serving as a deacon after divorce

RaB, Can you simmer that one down to a position?

If one were scripturally divorced, would you consider them OK?

You seemed to deal alot with an example but you didn't relate it back to the relevant texts. In these scriptures, God through Paul says that a deacon must be a "one woman man".

Concisely, what does that mean to you? What activity within what time frame would disqualify a man by this standard?

 

R&B,

This shouldn't remind anyone of Paul and Barnabas. There is absolutely no correlation. Their's was a procedural issue with no clear cut right or wrong side. Both were right. (perhaps both had bad attitudes)

Our debate has two sides. One Biblical and one "historical position". I'll bet the Pharasies considered Jesus a liberal (a Barnabus) when he refused to comply with their rigid extra-Biblical traditions and "historical positions" concerning the sabbath, ritual washings, etc.

"Husband of one wife" means "husband of one wife". What a concept.

-Barnabus

 

Yes, we forget that we are pathetic ...

 

Jer 3:8 -
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.


God is divorced.

Lacy

 

Third only to pornography and abortion, I believe divorce is probably the most devastating ill on today's society, especially on the lives of the affected family, namely the children. I see it every day in the lives of my daughters' friends. Yet, there are those that look at divorce as just another 'oh-oh' in the scheme of life. One can use the scriptures to justify that God permits divorce; however, there are many more scripture condeming the resulting societal ills, especially where children are involved. I guess if it is OK to divorce your wife, then it also means that you are divorced from the children of that wife. I wonder how many of the divorced pastors and deacons are involved in the lives of their 'ex-children', or is it one of those 'out-of-sight, out-of-mind' type situations. Heck, if the ex-children are never seen in the his church, then it must be an 'OK' divorce. Would the 'ex-children' be invited to the Deacon's ordination? After all, it is a great and joyous occasion, and I'm sure they would want to be part of their ex-Dad's shining moment. As I said earlier, I am divorced, and this disqualifies me from serving as a Pastor or a Deacon. My son (no, he is not my ex-son), will be 29 years old this May. The consequences of the divorce on his life can never be undone. Yes, I sent that monthly child support check until he was 18 years old, but he needed a lot more than that. If you believe that divorce is just another 'oh-oh' in a person's life, then by all means continue to call your divorced Pastors and elect your divorced Deacons; however, please explain to the thousands and thousands of children affected each year just how great their 'ex-dad' is, especially in the eyes of God, so that they may also feel good about themselves. Maybe their house can also be put in order.

 

Just because one does not interpret the phrase "husband of one wife" as rigidly and non-biblically as others, does not mean that he believes divorce to be "just another one of life's 'Uh-Ohs'".

God hates divorce. We all should hate divorce. I daresay that a person who has been directly affected by it (God included) ought to hate it more vehemently than anyone. But we can't jump out beyond scripture with misapplied Bible stories and overly subjective conclusions.

God hates pornography and abortion too but if a man has repented of these things he can qualify. Again to elevate one sin in the list to unrepentable status (to the exclusion of the rest) is inconsistent.

I will say this too. there are situations where divorce has occured where one party is completely innocent and in no way guilty of any sin or any mis-management of his household. In face divorce very often results from a man correctly applying Biblical precedents to the managing of his house. Sometimes the wife leaves because the man is properly ruling his house.

The bottom line is this: Does "Husband of one wife" mean "Having never been divorced?" Can you consistently apply that interpretation? Does it work when compared to other scripture?

No. No. No.


Lacy

 

Sigh...

Israel is a perfect example of why you are wrong. Israel is ultimately reconciled with God. The "marriage" is not over.

What Jesus said to the woman with five husbands is the closest thing you have to saying marriage ends there, but that is not the point of the text and I would argue for another way of looking at it that fits better with the context.

I know you wouldn't so I just won't even try.

God never gives people permission to remarry. Divorce (separate).... yes. Forget that they are married and get another...no.

Even the verse one of you quoted where it says to be reconciled shows what I'm talking about.

Lastly, to talk about ordaining murderers and all that is just ignorant. That isn't the point at all. (now someone tell me it is....sigh..this place goes round and round)

 

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."

Ok, Ok, Ok. If the divorced man is ruling his children well, and his children's home well, then I guess he qualifies to be a Deacon. :rolleyes:

Of course, IMO, if his children are living in the house of another man, then it is going to be pretty difficult to rule them and their house.

That was the major gist of my post. If we stop at the 'husband of one wife', one can try to assert that Paul was telling Timothy to avoid those men that have many wives, because they are not worthy to hold the office. Why? I guess it was a sin to have many wives (ummm, maybe that is the unforgivable sin). Of course, whenever I have researched the issue, all the indications that I have gotten is that polygamy was not as common as some may be led to believe. When the Holy Spirit was guiding the writing of that passage, I believe that there was foresight to know that divorce was, and would continue to be, a much bigger problem than polygamy. Do you think that these scriptures have survived today just because maybe a few men had more than one wife 2000 years ago. Of course, if you are considering ordaining some of those die-hard Mormons as Deacons today, then you could whip out the 'Polygamy' defense.

 

You need to deal with the scripture cited earlier that showed that a divorced Christian is not under bondage.

Why do you keep posting around the biblical texts rather than addressing them? The argument isn't ridiculous at all. God didn't say that murderers couldn't be deacons nor did He say that divorcees could not be deacons.

Please deal with the texts in a consistent way and let God say what He says rather than trying to clarify His word with your biased tradition.

 

It is worthy to note that some are moving away from the strict text by citing the translation.

The translations mostly say "husband of one wife". The literal translation is "one woman man". The first phrase involves an interpretation whereas the second one does not.

For veterans of the versions debate, this is an instance where the KJV and most other versions have employed a dynamic equivalency and possibly changed the meaning of the text.


Let's stick with the literal translation... which does not infer marriage but rather proper moral character concerning sex.

 

Regarding children from a previous marriage- the inability of a man to properly lead and rule those children may very well be a disqualifier.

However this is off subject. We are dealing with the "one woman man" standard not "the ruling his own house..." standard.

Let's answer the question: Does God say that a divorced man cannot be a deacon under any circumstances or do men say this beyond what God has said?

 

I have addressed your "one woman man" in a earlier post by stipulating that I am a "two women man", because I have a first wife, and a second wife. I have children from first wife and second wife. If the divorce rate is currently 50%, even among the church membership, and the polygamy rate is <1%, then please explain why God, in His infinite wisdom, addresses a polygamy problem in the "one woman man". As I have stated before, I do not even believe that polygamy was a problem when Paul wrote the letter. Although I am not KJVO, I am KJV-preferred, and believe it offers a more applicable--life application-- interpretation. You may believe "one woman man" any way that you wish; however, with my limited abilities, I will just have to apply some old-fashion common sense and believe that God is referring to the 50% problem, and not the <1% problem. But do not throw out the first part of the verse, yet. You never know when you will be faced with a candidate that is not a "one woman man". Sorry, but when I read the verse, I read the whole sentence in its totality. It may not have been written that way in the original autographs; however, it is the way that I read it now "wife-children-home".

 

So who is going to deal with the passage in 1 Cor. 7:10-15?

Hmmm? It is the same man who wrote it. Is he contradicting himself or what?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I have never said dogmatically that I believe "husband of one wife" means "not a polygamist". It could.


I believe the "one woman man" interpretation is consistent with the other scriptures dealing with qualifications. I also believe it is consistent with the language of the "Original English" (Love ya Scott.)that says "husband of one wife".

However, polygamy is an interesting issue. If a polygamist was saved, what do you do with his extra wives? Is it a "sin" to keep them and remain a polygamist? Would it be a bigger sin to put them away? I believe it would.

I think if a missionary goes into a society where polygamy is commonplace, then he needs to wait until some of the men who are only married to one wife, (or single) are ready to be elders and deacons. The men with several wives have too much on their plate to run a church. For them to remain married to their wives is not a sin at all much less an unforgiveable one. But at least "polygamist" describes their current state and not some thing that happened to them years ago that cannot be forgiven.

All of the other qualifications consistently describe the man's current state.

Lacy

 

That has always been a little confusing for me, Brother Jim. In verse 10 and 11, he speaks to the married folks, but said that it is the Lord that commands it.

Then, in verses 12 - 15, he speaks to the rest of the folks (the unmarried ones) and says that it is he that says it and not the Lord.

Bottom line for me. Considering that I Corinthians was written as a rebuke to the church at Corinth, I am hesitant to take any doctrine at face value. I find it difficult to know exactly when the rebuking ends, and the teaching begins. Although I have read others' commentaries on the reason Paul switched from the Lord commands to Paul says in these verses, I still haven't come to a good understanding that satifies me totally. Since I'm married, and the Lord commands in verse 10 and 11, I listened. I am still working on getting the full gist of 12 - 15.

 

Willie;
Thank you for addressing that passage.
If one had a problem with the phrase, "not the Lord" in Paul's comments, I would point them to the fact that the Holy Spirit of God inspired Paul to write that "qualifier". Therefore, since it IS Scripture, I would say it has just as much bearing as does the previous verses.

"A brother or a sister is NOT under bondage".

If the unbeliever departs, this frees the believer to remarry. This is the plain sense of that passage. As such, the no-divorce argument falls flat. IMO. And I think that is the consistent testimony of Scripture. We must be careful to get the WHOLE counsel of God on any given matter, PARTICULARLY when it comes to the practice of the church. Otherwise we insert our interpretations onto Scripture, and we all know that is a very dangerous and hurtful thing to do.


In HIS service;
Jim

 

That's only the plain sense of that passage when you read it in there.

Paul is talking about the responsibility to reconcile. You can not make someone live with you. It is their choice. If they depart, you are not under obligation to be reconciled to them until such a time as they are willing to be reconciled.

This does not end the marriage. Note that Paul calls them "YOUR HUSBAND" AND "YOUR WIFE" after he says you are not in bondage. If he was saying that not being in bondage means you are no longer married, why would he call them your Husband and your Wife?

The point here is that believers are to allow the possibility of reconcilliation despite being sinned against by unbelieving spouses. Their leaving you does not free you from your marriage and definitely doesn't give you permission to remarry.


I Corinthian 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.


16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

 

Really? Would you then say that each day of your life is one long sin of adultery? Especially any romance or intimacy that occurs between you and your wife?

BTW, you did not answer my contention with an alternative that can be applied consistently.

If you are a "two woman man" then certainly anyone who had any relationship with a woman (real or imagined) that would be considered infidelity to his wife would also not be a "one woman man"- that is if history is in view.

If you held hands with a woman now in a romantic way, would that be considered unfaithfulness to you wife? How about flirting?

If that would make you unfaithful now then any time a person did it prior to marriage (by your system of reasoning this passage) it would make them something other than a "one woman man."

Your view cannot be applied consistently without disqualifying virtually every man alive.

Congratulations. You defeated your straw man. I have never contended that polygamy was in view nor do I believe it was.

What was in view was the character of the man being considered... not his distant history or every sin he ever committed.

I am not looking for a Bible version that gives me an interpretation. I want them to give me a translation. In this case, there is obviously a potentially meaningful difference.

God is not referring to either. He didn't say anything about polygamy or divorce.

Please show where I didn't. In fact, the context lends support to the contention that it is a man's current character that is to be evaluated and not his past.

You don't have the option to read it any way other than the way God intended it without being disobedient. You don't have the option of reading "wife-children-home" into it.

All that matters is what God said, what it meant, and how it applies. The part that reveals the failure of your interpretation is the application. You are not applying your interpretation consistently.

 

Bib, Is someone who has divorced and remarried in sin every day? How about when they sleep with their wives? Is that a sin?

How about someone like the "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" guy who married a woman who was not a virgin? Is he an adulterer every day?

Is divorce the only sin that Christ's blood will not fully cover?