Paul: Chief Among Sinners: Teacher, Apostle and Minister

[Ynott]

Paul wrote large portions of the New Testament and in recent threads has been quoted often to justify who can and who cannot be in a pastoral position within the church.

But Paul, himself, claimed to be "chief among sinners". He held the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen and harassed the early Christians PRIOR to being converted. In fact, Saul (Paul) was a pretty despicable man with regard to the church before his encounter with Jesus.

If we met a "Saul/Paul" man today, I daresay that virtually all of the evangelical/fundamentalist churches would keep him from holding any elder/deacon position within their church.

I have noted that many of these churches state that NO divorced, etc. person shall attain high office/teacher/pastor within their churches.....Why?

I ask "why" in this respect....Paul did! (Note: Paul was not divorced, but himself claims no special privelege with regard to his past sinful record.)

I believe the discrepancy lies in the fact that Paul was a different creation before his eyes were opened to the truth of Our Lord. With that in mind, shouldn't we instead be saying that "any Christian" who is straying in this manner should not hold high office?

And what does this say about repentant believers as well?

Can they become pastors again upon repentance? What if they are divorced, but never marry again....Would that block someone?

I'm not looking for loopholes, so much as a foothold.

Jesus forgave and said, "Go and sin no more".

So, if we are new creations in Christ and HE forgives us, can not the church then forgive us? Doesn't "forgiveness" restore completely?

I understand that an unrepentant Christian believer cannot and should not hold these positions, but is this a "forever" thing as is currently being practiced in many churches?

What does that say about forgiveness?

I understand the difficulty. How can we KNOW if a man/woman is truly repentant. I don't know. These questions bother me and I am honestly seeking guidance here.

What do you think?

[Workfromhomemom]

I am not going to jump into the discussion, other than to say that there is NOT an "unpardonable" sin for a believer.

Jesus "paid it all" at Calvary and EVERY SINGLE SIN has already been wiped away. Now, having said that, there are consequences to sin that we still have to deal with.

An interesting example is what happened at Charles Stanley's church when he and his wife separated. He came before the church, laid it all out, and offered to step aside. The church voted to keep him. (they had evidently had much marriage counseling and it was not a rush thing). I believe that individual churches can do this.

That is all I am going to say about it...

:):

[Ynott]

I hear you, Wfhm. I even agree.

But then I look at Paul. He could never hold a high position in a church of today. Folks would look at his past record and deny him that.

I don't know the answer. Sometimes I worry that while we understand how to judge believers (and I agree that we are to do so!), that we have forgotten how to forgive (and restore) them when they repent.

I just don't know and it honestly bothers me.

[blitzkreig]

I think it an issue not of forgiveness,... but one of leadership.

Rom 14:13-15
(13) Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
(14) I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(15) For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

[Ynott]

But the contradiction is that Paul himself held a position of leadership.

How then do we view that?

[Brad MetalMan]

It was the old Paul that was the chief of sinners. None the less, it was still Paul that was the chief of sinners. So much for having to be perfect to be in leadership.

[blitzkreig]

Originally posted by Ynott
But the contradiction is that Paul himself held a position of leadership. How then do we view that? and think Peter walked on the water as well... quite unique I would say wouldn't you?

...but each circumstance is unique isn't it? There really isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to some issues. If divorce doesn't present itself an issue to the congragation,... and they want to accept a leader who has been divorced,... then such a stumbling block potential isn't an issue. However if it is,... it is.

I would think the chance of causing ANYONE to stumble should out weigh the Career goals of another... but that is just me.

[cindyw]

Originally posted by blitzkreig
I would think the chance of causing ANYONE to stumble should out weigh the Career goals of another... but that is just me.

I agree. Look at the split that was caused by retaining Pastor Stanley in his position. I'm not 100% sure about the divorced Pastor issue though. I guess I would feel more comfortable about retaining a Pastor who is divorced (not remarried) if the reason for the divorce was unrepentant adultery on the part of the wife. That didn't seem to be the case with his marriage. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy:):

PS. I don't believe this issue has anything to do with forgiveness, it has to do with representing a life as an overcomer---not one who has been overcome and moves on. Our leaders should be beacons and examples for us. If someone fell into adultery, was moved out of their position as Pastor, worked on reconciliation in their marriage and came back stronger and with an awesome witness----that would be one I would like to sit under. They sinned, yet they overcame-----God's way.

If a Pastor got sick of his nagging wife, met some pretty parishoner, dumped his wife, married this new woman-----got kicked out of ministry. 10 years later came back wanting into ministry again with his 2nd wife, I would say "no way" would I sit under that. He now has what He wanted and destroyed his witness about Christ's power to overcome. Not a Godly example IMHO and his repentance I would never "trust" to be genuine. It's very easy to say 'I'm so sorry' when you have what you want and don't have to "go back".............

[blitzkreig]

On the other hand I have seen more spits in individual congregations just because the pastor stayed too long... not even as big an issue as divorce.

Not that I think they should be itinerant... but when a pastor stays longer than about 10 years or so and doesn't move along to another flock ... something always seems to happen. Nothing you can put your finger on,.. but a congregation always (by my experience) seem to disintegrate. They implode do to one reason or another.

[cindyw]

Originally posted by blitzkreig
On the other hand I have seen more spits in individual congregations just because the pastor stayed too long... not even as big an issue as divorce.

Not that I think they should be itinerant... but when a pastor stays longer than about 10 years or so and doesn't move along to another flock ... something always seems to happen. Nothing you can put your finger on,.. but a congregation always (by my experience) seem to disintegrate. They implode do to one reason or another.

In those situations though, we need to be real careful. Going by the "whim" of the congregation can get the Church off into all kinds of sin----you know......the itching ear thing. I don't know what you say about pastor staying more than 10 years. I think if God has truly called them there for the long haul, fruit will be produced. Many times, though those long term pastors (who start their own churches) become a one man show and pride is a great big problem........

[Ynott]

Wonderful and thoughtful responses.

A tough subject. I thank you.

[TyTex]

Sheer speculation on my part, but do you think the stringency on the divorce issue may have to do with the fact that marriage illustrates the relationship between Christ and the Church? We all know what Jesus taught about divorce and what Paul taught about pastors and deacons being the husband of one wife.

With some churches, I think the concern may be with setting a precedent by making a specific exception. Experience teaches that many times when exceptions to rules are made, it becomes easier the next time to make an exception you would not have dreamed of making originally. Then, a church may wind up with staff who may have been divorced more than once. I have seen that happen.

I tend to agree with blitzkrieg that the issue may be one of leadership, not forgiveness. I'm familiar with a number of different situations that had varied outcomes. In all of them, though, churches extended forgiveness and made efforts to restore the person. One man I know was a pastor in another town in our area when his wife, out of the clear blue, abandoned him and their children and ran off with another man. Although his church was supportive, he did not believe he should continue as pastor and resigned. Our pastor recommended our church hire him for an administrative position not requiring ordination, which we did.

We took this man and his family into our church, loved them, and gave him an opportunity to continue to minister. As time passed, he began to lead large group Bible studies in Sunday School and to fill the pulpit when our pastor was absent. He had the opportunity to preach at other churches as well. In time, he met a wonderful woman and married her. Later, he worked for the SBC Annuity Board, has retired, moved back to our town, and has an active ministry. God has used him in wonderful ways over the years.

On the other hand, I've seen men who have been given repeated opportunities after a divorce to continue in ministry upon affirming their repentance and who have then married and divorced multiple times. I think the issue is so tough because you will never be sure of the outcome and the greater the position of leadership held, the worse the damage if they should encounter marital failure again.

[glorymj]

Originally posted by TyTex
Sheer speculation on my part, but do you think the stringency on the divorce issue may have to do with the fact that marriage illustrates the relationship between Christ and the Church? This is a good point, TyTex. God does not lay down rules arbitrarily. They have purpose and reason, each one of them. To ignore the rules because we "see" a better way is very dangerous, in my opinion. (Not picking on any one person or topic - this applies to me also!)

The bible is clear that a divorced person should not hold a position of leadership in the church.

We need to remember, however, that a person is a new person in Christ at conversion, and therefore sins that were committed before repentance do not apply. So someone who divorced before conversion could repent of that sin, just as the others, and go on to live a godly life and hold a leadership position.

Could Paul have held a leadership position? Yes, definately! His sins were done before his conversion.

[cindyw]

Originally posted by glorymj
This is a good point, TyTex. God does not lay down rules arbitrarily. They have purpose and reason, each one of them. To ignore the rules because we "see" a better way is very dangerous, in my opinion. (Not picking on any one person or topic - this applies to me also!)

The bible is clear that a divorced person should not hold a position of leadership in the church.

We need to remember, however, that a person is a new person in Christ at conversion, and therefore sins that were committed before repentance do not apply. So someone who divorced before conversion could repent of that sin, just as the others, and go on to live a godly life and hold a leadership position.

Could Paul have held a leadership position? Yes, definately! His sins were done before his conversion.

I agree with most of your post however, the divorced person not being in leadership, I don't know about. I guess it would depend on one's view of divorce. I personally do not believe divorce dissolves a marriage (in most cases----in a rare few, it "MAY"), so going by the Word-----it does not state a divorced person may not hold leadership positions. It states ------the husband of 1 wife---that has to do with remarriage, not divorce. IMHO a divorced person still has their wife, if it is their first marriage. In that case, the circumstances of the divorce would dictate whether that person was suited to lead----again, IMHO. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy:):

[glorymj]

Originally posted by cindyw
I agree with most of your post however, the divorced person not being in leadership, I don't know about. I guess it would depend on one's view of divorce. I personally do not believe divorce dissolves a marriage (in most cases----in a rare few, it "MAY"), so going by the Word-----it does not state a divorced person may not hold leadership positions. It states ------the husband of 1 wife---that has to do with remarriage, not divorce. IMHO a divorced person still has their wife, if it is their first marriage. In that case, the circumstances of the divorce would dictate whether that person was suited to lead----again, IMHO. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy:): While that may be (I don't know the biblical standpoint on this as I haven't studied that particular aspect) a divorcee would still be disqualified because of this:

1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so [must their] wives grave, not slanderers, sober, [b]faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

His wife is not faithful if she has divorced him, and he has not ruled his household well if he has divorced her.

[cindyw]

Originally posted by glorymj
While that may be (I don't know the biblical standpoint on this as I haven't studied that particular aspect) a divorcee would still be disqualified because of this:

1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so [must their] wives grave, not slanderers, sober, [b]faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

His wife is not faithful if she has divorced him, and he has not ruled his household well if he has divorced her.

I disagree. Even in the early church---where remarriage was forbidden except in the case of death, divorce WAS to remove oneself FROM the sin of their unrepentant spouse. If they stayed together with their spouse in their spouses unrepentant state, they would be viewed as being a partaker in her sins and allowing sin to continue. They in the case of divorce under those circumstances, they WERE FAITHFUL and were ruling their household well-----divorcing in hopes of future repentance, while remaining single and faithful to their partner in life. That type of Pastor I think I would feel comfortable sitting under. JMHO. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy:):

[glorymj]

Can you please show me with scripture where you believe that believers are called to divorce their unrepentant spouse? I don't see that at all.

[cindyw]

Originally posted by glorymj
Can you please show me with scripture where you believe that believers are called to divorce their unrepentant spouse? I don't see that at all.


Well, I'm not going back into that battle again, but the passage which ALLOWs, not commands divorce for adultery is found in Mt. 19:9. The remaining single part is found in I Cor. 7:10-11. I guess the removal from a sinning sister/brother (including a spouse in unrepentant adultery) would be found in I Cor. 5:13. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy:): :):

[Jael]

Originally posted by Ynott
I hear you, Wfhm. I even agree.

But then I look at Paul. He could never hold a high position in a church of today. Folks would look at his past record and deny him that.

I don't know the answer. Sometimes I worry that while we understand how to judge believers (and I agree that we are to do so!), that we have forgotten how to forgive (and restore) them when they repent.

I just don't know and it honestly bothers me.

We had this discussion a few months ago...AlishaGail started a thread about whether or not a person's "pre-salvation" lifestyle precluded them from leadership positions in the church. Here is my response:

If this were true, the apostle Paul should never have been chosen for ministry, given how he persecuted and murdered the saints before his conversion...

The word makes it clear that what we were before salvation has no bearing on who we are in Christ...I can't think of anywhere in scripture where it is suggested that we "new creatures" carry the shame of our former lives. Instead we are told:

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? [It is] God that justifieth.

1Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

We are washed, sanctified, and justified...

The Bible also makes it clear that we ALL have a "past"...none of us came to Christ already clean...

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Scripture also tells us that a man chosen for leadership should be "Not a novice" (I Tim 3:6) so there is nothing wrong with waiting for someone's fruit to mature before throwing them into leadership. But a brother or sister who has been serving the Lord faithfully is not disqualified from serving in any position (appropriate to their respective roles) because of their pre-salvation sins. At least, that's how it seems to me...:):

Paul specifically thanked God for choosing him for ministry, in spite of his shameful past:

1Ti 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

1Ti 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Paul even went on to say that the Lord called him into the ministry, in spite of his past, to show a pattern that would be followed by later believers...

1Ti 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.


I do think, based on the scriptures that provide the qualifications for leadership in the church, that our lifestyle after salvation can definitely disqualify us for ministry or leadership - even permanently. That has no bearing on repentance and forgiveness, just the roles that we can fill in the church.

[glorymj]

Originally posted by cindyw
Well, I'm not going back into that battle again, Well, you brought it up. :D: but the passage which ALLOWs, not commands divorce for adultery is found in Mt. 19:9. The remaining single part is found in I Cor. 7:10-11. I guess the removal from a sinning sister/brother (including a spouse in unrepentant adultery) would be found in I Cor. 5:13. Blessings in Jesus, Cindy:): :):
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

If a man divorces his wife because of adultery, she has been unfaithful and he has still been disqualified from leadership as per 1Ti 3:11.

1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.

keep reading....


1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.


1Co 5:13 is talking to the congregational relationship, not the marriage relationship. I honestly don't see how you get husband/wife relationship out of this verse. :confused

[cindyw]

Originally posted by glorymj
1Co 5:13 is talking to the congregational relationship, not the marriage relationship. I honestly don't see how you get husband/wife relationship out of this verse. :confused

Well, I didn't say "I" see it, I was merely passing on something I've observed while compiling the writings on the ECF concerning divorce/remarriage and church leadership requirements.

Now, pertaining to I Cor. 5:13, yes, that was written to the Church at Corinth, but I can very well see how the ECF interpreted this to include marriage between BELIEVERS. This didn't just say 'throw them(confessed believers who were unrepentant) out of the church "BUILDING", it says not to even keep company with them........why? Because if their sin were to remain among them through unrepentant's presence and fellowship, they would be effected/influenced in an evil way. I dont' know. That's my stab at why........:B:

[Timothy]

Jael: I really like the way you outlined those verses from Paul. Here is another that relates.

Philippians 3:13-16 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me...

Paul talks about forgetting the past, and reaching forward. By "be thus minded," he is referring to our self-esteem and how we should see ourselves. We should see ourselves as God sees us - which is through Christ. In the I Timothy 1:16 verse that you provided, Paul states he is a "pattern" for us. In the verse above, he says "follow me." Paul is actually the best example for us in living the Christian life. There is a inherent, potential problem with some believers who may look too much at the earthly life of Christ as their "pattern." The problem is that we always come up short, and we always fail, when compared to the sinless life of Christ. This is why under grace, God gave Paul as a pattern for us, who was "chief of sinners."