Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
This post brings up the difficult question, "Is the character of the minister at all important, or should I ask, how important is it?" SavedByGrace's point of view is that the character of the minister is secondary, as long as he personally is helped to "enjoy the Lord" with the other saints.
Perhaps this speaks to the heart of the matter. How crucial is the moral character of our leaders/ministers? When do their personal failures become cause for alarm? How much "perfection" should the church demand from them? SavedByGrace is definitely not alone in his point of view. I'm still surprised to see certain televangelists back on TV after shameful failures.
In a recent post SavedByGrace noted the following:
These are pertinent examples. Solomon has great and wise proverbs on marriage to teach us all, yet none of us would recommend or condone 700 wives and 300 mistresses. Apostle Peter also had a few notable failures, yet none of us would recommend that his books be purged from scripture. Yet ... what do we do with all those scripture which stress the character of the Lord's servants, how they should be above reproach, so that they can be patterns to the Lord's children, and not bring shame to His name?
What saith thee?
|
Ohio, you ask some very good questions to which I would like to make an attempt to reply.
Generally, the problem among Christians today is a lack of balance; they go to extremes. Believers either place certain ones above reproach or they criticize endlessly without properly investigating. Should apostles, workers, or ministers out in the field be given honor? Yes, they should. And what of apostles/workers/ministers that are found to be in sin or cause division among the believers? Here we can take our cue from the Scriptures.
First, in the church in Ephesus, the Lord commended the Ephesian believers of their ability to discern the false apostles (Rev. 2:2). It is interesting to note that this was done by
the church and not by representative group within the church. This is made evidently clear as the letter was written to the assembly, and not a specific representative group. Second, we can learn from Paul's treatment and correction of Peter in the book of Galatians. Paul, seeing that Peter did not walk according to truth, rebuked Peter to his face before all (Galations 2: 11-14).
Now, here is a case where an apostle was rebuking and correcting another apostle. All one has to pay attention to here was the reason why Paul took action...because Paul "saw that they [Peter and those with him] do not walk straightforwardly, according to the truth of the glad tidings (Gal. 2:14)." So Paul's motivation was to stand for the truth, and not, as some may argue or reason, because he was ahead in line of Peter. To say this would be in direct contradiction to the Lord's answer to the question of who is greatest among the disciples (Mark 9:33-35). Further, this example goes hand-in-hand with with the words of exhortation given to Timothy by Paul in the treatment of elders in a church. First Timothy, chapter 5, verses 19 to 21 say, "Against an elder receive not an accusation unless where there are two or three witnesses. Those that sin convict before all, that the rest also may have fear. I testify before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, that thou keep these things without prejudice, doing nothing by favour."
Note the manner in which an accusation against an elder is dealt with - without partiality and with the cooperation with other members of the church (two or three witnesses). There is much to learned here in these verses. Personally, what I see is that the church (all members) are its protectors. There is no one that is beyond reproach and consequently, every member is accountable to every other member, regardless their measure of operation and faith in the church.
A fellow member of the faith.