Fallen Leaders, Vacant Positions
Not long ago, the media was abuzz with juicy scandals of two prominent politicians - one for sexual misconduct and the other for corruption.
The first was the MCA EGM last October which voted to overturn the party's decision to suspend its then Deputy President Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek over DVDs showing sexual acts between him and his mistress.
The second was the Bagan Pinang by-election, also in October, which was overwhelmingly won by Tan Sri Mohd Isa Samad, the former Negri Sembilan chief minister who was suspended for three years from his party, Umno, after being found guilty of money politics during the party polls.
Prior to the election, former Umno vice-president Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah had said that if Tan Sri Isa won the election, it would mean an endorsement for corruption within Umno and the government. Many concurred with his view.
The issue of restoring tainted politicians to position has been a divisive one, as the two cases have shown. Many have objected to having leaders found guilty of wrongdoing, be it corruption, sexual immorality or criminal offences.
These two incidents seem to point to a society that has no issue electing tainted leaders, especially if they have a good track record of service.
Online news portal The Malaysian Insider observed, "When a candidate is a local boy who has not forgotten his roots and has a good record of service to his constituents, people tend to be forgiving of his mistakes and indiscretions, however grave they are. Think of Chua Soi Lek, the sex clip and the fact that he still managed to obtain enough votes to become MCA's deputy president." (13 Oct 2009)
Within the church
Like the rest of the world, the church has had, and will continue to have, its fair share of fallen leaders. In his article "Should fallen pastors be restored?"* (adapted from his book "The Master's Plan"), John MacArthur expressed his shock at how frequently Christian leaders commit gross sin. However, what was more shocking to him was how quickly the fallen leaders are allowed to return to their leadership position once the publicity has died down.
"Gross sin among Christian leaders is a signal that something is seriously wrong with the church. But an even greater problem is the lowering of standards to accommodate a leader's sin. That the church is so eager to bring these men back into leadership is a symptom of rottenness at the core," he lamented.
Make no mistake - MacArthur is all for restoring fallen leaders but he calls for a proper restoration process and accountability to ensure the sincerity of repentance.
Berita NECF asks NECF Malaysia Chairman Rev. Eu Hong Seng and Executive Adviser Rev. Wong Kim Kong for their views.
Should fallen leaders be restored to their positions?
EHS: Restored? Yes. To former positions? This depends on circum-stances and the person's response to the disciplinary actions. Usually a period of 12 months is the acceptable norm for discipline.
The church is at liberty to review and extend the period because we are looking not so much at a 'time sentence' but the restoration of the person. The issue here is not 'is the 12 months served' but rather 'is he repentant and restored?'
WKK: When we deal with fallen leaders, we must not view their situations from the human perspective because if we do, we will be governed by our emotions and experience based on our relationship with them. Rather, we should look at their situations from the biblical perspective which is that forgiveness and restoration are part of God's nature.
The doctrine of salvation is restoration through repentance and forgiveness by God's grace. Matthew 18 sets out the process for disciplining the fallen that will lead to restoration. Paul's Galatians letter directs the strong to help the weak.
And let's not forget that King David fell in adultery and murder but he repented and was restored. Peter is also another character who portrays the pattern of forgiveness and restoration.
But this doesn't mean we should rush to restore an offender to his position. Restoration has a process and it may take years to complete or not at all if the fallen drops out (of the process). The failure of the church in managing the restoration process is that many do not know how to handle it.
On the part of the offenders, many are not willing to go through the process. They want shortcuts or they want to save face so they run to other places to undergo the restoration process.
So, on the offenders' part, they must be willing to humbly undergo the restoration process where the offence took place. On the part of the church, they must assure the offenders that they can be fully restored if they humbly go through the process.
Are there 'lesser' or 'greater' sins that the church should consider when deliberating on whether the fallen leader should be restored to his leadership position?
EHS: Definitely. There are 'lesser' and 'greater' sins, for example one caught in adultery and one caught misrepresenting an opinion or one caught giving a bribe. Though all sins are sins and serious, common sense dictates that the consequences should be different.
WKK: Whether big sin or small sin, repentance is the key factor. When Jesus died, He didn't just die for certain sins. It was for all sins. Is sexual sin worse than murder?
Sometimes, I think cheating is worse than sexual sins because cheating may affect many people's lives whereas sexual sins may only affect just the two people. It's all very subjective.
So I think the issue of whether the fallen is restored to his position depends on whether he has repented. Now, how do you assess whether he has truly repented? The criteria are up to the church leadership to decide.
In your opinion are churches today more tolerant of leaders' wrongdoings to the extent that they are willing to overlook their sins? If yes, why is it so?
EHS: The issue is not whether churches are tolerant. I find quite a few either lack boldness to discipline or lack the balance in disciplining and being redemptive in their approach. Some just want a pound of the man's flesh.
WKK: Nowadays, people seem more fearful to deal with sin either because they don't want to be the bad guy, or they don't want trouble, or they don't know how to handle the problem or it's too time consuming.
I suspect many churches are not equipped to deal with fallen leaders or even fallen members. They don't have guidelines on the discipline and restoration process and so, when a leader falls into sin, the church has little idea what to do. So, they let the offender carry on until the problem goes way beyond redemption.
Churches must have proper processes set in place to deal with this kind of problem so that it can be nipped in its bud.
Any other comments?
EHS: It's very easy to 'step down' and discipline an erring brother but it's not so easy to restore him. I find many 'know' how to do it and the Church is not 'lacking in advice' when a brother falls, but far too few know how to love and nurture that brother back to spiritual health and ministry with dignity and in mercy.
I suspect many 'die' in our 'spiritual hospitals' due to wrong care.
WKK: We have to be careful not to fall into pre-judging a situation. Very often we do not have adequate information to substantiate our comments or remarks.
Further, we do not know the process in which one or the leadership has taken. We only hear from the grapevine or perceive from our own observations.
The unjust view is that once you have sinned, you are forever a sinner.
Let's exercise grace and give the fallen a chance to be restored. If they refuse, then we know what to do but until we have given them that opportunity to change, we have no right to write them off.
* Read the full article on www.oneplace.com |
