One Man and One Woman?
Jerry Falwell Jr. has joined a distinguished/notorious list of Evangelical Christian leaders whose private sexual morality has not matched their public pronouncements. Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Herbert W Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, and Jimmy Swaggart promoted the "one man and one woman formula" when it came to homosexuals, but not so much when it applied to themselves. Likewise, we have learned that Jerry Falwell Jr. apparently welcomed a third person into his marriage for eight years (we are told that he liked to stand in the corner and watch his wife and the pool boy get jiggy with it).
I can hear it now: "Their moral failures don't make homosexuality right!" Which I am not at all reluctant to acknowledge is certainly true. However, it does negate the moral authority of these folks to discourse on the sexual morality of others. And, if we compare such behavior to the list of credentials which the Apostle Paul outlined for Church leaders, we are forced to reach the conclusion that they are disqualified from serving as leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ.
"What about David and repentance?" some of my religious friends will demand. It is one of the foundational tenets of Christianity that ANY time we are willing to repent and ask for God's forgiveness in Jesus' name, God is willing to forgive. Nevertheless, when Paul composed his list of qualifications for Church leaders, we have to assume that he was fully aware of how grace, mercy, and forgiveness worked when he recorded them. God forgave David, but we are told that he and his kingdom suffered horrendous public and private consequences for his sins. Paul said that no one can separate us from the love of God, but it is evident that he felt that folks could disqualify themselves from Church leadership!
Lonnie Hendrix
There is not one single Church of God leader who has the moral authority to delve into the sex lives of church members. EVER! Our own church history have proven our leaders to be hypocrites just like those around them in the so-called world.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw all the dirty old men and filthy old women in Gerald Flurry's PCG cult, I seriously could not help wondering if they had heard about Garner Ted Armstrong's bad behavior and wanted to get their fair share of immoral sex too.
So Miller, what's your point?
ReplyDeleteWhile a COG leader isn’t where I’d go for Christian counsel, perfection isn’t necessary for supporting Biblical teachings. It seems too many times the failing of someone is used as a blunt tool against the teaching itself.
ReplyDelete"However, it does negate the moral authority of these folks to discourse on the sexual morality of others."
ReplyDeleteeh, using your argument no preacher anywhere would be allowed to preach against sin, because they've all done it themselves....
actually, it makes them all the more qualified to preach against it because they know the pain it causes...
as Paul said, "O wretched man that I am..."
I understand this article is pointing out hypocrisy. I'm not clear on what this article is saying concerning other people's sexual morality and homosexuality. Is Lonnie taking a negative stance toward homosexuality? If so, I don't want to see that type of garbage moralizing coming out of a blog like this. If not, great article!
ReplyDelete"HEADLINE" IF THE AMBASSADOR REPORT EXISTED TODAY ...
ReplyDelete"Be Dead with Garner Ted"
The strictness of qualifications that Paul set forth were because he understood the end result of the corruption of flesh of that which resides holiness.
ReplyDeleteElders beliving or practicing that which leads to destruction was obviously an unwanted person to have teaching and overseeing the body of Christ.
With the stakes so high, is it any wonder Paul was looking for men to steer the believer away from the unknown apostasy.
What about David? David was a king, not a church leader. Different positions have different qualifications. I Tim 3 does not apply to our president, or to King David. We expect better behavior that has been exhibited by Falwell and Armstrong, among others.
ReplyDeleteJudge not . . . This means, as I understand it, you can't condemn others for a sin that you are guilty of committing yourself. Doesn't mean that you have to be perfect or near perfect. But you can't be having an affair with someone while you are preaching against adultery. If only non sinners could judge others, no one would be able to administer church discipline to anyone else.
ReplyDeleteWhat about David? David was a king, not a church leader. Different positions have different qualifications. I Tim 3 does not apply to our president, or to King David. We expect better behavior that has been exhibited by Falwell and Armstrong, among others.
ReplyDeleteThe "Cry aloud" bunch tend to ignore the fact that most of Christ's personal ministry was focused on reprimanding and correcting the religious LEADERSHIP of his day, not in pointing out the sins of the masses. It is also interesting to note that the story about the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery that was incorporated into the gospel according to John (see John 8:1-11) was directed at "the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees." The principle laid out in that story (He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her) is consistent with Christ's teachings in the other gospel accounts (see Matthew 6:14-15 and 7:1-5). In short, Christ's teaching on the subject is clear: Take care of the log in your own eye before you try to remove the speck of sawdust in your brother's/sister's eye!
ReplyDeleteWhy did the Apostle Paul lay down such strict standards for Church leadership? Because he knew that folks who preached about the moral standards that folks should be following would be subject to charges of gross hypocrisy, and thereby discredit both themselves and their message in the eyes of their audience.
Finally, from the scriptural perspective, the priest-king model is held up throughout both testaments as God's ideal. In other words, God expects the king to set a good example for his people, protect them from false religion and to lead his people in worshipping God. Moreover, the many prophecies about the Kingdom of God make plain that this model will be employed during the reign of Christ and his saints. In other words, God clearly expects more from the folks whom "He" places in the role of leader than "He" does from the great unwashed who are or will be subject to them.
However, Christ did say go and sin no more. Yes, it was Christ, but her sins did matter, as do ours.
ReplyDeleteThere is always a place for mercy, but that doesn't mean physical sins are out of date.
As you well know, Paul reprimanded the church of Corinth for not removing a man sleeping with his stepmother. It matters.
Earl,
ReplyDeleteYes, after informing the lady that he also didn't condemn her (though he was without sin and, unlike her accusers, would have been entitled to stone her), Christ did tell her to go and sin no more. And Paul reprimanded the Corinthians because they had accepted the man's behavior - Paul ordered them to stop acting as if everything was hunky dory with his behavior. In other words, Paul was addressing a particular set of circumstances in one of the First Century Gentile congregations for which he was responsible. It is disingenuous to use this incident to justify excommunication.
Pastors certainly have a responsibility to talk about God's law and the moral behavior expected of Christians. From the Scriptural evidence, we see that pastors also warned congregations and individuals away from sinful behaviors. However, Scripture is also clear that there is ONE mediator between God and humans (and his name is Jesus Christ). In other words, sins are between the individual and their God. Pastors aren't supposed to be policeman or enforcers!