The Office of Pastor is a High Calling

The office of the pastor is a serious calling in Scripture, one that should not be approached with any sense of casualness. This is why Paul lays out a series of requirements in his pastoral epistles. These qualifications are divinely inspired qualities that, without which, no man may set foot in the pulpit. This must be taken seriously, whether in the selection and ordaining of a pastor, or in the decision to remove a man when he is discovered to be in sin. The church dare not approach this matter with anything other than godly solemnity

Yet, far too often, the most concerning quality is how charismatic the person is in the pastorate. If he can draw in large numbers of people, if those people can be made to feel good by his speech, and if they will bring others with them next week to hear the preacher, then that is sufficient reason to place a man in the role and keep him there as long as possible. Should this pastor falter in his position, should he sin in some significant manner, the question is not if he should be removed, but how quickly he can be restored to the pulpit. No sin is seen as too great or too disqualifying as long as the people like the pastor and want him in the pulpit. After all, God forgives everyone, including murderers like King David, right? And if David could remain king, then there is no reason to believe any man cannot be restored to the pastorate, regardless of his sin.

King David Was a Repentant King

Herein lies one of the most common rebuttals from the modern professing Christian against the idea that anyone can be disqualified from the pastorate. Yet it is entirely without any biblical merit, and it is a faulty comparison, which will be noted later on. Still, given that the comparison is often used, it is worth noting that David demonstrated something that most modern evangelicals lack when it comes to the issue of sin: unqualified confession and complete repentance. An examination of two of David’s greatest sins will reveal this.

In 2 Samuel 11, David commits adultery with Bathsheba while her husband, Uriah, fights for the King on the battlefront. To hide Bathsheba’s pregnancy from this fornicative affair, David first tries to bring Uriah home to sleep with his wife, but, failing that, he orchestrates the man’s murder. David is confronted by Nathan the prophet, who exposes the evil David had done (2 Sam. 12:1–15). For his sin, David would not only see the death of Bathsheba’s child, but he would be ousted from his throne by his own son. What is David’s response to this? He fully confesses, “I have sinned against the Lord” (v. 13; see also Ps. 51). And while he would plead in prayer for the child’s life, David accepted the consequences of his passing, never once complaining to the Lord (vv. 22–23). Nor did David charge God with wrongdoing when Absalom temporarily unseated David from the throne (see chp. 13). In all this, David accepted the consequences of his sin.

David’s second major sin was his taking a census of the people in 2 Samuel 24:1–9. His desire to do so was not directed by God, but out of his own prideful arrogance. When once again his sin is made known to him, David confesses, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done” (v. 10). There is no attempt to minimize his actions, no effort at equivocation before the Lord. David gives a full-throated confession and throws himself upon the mercy of God. When given the choice of three possible judgments from God, David does not complain about unfairness; he accepts that the wrath of God is right and good. He chooses the judgment that places his trust fully in God’s righteousness and goodness (v.14). And when the judgment comes against the land, David appeals to God based on his own sinfulness, “Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done? Please let your hand be against me and my father’s house” (v. 17).  David is willing to bear the brunt of the judgment in the place of his people.

One should note the vast difference between David’s actions and what many modern-day pastors do when caught in sin. David never once minimized or denied his sin. He confessed and produced acts in keeping with repentance. David was a man after God’s own heart because he loved the Lord and desired to obey and honor him in all that he did. And when David failed, he accepted the consequences without question. Some modern pastors, however, couch their sins behind poor choices, moral failings, or simply not being as transparent as they could have been. They may offer an apology that acknowledges others may have felt hurt by the pastor’s actions, and they might step down for a time of reflection and counseling. Such a response is far from the brutal honesty in word and deed evidenced by David, yet the church is regularly told this is the example by which it should expect pastoral restoration.

But King David Was Not a Pastor

With this glaring difference addressed, it is necessary to discuss why such a comparison today is inappropriate to begin with. Put simply, David was an Old Testament king; he was not a New Testament pastor. What that means is that, under the Old Covenant law, there were certain requirements and expectations for the king. And while he would have great authority, he was not a priest who should lead the people in worship and sacrifice. He was vested with great power, and with it came the consequences of leadership. But the king was only a king nonetheless.

The Old Covenant system is fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17–18). The temple sacrifices, the office of High Priest, and the legal system of Israel, with the king sitting on his throne was fulfilled in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Today, Christ sits on his throne, King over all creation. The people of God are the church, with the temple of the Holy Spirit now residing in their hearts. Christians now live in the New Covenant with commands and principles from Christ and the apostles, which govern the church and her operations. Among those are the qualifications for the pastorate (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9). These qualifications are specific to the role of the New Testament pastor and not analogous to the Old Testament kings. Thus, David cannot be a suitable comparison in this manner.

It is necessary to note that the majority of the pastoral qualifications deal with a man’s character: how he handles his marriage and family, how he treats and is thought of by others, that he maintains control of his emotions and has a humble temperament, that he is not given to greed or substance abuse, and that he is mature in the faith. He must indeed be able to teach and preach, but if he is not a man of good character, his charisma and ability to communicate alone are insufficient reasons to place him in the pulpit. Furthermore, pastors must maintain that quality of character throughout their time in the church. Their role is to represent God to the people through the faithful exposition of the Scriptures. Any pastor who is not captivated by God’s word to the extent that it is reflected in his character will not do the work for the glory of God alone.

This is why Paul lays the principles for addressing pastoral misconduct and sin (1 Tim. 5:19–20). While no pastor is without sin, there are grievous sins that can and do disqualify a man from leading God’s people. Sometimes, that may be for a season; other times it will be permanent. It would be beyond the scope of this article to lay down every possible sin, every caveat, and to what degree one must sin to be permanently disqualified. Suffice it to say that issues of ongoing, unrepentant sin, matters of sexual sin, abuse, and other character-destroying sins would permanently disqualify a man from continuing in the pastorate. Paul’s instructions make it abundantly clear that the church is obligated to remove such a man for his own soul and for the sake of the church at large.

Reconciliation, Not Restoration

This is not to say that forgiveness for sin and reconciliation with the body of Christ, following genuine confession and repentance, are not possible. But reconciliation does not mean restoration to the pulpit. These are the consequences of such sin, and a truly repentant man recognizes and accepts those consequences because he loves God and loves his church. Christians who have been purchased by the shed blood of Jesus Christ recognize the wickedness of sin and what it cost to purchase their own salvation. Therefore, when Christians fall into sin and are brought back into right standing with the church because their brethren cared enough to hold them accountable, they graciously accept whatever consequences they must face. They do so because the glory of Christ and the purity of the church matter more to them than any office or role to which they may lose access. Reconciliation does not always mean restoration, but it will always bring joy to the body to see one who once stumbled brought back to the path of holiness.

While it is inappropriate to appeal to King David as a model of pastoral restoration—for the king did not have the same requirements as the New Testament pastor—there is one comparison that should be resoundingly accepted: that any man caught in the transgression of sin should wholeheartedly confess, repent of the sin, and accept the consequences, even if it means he can never be a pastor. In doing that, he and King David would have much in common, as they would both be men after God’s own heart.