-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
serving as a deacon after divorce
- Thread starter mk7
- Start date
av1611jim
You are absolutely right. The more I see of Christ the more I see the dirt in myself. The more I see of Christ the more I see His holiness and my unworthiness. The more I see of Christ the fewer the number of things that really do matter.
It seems like I meet a lot of people shackled by the do's and don't of man made religion often called Christianity. Three years ago I met with two men who had serious troubles in their understanding of God. One in fact had a wife who left him. He was a major leader in a cult. The other stopped sharing his faith. Within a few months both of those men were sharing their faith and growing.
I told both of them one night that you cannot measure spirituality by a list of do's and don't but but relationship. I explained that we know if we have a good relationship with someone. We don't measure that by a list but rather by relationship. So it is with Christ. We cannot brag about a relationship but we can brag about achievements. From that point on the were free and no longer in bondage. They began to love people and share their faith.
You are absolutely right. The more I see of Christ the more I see the dirt in myself. The more I see of Christ the more I see His holiness and my unworthiness. The more I see of Christ the fewer the number of things that really do matter.
It seems like I meet a lot of people shackled by the do's and don't of man made religion often called Christianity. Three years ago I met with two men who had serious troubles in their understanding of God. One in fact had a wife who left him. He was a major leader in a cult. The other stopped sharing his faith. Within a few months both of those men were sharing their faith and growing.
I told both of them one night that you cannot measure spirituality by a list of do's and don't but but relationship. I explained that we know if we have a good relationship with someone. We don't measure that by a list but rather by relationship. So it is with Christ. We cannot brag about a relationship but we can brag about achievements. From that point on the were free and no longer in bondage. They began to love people and share their faith.
As I said before, I think a church and in particular the pastor have a right to interpret this passage and hold a stricter belief in good conscience.
Then please show us how. That is the object of this thread. The literal meaning of the phrase in question is "one woman man".
It either means someone who is a faithful, godly man with regard to the woman/women (women in the sense of non-sexual/unromantic relationships) in his life or else it means a man who has only slept with one woman.
Divorce is not mentioned nor necessarily implied here. The more I have considered this passage, the more I have come to believe that the "no divorce" interpretation is weak and unsupported. Again, if anyone with more than one sexual partner is to be excluded then almost all divorcees would be disqualified. However, I can see no merit in reading the word divorce into this text.
The status of marriage isn't even addressed. A man can be a "one woman man" before being married by saving himself or after being widowed.
No one is arguing against that as far as I see. The questions are: "What does the Bible actually say?" and "How does it apply?"
I think a church has the prerogative to evaluate its leaders as strictly as it chooses as long as they don't go under (or too far over) what is explicitly given in the Bible. Interpretting this as "no divorce" only does either one or the other or potentially both.
How many pastors and deacons do you think are literally "one woman men" for their whole lives? How many of our deacons and pastors were virgins when they married?
Take it to its only logical end. Jesus said that if a man lusted in his heart he had committed adultery. Not only is any man who has had a sexual relationship outside of a single marriage disqualified but also any man who even as a teenager entertained lustful thoughts... but if this applies to a lifetime rather than the current character of the individual being evaluated.
ScottJ;
You are dead on with this one.
It will indeed be nigh impossible to find a man who had no lust in his heart when he was a teenager. To be so strict in one's interpretation of the passage in question, one MUST consider what Jesus gave us as to how God considers adultery.
They who say a man who has been divorced and remarried is in adultery MUST also say that a man who has entertained lustful thoughts, even when he was a young man, i.e. say 12?
How ridgid must we be? God's standards are indeed ridgid, but He is also merciful and gracious.
I think we set ourselves up to be judge and jury far too often.
In HIS service;
Jim
You are dead on with this one.
It will indeed be nigh impossible to find a man who had no lust in his heart when he was a teenager. To be so strict in one's interpretation of the passage in question, one MUST consider what Jesus gave us as to how God considers adultery.
They who say a man who has been divorced and remarried is in adultery MUST also say that a man who has entertained lustful thoughts, even when he was a young man, i.e. say 12?
How ridgid must we be? God's standards are indeed ridgid, but He is also merciful and gracious.
I think we set ourselves up to be judge and jury far too often.
In HIS service;
Jim
BTW;
For they who remember the last thread about this topic;
I was inflexible and not entirely correct, I think.
Since then, God has showed me some things. Particularly, myself, in light of His Word.
So, I have changed my view, to be a bit more gracious.
If God can show this "sinner saved by grace" mercy, forgiveness and a second chance (read: many chances) to serve Him, why can't I do the same for my brothers who name the same Name as I?
In HIS service;
Jim
For they who remember the last thread about this topic;
I was inflexible and not entirely correct, I think.
Since then, God has showed me some things. Particularly, myself, in light of His Word.
So, I have changed my view, to be a bit more gracious.
If God can show this "sinner saved by grace" mercy, forgiveness and a second chance (read: many chances) to serve Him, why can't I do the same for my brothers who name the same Name as I?
In HIS service;
Jim
Plain Old Bill
New Member
I think one of the big dangers in the church today is legalism.Some of us try to be too Biblical sort of like what the pharisees did. If you remember it was all of the religeous big boys Jesus was always having problems with not the everyday man or woman.
My guess would be it would be some of the church leadership Christ would be having problems with.
My guess would be it would be some of the church leadership Christ would be having problems with.
I sincerely doubt that if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer got saved you would make them deacons in your church.
This is not a question of forgiveness at all. Its a question of qualifications.
In the Old Testament there were plenty of ethnic, age related, and geneological qualifications for ministry. If you did not meet those qualifications you could not serve in that function. It has nothing to do with God loving you, you are not qualified.
The same is true in America. You can not be President of the United States unless you were born here and are 35 years old with no felony convictions. Could someone other than that do a good job? Maybe, but they are not qualified for it.
The very concept that someone would attempt to prove that they are qualified gives me the willies. Remember the verse "no man takes this honor to himself?".
Also, just practically speaking, taking a divorced man and making him a deacon sets up the church as validating his side of the story regarding why the divorce occured. What does that do to his wife? There are two sides to every story. My position is that its not the church's responsibility to sort that stuff out. That's why the bible is clear that a divorced man should not be a pastor or deacon.
Another thing, depending on why he divorced, in God's sight he may still be married to that woman. Now that there is a remarriage, he in essence is married to two women, although the one doesn't want him or is remarried or whatever.
Again, not talking forgiveness or anything like that, just qualifications and practicality.
I sincerely doubt that if Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer got saved you would make them deacons in your church.</font>[/QUOTE] That's true. I am pretty sure my church requires a deacon to be able to attend church.
Absolutely true. But lack of forgiveness from people should not become an extra-biblical disqualifier.
Neither is pragmatism a valid reason for disqualifying someone for an office they are biblically qualified to fill.
That's pretty much beside the point. This particular phrase isn't dealing with past adultery or divorce or marriage or remarriage or even poligomy. It is dealing with the character of a man being considered for a church office.
In fact, if you want to use this then a man who slept with a woman prior to his legal marriage to his only legal wife should also be disqualified... as should the man who had sexual lusts and fantasies about women before getting married.
You can't just arbitrarily choose legal marriage as the boundary and be consistent in your interpretation of this passage.
Caveat- It would matter how much time and change had occurred between the divorce and the consideration for deacon. In my view, a man who was divorced recently should not be considered proven enough. A man with a divorce 10-15 years in the past with a solid record of being a godly husband and man since is a different matter.
av1611jim sez:
Paul, Peter, Abraham, David, (and J-W-P
)to name just a few who've experienced that grace/mercy/forgiveness!!!!
So by what authority do we deny the same to others? All we can deny is giving these "mercies" from ourselves to others; which ain't too smart. We have NO SAY in what they receive from God.
Right on , Brother, right on!!!!
Paul, Peter, Abraham, David, (and J-W-P
So by what authority do we deny the same to others? All we can deny is giving these "mercies" from ourselves to others; which ain't too smart. We have NO SAY in what they receive from God.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
I agree Betty and am shocked at Pastor's who are watering down scripture!
Isn't that amazing how everyone else has it all worked out except the pastors.
Just a few days ago I heard two non-Christians talking about how judgmental the south is. One of them went to college there. They were talking about the infighting in the SBC and the judgementalism of the religious folks. I just can't understand why so many of those religious folks do not take a stance against that kind of practice in their own associations and where they live. They just simply refuse to deal with the wrongs and leave it alone. That is called apathy.
Judgement is a good thing when its God's. The bible doesn't say not to judge, it says judge righteous judgement. My opinion doesn't count, but God's sure does.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there is not one mention of a divorced pastor or deacon in the scripture? How about the fact that divorce is so accepted in our society today that there is no longer a stigma associated with it?
As for the practicality argument. It just so happens to be practical and true. If a man beats his wife and she leaves him and then the man get's saved and remarries, joins a church and becomes a deacon. What kind of testimony is that to the lost wife?
My question to you is, how do you know the man was biblically divorced? Have you spoken to his first wife? Tried to? Ever? I doubt it. I find that basic ethics are pathetic among pastors. Remember the Nazi war criminals that turned up as senior citizens in New Jersey? All of their neighbors thought they were the nicest people, but they weren't.
Divorce is a blatant outward example on the outside of sin on the inside. Lusting in your heart if it is a lifestyle will manifest itself on the outside and when it does it will be evident that person is not qualified for ministry.
As for the one woman man argument, if you are married to two women you are not a one woman man. The bible says you can put away your wife for adultery, it doesn't say you can remarry. Marriage is until death.
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that there is not one mention of a divorced pastor or deacon in the scripture? How about the fact that divorce is so accepted in our society today that there is no longer a stigma associated with it?
As for the practicality argument. It just so happens to be practical and true. If a man beats his wife and she leaves him and then the man get's saved and remarries, joins a church and becomes a deacon. What kind of testimony is that to the lost wife?
My question to you is, how do you know the man was biblically divorced? Have you spoken to his first wife? Tried to? Ever? I doubt it. I find that basic ethics are pathetic among pastors. Remember the Nazi war criminals that turned up as senior citizens in New Jersey? All of their neighbors thought they were the nicest people, but they weren't.
Divorce is a blatant outward example on the outside of sin on the inside. Lusting in your heart if it is a lifestyle will manifest itself on the outside and when it does it will be evident that person is not qualified for ministry.
As for the one woman man argument, if you are married to two women you are not a one woman man. The bible says you can put away your wife for adultery, it doesn't say you can remarry. Marriage is until death.
williemakeit
New Member
God forgave me for the divorce and the subsequent remarriage; however, according to scripture, I am disqualified from being a Pastor or Deacon. I still have a first wife (some like to say ex-), with whom I consumated a marriage. That marriage resulted in a child whom I love very, very much. I also have my second wife that I live with now, and love more than anything else in this world. We have two beautiful daughters that I also love very, very much. To me, the scripture is very clear on the subject. I do not find it a bitter pill to swallow. I am extremely grateful for my salvation, and immensely enjoy all the work for the Kingdom that I am fortunate to do.
You are right. Judgmentalism in the church is rampant. It must stop if the church expects to reach people.
Jesus stated that others will know that we are Christians by the love we have for one another. I was in the SBC and got so tired of the SBC being spread across the news because of its big mouth and malicious ways. When we are perfect then we can condemn the world. But our nose is not so clean that we can judge others. Judgment begins in the church not with the Christians judging the world.
One of the men I talked about earlier said, "Anyone who hides behind their flag or religion ought to be shot." His point was they are useless because they are not a real person who is humble with real struggles.
Christians face the same problems as non-Christians but there should be a difference in the way they face problems and treat others.
When we spend our time pointing fingers it encourages them to do the same thing. They have every reason too.
If you go back to Moses and look at the context of the bill of doviocement, it was given to free the wife so she could remarry. Otherwise the man could have kicked her out of the house and prevented her from remarrying by not giving her a bill of divorcement. Divorce always implies remarriage.
Biblicist, You didn't associate your statement on divorce back to the qualifications for a deacon.
And none of you has answered my objection to your lack of consistency.
If this passage means that past sin is to be taken into account AND that a deacon or pastor must be a "one woman man" then you MUST disqualify anyone who either had an actual sexual relationship outside of marriage or fantasized about one.
The two passages in Tim and Titus do not say anything about divorce or even adultery. It literally says "one woman man"... which is primarily a positive statement about one's attitude toward women.
Willie, If the scripture is "very clear on the subject" then please cite the passage that says a divorced man of 15 years who has a 12 year marriage that is exemplifies the biblical model for love, fidelity, and devotion is not biblically qualified to serve as a deacon or pastor.
And none of you has answered my objection to your lack of consistency.
If this passage means that past sin is to be taken into account AND that a deacon or pastor must be a "one woman man" then you MUST disqualify anyone who either had an actual sexual relationship outside of marriage or fantasized about one.
The two passages in Tim and Titus do not say anything about divorce or even adultery. It literally says "one woman man"... which is primarily a positive statement about one's attitude toward women.
Willie, If the scripture is "very clear on the subject" then please cite the passage that says a divorced man of 15 years who has a 12 year marriage that is exemplifies the biblical model for love, fidelity, and devotion is not biblically qualified to serve as a deacon or pastor.