Is it manditory For A man To be married To be Pastor?

I agree with glfredrick on this matter.

To presume that Paul's words would disqualify himself, a church starter, and even Christ himself along with other Godly single men, which Paul clearly prefers, is a stretch.

With polygamy and divorce (with remarriage) being a moral issue which indeed would disqualify one from leadership, it makes much more since that Paul was merely addressing those men who do choose to marry and not meaning to make marriage itself a must for those called to pastor. That would contradict his teaching elsewhere when he reveals his preference for men to remain single in order to better serve the Lord.

 

The scripture is not saying that he "must" be married. Rather, if he is married then it must be to one woman. Some folks like to add to scripture that which isn't there.

 

By this logic I suppose you believe that those who are unable to bear children can't be a pastor either?

After all, Paul goes on to say, "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive."

If he doesn't have children to keep submissive then I suppose he is not qualified either, right?

 

The presumption of Paul is that "married" is a normal state of affairs in his world, for such was from the beginning of time and it is only just recently that we have some semblance of choice in that matter. Before that, marriage was literally a matter of survival.

 

All I can do is go by what the word says and it says they need to be a one woman man.

 

The history of interpretation on this matter decidedly takes the texts about leadership as referring to a non-polygamous man. A single man as pastor is not out of bounds for that office.

When I started in the ministry, as an ordained pastor, I was single. Given my situation I put significant checks and balances in place as well as boundaries in my life. During my "singleness" I had a wonderful time in ministry. Singleness shouldn't be a detractor from ministry. (Well unless it is something like "minister to married adults" then that is just odd)

Too many churches miss out on God's man for their pulpits while imputing one man's read of a Scripture passage.

 

And with children, or not?

 

It would be difficult to go wrong if those principles were followed. Oh wait they are in the bible! Who would have thought?

 

So, can we take that to mean that you believe a man must be married with children before being qualified to serve as a pastor?

 

First let me say that the qualifications are put in place to protect the church, not hinder it. The man who holds the office is to have spiritual maturity and the way to know that is by him meeting the qualifications laid out in scripture. Reading the text it is clear he needs to be married or have been married meeting the qualifications of a mature married man, but perhaps now single by death of a spouse.
As to children it is not a command to have children based on the wording, but it is assumed and if there is children they need to be living as those who are under a man who leads his household in the Lord.

 

Ok, so why can't you apply the same hermeneutic with regard to the qualification of being married as you did for having children?

In both sentences Paul is presuming that the candidate has a wife and children, not that they are required for being a pastor, right?

 

And regarding the death of a spouse, what about a wife who sins and leaves her husband who attempts to remain faithful? If the man remains unmarried would you consider him still qualified?

 

If we are looking at it culturally, it was a given there would be children. The key to this requirement is stated in verse 5. Dating one woman at a time faithfully doesn't fit Paul's reasoning in v.5, only a man who has a family.

 

I actually know a couple who has been trying to have children for many years. He is a faithful pastor doing great work.

I'm asking if you all think he is unqualified according to this passage because he doesn't have children?

If he is not qualified, are you actually suggesting that his church should fire him and hinder him from his ministry any further?

If he is qualified, why do you have a separate application for being a husband than for being a father when Paul clearly is presuming both?

 

What about the death of a spouse? If a pastor loses his wife to death, should he then step down & find a job out in the world until he finds another wife?

 

Like I said before it is because of the wording. When speaking about the wife it says "must" but when speaking about children there is no modifier to suggest it is a must to have children, but if a church felt that the man should then I see no problem with it.

 

I believe the key is being able to manage his family, regardless of how many (or few) children. I believe that's what Paul is getting at in v.5, having experience to manage God's family. It really makes no sense for a man to date one woman at a time and this will somehow give him the ability to manage God's family.

 

No since he has met the requirement and knows how to manage a family, THE point Paul is trying to convey with such a requirement.