Divorced Deacons?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Several points:

1. You have not yet demonstrated that mias gunaikas andres means “husband of one wife.” You have provided no argumentation for it. I will agree that it is a possible translation but it is not the only one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not have my greek tools (Zhodiates, Vines, Robertson, etc...) with me at the office but:

"husband of but one wife" NIV
"husband of one wife" NASB
"He must be faithful to his wife" (notes state: Greek be the husband of one wife) NLT
"husband of one wife" KJV
"husband of one wife" NKJV
"husband of one wife" RSV
"husband of one wife" KJ21

It appears that nearly every accepted translation of the NT into English translates the phrase "husband of one wife". Now it may be the case that your translation is better but then that would place the burden on you, not me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Your comments on divorce are partially right. God does hate divorce. (There is significant study ongoing that Mal 2:15 does not say that. I tend to disagree with the study but it is out there and has solid evidence for it. The traditional rendering of the Hebrew depends either on a textual variant or on abnormal Hebrew – I can’t remember which. I will have to look up the name of the book that defends this. Someone else may know.) God intended marriage to be one man and one woman for life. However to say that only God can end a marriage is directly contradicted by your next statement that he permits divorce. A marriage can end by divorce and while it is never God’s best or God’s intention, it is permitted and it does end the marriage. Therefore, someone other than God can end a marriage.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misunderstood me. God does allow sin to occur. But His allowing sin to occur is not the same as God favoring sin to occur or commissioning sin to occur. Matthew 19:6 states that what God joins, man is not to separate. So yes, it is sin to separate what God joins unless God is doing the separating.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. All qualifications must be seen in light of “blameless.” However, your point 4f is a non sequiter to one, two, and three. You have stated three points and then says the fourth must be it. You have not reached there by argumentation but by ex cathedra pronouncement.

All the qualifications listed refer to the current state of a man’s life. You yourself state that a man can lose his temper and get control of it and still be blameless. It is inconsistent to say that all the other qualifications refer to the current state while the “mias gunaikas andres” refers to his whole life. That is inconsistent with the text. You are reading into what it says.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. With the exception of divorce, all of the other items listed may be changed as characteristic of a man's life. Divorce, however is a permanent condition. Not unlike the case in which a man loses his voice or a limb. The condition does not change. The condition of having been divorced is a condition that does not go away, thus, placing a man outside of the "above reproach" characterization requisite for the offices of biship/elder and deacon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A man who is innocent in a divorce can well be considered blameless. He may not be; but he can be. A man who is at fault in a divorce can be considered blameless in some circumstances. He is not permanently stained necessarily though he might be.

My point is not to condone or suggest divorced men be elected to deaconship or pastorate. My point is to say that the text does not necessarily preclude it on that basis.

As for Charlie, I think we should take God's word for what it says and assume it be literal. However, what we are discussing is what it says and what it means. It is no way related to a woman being a pastor because no matter what mias gunaikas andres means, it cannot refer to a woman.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Notes on 1 Timothy 3:2:

The best understanding of the passage is that the bishop should be above reproach in his faithfulness to his wife. He must be a “one-woman man.” The passage should be understood as assuming, rather than stipulating, that the bishop would be a married man. – Believer’s study Bible. W.A. Criswell, 1997, c1995 (electronic ed.) (1 Ti 3:2). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

the husband of one wife. Lit. in Gr. a “one-woman man.” This says nothing about marriage or divorce (for comments on that, see note on v. 4). The issue is not the elder’s marital status, but his moral and sexual purity. Others see this requirement as barring those who remarried after the death of their wives. But, as already noted, the issue is sexual purity, not marital status. Further, the Bible encourages remarriage after widowhood (5:14; 1 Cor. 7:39). Some believe that Paul here excludes divorced men from church leadership. That again ignores the fact that this qualification does not deal with marital status. Nor does the Bible prohibit all remarriage after divorce (see notes on Matt. 5:31,32; 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:15). Finally, some think that this requirement excludes single men from church leadership. But if that were Paul’s intent, he would have disqualified himself (1 Cor. 7:8). A “one-woman man” is one totally devoted to his wife, maintaining singular devotion, affection and sexual purity in both thought and deed. To violate this is to forfeit blamelessness and no longer be “above reproach” - MacArthur, J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (Electronic ed.) (1 Ti 3:2). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

Husband of but one wife, literally, a “one-woman man.” This ambiguous but important phrase is subject to several interpretations. The question is, how stringent a standard was Paul erecting for overseers? Virtually all commentators agree that this phrase prohibits both polygamy and promiscuity, which are unthinkable for spiritual leaders in the church. Many Bible students say the words a “one-woman man” are saying that the affections of an elder must be centered exclusively on his wife. - Walvoord, J. F. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (1 Ti 3:2). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

The husband of one wife (3:2). The phrase has been interpreted to rule out the possibility of a divorced person holding this office but, interestingly, not to rule out a widower who has been remarried. Most commentators agree, however, that it simply means monogamous: a one-woman kind of man who is totally faithful to his wife. - Richards, L. (1991). The Bible reader's companion. Includes index. (1 Ti 3:1). Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.

He must be the husband of one wife; not having given a bill of divorce to one, and then taken another, or not having many wives at once, as at that time was too common both among Jews and Gentiles, especially among the Gentiles. - Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (1 Ti 3:1). Peabody: Hendrickson.

Some pretty respected theologians here agreeing with Pastor Larry and me!

 

Let me ask this if I may, I am not a pastor or deacon nor do I feel God has called me to one of these positions, I am a Sunday School teacher and am happy at that. But my question is, this is my first marriage but my wife has been married before, we were married when we were both still in our sins. Am I disquailified for the postion of deacon or pastor because my wife has been married before?

 

No, you're disqualified because you don't agree with me 100% of the time!

Just kidding! I would say by either side of the coin of this debate, you qualify on the "husband of one wife" aspect.

 

Thomas,

As to your thoughts, you are (as I earlier said) most certainly right that it can be "husband of one wife." Andres is translated "husband" 50 times in the KJV. However, the part you failed to mention is that it is translated "men" in 156 cases. That is, by my math, a 3 to 1 ratio in favor of my understanding of the word. Gunaikas, translated "wife" in the KJV 92 timss, is translated "women" 129 times. With my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, I say if we are going to hold to a majority text philosophy, I win this one YOu are right that if he wanted to say "Husband of one wife" that is the way he would say it. However, there are other possibilities.

I am not denying that "husband of one wife" is a legitimate translation, even the right translation. My only point is that I am not convinced that it means never divorced.

As for Dr. Bob's comments, I completely agree. I am not suggesting the other view is heresy and I do not begrudge anyone the position they hold. I do believe that in most cases, "never divorced" men are the best choices for church leadership. My caution is simply against taking a phrase that does not clearly mean that to support that. In other words, I am more concerned about the exegesis than I am the position.

 

Per my first post on this thread, Oct 13, 6:02PM, I agree with Pastor Larry and Dr. Bob. This is a classic "agree to disagree" issue. That is why when a Christian relocates or feels the need to change churches, they should be very serious in their "church shopping." First, each of us must know what we believe and why we believe it by our serious study of God's Word.

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Tim 2:15 KJV)

Second, research what the church you are considering joining believes. Start with the essentials of salvation. If it meets those, then move on to less critical areas of doctrine. Remember, since humans are not perfect, you WILL NOT find a perfect church. Decide if the flaws you find are ones you can live with. One should not overlook a flaw in the essential doctrinal areas. The whole process, if married, should be a family decision.

 

Let's get real here, brethren.
The ****** anti-divorce "husband of one wife" argument is only purported by those bigots who have already decided their holy marriage entitles them to more piety than those "divorced sinners".
It is legally and morally impossible to have more than one wife at a time, no more how many times you are divorced. DIVORCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT VERSE OF THE BIBLE.
The "husband of one wife" is talking about ADULTERY. We are know Christian leaders who can't keep their pants on. I could name several deacons and pastors who have cheated on their wives, even boldly chasing women in their own churches. When/if they get caught, they weep with bogus remorse and subtlely demand full forgiveness and continuation of their "ordained" status. Their wives wimp out and won't throw the bums out because they depend more on their cheating husbands than they do on God's provision for them.
The "husband of one wife" clearly addresses adultery. Don't you recall, the Big A sin was one of the Big Ten Suggestions, and the only provision Jesus allowed for divorce?
Come on, guys, be honest here and quit trying to come up with Scripture to support a bias you've already acquired.

 

It would seem that no matter what the subject some always strongly support the position of lesser standards. When atempting to please God it would seem we would want to lean more to holiness, not less.

Psalm 29:2 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.


Romans 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness

Why do some fight so vehemently to support careless living?

There is such as holy living, those who haven't burned their brains on alcohol and drugs. Many of the problems here are men who don't know how to get ahold of God in prayer because they are to busy trying to justify less than holy living. Present post is a case in point. Why is it qwrong for a church to honor God by demanding church officers to have clean lives?

Ernie

 

Because we wouldn't have anyone qualified! Are you "the first stone caster?"

Your argument says that anyone who has sinned, even if they've fully repented, cannot live a holy life. That is pure rubbish!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
Why is it qwrong for a church to honor God by demanding church officers to have clean lives?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who here said anything of the kind? You seem to be reading another thread here. No one is suggesting lowering biblical standards. No one is suggesting that church leaders should live anything other than clean lives. Nobody is supporting careless living. We are discussing what Scripture says. If you would like to contribute to that feel free. But it would be nice for you to refrain from accusing people of things that they are not saying.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Our church as a blanket policy of "no." That saves a lot of time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may save time for the preachers and staff, but is there a possibility that a good man called by God to be a deacon could be overlooked and his capabilities (which are a gift from God) are passed over simply due to a rule?

Pls, note, I am only referring to a man, for instance who is innocent and his wife runs away in adultery or some other case where he is not the responsible party. I am also not making a Bible argument as to what specifically the Bible means in this case, I am simply referring to an over-all blanket -- non-negotiable, human conceived rule.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
The concept of a pastor or a deacon being "above reproach" should be the primary place to start. Evaluating sin or possible sin (divorce being just one issue) would ensue.

As to that text, I do not believe it is saying ANYTHING about divorce. But every ifb church I have pastored has had it in the constitution that no man divorced or married to a woman who had been divorced could be pastor or deacon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I asked a question of Dr Cassidy related to the blanket statement of "no" because it saves time, but I will say that our Southern Baptist Church has the exact same constitution that does not allow a divorced man or a man with a divorced wife to be a deacon. This disqualifies me--as I married a wife with three children who were abused by her first husband and felt the children needed a father and I adopted them since their father is in prison for his crimes and has lost his parental rights. My wife divorced him for infidelity -- so that seems to be consdered by even Jesus when he made his statement of divorce. However, let me be clear: I accept our churches' constitution without argument or I would go somewhere else. There are other gifts I can give the church rather than be a deacon and I probably do as much in the church, if not more (I'm not bragging--just making a point.) than half the deacons on the list. I accept the fact that I am not qualified and will never be and do not expect and will never ask for an exception.

 

I have a question for everybody and would in particular at least like an answer from Dr. Thomas Cassidy and Pastor Larry (because I respect your opinions), but would also like an answer from anybody else.

Maybe this should be a new thread based on "legalism" but I think it fits perfectly with the subject at hand.

Regardless of what the studies tend to say regarding the exact "new" translation relating to the verse isn't this like anything else that has to do with the Lord? If we offend people by electing divorced men because "THEY" believe the Bible says that are we not wrong? Now, I agree we cannot keep from offending everyone and that legalism seems to be a new buzz word that churches need to get away from (at least the more liberal churches). It seems to me that there are certain things such as women pastors, women deacons, divorced pastors and deacons and other such basics that have been held by many Baptists for so long that it would be offensive to "re-interpret" these regulations of Paul's (even if we do find they are not EXACTLY accurate) and especially older Baptists will have a problem with this? Is it not sinful to offend Christians when it is not necessary and therefore as Thomas Cassidy says---let's just set the rule and not worry about it? I'm simply throwing this out for debate. It is very similar to teenagers dancing in a church. I recently left a Baptist Church that allowed teenagers to dance to Christian Rock Music during their play-time on Wednesday nights. What if this causes a non-Christian to point to the church that does not stick to some of these basics and say "see they no longer believe the Bible."?

This is just for discussion and for lack of space, I could go further but I think you all are intelligent enough to get where I am going. This also eliminates the argument that all sins must be forgiven without human consequences or looking back. Do we allow a former Pedaphile to have free run of the church around our children simply because he says he is now saved? In my opinion, we accept him as a Christian, but we also use our God given brains and keep an eye on him. If he is truly repentent he will not mind this. If a person is truly faithful to the church they will not mind a constitutional rule dealing with divorced men or their wives..........

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:


It may save time for the preachers and staff, but is there a possibility that a good man called by God to be a deacon could be overlooked and his capabilities (which are a gift from God) are passed over simply due to a rule?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that you bring up what may be the most important sub-topic here. Why is it that one must have received the largely man-made ceremonial function of ordination to be used in church work.

God gifts all believers. That one hasn't received an official laying upon of hands is no reason to not serve in one's giftedness.

 

I have a question similiar to this topic. Is it possible for a man to be called to preach if he is married for the first time but his wife has been divorced due to infidelity? All responses would be appreciated

 

Philip, I am not arguing for a new translation necessarily. I think “husband of one wife” is a one-woman man. I think it is the understanding of the phrase that is important. Although I would not argue with a different translation. No doubt some would be quick to call me a compromiser on the Word. However, I think “one woman man” actually raises the bar beyond “husband of one wife.” Be that as it may …

… as for the legalism, you have thrown a lot out. I think the principle is the difference between clearly revealed truth and conclusions drawn. To hold to clearly revealed truth is right. To hold tenaciously to conclusions while condemning those who do not hold the same conclusions is legalism. Legalism is an excessive emphasis on standards to the exclusion of the God behind the standards. It is not wrong to hold standards. It is wrong to hold them in such a way that teaches a false view of standards or God. We have standards to please God, not to have standards.

As a matter of application, to allow divorced deacons is not the same as allowing women pastors or women deacons. The first is a matter of interpretation or conclusion; the second is a matter of clear revelation. No matter what “husband of one wife” means, a woman will never qualify. I think a lot of it depends on teaching and because each church calls a pastor whose responsibility it is to teach the word, each church may have a different understanding. Within the bounds of legitimate conclusions, different standards can be accepted. To draw an analogy from another issue, on the kenosis, some can say that it is a voluntary giving up of the independent use of the divine attributes and some can say it is metaphorical. Either one is acceptable and good arguments can be made for both. But both are conclusions drawn from the text and we cannot condemn either position. I think the same thing is true, to some extent, with this issue of divorced deacons. I will allow any man to stand for election to the office of deacon whom I believe to be blameless. Some divorced men MAY qualify and some may not. I simply will not make a blanket statement on it. Thomas’s position is certainly fine with me. It does avoid a lot of problems. I think both sides have good arguments to them. However, we do not have the authority to allow a woman to pastor, whether divorced or not, because to do so would contradict clearly revealed truth.

Legalism is loosely thrown around by those who have lower standards than someone else. By the same token, liberalism or license is thrown around just as often. Just look at this board for evidence. In saying we should not offend Christians, we must define that properly – as causing them to stumble into sin. It is not simply upsetting some old held tradition. Sometimes that is necessary. As one person said, “Sacred cows make the best steaks.” However, I don’t think the teenagers dancing fits into that category. I think there is a clear biblical principle at stake in that debate.

I guess in the bottom line I probably have just thrown out some thoughts that may not clearly answer your question.