serving as a deacon after divorce

It is not my place to question God, and I would never think of doing so; however, as a member that has a say (albeit only a single nay or yea vote) in who would serve as a Pastor or Deacon in my church, I would be hesitant to vote yea in any of the situations you describe. Of course, my vote would be the result of much prayer, and then be based only upon that which I preceive to be the answer to that prayer. Questioning the forgiveness of their sin would not be the issue; however, it would be the consequence that remains as a result of the sin. I would be just as hesitant voting for a convicted child molester to be a teacher in a 5-year old Sunday School class, although he had been saved, and a member of the church for 25 years since. Again, it is not a question of their salvation, but what I perceive would be the work of a very wise God. Brother Scott has demanded consistency in the application of our intrepretation, and I have tried my best to give it, not as an attempt to persuade anyone of changing their beliefs, but to justify why I believe the way that I do. If a church is full of convicted murderers, those guilty of violent assault, convicted child molesters, then I concede that there is a possibility that God may call some of these to be Pastors, Deacons, Teachers, etc; however, I believe that it could possibly dampen the church's outreach programs.

 

Tell that to the men in prison I have dealt with who are "reaching out" into the very same prison a discipling others. Tell that to them!

Tell that to the men in all the prison's of this country and abroad who ARE reaching out into their communities by way of letter writing and such. Tell that to the men in prison who ARE reaching out with their testimonies of the Grace of God!

Tell that to the men who spent YEARS in prison for such crimes and have come out and are being used mightily of God to win the lost. Preaching, pastoring, and deaconing.

Tell that to them.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

No reason that they cannot "reach out", "disciple others", "write letters and such", or "testify of the Grace of God". Heck, they can even "preach" all they want, but I will not hesitate to tell them that I will vote against them for Pastor or Deacon if I believe that my prayer has wrought such a vote. It would be interesting to be faced with a Pastor or Deacon nominee where he had been convicted of an armed robbery, served time in prison, was released, made full restitution back to the victim, and became a sold-out, upstanding Christian. I do not see anything that immediately disqualifies the candidate. I do not consider prison time a disqualification for any office. You may not agree with me, Brother Jim, but I believe you may start to understand my position.

 

As I said before, Paul, David, and Moses were all cold blooded killers. However their words carry more authority in the local church than any pastor's ever did. Could Paul be pastor of your church?

Lacy

 

Maybe those who would divorce and still be pastors should consider killing their wives instead?

 

Considering how great an evangelist Paul was, I doubt if he would submit his resume. David was not allowed to build the temple of God, and although it was not related to the killing of the Egyptian, Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land as a result of a sin. Is the office of Pastor or Deacon even greater than being able to see the fruits of their labor? Would you consider Timothy a Pastor? If so, recall what Paul had to say of his background. Your examples are not consistant with addressing my understanding; however, I will have to think more upon the Moses situation.

 

If you are addressing my post, you are also being inconsistent with addressing my understanding. The consequence of murder is even greater than divorce.

 

Sure seems funny that you "no divorce" guys want to discuss everything except what God actually said.

Does the "one woman man" standard apply to present character or a lifetime?

It is a simple question- all you have to do is say "present" or "lifetime". Willie, Bib... what do you say?

 

Scott

God is consistent. It is men (& women that means us/we) who are inconsistent.

The real question is "which" authority do we listen to for interpretation? Is it your authority?

God says that HE hates divorce. Me?

I can say that I hate divorce almost as much as God hates divorce.

Do you hate divorce?

 

I certainly hate divorce. But then again, I hate ALL sin. Probably not as much as God does. He hated it so much that He gave His only begotten Son for sin. Could YOU do that?
I HAVE just one son born of my seed. I could NEVER give him to die for you or anybody on this planet. But then again, I don't think it is in my being to send a man to a devil's hell either.
All that stuff is besides the point of this thread.
I am part of the "consistency crowd" here. If yer gonna disqualify a man for a past sin then why would you pick out just ONE out of the list given in the passage?
I thought the church was supposed to be a place folks could count on being received just as Christ has received us. Isn't restoration part and parcel to the gospel? If God has restored us to fellowship with Him, then WHO are we to exclude a man from serving God? Deacons don't serve MAN! They serve GOD!!!

The context and sense and everything else of the passage in question has the present character of the man in view.

Show me ONE past tense verb in relation to the character of the man in that passage. Show me ONE past tense sin in relation to the character of the man in that passage. I looked, several times. It isn't there. "Found blameless"? You will note that that word comes after using the office of a deacon, not before. So they are to be "proved". Tested. Tried. Given a chance to serve. Not a novice. A mature believer. But of godly character NOW.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Malachi 2:13 And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, With weeping and crying; So He does not regard the offering anymore, Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. 14 Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the Lord has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. 15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. 16 "For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one's garment with violence," Says the Lord of hosts. "Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously." 17 You have wearied the Lord with your words; Yet you say, "In what way have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil Is good in the sight of the Lord, And He delights in them," Or, "Where is the God of justice?" ......

7 "For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, And people should seek the law from his mouth; For he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. 8 But you have departed from the way; You have caused many to stumble at the law. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi," Says the Lord of hosts. 9 "Therefore I also have made you contemptible and base Before all the people, Because you have not kept My ways But have shown partiality in the law."

 

Good verses Diane. "But have shown partiality in the law".
Which is EXACTLY what the "no divorcers" are doing. They are partial in their qualifications by singling out divorce as opposed to "no brawler", "not given to wine", "ruleth his own house well", etc...


In HIS service;
Jim

 

Proverbs 6:16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

OK. If you want to disclude anyone who has ever been guilty of something that God "hates" then we can start here... but we will end with all sin eventually. God hates sin. Divorce is a sin.

So what is it? Do you want to disqualify everyone who has told a lie? God hates it.

How about a proud look? Do you want to disqualify everyone who has ever seemed arrogant or less than the model of humility?

I am specifically asking you all not to look at my "authority". I have none. The authority lies with God's Word and what it says... as opposed to what it doesn't say but some want to insert.

Just a consistent interpretation. That's all I am requesting. If these qualifications are for all past behavior... then just be consistent with it.

If a man must be a "one woman man" for his whole life then just be consistent and disqualify everyone who has ever had a romantic experience with someone other than his wife.

My objection is to what should be an obvious inconsistency on the part of those who say this passage means specifically "no divorce". The passage doesn't even mention divorce... much less limit the implications to that particular meaning of not being a "one woman man".

 

Scott,

The question was:

Do you hate divorce ... ?

 

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.

 

So...What do you guys think the verse means?

One woman man at the time of the vote?

Just curious.

Also, how about that verse I've mentioned 3x now. Paul calls the spouse YOUR WIFE AND YOUR HUSBAND after he says the christian is not "in bondage".

No answer?

Still?

I know. Just like the question in the other thread as to why Adam sinned if he had no sin nature.

Silence.

It doesn't fit your view so ignore it.

Nice theology.

Maybe a more appropriate course of action would be to change your theology to fit what the bible says. Ya think?

I guess not.

 

Biblicist,

I don't always agree with Scott but I haven't found him to be stubborn or obstinate when considering other's arguments. IMHO, Scott is generally very reasonable.

I side with the position that holds up to consistent interpretation.

I believe that Scott also has examined all sides, No divorce, No polygamy, and One-Woman Man. (I think we could consider another possibility-No biblically unjustified divorce.) Out of these three, The "One woman man" interpretation is more consistent with the language of the verse, more consistent when compared with the nature of the other character traits listed, and more consistent when considered with practical (possible) scenarios.

Lacy

 

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?

You're playing accuser, judge, jury and executioner to this poor slob! God made no such demands!

Select ANY deacon you know, and he has failed at least one of the qualifing characteristics in the past before becoming a deacon. I feel perfectly safe in making that statement because every deacon is nothing more/less than a simple human being!

 

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.

Also, what's the point of qualifications if they don't mean anything?

MOST IMPORTANTLY, when is someone going to deal with that verse I've mentioned 4x now.

 

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