[stextbox id=”custom”]This article is from the “What does the Bible say about” series. Here are some others (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th).[/stextbox]
Do pre-conversion sins (sins committed before you’re saved) matter in this life? Do our sins follow into eternity or have any implications for this life today, or is the slate wiped clean once we’re saved?
What does the Bible say about pre-conversion sins?
I’m all for God’s amazing grace and—positionally—Christians are forever set free from the yoke and burden of our sins, but the question remains: What significance do our past actions have after we’re saved (pre-conversion sins)?
What if you were divorced once or twice, or a murderer, or a rapist, or a child molester, or cheated on your taxes, or…
Get the picture?
How would you answer the following:
There are a growing number of respected Bible-believing church members and church officers who believe that qualifications for pastor and deacon do not apply to a candidate for the period in his life before he received salvation; qualification criteria apply only after salvation. What do you think?
My Thoughts On The Matter
I personally believe that pre-conversion criteria are to be taken into consideration and certainly apply when determining whether or not a man would qualify to hold the position of a pastor or deacon. Many may disagree with me, and that’s okay.
I endorse the plain, Scriptural teaching that God is in absolute sovereign control over every detail in this universe. If God were not in total control over all things, He could not be God. Therefore, I support the belief and understanding that God (can, does, and has) specifically intervenes and/or providential directs people and events in order to secure any outcome that He desires.
Because this is the case, it is my belief that since God chose (elected/called/foreordained) those whom He would save before the foundation of the world (c.f. Ephesians 1:4), and that He would appoint some of them to lead the church as pastors or deacons, that He could sovereignly (and providentially) control the events in those few people’s lives to ensure that sins such as child molestation, adultery and divorce would never transpire, thus disqualifying such persons from future church leadership. Therefore, I believe that certain unalterable pre-conversion actions may (and sometimes do) automatically disqualify a man from serving as a pastor or deacon in a local church.
[stextbox id=”custom”]What do you think about my response? Actually, I want to disagree with myself a bit. (I’m a religious schizophrenic sometimes.)[/stextbox]
Character Qualifications For Church Leadership
The spiritual and character qualifications for a man who aspires to the office of pastor are detailed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. Although Scripture is clear concerning these character qualifications, many today are advocating that we abandon all efforts to examine the nature of a candidate’s pre-conversion life, particularly their social life, marital history, and/or sexual infidelity. They insist we appoint men to leadership positions in the church based upon selective, present-tense circumstances only. Proponents of this view often do so on the basis of the apostle Paul’s (Saul’s) pre-conversion persecution of Christians, and his language found in 1 Timothy 3:2 which says that the man must be “the husband of one wife.”
Regarding the “husband of one wife” issue first, it is my opinion that such people not only misinterpret this qualification, but that they also fail to take the other qualifications into consideration, particularly:
- “A bishop must be blameless” (vs.2)
- that he be “one who rules his own house well…(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)” (vs.5)
- “he must have a good testimony among those who are outside” (vs.7).
I believe that when these qualifications are taken into consideration, individually or as a whole, it is unbiblical to allow a man to serve as pastor who is not blameless, can’t rule his own house well, or has a poor testimony with those outside the church. After all, the pastor is to be a spiritual leader in the church, living a blameless lifestyle that church members should strive to imitate—not be ashamed of.
The “Husband Of One Wife”
Discussion concerning the “husband of one wife” qualification has lead to four general interpretations:
- pastors must be married
- pastors must not be polygamists
- pastors must have married only once in their life
- pastors must be sexually pure and therefore totally committed to their wife (biblical monogamy)
Pastors Must Be Married
Proponents of the first interpretation (pastors must be married) believe that a man must, in fact, be married in order to pastor. They insist that, for example, a single man (never married) would be unqualified to pastor, and also that a man who became a widower while serving as a pastor would immediately become disqualified to remain a pastor.
If this were true, then Jesus Christ Himself would not qualify to be a pastor!
The apostle Paul was, himself, a single man at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians, for while explaining that being single has its advantage, he wrote, “For I wish that all men were even as myself” (1 Corinthians 7:7). Moreover, in verse eight he wrote, “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them to remain even as I am.” Paul was not only an apostle but also a pastor, for he served in that pastoral office at Ephesus for three years (c.f. Acts 20:31). Therefore, Paul would certainly not be commanding Timothy to examine and appoint potential pastors on the basis of what he himself was not qualified to undertake.
Pastors Must Not Be Polygamists
Proponents of the second interpretation (pastors must not be polygamists) fail to realize that such a person could not even be a church member, let alone a pastor. Polygamists (adulterers) are not eligible for church membership, let alone church leadership.
Pastors Must Have Married Only Once In Their Life
Proponents of the third interpretation interpret the phrase to mean that a man could marry only once in their lifetime and that remarriage is not an option for a widower. Scripture does not teach that remarriage for a widower renders a man no longer above reproach. Furthermore, Paul even warned Timothy a chapter later that some false teachers were actually “forbidding to marry” (1 Timothy 4:3), and that such men have departed “from the faith” (vs.1).
A Pastor Must Be Sexually Pure And Therefore Totally Committed To His Wife
Proponents of these first three interpretations fail to understand that the requirement of “husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2) is a moral character qualification and not an issue of marital status. I believe the proper interpretation of this qualification means that the potential pastor is to be a “one-woman man” and refers to his sexual purity, not marital status. It means he is to be solely devoted to one woman if (and while) married.
Question: What do you think about pre-conversion sins? Do they matter for church leadership?
* Image credit: Marian Trinidad (Creation Swap)
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT PRE-CONVERSION SINS? DO THEY MATTER FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP?
You’ve got me thinking Charles… On one hand I can see valid points that pre-conversion sins matter. I might be uncomfortable with a pastor who has a past conviction of child molestation.
On the other hand, take a look at Paul from the Bible. He was part of a group that persecuted and killed Christians, though he may not have actually killed anyone. And we refer to his writings as part of the gospel.
In the end, I don’t know the answer to the question. Just the thoughts floating around my head.
Joe, if I got you thinking then my goal was accomplished.
Ultimately, I don’t have the answers to tough questions like this. One day I feel one way and another day I believe the opposite. I’m just glad God has it all worked out.
Regarding the apostle Paul, I did have a final paragraph about him but the post was already too long, so I deleted it. But this is a great place to put it, so here it is below.
______________________
Finally, many proponents of not using one’s pre-conversion actions/history/lifestyle as a basis for pastoral qualification site the apostle Paul’s (Saul’s) lifestyle before his Damascus road conversion (c.f. Acts 9:1-30). They believe that since Saul was such an intense persecutor of Christians (c.f. Galatians 1:13-14), he would not be “blameless” or “have a good testimony among those who are outside” and, therefore, would be disqualified to serve as a pastor. If this were a legitimate argument, then Jesus Christ Himself is at fault, for the Lord is the one who manifested Himself to Paul (Saul) and ultimately put him into the ministry (c.f. Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father…”; 1 Timothy 2:7 “for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle…”; 2 Timothy 1:11 “to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles”; 2 Timothy 1:3 “I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience…”)! This fact alone should be enough to silence any who believe that Paul was disqualified to serve in church leadership, especially as a pastor or apostle.
In answer to your question, no I do not think that pre-saved sins matter with respect to church leadership. I think it should be based on maturity of the individual involved. That said I do think that post-saved sins can be a factor. That is not to say there is no forgiveness, but to bring to point the frequency, depth and occurrence of those sins. For example, if a person had been addicted to porn and it was discovered that this person was still looking at porn as recently as last month, I do not think they are ready for leadership. On the flip side, if the person in question committed adultery on his wife twelve years ago (and they have been saved for say twenty) then this should not be held against the person. And this does not even count the times that God’s plan can be aborted by the selfish acts of those who aren’t per say sinning but not acting in God’s will (see my blog post about how we almost ruined our kids lives at http://wp.me/p2Yz6m-Bd).
That said, the state of the church today is not about raising leaders and disciplining those to be all that God has destined them to be. The church is about programs, numbers, money and a personality. The church has morphed into a stage to show off the individual and not God. Take any of the mega-churches out there. Most of these have become more about the persons ideals then God’s with a few scriptures (maybe) sprinkled in here and there. I am not judging because God rebuked me on that (see my blog post on this at http://wp.me/p2Yz6m-yU). But it is an observation.
Anyway, love your blog. Keep posting 🙂
Love in Christ!
i agree with all of your points. i’ll have to let them percolate for a bit, but overall we are in cohesion. i have a brother in law and my sister is his third wife. he has been striving to be a preacher/pastor for several years now and can’t seem to get a job pastoring a church even though he has applied and gone to preach at several. however, while he is looking for pastoring jobs, it appears that God has blessed him and my sister with financial stability, a great church home that will let him teach Sunday school and has brought him in to be involved just like all other church members, and things really seem to be going their way. it is quite the opposite when he is trying to be the leader of a church. his family was to the point of starvation and unable to pay for food, bills, a home, transportation, clothing, when he was attending seminary and working in a church.
i guess i’m posting because today i got a text from my sister saying that my brother in law was refused another pastoral job that he applied for from a church he preached at, and now he is questioning God. i know that God is a big God and can take it, and i don’t know what God’s will is for their family, but part of me wants to yell at them because it seems so obvious to those of us in her family on the outside. i’ve basically stopped talking to her about this situation because i believe my response would fall on deaf ears. i believe she knows where i stand on the subject and hasn’t asked my opinion because it won’t be the answer she is looking for, and for that reason i haven’t offered it. i believe that if/when she is ready to hear it, though, the opportunity will present itself and i will be able to speak to her about what i believe in a Godly manner. the problem is dealing with my aggravation over the situation in its current form. i don’t want to see my sister and their children live in destitution (literally; they’ve filed for bankruptcy twice) because i fear for their health and safety, but i don’t want to turn her off by telling her what i think of my own accord so that when it’s time for her to hear it that she’ll ask and listen openly. does any of that make sense?
anyway, thanks for letting me ramble. this has been a trying situation and i’m glad that i can let it out here to someone that understands and is examining this from a Biblical perspective. after all, we can spout opinions all day long but without examination of God’s word, what good does it do us?
Charles, perhaps taking into consideration the track of Christian maturity since conversion can help in the placement of his pre-conversion sins. I certainly would have discomfort of a man’s past acts of sins that are extreme being ignored for his pastoral desire. But I cannot fully know the heart of a man either in his current state. Track records post conversion is essential, but like you, I would take into account his pre-conversion sins. The apostle Paul, by the way, sort of was never a pastor, just an apostle, an evangelist, … the church was built on the orginal 11 apostle. Me thinks.
So as a person who was molested as a child, God didn’t prevent it from happening to me, though he could’ve, because the person who molested me would not one day become a pastor or deacon or other church leader???
And his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples but they are all afraid of him for they did not believe he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists; but they were seeking to kill him. And when the brethren knew it, they brought him down to Caesarea and set him off to Tarsus. (Acts 9:25-30)
And (Ananias) . . .said, The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; and you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now, why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name. When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple I fell into a trance and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get quickly out of Jerusalem, because they will not accept your testimony about me. And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in very synagogue I imprisoned and beat those who believed in thee. And when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I also was standing by and approving, and keeping the garments of those who killed him.’ And he said to me, ‘Depart; for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ (Acts 22:14-21)
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and I still was not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea; they only heard it said, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. (Galatians 1:15-23)
My conclusion: Paul either had a very poor memory, was mentally ill, or lied about what he did in the weeks, months, and first few years after his conversion experience on the Damascus Road. Yet, Christians base their belief in the Resurrection, the pinnacle event of their faith, on this man’s testimony, which in his own words, was a “heavenly vision” of a talking, bright light…along with the writings of four anonymous first century authors, writing decades after the alleged event, in a foreign language, in far away foreign lands, for purposes we do not and will never know.
That isn’t evidence, folks. That is speculation, superstition, and fantasy.