a character in a good drama that takes on a life of his or
her own … ” Further, he states that David “is not a simple unambiguous” man and that
when speaking of the truth regarding David we must understand that “truth is polyvalent.
That is, it moves in a variety of directions and cannot be reduced to a single
formulation.” 10 This is important because some have found it difficult to reconcile the
David who authored numerous psalms revealing a very intimate relationship with God,
who refused to kill Saul because he was God’s anointed even though he had opportunity,
with the David who committed adultery and murder. Hertzberg speaks ofthe “dismay” 11
and T. Stanley Soltau writes, “it is hard to explain how a man like David fell into the
awful sin which he did.” 12 Brueggemann’s description of truth in relation to David as
polyvalent helps us understand and accept that David is as complex as any human being.
By this acceptance we allow the Scripture stories of these very human beings to speak to
us.
Popular literature has taken David’s story and used if for a variety of purposes.
Arthur W. Pink sees the story “as a divine beacon, warning us of the rocks upon which
David’s life was wrecked; as a danger signal, bidding us be on our guard, lest we, through
unwatchful-ness, experience a similar calamity.” 13 Books such as A Man of Passion and
Destiny by Charles Swindall, A Heart Like His by Rebecca Manley Pippert or Luis
10 Walter Brueggemann, David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985,), 14, 15.
11 Hertzberg, 3 09.
12 T. Stanley Soltau, The God Appointed Life: Lessons From the Life of David
(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1966), 69.
13 Arthur W. Pink, The Life of David, vol. 2 (Swengel, P A: Reiner Publications,
1974), 14.
16
Palau’s Heart After God: Running With David or even The Heart of An Executive:
Lessons On Leadership From the Life of King David in many ways idealize David. While
they admit his error or sins, for the most part, they do not give an account that reflects the
complexity of David’s personality. Pippert’s- book treats David with more authenticity
than others, but at the same time she deals only with David and Saul’s relationship,
stopping short ofDavid’s fall into sin. Swindall looks at all ofDavid’s life but sees him
as a model of “integrity and humility.” He goes on to say that “our world is desperately in
need of models worth following, here is one deserving of our time and attention: David, a
man of passion and destiny.” 14
Why does it surprise us that this model of integrity and leadership committed the
sins that are described in 2 Samuel 11? Why is it difficult for us to believe that God
would choose a man capable of committing the crimes David committed? John
Mauchline gives us perspective on David when he comments “a king’ s anointing and
consecration does not make him into a being of another order from ordinary mortals; he
is still a man of feelings and desires, therefore, of failings and follies. Yahweh cannot
find the perfect instrument to serve his purpose.”15 Perhaps it is precisely in David’s
failure that we find hope for ourselves. Brueggemann suggests that we treat David as a
“paradigm for humanness.” 16 He attempts to describe and reveal a man who is “larger14 Charles R. Swindall, David: A Man of Passion and Destiny (Dallas, TX: Word
Publishing, 1997), xii.
15 John Mauchline, ed., New Century Bible: 1 and 2 Samuel (Greenwood, SC:
Attic Press, Inc., 1971), 252-53.
16 Brueggemann, 46.
17
than-life” 17 and whose story cannot be reduced to warnings or formulas for keeping
oneself from falling into sin.
David’s story is complex and as multilayered as any human story. “The ambiguity
of motives is fundamental to David’s character.”18 This complexity and ambiguity
engages us in the story. We are indeed privileged to “know more” details concerning
David “than any other Old Testament character.”19 As we follow David from his youth
through his fugitive years and into middle life as a powerful king over Judah and Israel,
we realize that this man has the capacity to do great and good things. The fullness and
richness of his character speaks of an authentic, flesh and blood person. Thus, we can ask
ourselves: What can we see and discern in David’s story that sheds light on our own story
as a faith community when we are dealing with similar stories of failure? In order to
answer that question David’s story must be told.
The part ofDavid’s life that concerns us takes place in his middle years, after he
has become king over the united kingdom. He is obviously a good leader and strategist.
He is a devout and pious man. He is capable of showing restraint and not allowing anger
or the desire for revenge to drive him. He demonstrates trust in Yahweh. He also is a man
of great passion. 20
17 Brueggemann, 15.
18 Tamas Czovek, “Three Charismatic Leaders: Part Two: David,”
Transformation 19 (3 July 2002): 185.
19 George L. Robinson, “David,” in The International Standard Bible
Encyclopaedia, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939),
790.
David’s affair with Bathsheba recorded in 2 Samuel 11, is “the pivotal turning
point in the narrative plot of the books of Samuel.”21 In this text we are “invited behind
all the critical, scholarly questions to face the harder questions of human desire and
human power -desire with all its delights, power with all its potential for death. ”
22
18
The story unfolds in the spring and Israel is at war, but David, the king, is at home
in Jerusalem rather than leading his troops (2 Samuel 11:1 ). He is “by now well
established … and doesn’t need to prove himself in battle.”23 “David has ceased to be a
chieftain and now relies on agents to do his work.”24 Some commentators and preachers
seeking to understand and explain David’s fall refer to 2 Samuel5:13 when David took
concubines and wives. They make reference to what they describe as his uncharacteristic
idleness in staying in Jerusalem. 25 These reasons are given because David’s sin is seen as
yielding solely to sexual temptation. Mary J. Evans, in her comment on 2 Samuel 11: 1,
observes, however, that “the reader is left to decide whether the king’ s inactivity was the
cause of the events that followed.”26
20 Ibid., 797 A
21 Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Louisville, KY: John Knox
Press, 1990), 271.
22 Ibid., 272.
23 Eugene H. Peterson, Leap Over A Wall: Earthy Spirituality for Everyday
Christians (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998), 182.
24 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 273.
25 Alan Redpath, The Making of A Man of God: Studies in the Life of David (Old
Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1962), 198.
26 Mary J. Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel: New International Biblical Commentary
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 182.
19
Other commentators see David’s sin as an abuse of power that is played out in
sexual sin and murder;27 therefore, the fact that he took more concubines and stayed
home while his troops were at war-while they may have contributed to his fall-are not
necessarily the causes. While Keith Anderson suggests that David’s sin cannot be
reduced to sexual temptation alone, he still leans toward the idleness or a “restlessness of
heart” explanation. 28
However, a case can be made for understanding David’s fall in terms of an abuse
of power.
29 David’s actions here parallel the actions of other pagan or oriental kings of
the time, who utilized their power to take whatever they wanted and believed to be their
right?0 David M. Gunn speaks ofDavid moving from receiving the gift of the kingdom
to “the polar opposite … grasping by force.’m Viewing David’s actions in terms of power,
instead of solely sexual misconduct, may be helpful when we deal with clergy who have
acted out sexually. Centering the discussion on David’s abuse of power rather than his
sexual behavior and murder may allow us to see more clearly the core issues out of which
inappropriate sexual behavior arises. In later chapters these core issues will be examined
more closely when we look at the relationship of shame and current disciplinary practices
for offending clergy.
27 Evans, 183.
28 Keith R. Anderson, Does God Believe in You? (Downers Grove, IL:
Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 82.
29 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 273-274.
30 John Mauchline, 253.
31 D. M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (Sheffield,
UK: The Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1978), 97.
20
Be that as it may, we are told that David rises from an afternoon nap and walks
along the rooftop of his palace. He sees a “very beautiful” woman bathing. David is at
first curious to know who she is, so he sends someone to inquire. Once he knows who she
is, he then “knows” her in the biblical sense of sexual intercourse. As a result of this
encounter she becomes pregnant. The Scriptural record makes clear that the child is
certainly David’s because Bathsheba’s bathing is the ritual cleansing that came at the end
of a woman’s menstrual cycle.32 When David learns she is pregnant he summons Uriah,
Bathsheba’s husband, from the battlefront in an effort to entice him to sleep with his wife
in order to disguise the paternity of the child (2 Samuel 11 :2-9).
All ofDavid’s schemes fail and Uriah returns to battle without sleeping with his
wife. David’s desperation is apparent when he instructs his general Joab to place Uriah at
a point in the battle where he will most assuredly be killed (2 Samuel 11: 14-15). Upon
Uriah’s death and after an appropriate period of mourning, Bathsheba becomes David’s
wife and bears his child (2 Samuel 11 :26-27). As Eugene Peterson observes,
The less David is paying attention to God, the more he’s acting as if he were God,
acting like a god in relation to Bathsheba, pulling her into the orbit of his will so
that she’s dependent upon him; acting like a god in relation to Uriah and giving
the commands that determine his fate. 33
For whatever interior reasons, David finds the capacity within himself to utilize his power
contrary to the commandments of his God. The Scripture makes it clear that “the thing
David had done displeased the LORD” (2 Samuel 11 :27).
32 Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation With Commentary of 1 and 2
Samuel (New York, NY: Norton and Company, Inc., 1999), 251.
33Peterson, 187.
21
It is at this point in the narrative that God sends Nathan the prophet to appear
before the king (2 Samuel 12:1). Some time has passed, at least a year/4 since David’s
encounter with Bathsheba. There is no indication, at least to this point, that David felt any
remorse or guilt over what he had done. So Nathan, by means of a parable about a rich
man taking a poor man’s beloved ewe lamb, confronts David with his sin. David is quick
to respond (2 Samuel 12:13) in confession and repentance. “David’s response .. .is
remarkable … We might conclude David has no option … But in fact he did not have to
confess. A lesser man-perhaps his son Solomon-would not have confessed but would
have eliminated the prophet instead.”35
Eugene Peterson believes that the primary task in the Christian life is to be able to
recognize sin. 36 This recognition of sin is more than recognizing the destructive and
harmful behaviors that are a result of sin. For example, when discussing David’s
behavior, Peterson observes that “sin isn’t essentially a moral term, designating items of
wrongdoing; it’s a spiritual term, designating our God-avoidance and our godpretensions.”37 In David’s case we see a man caught up in a power struggle that will
determine who will be God in the end. David used his power to determine the fate of
others and acted as if his abuse of power would not affect his own fate. Could this issue
of power be the reason that David claims, when he prays to God for forgiveness in Psalm
51:4, “against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight”? David’s
34 Robinson, 797.
35 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 282.
36 Peterson, 186.
37 Peterson, 187.
22
prayer is a recognition that God was displaced, that He had receded and had been set
aside in David’s actions until Nathan confronted him. The consequence ofDavid’s sin
manifests itself in family moral dilemmas and political upheaval, but the sin, once
confessed and repented of, no longer stands between him and God. 38 For a Christian this
is the critical issue: the individual’s relationship with God. Nothing is more important
than this. Who will help fallen clergy understand how God has been displaced in their
lives? For ifPeterson is correct, then the issue is helping an offending person recognize
the true nature of his or her sin so as not to repeat the destructive behavior.
The prayer of repentance and confession as recorded in Psalm 51 is traditionally
attributed to David after his confrontation with Nathan, and is frequently offered as help
and consolation to those who have fallen as a means of restoring their relationship with
God. The more difficult question of a fallen leader being restored to leadership after
confession and repentance is generally not considered part ofthe nature of the psalm.
Saul and David: A Comparison
A comparison of the sins of Saul and David raises some questions in relationship
to fallen leaders and their restoration. Both Saul and David were kings chosen by God.
Both sinned and both confessed. But only Saul was rejected as king and this rejection
comes “in spite of his prayer for forgiveness of his sin.”39 In what way did Saul’s
confession and repentance differ from that ofDavid?
George A. Buttrick says of David that “he recognizes the true nature of sinrebellion against God” which was understood to be an “assault against God’s
38 Allen E. Clifton, The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1998),
1293-1294.
39 Keil and Delitzsch, 150.
23
sovereignty. ” 40 While Keil and Delitzsch speak of David as having committed the
“grosser sins,”41 these same kinds of sins are not attributed to Saul. One cannot help but
wonder, as Brueggemann does, on what grounds then is Saul rejected as king?42 Saul is
rejected, David is forgiven. In the end, regarding Saul’s rejection, we are left with having
to deal with a verdict that seems “hard” and “problematic.”43
The only clue as to why God’s treatment of Saul differs from His treatment of
David may be 1 Samuel 15: 1 where Saul is enjoined to listen. If indeed he was anointed
for the sole purpose of listening to Yahweh, his subsequent disobedience and efforts at
justification and blaming others indicate that he had stopped listening and began “to
imagine himself’ as “so autonomous that he can decide for himself and need listen no
longer.”44 David, on the other hand, responds quickly to Nathan’s rebuke of”you are the
man” (2 Samuel12:7). He listens, in other words, to the voice of God in the mouth of
Nathan. David takes responsibility for his sin, which is in contrast to Saul’s behavior. No
matter that the subsequent events in David’s family and reign are tragic, it is still
nevertheless true that David looms large in the history of redemption, again in contrast to
Saul, Israel’s first king. Baruch Halpern points out:
The claim that Jesus is the Messiah, the claim that he is the son of the Jewish
God, depends on his linear descent from David. There is no direct
40 George A. Buttrick, The Interpreter’s Bible: Commentary on II Samuel (New
York, NY: Abingdon Press, 1953), 1104-05.
41 Keil and Delitzsch, 382.
42 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 101-2.
43 Ibid., 102.
44 Ibid., 113.
juxtaposition of Jesus with Moses, and no implication in the Jewish or
Christian traditions that Moses’s descendants would somehow redeem
humanity. Likewise, no gospel text stresses Jesus’s connections with the
patriarchs of Genesis, such as Abraham. Instead, the emphasis is on the
connection to David. 45
Even those who recognize the truth of Halpern’s statement will still point to the
tragic aftermath in David’s life and use that as proof that there is a loss of spiritual or
24
moral authority as a result of sexual misconduct. The loss of moral and spiritual authority
becomes the reason for removing someone from ministry. IfDavid’s sin is understood
more as an abuse of power, would there still be the issue of loss of authority? It is
precisely because ofDavid’s great fall and his clear confession and repentance that his
“basic spiritual greatness stands most clearly revealed. ”
46 If this is so, we must conclude
that it is not the sinful actions in and of themselves that disqualify a person from ministry.
Rather it is the response to confrontation regarding the sin.
Both Saul and David were chosen and anointed by God to be kings. Both kings
failed God, disobeyed God’s commandments and sinned. Both were confronted by one of
God’s prophets. Nonetheless we are still left with the questions ofwhy David was not
removed as king, since there is biblical precedent for this, and why he becomes so
important that the Messiah was descended from his line. Can we say that Saul did not
take responsibility for his sin and, in contrast, David did? These questions are raised not
with the intention of resolving them, but rather to support the claim that there is a good
biblical basis for not removing fallen clergy from ministry or even believing that they
cannot have significant ministry after their fall. David’s life and God’s dealing with him
45 Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 3.
46 Buttrick, 1098.
may offer an alternative view or means of treating clergy persons who have similar
experiences.
25
The purpose of this particular discussion has been to examine the life of David
because of 1) his importance as king of Israel and precursor to the Messiah; 2) the high
regard Christians have for David, citing him as an example to follow; and 3) the insight
his story offers for those clergy persons who have parallel experiences. The comparison
and contrast of Saul and David has been for the purpose of understanding that the nature
of the behavior does not determine the treatment on God’s part. It also demonstrates that
spiritual and moral authority are not necessarily diminished when there is confession of
and repentance from moral failure or sexual misconduct.
The Case of Peter
The case ofPeter does not involve immorality. However, Peter’s denial of Christ
was serious. In the time of the Church Fathers, apostasy or denial of the faith was ranked
as one of the more serious sins along with murder and sexual immorality. Thus Peter’s
failure and his subsequent rehabilitation relate to the matter of clergy misconduct. The
events in the life of Peter that concern us here are:
1) his profession of Jesus as the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20, see also Mark 8:27-
29 and Luke 9:18-20);
2) the prediction ofPeter’s failure (Luke 22:31-32);
3) and, finally, the restoration ofPeter (John 21:15-19).
It is important to review the statements Peter makes regarding Christ in order to
fully appreciate the seriousness of his subsequent denial. While the Matthew 16 passage
presents a number of difficulties that have occasioned considerable debate, what it does
26
demonstrate is Peter’s own belief concerning Jesus the Christ. Jesus asks the disciples,
“Who do you say I am?” Peter then makes his declaration. John 6:69 also demonstrates
the extent ofPeter’s faith. Jesus has spoken and some are offended. The Scripture says
they “turned back and no longer followed him.” Jesus turns to his disciples and asks them
if they wish to leave as well. Peter’s response makes clear that he believes that only Jesus
speaks the words of eternal life. Peter professed before others his strong conviction that
Jesus was the Messiah.
At the end of the story about the rich young ruler, Peter declares that the disciples
have left everything to follow Jesus. When Jesus predicts that all the disciples will desert
Him Peter is the first to declare his devotion and his intention of following to the death.
Even at a crucial moment in the garden of Gethsemane Peter takes up a sword and is
ready to do battle against overwhelming odds. All of these events taken together
demonstrate not only Peter’s passionate commitment to Jesus, but also his willingness to
give his life for that belief
It is because ofPeter’s passionate declarations that his failure is so tragic. Jesus
predicts that Peter will fail in spite of his protestations. All three of the synoptics record
the prediction of Jesus, but the passage in Luke 22 includes details that the others omit.
Jesus speaks of the fact that all of the disciples will be sifted or tested as the plural use of
“you” (hymas) indicates in v. 31. But in v. 32 Jesus addresses Peter alone as the singular
sou indicates, instructing him to “strengthen” the others once he has “turned back. “47 It is
uncertain what Jesus meant when He said He prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. Is
47 Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids,
JMI: Zondervan Publishers, 1984), 1029.
27
Jesus suggesting that Peter’s faith could disappear completely?48 Leon Morris takes the
passage to refer to “hardships and difficulties” that will give Peter the authority to help
others, but he does not explain what a failure of faith means here. 49
Tertullian believed that Peter’s faith was threatened by Satan, but not in danger
because he was protected by God. 50 If this is true, what does the phrase “when you have
turned back” mean then? Ambrose, on the other hand, believed that Peter did fall from
faith. 5
1 The seriousness ofPeter’s denial must also be understood in light of the words of
Jesus recorded in Matthew 10:33, “Whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him
before my Father in heaven.” This is the very thing Peter promises Jesus he will never do
in Matthew 26:3 5.
The encounter between Jesus and Peter in John 21 is of great significance once
the seriousness ofPeter’s offence is understood. The encounter is Peter’s “rehabilitation”
by Christ in the presence of the other disciples. As Morris explains it, this is Peter’s
“restoration to his rightful place ofleadership.”52
Most commentators see the three questions Jesus asks Peter as corresponding to
his three denials; however, they generally focus on the “threefold command to feed Jesus’
48 Ibid.
49 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 309.
50 Arthur A. Just, Jr., ed., Luke (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003),
337.
51 Ibid., 336.
52 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 869-70.
28
sheep.”53 It is interesting to note that Peter’s denial is not taken to be as scandalous as
David’s adultery. Augustine, nonetheless, saw the relationship between the two when he
stated: “As holy David repented for his deadly crimes and still retained his kingship, so
the blessed Peter earnestly repented, having denied the Lord and shed such bitter tears yet
remained an apostle. ” 54 Unlike Saul and David, Peter had no need for a prophet to
confront him with his sin. While Saul is rejected as king and David is clearly pardoned
for his sin and continues as king of Israel, Peter is publicly rehabilitated and restored to
leadership.
Though Peter’s behavior has no sexual dimension, is his sin any less grievous
than adultery or murder? No doubt Peter’s sin did not affect others in the same manner as
that of David’s. Nevertheless, it can be inferred from John 21:3 that Peter had great
influence over the other disciples even in a small decision to go fishing. It can also be
said of Saul that his sin does not appear to have been sexual in nature and he was rejected
as leader. Why does Jesus make what appears to be a special effort to forgive, restore and
reinstate Peter before the very ones he is to lead?
Conclusions
What can be concluded from the discussion of Saul, David and Peter in relation to the
matter of restoration of fallen clergy?
53 Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, eds., Peter in the
New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press, 1973); 142.
54 R J. Deferrari, ed. Fathers of the Church: A New Translation vol. 30
(Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 184 quoted in Thomas
Oden and Christopher Hall, eds., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New
Testament vol II (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 221-22.
In Saul’s case it can be concluded that there are sins that disqualify one from
leadership. However, in considering his example, it is not entirely clear what those sins
are. If rebellion and disobedience are the nature of his sin, what implications does this
have for assessing clergy conduct?
29
The cases of David and Peter lead one to conclude that adultery, murder or apostasy
do not automatically disqualify one from leadership. The preceding may appear to be
preposterous, and even dangerous, but based solely on these examples it is possible to
make such a conclusion.
Saul, David and Peter provide a foundational piece upon which to build or further
expand the discussion of clergy misconduct. An examination of the particular misconduct
of each one introduces one to the possibility of restoration to ministry subsequent to
moral failure. In other words, precedent can be found in Scripture to support restoration.
The examples of David and Peter introduce the possibility of restoration.