A rather stupid question, But here goes...:

I have to believe that Paul was saying you can only have one wife, not two or more, rather than that you have to be married to be a pastor.

Consider that Paul himself started many churches, and so he himself had to pastor, considering that you can't plant a church without pastoring it.

Having said that, I think it would be very difficult to pastor long-term being a single man. The idea of a single man (other than Paul writing inspired Scripture, of course) teaching people how to have a Biblical family doesn't fly very well.

And that is my two denarii.

 

I agree with John of Japan. {SNIP}

[ December 15, 2005, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

I tend to disagree, I think one should be married with children to pastor. I am not thoroughly convinced on the children part because some families are not able to have children. The qualifications in Timothy and Titus are clear. Most of the times, though, people focus on the marriage/divorced aspect of the qualifications and ignore the rest.

There is no indication that Paul was the pastor of the churches he planted. Spiritual mentor certainly, but not necessarily pastor.

 

I have to believe that Paul was saying you can only have one wife, not two or more, rather than that you have to be married to be a pastor.

Not important what you think "he meant". What did he say?

 

{SNIP}

There is another thread on the issue of marriage and divorce for a pastor.

[ December 15, 2005, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

In Corinthians Paul praised the men and women who could contain their sexual appetites for being able to serve God (better) more whole heartedly. I do not believe Paul was saying that a man must be married in one place then say that a single person was better off. It would not make much sense.

Praise God for marriage. I have not the gift of celibacy. That does not make me either a better pastor nor a worse one. Only a happy one! Amen?

 

{SNIP}

Though I don't believe that a pastor has to be married to hold that position, a local body of believers do have the right to decide whether or not their pastor will be one that is married or one who isn't. I can understand why a congregation would be concerned in that area, but I can't understand why anyone would hold to that idea without wavering at all. There have been some unique situations arise throughout history that forced certain people into that position before an opportunity to be married was available.

[ December 15, 2005, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

What he said was that in order to be a pastor, a man should be a "one woman man." He should be characterized by faithfulness and integrity in his personal relationships with women. Divorce, remarriage, and children are incidental to that.

 

The question in the OP regarded being a single pastor. I would never say a single person cannot serve the Lord. I can provide numerous examples of people that I personally know that would have been better off staying single and serving the Lord as a single person rather than being married. You can't draw any conclusions from that at all. That doesn't mean it is good or bad either way.

Paul was providing the qualifications for pastor which say that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. It seems that in the context, one can conclude that a pastor is to have a marriage and a family based on the additional qualificatons of ruling his household well as stated in 1 Tim 3:4-5.

There is another thread found at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/3/3229.html?

This thread provides a ton of additional info.

 

I'm not convinced that this is talking about a pastor per se, but the overseer has to show faithfulness to one wife. "One at a time" is the way that many Greek scholars word the translation, which implies either/or/and getting rid of polygyny (polygamy was always wrong/polygyny was accepted) and remaining faithful to one wife to whom you've made a godly commitment. (In other words, if you were "married" before you gave your life to God and divorced that's one thing; if you truly married (in the eyes of God) and divorced, that's another.)

This also helps reduce the possibility of scandal. If a single overseer spent time alone with a woman, scandal could erupt. If his wife is with him, then the possiblity of scandal is reduced.

Do I think it's a requirement? Based on the words and the context, no. But, if you are and your wife takes the kids to the Catholic church down the road, then you've got a potential problem.

 

If that's true, which it is not, then Paul was disqualified as a pastor, because he was single and presumably had no chuldren.

Unfortunately, this person is guilty of reading the letter of the text but failing to comprehend the spirit and meaning of the text. In other words, he's made a pretext out of the text by ignoring the context, and is now foisting his pretext on you as a matter of doctrine.

 

I just about spit out my diet coke with spenda!!!

 

I was taught at an early age that any text out of context is nothing but a pretext, and the context is Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21.

 

You will find there are those who make great claims of knowing the Bible when they know little. The person who knows what he doesn't know is the one who knows the most.

 

The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I know.