serving as a deacon after divorce

Scott,

Your soteriology and ecclessiology are a jumbled mess.

We are not talking about salvation, forgiveness, or reconciliation. We are talking about qualifications for specific offices in the church that Paul outlined to Timothy under inspiration.

You seem to like accusing people of making straw men, but you fail to see that is what you are doing.

Saying that Willie's view disqualifies every man alive is an attempt to make his position sound ridiculous so it can be rejected.

Saying that divorced men, men that do not rule their houses well, men that are not given to wine, etc. should not be deacons does not make the office of deacon unattainable for every man alive as you claim.

What it does do, however, is allow the church to be above reproach from unbelievers and give dignity to the office. God would not have given us qualifications if they were not to be met.

Again, you have to separate this from salvation. The two don't go together. He is talking to believers, its assumed they are saved. Pastors and deacons do have additional qualifications OTHER than being saved so that they can be an example to others in the church.

I will also repeat my thought again that making a divorced person a deacon in your church TAKES THEIR WORD against their spouse that the divorce was biblical. Do any of you take the effort to contact the spouse and find out their side of the story?

I seriously doubt it.

 

Funny. I was thinking the same about you.

Either way, I can say that what I believe about both is derived from a literal interpretation of the texts involved.

I have been discussing that issue and exactly what the Bible says, and does not say, about it.

The qualification is "one woman man". It does not mention divorce so if you are going to extend the meaning to a person's long abandoned past then you need to do so consistently. If a divorcee who has lived faithfully with his current wife for 10 years is not a "one woman man" then certainly someone who just didn't legitimize their sexual exploits with a legal marriage isn't a "one woman man" either.

Just be consistent. You all seem to want to make this text say what you want it to say- no more, no less. I want to accept this text for what it says- no more, no less.

I didn't say that was his position. I said that he was being inconsistent. If he, or you, consistently followed the reasoning he is using to interpret these passages then you would have to conclude that anyone who had ever been less than a "one woman man" in any sense is disqualified. That covers just about all men.

I didn't say that... should I now accuse you of a straw man?

I am however saying that very few men would qualify as a lifelong "one woman man". To be this, one would have to have never done anything before or after marriage that would be considered less than perfect fidelity.

Can you cite where God said that was His purpose? Even if you can, you have yet to prove that a divorcee who was well known to be a model husband to his current wife of 10 years would bring reproach from unbelievers... maybe from extra-biblical legalists but I doubt from unbelievers... even to include people directly involved in the divorce. If a life is genuinely changed then God gets glory.

Absolutely true. God gave qualifications and intends for them to be met.

He simply didn't say "no divorce"... nor did He say to consider someone's distant past. These are additions by men operating from their own bias.

Please show where I ever argued that they didn't.

And? You are also taking an undivorced man at his word that he doesn't fantasize about other men's wives.

However, the divorce is a fact whether biblical or not. If the man was at fault and has properly repented then it is not a sin that should be held against him 10 years later after establishing that he is now a "one woman man."

There is no reason to. You have not proven your point but now want to jump to possible implications.

The scriptures do not say that a man divorced under any circumstances cannot serve as a deacon or pastor. You have yet to prove that it does.

The only thing you posted (assuming you are right concerning a biblical mandate to never remarry) either means nothing concerning this debate or else it means that a remarried couple are in a perpetual state of adultery. And even with this, you have failed to deal with men that had pre-marital relationships that would be considered cheating if done while married.

All I am asking is that you post an interpretation that you are willing to follow consistently. "One woman man" is either a character trait of a man presently or it is lifelong. Which do you believe?

I would be glad to see a third option that can be applied consistently but none of you have provided one.

 

Well, I have seen Scripture posted that can at least be construed as saying the following:

1. God participated in divorce vs. Israel
2. God regulated and allowed divorce.
3. Remarriage is allowable following a Scriptural divorce.
4. God considers a divorced person to no longer be married.

Some of these have been explained away, however, I have yet to see one Bible verse showing that God believes divorced people to still be married. Can someone please show me this?

 

Scott,

I see you conveniently ignored the bible passage I quoted.

Let me point it out again. The text I just quoted above illustrate my point. Paul calls the departed unbelievers in I Cor. 7 that the believers are no longer in "bondage" to their wives and husbands. They are still married.

The reason divorced men are not CURRENTLY "one woman men" is because they have publicly entered into an institution of marriage (which is ordained by God) and vowed to love and care for more than one woman until death do they part.

A "divorce" is not an annulment, like they were never married to begin with. Marriage is until death. If your spouse is living a lifestyle of sexual promiscuity you are not obligated to live with them or care for them which would be condoning their sin. You can divorce them. However, you are not "free" to marry. You are still to be faithful to that spouse even though they are not faithful to you. If they remarry and you want to remarry. Go ahead, just don't try and be a pastor or deacon, you are no longer qualified.

 

By the way, here's a verse for you. One that judging by what you said to Willie you need to read.

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient

 

That's an interesting citation from someone who opened an address to me with:

"Scott,

Your soteriology and ecclessiology are a jumbled mess" then proceeded to largely argue against things I didn't say.

 

We have firm views that were put in place by our church. It is hard to get past it. I am Southern Baptist and I cannot believe it is ok for a man that had an affair to be a deacon, but one that was married before can't.
What is even more amazing is that the one that had the affair was a Christian when it occured and the other was divorced before he was a Christian.
There is no way that the two can be reconciled.

To me the affair was much worse, he not only sinned against God, but against his mate.

 

It will not do any good to provide scripture. Why? Because that just opens another can of worms. You see, some marriages occur out of sight of God, so they are not bound to the same scriptures that those of us that got married in the sight God are under. Or, to go even farther, if certain situations or conditions occur within a marriage, then the scripture does not apply whether you were married out of the sight of God or in the sight of God. The problem is that there are so many exceptions, or inferences made, to the "What God hath joined together", there is not even a concensus among believers of what a marriage is, much less concluding what is a 'scriptural' divorce, or 'scriptural' remarriage. You would have thought that God would not have made something as simple as marriage so confusing wouldn't you?

 

Yep. I also believe that everything that Paul penned in his epistles was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I am not so sure, however, that 'no longer being under bondage' means free to remarry or if it simply means you no longer have to put up with the injurious party, and do not have to pursue reconciliation. Biblicist response seems to be very viable to me.

 

Considering the length of some of the posts, I am not going to click on the 'quote' button. Bottom line--I believe that divorce disqualifies a man from the office of pastor or deacon. There are plenty of other things to do to keep me busy within the church without fretting over this fact. You can take the 'one woman man' verse and apply it any way you want--God enabled us to do that--,and I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I believe that I am right. Heck, I may get to heaven and be informed that I should have baptized my babies, but at least I will still be there. Those of you that disagree probably arrived at your conclusions with the same fervent prayer that I put into my bible study, so I cannot question your interpretations to the point of saying that you are absolutely wrong. I know many upstanding Christians that do not believe the way that I believe. Considering that it impacts me directly, I have wrestled with this issue for many years. I always come to the same conclusion. As for any soteriology and ecclessiology problems, it probably isn't nothing a good strong antibiotic wont cure. Do not put it off too long, though. Make an appointment with a Soteriologist or Ecclessiologist at your earliest opportunity.

 

Excellent.

 

williemakeit

We continue to focus upon man and not upon the offices that God gave to the Church.

 

No matter what anyone believes or doesn't believe, God said something. That something was that a deacon was to be a "one woman man".

No one has established that divorce was in mind.

No one has come up with a consistent interpretation that says this is a lifelong requirement rather than a character trait of a man now.

I have asked repeatedly for nothing more than a consistent interpretation for those who believe this passage is dealing only with divorce or only with divorce as it pertains to someone's past. The fact that none have come up with one in 11 pages should be adequate proof that they don't have one and are basing this rule against divorcees becoming deacons on nothing more than the traditions of men.

 

Everyone may now bow to the wisdom of THE SCOTT!

The final word on the subject has been given.

 

Now, now Biblicist. Did he really have the last word, or did you? Or maybe I am now having the last word?

I have a hunch that mine will not be the last post, either.

 

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

Lacy

 

PS. King James was a Scott. Now there's a "Final Word" for ya!

lacy

 

If divorce before salvation still disqualifies someone from being a deacon years later, so does any sin. Some here have argued that divorce is permanent and therefore taints the persons character as long as he lives. To be consistent, you have to apply that to every sin. Is not murder permanent? If one man beats another man and puts him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life and then get saved, does he (the one in the wheelchair) just get up and walk? I believe the Bible speaks of the character of the man since getting saved and not before he got saved. Now, if a man gets a divorce after getting saved, he is disqualified.

 

Smart aleck remarks might make you feel better but you have yet to establish a sound biblical basis for your interpretation of this passage.

It isn't my word that matters. It is God's. If you want to apply the "one woman man" requirement to the lifetime of a man then that is certainly consistent... it would also disqualify almost everyone. Any man who has ever done anything that would be considered "cheating" during a marriage to include something as simple as flirting, cannot be called a lifelong "one woman man".

The problem isn't that you haven't dealt with my word effectively as you insenuate. The problem is that you are avoiding dealing with what God's Word actually says.