At virtually every gathering of pastors I’ve attended in the past year, the subject has come up. Either in general discussion or in private conversation, two or three names would be mentioned-prominent ministers who had stepped down after admitting some moral lapse.
The inevitable questions: Do you think he (or she) should return to ministry? Under what conditions?
The problem of lapsed leaders in the church is certainly nothing new. As early as A.D. 250, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, wrote The Lapsed, trying to address the problem. Perhaps his approach is worth reviewing.
Here was the situation facing Cyprian: For two hundred years the church had held a strict discipline, by today’s standards, for any sins committed after baptism.
For example, the influential Shepherd of Hermas, written around 150, condemned the moral failings of the church: some deacons had appropriated funds given to them for charitable causes, and some elders were proud and even negligent. Forgiveness was not granted lightly. “Thinkest thou that the sins of those who repent are straightway remitted? By no means; but he who repenteth must vex his soul, and humble himself mightily in all his conduct . . . and if he bear the afflictions that come upon him, He who created and empowered all things shall certainly be moved to compassion and give him healing.”
For most sins, the church would accept this repentance and restore the offender through a ceremony of absolution. Three postbaptismal sins, however, were considered so grave that forgiveness must be left to God alone; the church would not take responsibility for performing absolution. The sins: apostasy, murder, and fornication.
Bitter controversy arose in the early 200s, however, when the former slave Callistus, upon becoming bishop of Rome, heard the request of a now-repentant adulterer who sought restoration to the church.
Callistus felt the current practice was excessively rigorous, discouraged rather than encouraged repentance, and thus hindered the operation of grace. So he began granting absolution to adulterers and fornicators, but ruled that it could be granted once and once only. And murder and apostasy were still “irreconcilable” sins.
This highly controversial decision led more stringent elements in the church to name their own pope, a man named Hippolytus.
Such was the spirit when Cyprian faced his dilemma.
During a period of relative tolerance toward Christianity, the church had grown rapidly, and in spite of all precautions it included a significant number of merely nominal believers.
Then persecution hit. In 250, the Emperor Decius launched a full-scale campaign to enforce allegiance to the Roman gods. He decreed that those who did not sacrifice to the Roman gods could have their property confiscated, be imprisoned, or face torture. His strategy aimed to discredit the church-to make apostates, not martyrs.
It was an effective campaign. In some areas, more than half the Christians offered the sacrifice-some willingly, some only after torture.
Then, after Decius’s death, the persecution ended. And many of those who had sacrificed to the Roman gods now sought readmission to the church.
Cyprian’s dilemma: What to do with the lapsed?
On the one hand, the church’s business is restoration, not condemnation. Unless forgiveness is available, what hope is there for anyone? We’re all in need of continual forgiveness and restoration.
On the other hand, if he freely granted restoration to the lapsed, why should anyone remain true the next time persecution arose? Why risk torture when you can save your skin and later tell the church, “I’m sorry”? Without consequences for sin, what’s the reason to remain true?
Cyprian eventually decided that those lapsed could be readmitted to the church, but he felt there needed to be some test to determine the sincerity of their repentance. He suggested four necessary things:
1. Public confession of the sin;
2. Demonstrated contrition for a period of time (initially this meant sackcloth and ashes, but over the years it developed into the system of penance);
3. Restoration by laying on of hands;
4. Restriction from official leadership roles for those who had been church leaders.
Right or wrong, that was Cyprian’s decision, and it was generally adopted throughout the church.
In more recent times, Charles Spurgeon recommended that leaders who lapse should step down from the pulpit, sit in the last pew, “and stay there until their repentance is as notorious as their sin.”
There’s obviously much more to the subject of integrity than the problem of restoration after a lapse. But as Cyprian and Spurgeon show, how helpful it is to have models of Christian leaders who have wrestled personally with the issues of integrity.
This edition of LEADERSHIP will examine many of these areas and offer the personal stories of godly individuals who are committed to maintaining the integrity of the ministry.
Marshall Shelley is managing editor of LEADERSHIP.
Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
