We Must Contend With What it Means for Pastors to be Above Reproach

Last updated on: October 9, 2020 at 8:26 am by Grayson Gilbert

We Must Contend With What it Means for Pastors to be Above Reproach 2020-10-09T08:26:34-05:00 Grayson Gilbert

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Over the years I have written quite a bit on the fall of prominent Christians caught up in various scandals. In the same breath, I have spent a rather decent amount of time calling to attention what would be construed as doctrinal failure from many others. I wrote here on the fall of Mark Driscoll, here on Tullian Tchividjian, here on Art Azurdia, and I have also dialed in on the doctrinal maladies of men like Andy Stanley (here, here, here, and here), here and here on Steven Furtick, here on Francis Chan, and I have written more broadly toward the topic of why Christians are commanded to call out false teachers here.

Most recently though, I wrote a piece on the late Ravi Zacharias, which took a rather large amount of criticism from individuals simply due to weighing in on the allegations shortly after they came out. Truth be told, I have received my fair share of criticism on this topic over the years no matter who I’ve focused upon or when I wrote on the topic. What I want to do today is set the precedent on the fundamental reason behind why I gravitate towards this topic and write on it as I do. In essence, it has everything to do with what it means to meet the qualification of being “above reproach” or “blameless” as Paul dictates in his letters to Timothy and Titus.

The words ἀνεπίλημπτον “above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2) or ἀνέγκλητος “blameless” (1 Tim. 3:10 with respect to deacons; Tit. 1:6-7) are both what are called “alpha-privatives,” which is simply the grammatical practice of prefixing an “a” to a word in order to negate it, much like in the word “a-theist.” In this, the prefixing of the Greek letter alpha to the words themselves serves to show the antitheses to these qualities is what Paul has in mind (just like in the example above, prefixing the letter “a” to the word “theist” serves to show an atheist is simply one who is not a theist). One who is ἀνεπίλημπτον and ἀνέγκλητος is one who lacks the qualities of the one who conducts themselves in a manner that discredits themselves and their ministry.

Thus, in the simplest of terms, the elder must not bear reproach or blame with regard to their life and doctrine, which they are to guard closely so that they may save themselves and their hearers (1 Tim. 4:6). The overseer’s life must be one which testifies clearly to their singular devotion to Christ and a life which flows out of that devotion to Christ. He must be a man who walks in integrity; he must not be hypocritical, and the reasons for this are fairly straightforward. If one fails here, they undoubtedly will fail in their ability to lead others in following Christ and leading blameless lives in the midst of a perverse and crooked generation (Phil. 2:15). The implications are that one who cannot live up to their own message has no business shepherding others to the obey that message. They need to busy themselves first with obedience to Christ, and then they can rightly instruct the flock in matters of the Christian faith and faithfulness to that body of doctrine.

The idea is not that accusations never come up against the overseer, but rather, the allegations are baseless—they are unable to be substantiated (Acts 25:7; 1 Pet. 3:16). If the qualification to be “above reproach” or “blameless” meant that no accusations could come against the elder, this would disqualify even the apostle Paul. A prime example of this is found in Acts 19:23ff, where Demetrius the silversmith accuses Paul of leading those in Ephesus astray, yet Paul was found to be wholly without guilt in vv. 35-41. Likewise, Claudius Lysias testified of the Jews seeking to kill Paul—yet he found no reasonable occasion that the Jews should carry out their plot (Acts 23:26-30). In both cases we find charges against the apostle, yet none of the charges are found to be credible.

Christ Himself, who was called a glutton and a drunkard (Matt. 11:19), a blasphemer (Matt. 26:65), one who was in league with Beelzebul (Matt. 9:34, 12:24), and more, would likewise be disqualified if the qualification meant that absolutely no charges could be leveled against an overseer. This is obviously absurd, but it serves well to show that the Pauline concept of being above reproach and blameless is tied to charges that actually stick. What that means, very simply, is that if there is any tangible evidence to suggest such charges may be true, the overseer has already failed to remain above reproach. Charges of impropriety ought to have no grounds to stick because the character and wisdom of the man involved goes well beyond that of simple obedience to the commands of Scripture; he lives in such a way that his moral life is not easily discredited and his ministerial efforts are not called into question.

It is not simply that he is free from things like sexual immorality, drunkenness, and the like; his life leaves no room for even the question of impropriety. Thus, he may be charged falsely with allegations, but his conduct is such that when an investigation of immoral conduct takes place, there is nothing which gives a hint of their truthfulness. What inevitably wins out against false charges is the upright character and demonstrable evidence of a long-term, godly and wise life in all areas of Christian faithfulness. In other words, these broad categories of blamelessness and irreproachableness are directly tied to the qualifications of an elder listed in the pastoral letters.

Thus, the elder is known for his exemplary Christian conduct, particularly in his faithfulness to one wife, temperance, prudence, gentleness, respectable character, the practice of hospitality, aptitude to teaching, his ability to manage his own household, having a good reputation with unbelievers—and then negatively, he is not a drunkard, brawler, conceited, given to sordid gain or a love of money, nor is he a new convert. In all of these matters and more, he is widely known as a man that walks in complete integrity—so much so that if one were to level charges against him in this manner, his conduct immediately vouches for the impossibility of these things. He leaves no room for even a hint of tangible evidence toward immorality.

This is not to say the man is not examinable, but rather, that as Kevin DeYoung puts it, “The closer you look, the better the mature Christian appears.” As you continue to dial in on the elder’s character and stack it against what the Scriptures call them to as leaders within the church, you only get a clearer and clearer picture of one who demonstrates what it means to be above reproach. The obvious point to make is not that they are perfect and sinless; no man has exhibited sinless perfection in these categories, save Jesus Christ. Rather, it is to say though that the man serves as the example for all who see him, whether or not they agree with his principled life of faith. He can say without hesitation, “Follow me as I follow Christ,” and what’s more than this is that people plainly see him as a man worthy of emulation (1 Cor. 11:1). If there is room to say this isn’t the case, per the biblical witness, we must sincerely hold them to this broad qualification.

One who is not above reproach or considered blameless does not meet the biblical criteria for eldership, which very simply means he is not to become an elder, nor remain one if he currently is and has fallen into disrepute. In order to be considered disqualified in this regard, one must first meet the biblical requirements for accusations brought against an elder, on the basis of two or more witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19-20). Thus, there is a measure of protection built into this process; the elder is given a means of sanctuary from false accusations. However, if the case is established upon two or more witnesses, the sin is not found to be an isolated event, but an established pattern. Yet notice how swiftly the unrepentant elder is dealt with in v. 20:

“Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.”

They are immediately brought before the church in the third stage of church discipline, the next step being excommunication if they still do not repent (Matt. 18:17). The purpose of this is clear: it brings sobriety to the church body so that they too will be fearful of sinning. The people are to take heed, or take warning, of the elder’s conduct and likewise examine their own hearts so that they are not found guilty of the same charges. In essence, they are to take heed, lest they too succumb to temptation and take part in the same manner of sin which disqualified the elder in question. In other words, their lives serve as an example to the flock of what not to do. Their immoral conduct and doctrine serves then as a profound warning that all are to pay particular attention to what’s transpiring, and with the utmost sobriety.

The seriousness of this is not to be downplayed, which is particularly why Paul charges Timothy to maintain these principles without a spirit of partiality and to be slow in the matter of laying hands on men to become elders (1 Tim. 5:21-22). What that simply means is that elders are not to be subject to favoritism simply because of their position or influence, but they are to be treated in accordance to the qualifications of an elder as already outlined earlier in Paul’s pastoral letters. Likewise, Paul mandates that the process of establishing one as an elder ought to be incredibly slow, for the explicit purpose of ensuring that they indeed do meet the qualifications of an elder.

The reason for this? The one who appoints an elder who does not meet the qualifications and comes to fall, thereby leading others astray, shares in the guilt of the fallen elder. This is deadly serious stuff—much the same as the apostle John’s warning in entreating false teachers (2 Jn. 1:11). The reason why it is so crucial that we hold ministers to such a high standard—yes, even those whose ministry we love and have benefitted us—is simply that the gospel and reputation of Christ are at stake. Those acting as elders are subject to fierce scrutiny simply because of the task at hand; it is better to be met with scrutiny long before one becomes an elder than to become one and then be disqualified.

However strict this process of vetting may be though, the assumption built into the text is that some will fail to abide by the qualifications over time. This then becomes the job of qualified elders within the church to begin the process of church discipline, which ultimately means for the one disqualified that they step out of the office of elder. When one’s life and doctrine is not in accord with Scripture, it behooves the church to call out sin and hold the offending parties accountable. If one’s life is marked by serious allegations of egregious ethical and/or doctrinal misconduct, it becomes the church’s obligation to expel the wicked person from among us (1 Cor. 5:13). If this is said for the average congregant, how much greater responsibility is upon the church for those who are ministers of the gospel? If any kind of immorality, impurity, or greed must not be named among the saints—how much more so the minister of the gospel, on whom a stricter judgment rests (Eph. 5:3; Ja. 3:1)?

In all of this, the Evangelical church has largely failed. In far too many instances, people have sought to protect, conceal, and diminish the moral and doctrinal failures of those in prominence. Yet in the end, we come right back to the implications of what it means to be found above reproach and blameless. These qualifications are in place for the safety of the church, particularly those in her midst who are swept up in the wake of those who come from within and wreak havoc in the body (2 Pet. 2:1). In the wake of many scandals within the broader church, it must be stated unequivocally that the failure to address those who have not remained above reproach has led to serious consequences, not the least of which is Christ’s name being dragged through the mud.

Yet perhaps the most sobering part of all of this is that the one who appoints the fallen pastor, in some manner, shares in that fallen pastor’s guilt. This is not only true of appointing the person prior to their fall, but even in appointing the person after their fall. In our day and age, many don the role of an elder without ever being vetted by other, biblically faithful elders. They climb into roles of prominence or are thrust there by those seeking to build a brand, have little to no accountability, flee from disciplinary action, and many within the broader Evangelical world are happy to continue giving them a platform to lead and teach in spite of the biblical qualifications they are beholden to, yet fail to meet. Suffice it to say though, there is a very real, tangible guilt that people share in when they place these men into prominence and they commit egregious, ministerial conduct.

This is an unpopular truth within the church, especially in what is colloquially known today as “Big Eva,” but it is a truth we must return to if we are going to protect the reputation of Christ and His church. Unfortunately, many within the American church do not take this to heart and wish to instead give a free pass to its Evangelical darlings. When we look to what the biblical qualifications are for an overseer, these things mean something more than many are currently willing to accept. I believe much of the current predicament the modern church has found herself in is simply owing to her desire to effectively ignore this reality, many among my own tribe included. The point in all of this is to say I am not convinced we can truthfully claim to be all that shocked when severe allegations of misconduct are brought forward. The reason I say this is owing to the fact that we are not ignorant to what Scripture demands of those in positions of influence and authority within the church. The church at large is simply not willing to heed Paul’s commands on the matter that we treat celebrity personas without partiality, yet perhaps more to the point, we are far too eager to thrust up-and-comers into the spotlight without a lengthy process of examination where they’ve demonstrated character befitting such a place in the church.

Pastoral Qualifications

Titus

Previous Post

October 2, 2020

Ravi Zacharias: Let His Life Serve as a Warning

Next Post

October 16, 2020 You Can't Be a Christian and Support the Democratic Party

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category #ShoutYourAbortion 10 Commandments 2016 Election 2017 2020 Election Abortion Accelerate Books Adultery America Andy Stanley Arminianism Ashley Madison Atonement B&H Academic Baptism Barry Horner Beauty Biblical Elders Billy Graham Blog Book Review Bruce Jenner Caitlyn Jenner Calvin Calvinism Cheating Chick-fil-A Children Christ Christian History Christian Living Christian Podcasts Christianity Christmas Church History Church Leadership Civil Disobedience Constitutional Coronavirus Culture Death Demoninations Discipleship Doctrine Doctrine of God Donald Trump Ecclesiology Entertainment Eschatology Ethics Evangelical Evangelism Evil Evolution Fear Forgive Yourself Forgiveness Francis Chan Future Israel Gay Marriage Gender Genesis George Floyd Gospel Government Gun Control Halloween hamartiology Heavenly Reward Hermeneutics History Hollywood Holy Spirit Homeschool Homosexual Homosexuality Hope Hospitality Humor Husband Infant Baptism Interview Jesus John Piper Josh Duggar Joshua Harris Judgment Justice Kathy Griffin Kim Davis Leadership Logic Love Manhood Marriage Martin Luther Messianic Prophecy Miscarriage Mocking Modesty Money Movie Reviews Music Music Review Netflix New Testament Obergefell Old Testament Parenting Pastor Pastoring Persecution Planned Parenthood Podcast Politics Pop Culture Pornography Prayer Preaching Predestination Pride Prosperity Gospel Rachel Held Evans Racism Ravi Zacharias Redemption Reformation 500 Reformation Day Reformed Theology Relationship Repentance Salvation Same Sex Marriage Satan Satire Scripture Seminary Sex Sin slavery Sola Scriptura Soteriology Sovereignty Spiritual Gifts Spurgeon Star Wars Steven Furtick Suffering Sufficiency of Scripture Sunday School Supreme Court Technology Testimony The Church The Lord of the Rings The Problem of Evil The Shack Theology Theonomy Tithing Transgenderism Tullian Tchividjian Uncategorized Universalism Vanity Fair Video Games Virgin Birth Voting Wife Women Worldview Worship

Select a Month June 2025 April 2025 March 2025 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 June 2023 April 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz