Introduction
Evangelicals are sharply divided on the question of whether pastors who have fallen into sexual immorality should be restored to pastoral ministry.  Some argue for automatic lifetime disqualification for the adulterous pastor, regardless of circumstances or repentance.  On the other extreme many adulterous pastors and their wives and church boards feel that adultery should not even necessarily result in temporary resignation.  The consensus among most denominations and evangelical writers on the subject is that an adulterous pastor can be restored, but only after a process of character restoration extending from one to three years.
 Emotional arguments abound on both sides of the debate.  The goal of this paper is to approach the issue not from a pragmatic or emotional standpoint, but from a simple desire to understand the guidance from God’s Word on this important topic.  The approach will be to examine scriptural teaching and example with regard to restoration of fallen leaders, as well as direct statements from God’s Word that are used to support both sides.  The exegesis of these passages will then be synthesized and developed into a coherent biblical theology of response to a repentant, adulterous pastor.
The Relevance of Biblical Examples of Restoration
Since no passage of Scripture gives explicit instruction regarding the restoration or non-restoration of adulterous pastors to vocational ministry, the question of the relevance of the biblical examples is of critical importance.  Writers on both sides of the debate have concluded that Scripture is silent or unclear on the subject, and therefore the question must be addressed mostly by human wisdom, with little or no guidance from Scripture. 
 Those who argue for automatic lifetime disqualification for all or virtually all adulterous pastors have argued that the restoration of men like David or Peter has no bearing on the question at all.  Since all examples of fallen, repentant leaders in Scripture demonstrate restoration to their former ministry and there are no examples of fallen, repentant leaders who are permanently removed from ministry, the question of whether these examples are intended as examples is of great significance.  
The most prominent of the Biblical examples of a fallen leader are those of David and Peter.  Of these, Peter’s failure is of special interest in this discussion since Jesus personally restored him in some sense.  
The failures and restoration of Peter

Numerous arguments have been suggested as reasons we should not consider Peter’s restoration in the question of the restoration of fallen pastors today.
It is only historical narrative, not a normative example
Perhaps the most important question regarding the relevance of Peter’s restoration has to do with the fact that the mere report of an event does not necessarily mean that event is to be replicated or considered a norm for the Church.  The Church today does not kill fig trees or rub mud in the eyes of the blind simply because Jesus did those things.  In response to those who would hold up Peter’s restoration as instructive for the question of the restoration of pastors John Armstrong notes,
this approach in using Peter raises the issue of the normativeness of using biblical narrative to establish faith and practice in the church. It is a hermeneutical principle fraught with serious complications.

It is a difficult hermeneutical question indeed.  Difficulty, however, is no excuse for failure.  If the account was intended by God to instruct us with regard to the restoration of a fallen leader, to set it aside on the basis of difficulty is to be guilty of ignoring God’s Word.  And if the passage is not intended to instruct us with regard to restoration of fallen leaders, using the passage for that purpose runs the risk of misusing God’s holy Word.  Difficult or not, this is a question that must be examined.
First, it must be noted that the example of Jesus is in a different category than other biblical historical narrative.  The mere facts that Abraham attempted to sacrifice his son or that Hosea married a prostitute do not imply that these are to be normative procedures for believers at all times.  Some actions in Scripture are simply one time events.  The hermeneutical rule of thumb for historical narrative, then, is that unless there is some indication from the text that an action is presented as exemplary then it should not be taken as an example.  
The life of Jesus, however, is not exactly the same as other historical narrative.  Scripture is clear that Jesus’ entire life was meant to be exemplary for us.  The ultimate goal of our sanctification, as well as the purpose for our election is conformity to Christ.  Scripture specifically instructs us to follow Jesus’ example, not only with regard to specific areas of godliness,  but also as a general principle across the board.  “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”  “Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.”
Few object to the common practice of following Jesus’ example in other aspects of his dealings with the disciples.  Jesus’ example is routinely held up as exemplary with respect to the way he conducted ministry with the disciples in books such as The Master Plan of Evangelism.   The Church has taken many of her ministry cues from Christ over the past 2000 years.  And if it is argued that we should follow Jesus’ example only in moral issues and not in ministry issues, we would then forfeit all that may be learned from Jesus with respect to his example of the centrality of preaching, the proper use of the Old Testament, methods of discipleship, and leadership training.  Those who would accept Jesus’ strategies with the Disciples as valid examples for methods of discipleship while rejecting Jesus’ actions with Peter in John 21 as exemplary may be guilty of special pleading.    
Given the blanket statements in Scripture that we are to follow Jesus’ example, it would seem that the hermeneutical rule of thumb for Jesus’ life is that all he said and did should be taken as exemplary for us unless there is some compelling reason from the text of Scripture itself why something Jesus did should not be followed.  Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of such an exception.  Even the examples cited above regarding Jesus’ miracles are not actually exceptions.  When Jesus rubbed mud in the eyes of the blind man or cursed the fig tree his purpose in doing those things was to point people to his miraculous power.  We should follow his example and also point people to his miraculous power.  And if we assume Jesus’ actions with relationship to the Disciples in other contexts to be for our example, perhaps we ought not be too quick to dismiss Jesus’ restoration of Peter as an anomaly or an exception to the rule.  
If the only purpose of the restoration of Peter was to affirm that he was still a valid Apostle it would not have been necessary to describe the process Jesus used.  Scripture could have simply said, “Jesus restored Peter to Apostleship.”  The fact that the process Jesus used is recorded is most likely an indication that the Lord wanted us to have that process as an example to follow.  Jesus’ way of addressing Peter with the formal title (Simon son of John) gives an air of solemnity and formality to the event, and sets the event apart as more than a mere report of events. 
Peter was an Apostle, not a pastor
Another common objection to the use of Peter’s restoration in the discussion of restoration of pastors is the fact that Peter was an Apostle, not a pastor.
It is true that Peter was an Apostle, but it is incorrect to say that Peter was not a pastor or that he was not restored to pastoral ministry.  There is no evidence from the text of John 21 that Jesus had Peter’s Apostolic role in mind at all.  All of Jesus’ references to restoration were references to pastoral ministry.  
The role of a pastor is to feed the sheep.  In fact, the word “pastor” means “shepherd.”  In Ephesians 4:11, for example, when Paul says, “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors” the word translated “pastors” is ποιμήν, the common Greek word for “shepherd.”  When Jesus restored Peter the only specific ministry to which Jesus restored him was the ministry of pastoring his sheep.  Jesus did indeed restore Peter to a pastoral role.  He even used the word “pastor,” and nowhere in the context used the word “Apostle.”  Most commentators make a point that Peter was restored to pastoral ministry.  D.A. Carson, for example, states that Jesus’ command to Peter was that Peter must not only pastor but “hold the office of pastor.”
Peter made much of his restoration to the role of pastor.  It is significant that when he exhorts fellow pastors in 1 Peter 5, though he had the right to call attention to his role as an Apostle he prefers instead to point to his role as a pastor.
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers-- not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 
 
Jesus had special insight into the heart of Peter
One area in which we clearly cannot follow in Jesus’ steps is when he made judgments about what was in people’s hearts.  As God, Jesus was able to see within a man and know with certainty (even more than the man himself) whether that man’s faith or repentance was genuine.  The question must be raised, then, concerning whether Peter’s restoration should be held as an example for us since we do not have the benefit of Jesus’ perfect insight into the heart.  Furthermore, while it is true that Jesus restored Peter to pastoral ministry, as God, Jesus knew with certainty if Peter had been called by God to continue in ministry.
It is true that only God can see perfectly into a man’s heart, only God knows infallibly whether a man is called, and only God can restore a man to pastoral ministry. However, it is also true that only God can call a man to pastoral ministry in the first place.  And yet it is the Church’s responsibility and duty to discern and publicly confirm God’s calling.  While it is true that the Church does not have infallible knowledge of the genuineness of a man’s repentance or calling into ministry, still the Lord holds the Church responsible to discern those very things.  Every time the Church lays hands on a man to ordain him for pastoral ministry she is making a judgment as to whether that man is called.  And this is as it should be, as the responsibility to make such a determination is laid upon the shoulders of the Church.  
Likewise, the Church is responsible to discern whether a person in the process of church discipline is repentant.  Based on our understanding of whether a person is repentant that person is to be welcomed back as a brother or rejected as an outcast.  And while the determination of calling and fitness for ministry (giftedness, training, ability, character, etc.) takes a significant amount of time, the determination of the genuineness of repentance does not.  Nowhere in Scripture are we told to suspend judgment on the validity of a man’s repentance until it is proved over time.  The passages on church discipline seem to describe an immediate determination.  The moment a man repents he is to be regarded as “won.”  Indeed, repentance is to be accepted as valid even if it occurs seven times in a single day.
If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him."

The standard in this passage for valid repentance is simply the statement, “I repent.”  Apart from some compelling counter-evidence at the time of the claim, the claim should be accepted as valid.
It is also significant that the account of Jesus’ restoration of Peter does not emphasize any supernatural insight on Jesus’ part.  Just the opposite – Jesus, instead of simply declaring what was in Peter’s heart as He had done with other people on numerous occasions, asks Peter what is in His heart.  It is Peter, not Jesus or the narrator, who makes an appeal to Jesus’ supernatural knowledge.  But rather than affirm Peter’s implication that the basis for restoration was dependent upon supernatural knowledge, Jesus ignores Peter’s appeals to Jesus’ omniscience and proceeds to question Peter two more times.  If Jesus was establishing an example for us for how to restore a fallen leader it stands to reason that the process cannot be dependent upon a kind of knowledge to which we have no access. 
Furthermore, if Jesus’ omniscient insight into Peter’s heart was a factor in the restoration of Peter, all that reveals is that Jesus was willing to restore a man who, despite his repentance, would fall to the same sin in a disastrous way once again.  
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 

While Peter’s first fall took place in a moment of weakness, his second fall was drawn out over some amount of time.  Both “draw back” and “separate” in verse 12 are in the imperfect tense, and the grammar shows that the former preceded the latter.  So first Peter was drawing back, a process that finally culminated in a process in which he separated altogether.
At this point Peter was disqualified on the point of hospitality.  But more significantly he had fallen into precisely the same sin from which Jesus had restored him previously – cowardice.  Cowardice is a very serious evil.  It is listed along with sexual immorality as a sin that will characterize those who will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.  Peter’s fear of the men from James drove him to become a hypocrite who did great damage, even leading Barnabas astray.  And his error was so severe that it struck at the very heart of the gospel.  Peter was not holding to the deep truths of the faith – another direct point of disqualification.  And yet not only was Peter restored as a pastor after this, but there is no record or indication from Scripture that there was any interruption at all in his official ministry.
Peter did not commit adultery
Most people do not object to the restoration of a pastor who has committed non-sexual sin, even if it is disqualifying sin.  Those who support lifetime disqualification often point to 1 Cor.6:18 as evidence that sexual sin is unique in its degree of evil and is therefore more disqualifying than any other sin.  
Even if this passage is taken to teach that sexual sin is unique, however, that says nothing about the question of restoration.  Nothing in 1 Cor.6 indicates that sexual sin is uniquely disqualifying or uniquely permanent.  It only says that it is uniquely defiling to one’s body.  To simply assume that such defilement therefore renders a man permanently unqualified is to assume the very conclusion the argument is intended to prove, which is the definition of a circular argument.   
Those who dismiss Peter’s restoration as irrelevant for the restoration of an adulterous pastor because Peter did not sin sexually frequently note that Peter was not guilty of the kind of hypocrisy exhibited in a man who preaches against immorality while committing it himself.  As noted above, however, Peter’s second fall most certainly did involve prolonged hypocrisy.  Furthermore, it should not be assumed that all adulterous pastors were guilty of the same level of hypocrisy at the time of their sin.  A man who preaches against sexual sin while indulging in unrepentant sexual sin is the worst kind of hypocrite to be sure.  But the man who falls to a temptation and immediately hates his sin and takes steps to see that it is not repeated is not necessarily a hypocrite.  A man who struggles with sin but who is repentant is not hypocritical if he represents himself as a man who struggles with sin and is repentant.  
Since we are given Jesus’ actions as an example to follow, and since there is a detailed record in Scripture of how Jesus restored a fallen leader specifically to pastoral ministry, surely there is something we could learn from Jesus about how (or whether) to restore a pastor who has sinned.  If permanent or long-term removal from pastoral ministry were critical in the case of disqualifying sins, the restoration of Peter would have been an ideal time for God to alert us of that.  When Peter was sifted, chaff was found to be in his heart but the solution was for him to “turn back,” at which point he was to focus on ministry.  Jesus not only assumes but demands restoration to ministry before the sin is even committed.  In fact, once Peter’s love for Christ was established, Jesus’ focus was on return to pastoral ministry as proof of genuine love.  Peter had to feed the sheep in order to demonstrate his love for Jesus. 
Other Arguments for Restoration
1. God’s gifts and call are irrevocable (Ro.11:29).  
In context of discussing God’s calling of Abraham Paul states this principle in proverbial form.  The plurals are used in a gnomic way indicating that Paul is stating a general principle about the nature God’s gifts and call.  Once God calls a man into pastoral ministry the assumption should be that faithfulness in that ministry is required until death unless God gives a clear call to something else.  It seems from Paul’s example that God’s normal pattern for a preacher is a lifetime call.  Ceasing prior to death is seen as unfaithfulness.
Pastors are warned in the most solemn terms not to be derelict in their calling.  For a pastor to be faithful he must persevere even through the most difficult obstacles.  The chief weapon the enemy uses against us is our own sin.  The occasion of serious sin is never presented as an exception that lets a person “off the hook” of his responsibility once he has been called (and sin can hardly be thought of as an unforeseen eventuality for the Bible writers).  
It would be an over-application of this principle to dogmatically assert that it is impossible for God to ever revoke his call and gifting of a man.  However both this passage and the pattern in Scripture point to the continuance of the calling of a repentant, fallen leader.  And since there are no examples or statements in Scripture to the contrary, anyone who is certain he has been called ought to assume he is responsible to fulfill that calling until death unless the Lord makes a clear call otherwise. 

2. Every example of a repentant fallen leader in Scripture includes restoration.
Neither Moses, David, Jeremiah, Peter nor John Mark were disqualified from leadership and in each case the restoration is not presented as an anomaly but is assumed as a matter of course.  In fact, with the possible exception of Peter, Scripture gives no indication that there was even an interruption in their leadership roles.  In Moses’ case, for example, immediately after the record of his sin and God’s declaration of the consequence, Moses is still acting as the leader of the nation.  The possibility of permanent disqualification is not even discussed. 
It is often argued that although Scripture calls us to restore a brother who has fallen into sin, that is a restoration to fellowship, not ministry.  In the biblical examples of restoration, however, there is not a sharp distinction between restoration to fellowship and restoration to ministry.  If that distinction were as crucial as some make it sound, one would expect the distinction to be carefully made in Scripture.  Instead the statements and examples in Scripture seem to join restoration to fellowship together with restoration to ministry.  Indeed, if one is emphasized over the other it would be the latter over the former.  In the case of fallen leaders the main purpose of restoration seems to be to restore the person to service in ministry.  

This is what the LORD says, If you repent I will restore you that you may serve me. If you utter worthy and not worthless words, you will be my spokesman. 

Clearly Jeremiah’s sin was serious enough to be a disqualifying sin, since restoration to ministry was conditioned upon repentance.  Yet the purpose of restoration was continued service as God’s spokesman. 
From David’s psalms of repentance (Ps.51, which is associated in the opening verse with David’s sin with Bathsheba, and Ps.32 which is regarded by most commentators to fit the same context) as well as Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s fall all seem to include ministry as a crucial part of restoration.
Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will turn back to you.

Therefore let everyone who is godly pray to you while you may be found; surely when the mighty waters rise, they will not reach him. 7 You are my hiding place; you will protect me from trouble and surround me with songs of deliverance. Selah 8 I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you and watch over you. 9 Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you. 

But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.

15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" 
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." 
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs .... Take care of my sheep .... Feed my sheep.”

I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."  19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"  

3. A man is what he is, not what he was. 
When a man has repented the past is not remembered by God.  The assumption that a man who has committed sexual sin cannot change is a denial of the doctrine of progressive sanctification.  While past sins can affect one’s present status, the effect need not be permanent, for one’s character is not fixed and immutable but changes as one either matures or regresses.  Once a man has changed by means of the sanctification process, his new character is a more accurate representation of him than his old character.
The assumption that a man who has fallen into gross sin must forever be the object of suspicion can be a failure to trust in the power of the Holy Spirit to change the human heart.  When a scandalous sin is exposed in the life of a pastor there are generally very serious consequences that are excruciating for the pastor.  The acute pain that comes as a consequence of such a great sin is the chastising work of God.  To assume that the man cannot radically change is to assume the Lord’s disciple to be powerless.  But it is not powerless.  

Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.  No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. 

Note God’s purpose in the disciple – that the man might share in the very holiness of God.  God is capable of accomplishing his purposes in discipline, and those purposes include a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.  The fallen pastor then, if he is truly repentant, after having undergone the discipline of God, will be holy and his life will be a harvest of righteousness and peace, which is precisely the sort of person that is fit for spiritual leadership.

Timing of Restoration to Vocational Ministry
The question over the amount of time that must pass between a pastor’s sexual sin and his restoration to vocational ministry is a matter of considerable dogmatism and debate.  There is no passage of Scripture that specifies any length of time that a disqualified leader must remain disqualified.  Nor is there a passage that suggests the concept of disqualification as a time period.  The qualification passages (1 Tim.3 and Tit.1) seem to suggest that any man who currently has the character qualifications listed is qualified.  The question of timing, then, begins with these passages.  The time must be at least as long as it takes for character to be restored to the required level.
Restored Character
When a pastor falls into a sin such as adultery, serious questions must be raised regarding numerous aspects of his character.  Consider the following qualifications:
A one woman man – Sufficient time must pass for the man to establish a pattern of faithfulness to his wife.  He must demonstrate that there has been a significant change in the aspect of his character that was not faithful to his wife.  For this to happen, that aspect of his character must be identified, then the pastor must discover from Scripture how to change in that area, and then he must demonstrate a track record of change.  
self-controlled – The man who becomes embroiled in sexual sin obviously lacks self-control.  Close inspection of his life may reveal many illustrations of this.  Each area where lack of self-control is discovered must be examined and addressed scripturally.  Obviously it will not be adequate for the pastor to simply try harder at the same methods he has already been employing.  He must be able to demonstrate that the solution he is applying now will have a better chance at bringing about the change that is needed than the approach he was taking before.  Indeed, the change must be realized and maintained for a significant period of time for him to be qualified.  The pastor must demonstrate self-control in every area – sex, food, drink, entertainment, sleep, recreation and every other area.  The standard for him should be no higher than it is for any other elder in these areas; nor should it be any lower.
respectable – In many cases a man who falls into sexual sin is also involved in other shameful behavior as well.  When a man lets go completely and abandons himself to a sin; that sin is rarely isolated.  During the commission of that sin he may have also let the flesh take over in other areas as well, including obscene behavior or language in a variety of contexts.  Each of these areas must be addressed as well.  
For example, if the man, when engaged in sexual sin, used filthy language, this should not be overlooked.  The use of such language is another sin that must be traced back to its root in the heart and addressed with Scripture.  Until the man has been transformed in that area, he remains unqualified. 
It is important to explore the extent of the man’s sexual sin.  There is a tendency to lump all adulterers together in a single category.  But the reality is that there is a considerable range of sin that can be involved.  Tim LaHaye, in his excellent book on the subject, suggests a model for restoration that considers the details of the sin.
Every case must be evaluated individually.  Any restoration to ministry must be based not just on the sex act alone but one what that that act reveals about the minister’s character.  Did his affair include many acts of deception?  Did he initiate the affair?  Did he tell his wife about it?  Did he terminate the illicit relationship at his own initiative?  Is he repentant?  ....  Did he come to the church board to confess his sin or did they have to approach him?  What was his response to confrontation by the church board or elders?  Does he accept personal responsibility for his sin or does he blame others?  Is he responsive to the church’s discipline of him?  Is he willing to thrown himself on the mercy of God and his peers for the possibility of restoration to ministry?  Is he willing to subordinate himself to the will and Word of God?  Does he insist on immediate return to the ministry? 

Other important questions are, What was the frequency and duration of the sin?  Was he fighting against it the whole time, or did he give himself over to the sin for a time?  What are all the expressions of the sexual sin? (adulterous fantasy, pornography, adulterous conversation on the telephone, email or internet, adulterous contact, intercourse, homosexual activity, prostitutes, strippers, massage parlors).  
not given to drunkenness – If enslavement to alcohol is a disqualification for ministry it stands to reason that any kind of enslavement would also be an area of concern.  If the man is addicted to pornography or other sexual sins or anything else, he must find freedom from that enslavement before he can be qualified. 
not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome – Is the man quarrelsome and combative with those who are trying to help him in his restoration? To be qualified for ministry there must be a strong track record of gentleness. 
Honest questions, doctrinal disagreements, and denials of false accusations should not be regarded as combativeness any more than they would be for anyone else.  The issue at hand with this qualification is a violent, angry, rude, unloving, argumentative belligerence and resistance to those with whom he does not agree.
not a lover of money – A love for material things often accompanies sexual sin, as both sins are branches from the same trunk (covetousness).  The man who makes an idol out of sexual pleasure often also makes an idol out of other pleasures.  Love of material things is a disqualification for ministry.  (But once again, the standard for the fallen pastor should be no higher than for any other elder.  It would be hypocritical to regard a sin in the fallen pastor’s life to be disqualifying while that same sin is considered non-disqualifying for other elders or deacons). 

He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect – The home of the fallen pastor often falls apart.  Even if he genuinely repents, in some cases his wife or children may not forgive him and his home may fall into disarray.  Not all chaos in a man’s home is evidence of poor management, but to the degree that it is the man is unqualified. 
****************
For each of the character deficiencies that is discovered there must be strong evidence for transformation, as much as that evidence can be examined (however we must avoid setting up an impossible standard such that the pastor can not possibly produce adequate evidence).  
It should also be noted that anyone who would place himself in a position of declaring whether a man is fit or unfit must also be willing to do the hard work of knowing the man well enough to discern his character.  Those who would declare a man unqualified without examining him closely enough to know him well in each of the above areas demonstrates an unloving, unforgiving and arrogant attitude and is guilty of dishonesty.  The declaration that a man is unfit is a claim to know the man.  Those who would make a claim that implies such knowledge when they do not possess that knowledge are in fact lying.  And those who have such anger in their hearts that they are clearly searching for evidence against the man but are uninterested in or blind to evidence in his favor are themselves in sin and must repent.  Such an attitude is in clear violation of the biblical mandate for gentle restoration, and no one with such an attitude should have any role in determining the man’s restoration or non-restoration.  
How much time does it take for a man to change and then be found blameless in all these areas?  Scripture does not say.  Examples of rapid transformation of character abound in Scripture, but so do examples of long-term struggles with sin.  Just as the initial examination of an elder takes a certain amount of time, so will this examination.  In some respects it may even be a longer process, as the man’s track record does not begin until after the transformation of his character has taken place.  And in other respects it may take less time than the examination of a first time elder, because the man is already known in most respects, and only needs to be examined in a few areas. 
Reputation
The qualification that is most likely to take a long period of time has to do with reputation (as summed up in the term “above reproach”).  In order for a man to be qualified he must have a restored reputation.  Given the considerable reproach connected to disqualifying sin in the life of a pastor, it is often suggested that a very long period of time must pass before he could ever once again be above reproach.

How much time must pass before his reputation can be said to be restored? And what is the measure of his reputation? The following three views are common:
1. His reputation can never be restored. 
This is usually based on Proverbs 6:32-33.
But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself.  33 Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away

A few observations can be made about this very important and sobering proverb. There is something uniquely long-lasting about the shame of adultery.  In most people’s minds it is in a category apart from other sins, and is more distasteful than most other sins.  And to be sure, the shame of this sin never disappears in this life.  
The fact that shame remains, however, does not necessarily mean it is impossible for the man to establish a good reputation.  Every man and woman who has a good reputation still bears the shame of past sins.  To be sure, the shame of David’s adultery and murder remains to this day.  The question is whether that lingering shame automatically makes it impossible to have a good reputation.  In David’s case the shame will be connected with David for as long as Scripture endures, as it is recorded in God’s Word.  But does this prevent David from having a good reputation?  David’s reputation is seen in the way David is discussed by later writers of Scripture.  And a quick survey of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles makes it quite clear that David’s reputation was actually quite good.  In fact, it was so good that David became the standard by which the character of all the kings who followed was measured. 
As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.

Then it will be, that if you listen to all that I command you and walk in My ways, and do what is right in My sight by observing My statutes and My commandments, as My servant David did.

As for you, if you walk before me in integrity of heart and uprightness, as David your father did, and do all I command and observe my decrees and laws.

He committed all the sins his father had done before him; his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his forefather had been.

The LORD was with Jehoshaphat because in his early years he walked in the ways his father David had followed. 

He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and walked in the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.

The passages above did not appear in a context in which David’s sin was unknown. The kings’ character was measured against David’s character as revealed in the very same pages of Scripture that record David’s sin.  So even as the shame of David’s sin continued, David’s reputation was exemplary.  From these texts we learn that it is possible for a known adulterer and murderer to be so transformed in his character that he would be known (correctly) as a man who is fully devoted to God, who follows Him completely, who walks in His ways, who does what is right by observing His statutes, who walks in integrity of heart and uprightness, and who does what is right in the eyes of the Lord not turning to the right or to the left.  Certainly a man with that level of character could not be said to be unqualified on the basis of failing to be above reproach.  
So the statement from Pr.6:33 regarding lingering shame does not, even if taken in an absolute sense, negate the possibility of restored reputation.  Furthermore, like all proverbs, it is important to interpret Pr.6:33 proverbially.  Proverbs are not intended as absolute statements but rather as observations of the way life normally tends to go.  Generally speaking adulterers tend to receive blows from the offended husband, but not always.  And generally speaking the shame of adultery is long lasting, but there are exceptions. 
Additionally, it should be noted that the manner in which proverbs are stated often involves semantic hyperbole, so that “often” becomes “always” or “a long time” becomes “forever.” When Proverbs says that the righteous man will never be uprooted or that a scoundrel always stirs up dissension or that evil will never leave the house of a man who repays evil for good or that no one who loves wine and oil will ever be rich the intention is not to set those statements forth as absolutes without exceptions.  Clearly there are some who have loved wine who have become rich, just as there have been righteous men who have lost their homes.  Those who have interpreted Pr.6:33 in an absolute way have not tended to apply the same absolutizing hermeneutic to other proverbs. For example, Pr.25:9-10.
If you argue your case with a neighbor, do not betray another man's confidence, 10 or he who hears it may shame you and you will never lose your bad reputation. 

The text says plainly that the man will never lose his bad reputation, yet I know of no church that excludes from leadership any man who has ever betrayed a confidence.  Nor have I ever heard it suggested that a man who committed such a sin must immediately resign and could never be restored as long as he lives no matter how profound his repentance and subsequent transformation.  
The first view, then, must be rejected.
2. His public reputation must be restored.
A second common view is that before a fallen pastor can be qualified for pastoral ministry his public reputation must be restored.  Different pastors have different levels of exposure to the general public, but all pastors have some.  And since one must have a good reputation with outsiders to be qualified, it is sometimes assumed that public opinion about the pastor must be favorable before he can return to vocational ministry.  
This view is essentially the same as view #1.  Until the pastor is restored to ministry he is not in the public eye, and so nothing can be done to improve his public reputation. By this standard, then, restoration would be virtually impossible.  The pastor could not return to the public eye until his public reputation changed, but his public reputation could not change as long as he is removed from the public eye.  The opinion of the public about the man will remain whatever it was the last they heard of him.
This view would also create a double standard of sorts.  The reputation requirement for first-time pastors has nothing to do with public image.  Most young men starting out in ministry have no public image at all (other than the general image our culture has for pastors).  When their reputation is assessed, only those who know the man or who have had occasion to observe him are consulted. 
Finally (and most importantly), this view would seem to contradict the examples we have in Scripture for restoration.  In no case do we see a requirement that public opinion be swayed prior to a restoration.  If that were essential, one would expect the ideal time to make that clear would have been at the restoration of Peter.  Given the public nature of his sin one might have expected that Jesus would have carried out his restoration in front of some large gathering of people, rather than in the private setting where it appears in Jn.21.  And in Peter’s second fall in Gal.2 both his sin and the rebuke were made public but Peter’s repentance was not. 
The fact that no examples of the restoration of public opinion preceded a restoration to ministry in Scripture places the burden of proof upon those who would suggest that it is necessary.  Just as with first time pastors, the requirement of a good reputation with outsiders must be evaluated based on those outsiders that have contact with the man. 
3. He must wait until the sin is forgotten.
A third common view is that the fallen pastor must wait until most people have forgotten about his sin.  Again, this would essentially be the same as #1, as it is quite unlikely that very many people would ever forget that a pastor committed a disqualifying sin.  
And more importantly, it would flatly contradict all of the examples of restoration we find in Scripture.  In no case that we know of was restoration postponed until memories had faded.  Indeed, the same pages of Scripture that speak of the restoration of men like Jeremiah, John-Mark, Moses and David are the very same pages that record their sin. The sin of those men has not been forgotten to this day, yet Scripture records no interruption at all in their leadership roles.
4. He must demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the sin will not be repeated.
Again, this would essentially amount to the same as #1.  No man can ever guarantee beyond a reasonable doubt that he will avoid any certain sin.  And those who imagine they can should take heed lest they fall (1 Cor.10:12).  Not even Paul had that level of confidence regarding himself (1 Cor.9:27).  
Once again we can look to Jesus’ example to assess this standard.  Jesus did not take any pains to make sure Peter would never again fall to the sin of cowardice.  Instead, He restored Peter quickly.  And the result?  Peter went on to demonstrate great feats of courage, led the Church with wonderful godliness and integrity as he was filled with the Spirit (Acts 2:4, 4:8, 4:31, 13:52).  Then, tragically, he fell once again into serious sin – so serious that he perverted the gospel itself, became a hypocrite and even led Barnabas astray!  And not only did he fall into serious sin; it was the same sin from which Jesus restored him – the sin of cowardice.  Even the bitter weeping after his three denials and the personal restoration of Jesus Himself were not enough for him to gain permanent victory over that sin.  
If assurance of non-failure in the future is the standard, not even the restored, post-Pentecost, Spirit filled Apostle Peter would have been fit for leadership, and Jesus’ restoration of Peter would have to be judged to be premature and ill-advised.
The standard for Assessment of Reputation
If the above views are all to be rejected, the only standard that remains is the same standard that is applied to those seeking qualification for the first time.  A man is qualified with regard to reputation when he is seen as above reproach by those who have occasion to observe him.  This would include his family, coworkers, boss, friends, small group or Sunday School class, neighbors and anyone else with whom he has regular contact.  The opinions and assessments of people who have no information about what the man is like at this time should not be a factor in determining whether the man is above reproach. 
Scripture offers no minimum period of time that must pass before a man who has sinned egregiously can be restored.  The only record we have in God’s Word of there being any time gap at all between repentance and restoration is that of Peter in his first fall.  Jesus restored Peter on His third appearance to the Disciples.  Evidently in Peter’s case a period of time prior to full restoration was necessary, but it was only a few weeks.  There is no biblical example of a time period longer than this.
Erring on the side of Caution
Another common perspective in the timing of the restoration of a pastor is that it is always wisest to err on the side of waiting longer.  If there is any doubt at all, according to some, it is safer to keep waiting.
This conclusion seems natural given the great danger of placing a man in the pastorate too soon, which is a very legitimate concern.  Scripture warns us strongly against that very error (1 Tim.5:22, 3:10, 2 Tim.2:2).  Those who would disobey these commands and place an untested man in leadership not only bear the guilt of disobedience but also share in the responsibility for the many problems that come from unqualified leadership.
We must also recognize, however, that there is a danger in waiting too long.  To err on the side of caution can itself be reckless.  Indeed, to err on any side is to err.  While the dangers of premature restoration are considerable, so are the dangers of unduly delayed restoration.  The passages that warn against premature ordination are greatly outnumbered by passages that call for faithfulness on the part of those who have been called to serve God.  When God appoints a man to accomplish a task, failure to do so is a grave sin.  And so if God has called a man to something and is expecting that man to obey and be faithful to that call it is a serious sin indeed to hinder that man.  Those who would delay a pastor from fulfilling his calling for any time period at all beyond when God would have the man resume his work are guilty of tempting that man to disobey the call of God.  Jesus gave a very strong warning against anyone who would influence someone to disobey God.  That person would be better off drowned (Mt.18:6).
Given the lack of any specific time frame in Scripture for restoration (unless the brief period in the case of Peter’s restoration is accepted as a model), it is remarkable how dogmatic many writers and church leaders are regarding their opinion in this matter.  Whether a particular writer’s preference is six months, one to three years, or ten plus years, it is not uncommon for writers to accuse those who would opt for a shorter time of being guilty of gross compromise. Such dogmatism over personal opinion is not nearly as prevalent in any other area in which time periods are significant (such as how many years a man ought to prepare for first time ministry, how many years of Greek should be taken, how long a man should wait to remarry after a biblical divorce, or even how many years is required for the restoration of a pastor who is disqualified by a non-sexual sin).  It has become acceptable, however, to set up one’s opinion in this matter as a standard by which spirituality may be judged.
Since all repentant, fallen leaders in Scripture are restored to their former ministry and Scripture gives no indication that any of them were removed from that ministry for any period longer than a few weeks, this is an area of Christian freedom.  Certainly church leaders must apply wisdom principles in their determination of the timing of restoration, but the imposition of one’s own opinions on others as a standard for godliness or holiness is one definition of legalism.  And when the imposition of those opinions hinders a man from responding to a divine call, those who are imposing their opinion as law may be guilty of a grave sin.
It is wise for a fallen pastor to heed carefully the counsel of those who would caution him to wait longer than he would normally think appropriate, as his own fears, desires and emotions are very likely to cause him to be blind to the good reasons for waiting longer.  However while he heeds carefully such advice, he is unwise to blindly follow it.  Ultimately he is answerable to God for whether he faithfully carries out his calling.  If those who suggest a longer time period do so based only on an arbitrary commitment to a certain time period apart from any specific biblical principles, their advice should be taken for the mere human wisdom that it is.  
Ultimately the determination of when to resume ministry should be made in much the same way the decision to begin ministry in the first place was made.  The man should carefully follow the wisdom process in decision-making, considering all of the factors from which God’s direction is normally determined.
Conclusion
It is beyond the scope of this paper to set forth a comprehensive guide for restoration of a fallen pastor.  However I would suggest the following model.  The restoration process should take place in three stages:
Stage 1 – Transformation of character
All of the sins and attendant character deficiencies related to the sin must be discovered and addressed.  For each sin the man discovers in his heart he must ask what he has been doing wrong not only in his actions but also in his words, thoughts, motives, will, attitudes, affections, and emotions.  For each of these he must learn from Scripture how to change.  For each sin he must learn how to be transformed not only in his actions and thoughts, but also in his sinful affections or motives or attitudes.  This process must go on until all of the elements of all of the disqualifying sins have been addressed.  
Care should be taken at this point to discern between disqualifying sins and sins that are not disqualifying per se.  There is a tendency to view every fault of an adulterous pastor as part of his disqualifying sin.  For example, if someone notices an act of selfishness they assume that is at the root of his sexual sin, whereas that same act on the part of another pastor would not be regarded as a disqualifying sin.  This is an unfair standard that makes restoration impossible, as no man will ever become sinless in this life.  The rule of thumb should be that if a sin would not disqualify a man by itself then it is not a disqualifying sin.
The most important factor in stage one centers on love for Christ.  It was Peter’s restoration to fellowship with Jesus Christ that made possible his service to the Church.  When Jesus restored Peter, even though the specific sin had to do with cowardice and fear of man, Jesus spoke only of the question of whether Peter loved Jesus.  Jesus’ three-fold repetition of this and his decision not to mention anything else are both strong statements that show us that the core issue has to do with love for Christ.  The man who has fallen into disqualifying sin is greatly lacking in his love for Christ, and this must be the beginning point of restoration.   
Stage 2 – Confirmation of Transformation
  Once the man’s character has been transformed, a group of people must probe deeply in examination of his character to confirm that the transformation has indeed taken place.  While there are no completely unbiased people, this group must strive to be as objective as possible.  Those with a great amount of distain for the man, those with an inadequate theology of restoration, or those who do not take the disqualifying sin seriously should not be part of the group.
This stage should continue for as long as suspicions of specific sins remain.  Such suspicions must be investigated as thoroughly as possible.  The group should agree on whether a suspicion is a reasonable suspicion.  There should never be a circumstance in which it is impossible for the man to prove his character in a certain area.    
Stage two should not be prolonged simply because members of the restoration group feel not enough time has passed.  The passing of time, by itself, does nothing.  If a man is continuing in some sin all the passage of time will do will be to enable him to commit that sin more times.  Where there is reasonable suspicion there must be investigation.  When there is no reason to believe any disqualifying sin is persisting, stage two in complete.  Upon completion of stage two the confirmation of the restoration team should be made public.
Stage 3 – Discernment of Timing and Circumstances for Re-entry into Vocational Ministry
The completion of stage two, by itself, only affirms that the man is ready.  It says nothing about God’s leading with regard to re-entry into vocational ministry.  The question of when/if/where to re-enter vocational ministry should be answered by the normal wisdom, decision-making process.  Even for a fully restored man wisdom may prohibit beginning another ministry right away.  Just as entrance into vocational ministry the first time had to wait until it proved to be a sound decision according to wisdom, so it is with re-entrance into ministry.  The main goal of phase three is to discern God’s leading in much the same way as someone entering ministry for the first time by considering such factors as circumstances, desires, gifts, confirmation of God’s people, and opportunity.

Reference List

Armstrong, John H. Can Fallen Pastors be Restored? Chicago: Moody Press. 1995.

Barensten, Jack. “Restoration and Its Blessings: A Theological Analysis of Psalms 52 and 32” Grace Theological Journal. 5.2. Fall, 1984.

Burge, Gary. The NIV Application Commentary: John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2000. 

Carson, D.A.. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1991.

Fung, Ronald. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1988.

LaHaye, Tim. If Minister Fall, Can They be Restored? Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1990.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 

Pedigo, Thomas L. Restoration Manual: A Workbook For Restoring 
Fallen Ministers and Religious Leaders, Colorado Springs: Winning Edge Publications, 2004. 

Smith, Jay E. “Can Fallen Leaders be Restored to Leadership?” Bibliothecra Sacra. 151. 604. October 1994.

Wilson, Earl & Sandy. Restoring the Fallen: A Team Approach to Caring, Confronting & Reconciling. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Appendix One: Suggested Reading List for Restoration of Character

The following resources are listed in the order in which I recommend they be read in the restoration process.

Brokeness, the Heart God Revives by Nancy Leigh DeMoss 157 pages
This little gift-book could be read in one sitting, and there are some very good insights. Chapter 4 on how to discover pride in your heart I found especially helpful and quite convicting. 
There are many questionable interpretations in this book, however. The vast majority of her assertions are not supported by Scripture. I would only recommend this book to the most discerning of readers. The assertions she makes are so well-stated and sound so good, there is a great temptation even for the discerning reader to assume them to be true just because she says them. The only people who should read this book are the ones who know how to spot that, and who have the discernment and self-discipline to differentiate between a principle that comes out of Scripture and a wonderful sounding idea that came from human reasoning. I recommend the book early in the list, however, because at the beginning of the restoration process it is essential that the fallen minister think through the meaning of true brokeness.  This book will not be a great help in teaching about brokenness but is helpful as a starter for one’s thinking.

Sex and the Supremacy of Christ Conference 
I highly recommend the fallen pastor secure the CDs or MP3s of all the messages from this conference (they can be obtained from Desiring God Ministries) and listen carefully through each message.  

Future Grace by John Piper
The purpose of this book was to take the principles in Desiring God and The Pleasures of God and show how they can be applied in a practical way in day to day Christian living – overcoming anxiety, pride, shame, impatience, covetousness, bitterness, depression, and lust.  If the pastor has not read Desiring God and The Pleasures of God he should read both books prior to reading Future Grace.

When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy by John Piper 234 pages
Piper gives very practical advice on how to have a good routine of Scripture, prayer, fellowship and worship as well as a chapter on how to use the 5 senses in the fight for joy and what to do when the darkness does not lift (depression). 

The Glory of Christ  by John Owen 281 pages
When Jesus restored Peter his focus was exclusively on love for Christ.  For the fallen pastor to be transformed in his character he must learn to love Jesus Christ in a much greater way, such that he prefers fellowship with Christ above sexual pleasure. This kind of transformation comes only through beholding the glory of Christ (2 Cor.3:18).  Owen’s thesis is that all our spiritual health and growth comes from beholding Christ’s glory.  John Own is considered by many to be among the most profound of the puritan writers. He is also known to be among the most difficult writers to read. This book does not disappoint on either count. The parts I could understand were very profound and enlightening, but much of it I was not able to follow. I highly recommend the book for those who are good readers. It is worth the hard work. 

The Practice of the Presence of God and Spiritual Maxims by Brother Lawrence 112 pages
The main point of this little book is to argue that we should strive to exist in an awareness of God’s presence and a communion with Him all day long, so that every action throughout the day is a little act of communion with God. While I wholeheartedly agree with that premise and found the book helpful and inspiring, much of it is too mystical for my tastes. The most alarming portion of the book are the repeated statements that for Brother Lawrence there was no difference between his prayers during his daily activities and his private prayers in solitude. He seems to believe that when that is true there is no longer any need for the latter. From the gospels, however, we find that not even Jesus was so spiritual that He didn’t need to get away to be alone for extended times of prayer. I recommend the book because the simple principle of making each action of the day an act of fellowship with Christ is crucial for learning to love Christ more.

Religious Affections (the)  by Jonathan Edwards 382 pages
Facing the crisis of having to discern the wide range of responses coming from the revivals Edwards produced a meticulously careful analysis of what affections are (the inclination of the soul in favor or against something), signs that are not evidence of the truth or falcity of affections, and signs that are evidence of true religious affections. The principles in this book are crucial for anyone desiring to deepen his affections for Christ.

Treasury of David  C.H. Spurgeon 3 volumes
The richest treasurhouse of insight regarding love and desire for God (and satisfaction in God) is in the Psalms.  Each paragraph of each psalm is followed by Spurgeon’s verse by verse commentary and then by a section entitiled “Explanitory Notes and Quaint Sayings” which are collections of devotional comments by various other authors on the verse.  In most cases there are more life-changing insights in the “Explanitory Notes and Quaint sayings” section of a single psalm than in the entirety of most devotional books.  
	A wonderful practice for the fallen pastor is to begin each morning by reading a section in a psalm, then reading the comments in Treasure of David, and then writing out a prayer beseaching God for the same kind of passion, love, desire, delight and satisfastion in God that the psalmists had.

The Game Plan by Joe Dallas 222 pages
Joe Dallas, a man who has had serious moral failures, now has a more than 20-year track record of purity.  He has written a manual designed to enable men to gain victory over their struggle with sexual sin and establish a life pattern that will enable long-term victory.  The book has some excellent principles combined with a few psychological theories.  The most disappointing chapter is the one on boundaries, which buys in to a bit of a worldly view of self-protection.  

The Complete Husband  by Lou Priolo 293 pages
This book is loaded with very helpful ideas on how to be a better husband. Particularly helpful are all the lists he gives. For example, in one list he gives over 100 ideas for ways to express love to one’s wife. 	Priolo’s exegesis is a little bit shaky in a few places, but generally speaking the content is much more sound than what is found in most marriage books.

Connecting: The mentoring relationships you need to succeed in life   Paul D. Stanley and J. Robert Clinton  232 pages
It is self-evident that the fallen pastor is in need of accountability and mentoring relationships.  This book broadens the perspective of mentorship, describing seven different kinds of mentoring that range from the more deliberate and intensive to the more passive and less deliberate.  
For each type he gives numerous examples, specifies when that type is most helpful, and describes both how to be that kind of mentor and how to respond to that kind of mentor.
A couple weaknesses of the book are:
* questionable theology in the section on discipleship.  He seems to think that not all Christians are disciples – an error of the “anti-lordship” movement.
* Most of the examples in the book have to do with mentoring outside the Church.  It would have been more helpful to have more material on spiritual mentoring within the Church.
* The authors seem to be more influenced by psychology than by biblical counseling.      

Face to Face  by Kenneth Boa 324 pages
This book is designed to be read over the course of 3 months. Each day there is a list of Scriptures that are placed into the second person so they address God. So, for example, Galatians 3:21 goes from “Are the promises opposed to God’s law? to “Are the promises opposed to Your law O God?” The purpose of the book is to enable the reader to pray the ideas of Scripture to God. 

Not Even a Hint   144 pages
by Joshua Harris
This is a book on the subject of how to achieve purity in the thought life. 

Every Man’s Battle by Stephen Arterburn & Fred Stoeker w/ Mike Yorkey  224 pages
While there are some biblical principles, mostly this book is comprised of practical tips on how a man can achieve a higher level of purity in the thought life.. The book is very helpful in its description of what the goal should be for men regarding their eyes and thoughts. I think it is also a good book for women to read, so they can better understand the struggle for men. There is a section at the end of each chapter written from a woman’s point of view. 

Appendix Two: Suggested Reading List for Assessment of Character 

If Ministers Fall Can They be Restored?  by Tim LaHaye 190 pages
This is the best book I read on this subject.  LaHaye takes very seriously the gravity of sexual sin by a pastor, but at the same time exhibits wonderful compassion and understanding.  He makes careful distinctions for various different circumstances and provides excellent advice both for avoiding sexual sin in the first place and for restoration – both to fellowship and to ministry.  

Restoration Manual: A Workbook for Restoring Fallen Ministers and Religious Leaders by Thomas L. Pedigo 110 pages
Pedigo’s manual can be used as a guide for a restoration team to examine the following “checkpoints” of restoration: procedural, scriptural, formal, denial, spiritual, moral, behavioral, emotional, mental, marital, intellectual, psychological, relational/social, familial, vocational, financial, volitional, phyisical, medical, legal, temporal, personal/recreational, ecclesiastical/pastoral, positional, supernatural/supranatural, sexual, and professional. I dissagree with many of the points and quotations in the book, but the model of examining all the various checkpoints is a helpful one.