serving as a deacon after divorce

Proverbs and other places show God's disdain of alcohol abuse (some say use period). I encourage you to search it out for yourself.

 

I disagree completely. Divorces don't occur after one day's worth of problems and failures either.

I count most of the responsibility for most divorces as the man's failure to lead and love properly.

Some here think that I am liberal because I don't think a past divorce necessarily disqualifies someone from biblical offices requiring them to be "one women men". But on the contrary, I would apply the standard to a man's character more stringently than apparently they would.

I believe there is nothing in the passage that would disallow a divorcee who through sanctification has become a godly man with regard to his relationships with women.

OTOH, a man who is not in control of his fantasies and thought life should be disqualified. How do you find out? Ask.

A man who flirts with other women as a course of habit or is flattered by the attention of women other than his wife should be disqualifed.

A man who does not love his wife with consistent Christ-like love should be disqualified. A man who doesn't treasure his wife and put her before himself consistently should be out. The man should be in control of his eyes and heart.

A man who does not demonstrate Christlike servant leadership of his wife should be disqualified. If she is frustrated by his leadership or behavior then there is reason to question. If he doesn't defend her and provide for her emotional, spiritual, and physical needs.

A past divorce should cause a deacon committee to ask certain questions. I would focus on thought life and self-sacrifice toward the former spouse.

I don't think there are many women who will give up a husband who loves them according to biblical principles. On the same token, I don't think a man who loves his wife that way will abandon her or commit adultery. If a man is consistently a "one woman man" in thought and deed, he will be able to resist temptation.

Diane, Divorce is the ultimate result of a whole bunch of sins. God can forgive the divorce and those sins. If a man truly repents and changes then it is not a perpetual sin.

God hates lying. Do we disqualify someone who used to be a habitual liar then overcame it through sanctification? How about a workaholic or unethical businessman that truly repented and has demonstrated a change for years?

God hates all sin. Not just divorce. To be consistent, you must disqualify anyone who ever had a habitual problem with any of the qualifiers... or any other sin probably whether they have truly changed or not.

Divorce is a sin. But is no more a sin that cannot be repented of than not ruling one's house well.

Neither is it in mine... nor is it in the homes of some people who have already experienced divorce- Like my wife.

 

Diane,

I just cannot believe that in the Fundamental Forum, believers expect you to consider divorce an easy forgiveness issue. It is just like having a "beer day". It is just like having a "bad child day". Oh yes, I forgot: "It is the same as a bad thought day". God forbid that I should ever take marriage that lightly.

... Again, I do not break fellowship with churches that "ordain" divorced men.

... However, if a Church does not ordain divorced men, I believe that Paul wrote of this when he commanded Timothy and Titus to set apart elders ...

God Bless

 

Who said it was an easy forgiveness issue? Who said that divorce wasn't a bad thing... always?

Divorce is a sin that culminates a long history of sin usually on the part of both the husband and wife regardless of who everyone 'thinks' was at fault.

The thing I cannot believe is that in a fundamentalist forum there are so many who insist on reading their own opinions between the lines of what God actually said.

No is isn't. It is like being a genuinely repentant and changed drunk.

Who are you to limit what God can do through a repentant sinner?

You are talking like a novice.

I have no idea what your ministry is but if you think divorce happens in some kind of isolated vacuum you have much to learn. One of the worst enemies a man has is an unbridled fantasy life. Repeated thoughts determine attitudes. Attitudes determine actions.

Please show your scripture where God, not El Guero, says that divorce is worse than lying... or being an ungodly parent... or committing adultery in your heart.

 

God doesn't have to say a certain sin is worse than another one in order to say you can't do something if you've committed a certain sin. It's his prerogative.

Becasue Moses disobeyed God, he never entered the Promised Land. Does that mean his sin was worse than other people's? No, it just means God made that decision.

 

No question about that. The fact of the matter though is that God doesn't say that a divorced man cannot be a biblical "one woman man". That is an interpretation, that after umpteen pages here, no one has established by the texts in question- nor have they interpretted the passage in a way that could ever be applied consistently.

The text says "one woman man". If you say that a divorced man is automatically disqualified then I would say you must disqualify someone who had pre-marital sex... they aren't a "one woman man". Christ would say that a man who lusted in his heart had also committed adultery... thus by your lifelong standard rule anyone who ever had a sexual fantasy would be disqualified.

In fact, if a man ever did anything before marriage (kiss, flirt, hug, hold hands, or more serious) that would be considered cheating after marriage, how could you possibly consider that man a "one woman man"?

And David had an implicit divorce from the daughter of Saul (Saul gave her to another man as wife) then was ordained king of Israel and called a man after God's own heart.

 

A king is not a pastor or deacon.

I always considered pre-marital sex a disqualifier as well. As far as the sexual fantasy . . . I hadn't thought about that before. Good point.

<------------- thinking, thinking

 

If you think very long and you will disqualify every man that ever lived besides Jesus Himself.

I would almost guarantee that you don't know a man, no matter how godly, who has never had an immoral sexual fantasy.

 

My point about David was that God doesn't necessarily hold someone accountable for a divorce they cannot avoid.

 

But does the Bible actually say a sexual fantasy equates adultery? I mean, it says the man has comitted adultery in his heart.

I'm just asking this because I'm really not sure. I'm not trying to argue. (In this particular post )

I mean, does the Bible actually equate hating your brother with murder? (And according tot hat should a hater be put to death?)

Like I said, just confusing questions from a confused young lady.

 

In this day and age, it is still forbidden behavior, and there are some that will not, and have not, kissed or had intimate contact before marriage. There are some that have not tasted an alcoholic beverage, nor used any tobacco product. Heck, there are even some women that have never worn a pair of pants, even to bed. While under the authority of their parents, they abided by the rules of their parents and those perceived to come from God (most of you know, or can quickly find out how I feel about pants on women, etc.), and when they were married, or when they get married, they will set up their homes in the same way. Did any of these ever have a stray thought, or had a unbiblical feeling (rage, hate, pride, etc.)? Possibly, considering that we all are in this non-perfect human shell; however why are we so quick to choose 'bad' events in the lives of David, Paul or Moses to illustrate or justify exceptions to God's good and perfect will for us today? Unfortunately, the percentage of those that can claim a life consecrated to God and holy living, or even a marriage of 30 years, is dwindling rapidly. We try to belittle their accomplishments by asking "Yeah, but did they ever have a tantrum as a child", or "Yeah, but did one of the partners ever have a fleeting adultereous thought". Personally, after reading some of the previous posts, including some of mine, I am coming off of some of the opinions that I had expressed earlier regarding the qualifications for the office of Pastor, Deacon, Teacher, etc. If you have been saved, you are qualified to share your testimony and lead others to Christ. That in itself is a great calling, and is not one that is quickly grasped by some (even Pastors and Deacons). If you have never been divorced, then you are qualified to illustrate or teach my children and others how to keep a marriage together. If you have never been angry to the point of committing murder or maiming someone, then you are qualified to illustrate or teach my children and others about self-control. If you have had fleeting impure thoughts, but were able to divert from them successfully, then you are qualified to illustrate or teach my children and others control of one's sexual desires. The list goes on but I have made my point. This is about as consistent as I can get about my intrepretations, and that of "one woman man". If you are saved, then praise God, I am too. If you know how to keep a marriage together, have self-control, etc., then you are desperately needed, especially in helping me to convince my children the benefits of not being like I was, or not to marry someone as rotten as I was.

 

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Open to interpretation somewhat... but I would say that it takes even less than what I suggested before.

BTW, it doesn't have to quite equate to adultery. All it has to do is result in a man being less than a genuine, thorough, absolutely consistent "one woman man".

If your asking for an opinion... I think it is saying exactly what I mentioned on one of these threads before. Sin originates in the repetitive thoughts of one's heart.

 

This is NOT a man seeing a gorgeous woman, having a WOW thought and quickly turning his head or the channel, refusing to think through any sexual thoughts but is a man (or woman) looking and giving room to those thoughts. There is intention in that action.

 

Yeah, makes sense Diane.

 

In this day and age, it is still forbidden behavior</font>[/QUOTE] Forbidden by who Willie? If you say God then please cite chapter and verse where He said it.

The Pharisees tithed the leaves of their bushes and missed Christ completely.

I have been in very strict fundamentalist churches... and have yet to run across these kids. They certainly aren't common. If you want to apply the standard you imply here then you are going to disqualify most serving pastors and deacons by an interpretation that I would argue the passage doesn't require nor warrant.

None the less, you are the first person to indicate that you are willing to be consistent.

Where is your scripture to support the notion that women wearing pants is sinful.

I would say that the others fall under biblical principles concerning our care for our bodies and I teach against drinking altogether. However, there are some indications that alcoholic wine was used in the Bible without condemnation.

This is a huge problem Willie. We are expressly forbidden from speaking where God has remained silent... and nowhere does He say that a woman can't were pants. You are describing something but it isn't holiness.

I am going to make a "for what it's worth statement": I have seen kids that the adults thought were the way you describe... but who weren't nearly as "pure" as perceived. I am not talking about gross immorality but rather what we would consider less severe sins of disobedience.

But if you know masses of young people who can meet your interpretation of this standard and serve as leaders then congratulations. I have run across only a few in my 40 years that even stood a remote chance.

Because it illustrates God's grace and ability and willingness to use flawed people to accomplish great things.

What exactly does forgiveness mean to you? Does it simply mean that God doesn't count it against you at judgment but He does hold it against you for the rest of your mortal life?

Maybe. But more likely, you have a grand view of the past that is not quite based in reality.

I am not belittling anything. I am simply arguing that the standard you apparently accept is all but impractical now... and would have been the same in Ephesus.

How about someone who was divorced, fully repentant, and able to use experience as a means of guiding your children away from pitfalls?

You are very close. I still disagree with you but your interpretation is very close to being consistent. Probably not practical... you probably can't find a church with leadership that meets your standards... but you are definitely closing in on being consistent.

 

Diane,

In this day, there are so many men that are trying to justify their behavior it is sick and perverted.

It is only a matter of time, God will judge this people. It is only a matter of His time. We behave in the same manner as they did in Sodom. But, the people around us do not realize that God is only holding back the wrath that is to come.

Like a spider hanging from a spider web over the flames of the lake of fire. The web will burn through. And they dangle there in defiance of God and His Word.

 

Do you actually think that is a new development? Wicked men have always tried to justify their behavior.

I agree. But we as Christians shouldn't take pleasure in it.

"We" who?

Please don't presume to speak for the rest of us.

 

Brother Scott,

Pharisee Willie is going to make one last post on this thread. There are those on this board that know my stand on women wearing pants. Just to give you a little hint--my wife and girls wear them.

As for the rest of your tirade--I was under the preaching and 'servant hearts' of your Pastors and Deacons for many years. Like you, I also believed that it is impossible for anyone to live the so called old-fashioned way, and figured why would anyone want to. Sure some of my acquaintances cheated on their spouses (sometimes even with other members ), their daughters were getting pregnant (even the Deacon's), or their sons were the ones getting the girl pregnant (even the Pastor's). Yes, when I went to church, it looked the same as the world that I was seeing every other day of the week. Then, curiously, I visited a church in the area for it's very first service. The wife was home with the sick kids that morning, and I had read about the 'maiden service' in the newspaper the day before. For some strange reason, I drove past my church and went to this church. It felt a little odd driving by my church. The ad had said that it was an old-fashioned, soul-winning Independent Fundamental Baptist church. What a surprise when I found that church really is different than what the world is. The preacher preached loud and long (went over my customary 12:00 noon). He led the congregation in 'old-fashioned' hymns, and used the KJV bible, exclusively. Been there ever since, and yes, I have met many, many of those that I described above. I pray that you will meet more of them, too. Why? Because the world needs many more of them.

 

Willie, You have a habit of evading and glossing over things that you don't want to deal with.

It is my goal to be a 1st century Christian, not a 19th century Christian. What God said is far more important to me than the traditions of men that have built up around what God said. I prefer "Old Fashion" churches. I am suspicious of modern developments in music and church practices.

Some people no doubt benefit from extra, personally binding restrictions that help them avoid sin. The problem is when someone begins to either demand that others do the same or else automatically assume that someone who doesn't follow the same practices is somehow less holy than they are.

I have no reason to accept what you say at anything less than face value. I have seen kids in SBC churches (God forbid) that dressed more trendy and listened to music that makes me uncomfortable but who were determined to live separated to God. OTOH, I have seen young people who weren't nearly as "holy" as their dresses, white shirts, and ties would indicate. You would do well to pray for these young people that impress you so much but not to place them on such a high pedestal that you can't love them if you see their fall. Form doesn't always equal substance.

 

For those that have argued that divorce before salvation still disqualifies a man from becoming a deacon/pastor even after living a sanctified life for years after getting saved, how does that square with 2 Corinthians 5:17 which says:

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

Shall I slash out that all and replace it with some or most or everything but divorce has become new? I do not believe that divorce before salvation disqualifies a man from becoming a deacon after a time of growing and becoming mature in the Lord. Whatever was done before salvation was done in ignorance and I will not hold the man to a higher standard than God held Paul and others to after He saved them. However, if a believer gets divorced, he is no longer acting in ignorance (if properly discipled, he should know better) and disqualifies himself from that type of service. He can be forgiven, but he is no longer qualified to be a deacon/pastor.