Replies

I may be mistaken but I believe that the church had a rule against divorced or separated persons serving as senior pastor. Actions were taken to circumvent this rule and allow Charles to remain in the pulpit. This led to the breach with Andy. Charles initial rationale was that he would remain as pastor so long as he was separated and not divorced. This was later ammended upon his divorce. Charles Stanley is, I believe, a gifted and compassionate pastor. I respect him in many ways, however if it was his biblical conviction that separation or divorce does not disqualify a pastor from ministry he should have stated it initially. To keep redrawing the line as circumstances change is a problem regardless of whether he and I would have the same understanding of what the Bible says about the qualifications of an elder.
I heard the church gave a standing ovation when he decided to stay. I imagine if a church constitution issue were brought before the congregation, they would have ammended the constitution. This would be within Baptist polity. He isn't staying in spite of the church. They wanted him to stay. I think it would have been better if he would have laid out his reasons for changing his mind. Right now nobody knows that. He redrew the line once, and it would have caused less confusion if he would have stated why his conviction in that matter changed. He's not infallible, of course. So he could have seen in Scripture where he was wrong in that course and would be disobeying God by leaving (without God's express release). As it is now, we just are left guessing and that can look bad.

I think it would have been better if he would have laid out his reasons for changing his mind. Right now nobody knows that. He redrew the line once, and it would have caused less confusion if he would have stated why his conviction in that matter changed.

I agree with you in the above. I also agree that his church was supportive of his remaining and would have approved any rule / constitutional change needed. A full explanation of his reasons for remaining would show whether he was acting upon revised biblical understanding or more subjective reasons(God's leading) and / or pragmatic reasons(the need for me to remain is so great). I am afraid that with the confusion many Christians will conclude "Whatever...," that is, that it doesn't matter what his reason is.