The [incident] involving rugby league personality Matthew Johns was predatory, degrading and offensive, federal Sports Minister Kate Ellis says … “I think that’s offensive and inappropriate for our sporting role models.”
But where does that leave the Apostle Paul?
The comment quoted above is typical of the huge volume of condemnatory statements being made about Johns in recent days in response to the revelation that he had participated in distasteful sex acts in the past. The lascivious details of the incident have been repeated ad nauseum by media outlets. Johns’ behaviour, while strictly ‘legal’, has been rightly rejected as unconscionable. He has been sacked or suspended from many public positions where he might be seen as a role model by younger players or viewers. You can’t have such a person acting as an ambassador for your cause or a host of your TV show.
This is why the Apostle Paul’s position is so surprising. Remember that sordid episode in his early career? Not only did he stand by and approve while a saintly Christian leader was violently executed by a gang of religious leaders (Acts 7:58-8:1), he embarked on a personal vendetta against Christians, doing his utmost to wipe them off the face of the map. His actions, while strictly legal, were utterly unethical (Acts 9:1-2). He was persecuting the Lord himself (Acts 9:4-5). Paul himself admits that his behaviour made him the lowest of low-life scumbags (1 Cor 15:9, Eph 3:8).
So how did God respond to Paul’s predatory behaviour? Did God sack him from his position as a member of his chosen people Israel? Did God issue public statements of condemnation? No! In fact, God gave Paul a promotion! God appointed Paul to be his very own personal ambassador to the world—a role model for billions of Christians ever since:
To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ … (Paul, Eph 3:8)
What’s the difference between God and Channel 9, Johns’ former employer? How could God possibly countenance such a low-life scumbag as his personal ambassador? And why would I want to teach my kids to listen to anything Paul says?
The answer lies at the very heart of the message that Paul was commissioned to preach. It was a message of forgiveness, reconciliation and transformation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus doesn’t sweep sin under the carpet or leave the victims in the lurch; he paid the ultimate price for sin and satisfied the justice of God. He brings real forgiveness and real repentance (not half-hearted apologies), and restores even the worst of sinners to the status of being a glorious co-heir of God. That’s why Paul, the worst of sinners, is the perfect ambassador for this message.
May I also suggest another difference? Paul repented of his earlier life. Whether Johns has done that is a matter of debate. Without this repentence, Paul could not be an ambassador.
The hypocrisy of the media is a fascinating thing. The publication which has fueled Johns’ condemnation with day after day of “front page” coverage has half way down it’s website a featured video “Telegraph TV – Inside a Sydney Brothel: Scarlet Alliance representative Elena Jeffreys gives us the run down and an exclusive tour of one of Sydney’s brothels.” Incredible.
To Paul & Nick,
I think you’ve missed the point: God called Paul when he was scum- not after he’d repented.
Paul is one of the clearest examples we have of irresistible grace in all of scripture: God put his hand on him and showed him the error of his ways precisely at the point at which he was just as vulgar and completely blind to his vulgarity as Johns. How could he not repent?!
And how can we wag the finger at Johns or even the media in the context of this post?
So what’s the difference between Paul and a clergyman who’s been sacked for a past moral failing?
Paul and Stu – thanks for your comments. Actually, I was trying to get at both ideas (forgiveness and repentance), but I have to admit the last paragraph of my post was a little too brief.
Marty – brilliant question. I think Paul himself gives the answer in 1 Timothy 1:13:
Hi Guys! Interesting discussion! I cannot help but notice that Stu did well to note that Paul and Nick had missed the point to some degree. I do wonder though if Stu has missed the point as well (if I understand him correctly)!
Yes, Paul was called before he repented, when he was still a scumbag. The problem is that it is wrong to say that after he repented he was no longer a scumbag. Yes, his sins were no more, the process of sanctification and the re-ordering of his life had BEGUN…but he, in the flesh, still had a degree of scumbaginess about him as we all do. The whole thing is not black and white…and I believe Marty’s question also needs to be answered with a degree of grey.
In 1 Tim 1:13 Paul claims to have acted ignorantly in unbelief. I assume that your point, Lionel, is that the clergyman was not ignorantly acting in unbelief. How do you know? Then again, how do you know you understand Paul’s use of ‘ignorantly acting in unbelief’? Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews. I think we all know they were not ignorant about the Messiah, or for that matter what the Messiah would do and how he would do it (to some degree). It was not a lack of knowledge alone that was the issue. It was because Paul chose not to believe the way God chooses to work – and therefore acted ignorantly. In the same way, just because a clergyman has done 4 years of theological training, does that mean he will not be ignorant in unbelief at some point/s? He might have great Biblical knowledge, but he can still place money, women, or whatever ahead of the cross, and that in itself is ignorance from unbelief.
I guess I do not think we have started to work out what we do with someone like Peter, who after three years of discipleship with Jesus still denies him three times, and yet in a matter of days has been restored…promoted(?)…even though he acted ignorantly in unbelief. You cannot have a ‘one rule for all’ type approach to moral failure, because it requires insight and understanding into the heart of the person involved, and their response to what they have done and the grace offered to them. Do they respond by living new lives through belief in the cross?
Sorry to talk so much!
Dave – definitely a discussion worth having, and you have some helpful comments. I would be interested on what others have to say on this issue.
In the discussion, it’s worth bearing in mind the distinction between salvation and ministry. The two are certainly connected, but they are also different. Paul uses the word “grace”, sometimes to speak of personal salvation (e.g. Ephesians 2:8), and other times to speak of God’s gracious gift of ministry to him and others (e.g. Ephesians 3:8, Romans 12:6). We can say with confidence that if a clergyman commits heinous crimes and then turns to Christ in repentance, he will receive grace and complete forgiveness and he should be welcomed into the fellowship of God’s people. But this doesn’t mean that the grace of restoration to this type of public ministry must automatically follow.
With regards to salvation, what ultimately matters is the heart. With regards to ministry, the public confession of the minister plays a vital role. At least in my denomination, clergy are not simply appointed because they have completed 4 years of theological education – they are also assessed over a period of time and then required to take very serious public vows relating to life and doctrine. The clergyman who’s been sacked for a past moral failing committed that failing while he was publicly confessing belief in Christ Jesus the saviour of the world (whatever his private thoughts may have been). His restoration to this kind of public ministry is also a public matter, and his past public actions must be taken into account. Paul’s moral failing occurred while he was raging against Christ Jesus the saviour of the world – a culpable ignorance, but an ignorance nonetheless.
I hope that helps to get the ball rolling!
Thanks for that Lionel.
I certainly agree that restoration does not come automatically. In fact that was very much my point, that there is no ‘one rule fits all’ for this situation – either way. I do struggle with some of the ideas in your second paragraph. I think to distinguish between a minister (with public vows etc) and a personal declaration of faith (that some one who is not a minister makes) is problematic. This is because we are all called to public ministry, theological training (and other criteria) aside. Yes, teachers will be held to greater account, but all Christians are called to ‘public ministry’, are they not? In the same way, when we fail (and again it is problematic to distinguish between ‘big’ failure and ‘small’ failure) then God restores us if we repent.
It is, therefore, certainly a matter of the heart. And just as Paul and Barnabas could not agree on Mark, then there will be times when we will not always agree on whether or not restoration to a ‘position’ is a good idea or not. Only God knows the heart, though there are certainly things that will indicate repentance and growth (growth helps us not to fall into the same mistakes we have made in the past).
I didn’t miss the point – I was simply making my own point :-p
Hi Dave, it looks like nobody else is entering the discussion, so here’s a couple more observations.
The main point I wanted to make is that a decision about restoring somebody to certain public ministry / leadership roles (e.g. the situation that Marty raised – clergy) will involve more than the individual’s personal faith, personal repentance, and personal restoration to salvation. These things are, of course, necessary, but not always sufficient as the basis for a decision to restore to public ministry.
There is good biblical warrant for claiming that there are certain ministry roles that have an important and more serious public component (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 1 Timothy 5:19).
As for your opposition to the ‘one rule fits all’ idea – I’m not exactly sure what you have in your sights. Do you have an actual situation in mind where you think that there is a particularly inflexible approach to such matters?
Thanks for the contact Lionel. I will try and explain myself better!
I struggle with the idea that there are two types of grace and that there is one rule for people in leadership/public ministry and those who are not. To me, someone who sins (breaks trust) and then repents does so within relationship. Because it happens in relationship no two situations are the same. At the same time I see a common thread between the person who is an ordained minister who steals money from the plate and a husband (an average member of the congregation) who hits his wife. Just as the congregation would be foolish to restore the minister immediately, without understanding whether or not the minister has dealt with the issues that lead him to take the money, the wife too would be foolish to spend another night with her husband before she knows that he has dealt with the issues that caused him to hit her.
I guess I see no difference between the person in leadership and the one who is not. The inflexibility that I am picking up on is that leaders are treated one way (because of the extra grace that comes with public ministry), and those not in the ‘spotlight’ are treated another way. I am suggesting, therefore, that every person must be treated as an individual, as each has their own set of issues that they need to work through before trust can be restored.
With regards to your two Timothy quotes, I do not think they give much weight to the idea that those in public ministry should be treated differently. I preached on 1 Tim 3:1-13 today!! I think it is interesting that the qualifications for elders are things that help in selecting an elder. Therefore they are things that any Christian should be growing to do as they grow in maturity. They are the things that a Christian should be demonstrating before they are selected for eldership. Why? Because it is a practical way of determining those who have already worked through ‘issues’ in their life and are living in the light of the cross. As Paul says though, it is a noble task…but I would be careful before concluding that we should have one rule for elders and another for those who are not. After all, we are all in relationships and as a result all in positions of trust!
I hope that was clearer…though I think not!
Dave – it seems that it’s me who’s not being clear. I don’t really have much of an issue with most of what you’re saying – except that you seem to be denying a whole bunch of things that I never said (or at least never intended to say!)
I’m certainly not saying that “extra grace” comes with public ministry. I’m saying that, in the New Testament, every Christian is given (at least) two distinguishable ‘types’ of grace. The first is the grace of salvation, which is primary and common to all Christians. The second is the grace of ministry, which is given to all Christians, but in different ways. And the Christian who is given this grace with respect to more public, leadership roles seems to have a stricter standard to adhere to, not because it involves more grace, but because of its public leadership nature.
The example you raised doesn’t illustrate the distinction I was trying to make. Perhaps to make it clearer – imagine any member of the congregation who has hit his wife (how awful!) and genuinely repents and changes and is restored to relationship with his wife, and the congregation is quite satisfied that the change is real. It would be one matter to appoint or to restore this man to, say, the roster for cleaning up the building after church. It would be a very different matter to appoint or restore him to a ministry of eldership – e.g. children’s bible teacher, clergy, etc. Both of these ministries are “graces” of God. But their nature is different, and they need to be treated differently. I’m not sure what you mean by a “one size fits all” rule. I’m just saying different ministry roles need to be treated differently according to their nature. I hope that’s clearer.
Lionel, perhaps neither of us is being clear! I do not think I am denying things you have not said! This would certainly be a strange thing to do in a conversation!
Your second paragraph is how I first read you. I called it ‘extra’ grace which as I look at your original description is incorrect, but I believe I understood the point. In your second paragraph though you say there is a stricter standard. This I do not agree with. The only part of scripture I think really backs this up is in James when it says teachers will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1), and even then it is vague as to who judges and how they are judged. Is it by man (who are constantly told not to judge, even in James’ letter!) or by God? Your two examples from 1 Tim I do not think back up this theory.
I think I also have an issue with your third paragraph, though it is very linked to the previous issue I just tried to clarify. You seem to be saying that the grace to do ministry is different to the grace we receive for salvation. I do not agree and I do not think this idea is Biblical. The main reason I say this is because we are saved through the cross, and we are empowered for ministry through the cross. Salvation and the changed life (a life empowered for ministry) come about from the one grace. Whether he is cleaning the church or preaching, the person who does either ministry does so in the light of the cross – it is in view of God’s mercy that we make ourselves living sacrifices (Rom 12). If they beat their wife and genuinely repent (and as you say “the change is real” which = “they work through the issues that caused the wife beating”, as I mentioned last comment), then I see no Biblical reason why they cannot be restored to either position (allowing for time, to demonstrate the change and so working through issues has taken place and to develop trust).
My comment about “one size fits all” was that there is NO “one size fits all”! I said this because in my own denomination we have recently gone through the issue of making policies regarding moral failure. Some people want to have blanket rules, so that for a person in ministry “A” who falls into sin “B” but then responds in way “C”, they can or cannot be restored to their position. As you have said, it is a matter of the heart. I agree, and as I said because every moral failure happens within relationships you cannot script what is happening and how it affects people. Because I hear you giving a formula for people involved in a certain type of ministry, and another for those in another, I am reacting to what I see as an over simplification to reality. Perhaps I have misread you?
Hi Dave,
Thanks – it helps me to see what you’re reacting against in your own context as I try to respond from mine.
When I spoke about a “difference” in the graces given for salvation and ministry, I wasn’t trying to make an absolute separation between them. As I said at the outset,
As you have rightly pointed out, the two kinds of grace have the same source, the same ground, and the same ultimate undeserved character, etc. But there are differences between them also. Ephesians 4:7 and Romans 12:6 speak of “grace given to us according to the measure of Christ’s gift” resulting in different ministries, and “gifts that differ according to the grace given to us”. This “distributed” grace of ministry is of course grounded in the grace of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 5:2). But the grace of salvation is given equally to all who trust in Christ, whereas the grace of ministries is given in different ways to different people. The reason Paul mentions this grace of ministry in Romans 12:3-8 is to encourage his readers to discern the differences between the different manifestations of grace and to act accordingly.
I’m certainly not trying to give a simplistic formula (in the sense of A+B=C). However, I still think it is right to have guidelines and general ways of thinking. I see that happening in 1 Timothy 3. Timothy (and Titus) must select certain men from the congregation for eldership roles, and there are certain criteria (both public and private) to make the choice. By contrast, in 1 Corinthians 12, when Paul speaks about various ministries (which as far as I can see aren’t distinctly eldership or leadership positions) Paul doesn’t advocate making decisions about who does the ministries (even when they are being selfish and unloving); he simply encourages them to be more loving as they exercise their ministries.
So I think guidelines about public ministry, in particular, are important. Here’s a possible guideline: “a kind of ministry that involves public leadership must take into account public elements beyond the person’s personal faith and repentance.” I’m happy to debate this point, or to be proved wrong on it. But what I’m hearing you doing is reacting against a formulaic approach by dismissing the very idea of having guidelines at all.
I’d be interested to hear how you have dealt with the formulaic approach of some of your congregation members. Have you advocated having no guidelines or principles at all? Do you refuse to even think about abstract cases until they arise in concrete situations? Is your only guideline, “It’s about relationship, and so you can’t decide before it happens.” That’s what I’m hearing!
Thanks Lionel…thought I had lost you for a while there!
Your comment <i> “The two are certainly connected, but they are also different”</i> would appear to have been referring to the distinction between salvation and ministry…not the grace associated with salvation and ministry…so I obviously took you incorrectly.
With regards to Ephesians 4:7 and Romans 12:6, I do not think these verses back up your point, though I see how you are reading them so that they will. If you look closely neither verse says that the grace itself varies in nature or measure. What they comment on as being different is the amount of faith of the believer (in itself a gift from God). You quote Ephesians 2:8-10 as a passage demonstrating the salvation type grace (if I can say it like that), but it in fact backs up my point. After all, Paul says, <i>“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand…”</i> We are Christ’s workmanship (salvation), so that we can do good works (ministry).
You seem to be saying:
Grace (for salvation)
Grace (for ministry)
They are the same but different.
I am saying:
Grace (for salvation, that according to our faith, leads us and empowers us for ministry).
Lionel, your comments about Paul’s qualification for elders as opposed to general ministry in 1 Cor 12 ignore the context of our discussion. We are talking about moral failure, not selection for ministry. I have not questioned that elders have responsibilities that others do not, and therefore the qualifications for the job are different (though I have argued that the qualifications are what they should be doing as mature Christians before the are made elders). I might note that 1 Cor 12 does assume that the ministries are being done through the power of the holy spirit!
I have certainly not dismissed the idea of having guidelines completely. I said early on in the discussion, <i>“If they beat their wife and genuinely repent (and as you say “the change is real” which = “they work through the issues that caused the wife beating”, as I mentioned last comment), then I see no Biblical reason why they cannot be restored to either position (allowing for time, to demonstrate the change and so working through issues has taken place and to develop trust).”</i>
In response to your final paragraph, myself and the elders I work with feel that the most important thing to do in the case of moral failure is to point the person involved to the cross of Christ (as indeed any who might have been hurt by the person’s actions). Because this is done in relationship, no I cannot dictate a concrete course of action without knowing the circumstances and the person/s involved. Individuals will respond to things in different ways and this determines the next course of action.
I guess the guidelines that I use are that I try to bring/keep the person under grace (while speaking the truth), I allow natural consequences to happen, I allow time for healing, understanding, growth and trust to happen, and I evaluate (with the wisdom of others), and most of all, I do these things in love. Whether or not the person is restored depends on their journey through the process, not what ministry they were doing.
Hi Dave – I haven’t been entirely absent, just lots to do away from the internet! Hmm … it seems that a lot of our discussion has involved missing each other’s intended meaning, and re-stating our own positions. If anybody else is listening and I’ve confused you, let me know and I’ll try to clarify (I assume Dave would say the same). Otherwise, maybe it’s time to draw this one to a close?
Thanks Lionel, as always it was a pleasure!