Qualification for Deacon/Pastor

Recovering the grace that has been befogged in most of evangelical churches today. Thanks, Pastor Larry.

 

I studied this all out in some detail and came to the conclusion that a divorced man, at fault or not, is disqualified from the ministry. It is perhaps harsh, but that is how I am convinced from Scripture.

For me the issue is about how we view marriage, not how we view divorce.

It is a HUGE topic, but I wanted to dive in with one comment. It concerns the "Its not fair" argument. If a man is the model husband, yet the wife runs off and gets a divorce it is said to be unfair.

Yet, could it not also be argued that it is unfair that just because a person was born a woman they could not be a pastor or deacon?

I just find the "Its not fair" argument something of a rabbit trail.

However, I do not run around trying to police other churches or individuals. If it was someone in the church where I pastor looking to hold office then it would be different.

Anyway, have fun guys.

 

I agree that the "fairness" argue is useless.

 

What if he was not blameless, the divorce occurred before he became a christian, and he was at fault?
Does his conversion experience now make him blameless?

 

In my opinion, it does.

Behold, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new.

In the Body of Christ, we are not to hold the past life up as a measure of who the man now is.

Forgetting the things which are behind applies to more than one area.

 

Actually, I need to qualify. If the man is blameless, and remains unmarried, that is a different matter. I see no justification for remarriage after divorce. Like I said, for me the issue is not so much the view on divorce but the view on marriage.

Sin can be forgiven but consequences cannot always be avoided.

 

Blameless has nothing to do with timing of conversion. Blameless deals with the current state of a man's life. Paul made no connection of blameless with timing of salvation, but with the character qualities of a man's life. Therefore, we should treat blameless the same say.

 

So, you believe a saved man is qualified to pastor after a divorce that was his fault, as long as at the current time he is living a blameless life? If this is true, how long of a period of time would he need to be living blameless? A month, a year, five years...?

 

Yes.

I am not sure that a man such as you described can regain blamelessness. If I were forced to put a number on it I would probably say 30 to 35 years of a consistent testimony, maybe 50. I don't know. But the issue is not the divorce, nor when it happened, but whether or not the man is blameless.

 

But since we are camping on the word "blameless," which is not specially applied to marriage in 1 Timothy or Titus, might it not refer to, let's say, the numerous tickets he has accumulated over the years?

 

Yes, it would refer to that, to losing his temper, to over eating, to laziness, ... to everything. Remember, the qualification for pastor/deacon is "blameless." The succeeding lists are representative lists of what it means to be blameless; they are all inclusive. The pastor is to be a model of what it means to be a believer. God demands from the pastor what he expects from everyone.

 

Who then can be a pastor? Are we reading too much into Paul's use of "blameless"?

 

The one who can be pastor is the one who meets those qualifications. They are not beyond reach. They require godliness developed in the life. Remember, the qualification is not absence of sin, but blamelessness.

 

What is the difference and who determines the degree of difference, if there is any as you suggest?

 

The church body is commanded to examine the man to see if he qualifies (1 Tim 3, 5).

Aren't we making this more difficult than it is? Are we so bad off that we can't recognize when a man is godly and meets the qualifications?

 

You didn't answer my question, Pastor Larry.

What is the difference between absence of sin and blamelessness, and who determines the degree of difference?

Unless you think the church is the answer to the second part of my question. If so, could you please answer the first part?

 

Blamelessness means that a man has a good reputation, a good testimony, is a model of what it means to be a Christian. Sorry, I thought I answered that.

To enlarge, it means that he is not driven by life-dominating sins, or by acts that have brought public shame on the church. It is not a something, IMO, that you can clearly define but you know it when you see it and are around it.

The church body is the judge of that, so that was the answer to the second part.

 

Thank you.

 

Minimum not maximum

At the time that this was written in the New Testament, polygamy was not a problem, it was a given. The problem that needed addressed was the issue of the priests of the goddess Artemus (Diana for the Romans) in that their priests were celebate. Paul was addressing the fact that a celebate priest had NO experience at all that is required in the family of God, as is clarified within the text.

Meanwhile, in the law of Moses the instruction was given that a man who was going to work in the service of God should never marry a woman who was not a virgin as he is to be the greatest example of GODLINESS. Marrying a divorced woman would be an obvious prohibition to a man's qualifications, but the idea of questioning because of his divorce only came later with the feminization or the church by later day feminazis.

Augustine clearly stated that this was not a maximum of one wife, but a MINIMUM of one wife and not a prohibition of polygamy. Martin Luther continued performing polygamous marriages even after the Pope declared an end to the practice in 1565. Charles and John Wesley's sister Martha married a polygamous pastor Rev. Wesley Hall with the blessing of the entire family.

 

If having a wife is a requirement than Paul would not qualify. As far as we know Paul was not married, though this would be very unusual for a Pharasee. But as far as I know there is no mention in the Bible of Paul ever being married.

There is speculation, and I do think it is speculationly, by some of the early Fathers that he was married to Lydia as a matter of convience, that is not to start a scandel, but this seems a bit far fetched to me.

So, was Paul qualified to be a decaon if a wife is a requirement?:tonofbricks: