Pastor with a divorced wife?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:


Matthew could have included it as an parenthesis or statement or whatever. It definitely is in the inerrant Word. It might not have been uttered by Christ though.

This does not make sense at all. You seem to be saying that Matthew introduced words that Christ did not say, which then became incorporated into the text, but none the less they are still part of the inerrant Word.

If Christ said it then it belongs in the inerrant Word and you cannot dismiss it. If He did not then it is not part of the inerrant Word and our Bibles are in error.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Granted, we all continually sin and many sins are in the past. But, that is true for everyone, where do we draw the line?

Example: Charles Stanley is not qualified anymore, yet he continues to Pastor. His divorce is of course, in his past. Am I being vague or unclear in any way or does this make sense?

As difficult as Dr. Stanley's case is/was, I would lean toward agreeing with you. He is divorced himself, not just his wife. Further, this divorce occurred while he was pastor, in the present. Also, this isn't the first family problems he has had. He and his son split his church and his home life has been in question for years.

He may not be guilty of any sin. Georgia is a no fault divorce state so he could not have stopped his wife. However, the outward indications are that there were some private problems that he failed to deal with.

...none the less, this all occurred while he was pastor and involved his own marriage.

 

[Daniel David]

Okay, I understand what I am saying but apparently cannot communicate any better than local fast-food drive-thru cashier .

Here is another example:

Matthew 24:15 -
"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand)."

That last portion (whoever reads, let him understand), is thought by just about everyone to be an insert of Matthew. Jesus did not utter those words. Now, the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to write those words so they are perfectly inerrant, infallible, and inspired words. But it wasn't part of Jesus' message. The insert is found right in the middle of Jesus' discourse on eschatology. It is the same idea as the exception clause. Does this example help make my statements clear?

 

[Ellie777]

Why are you discussing the law when the Spirit of the Word is saying that God hates divorce.. the man who chooses to be involved with a divorced woman has chosen..... only God can know what the true cause of the divorce is...sometimes the innocent person is really the one who started the trouble that led to the divorce...It goes on and on....
Churches should take a stand against divorce and the man who wants to be a pastor anyway will find out what his rewards are when he gets to heaven...
Sorry i am not as learned and smart as you but i am able to discern the things of the Spirit v. our justification of the flesh...

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Okay, I understand what I am saying but apparently cannot communicate any better than local fast-food drive-thru cashier .

Here is another example:

Matthew 24:15 -
"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand)."

That last portion (whoever reads, let him understand), is thought by just about everyone to be an insert of Matthew. Jesus did not utter those words. Now, the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to write those words so they are perfectly inerrant, infallible, and inspired words. But it wasn't part of Jesus' message. The insert is found right in the middle of Jesus' discourse on eschatology. It is the same idea as the exception clause. Does this example help make my statements clear?

Yes. Except this addition does not effect the interpretation nor application of the passage. The other quite clearly does. In this instance, he may have simply been exhorting the reader to pay heed. In the other, he would have changed the meaning.

 

[Daniel David]

Not neccessarily.

Porneia - fornication - sexual immorality could have meant several things within the context of Matthew 5:27-32:

Discovered sex during the betrothal period with another person, or some type of sexual union that Lev. 18-19 forbids.

If the first is true, then Matthew included it because that is exactly what happened to Joseph and Matthew is the only one who records it. In other words, Matthew recorded the event about Joseph in a favorable way and then condemned the guy without warning.

If the second is true, then Matthew included it to show that God had forbid the union and it needed to be "undone".

Either way, there is still no justification for the divorce and remarriage interpretation. It just isn't there.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
Either way, there is still no justification for the divorce and remarriage interpretation. It just isn't there.

While we can agree to disagree on this, this statement is clearly overstated. It is there and the majority of the best biblical scholars of recent generations have defended it.

I don't think the church is condoning divorce, to answer Ellie (I believe). We have to realize several things: 1) Divorce was permitted as was remarriage. The person committed this was not in "lesser standing" with teh covenant community in all cases. 2) God commanded divorce in some cases. 3) Christ gave what can reasonably and likely be interpreted as an exception. 4) Paul gave what can reasonably and likely be interpreted as an exception. None of this encourages or condones divorce. It does address what we do when someone is divorced.

PTW, I realize you have very strongly held convictions on this and I do not minimize that. You do seem to have read a lot and find it unconvincing. I have read all that you have read plus a few others and I (along with the majority) find your side unconvincing. Whatever our differences, do not misunderstand me. I think divorce is always the result of sin and in all but very few cases should never be encouraged. God intended marriage to be one man and one woman for one lifetime and that is what we should preach, teach, and model.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Ellie777:
Why are you discussing the law when the Spirit of the Word is saying that God hates divorce

OK. God also hates a lying tongue and a proud look...as well as every other sin, no matter how great or small man may think them to be. By your spirit of the Word rule, no one is qualified to pastor.

the man who chooses to be involved with a divorced woman has chosen

As has the liar, the adulterer who does not marry the woman, the fornicator, the thief, the back biter, the proud, the coveter, the murderer, the strife causers, the disobedient child, the whisperers, the spiteful, the boasters, the inventors of evil things, those without natural affection, the implacable, etc.

only God can know what the true cause of the divorce is...sometimes the innocent person is really the one who started the trouble that led to the divorce...It goes on and on....

For the sins I listed, we know exactly who is at fault. Yet, ostensibly you would allow someone with these sins in their past to be a pastor while forbidding someone who many if not most would argue is not even guilty of adultery.

Churches should take a stand against divorce

I agree but this has nothing to do with the qualifications of a pastor.

Sorry i am not as learned and smart as you but i am able to discern the things of the Spirit v. our justification of the flesh...

...or perhaps you are superimposing your personal biases onto scripture and adding your pre-conceived ideas to what the Bible says.

I am sorry that this post is confrontational but what you seem to be implying is that your feelings (ability to discern things which you haven't proven by scripture) on this matter are the final authority rather than what the Bible actually says.

The methods of Preach the Word show spiritual discernment. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions but he is digging into what God has said and trying to apply it to this situation. The admission that you are unlearned on what the Bible says precludes you from claiming spiritual discernment. You have elevated your feelings to the level of scripture and cite the Holy Spirit as the authority. Maybe the flesh plays a bigger role in your beliefs than what you thought.

 

[Ellie777]

Scott J.

As has the liar, the adulterer who does not marry the woman, the fornicator, the thief, the back biter, the proud, the coveter, the murderer, the strife causers, the disobedient child, the whisperers, the spiteful, the boasters, the inventors of evil things, those without natural affection, the implacable, etc

When a man walks daily in these sins as a way of life we are not even to sup with him much less sit under his teaching... these sins should have been repented of and hated by the man as much as God hates them...

I am sorry that this post is confrontational but what you seem to be implying is that your feelings (ability to discern things which you haven't proven by scripture) on this matter are the final authority rather than what the Bible actually says [/

The last 6 pages here have given all the necessary verses and explanations.. it is time for the person (whoever he is to make a stand otherwise he will find himself in James 1:6 ..
'The bible is a Spiritual book'..Without the Spirit leading when we read it becomes the law and legalism... the Spirit leads to life but the law leads to death...

Sorry i am not as learned and smart as you but i am able to discern the things of the Spirit v. our justification of the flesh

I didn't mean that i am not as smart and learned as you personally but i meant most of the other people here who are some pastors and teachers and spend much more time than i do in books..But i do know the bible I can give scriptures but i am one who speaks from my heart..and not able to debate the doctrines the same way they do.. but i am God's child and He does give the least of us gifts and wisdom to enter into discussion with the best of them...I am a thinker and have done much study and seeking about all these things we discuss here.. some because of personal experience
"God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble"

By the way the person or persons in the examples can go ahead and pastor but they will never feel comfortable in the Baptist Church... of course they can always find another denomination that will be glad to have them...have him as a preacher...

For the sins I listed, we know exactly who is at fault. Yet, ostensibly you would allow someone with these sins in their past to be a pastor while forbidding someone who many if not most would argue is not even guilty of adult

I feel the same way and i don't understand but the bible says that God's ways are not our ways... It is hard... it is a kind of death to our own selves...
I know that people who play drums and rock music before they are saved go through the same battles in wanting to bring it into the church... and they argue and seek answers but are never satisfied because they have a "gift".. they finally find churches that use the music to bring yourg people into the family of God...
Jesus asked Peter to follow him he could have told Peter that he would be the first Pope and preach famous sermons and write some of the bible....Instead he told Peter that if he followed him he would suffer terrible things.. Thats a poor salespitch (R.D.)

As i was writing this my daughter called and i read your message to me and i looked up your profile... it says you don't have a church now... if you are in the springfield Mi. area ... she and her husband have a friend at the 2 baptist church of Springfield... if you want his name .. if you live in the area i will give you his email... he went to the baptist college there with my son-in-law..

 

[John3v36]

Dr. Bob Griffin said
(Biblical reasons for allowing divorce are:
~Sexual Sin, Matthew
~Abandonment, I Corinthians)

Matthew 19:9 And 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.

Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Two thing you have to be consider:
(1)These are parallel passages. One says you can put away your wife for fornication; the other makes no mention of it. Why is that? They are both teaching on the same topic. The Matthew passage was written to the Jews who would have an understanding from the law that fornication carried a death sentence. The gentiles to whom Mark wrote would not have had the same understanding. So in Matthew you are still saying the only good reason for a divorce would be if she died. In which case there really is not a divorce as is clearly taught in Rom. 7.

(2)"whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." A Man who marries a woman who is divorced is committing adultery and is not qualified to be a pastor.

 

[Baptist Believer]

APOLOGY TO MODERATOR: Sorry about the length. I tried to avoid unnecessary quoting and dealt with the issue as briefly as I could.

Originally posted by John3v36:

Matthew 19:9 And 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.

Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

(1)These are parallel passages. One says you can put away your wife for fornication; the other makes no mention of it. Why is that? They are both teaching on the same topic. The Matthew passage was written to the Jews who would have an understanding from the law that fornication carried a death sentence. The gentiles to whom Mark wrote would not have had the same understanding. So in Matthew you are still saying the only good reason for a divorce would be if she died. In which case there really is not a divorce as is clearly taught in Rom. 7.

Let's take a deep breath and look at your argument very carefully:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say that Jesus is speaking to Jews who know that the penalty for sexual sin is death (even if it wasn't actually always carried out) and that is the reason Matthew includes the statement. I don't understand the point you are making by contrasting it with the Mark passage. As for the statement that the only reason for divorce is if the spouse dies is unusual to say the least. If the spouse dies, divorce is irrelevant. (Or is that the point? Do you believe Jesus is using a humorous impossibility?)

Given that is true and that this scripture passage in Matthew is authoritative, then there are two outcomes for Jewish believers who obey Jesus' teaching on this subject:

1) If the spouse in caught in sexual sin, they are executed and the surviving spouse is widowed, not divorced. They are free to remarry.

2.) If the spouse in caught in sexual sin, they are not executed but the innocent spouse is allowed to divorce the offending spouse because the spirit of the Law is in effect even though the sentence wasn't carried out.

Therefore, in cases of adultery, at least the people who follow the teachings of Jesus are allowed to divorce their spouses for sexual sin.

But then you may respond, "The marriage isn't over in the second case because the spouse is still alive!" and point to Romans 7. Romans 7 is not talking about divorce, but instead is an illustration of our new life in Christ. We are not longer married to the Law because we have died to the Law (Romans 7:4) and have been raised to live in Christ. Paul is also making the point that we cannot have two spouses, the Law and Christ. We are being unfaithful both the Law and Christ if we try to follow both. (I'm not saying Paul teaches that the law is evil or that we should completely ignore the Law -- see Galatians and read Romans carefully -- but instead, we are called to live by the Spirit and leave all of the ceremonial Law behind since it was incomplete and only pointed to Christ.) The only thing that Paul is saying about marriage is that we shouldn't have two husbands at the same time! Divorce is not considered here, only death. And if the death of a spouse allows the surviving spouse to remarry, then certainly an innocent party should be able to remarry without having to gather a mob together to end the life of his spouse!

But then you may respond, "Jesus said that man and woman would become one flesh! He also said "what God has joined together, let man not separate." (See Matthew 19:1-12 for context)

That is an interesting point, but lets look carefully at the passage:

Matthew 19:3 - The Pharisees were testing Him and asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for *any* reason. (Apparently, it was very common in the day for men to dump their wives, just like today.)

Matthew 19:4-5 - Jesus explains the original intent of marriage and the spiritual, emotional and physical union a man and a woman experience. He says they are no longer two, but one -- that is, they marry their fortunes and future together as a team. After explaining the sacred relationship of marriage, Jesus said, "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." The statement is a blessing and a strong statement is response to the Pharisees question about divorcing a wife for just any reason. (VERY IMPORTANT)-> Jesus did *not* say, "What God has joined together, man *cannot* separate." Clearly it is possible for man to have a divorce that God recognizes, otherwise Jesus would not have said what He said. (In my opinion, God recognizes divorce as the ending of a marriage. He does not approve of many divorces, but He certainly knows that the relationship has been severed and the bonds of marriage are broken. If you disagree, please post scripture which demonstrates God does not recognize divorce when he sees it.)

Matthew 19:9 - Jesus gives the exception clause in His statement against divorce.

Matthew 19:10 - Notice that the disciples were shocked when they found out that they could not divorce their wives for any reason. This command went strongly against their culture. It hits our hard too, which unlike insider trading, is "a good thing(tm)".

Conclusions:

1) Divorce is sometimes permissible.
2) When a person is divorced, the marriage is over.
3) If you have divorced unrighteously, remarriage is considered unfaithfulness to the former spouse.
4) If you have divorced righteously, then you are free to remarry and you do not sin and no one should hold a grudge against you.
5) Divorce is not a good thing but is sometimes the best option out of a bunch of lousy options.

[ July 19, 2002, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[John3v36]

Baptist Believer you only dealt with one of the reason. what of the second.

(2)"whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." A Man who marries a woman who is divorced is committing adultery and is not qualified to be a pastor.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by John3v36:
Baptist Believer you only dealt with one of the reason. what of the second.

(2)"whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." A Man who marries a woman who is divorced is committing adultery and is not qualified to be a pastor.

Yow! Sorry...

I want to think about this a little more carefully, but my gut feeling is that the adultery statements involving marrying someone who is divorced refers to divorced people who are divorced without good cause. If someone is divorced righteously, then they should be free to remarry. But I want to look at the scripture carefully to see if my gut feeling is correct before I take a strong stand on it.

Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Ellie777:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> For the sins I listed, we know exactly who is at fault. Yet, ostensibly you would allow someone with these sins in their past to be a pastor while forbidding someone who many if not most would argue is not even guilty of adult

I feel the same way and i don't understand but the bible says that God's ways are not our ways... It is hard... it is a kind of death to our own selves...</font>[/QUOTE] But both you and Baptist Believer are still "reading between the lines." The Bible does not say that a man who marries a woman who was biblically divorced cannot become a pastor. It does not even say that someone guilty of adultery in the past cannot become a pastor. It says that a pastor must be the husband of one wife or a "one woman man."

After almost 7 pages now, it is becoming apparent that no one here can even build a strong case that the Bible implies this. Each time someone starts to "prove" their point they shift from the clear scriptural standard to their personal interpretive, expansion of it.

A very good case was made that an adulterer is not qualified to pastor. But I go back to the point I made in my last post that is still unanswered, why would an act of adultery permanently leave someone worthy of blame or reproachable when other sins do not. The response you gave does not even begin to answer this question. You seemed to make the leap from the requirement for only one wife to a prohibition of marrying a divorcee. This is not what scripture says.

I know that people who play drums and rock music before they are saved go through the same battles in wanting to bring it into the church... and they argue and seek answers but are never satisfied because they have a "gift".. they finally find churches that use the music to bring yourg people into the family of God...

This pastor is not seeking to bring adultery or anything other than the fulfillment of biblical commands on marriage into the church. He isn't attempting to excuse his past a bring it with him. He is trying to leave that past behind and serve God according to what he believes is his calling.

...suffer terrible things.. Thats a poor salespitch (R.D.)

As noted before, this pastor has given up much. In fact, I have never known a pastor who gave up more in terms of money, status, security, etc.

I am looking for a biblical command or a strongly supported, consistently applied principle that says this man cannot be a pastor. The principle presented before that relates adultery to blamelessness comes the closest so far but fails because it cannot be consistently applied. If marrying a divorcee is indeed a sin of adultery in the past then it is no more a disqualifier than any other public sin.

As i was writing this my daughter called and i read your message to me and i looked up your profile... it says you don't have a church now... if you are in the springfield Mi. area ... she and her husband have a friend at the 2 baptist church of Springfield... if you want his name .. if you live in the area i will give you his email... he went to the baptist college there with my son-in-law..

Boy, don't I wish it could be so easy! We are about four hours from Springfield. I don't know why these circumstances occurred. But, the hand of God's providence can be seen in our circumstances. Without going into a lot of detail, this particular church would be the immediate choice if it weren't for this question we have been struggling with. I have visited or investigated every other church within our range and found them to be either doctrinally or practically unsound in many issues.

If you haven't guessed yet, I still haven't completely made up my mind. We haven't joined the church although we have gotten to know the pastor and his family very well. If the past cannot be held against him, he definitely meets the requirements.

Throughout this thread, I have asked for others to prove the position I would have automatically assumed 3 months ago. I was probably even expecting to be affirmed in that belief very quickly. However to this point, the lack of proof is convincing me that I would have been wrong.

I believe that God is definitely allowing me to be tested and desire your prayers for me to have grace and wisdom. Also, thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts. No matter what the outcome is for me personally.

[ July 19, 2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Scott J:


But both you and Baptist Believer are still "reading between the lines." The Bible does not say that a man who marries a woman who was biblically divorced cannot become a pastor. It does not even say that someone guilty of adultery in the past cannot become a pastor. It says that a pastor must be the husband of one wife or a "one woman man."

Yes, that’s it! A person’s background needs to be taken into consideration too though. If you are Billy Bob Thornton and you have been married five times, I doubt it has all been your ex-wives fault. (Even if it is, it demonstrates a lack of wisdom to marry that many women who will give you cause for divorce.) But as far as I can tell, you have the correct interpretation.

After almost 7 pages now, it is becoming apparent that no one here can even build a strong case that the Bible implies this. Each time someone starts to "prove" their point they shift from the clear scriptural standard to their personal interpretive, expansion of it.

Everyone interprets scripture by their own understanding. We are all trying to apply the “clear scriptural standard” to modern circumstances.

A very good case was made that an adulterer is not qualified to pastor. But I go back to the point I made in my last post that is still unanswered, why would an act of adultery permanently leave someone worthy of blame or reproachable when other sins do not.

It does not.

The response you gave does not even begin to answer this question. You seemed to make the leap from the requirement for only one wife to a prohibition of marrying a divorcee. This is not what scripture says.

Correct. For the record, I haven’t been trying to prove your potential pastor is unqualified. I’ve actually been pointing out flaws in the arguments of those who say he not morally qualified. Personally, I do not think the fact that he married a woman who was divorced was necessarily sinful, much less an issue of moral qualifications for a pastor.

I am looking for a biblical command or a strongly supported, consistently applied principle that says this man cannot be a pastor. The principle presented before that relates adultery to blamelessness comes the closest so far but fails because it cannot be consistently applied. If marrying a divorcee is indeed a sin of adultery in the past then it is no more a disqualifier than any other public sin.

The reason you’re not getting one is that it doesn’t exist.

If you haven't guessed yet, I still haven't completely made up my mind. We haven't joined the church although we have gotten to know the pastor and his family very well. If the past cannot be held against him, he definitely meets the requirements.

He is not pastoring in the past, he is pastoring in the present. God is a God of new beginnings. Even if he had sinned by his marriage, what does that have to do with today? Measure him by what he is doing today. If he has been forgiven his alleged sin by God, who are we to hold it over his head?

Throughout this thread, I have asked for others to prove the position I would have automatically assumed 3 months ago. I was probably even expecting to be affirmed in that belief very quickly. However to this point, the lack of proof is convincing me that I would have been wrong.

Yup. It is very easy to condemn a divorced person until you see someone who is doing all the things right but can’t save their marriage.

In any case, God’s grace should be the overriding emphasis here instead of judgement.

I believe that God is definitely allowing me to be tested and desire your prayers for me to have grace and wisdom. Also, thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts. No matter what the outcome is for me personally.

You are welcome!

 

[Scott J]

Woops! I am so sorry BaptistBeliever. I associated a statement from one of John3v36's recent post with you and falsely accused you.

I don't know how to express my apology with adequate sincerity.

It was John3v36 that reasserted at the bottom of pg 6 that adultery automatically disqualifies a man.

I am truly sorry.

 

[Ben Smith]

Brethren,
Someone showed me the following and I thought it very shocking. I thought I'd throw it in just to see if it will make things better or worse. I'll duck either way!

1. God divorces Israel the unfaithful Gomer in Hosea.
2. God (in the person of Jesus Christ)marries (a second time)a Gentile bride called the church in the New Testament.
3. Depending on your Escatology, she (the Gentile bride) goes to Heaven (rapture.)
4. Then, God remarries Israel the repentant Gomer!
Observation 1: Is He being the husband of one wife?
Observation 2: Is he qualified for leadership?
THE AUDACITY!!!!!!!!!

I told you it was wild.
Ben

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I am truly sorry.

Hey no problem! I don't think it disqualifies you from leadership!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by BroBen:
Brethren,
Someone showed me the following and I thought it very shocking. I thought I'd throw it in just to see if it will make things better or worse. I'll duck either way!

1. God divorces Israel the unfaithful Gomer in Hosea.

Yup. She was divorced for her persistent adulteries (following after idols).

2. God (in the person of Jesus Christ)marries (a second time)a Gentile bride called the church in the New Testament.

Not Gentile (or Jewish), but a bride from every tribe and nation. Believing Gentiles have been grafted into the spiritual descendants of Abraham, so that our ethinic background, our religious background and our spiritual heritage make no difference. We are all one in the new Kingdom as the Bride of Christ.

3. Depending on your Escatology, she (the Gentile bride) goes to Heaven (rapture.)
4. Then, God remarries Israel the repentant Gomer!

This is where it went off the tracks... God does not marry more than one bride. There is one bride alone. The is one way to God, though Jesus Christ (John 14:6). There is not one way for Gentiles and another for Jews.

Observation 1: Is He being the husband of one wife?

He is a "one woman" God.

Observation 2: Is he qualified for leadership?

Not according to many here...

I told you it was wild.

It was at least "wild".

Seriously, you touched on some very important truths in with your first two points. The third is based on a secret rapture belief that seems to be extra-biblical. The fourth seems to imply a separate pattern of redemption for those who are descendants of Abraham by the flesh. God will still work with those descendants, but they still have to come to Jesus through repentance and faith.

[ July 19, 2002, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

[John3v36]

Why is a man who marries a divorced woman disqualified from being a pastor?

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

The above passage says that if you marry a divorced woman you commit adultery. This woman would fall under 1 Cor 7:15.

1 Cor 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.

This verse says that in the case of desertion (divorce) by an unbelieving spouse, the believer is not to be held at fault. However, if that same man or woman remarries he/she commits adultery (Luke 16:18).

So, let now look at the qualifications of a pastor.

1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, . . .
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil

A man who is committing adultery is not blameless. This would give reasons for non-christians to talk and come up with reasons not to come or just spread gossip and hurt the church. The pastor is not supposed to bring reproach to the church but to help it grow.