The Restoration of Fallen Shepherds

Leaders who prey upon or neglectfully allow their flock to be preyed upon should never be in a position of ministerial authority ever again.

Sadly, there seems to be a new example of upending this principle every week.

It’s become commonplace to see fallen leaders go through a sort of “restoration” process that then thrusts them back into leadership. This isn’t a new dynamic, at all, but the public nature of some of these examples has highlighted it as a problem. Though it’s tempting to see this as a problem solely with celebrity culture, we should recognize that this very same dynamic also happens in the small country church, not just the multi-site, celebrity led, evangelical mega church. There’s many legitimate concerns with celebrity culture, but the tendency for leaders to avoid consequences is one that spans the range of money, influence, and congregation size. It’s likely that this dynamic is more common with celebrity pastors, but I want to stress that it’s not a problem unique to the celebrity pastor or mega church.

While business executives and politicians are often forced to resign after abuse happens under their watch or when they actively participate in abuse, the pastors’ common appeal to a false grace is used as their scapegoat away from responsibility. A false grace they rarely afford to others.

The world has a relatively high (albeit inconsistent) standard against these sorts of scandals, but what does God’s Word say?

First, it should be clear that while all sin separates us from God (Romans 3:23), not all sin should have the same earthy consequences. Though any and all sin can be covered by the blood of Christ, this does not negate legal consequences, safety concerns, broken trust, and disqualification from leadership roles.

When examining Biblical qualifications for eldership, it’s clear that perfection is not the standard. Further, it’s possible that an elder can sin in such a way as to become disqualified but then later regain that qualification and could possibly be restored to position.

However, when the sheep are abused, the consequences are more severe.

Let’s look at Ezekiel 34:7-10.

““‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord. As I live — this is the declaration of the Lord God  — because my flock, lacking a shepherd, has become prey and food for every wild animal, and because my shepherds do not search for my flock, and because the shepherds feed themselves rather than my flock, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord! “‘This is what the Lord God says: Look, I am against the shepherds. I will demand my flock from them and prevent them from shepherding the flock. The shepherds will no longer feed themselves, for I will rescue my flock from their mouths so that they will not be food for them.” (‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭34‬:‭7‬-‭10‬)

Now, a few things are obvious about this text. Of course, God is opposed to the abuse of the sheep. But I want to point a few things out.

God is not just opposed to the abusive pastors, but also the pastors who neglect their duties in allowing and enabling the abuse of the flock. Sinful negligence is disqualifying, not just abuse. God calls special attention to the shepherds who feed themselves instead of protecting the flock. This could be pastors too focused on money, too focused on their next book deal, their next podcast, their social media influence, or so on. Essentially, the pastors are too focused on themselves and their institutions, so they allow their flock to be devoured.

But, of course, this text also applies to the shepherds devouring the flock themselves. At the end of the text we see that some shepherds have fed themselves on the flock while others have been absent. Some shepherds are just wolves while others fail to keep the wolves away.

Either way, the focus is on the sheep being devoured. That’s the problem whether it’s by active abuse or passive neglect.

Still, abuse of some sort will happen regardless of the faithfulness and watchfulness of leaders. Nevertheless, when there’s neglect of duties or enabling, this is when the blame falls on the leaders as well as the abusers. E.g., putting known predators into close contact with potential victims, focusing on the inclusion of repentant predators more than the protection of victims, not giving the congregation the information needed to protect themselves and their family, fostering a culture in which abuse is minimized or overlooked, teaching theology in which abuse is minimized or overlooked, and many more examples. Abuse, sinful neglect, and the enabling of abuse all share the same consequences according the Word of God.

What are the consequences for shepherds who abuse their flock or neglect their duties in this way?

“I will demand my flock from them and prevent them from shepherding the flock. The shepherds will no longer feed themselves”

These shepherds will shepherd no longer.

There can be repentance. There can be a restoring of the sweet fellowship of the saints. But a shepherd who devours the sheep or allows the devouring of the sheep is no longer qualified for leadership. That disqualification is permanent.

The severity and the permanence of this disqualification is justified by the basis of God’s declaration in Ez. 34. What does God base his declaration on?

God bases this firm declaration on his very existence.

This oath of God is similar to the oath sworn by Elisha in 2 Kings 3:14, but God swears it himself in Ezekiel. But most notably, Hebrews 6 references God making the very same oath in Gen. 22.

“For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater to swear by, he swore by himself: I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply you. And so, after waiting patiently, Abraham obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and for them a confirming oath ends every dispute. Because God wanted to show his unchangeable purpose even more clearly to the heirs of the promise, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us.” (‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭6‬:‭13‬-‭18‬)

“and said, “By myself I have sworn,” this is the Lord’s declaration: “Because you have done this thing and have not withheld your only son, I will indeed bless you and make your offspring as numerous as the stars of the sky and the sand on the seashore. Your offspring will possess the city gates of their enemies.” (‭‭Genesis‬ ‭22‬:‭16‬-‭17‬)

When God swears by himself it’s the weightiest and most solemn of oaths. As the author of Hebrews teaches, it is not only a strong oath, it’s immutable. In other words, it’s an unchanging and permanent oath. The oath, sworn on the existence of God, is as immutable as God.

And God’s oath is that these shepherds are to shepherd no longer.

For these sins, there is no “restoration process” back into spiritual leadership. There is no return to public ministry. There is no ministerial “golden parachute.” No. Rather, there’s a lead parachute that focuses on the safety of the weak rather than restoring the authority of those with power. This may seem harsh, but God is very protective of his sheep. It’s the harshness of a shepherd against wolves that results in gentleness and love towards the sheep. Further, no one is entitled to shepherding God’s flock. It is not a position due anyone. Instead, it’s a weighty burden and privilege.

Permanent disqualification aligns with the teaching that elders are to be above reproach and that their qualifications are to be shown.

Biblically, we’re to assume the best of our brothers and sisters. We’re not to assume wrong doing or sin. We’re to think of them as better than ourselves and give them the benefit of the doubt. But this is a principle of general ethics within the church. This is how we are to interact with one another with grace, charity, and love. This is not how we determine who’s qualified for eldership in the New Testament church.

The ethics of biblical eldership is that potential elders or former elders are required to show themselves as qualified. Meaning, the assumption isn’t that a man is qualified. The assumption is that he’s unqualified and that he must, over time, show himself to be worthy. Elders are to be examined by the church over time and their qualifications are to be slowly, deliberately, and publicly shown to be true. This isn’t an examination by a handful of men in a secret council, but rather a clear demonstration of fitness that can be seen by all relevant parties.

This principle is of particular importance when details of a failure in leadership are kept vague and undefined yet the congregation (and in some cases, the public) is asked to accept, while being kept in the dark, a restoration process. This kind of administrative behavior, especially when done quickly, presupposes that qualification should be assumed instead of shown. Even if we’re dealing with less severe sins in which an elder could potentially retain his position or regain his position, the assumption that he’s once again qualified is the reverse of how being qualified for eldership works. It’s, frankly, cheap and lessens the weightiness of this important calling.

In scripture, however, faithfulness in the church is assumed and unfaithfulness must be shown, while being unqualified for leadership is assumed and qualification must be shown. We must distinguish.

The doctrine of permanent disqualification also aligns with the Biblical concept of protecting the weak against the strong. Abuse scandals in the church far too often focus on how the fallout has effected the pastors, the institutions, and even the guilty. Guilty pastors are often met with thunderous applause and adoration while their victims are forgotten. Rather, God’s heart is with the victim. Though it may be wise to leave victims anonymous, there’s values being expressed when the Church sidelines the perspective of the victim in favor of celebrating a newly repentant leader.

There is abundant grace. Overflowing grace. But the grace of God is centered on Jesus, not a restoration to power. Pastors who have fallen should sit under the preaching and discipleship of qualified elders and quietly serve the local church in appropriate and non-authoritative ways. And I rejoice when fallen leaders in the church are restored back to the communion of the saints. We should be gracious in this process and welcome them back with a healthy dose of trust and charity.

However, brothers and sisters, grace does not mean escaping consequences or that leadership is ever owed to anyone. This is false grace. The grace these fallen shepherds and their fans desire is a grace divorced from justice, the safety of others, and the Biblical qualifications of eldership. But that is not true grace. It’s cheap and ultimately Christless. Grace means getting Jesus, not your title back. And that’s more than enough and far more than any of us deserve.