Qualifications for Pastor

In the situation I gave you the child never got involved in immorality of any kind, alcohol, drugs, etc. There was no "gross" sin that one could point to. It was simply an attitude of not being submissive.

 

A divorced man can't be an example of one who rules his family well, no matter which way you look at it. The child in the congregation, particularly the young people looking to marriage cannot look at their pastor and call him blameless in the area of marriage, the most sacred of God's institutions.

 

No, what happens when the children of pastors, missionaries, or those in positions of leadership do not act in submission to their parents. This is in a general over-all appearance to the rest of the congregation. It is unfortunate but true--the children of those in leadership are held to a higher standard than the rest of the congregation, as is the wife and the pastor. The entire family is held to a higher standard.
It is the "He/she is the pastor's kid and she can get away with that! I certainly wouldn't be able to." And the complaint goes to the parent, which then goes back to the pastor. The pastor and his family must be an example in all things. Paul said to Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
--Timothy's life had to be blameless before his congregation. When and if he got married the same would hold true for his family, for the qualification was written for his family.

You are absolutely wrong. If a child knows anything more than the fact that the man has been divorced, then he has been listening to hearsay and gossip! What do you teach your children? What goes on in the private lives of married couples behind the doors of their homes? I hope not. I wouldn't want you as my pastor if you do. This is gossip, and it is a private marry as is almost all things between a married couple. The details of a married couple's marriage and/or divorce are not for the church to know. If they have confided in you, then that is confidential knowledge.
The only fact the church needs to know is that there is a divorced man standing in front of them. That fact has disqualified him from the ministry. He no longer is blameless in his marriage. End of story.

Extreme action. It wasn't needed. A person's service is often limited by their marital problems, but not severed completely. It is unfortunate that there was a lack of love.

No, that is what happens when there is a lack of love. There is a difference. There are consequences for sin. That is taught all the way through the Bible. You don't see. You are blind. You will not admit that there is fault on both parties in any divorce. And as long as that is your position we are at odds with each other and will not agree.

 

Quote me where I said that. I have consistently said: It was simply an attitude of not being submissive. And that results in a father not ruling his house well, or gives the appearance thereof.

No he can't. He is divorced. The damage is already done. He can't go back and change the past. He has disqualified himself from the ministry. In your theology you put yourself in the place where you say there is room for Jesus to divorce the bride of Christ (for all of us to lose our salvation). I don't think so.

Both parties are always guilty, and thus a broken marriage is not what a child sees as the ideal for leadership. You don't set before a child that which is broken for a good example.

That was already noted. There was wrong done on the church's side. That is a rabbit trail and nothing to do with this conversation.

No it isn't. It is a false assumption on your part.

 

Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would not have written qualifications of a pastor if there were none. They are there because they are higher than the rest of the church members. Is that not obvious.

All Christians are not the same. There are mature Christians and immature Christians; new believers and believers who have been saved for 30 - 40 years. In a church you have all kinds of Christians. Mature believers may understand more easily. Children may not. Neither will new believers who are just coming to an understanding of their faith. Neither will it do good to rebuke them, as such.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Surely you jest?
For a divorced person, or divorced and remarried, just the bare facts are enough. Let me give you an example.
The Bible says:

Romans 16:19 ...yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
--this is a command.
I believe I was once that way to a certain degree.
Then when your President Clinton had the Lewinsky affair I learned things that I never wanted to hear. The media was inundated with "that which was evil." Children ought never to be exposed to Clinton and his exploits or anything of the kind.

Thus the question is: Where do you draw the line?
You draw the line at: All they need to know is whether or not the person is divorced. Period. They don't need to know why, what went on, what happened, the details, the gossip, were the neighbors involved, what about abuse, alcohol or drugs, the alimony, etc., etc., Why should they? It happens to be gossip.

His testimony is: "I am divorced. I did not keep my family together. I am disqualified as a pastor." Then he is being honest.

There is not much to give. He is divorced--end of story. That means disqualified. He is not the example that the church can hold up as blameless.

One can demonstrate very easily that he was a man that did not rule his family well, whose wife was not in submission to him, whose wife was not faithful in all things, especially to him. Those are three more qualifications that he fails to meet--all from the issue of being divorced.

No, the aim is always reconciliation. Hopefully there would be reconciliation if the woman has not remarried.

You assume too much.

That has nothing to do with this situation. The goal is reconciliation.

Because your premise is that there is such a thing as a perfect husband and an imperfect wife. No such thing exists. You know it, and I know it. The difference is, you won't admit it. It takes two to tangle; it takes two to make a marriage work. There is no marriage where the onus is all on one person. That position is just ludicrous.

Can a husband commit adultery, be forgiven, and the marriage be restored? Yes it can. Don't say it can't. Both parties make mistakes in their marriages, and sometimes very big ones. That doesn't rule out love and forgiveness and reconciliation. Neither does it rule out counseling.

It is found in Scripture. Christ the perfect one died for us the imperfect. He is the perfect groom coming for us the imperfect bride. The picture of that is the marriage relationship. Husbands love your wives even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.

First, I have mentioned to you before--there is no tradition involved here. I don't know where you get this idea. I come to my conclusions on my own from a study of the Scriptures. Other Baptists disagree with me also.

Second, I would never go against what I believe the Bible teaches.

 

This is a ludicrous position to take since Christ himself condemned.

It is the same position as saying:
Gay marriages are not a sin in and of themselves
You can say that because God doesn't recognize them as marriage (as he doesn't recognize divorce. Steaver, he recognizes both as sin. Sin is sin.
Whether the sin is a gay marriage or the sin is divorce, sin is sin; it is a transgression of the law. God recognizes the laws of man such as speeding. Check Romans 13. It is sin. Divorce is sin. Jesus called it sin. You can't continue to play this game of semantics. Divorce is sin. The Bible says "Call not evil good." This is what you are doing.

 

It was not in God's perfect will as it was not in God's perfect will to have many wives. God was not pleased with it.

That depends on 1Cor.7:5 and your application of it to your own personal lives. Yes it could be sin, but it doesn't have to be.

However, divorce is sin. It is condemned in the Bible not because it leads to adultery, but because it in and of itself is a sin. Period. It is condemned. There is no way to get around that. There is no place in the Bible where divorce is condoned.

 

Grace and mercy is not described as "the hardness of your heart."
Stephen described Israel as:
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
--not grace and mercy, but a nation that had "hardness of heart," as Jesus said.

No, this argument is ludicrous. Divorce is not even mentioned here. Separation is not divorce. If I go away for three weeks or longer I will be away or separated from my wife for a period of time. We both must agree to that. What on earth does that have to do with divorce.

Even then that is not what the verse is really speaking about it. It is speaking of a deliberate separation of each other from intimacy for one reason and one reason only:

1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
--The purpose here is for prayer and fasting.
This has nothing to do with divorce which is carnal, ugly, and entirely against the will of God. If prayer and fasting were the purpose of the separation, I guarantee you there would have been no divorce.

God never outwardly condemned it; but was never displeased it. Looked at those that did have multiple wives. From Elkanah to Isaac to Abraham to David to Solomon, etc. everywhere you look, they all had marital problems if they had more than one wife. It was never God's will; he only permitted them. God permits some things that he does not condone.

 

This is a red herring.
Missionaries, evangelists, married students, etc. all out of necessity, spend time away from their spouse. What has this got to do with the topic? I would say nothing.

 

"What God has joined together let no man put asunder.