EVANGELIST QUALIFICATIONS

[Dave]

"David sinned and his family paid"

This to me illustrates a point that is often missed about sin and the consequences of it. David was forgiven by God for his sin, however the consquences of that sin still played out in this world. We are saved from condemnation for sin, but not necessarily the temporal consequences of our actions.

To relate to the topic, if we apply this to divorce, we would say that the sin of divorce is forgiven in Christ. However, the consequences of divorce are what are experienced throughout life. There are consequences to children, to former spouses, to finances and to the jobs that we can hold.

I think some good points have been raised here about the meaning of the passage in Paul's letter to Timothy, maybe too much is read into this specific text, but God clearly indicates in other places that He hates divorce and that the law only allowed it for the hardness of men's hearts. It is not inconceivable to me that the text could infer divorce on this basis.

As a practical matter, I have always wondered how a pastor who is divorced could possibly be effective in counseling people who's marriages are in trouble. This is something that I would expect a pastor to be able to do, but I see that his ability to effectively do so would be compromised by being divorced. This to me, is a consequence of the sin. Nothing to do with forgiveness.

 

[rbell]

Originally posted by Shiloh:
I guess I don't understand why this is such a hot button for many organizations and churches. Yet these same people absolutely fall all over former drug users, devil worshippers, etc., because they have such a powerful testimony.
-------------------------------------------------
The problem with this is......you are right. That's one reason the "church" is weak today. Dr. Harold Sightler said one time that he believed if God called a man to preach then God will keep that man. We are quick to "use" a person that has been involved in gross sin. Is that right? I don't think so. I don't think that's taught in Scripture. Noah sinned, and there were three chapters before and only three verses about him after that. David sinned and his family paid. The problem with us is that we condone this junk because we are or have been involved in it. When you work in a bank and they teach you how to identify counterfeit money they tell you to study the real stuff.

My response:

Amazing Grace.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by npetreley:


But I guess my problem with this chasm is the fact that, in many cases (not all, but many) there is no way to repent of being divorced in such a way that you are formerly divorced.

You can repent of being a murderer and then you become a former murderer even though your victim is still dead. But if it is impossible to reconcile a marriage, then there is no way to become a former divorced person.

IMO, this is what makes it the unforgivable sin in the eyes of many.

The problem I see there is that this is premised on the notion that a) divorce is always a sin for both parties and b) that it is a perpetual sin... unlike say your example of murder.

You make the point that you can't undo divorce. But you can't undo any sin... especially something like murder. You can't undo being a poor parent. You can't undo the fact that you used to have a bad reputation.

But if there is no way to reconcile the marriage, they have no way to become a formerly divorced person. Nobody will consider them former divorcees, no matter how they live their lives from that point out.

If you can be a former murderer because it is repented of and in your past then by the exact same means you can become a former divorcer. Repenting of murder doesn't bring the victim back to life. Repenting of bad parenting doesn't solve the problems of a now grown child.

Consistency requires that an interpretation be in accord with scripture and itself.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Shiloh:
I guess I don't understand why this is such a hot button for many organizations and churches. Yet these same people absolutely fall all over former drug users, devil worshippers, etc., because they have such a powerful testimony.
-------------------------------------------------
The problem with this is......you are right. That's one reason the "church" is weak today. Dr. Harold Sightler said one time that he believed if God called a man to preach then God will keep that man.

Have you ever been out of compliance with any of the scriptural qualifications?

We are quick to "use" a person that has been involved in gross sin.

Who are you to divide what is "gross sin" and what is not when the list of qualifications by no means does so?

The problem with us is that we condone this junk because we are or have been involved in it.

So you have perfectly met all of those requirements for your whole life? You have never had another girlfriend or romantic interest? You have never so much as been impatient? You have always been sober (level headed)? Always vigilant and well behaved?

When you work in a bank and they teach you how to identify counterfeit money they tell you to study the real stuff.

When you study scripture and let it say what it says, you stop trying to add your own biases to it.

 

[saturneptune]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Dave:

To relate to the topic, if we apply this to divorce, we would say that the sin of divorce is forgiven in Christ. However, the consequences of divorce are what are experienced throughout life. There are consequences to children, to former spouses, to finances and to the jobs that we can hold.

The text doesn't say divorce. Two inconsistencies:

1) None of the effects of violating those qualifications will be anulled by repentance. The consequences of murder, brawling, former bad behavior, poor parenting, drunkeness, etc....

2) A romance with someone before your wife cannot be undone. A sexual relationship with a woman besides your wife cannot be undone... nor any other variation of not being a "one woman man". So if you are going to disqualify divorcees though the text doesn't mention divorce... then at least be consistent and disqualify anyone else who hasn't always been a "one woman man".

I think some good points have been raised here about the meaning of the passage in Paul's letter to Timothy, maybe too much is read into this specific text, but God clearly indicates in other places that He hates divorce and that the law only allowed it for the hardness of men's hearts.

God doesn't hate murder, drunkeness, fornication, etc? If you want to be strict that is your prerogative... but consistency is needed to be right.

It is not inconceivable to me that the text could infer divorce on this basis.

Were any of the other qualifications ambiguous? Broad? Yes. Ambiguous? No.

Not only does it not mean "divorce"... it isn't so limited either. Being a "one woman man" is much more than not divorcing... it involves many actions and attitudes that are much more difficult to live with on a daily basis.

As a practical matter, I have always wondered how a pastor who is divorced could possibly be effective in counseling people who's marriages are in trouble.

How could any former sinner effectively counsel another sinner?

This is something that I would expect a pastor to be able to do, but I see that his ability to effectively do so would be compromised by being divorced.

Permanently? I don't think so. Are you saying that divorcees can never repent and learn from their mistakes and then have very godly marriages?

With many sins, the claim might be made that one who has overcome them is in a much better position to counsel those being tempted/confronted.

This to me, is a consequence of the sin.

No more so than the consequences of pretty much any other sin... that is assuming that the divorced party was not scripturally justified meaning that it isn't sin at all for them.

Funny thing there. The Bible gives two exceptions for divorce and there are those who would say these "non-sins" disqualify someone while simultaneously arguing that other real sins under the qualification list can be repented of and leave the man qualified. Very inconsistent reasoning.

Nothing to do with forgiveness.

Every bit as much as being forgiven for any sin covered under the other qualifications... which btw appears to cover just about every sin we could imagine.

 

[thjplgvp]

As I read these posts I see several truths that lead to extreme practices I would remind each of us that there is difference between embracing a convert into the family of God as a former sinner (whether they have come from a horrible life or a nominal life) and bringing one into some sort of ministry based on their supposed value as a testimony for God, prior to seeing them live a consistent life free of controversy. Peter says to add to your faith virtue (moral excellence) then add knowledge in another word the life you live must be the magnifier of the knowledge you posses.

Secondly the word “one”, as found in 1 Tim 3:2; 3:12 and Titus 1:6, has reference to first in time and place. This would seem to indicate that the man is to be married to his first wife. I realize this position can be refuted and debated (it already is) but when you couple this with divorce it makes much more sense to understand the criteria for pastor and deacon is that they must be above reproach. For this reason alone it would warrant one marriage for all time.

The believer is not barred from any other ministry in the body except the position of overseer how does one counsel family relations and divorce when one has been divorced? In the same line how would a woman defend the leadership of the man in the home and church as the pastoress of the church (please this is not a new thread lead in)? I am simply saying that the position as established by God must be filled by those who are above reproach.

The pastor must be blameless because of his position not because he is either forgiven or un-forgiven of his past.

Also the stand of many tell me that they have never seen a believer struggle to keep the marriage alive while Satan has gotten a hold of the spouse, be they saved or unsaved, and wreaked havoc in the marriage.

To cast out that man or women as somehow unclean when they’re whole world is wrapped up in their local church is a preposterous idea. It lacks Christian love, compassion and violates the principle of bear ye one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ (namely to love they neighbor).

 

[Shiloh]

To cast out that man or women as somehow unclean
----------------------------------------------
No one said "unclean" the term is unqualified.

 

[thjplgvp]

Scott,

While I was typing you were posting.

"2) A romance with someone before your wife cannot be undone. A sexual relationship with a woman besides your wife cannot be undone... nor any other variation of not being a "one woman man". So if you are going to disqualify divorcees though the text doesn't mention divorce... then at least be consistent and disqualify anyone else who hasn't always been a "one woman man"."

First of all intercourse or romance do not equal marriage this is a myth that has been fostered way to long. Marriage is a legal binding document attested to by witnesses.


"but God clearly indicates in other places that He hates divorce and that the law only allowed it for the hardness of men's hearts."

The Law did not allow divorce it governed divorce Deut 24:1-4. The Jews had begun to practice the social values of the Egyptians in particular therefore God laid down rules to govern how the people would do handle divorce. Historical study on the topic shows that they were making a mockery of marriage.

When one understands the process of divorce he truly understand why Jesus said for the hardness of your hearts and why God says he hates divorce. The process was designed by God to reconcile the marriage and those who refused showed themselves to be very hard hearted indeed.


"No more so than the consequences of pretty much any other sin... that is assuming that the divorced party was not scripturally justified meaning that it isn't sin at all for them.

Funny thing there. The Bible gives two exceptions for divorce and there are those who would say these "non-sins" disqualify someone while simultaneously arguing that other real sins under the qualification list can be repented of and leave the man qualified. Very inconsistent reasoning."

You miss the point my friend it is not about forgiveness it is about position. How many convicted bank robber do you see as presidents of banks? How many drop outs do you see running schools? By your reasoning (I am not being facetious here) man should be allowed into heaven on his own merits because repentance and forgiveness have been attained. We know that God required particular qualifications for the position of Lamb of God, and only he could fulfill his particulars. Consequently ‘one wife’ means first and if it is not first then they are disqualified from the position but not the ministry.

 mia mee'-ah
irregular feminine of 1520; one or first:--a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

The rendering is pretty clear though I found two who disagreed and three who conveniently bypassed the topic proving it has been a difficult topic for a long time.

Clark, Burkitt, Jameson-Fausset-Brown, People New Testament Commentary and Wesley all hold that divorce disqualifies one from the office of overseer. Virtually all commentaries hold that remarriage because of death is fine. My personal belief is that as long as the husband is married to his first wife (she may have been divorced) he is free to be the overseer of the church.

 

[thjplgvp]

Shilo, 'cast out as unclean' was a matter of speach how about "treat as less spiritual". Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by thjplgvp:


Secondly the word “one”, as found in 1 Tim 3:2; 3:12 and Titus 1:6, has reference to first in time and place. This would seem to indicate that the man is to be married to his first wife. I realize this position can be refuted and debated (it already is) but when you couple this with divorce it makes much more sense to understand the criteria for pastor and deacon is that they must be above reproach. For this reason alone it would warrant one marriage for all time.

This appears to be a very well made case against your position here. Especially since the verb is in the present infinitive which would not seem to mean "first".

http://www.withchrist.org/onewomanman.htm

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by thjplgvp:
Scott,

While I was typing you were posting.

"2) A romance with someone before your wife cannot be undone. A sexual relationship with a woman besides your wife cannot be undone... nor any other variation of not being a "one woman man". So if you are going to disqualify divorcees though the text doesn't mention divorce... then at least be consistent and disqualify anyone else who hasn't always been a "one woman man"."

First of all intercourse or romance do not equal marriage this is a myth that has been fostered way to long.

I never said nor implied that it did. It does however directly relate to whether a man has been a "one woman man".

"but God clearly indicates in other places that He hates divorce and that the law only allowed it for the hardness of men's hearts."

The Law did not allow divorce it governed divorce Deut 24:1-4.

And the one meaningful thing to be made of it is that "divorce" literally ends a marriage. Therefore the idea that a man cannot be a one woman man after divorce is no more valid than the notion he cannot be a one woman man after having kissed his high school sweetheart... much less anything more.

The Jews had begun to practice the social values of the Egyptians in particular therefore God laid down rules to govern how the people would do handle divorce. Historical study on the topic shows that they were making a mockery of marriage.

When one understands the process of divorce he truly understand why Jesus said for the hardness of your hearts and why God says he hates divorce. The process was designed by God to reconcile the marriage and those who refused showed themselves to be very hard hearted indeed.

And the relevant text still doesn't limit "one woman man" to divorce... or imply that it means divorce.

"No more so than the consequences of pretty much any other sin... that is assuming that the divorced party was not scripturally justified meaning that it isn't sin at all for them.

Funny thing there. The Bible gives two exceptions for divorce and there are those who would say these "non-sins" disqualify someone while simultaneously arguing that other real sins under the qualification list can be repented of and leave the man qualified. Very inconsistent reasoning."

You miss the point my friend it is not about forgiveness it is about position.

You are right it is not about forgiveness from my position. It is about the qualfications, accepting them as given, and being consistent in their application.

It is very much about "forgiveness" for those who would make divorce alone the only sin that one cannot adequately have forgiven to allow them to meet these qualifications... ignoring all of the other qualifications that likewise have permanent consequences.

How many convicted bank robber do you see as presidents of banks?

Automatic assumption of future guilt?... I thought you said it wasn't a matter of forgiveness?

How many drop outs do you see running schools?

A drop out can repent, complete school, and become a principal.

By your reasoning (I am not being facetious here) man should be allowed into heaven on his own merits because repentance and forgiveness have been attained.

That doesn't follow my reasoning whatsoever. In fact, by your reasoning a person who has committed a sin that the NT specifically says disqualifies them from going to heaven could never be overcome. One could be forgiven but that still wouldn't discount the consequences of the sin therefore they cannot "inherit" with Christ.

We know that God required particular qualifications for the position of Lamb of God, and only he could fulfill his particulars.

I am not saying He hasn't laid out qualifications for pastors. I am saying that those qualifications do not specify "never being divorced".

Consequently ‘one wife’ means first and if it is not first then they are disqualified from the position but not the ministry.

You have not proven it means "first" and you certainly cannot hodge podge together "first" and "wife". If you want to claim "first" as most literal then be at least consistent enough to say "first woman"... and mean it.

 mia mee'-ah
irregular feminine of 1520; one or first:--a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

The rendering is pretty clear though I found two who disagreed and three who conveniently bypassed the topic proving it has been a difficult topic for a long time.

Important to note that isn't a verb and thus cannot specify of itself the tense. See the cite I linked to for more.

Clark, Burkitt, Jameson-Fausset-Brown, People New Testament Commentary and Wesley all hold that divorce disqualifies one from the office of overseer.

Robertson, who was probably the greater Greek scholar of that group, did not.

Virtually all commentaries hold that remarriage because of death is fine.

Commentaries? I respect them... but like tradition, scripture comes first.

My personal belief is that as long as the husband is married to his first wife (she may have been divorced) he is free to be the overseer of the church.

I agree.

BTW, I mean no harm to you and hope you aren't getting aggravated as many here are apt to do. It is helpful to me to bang these ideas together... it either affirms what I believe or else brings it into question. You have certainly given more substance to back yourself than other folks here.

 

[thjplgvp]

Scott, I read the posted article and also checked with a couple of other sites for their understanding on mias gunaikos andra. If I understood correctly (?) there is still no consistent consensus though the gentleman in the referenced article did bring up one thought I had never considered which will probably lay in the back of my mind for quite awhile. “The structure of the Koini Greek language would have allowed Paul to be very specific”.

But until I have clear proof I will hold to my current position and I will allow for the possibility it could be wrong.

My final thought is that if I am to err I want it to be on conservative side.

 

[Dave]

Scott,

I did not address murder, lying, etc. because they are not the topic of the thread. Of course they have consequences as all other sins. There are avenues closed to those who have done some of these as well.

The idea of the overseer being above reproach would require something a cut above other Christians, in my understanding. Else, why specifically delineate it? An argument can and should be made that all followers of Christ should meet these requirements, ideally, if the idea is only applied to a what has been attained since salvation.

I agree that a romance prior to marriage or sexual relations prior to marriage cannot be undone. Either your understanding is that even a prior romance disqualifies a man from the pastorate or it is that if you've repented and fixed your life (obviously by the grace of God) then you can serve. These seem to me to be 2 extreme positions on the text.

I would agree that a divorced man could counsel a married couple in their marital troubles only after remarriage and a consistent working at the marriage. That shows the acknowledgement of the wrongs of the first and a continuing with the second.

The standard given is to avoid any impression of impropriety. The man should be blameless so as not to bring dishonor to the church of Christ. Dishonor to the church would come from those outside who perceive an inconsistency in its teaching and those that are appointed as leaders.

As far as the inference comment goes - comparing scripture against scripture gives a better understanding than just looking at one isolated passage. What I was alluding to was, that this passage speaks of the marital relationship as do other passages. Look at all the passages and see if a divorced man is above reproach for the purposes of defining the church leadership.

 

[Rev. Lowery]

Is there any man above reproach or blameless these days? Name one and I bet if he where honest he would tell you he doesnt meet the standards in 1 Tim 3......

Thats all I have to say.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Dave:
Scott,

I did not address murder, lying, etc. because they are not the topic of the thread. Of course they have consequences as all other sins. There are avenues closed to those who have done some of these as well.

They have a direct bearing on this thread since those things fall under the pastoral qualifications given in the same context as "one woman man".

The idea of the overseer being above reproach would require something a cut above other Christians, in my understanding.

I would absolutely agree. I am not endorsing the idea of a low standard for pastors... just one that is consistent with the text and with itself.

An argument can and should be made that all followers of Christ should meet these requirements, ideally, if the idea is only applied to a what has been attained since salvation.

No question about it.

I agree that a romance prior to marriage or sexual relations prior to marriage cannot be undone. Either your understanding is that even a prior romance disqualifies a man from the pastorate or it is that if you've repented and fixed your life (obviously by the grace of God) then you can serve. These seem to me to be 2 extreme positions on the text.

Extreme? No. Consistent? Yes. The extreme position would be the one that inserts the words "no divorce" in a listing of character traits when the text doesn't do so.

I would agree that a divorced man could counsel a married couple in their marital troubles only after remarriage and a consistent working at the marriage. That shows the acknowledgement of the wrongs of the first and a continuing with the second.

Absolutely. "not a novice".

The standard given is to avoid any impression of impropriety.

I agree. I'm not even arguing that a past divorce or a man's past sexual behavior or attitudes toward women should have no bearing. It should.

A divorced man with kids would have a much more difficult time of "ruling his own house well"... and it would be virtually impossible if custody was split.

The man should be blameless so as not to bring dishonor to the church of Christ.

Amen. I believe that it is possible for a divorced man to do that having demonstrated repentance and having consistently demonstrated the biblically correct attitudes toward women, sex, and marriage.

Dishonor to the church would come from those outside who perceive an inconsistency in its teaching and those that are appointed as leaders.

Again agreed. But divorce is no more an automatic on that than is public transgressions against the other qualifications.

In fact, I am not sure who on the outside would perceive a man badly who was known to have done everything in his power to hold a marriage together in spite of his wife's numerous transgressions and refusal to continue the marriage.

As far as the inference comment goes - comparing scripture against scripture gives a better understanding than just looking at one isolated passage. What I was alluding to was, that this passage speaks of the marital relationship as do other passages.

More than that it is speaking of a man's attitude toward women, sex, and marriage. So instead of just concentrating on the "divorce" packages, you must look at the adultery and fornication passages as well. And since it is in context with several other qualifiers, they should be looked up too.

What you still end up with is either you are consistent with all of the implications of "one woman man" over a man's whole life as well as the other things over a man's whole life... or you consider them in respect to the man's proven current character.

Look at all the passages and see if a divorced man is above reproach for the purposes of defining the church leadership.

Is a liar? A brawler? Etc?

The text doesn't say "divorce" yet you all want to read that into it. But not only that, you want to read it into it as the only permanent disqualifier. All of the others presumably can be forgiven and forgotten... but not divorce. Somehow that is a perpetual sin whereas the others are not in spite of the fact that they undeniably have serious and lasting consequences as well.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Rev. Lowery:
Is there any man above reproach or blameless these days? Name one and I bet if he where honest he would tell you he doesnt meet the standards in 1 Tim 3......

Thats all I have to say.

These days? Why do you presume that man has ever been so good?

If you apply those qualifications "to the letter of the law" and for a man's whole wife, Jesus is probably the only man who ever did qualify to pastor.

 

[Scott J]

Real life example. A man had a wife and young child. He made mistakes. Spent too much time away from home playing softball. Didn't romance his wife. But he was a good provider and did nothing abusive or unfaithful.

His wife begins an affair with another guy. She leaves the first guy and has a child with the new guy. The old guy gets pastoral counseling and repents. In spite of her infidelity, he takes responsibility for his part and does everything conceivable to win her back.

She has problems with the new guy (some relating to money) and comes back. She refuses his emotional and physical advances. He keeps trying. He not only takes care of their own son but begins to give most of the care to both children even while working a full time job.

He does everything he can think of to melt her heart. Gifts. Service. Kindness. Time. Devotion. She will not respond to anything in fact it is quite likely she's still sleeping with the other guy at this point.

Finally, she leaves for the other guy again abandoning him with their son. He even continues to keep the illegitimate child of his wife's lover fairly often in the hopes that she'll still come back. Eventually, she divorced him over his continuing objections.

He did this consciously. He didn't always want to. He didn't do it because he was crazy. He did it because he believed that God wanted him to forgive her and do all he could to prevent a divorce.

Hypothetical- Let's say he was early 20's then and by 35 he has been married for 7 years with a model biblical marriage. He has maintained sole custody of a son that the mother completely lost interest in. The son was raised right and is a great Christian young man.

What in the text would disqualify this man? Please cite the exact words.

FTR- The part before the hypothetical is true. I lost contact with him and don't know what became of him after the divorce.

 

[thjplgvp]

Scott,

My first question is, did their church exercise church discipline toward his wife? If they exercised their authority correctly (not all churches do) then the solution is fairly easy to follow scripurally.

Matthew 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

If church discipline is exercised and the wife is declared a heathen and since she applied for the divorce then according to 1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

He is free to marry but only in the Lord but he is not free to pastor or be a Deacon (per my understanding) of 1Timothy and Titus.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by thjplgvp:
Scott,

My first question is, did their church exercise church discipline toward his wife? If they exercised their authority correctly (not all churches do) then the solution is fairly easy to follow scripurally.

Presumably to the best of their ability. She stopped coming around church and avoided the pastor or anyone else from church.

If church discipline is exercised and the wife is declared a heathen and since she applied for the divorce then according to 1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Agreed. I think the man did all he could and she sufficiently proved herself to be unsaved. Her testimony was questionable before all this started.

He is free to marry but only in the Lord but he is not free to pastor or be a Deacon (per my understanding) of 1Timothy and Titus.

Cite the words. He demonstrated more of the traits in that list to a greater extreme than most men who take a pastorate without divorce. He demonstrated more than most ever will that he has a "one woman man" heart.

He is a one woman man. He did everything he possibly could. He didn't give up until she divorced him and married the other guy. By your own acknowledgement, he didn't sin... so by what specific citation in those qualifications do you declare him unqualified?