Divorced Ministers

MC, I do respect yours and other views. It is one of the areas where, in other people and churches, I believe it comes into an area of liberty. I will not persecute, pursue or even broach the subject with those embroiled in such situations unless they ask me.

What kind of bothers me is that several I know follow your line. They held to one thing and then when a situation close to home occured, they changed their minds.

I hope that doesn't cause offence, I could not honestly say this of all BB posters, but I actually like you. :thumbs: So I would not want to offend you.

 

I much agree. Thanks for your thoughtful response, Bitsy ...

 

Oh, I am in no way offended. Discourse is how we learn. You are quite high on my list of BB members too.

This might put me to the test if I were in this situation - I don't think so, but it might. One thing that I have always prayerfully strived for is that I am in reality what my words speak of me. (I hope that makes sense!) So if I found myself in a situation where I could not support what I had always said I could support. I would have to publically confess that.

As I said, a newly divorced pastor should not serve. He should have time to heal. One that has had the test of time, I'd have to hear the testimony. I do believe this should be extremely rare.

 

Years ago I thought that I wanted to either persue a degree from a Bible College or Seminary ( I have two secular BS degrees and a number of undergraduate credits from a Bible college). At that time I also looked into being a deacon at my local church as there was a need for several deacons and I was being considered for the position. My situation is like the "Church Administrator" above except when I married, I had been saved and knew that marrying a divorced person was not right. So, under the qualification of 1 Timothy and Titus I'm ok but in the gospel naratives we are told that a person who marries a divorced person commits adultry. I didn't do this in ignorance. Yes I'm forgiven, both of us are, but in my heart I don't feel that I meet the Biblical requirements to be a deacon regardless of what the local church allows me to do.

It did at the time think it was unfair because a person was installed as deacon who lived with his wife for years before he married and was in trouble as a youth and quite honestly was not as knowledgeable in the faith as I was (in my opinion), but at this stage of my life I don't compare my life and or any honors thrown at me to anyone else. The truth is the truth regardless of my personal feelings or my sense of fairness or justice.

In my opinion though, if a person is called by God to serve, then he/she should prepare. The trick is to know when you are being called by God or just have a desire to serve. I know having the desire is part of the call but not all of it. I should have continued working towards a Bible college degree as there are many other ways of serving the Lord besides preaching from a pulpit. The main thing for me personally is that I don't maintain a steady relationship with the Lord. I have doctrine and knowledge but lack the simple basic daily dependance on Him.

Apreacher4Him, I respect your honesty and candidness and pray for your healing.

Tom

 

God gives valid reasons for divorce. One is adultery. If God makes it permissible should we not also?

However having said that, I have typically discouraged a divorced person to hold an office in a church because they will receive judgment by others.

 

Many years ago I met a man who helped me grow and held me accountable over the years until he died. Many times that man was approached about being an elder in that particular church and every time he told them he did not have time and so would not serve in that way. For about 50 years he met with college students in an effort to help them grow and disciple them. Many today are living for Christ, on the mission field, and serving as pastors because of him. There has never been anyone in that church who has reached so many people for Christ. During that time pastors and other people have come and gone but he has always been there. When he died, the local lumber yard shut down for the funeral. The city officials were at the funeral. The church was filled and people were standing outside the building. The funeral lasted for three hours because people told of how he had reached them.

Often a lot more work can be done by those not involved in the politics of a church.

 

Let's not mix the apples in with the oranges. It is one thing to say all sin in a believer's life is covered by the blood of his Savior and another to say whether or not they are BIBLICALLY qualified to serve as an elder in the local church.
We would all agree that a divorced man who repents and comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ can have his sins covered by the blood. What we cannot say unequivocally is that a divorced man is above reproach, manages his household well, is a one-woman man, and well thought of by outsiders (1 Tim. 3:2-7).

 

It all depends on your understanding of those relavent passages of Scripture.

As I studied them out my conclusions were not that God was excusing and allowing divorce as others understand that passage to mean.

 

Let us Reason Together

You took the words right out of my mouth John

Exactly, one can stop stealing, make restoration and stop being labeled a "thief" by outsiders.

But, one cannot "undo" being a divorced man (unless he is re-married to the One woman), he is always a "divorced" man... Even on simple applications marital status may be covered up after a second marriage, but He still has been divorced. He is not above reproach, He is subject to a bad testimony, and almost impossible to claim that he managed his household well (who here believes that there is only one side to a story?), and he is NOT a one woman man...

Many of you are right I Timothy does speak for itself. But, so long as that first woman lives, if he marries another he has two and is commiting adultery with the second - MNW you are right, the only excuse passages are in Matthew - the only mention of divorce or remarriage anywhere else in scripture makes it clear that such is adultery... Matthew speaks only to Jews concerning fornication in a betrothal period o-u-t-s-i-d-e of marriage. The Bible is quite CLEAR what the "jewish" Biblical response to adultery i-n-s-i-d-e of marriage was = STONING to death... when one is dead there is no need to be released from marital obligations. But, socially Christ aloud a man to be free from a bond if one is found under Jewish custom to have commited fornication prior to consumation as Joseph was willing to do with Mary... and to do so privily..

And, Tom, I thank you for your kind remark on my behalf... please do continue to pray for my woman and I. ... and for you own candor... men will not be able to level the smokescreens of misunderstanding the love and forgiveness of Christ with us... so we best speak the truth in love no matter how much it hurts...
God bless you.. [and thank you for your prayers - I am in need as I stand apart from my helpmeet]

God bless all..

 

King David wasn't a one-woman man and he wasn't a minister. Yet his psalms written after his adultery appear in the Bible. So is it okay to write part of the Bible after you've commited adultery, but not okay to preach it? Just curious.

 

In one word...

"yup"


and Furthermore,
Apparently, the N.T. covenant and the higher standard of Grace is often missed or also in this case misused.

But again, in short, unqualified, is unqualified. \

God's will be done.

And, to God be the Glory.

 

Higher standard of Grace?!? That's almost an oxymoron, although I don't think you'll see why.

Let's see. The OT standard was that you could be put to death for adultery. The NT standard is, according to you, that you can't be a minister. Which is the higher standard?

Of course, if you're put to death, I suppose that would mean you couldn't be a minister, so it works out the same either way.

 

unqualified is unqualified

To all I commend you to God... This is my last post on this subject for a while in this thread... May God's will be done.

 

Jesus is not creating a more strict "new" law. He's showing how God's righteousness is is unattainable by men, even if they think they're following the law. If you think you can be righteous on your own steam, then it's not enough to abstain from adultery, because even if you've lusted after a woman you're guilty of the same sin. That's one way of getting men to realize their fallen state - explaining that they aren't off the hook if they think they've followed the law.

Ducking out just as you're called on this? Okay, I guess.

 

Of course, that's also one reason that I think that if a person gets divorced and the spouse gets remarried, if that's adultery, then that person is spiritually dead, as far as the first person is concerned.

 

Name one person who has ever held an office that didn't have something that they were judged by others because of.

True, it's easier to judge, especially from ignorance, but still they will judge.

 

Absolutely.

However, after the fact, I think many people also misunderstand the qualifications for any sort of ministry.

Now, if you have someone who changes wives as often as most people change underwear, that person is obviously not fit.

A dear friend of mine used to toe the traditional IFB line of "Once divorced forever prohibited". He would not even look at the Scriptures with me, because he "knew" what they said. However, when his own daughter got divorced, then remarried to a wonderfuly guy a few years later, he actually looked at the Bible, and changed his views a bit. Sometimes, it takes a shock to make us even look at things that we already "know".

BTW, is there any place in the Bible that says that a man with two wives is comitting adultery?

 

A man with two wives wouldn't be fit for ministry, even if it was totally permissible by God.

Sorry, couldn't resist the joke.

 

Oh, I agree that a polygynist (not to be confused with a polygamist) is not fit for the ministry, but is polygyny difinitively forbidden in the Bible?

(Why anyone would want to do that to themselves, I don't know...:tonofbricks

((Now, I have to go hide before my wife reads this, and before the ladies on the board stone me, which ever comes first.)

 

Hope of Glory, you illustration brings back a concern I have already shared. Individuals hold to a certain doctrine but then something happens close to home, i.e., friend, family or even themselves, and then through their experiance they alter their doctrine.

The example of David is not easy to argue with. While thinking on this I remembered, was it Hosea who was commanded to marry a prostitute? As well, one who continued her "trade" into the marriage? Hardly a good example.

All I know is NT pastors/elders are required to be the husband of one wife. Why God had a different standard for the human authors of Scripture I cannot tell.

But, a thought that just came to me, David could not build the temple because he had been a man of war. So, even though his adultary did not seem to bear repecussions in this respect, his other activities did.