Is it wrong for a divorced man to be a pastor?

If a woman leaves her husband and remarries, he leaves him no choice but to leave. I believe that at that time he is free to remarry. If he was not a Christian when he was divorced then he should not be held to the same standard as a believer. I know two men whose wives became rebellious because they did want to be a pastor's wife and left their husbands just before they finished seminary. Both of them left and never returned. One of them was married about nine months. Those ladies deserted their husbands. They did not divorce them. I cannot control my wife or anyone else. I can only have self control

I would warn a divorced man about pastoring simply because people tend to be judgmental. A divorced pastor does not carry the same impact with a person who is contemplating divorce and trying to counsel that person. However those who have been divorced are harder on divorce than those who have not been divorced.

I have always said that the Christians congratulate a man who has murdered someone and placed in jail then gave his life to Christ. Yet the same people tend to judge a man who is divorced. Can a man who murdered someone and later became a Christian become a pastor?

 

I believe Wenham changed his view to allow for grounds for divorce (since the publication of this book).

The historically conservative position has been that this passage prohibits polygamy. This was true until relatively modern times.

More to come....

 

quote: Can a man who murdered someone and later became a Christian become a pastor?
-------------------------------------------------
Paul was a little higher than a pastor.

Cheers,

Jim

 

It doesnt make any sense, does it? They shouldnt disqualify him at all.

You are exactly correct.

 

Shortandy...

You've got to be joking.

If, through no fault of his own, his wife decides to abandon him...its HIS fault for not "managing his household" well???

Whats he supposed to do, put her on a chain so she cant leave?

If his wife commits adultery against him, and he is not at fault in any way, its HIS fault for not "managing his household" well??

C'mon. This is the REAL WORLD we are taking about here.

And this is Gods church we are talking about...not some legalistic cult of some sort, run my some weirdo cult leader.

 

Oooops!!! :BangHead:

I just noticed that this forum is for (((Pastors)))

I'm not a pastor.

I wasnt paying attention when I clicked on this board. Thought it was a "general" board of some sort.

Sorry.

I wont post here any more.

Mods, please feel free to delete my 2 posts if you want to.

 

It depends on the details of the divorce, but there are very few instances where a divorced-remarried man could pastor again.

 

I do not know of any except he and his bride remarry each other without marrying someone else inbetween.

 

For sake of argument......the loyal opposition........

Jim, I think you are presenting a specious piece of reasoning here. You are trying to connect two disjointed and unequal parts. We are talking about qualifications (perhaps disqualification is better), not the seriousness of a sin. For example, I would not allow a former pedophile, although repentant and forgiven, to work in a children's ministry but he could serve in other jobs. It could possibly be that divorce, for whatever reason in God's mind and character, disqualifies a man for pastoral ministry whereas murder would not. We really don't know in absence of specific revelation. Now, your human reasoning may make an emotional connection because murder is horrible it seems humanly reasonable that murder trumps divorce. However, you cannot find any Scripture that would necessarily indicate this, I think. So, I cannot accept your reasoning because it is lacking data, logic, and proof. It is specious reasoning.

 

Addressing the wrong question...........

If you think of divorce as a disqualifying factor, then it really doesn't matter whose fault it is. Let's say that a major league pitcher loses his pitching arm in a terrible automobile accident that was not his fault. However, he is not able to pitch regardless of whose fault. Sin impacts innocent people other than the sinner.

You are arguing, I think, the wrong question. I have not heard anyone argue that the reason a divorced man cannot be a pastor is because his sin cannot be forgiven, except possibly for the way out argument of perpetual adultry, which very, very few believe. Rather, it is the view that divorce disqualifies a man. Perhaps, a better illustration is that a convicted embezzler, who paid his penalty and is forgiven, cannot get a job in a bank.

This is a serious issue that needs careful consideration based on Scriptural premises, which seem lacking in most of the posts, and not some off-the-cuff theological speculation based on our emotions.

 

Changed views....................

Yes, he did modify his views somewhat. I've read the paper. However, I am not sure of how far he would be willing to go in allowing for divorce. He, as I recall, still very conservative on the issue.

Tom, I would take issue with your statement that "[t]he historically conservative position has been that this passage prohibits polygamy." I am not committing myself any view of the meaning, but I disagree with your statement that implies a conservative consensus, which is not true. There is no consensus in even conservative circles.

However, I think we are arguing some of the wrong questions that we are not yet ready for. There are more basic questions that trouble me. Clearing up these will help make this question clearer. For example, where is polygamy specifically condemned in Scripture? Historically, it was at least tolerated as was divorce. You seem to think polygamy is the topic of this passage. Is not it as much of a cultural thing as folks are arguing as the case with divorce? If this be the case, then we've opened a can of worms. What I'm saying is that those who say prohibition of divorce is a recent cultural interpretation are ignoring that the same argument flies just as well for polygamy. Are we willing to go there? I think not.

Tom, I respect you as a wise and learned man. What do you think?

 

Consistent with own standards..............

GB, I've always respected your posts and arguments for demanding a body of Biblical support and close reasoning--both seem lacking here. This appears to be observational wisdom based on pragmatic experiences. Is this a sufficient foundation for this weighty matter?

I'm really a little disappointed that you seem to leaning toward the old murder-divorce analogy. Let me probe for the tender spot. Would you allow a confirmed pedophile, who was forgiven and repentant, to work in your children's ministry? The rate of recidivism is too great to risk! A pedophile is disqualified as a children's worker. Perhaps divorce also permanently disqualifies a man for a pastoral role.

Furthermore, why should polygamy disqualify a man but divorce doesn't? The solution is simple. If a polygamist desires to be a pastor, then he simply divorces all wives except one. Right? Can a divorced former polygamist be a pastor?

Now, how do we know the way divorce appears in the mind of God? Heretofore, we have been reasoning from a human position of compassion and weakness but we must know what God thinks about this. What has He told us? Perhaps there's something that we're missing especially in the comparison of marriage to Christ and His church. What do you think? You're an astute and knowledgeable man.

 

You tell me...............

Okay, why should a polygamist be disqualified? Can the polygamist divorce his extra wives and become a pastor.

 

I wrote the part Jim quoted. My point is that I do not believe that divorce always disqualifies a man from pastoring. To say that it does and that murder does not would categorize and divide sin. I do not believe that muder is less of a sin than divorce. However somehow too often a man is praised for a changed life from being a murderer to being a godly man and a divorced man is shunned by the same community of Christians. The fact is that God used at least two men in the Bible who killed someone. Each of them were leaders who were mightily used by God. Paul was no doubt a pastor to pastors and planted churches. If he was not a pastor then what was he?

 

I knew a man who worked among those who had more than one wife. What they did was to tell the man when he became a Christian to not divorce his wives but to take care of them.

Certainly the ideal is what God wanted from the beginning. However the situation one finds himself in is not always ideal. Imagine a wife whose husband becomes a Christian and tells his wives because he became a Christian he now tells them to leave and make their own living. What would he do with the children? How many of those ladies and children would become followers of Jesus if they believe that a religion destroys their relationship they currently have and treats them as an outcast?

The higher calling from God lies in demonstrating His love for people through a changed life rather than treating them as though they were disposable garbage. We must act in the spirit of love rather than the letter of the law.

 

Paid,
Thanks for your kind words. I have but a moment, and I hope that my schedule clears to respond in full because this is a weighty matter and off-hand, quick comments are not worthy. My comment about the historical position is if you read the commentators from Chrysostom to Calvin to Poole to Gill to the other Reformers, on up to somewhere circa 1900 or so (give or take), they unanimously exposited that this passage condemned polygamy. I can provide quotes from each of these if you like. This influenced thought for a long time. I am not saying I agree with this interpretation. I see it as a possible one but not the best interpretation. I see it as far better than the interpretation of forbidding all divorces and/or remarriages. That in my mind requires eisegesis. Interestingly, the so-called "one living woman" interpretation is a corruption of Chrysostom's orginal exposition. I am mystified when people trot this out. It would follow then that a man, who is unqualified because he is divorced and his ex-wife is alive, suddenly at the moment of her death becomes qualified again.

In general, I am troubled by the specious analogies that people use. Where does the Bible say the pastor-church relationship is to exemplify the Christ-church relationship?

I'm further troubled by the argument that if a divorced man is pastor, then he automatically loses any counseling authority or proclamation authority on marriage. Sorry...our authority comes from the Word of God, not experiences. If that is the case, then the man who has ever had a rebellious child loses the authority to speak on family issues. Or what about the man who is inhospitable?

A further troubling issue to me is the elevation of "one-woman man" to be the bene esse of pastoral/diaconal qualifications. I literally have heard councils ask the marital status of a man and then sign off when they get an answer of negative on whether there's been a divorce. God help us.

A final troubling issue is this concept of fairness. "It's not fair to keep a man out of the pulpit if he's been divorced." Sorry. The issue is not fairness, it's fidelity to Scripture.

Well, I'm really late now. i do have more to add. I hope to get into the exegesis at some point, because that's where the heart of the matter lies...not in our logic primarily or our traditions. There is a place for reason, but that reason must be based on sound exegesis.

 

Well stated! AMEN!!

 

I believe that the expression "one woman" man was used by Paul (humanly speaking) because of the global cutures involved in the world at that time of the use this phrase to avoid confusion.

For instance, Roman society and law required monogamy.

However under Roman law a man was allowed "concubines" and in fact they and their children had limited rights. A man with concubines would therefore be disqualified.

Does it make a difference if the "women" in relationship are in series or in parallel?
Probably not IMO.

a "one woman" man taken to it's extreme might even mean that a man could not even have had a "relationship" outside the cultural and legal definition of marriage before his legal marriage. No doubt this would probably mean that if enforced, it would leave many local churches without an undershepherd.

Christ has only ever had and ever will have one bride.

Christ and His one and only bride is probably the inspired motivation of this phrase "one-woman" man, the undershepherd of a given local church being a model thereof.


HankD

 

I think there are times when Paul appealed to people outside of scripture on a logical basis. That is my point behind the murderer illustration to point out the difference between what is often our reaction to one who has murdered someone and someone who is divorced as though divorced is worse. Paul himself was both a murderer and a pastor to pastors. As I have studied the historical context of the time my understanding is that divorce was rampant then, as it is today.

In regards to a pedophile I would not allow that person to be in a ministry with children. It would be much like asking a person who has had a drinking problem to work at a tavern. One who has weaknesses knows what their weaknesses are and if they are placed in a ministry that tempts them then that person would invite condemnation and judgment by both the church and outsiders.

If we were to look at every possible scenario the answers are not always so easy in every case. Would a man who was in a tribe or culture where a woman might marry several men or one man might marry several women depending on the financial situation and become a follower of Jesus Christ be permitted to lead that culture or tribe? I see that as not the best, but very much the same as concubines. God from the beginning laid out His plan for us but too often along the way it is impossible to go back. There are many times when the best is not possible so we take the next best route. That happens when we sin. There is not any pastor who continually does good and who never sins.

The question is do we live by the letter of the law or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Let me give an example of something that challenged me on this subject. I was talking to a man who was in charge of the college and young couples ministry. Both he and his wife were making disciples and helping those people grow. It was the most dynamic ministry in the church. One time I told my wife that if there was anyone who I saw as example it was he and his wife. We sought them out as examples. On a Sunday evening one of the deacons asked him to consider being a deacon. He told the man that he could not. He told us he was divorced and that was against the church’s bylaws. The man asking him was as shocked as I was. The man had three children who had families of their own and he and his wife had been married for well over 35 years. He told the story of the time he was married after his junior year in college. He was studying to be a pastor. Near the end of his senior year his wife left and never returned. The man we were talking to had just retired from his job at an insurance agency. I doubt anyone knew his story until then. Here was a man and wife who were seen as examples by people in the church and in the community but he was divorced, not by his choice.

Contrast that with men who are pastors who are like tyrants in their homes but are “not divorced.” They live as though a dictator and not a godly leader exists in their home. He is not an example to anyone.

I happen to believe that the issue is deeper than just merely a divorce issue but rather one of being an example to the flock. If a man is not an example then he is disqualified. If he is an example then he is qualified. However the most basic qualification of leadership is not if he can lead, but is he leading.

We do know that God hates divorce. Divorce whether legal or not is a division or separation. I believe there are men who are actually divorced but the legal document has not been signed yet. They have no business pastoring. One of the ways of insuring he is a man of God who can lead is to see the product of his leadership in the disciples me makes. If he is making disciples he is already focused on people and ministry. He has already developed some skills in helping people grow.

In the context of the NT the congregation would have had ample time to examine a man, his wife and family to consider them as examples. In that situation a man is not dependent on a paycheck. So there is not the pressure for him to look good or continue “pastoring”. When I was not pastoring and doing discipleship in a church the discussions I had with people were different than when I was pastoring full time. When I was not pastoring people saw me like themselves and having similar responsibilities. They could not have the excuse that I was trained to do the job they felt uncomfortable with.
There are congregations that my wife I would not be able to work with very well and could not serve as an example. While there are other congregation where I know we would be an example for.

A few years ago a friend of mine was pasturing a church and he found out shortly after he and his arrived there that his wife had been involved in internet pornography. He found out when his wife had gone to England and saw someone she met on the internet instead of her relatives who live there. He immediately resigned his position. The church did not accept his resignation and told him that they needed him when he came but now he needs them. The church paid for him to get help and they also paid him a full salary. I saw a changed man. I saw my friend become a much different pastor. He told me that spread throughout the town and the church was growing steadily.

I believe the main issue is this: Is the man and his family examples to the flock? It is not a matter of does he meet the qualifications but rather is he a faithful loving leader and example to his family as a husband and father? If he cannot lead his own home do not give him more responsibility. When I was a young Christian I dated a young lady who told me that her parents were great examples. Once I got to know them I agreed and agree to this day. Those are the kind of men we need to lead churches. As I observed that man with his family he led them. He led them to know God and do what is right. There were times when he was criticized because he was not at a lot of the activities at the church. All of his kids are walking with God today. The youngest is 50.

I never thought about this until now but I cannot think of any of my friends from college who are making disciples who have ever been divorced. I cannot also think of any who are making disciples who are not also trying to love their wives more. If a man was divorced in the culture of that day would it not also mean that he did not love his wife and divorced her instead of her divorcing him? So it seems that it would make sense that the man did not love his wife as Christ loves the church and therefore being divorced would show that he did not love his wife. Therefore he was not faithful to one woman. In addition he does not provide an example of love but rather one who does not endure and was impatient. While historically that may be true but the real question is how do we deal with the situation today? A woman can divorce her husband today and that presents something that was not an issue in the NT. So the issue is more complex today than then.