Does the "Husband of Just 1 Wife" prohibit Divorced From Serving IN Leadership?

Yeah, you may be right. God didn't like to choose to use men with broken and sinful pasts as leaders... oh wait...there was Paul the murderer, but no one else...oh and David the adulterer/murderer, but that's all...oh wait... there was... etc etc etc

If you look upon a woman in lust you have committed adultery in your heart...by that standard are any of us really "qualified?"

I think Paul's intent regarding qualifications becomes very clear when you really understand his teaching on grace and biblical righteousness. Just my view on the subject...

 

I think that a divorced/remarried man can be a pastor/preacher/elder/bishop/deacon, etc. Here is why:

Jer. 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


Heb. 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Heb. 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Psa. 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Mic. 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

You see, when God saves someone, He remembers NOTHING they did anymore!! They have a "clean slate" before Him. If this person had been divorced/remarried before this occurred, then guess what, God doesn't see it anymore because He has forgiven, and also forgotten. Now, if God does not hold this against a man, then why should we?? God either completely forgives, or they are still lost, no middle ground.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

This is not a solid argument for divorced men being able to pastor. The fact of God's forgiveness has nothing to do with it.

God FULLY forgave David but there were still long lasting consequences to his sin.

The question has nothing at all to do with forgiveness.

 

Using David as an example of not being a pastor, is a poor choice, IMO. Here's why. When David did what he did, he was under the Law. The Law could not "blot out" sins, but merely pushed them ahead each year. At the end of that year, another sacrifice had to be made, if it was found acceptable unto God, they were pushed ahead again for another year. IOW, God remembered their sins from year to year. So when Jesus came and died and was risen, were we placed into the Grace covenant. David was under the Law, we are under Grace, or better yet, under the Blood of Christ, which blotted out our sins, and God doesn't remember them any more.

2 Cor. 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

When God forgives, God also forgets. If He has forgotten about them, then that will not exclude pastorship. IMO.

 

That has nothing to do with it. David's sins were done away with at the same cross the divorced pastor's sins are done away with.

This "pushing sins forward" business has NOTHING to do with consequences still existing for forgiven sins. Nothing at all.

 

In interesting article. I agree with most of it, but not the part about being above reproach. He is too soft on that. There can be things in the past that carry on forever. To be above reproach there can be nothing that anyone can point a finger at from within the church or from without.
Here is an artcile by John Piper on divorce;

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper

 

The one woman man passage is about character. The whole passage is about a man who can lead and show the congregation how to live godly lives. A divorced man cannot do that as God hates divorce. He cannot teach the people under him to stay together and work through their problems when he did not do that.

About marriage counseling. If a pastor is having marital problems then he needs to step down take care of the problems and then return if he gets them corrected. John Piper is a good example. Last year he took several months off stepping out of the leadership role to fine tune his marriage. He also made it clear that he may not have returned if he did not get things the way they should be.

 

David was not a pastor and was not part of the NT church. There is no evidence that paul was not a one woman man. However neither was he a pastor.

 

I believe that all men are sinners and can be forgiven of their sins if they repent. I believe "above reproach" means that the man is not involved in unrepentant sin.

John Piper's view on divorce is much like the Roman Catholic view. The westminster confession, John Macarthur, and RC Sproul, and myself all disagree with him.

Here is a short article I wrote on that very subject that compares all of their views and delivers a biblical conclusion.

http://osagebluestem.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/divorce-and-remarriage/

 

Oops.

The 1689 LBC drops the divorce-sanctioning pronouncements of your Westminster confession.

 

I too believe we can be forgiven, but I don't believe that forgiveness necessarily constitutes total re-instatement for all service based on scripture depending what the sin was. David is a good example as well as Paul who states unless "he becomes disqualified" which is an absolute statement without remission in service, not salvation however.

I also know what MacArthur teaches and he teaches basically what I have stated. I cannot comment on Sproul as I have not listened to him in this regard.
However I find it interesting that those who hold that all sin is forgivable and try and apply it to everyone being permitted to return to any type of service if they just start to live up to certain standards they will still run background checks and not allow a past pedophiles to work in the nursery or with the youth. I wonder why? Wouldn’t you say that is a little hypocritical if all sin is forgiveable?

 

So, you believe David and Paul would probably have not been qualified to be a deacon or pastor of a church? Revealing.

In biblical times having intercourse with someone constituted marriage, so how about anyone who had intercourse prior to being married? It also says if you look upon a woman in lust you have committed adultery, so is anyone qualified by that standard unless they lie?

The qualifications, in my view, is an attempt to weed out blatantly divisive, polygamous, adulterous individuals which were common in the predominantly Gentile NT churches of that day. It was not meant to be a one size fits all legalistic standard we use to beat down people from following God's calling in their lives. That is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for time and time again.

I believe a church should prayerfully consider each individual, their testimony, and their current character without applying some litmus test that dismisses any person who doesn't quite "measure up."

 

And then SOBER is not what some would insist it is....total abstinence (Tea Totaller) rather staying in clear mind. IE If he wants to imbibe in a glass of wine or a bottle of beer (which is moderation) that should be OK. The point is, dont get drunk.

 

Well not exactly. I know David would not be disqualified. As to Paul I do believe he was qualified. I was simply stating Paul's words about himself if he had become disqualified. He made it clear that the disqualification remained and would not be lifted.

I am not sure what you mean by "In biblical times having intercourse with someone constituted marriage." How are we not in biblical times today? Also your assumption that people who slept together in the OT became married is false. God never stated that. In fact He was very clear if two people had relations outside of marriage the had to get married and could never divorce. So your assumption is incorrect.
What is true is that at times there was no formal marriage ceremony like we have today. In those times the couple did agree to a marriage in principle and their coming together consummated the marriage, but they were married before the consummation by their agreement of marriage.

I see that you have tried to overcome the word of God in 1Tim 3 by miss-applying the passage in Matt 5:28. Even if a person has not literally committed adultery but he is battling with the eye in lust he is not qualified. And if he has committed adultery he is not qualified.

You say this;
"The qualifications, in my view, is an attempt to weed out blatantly divisive, polygamous, adulterous individuals which were common in the predominantly Gentile NT churches of that day."

Give me some evidence that this was going on in the churches of that day. I can tell you up front you will not find any but go ahead and try. The fact is that this is an old trick of satan that he has used to get the church to disregard the word of God and it is passed on from generation to generation to those who do not want to have the same quality of church leadership that the Lord calls for. The reason is that if they have a leadership as obedient to the word of God that is called for it puts way too much light on those in the congregation so they want those who are soiled to lead and to comfort and excuse their sins. The passage in Tim is not dealing selectively with polygamy. The passage is dealing with the character of the man. A godly man does not have eyes for any woman except his wife. If not married he does not have eyes for every skirt that passes. Nor does a godly man violate the scripture in marriage, but clings to what it teaches;
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.
So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

So if a person has a divorce after they are saved and marry again they are an adulterer and not fit for the calling of pastor or deacon. Or if they marry a woman who has been married before the same applies.

Forgiveness is not the issue. Qualifications is. Just like no woman can be a Pastor. She is forgiven, but not qualified and a man can become disqualified.

So I too believe a church should prayerfully consider each individual, but only if they are qualified by scripture. I would never consider a woman for pastor because of scripture and I would never consider a man who has had a divorce or married to a woman who has had a divorce as both are disqualified. One by gender and one by his actions.
By the way I fall into this category and can never be a deacon or pastor. I am divorced. I have been asked to be considered to be a deacon and I have turned it down because of scripture. Just because a church has disregard for the word of God does not mean we all have to follow in their sinful ways.

 

What has been done away with in the past should be left there. Where does the pastor stand on these issues now? That is what should be given careful consideration.

 

We may just need to agree to disagree. Personally I believe what this article says on the matter:

 

I don't believe in agreeing that we disagree as there is no virtue in disagreement.
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
By the way the article is wrong as it changes scripture to make its point.

 

And a serious answer, Many are called but few are chosen. It means there is no agreement.