Dr. Charles Stanley

[Eagle]

So clearly your intentions on this thread was mud slinging. Scripture does not forbid a divorced man from ever being a pastor again, there is no twisting needed.

Where you get mudslinging I don't know. I was using absurdity to point out absurdity - which is the position that apparently everyone else here is taking.

What saith the scripture?

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Must a bishop (pastor) be blameless? If so, what does this mean? Does it mean that if there is a divorce between two people that no one of them can say "it was all her - I did nothing wrong"? Is he blameless to her? Can he really be blameless before the world - unto whom he represents the holy God of all? Can he be blameless before God?

What does 'have a good report of them that are without' mean? Does it mean that the world looking in can now say, "Ha! Your own preacher is divorced - don't act high & mighty to me or try to tell me anything about how I ought to live!" Is this a "good report"?

These are God's standards - not mine. Any preacher worth his salt would step down and not dare besmirch the Lord's name in any way - regardless what anyone else said. A truly humble man would recognize that God does not need ANY man to do God's work so badly that these principles would be trodden on.

Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

As a man, I can completely understand and sympathize with anyone in Dr. Stanley's position. It could be called sad and unfortunate. I have feet of clay as well. Anyone in this position can still be called 'a good man,' a 'right smart theologian,' a 'friend' -- he cannot however be called Pastor. God said so.

It is harmful enough to our work in Christ - even if he had stepped down immediately.

I am sorry to be so long - only trying to effectively make my point.

One last example (not related to Dr. Stanley): If a pastor's 17 year old son impregnated a 16 year old girl out of wedlock - would that disqualify him as a pastor? If so, why? What if he's a really good preacher and everyone likes him? This is a true life example folks. Nothing was done about it - business as usual. Where do we draw the line?

 

[Salty]

Before this thread is closed for being off OP, I invite you do continue the off OP subject on this new thread I have started

And I wish Dr Stanley the best as he recovers, so he may return 100% to his duties of pastor of First Baptist of Atlanta*

Salty

* wait the church is no longer in Atlanta - what a heretic :tongue3:

 

[Tom Bryant]

And of course, the reason he has to sit down while he is preaching is because of his divorce... :BangHead:

 

[Martin]

Where you get mudslinging I don't know. I was using absurdity to point out absurdity - which is the position that apparently everyone else here is taking.

We get mudslinging from the fact that you derailed this thread in order to spread falsehood and gossip.

What saith the scripture?

1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Husband of one wife does not apply here since Dr. Stanley has not remarried. Technically the "husband of one wife" statement forbids polygamy among pastors (etc). It has nothing to do with divorce. Please stop reading your tradition into the Word of God.

"Blameless" refers to their way of life. It does not mean sinlessness. Dr. Stanley has done nothing to cast doubt on his character, Christian life, or his testimony. His wife filed against him. He did not ask for the divorce. She left him.

As a man, I can completely understand and sympathize with anyone in Dr. Stanley's position. It could be called sad and unfortunate. I have feet of clay as well. Anyone in this position can still be called 'a good man,' a 'right smart theologian,' a 'friend' -- he cannot however be called Pastor. God said so.

No, God did not say so. Please stop using your man-made tradition to put words in God's mouth. God has not said that a divorced man could not be a pastor. You said that.

I'm sorry I started this thread. It has been hijacked and I ask a moderator to shut it down asap.

 

[Scarlett O.]

'Heavens to Mergatroid,' no! We don't want to take any mean old biblical stands against such nice ol' preacher fellers! God needs Dr. Stanley! His Word and His church could not go on if he left! I am sure there are many more ways we can twist the purity of the scriptures around just so's we can have us a nice ol' preacher man that we like! Qualifications has nothin' to do with it! What would we do if every time a preacher ran into a disqualifyin' situation - we just up and held him to God's standards! Why, they wouldn't be any left in the pulpit and how would God get His work done then?

I'm not exactly sure why you responded to me like I am the village idiot, but c'est la vie.

And as I have waded through your sarcasm, I cannot find anything that you are implying that others here have said.

Sorry.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I will cut posts unrelated to Dr Stanley's foot problem.

What is wrong with the thinking skills here???

BTw, I have profound neuropathy and standing is difficult. I was a walk all over preacher . . . and for 7 years have sat down on a stool or chair to do all the preaching.

People mention that I am "nicer" and "less intiminating" when sitting.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I will cut posts unrelated to Dr Stanley's foot problem.

What is wrong with the thinking skills here???

BTw, I have profound neuropathy and standing is difficult. I was a walk all over preacher . . . and for 7 years have sat down on a stool or chair to do all the preaching.

People mention that I am "nicer" and "less intiminating" when sitting.

I have found that I tend to teach more when sitting. Maybe it's because it's a more conversational kind of position. But when I need to make a point i stand. Strange the kind of habits we might get into.

I don't sit very often because I like to move around. They can't hit a moving object. :tongue3:

 

[PastorGreg]

Jesus sat to teach. Unfortunately, I don't think Stanley's teaching is much like that of Jesus. He should have retired years ago. I find his anthro-centered, feelings oriented teaching unlistenable.

"If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"

 

[preachinjesus]

How sad to see people wander into a thread just to slander people.

If you have a problem with your brother in Christ you should go and ask him. I believe there is something about that in Scripture. Otherwise go elsewhere.

 

[rbell]

Oh well...if any of you doubted as to the condition of 21st-century Pharisees...I'm afraid they are alive and well.

By the way, I've set up a "castigation calendar." We'll rotate on the preachers we'll talk about. Gossip, rumors, and outright attacks are acceptable...just make sure you "rotate" your attack, so that they can't adjust to your "prayerful concerns." And we're offering a special for this week only: Tenth-hand rumors will be accepted just like first-hand accounts. Sign up today...and

Oh, by the way...you know that pesky rule that says, "perhaps you should be a member of said church before going on the attack with third-hand accounts about their pastor?" Ignore them. Probably some dad-gum liberal that came up with that tripe. Go after all of 'em. If you think they're successful, nail 'em!

Summarizing: Today, nail Charles Stanley. Tomorrow, we'll hit Rick Warren. Monday will be for Billy Graham. Stay tuned for the men of God we'll "cut down to size" later in the week.

And happy Phara-sizing!! Remember: If you ain't tearing down, you ain't phara-sizing.

(by the way...PiJ...well said. Unfortunately, you see, I have the gift of sarcasm; thus, what you say gently, I offend the daylights out of people saying the same thing. )

 

[Martin]

How sad to see people wander into a thread just to slander people.

The really sad thing about it is that the thread was not about Dr. Stanley's marriage (etc), it was about his sitting during sermons. Within seven short posts someone was already busy derailing the thread and spreading false rumors. Sad.

 

[righteousdude2]

Thanks, Dr. Bob,

I will cut posts unrelated to Dr Stanley's foot problem.

What is wrong with the thinking skills here???

BTw, I have profound neuropathy and standing is difficult. I was a walk all over preacher . . . and for 7 years have sat down on a stool or chair to do all the preaching.

People mention that I am "nicer" and "less intiminating" when sitting.

I have extreme peripheral neuropathy in both feet, and because of this, I have to sit on a stool while I share during concerts. I also use the stool while I sing.

My sitting has nothing to do with my past marital problems. It has to do with extreme pain, and I prefer not to take morphine when I preach, sing, and share.

Dr. Bob, I fully understand the pain you are in, and wish you His best as you continue to minister in His name. Thanks for your candid post.

Shalom,

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[Eagle]

I will cut posts unrelated to Dr Stanley's foot problem.

What is wrong with the thinking skills here???

BTw, I have profound neuropathy and standing is difficult. I was a walk all over preacher . . . and for 7 years have sat down on a stool or chair to do all the preaching.

People mention that I am "nicer" and "less intiminating" when sitting.

First of all, Dr. Bob, I concur, I don't get it either! Has everyone on this thread lost their ability to reason?

I absolutely used absurdity - by my own admission and intent - as I have previously stated - to point out the absurdity being posted by others. Now shall I add venomous spewing?

I stated from the get go that it was NOT my intent to hijack the thread. EVERYONE else has contributed to that as much as - no, more than, I have.

I also stated the relevance to the OP being that the concern ought to be spiritual, more than physical.

I also pointed out that Dr. Stanley can still be considered "a good man." It is not the end of the world for a preacher to step down from preaching. I wish no ill will or physical harm to Dr. Stanley - I too hope that his health improves.

For everyone else to act like the fact that a pastor is divorced from his "1" wife is not a bad thing, a big deal, a concern, a difference maker, at least a potential changing of qualifications for the office is - ABSURD. It is ridiculous to treat it as business as usual, and to not at least allow for the interpretation that I have set forth in a prior post in this thread.

The issues I have set forth have only been addressed by one other person in this thread, and that not very well.

To set forth a man as perhaps not being qualified as pastor due to some very questionable situation in his life, in a debate forum, is not slinging mud.

I was going from memory in my initial post, and clearly stated "I think" he was remarried. I was not sure - ergo the "I think" part. That fact has been refuted in this thread, and I have no problem with it.

The following quote is the second part of my very brief initial post:

"This subject has probably been around a thread or two, but what about that? Does it not fly in the face of (IOW) violate the clear criterion which qualify a man for Pastoral service?"

Once again, no mudslinging, a simple question. The responses tho are quite instructive.

"Me thinketh thou dost protest too much."

 

[Alive in Christ]

'Heavens to Mergatroid,' no! We don't want to take any mean old biblical stands against such nice ol' preacher fellers! God needs Dr. Stanley! His Word and His church could not go on if he left! I am sure there are many more ways we can twist the purity of the scriptures around just so's we can have us a nice ol' preacher man that we like! Qualifications has nothin' to do with it! What would we do if every time a preacher ran into a disqualifyin' situation - we just up and held him to God's standards! Why, they wouldn't be any left in the pulpit and how would God get His work done then?

What a shameful, despicable post this is.

 

[Salty]

I was watching Dr. Stanely today and he was standing!

Eagle, I wonder what that means

Salty

 

[rbell]

I was watching Dr. Stanely today and he was standing!

Eagle, I wonder what that means

Salty

He was healed by Rick Warren?

 

[Eagle]

I was watching Dr. Stanely today and he was standing!

Eagle, I wonder what that means

Salty

I reckon it means he is feeling better? What do you think it "means," Salty?

I think I know what your post means. When people don't have substance to their positions, don't take the time to read what others have actually posted, and don't try to actually understand, debate - and learn? They resort to this sort of snide remarks.

As I have previously stated - very instructive.

Remember, the important thing here is, whatever you do - don't be open to changing your position - no matter what the Word says or how it might impact Christ's kingdom.


Hmm...I wonder why I used absurdity to try to make a point in this thread...

 

[saturneptune]

He is also divorced from his first wife and, I think,remarried to another.

This subject has probably been around a thread or two, but what about that? Does it not fly in the face of (IOW) violate the clear criterion which qualify a man for Pastoral service?

Great, just what we need. Another Pharisee wanna be newcomer, who likes to hijack threads and obviously has no understanding of the Scriptural qualifications for pastor.

Back to the thread, I admire Dr. Stanley, his ministry, and hope the Lord gives him years of continued health to serve Him. If he has to sit down, then sit down and preach on.

 

[Eagle]

Great, just what we need. Another Pharisee wanna be newcomer, who likes to hijack threads and obviously has no understanding of the Scriptural qualifications for pastor.

Back to the thread, I admire Dr. Stanley, his ministry, and hope the Lord gives him years of continued health to serve Him. If he has to sit down, then sit down and preach on.

Eagle Join date Jul 2004

saturneptune Join date Jan 2006

...hmmm....

Besides the obvious of your genius, have you even bothered to actually read my posts in this thread or consider them, before you spewed?

 

[Martin]

For everyone else to act like the fact that a pastor is divorced from his "1" wife is not a bad thing, a big deal, a concern, a difference maker, at least a potential changing of qualifications for the office is - ABSURD.

I don't know of anyone in this thread who believes divorce is a good thing. Divorce is something that Christians should avoid. However we live in a fallen, sinful world and people (even Christians) sometimes do fallen, sinful things. Dr. Stanley's wife walked out on him. While I don't know all the ends and outs, I know enough to know that the divorce was not something he wanted.

Now, your assertion that he should no longer be pastor is not Biblical. As I have tried to point out, you have misapplied the phrase "husband of one wife". Paul's present tense statement refers to the practice of polygamy (common in his day). A pastor may only have one wife. This statement does not apply to pastors who are widowed or to pastors who are divorced. Paul is not addressing the issue of divorce. Of course divorce is no small matter. However no place in Scripture are we told that divorce (alone) is enough of a reason for someone to step down as pastor of a church. I don't care if the pastor is Charles Stanley or Pastor Joe from down the street.

To set forth a man as perhaps not being qualified as pastor due to some very questionable situation in his life, in a debate forum, is not slinging mud.

In the context of this thread, which was suppose to be about his foot, it is mudslinging. I'm also curious as to why this thread has not been closed since (a) as author of the op I asked for it to be closed and (b) it is gone totally off topic.

I was going from memory in my initial post, and clearly stated "I think" he was remarried. I was not sure - ergo the "I think" part. That fact has been refuted in this thread, and I have no problem with it.

That's fine, but why even bring it up in this context?