serving as a deacon after divorce

Biblicist ...

I am trying not to answer ...

But, Scott still has not answered the question ...

 

Every other character trait in the list is a quality that the man has consistently exhibited over a period of (recent) time. How is the man living? Not a single one refers to his distant past. None of that matters, unless you believe that Christ doesn't change men. (I don't think you believe that BTW.)

Also you cannot tell if any man will fall away in some area and no longer be qualified, so he stops until he dfemonstrates consistently for a time that he is again qualified.

The problem with the no-divorce-and-having-never-been-divorced position is that it introduces an inconsistent and enigmatic type of qualification. It makes (in only that instance) an old sin, repented of, and moved on from a disqualifier. Every other character trait can be strived for and attained if the person is not yet qualified. What other trait in the list has those characteristics? NONE OF THEM!

Yes. Is he a one woman man right now (at the time of the vote) and for a reasonable amount of recent history (not a novice).

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]I understand your position and don't think you are being unreasonable. I have said from the beginning this is a local church issue.

However, I believe (and have tried to demonstrate) that a divorced man is not free to remarry. This means that they are still married to their wife. They therefore cannot be one woman men.

If they were divorced and not remarried they may be considered disqualified based on not ruling their own houses well. If they were divorced at 18 and being considered for a deacon at 80 it MAY be a different story, but again, that would be a local church decision. I personally would not recommend that man to that office.

I take issue with the attempt to put my view in a box by saying its inconsistent. Its not inconsistent at all. A man that is still married to their first wife (as demonstrated by the scripture I've mentioned 5x now) is CURRENTLY as of the time of the vote NOT a one woman man.

You can take a different view if you want, but what I'm saying is not inconsistent or unreasonable. There is even scripture for it. Imagine that.

 

I know brother. I'm not trying to pick on him, but he does tend to set himself up as the expert.

What put me over the top is when he sent me a private message and then misquoted my response on this board. Even worse, he said it was a private response as if I was being dishonest in public.

I could care less really, but that gave me an indication of the type of person I was dealing with.

 

You are keeping a pretty good composure.

 

OK, what if the 80 year old man's ex-wife remarried? Does he still have to remain true to her to be considered? Does he have a moral obligation before God and his local body to remain true (And married ) to someone else's wife? Is he obligated to stay single now since Deut 24 expressly states that to EVER remarry her would be an abomination? Or can he remarry but only if he doesn't want to be a deacon when he is 81?


Lacy


PS When I refer to your position as inconsistent, I am not making a moral judgment about you. I simply mean that my opinion is that the "no divorce" position is not consistent with the rest of the passage. Scott and I have both given the reasons why we feel that way.

 

OK, what if the 80 year old man's ex-wife remarried? Does he still have to remain true to her to be considered? Does he have a moral obligation before God and his local body to remain true (And married ) to someone else's wife? Is he obligated to stay single now since Deut 24 expressly states that to EVER remarry her would be an abomination? Or can he remarry but only if he doesn't want to be a deacon when he is 81?
Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]As requested. Here are my responses line by line.

Line 1-She commits adultery, which is an abomination.
Line 2-Yes. The sin of others doesn't give us permission to sin too.
Line 3-Yes. But its his wife and she is an adulteress. If there is a divorce to be gotten, let her get it. But that still doesn't free him to remarry.
Line 4-Until she dies or they are reconciled...yes.
Line 5-He can do whatever he wants, but if he remarries he is not qualified to be a deacon. He can still serve the Lord, but not as a pastor or deacon.

 

Of course... but that is not the question. The question is whether those who deny that this is a matter of a man's current character will present an alternative interpretation that is coherent and can be applied consistently.

I want to deal with the text- not with a whole bunch of diversions. God literally said "one woman man". Now, this can mean a lifetime or it can mean current character. However there is no consistency nor contextual basis for the claim that it means "no divorce".

 

Now, answer a question for me:

If a married man has a non-physical romantic relationship with a woman at work, is he a one woman man?

 

Now, answer a question for me:

If a married man has a non-physical romantic relationship with a woman at work, is he a one woman man? </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, yes... the diversion tactic. Right on queue. Even if I didn't know the poster was a Calvinist, I could tell you the poster was a Calvinist....lol

 

Is it easier to be funny than to answer his argument?

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Actually my point was that it doesn't matter if you answer his argument at all, he refuses to accept anything other than his position. </font>[/QUOTE]That isn't true. I used to view this passage the way you do... and not all that long ago.

But being faced with a situation, I had to study it more thoroughly. I started with the premise that God said what He meant... and that whatever it was He said could be trusted and consistently applied.

The no divorce idea is not to be found in the context of the passage. Moreover, the "one woman man" principle is not limited to marriage. The context of the passage provided by the other character traits would tend to support the idea of current character.

You have posted diversions but have yet to post anything that can be taken as a consistently applicable intepretation.

If you want to assume that "one woman man" means for a lifetime then please tell me what you do with the man who had a girlfriend that he romantically kissed in high school but then married another. If he kissed another woman in a romantic way after marriage would that not disqualify him as a "one woman man". If so, why not before?

 

Now, answer a question for me:

If a married man has a non-physical romantic relationship with a woman at work, is he a one woman man? </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, yes... the diversion tactic. Right on queue. Even if I didn't know the poster was a Calvinist, I could tell you the poster was a Calvinist....lol </font>[/QUOTE]Oh please... What was El Guero's original question? How did it pertain to a passage that doesn't mention marriage or divorce?

Of course, at this point I could say "Contortion of scriptures that don't meet preconceived notions... I could tell you it was a non-calvinist even if I didn't know the poster was a non-calvinist".

Why do you have to resort to tactics such as these anyway? We can discuss calvinism elsewhere. This discussion is about what the Word of God actually says about the qualifications for a deacon versus what some people read into the text.

Your "strongest" contribution to this discussion so far has been nothing but a diversion. Without demonstrating that the qualification passage says anything about divorce you take off into a discussion about whether divorce is biblically allowable or not.

 

Wow. I would never call them a poor slob, but you can do whatever you think is right.

Also, playing judge, jury, and executioner is exactly what you are doing to their spouse by not hearing their side of the story regarding the cause of the divorce.</font>[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter... there is no judgment against the wife. It is the man's demonstrated character that is in question.

There may be things extending from the divorce that would prevent a man from becoming a deacon... but the scripture doesn't appear to make the divorce itself a disqualifier. It simply says "one woman man". If the ex-wife or any children from a previous marriage were a problem then perhaps he would be incapable of meeting this and other standards.

They do mean something... I am just asking you and others to prove that it means "no divorce" when the text doesn't say "no divorce" or else to give some other consistent interpretation.

I am sorry about that. I for some reason thought I had.

The key is context... which you have stripped the text out of in order to make your point:

Verse 16 isn't a statement about verse 15. It is a statement about the previous verses. It declares why the Christian spouse shouldn't leave the unbelieving spouse.

Now, I hope you are satisfied... though somehow I doubt it. If you want to discuss this then you should either make a direct link to the passages covering deacon qualifications or start another thread.... because this has nothing to do with who can be a deacon.

 

Scott,

I disagree. You have been evasive. You have disagreed with the historic, and conservative, interpretation of the passage.

You ask others to re-interpret scripture in a new context. Sounds to me like Biblicist is just trying to difuse this issue with humor. Maybe he is a bit wry.

 

Really? I think it might be more to the tune that I disagree with you on things that you have self-annointed yourself as expert on.

I looked through my messages and didn't find where I had sent you a PM. If I did and was incorrect why didn't you handle it privately... so that you could see what kind of person you were dealing with?

What kind of person are you that you would use this kind of tactic? If I came to you privately, why have you now ridiculed me publicly?

I have apologized to people here both publicly and privately. I am certainly not above apologizing to you even if I continue to disagree with you. Who are you to make such judgments after such limited exposure?

We probably agree on many things. It just so happens that the first two times we've run across each other have been things we disagree about... passionately. I don't mind rough and tumble debate most of the time. When I do, I sit out for awhile. I really hadn't felt it was anything persistently personal between us until you posted this.

 

I am not particularly interested in what is historic or "conservative" unless it agrees with what God intended when He inspired the scripture.

That said, there is not unanimity behind the "no divorce" interpretation.

Please tell me how I have been evasive? All I am asking for is a consistent interpretation from those who say this doesn't apply to a man's current, demonstrated character. How is that evasive?

Nope. I am asking others to be consistent. God said "one woman man". That can mean a few different things but I see no way you can limit it to "no divorce".

I guess that would be a matter of which end of the cattle prod you were on.

If Bib clarifies that he was only trying to be humorous then I can accept it... but his charges seemed more serious than that to me.

 

Thanks Lacy. I appreciate that... I can be stubborn and obstinate sometimes but I try not to be.

 

Seems to me the question of "CONSISTENT APPLICATION" has NOT been answered! That's the only question I've seen Scott raise.

Can you show where ANYONE has answered that question?

To recap just for clarity (Correct me if I'm wrong Scott):

"If a divorce in a man's past is a disqualifier for the office of deacon, then why are not the other (or even any) requirements a disqualifier, if a part of the man's past? Why is one who used to be a drunk, given a pass after God gave him a new life and he becomes a deacon, but the poor guy who's divorced in the past doesn't stand a chance with you people?
....</font>[/QUOTE] Yes that is a faithful recap.

Interesting that the only response to your post didn't address the heart of it at all... and I am being accused now of evasion.

I will go one better than that. Select any deacon you know and if the "one woman man" requirement is lifetime virtually none of them could qualify under a literal interpretation.

Pre-marital sex would certainly disqualify them. But beyond that, any behavior that could be considered cheating during marriage would make them less than a "one woman man" for life. This would include kissing, flirting, holding hands, writing love letters, etc.

Men's tradition might say that "one woman man" = "no divorcees" but we should be more interested in what God said.

 

Scott,

The historic interpretation does not mean that your interpretation is incorrect. However, it does mean that I see absolutely no reason to go against tradition and Scripture because you say so.

Your disagreement with historical, traditional, conservative interpretation of God's Scripture is just that: Your disagreement.