Broken Leaders and Second Chances

Last week I wrote about the Biblical qualifications for leadership after reading a post by La Shawn Barber about Newt Gingrich's character flaws. On his blog, James Jewell of the Rooftop Blog posed an interesting question to La Shawn and I,

"Newt will have to deal with the character issue openly and honestly. But ladies, don’t politicians get second chances, too?"

I think this is a great question and, as Christians, one with which we have to wrestle. What is the role of repentance, forgiveness, and second chances at leadership?

These are the issues I think we need to consider: 1) the words of repentance, 2) the immediate works of repentance, 3) a record that demonstrates victory over this sin.

Speaking words of repentance can be a relatively easy thing to do. No doubt it is humbling, but words are easy. We are unable, to see into the hearts of others, and often in situations where we are hurting from the sting of offenses, it is difficult to believe that a person speaking words of repentance is being sincere. Nonetheless, we need to always think the best we can of others, and I believe we need to offer forgiveness when repentance is spoken. Speaking words of repentance is not the same thing as saying, "I'm sorry," though. Nor is it a broad sweeping, "I repent of my sins." Words of repentance are specific statements about what was done wrong and why it was wrong.

Words of repentance need to be accompanied by works of repentance. I am not speaking here of works to earn forgiveness. I am speaking of works to undo, or make restitution for damage that was done. Perhaps property needs to be restored, perhaps a reputation or a marriage or a friendship needs to be repaired. Sometimes the damage our sin has caused cannot be undone, but as much as is possible, the truly repentant person will try. Again, when we see these works of repentance, we can be more fully assured that the repentance spoken was sincere, and begin again to trust the one who has offended us.

The third thing we must consider is a record, following repentance, of victory over this particular sin. This is the factor that I think relates most to whether or not men are qualified to lead. As an example, a drunk is not qualified to lead, and George W. Bush admits to have been an abuser of alcohol. If he had this problem last year and now repents of it, I would forgive him, but I wouldn't consider him qualified for office. However, he has shown decades of sobriety, and that, in my opinion, removes the concern that this sin will hinder his leadership. ability.

When I was young I knew of a very gifted pastor who left his wife. I was too young at the time to be told whether there was another woman involved, but whatever the case, a man leaving his wife is sufficient cause to be concerned about his qualification to pastor a church. He rather quickly repented of his sin. He worked at and eventually achieved a restoration of his marriage, however he was not immediately restored to a pastorate. The church worked with him for many years. Eventually, as he demonstrated a victory over his sin, he was given more and more responsibility in the church. After many years he was again allowed to be a pastor. I think this is the right way to go. When a sin is sufficient to disqualify someone for office, there needs to be a clear demonstration that that sin no longer has its hold on that man.

There is a difference, then, between forgiving someone for sins, and restoring them to or calling them to leadership. We often confuse the two. Leadership is not a right. Nor is it something we must grant to people unless there is some reason not to do so. Leadership is something we grant to those who demonstrate that God has equipped them to lead. It is not a strike against someone to not grant leadership, and in fact, we do no favors when we place someone in a leadership position they are not equipped to handle. Newt's a great thinker. Let's encourage him to keep thinking and not burden him with a leadership position for which he has not been prepared.

This Discussion in the Blogosphere (Send me links if you've read or written on this topic.)

No Newts is Good Newts:

La Shawn Barber's Corner, Broken Masterpieces,
Logicus bLogicus, Mark A. Kilmer's Political Annotation

Aye for Newt:

Rooptop Blog's James Jewell

Comments

[jon]

Great post once again, Dory. I am not of the camp who believe that a sin can disqualify someone from ministry for life. Consequences must be severe, but grace must prevail at some point. In the case of divorce, I believe Paul is saying the man should have a reputation for being a "one woman man." If a man has sinned in the past, enough time must elapse for that reputation to be rebuilt--probably years. The notoriety of the sin should be superceded by the quality and longevity of the repentance.

In the loose polity structure of the contemporary evangelical church it is all too easy for men to slip between the cracks by simply moving to another area of the country.

[Kristofer]

I agree, great post. It's good to think about these issues before you encounter them in real life.

[Amy's Blog]

Hang 'em up by the seat of their pants and fry 'em, I say! I thought that's what we were SUPPOSED to do. You mean they're real people???

(smile)

[Diane R]

Dory,

I agree completely. Most of the public ministry people I've seen are not carrying out their words of repentence at all. It's just another con game for their mostly female codepednent followers.

The one exception is Jim Baker, although I am a bit worried about some of the company he is keeping nowadays. And that causes me to watch him very closely indeed.

[Dory]

Jon, The point you bring up is a very important one. Churches that are a part of a denomination with some sort of system of discipline, whatever the type of church government it is, are able to determine what men are qualified to be pastors and also to hold them accountable. Independant churches lack this structure, and problems can go unchecked. Of course the same can be said for civil governments that lack a system of checks and balances.

[jon]

Dory, And would you believe that I pastor an independent, non-denominatinal church? I have grown up in this type of church (my pastor left mainline presbyterianism to begin his own church--a big step at the time). I love the autonomy of the local church, but am all too aware of the lack of accountability among church leaders. We have moved to an egalitarian team of elders (I just happen to be remunerated for laboring in the word and doctrine). I would love to be a part of a group like the PCA; however, my soteriology is reformed, but my eschatology is not (progressive dispensational). In a strait betwixt two!

[Dory]

I'm not an expert on this issue--JollyBlogger could tell you better--however, I do not believe eschatology is specific in the Westminster Confession, which is the standard the PCA would require. Most are probably post-mil. or amil., but I think there are some historic pre-mils in the PCA, too. The dispensational view of the Scriptures might cause some conflict in other areas, though, besides eschatology. You can read the WCF online through the "Historic Church Documents" link I have in my right sidebar.

My view is that the independant situation is fine when things are going well, but eventually things don't go well. It is protection for the pastor, too, as he is granted just process when he is accused and thus protected from false charges.

[jon]

Thanks for the encouragment, Dory. I love the WCF. I also practice credobaptism versus paedobaptism...I bet that dings me.

[Dory]

Just to clear up what might be misunderstood from what I said before...One does not have to agree to the WCF to be a member of the PCA. To join the church one has to be a Christian. The confessional standards are used to qualify pastors and elders and to determine what system of doctrine will be taught in PCA congregations. Any of the variations Jon spoke of would be perfectly fine in a church member. (Though we might not ask you to teach Sunday School ;-)

And Jon, I think you're just super.

[TheBloke...IntheOuter]

Hi Dory,

I have been posting on and off on the topic of Leadership and Ethics, and recently posted up "Ethical Leaders and Ethical Leadership". I am not sure though about your application of biblical qualifications for leadership to political or governmental leadership. I am not saying that it is not appropriate, just that I am not sure if one can apply it wholesale to that arena. I think that biblical qualifications for leadership as outlined in 1 Tim 3, for instance, pertain to leadership in the body of Christ, which, I think is probably different than political or business or military leadership, etc. I think the principles outlined in the Bible about qualifications for leadership can inform and contribute to the explications about leadership qualifications for business, government and the military, etc. but to apply the qualifications wholesale might be to misapply it. I must admit I haven't really read your earlier post (I did skim it), and I am just thinking out loud... er... "thinking out write." In any case, I thought you ought to know that I enjoyed reading your posts. You write very clearly and well! Keep up the good work!

[Jeremy Pierce]

The Conservative Congregational Christian Conference is worth looking into if you want an organization to give accountability but don't want those incredibly picky and predetermined combinations of doctrine that most denominations have. My congregation performs credobaptism and paedobaptism, according to the convictions of parents, and no one would take them except the CCCC because all the other denominations they approached insisted that they stop doing one or the other. We have at least one member of the PCA denomination who is a member of our local congregation, which is an interesting situation. He considers the baby dedications to be baptisms that parents refuse to call baptisms. I see them as dedications that parents insist on falsely calling baptisms. Then we get along fine and focus on the real issues.