Is divorce a theological issue

Yes. Marriage comes from God and is only what he says it is. Divorce is a putting asunder of God's ordinance.

No. But living in unrepentant sin has consequences.

Yes.

No.

Yes, I think the marital status of a prospective member is a valid interest of the church.

None.

I would have to answer knowing the laws on annulment in any particular state. In theory, annulment means a valid marriage could not and did not exist to start with. (I have suspected in one case I know of that a valid marriage really did exist but the couple someone got around it and got an annulment.)

Hold the same position I thought was right.

 

God does not provide for divorce in the New Covenant. It was an Old Covenant provision that did not make it into the New.

 

Even though I've not yet married, I am a firm believer in traditional marriage and a lady's role towards her husband within that. I am not a believer in common law marriage or what have you because that is a form of living in sin.

However, I feel that if there is any Biblically (some folks say "morally") unsound sinfulness or any form of abuse from either the husband or wife, then either the husband or wife should divorce. My personal opinion about divorce pertains to our modern times, though.

For example...

1 Corinthians 7:3-5 King James Version (KJV)

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

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

...It's like I'm contradicting myself without meaning to!

This is quite the thread, y'all. Very educational.

 

So is divorce a theological issue?

Divorce falls short of how God intends for us to behave. This is obvious in the Bible.

Is divorce the unpardonable sin?

No. This comes from Catholicism?

Does divorce and re-marriage keep a man from every being a pastor, deacon, teacher - ect?

Paul would generally suggest otherwise. If taken as a commandment as oppose to a suggestion, the answer to pastor and deacon should obviously be a no. I would leave this up to the church, but I would be very hesitant to join a church with a divorced and remarried pastor.

That being said, I also am hesitant to join churches where the pastor slept around for years fathering bastard children before "coming to Christ" and marrying a virginal wife. I may actually prefer the once-divorced man.

As far as teacher, do you mean religious or public school teacher?

May a man be a pastor if he is divorced, but not re-married?

Age of pastor and divorce matter. Can be better than remarriage. Once again I would be hesitant. See the answer above.

Why aren't you mentioning such things as cheating on your spouse?

Should a church ask about a prospective church member if he is divorced?

Why? Is the church into gossip?

If a man comes with a woman, it would be appropriate to ask if they are married. If a man comes alone, it should be assumed that he is single unless he wears a wedding ring. Asking single men or women if they have children when they come with none is always rude.

What leadership positions may a divorced (re-married or not) person hold in a church?

I don't think it's a definite prohibition as much as question of why? Why would churches have so much difficulty finding leaders who aren't divorced?

Is an annulment the same as a divorce for this purpose?

Annulment has a legal definition and an old one. The old definition means that the marriage is not consummated - no vaginal sex occurred. In my opinion and from what I have read in the Bible, if the marriage is not consummated, then there is no marriage.

But annulment is not the same as divorce.

If your church has a strict policy on divorce, then later a pastor wants to loosen it some - what would you do?

Are you talking about expulsion? Paul and the early church usually left expulsion to the worst offenses like sex with your mother. Even then they allowed return if the parties involved stopped doing evil.

any other points to bring up?

There isn't really a lack of pastors or deacons in the world. Why would a church insist on a divorcee? Perhaps divorce is so common, churches are having problems find people who are not divorced? If so, then wouldn't the church want a non-divorcee or simply single leader even more?

 

I would like to add that sometimes not being divorced is more about the piety of the woman the man is married to than the piety of the man himself. In Roman times women did not have the same freedom to leave a marriage like a man did.

So, when there was a divorce in the church in Paul's time, it was almost always initiated by the man. If it was initiated by the woman, some dire circumstance within the marriage usually caused it. So, it made sense to not select men who divorced women to pursue younger women. Not selecting divorce at that time was then considered a form of piety.

At the present time, I don't consider a lasting marriage to be a sign of a man' piety like some may still do on this forum. I've seen many cases where such a marriage continues for other non-pious reasons or through the piety and perseverance of the wife.

Let's take a well known example - former President Bill Clinton. He has never divorced. Is this a sign of his piety?

But from what has been said here, Bill Clinton is a better candidate for leadership in a church than every divorcee.​

 

God Himself divorced Israel at one time, did he not, for committing spiritual adultery?

 

The Apostle paul stated that God permits it for certain cases though, and I agree with him!

 

Is the remarried couple living in perpetual adultery if both of them are saved, confessed their sin unto the Lord, and ask for His blessing to make the new one work now? Does God just state back, Nope , now in adultery, and unable to even bless you now?

 

Following is the annulment guideline for Arkansas:

I have only personally known one couple to get an annulment and they were not in the ministry. The annulment was due to one of the pair committing a serious felony days after the wedding.

Although unfortunate, I cannot see how this example is any different than divorce. Being legal does not always constitute being biblical.

 

Divorce is an empty term in the NT. And it involves unforgiveness with Christians. But Christians always fled violence with a forgiving attitude.

 

So paul stated under inspiration that God permits it at times, but you still deny Paul made the right call here?

 

Divorce is a pagan practice that Christians married to unbelievers experience, as in Paul's example. But it is meaningless since the NT does not import it from the OT. And people remain married for life even if divorced.

 

So you are saying that Paul was wrong?

 

No, he's right about believers and unbelievers divorcing. But you add to scripture if you go beyond this.

 

Even when paul stated that adultery breaks the covenant relationship in the sight of God, and the person innocent would be freed to remarry in the Lord now if they chose to do that?

 

Divorce is not part of the New Covenant.

 

Legalistically, divorce and remarriage is the same as homosexuality. There's no way out. But, God's grace can remedy both.

 

This is really not fair. We are discussing one aspect of the qualifications for being a Pastor and Deacon. Just because Bill Clinton happens to still be married to one wife doesn’t mean anything. After all he certainly is not blameless, being a Democrat and supporting abortion, as well as his sexual immorality..so he fails others.

The fact of the matter is God does say if a man is to be a bishop he must be the husband of one wife. Bill Clinton’s situation does not change God’s word. Your comment really is just a straw man. No one here is saying that being the husband of one wife is the only qualification to be a bishop.

 

Your comment about this being straw man has some truth to it. However, the focus of so many is on divorce which God hates. I have never heard of the others being used on this forum such as blameless. Literally meaning that all ex-cons are banned. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if I did the same for ex-cons and other aspects listed by Paul - not God - I would get different results.

Many think treat Paul's letters like the immutable words of God as oppose to simply inspired by God. While others think inspiration implies immutability. These are grave errors. Paul writes that non-Christians must speak well of the leader to a church. So, if this is the immutable word of God, then local churches in Pakistan must get the approval of the nearby Imams. Does this even make sense? Paul's writings only make sense when one realizes that he wrote for a particular time and place.

Husband of one wife probably literally means that. As I said before, divorce just did not happen like it does in todays society. Bigamy was not outlawed in the Roman Empire until 285 - centuries after this was written. There were likely several men who had taken multiple wives. Paul was trying to get Christians to portray the Roman ideal for family. New religious sects were commonly attacked for warping or destroying this Roman institution. Paul was trying to ensure Christianity's survival in Roman society. His writings should be taken in this context.