serving as a deacon after divorce

The same way you can be a "one woman man" if you have had more than one sexual partner either physically or by fantasy.

 

Scott,

So, you subscribe to the "one woman man (at a time found in some mss.)" view of this passage? I give you the right to add those words (in meaning), but I'll keep my simple understanding of the passage.

Jason

 

That's all well and good but it is also irrelevant to this particular passage. The passage doesn't discuss divorce. It doesn't even directly address marriage. It simply says that a man should be a "one woman man".

Just be consistent. Either it applies to any man who has ever had a relationship or fantasy outside the marriage to one woman or it is addressing something different than marital status.

I agree that divorce is usually an indication of weakness in the man... even when it is "her fault". But the point of the two passages in question is character. A man's character can and should change as he is sanctified. A 40 years old man may not be the same person that he was at 20.

No one is taking up my challenge over your lack of consistency here. Is there anyone here who thinks they are qualified if the "one woman man" standard is applied for a lifetime to include absolutely no lustful fantasies? Do we even know anyone who is qualified?

 

No. That's not what I believe. I believe "one woman man"... period.

I am not the one adding words. The passage doesn't say "no divorce". It doesn't point to divorce as the object nor as a limit. So choose your poison... Either it means that all sexual sin for the lifetime disqualifies a man or it is applicable to the current character only.

If you have another interpretation that is consistent, please share it.

It is the current attitude of a man that is expected to continue due to a proven track record that reflects a biblical attitude toward women, his wife, and marriage- this is what is in question. Is a man conducting himself according to biblical principles and can he reasonably be expected to continue?

The past cannot be changed. None of these qualifications apply to the past. They apply to the present.

 

I may be slower than some, but I do not see the challenge. Lust is something that will always plague a man, but we have been equipped to flee from it. Believe it or not, there are men that have fled, and continue to flee from it in their daily walk. From your analogy, am I to deduce that there isn't any sin that disqualifies a person from any position within the church, as long has that sin has been forgiven?

 

In other words...if they were both members of Baptist Churches when they left the Presidency....Bill Clinton could have been a deacon, but Ronald Reagan could not?

 

I may be slower than some, but I do not see the challenge. Lust is something that will always plague a man, but we have been equipped to flee from it. Believe it or not, there are men that have fled, and continue to flee from it in their daily walk.</font>[/QUOTE] That isn't the point. The point is that the scripture says "one woman man". Now it is consistent to say that anyone who ever gave into sexual lusts in any form is disqualified. It is consistent to say that the current character (proven by some amount of time) of the man regarding his relationships with women is in view.

It is inconsistent with the text and context of these scriptures to say that a man who lived with a woman for 10 years, broke up with her, then married another woman is qualified but a man who was married for 10 years, divorced, then married another is not. Biblically it is also inconsistent to say that one who committed adultery in their heart is qualified but someone who is divorce is not.

Yes. You can deduce that.

On the other hand, sin isn't the only thing in view in these passages. It is a man's proven character in general.

All I am asking is for you all to be consistent. If "one woman man" is the standard and the timeframe is one's lifetime then OK. If current character only then OK. But I see no justification for picking out one particular form of not being a "one woman man" for a lifetime and making that the standard.

 

Yes, Bill would probably be asked to be a deacon in a large number of churches. My guess is that most would not want Ronnie.

 

That example makes my point decently well... though I didn't know Reagan personally and could not attest to his fitness on other issues.

However the point is well made. Indications are that Reagan was a one woman man to Nancy. Bill Clinton has apparently never been a one woman man. Yet, to some here, he could be qualified at some point whereas Reagan could not have- ever.

Their interpretation is inconsistent.

 

In a church that I was formerly a member of, one of the deacons had an ex-wife that lived in the area. He was remarried, and his 2nd wife was very active in the church. The ex-wife got upset about something and stapled posters all around the neighborhood regarding the man's character, and questioning the validity of a church where this man was allowed to be a deacon. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that the object of someone's past lust, or a partner in a mutual tyrst years ago, will come around stapling posters around the neighborhood, but I haven't personally witnessed it. I agree that one sin is not any larger than the other, and as one poster expressed so eloquently, no one is perfect; however, I personally do not see any problem with applying divorce to the 'one woman man' context. Of course, I wouldn't put it pass wife #1 to start hanging posters around my community. It is good that we are seperated by a few states.

 

I wouldn't either except it fails to be an interpretation consistent with the text or context of these passages. If we are fundamentalists then we should not speak where God has remained silent nor remain silent where God has spoken.

I am not trying to be a smart aleck but do ex-wives set the standard for who can be a deacon or does God?

Now what she put on the posters could very well be relevant to his qualifications. Also, the time since the divorce should very much be an issue. But a consistent interpretation of these scriptures does not allow divorce to be picked out.

 

You know, sometimes I think we try to read too much into scripture. Couldn't it just mean that in a time where polygamy was generally accepted, a leader in the church (male or female) should not practice it because God calls it adultery? Or is that just too much like common sense to be right?

 

Debby, From what I understand, polygamy was not common at that time.

It is still a possibility but the circumstances of the time work against it.

 

There was a deacon in my church that had an affair, when it was found out, he quit. He and his wife are back together, got some counseling, and apparently are doing fine. Our preacher asked him if he was ready to come back and be a deacon. And this is a church that won't even allow a man to be a deacon that has never been married before, but his wife has. Amazing!

 

Thanks for providing another illustration to my point cindig.

Some churches have read between the line (as apparently some here do) and read "no divorce" as being the strict meaning of these passages.

Like you note, "by principle" they apply it to a divorce by the wife as well.

Too often the real implication is ignored while the "no divorce" rule is expanded even further.

 

I would have voiced an objection for the man retaining, or returning to, the position, and I believe that I wouldn't be alone in my church.

 

He(the man) said no, I don't really know what his reasons were. I don't know if he plans to in the future. I'm hoping that he has decided not to be an active deacon again.
I don't really think our deacon board would go for him coming back.

 

People have wills. If the wife becomes addicted to drugs is it the man's fault also? Sin is an individual choice as is one party filing for divorce. Was man's original sin of disobedience God's fault or a "sign of His weakness?(Rhetorical question) God gave us a free will and when a person sins whether it be through adultry, fornication, lieing, stealing etc... the circumstances that lead to the sin and encouraged it may be enforced or presented by others but it is the individuals decision to fall into sin. I remember a woman in the church I attended a few years back. She used to live in a life of formication which had included prostitution. But since then she had been saved and was leading a spirit filled life and actively involved in the work of God. But nearly everyone in the Church couldn't get past her past and words were always spoken in private. Example "I know she is saved and all but oh my, all those men. I just couldn't have a relationship with someone with a past like that."
Wow it s a good thing Christ doesn't live or rule according to those principles or he wouldn't have bothered coming to the earth to sacrifice His life so that we could BURY THOSE SINS and walk in life anew with him. I seemingly remember when God called Isaiah to be a prophet in the OT that he offerd the excuse "I am a sinful man in a sinful nation". What did God do? "Well your right Isaiah, you've drank, partied and had some unpure thoughts about women from time to time so I guess that disqualifies you I better find someone else." NOP, the angel picked up a fiery coal, touched his lips and cleansed him from his sin. We as Christians will begin to fulfill the great commandment to "Ge ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel" when we can actully begin living the example of forgiveness that Christ set forth numerous times in the Word. You can read it if you have any questions.

 

People have wills. If the wife becomes addicted to drugs is it the man's fault also? Sin is an individual choice as is one party filing for divorce. </font>[/QUOTE]My point was this: We too often write divorce or sin within a marriage off to one party or the other... especially when one side's sin manifests itself in certain ways.

However, God made the man the head of the home. He should provide godly leadership. Most failures in the home and marriage are related to or caused by a failure of the man to be a biblical servant-leader... a one woman man, "head" of her, discipler of his children, etc.

Most men are selfish in one regard or another. God commands men to love their wives for a reason... we must consciously, willfully do it.

There can obviously be extraordinary circumstances but wives' problems can usually be related back to their not being loved effectively by their husbands.

 

This is not about whether a person's life has changed. Most certainly it has, if they have truly been saved. That is not the issue. However, you cannot erase the mental image that others have, images that have been cultivated by circumstance or by certain aspects of personal behavior.

The point is that the officers of the church should be blameless. Their character should be such that nothing in their past could ever be brought to light that might somehow reflect poorly on the church by virtue of the office they hold. It is the reputation and perception of the church that is to be defended, not the person's honor.

We get too hung up on the "that was a long time ago, God has forgiven them, so everyone else should forgive them mentality." The problem is that we are judged by the world, not on what we believe, but how we live and how we have lived. That is the greatest testimony of God's grace in our lives and, after all, only God remembers our sins no more. The world never forgets. I'd rather let someone whose witness has not been compromised represent and serve the church as an officer than risk loosing our influence in the community by appointing someone whose witness has been compromised by events in their past.