Divorced Deacons

[Bartimaeus]

So, in the light of what you said is a more precise translation, and in what one poster here said that Paul was not alluding to divorce, or a divorced situation, does that mean that members of the congregation may have more than one wife and perhaps a paramour or paramours on the side ?

You may be onto something here but I am a little dense today. Please explain in more detail what you are depicting and your point. This is not a challenge, we may be riding the same horse on the issue and I would like to understand.
Thanks
Bartimaeus

 

[pinoybaptist]

You may be onto something here but I am a little dense today. Please explain in more detail what you are depicting and your point. This is not a challenge, we may be riding the same horse on the issue and I would like to understand.
Thanks
Bartimaeus

Well, MNJacob said that a one-woman man should be the more correct translation for "husband of one wife". Now back in seminary I remembered we discussed this very issue and somebody said that back in Paul's time, the Corinthians normally had more than one wife, but some had only one wife, and that Paul was referring to these who have one wife as those who were qualified for office, which of course means that those in polygamous situations were not disbarred from church, which under our current morals and ethics, they would.

Add to that the comment of another poster that said what was being discussed was not a divorce situation, which would basically be congruent with MNJacob's statement.

So I'm asking, does this mean they are not only in favor of a divorced church officer, but also church members with multiple wives, and maybe lovers on the side as well ?

 

[Outsider]

Hi all,

I think we are all guilty from time to time of taking certain scriptures and leaving off others. The qualifications for a bishop (I take this to be a Pastor also) is:
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; Not a novice, Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without;
How many Pastors fit all of those? Do we know any Pastors that have been divorced? Children not Christians? If God has called a man to do a work, and his wife leaves or his children run off, this does not disqualify him.

Consider this:
Christ is blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; Not a novice, Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without.

A Pastor or any officer in the church must be called to do the work. They must be devoted to that church (Husband of one wife), They must be a light to that church (Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous), they must lead that church (having his children in subjection with all gravity; Not a novice, Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without).

To my knowledge Paul was unmarried and he told them that a Bishop MUST BE these things. Does this mean a single man who devotes his entire life to God is disqualified because he doesn't have a wife or children? Paul, who did not meet the qualifications of an apostle, was an apostle, because God made him one.

Just my thoughts on the subject. God bless.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Being divorced should have no bearing whatsoever on a man being a Deacon.

Or bible teacher, or Elder, or Pastor or any other position.

If they have more than one wife...be it poligamy or an adulterous affair while married to his wife...thats another story.

But divorced? Of course its not a problem, if we are going to go according to the scriptures.


:godisgood:

 

[DrRandyGrace]

In reply to thinkingstuff, I still don't see that he is prohibited from serving even if he is remarried.

 

[DrRandyGrace]

Pinoy, we surely don't bar people from church. We may limit there membership privileges and not allow them to teach or hold office, but surely sinners are welcome in the house of the Lord, aren't they?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In reply to thinkingstuff, I still don't see that he is prohibited from serving even if he is remarried.

Well, I was under the impression that if a person were divorsed then remarried he was commiting adultery along with his partner:

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

I guess if I can extrapolate that if a man's wife commits fornication (adultery) then divorce is permitted. Now fornication I just now had a thought about it. I'm reading a translation rather than the greek so I wonder if in the culture of the day if a man marries and finds that his wife is not a virgin on his wedding he can legally put her away and is allowed to remarry in which case would it be the same for adultery?
Under this I guess you would be right. but any other reason than fornication or adultery it would be adultery to remarry and he could not hold an office. I think more divorses in the church would fall under a catagory other than fornication in which case I don't think they would be permitted to marry.

I know this sounded confusing I was thinking and writing at the same time.

 

[DrRandyGrace]

I find it refreshing when people think as they are typing. That's the way it is supposed to be done. I see your thought process here, but I think you are missing an important point. The qualifications are given for one who is called to be a deacon. The resposibility of the church and the individual is to determine through prayer if this is the person whom God has called to this important place of service in the Body of Christ. As has been pointed out previously, none of us are perfect. We are focusing on one qualification and saying that if there is failure in this area that the person is disqualified while failure in other areas is simply a matter of seeking forgiveness and moving on. I see a grave inequity in this reasoning.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Anecdotal stories are never a means of determining what the Bible teaches, but I learned not to be so dogmatic about this issue in the first church I pastored.

We had a man who was married to his wife for over 30 years. He was a consistent attender, giver and worker in the church. He tried to win people to the Lord. He was always at visitation. But he would never become a deacon.

So one night I visited with him and asked why. He told me that he had been married 2 years and after 1 child, his wife did not want to be a mother or a wife and left him. She stayed in the town and was as promiscuous as the late 30's and early 40's would let her. She divorced him and would remarry 4 times in the intervening years.

When his son was a 3 years old, he met a woman and they married. They never had children. But they raised the boy together. He felt that because he was divorced and remarried he could never be a Deacon. That was his conviction and he always stayed by that conviction.

I always thought it was a loss to our church that he was not in position of leadership. If anyone ever lived up to that standard as the husband of one wife, I have always thought that he did. Through no fault of his own - even by his ex's admission - he was divorced. Even before meeting him, I thought the Biblical command was more against bigamy. I cam away convinced that he was a one woman kind of husband.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I find it refreshing when people think as they are typing. That's the way it is supposed to be done. I see your thought process here, but I think you are missing an important point. The qualifications are given for one who is called to be a deacon. The resposibility of the church and the individual is to determine through prayer if this is the person whom God has called to this important place of service in the Body of Christ. As has been pointed out previously, none of us are perfect. We are focusing on one qualification and saying that if there is failure in this area that the person is disqualified while failure in other areas is simply a matter of seeking forgiveness and moving on. I see a grave inequity in this reasoning.

I see your argument. On the other hand:

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Now this verse indicates a present tense. Or that a person cannot be a deacon in a present condition of not controling his family (how many pastors would be out of a job?). Your argument would have to be based that this was a past condition which has been atoned for not a continuing predicament right? In which case a pastor could not presently be a deacon under these circumstance. I can't see your argument being any other. I've been asked to be a deacon and I've refused because (not due to any hidden sin) but because I feel as though I'm not a good example or above reproach. Ie... I don't tithe exactly 10% but I do tithe and above my tithe I support people and provide services. But this one fact keeps me from the positon (self impossed). Not that it matters here or to the discussion really just a thought.