Fallen pastors, wounded healers.

When I read that Sam Hinn, Benny Hinn’s younger brother, was recently re-ordained at Orlando-area Church on the Living Edge just eight months after he resigned from Gathering Place Worship Center at Sanford, Florida, for admitting to a four-year extramarital affair early this year, my mind went on a tailspin. At the center of this mental vortex are the following questions:- 

Are all pastoral sins equal? That is, should there be a shorter restoration period if the pastor is caught for theft (or tempering with the petrol meter when entering KL) as compared to adultery? Should there be a difference between a pastor who engages in a drunken one-off, one-night stand and one who commits an extramarital affair over time? Should the restoration process be even longer if he compounds the sexual sins with malicious cover up so that he could perpetuate the sexual sins behind the congregation's back? 

As an aside, this quote comes to mind here, "He who is required by the necessity of his position to speak the highest things is compelled by the same necessity to exemplify the highest things." (Gregory the Great). 

Here are more questions: Does forgiving mean that the pastor will be restored in full over a reasonable period of time? What is a reasonable period of time? Or maybe it's not about the time duration but the demonstrable fruits over time (with less emphasis on time and more on verifiable words and deeds with character references?) Should the church carry out an agent provocateur stunt to test the sincerity of the so-called repentance of the fallen pastor? (too paranoid?) 

Or, is wounded healer more effective, more empathetic? Is a restored pastor more respected by the congregation because he shows human fallibility (to err is human and to admit it is spectacular) and demonstrates a heart of repentance, devotion and sincerity? Should the church apply the King David's approach and, after the fallen pastor pays the penance and do the time, proceed to restore him in full with no probationary period? Because if His grace is sufficient for us, and in weakness we are made strong, and a broken reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick He will not snuff out, then shouldn't the church restore and trust that the fallen pastor will return to the pulpit stronger, better and more effective? 

Or, should the fallen pastor never be restored to his former glory but relegated to a secondary/auxiliary role since sexual sin taints his personal credibility as a pastor, and it smears the church's reputation quite permanently, and it further puts the fallen pastor beyond the biblical standard of "to be beyond reproach"? Mmm...fruit basket for thoughts?

Now, let’s return to Sam Hinn’s case. Pastor Ron Johnson at the Gathering Place (TGP) was asked to do what Prophet Nathan did with King David but minus the ominous prophecies of course. He was asked to set a course to restore Sam Hinn back to ministry as they knew each other for more than 30 years. It was planned to be a two years’ restoration process. But unfortunately, Sam Hinn wanted to renegotiate the terms. When Pastor Johnson disagreed, he withdrew after three months and in the words of Pastor Johnson “has since found a group of men willing to endorse his leadership in a more expeditious manner.” 

This led Pastor Johnson to express his views with regrets in an article written on 12 August 2013 in CharismaNews entitled “An Overseer’s Response to Sam Hinn’s Re-Ordination (and the Restoration of Other Fallen Leaders)”. I can’t put it better than what he has written and here is the relevant extract. 

"Restoration is a not a quick fix but a systematic process of transformation that deals with a person’s deep-seated sinful and narcissistic tendencies...The restoration process begins with deep sorrow and brokenness over failure and sin. (And I must add here that I sincerely believe Sam is sorry for his sinful failure.)... 

The Bible teaches that we must bring forth the fruit of repentance (Matt. 3:8; Luke3:8). The only way I know if a person has truly repented is not by what he says but by what he does. It is through demonstrating a tested, proven lifestyle of change that I can know. Then and only then can I know it’s real. That is fruit!... 

I know many who will say, “Aren’t we supposed to forgive and move on? Isn’t what you are suggesting ignoring God’s grace?” Absolutely not! Restoration is not only about forgiveness, but also about trust. We are all called to forgive just as Christ has forgiven us. Sam asked for and received my total forgiveness—as he’s done with numerous people in his life.

However, trust must be earned. Only when a person is serious enough to take the time to fix what he has broken and systematically walk out a process of transformation should we trust again." 

I fully endorse what Pastor Johnson has written above. It just makes simple perfect practical sense, especially the part about trust, and that it must be earned. Trust is a two-way street and for a public personality like Sam Hinn, the trust of the whole congregation takes time; and definitely more than three months in my view.

If you think about it, it’s not just about repentance, forgiveness or penance-paid. It is not even about remorse, a broken heart or a sincere apology. At its core, it is about assurance, about trust. I know that without vision, the people perish. But without trust, the leadership is tarnished.

Personally, I see the process of restoring trust as the proverbial planting of a seed. Unless and until the seed is given the required time to grow into a tree and to bear its fruits, there is no other way to assure the congregation as to whether the harvest is going to be a time of celebration or disappointment. Trust therefore comes to fruition with time and time is the bridge that closes the gap between the fallen pastor and his congregation. The process cannot be abridged because it is not about the fallen pastor and how strongly he feels about his repentance. It is more importantly about the congregation as a whole and how secure they feel about the pastor’s restoration. The fallen pastor must understand that his repentance cannot be a private affair since a public figure like him demands nothing short of a public acceptance of him.

MacArthur once wrote, "Hideous or scandalous sin leaves a reproach that cannot be blotted out. The persistent memory of betrayal made public leaves such a man unable to stand blameless before people and lead them spiritually." 

And the prince of preachers, Spurgeon, has this to say "Alas! The beard of reputation once shorn is hard to grow again. Open immorality, in most cases, however deep the repentance, is a fatal sign that ministerial graces were never in the man's character... my belief is that we should be very slow to help back to the pulpit men, who having been once tried, have proved themselves to have far too little grace to stand the crucial test of ministerial life."

My view? Well, apart from Sam Hinn's case, whose re-ordination may be pre-mature, and this is in no way a reflection of his character but an issue of public trust, I would cast my lot somewhere in the middle of it all. In other words, I take the road nestled in between Sam Hinn’s almost-immediate restoration and Spurgeon’s hard-to-re-grow reputational beard.

Of course, there are degrees to an act of moral lapse and public betrayal. As such, I would expect different treatments for a thoughtless speech spoken in an unguarded moment and an extramarital affair or a financial misdemeanor involving church funds, the latter being a criminal offence. In the same way that there are grey areas in most issues, there are also degrees of culpability which ranges from carelessness, willful blindness, negligence, momentary lapses and intentional, premeditated acts.  So, the restoration process varies depending on the acts.

But having said all that, I ultimately believe in repentance, forgiveness and restoration. No man is beyond redemption; even in public ministry as long as he or she has truly repented and his congregation can trust him again. Although the duration of the restoration process is secondary to the fruits the fallen pastor produce post-sin, it is undeniable that all the great fallen men of the old testament took time to heal and repent. As such, I would be more comfortable with a longer period of restoration than a shorter one. But still a longer period doesn't necessarily mean a more thorough repentance. As Jesus said, “By their fruits.”

Of course, there is never a guarantee that a fallen pastor will not reoffend or fall for the second time. But between a world of suspicion and a world of trust, I’d rather choose the latter anytime. I believe that nobody is perfect. I somehow understand the heart of a fallen man (or woman). I appreciate how difficult it is to keep pride at bay and to bring humility to the core; especially when you are constantly being showered with praises and your every word, however humdrum and bland, is treated like sanitized gospel gold. I also somehow understand and endorse what Mandela once said to the effect that if you treat someone well, even if he is of ill repute, he would usually live up to your expectation.

In the end, I sincerely believe that a society that goes beyond paying lip service to forgiveness and shows unreserved sincerity to help the fallen (instead of giving them the unconscious prejudgment and the inadvertent aversion) will bring out the best in a person. Sometimes full repentance takes its responsive cue from the degree of social acceptance shown and received. As CS Lewis once wrote, "To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you." 

I think our society cries out for more authenticity. And a truly authentic society appreciates deeply the fallibility and vulnerability of men in public offices, especially the church. I believe that a "life beyond reproach" takes more than personal integrity and self control. Sometimes, it takes a brush of circumstantial fortuity.

You see, pastors wear their pants one leg at a time (that is, they are only human) and they are also a product of their own congregational culture. They no doubt lead. But they are also "led" by their followers at the same time. Sometimes the followers influence them more than they influence the followers. And they can be led astray by the followers. In other words, it takes two hands to clap.

Here, I recall a story told by George Orwell about himself as a British police officer stationed in Burma. One day Orwell received a call about a raging elephant creating havoc and killing a helpless man. When he rushed to the crime scene with his rifle, and donned in his full colonial regalia, Orwell saw the reverse of what he’d expected, that is, he saw a raging crowd of people clamoring for justice and a helpless elephant, cornered and lost. Orwell knew instantly that he ought not to kill the harmless animal but the crowd had already gone wild by this time and were chanting for blood. Orwell wrote that although he was the one in the position of authority, and the one in possession of the rifle, he felt powerless, completely unable to stop “two thousand wills, pressing me forward, irresistibly.” Under the pressure, Orwell pulled the trigger and shot the beast.

At times, a pastor of a large congregation may face similar pressure to perform, to comply and to live up to public expectation. And this pressure is self-reinforcing in that the pastor may be swayed to do what is popular instead of what is right. And like Orwell, he may feel two thousand wills, pressing him forward, irresistibly, and making him the puppet instead of the puppet master. In this case, what is often popular is to live up to an image of unblemishness and invulnerability even though the poor pastor may be at the verge of a mental breakdown for being under the constant pressure to keep up with apparent perfection.

And insidiously, because perfection is an illusion, it is sometimes an illusion perpetuated and worsened by pretension. I believe that self-righteousness comes in many forms and one of them is to expect an office holder to be perfect, or to embody a semblance of perfection, and nothing less. I think it is a lamentable fact that we, as the congregation, sometimes live out (or project) our expectations on the pastoral leadership just because we can’t live it up ourselves. And because of that, our pastors sometimes have no other choice but to pull the trigger on our behalf. 

Of course, by saying this, I am not excusing the conduct of the fallen pastor. I am just trying to understand the larger context of his conduct and the other seldom-considered factors that may indirectly contribute to his fall. For it is said that the more we understand, the more readily we forgive. Cheerz