Is Authenticity As Rare As It Seems For Pastors And Non-Profit Leaders?

Good point - I could have been more clear. In the case of some recent high-profile pastors and ministry leaders who have gotten divorced, what frustrates many is they never miss a day in the pulpit. Whatever happened to taking a little time off, getting your life back together, and perhaps getting some counseling or spiritual direction - before you get back into the pulpit to teach us how to live our lives. It seems a remarkable arrogance that people who can't seem to get their act together are more than happy to tell us how to live. In this case, "authenticity" would mean telling us that they've screwed up, and are serious enough about their role as ministry leaders that they want to take the time to make the right changes in their lives.

Thanks for your clarification. I'm obviously not as au fait with these divorces as you are, but are you saying that all divorces involving spiritual leaders are 'screw ups'?

I guess what I'm responding to in your original post is how you've grouped 'divorces' in with 'lawsuits, legal actions, and financial questions'. To me, they don't belong in the same bucket. Unless, that is, you're only referring to some specific cases where the ministers were culpable in embarrassingly public ways (I'm thinking here of, say, Rev. Haggard).

You don't think a divorce is a screw up? Especially from a pastor or ministry leader? That doesn't mean they can't continue in ministry in some capacity, but I would certainly think it should be a caution flag. Divorce happens, no question, and God can use anyone. I just think we don't take marriage failure among Christian leaders seriously enough.

"You don't think a divorce is a screw up?"

In short, no, not all the time. I guess we're going to immediately disagree about the sanctity of marriage here, but lots of marriages quite naturally don't last a lifetime. And of those that don't, not all of them are 'screw ups'.

People change, and I've always felt that it's wrong to describe, say, an amicable ending to a 25-year marriage as 'a failed marriage' or, to use your term, a 'screw up'.

I have no idea what the common response is to 'marriage failure' among the leaders of the Christian community, so I can't speak to that. Should I be reluctant to take marriage advice from a divorced pastor? I don't think so--he might be more qualified than the pastor who's suffering in a loveless marriage, or secretly gay and in denial.

Obviously, those choices from your last line are a bit extreme. Suffice it to say, I have no desire to have brain surgery from someone who failed med school.

I don't think 'suffering in a loveless marriage' is particularly extreme, or that unusual. 45% of couples get divorced in American--surely a significant proportion of those would have characterized their marrage, at the end, as loveless.

I'm afraid your med school metaphor is incorrect on a couple of fronts. Med school is how people become doctors, not how they spend their lives as medical professionals. I think a more apt comparison would be that you don't want to get brain surgery from someone who's quit the profession. Additionally, brain surgery is a hyper-precise process with life-and-death outcomes. Providing marriage advice is not.

Here's a more applicable comparison: would you take advice on military strategy from General Westmoreland? He lost the Vietnam, but I'll bet he's wiser because of it.

The argument's probably moot, since as an avowed agnostic, your value of the institution of marriage wouldn't be the same as a Jesus follower, because of the unique value the Bible places on it. I also do think marriage is a "life or death" issue - just look at the results of the landmark study reported in the book "Children of Divorce" by Elizabeth Marquardt. The impact on children is far greater than many thought, and a good marriage and failed marriage both have serious consequences. Finally, yes - there's no question that failure is a great teacher, and we can learn much from those who have failed. I've written on this blog about failing forward, and failure doesn't dismiss us as teachers. I have failed many times. However, all things considered, I would rather learn how to succeed from a success. While a failure learns many things - mostly about failure, how many more things can we learn from someone who refused to give up, fought the good fight, and crossed the line as a victor? And on a personal note, I do think far too many marriages have just been given up on. I know many who divorced because it was the easier choice, and they weren't willing to work it out. Were they right or wrong? Only they and God know.

Thanks for your comments. I don't have anything further to add, but I do have a small question, mostly because I'm a pedant. You say that the Bible puts 'unique value' on marriage. What makes it unique? Do the holy books of other faiths not value marriage as highly, or value it differently?

I ask not to be argumentative, but because I honestly don't know and am curious.

Many other holy books do value marriage very highly. But since you mentioned that you were agnostic, that wouldn't apply.... :-)

Darren, your final point is a good one, that those who have suffered the pain of a divorce may have learned some helpful things to pass along to others.

As far as divorce being a "screw-up," I think you nailed it by saying there's just a difference in perception about the sanctity of marriage. I understand many non-believers feel that if the marriage partners grow apart, then hey, sometimes that happens, so just divorce and move on to the next one. But most Christians believe that God's best is to look to Him for restoration. It isn't easy for a broken marriage to be restored, but we believe it is desirable and possible in Christ.

In fact, only God can truly heal and change hearts such that a broken marriage can be restored, and it only happens through repentance and forgiveness - two core values of Christianity. Leaders who divorce and yet keep bulldozing down the road risk giving the clear impression that they are ignoring both of those Biblical requirements. It isn't that they can never minister again, it's a question of whether they are sincere about wanting to help others (and willing to admit when they aren't currently in a position to do so), or are they in the ministry to meet their own needs (make money, feel needed and admired, etc etc.).

I hope this helps clarify the difference in viewpoint. And thanks for joining in the discussion!

This is it! Admitting that they still have flaws and problems. Admitting that they screwed up in the past and had real struggles. Believe it or not, this is something that isn't common in all congregations, especially mine. Derek Webb once said, we show each other how good of christians we are by how well we hide our sins (very loosely quoted). This idea is the DNA of my church. In fact my pastor prides himself with the fact that only his very very inner circle knows what's he's truly dealing with. He blames this generation for the evil state of the world because they no longer hide their sins. We're not a small congregation, either! We have about 2000 active membership!

So to answer your question, Phil, authenticity isn't necessarily common these days. I don't know that those who claim authenticity always know what they're saying they have. It's become just one more of those cliche' words that churches know are popular... just like "contemporary" in the 90s and more recently "relevant." They get overused by groups that don't truly have that quality and are soon rendered meaningless.