serving as a deacon after divorce

[Scott J]

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.

Does this include anyone who as a 15 year old had a fantasy relationship with Farrah?

Does it include a man who slept with other women before his legal marriage?

Does it include a pastor who lusted after and fantasized about another woman since marriage?

To be consistent if you are going to consider past sins a disqualifier then you MUST include those who have had any sexual activity (real or imagined) outside of a single marriage.

 

[Biblicist]

Judgmentalism in the church is rampant. It must stop if the church expects to reach people.

Unbelievers have no problem with it, believers do.

Most unbelievers get it. Which is the case most of the time with these things, including CCM and similar issues.

I was saved at 17 from reading the bible on my own with no Christian witness. I was a baaaaad kid before that. Once I was saved, I was done with that lifestyle. I was shocked when I met my first bible believing Christians to find out what was acceptable to them. Quite a bit different than what I expected.

By the way, Williemakeit, Praise the Lord for you! I'm just a sinner saved by grace too and thank God for His goodness. Lord knows I don't deserve salvation, that's for sure!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Scott J:
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.

I personally know a man who has been with the same woman for over 40 years and has several children whose first wife left when he was a student studying to be a pastor. They were married one for year. She did not want to be a pastors wife. What made this interesting is that the man and his wife were discipling young couples on their own. I was standing there talking with the man when one of the deacons approached him about being a deacon. Both of us were shocked. He was one of the godliest men I have ever met and was discipling people. Not one current deacon in that church of 700 could say they were held in that high of honor among others in the church. It was at that point where I challenged my own theology. I had a lot of respect for him. He had a business in town and was well spoken of by anyone who knew him.

 

[Biblicist]

Hey Scott,

First, leave Willie alone. Second, the term is "ungrabbable" in the Greek. Divorce is a grabbable condition in the present for a past public action.

A voracious public sex life in the past is also a publically grabbable condition in the present. Adult film stars should not become deacons after salvation.

Convicted felons should not become deacons after salvation.

The list goes on but my point is the same. You could allow any of these people to be deacons, but why? Do they deserve to be deacons? No one deserves to be a deacon.

Lastly, I believe this is a local church issue. We have here a church member that is not happy with their church's position. Rather than deal with it with the pastor, we are allowing ourselves to undermine his authority in that church and giving ammunition to one of his members to fuel strife in that congregation. This is not biblical.

If your local church doesn't agree with your position and you can't live with it, find another local church. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by Scott J:

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.

I am a divorced man of 27 years who has a 22 year [re]marriage that exemplifies the biblical model for love, fidelity, and devotion that is not bibilically qualifed to serve as a Pastor or Deacon. I use the same scripture that others summarily dismiss as not meaning that at all. I believe that most of us have thoroughly read (and reread, and reread....) Timothy and Titus. We have even earnestly studied (and restudied, and restudied.....) parts of the Mosaic Law, yet we continually come up with different interpretations. We are free to develop our own interpretation, and I will be the last to question the validity of your interpretation. I will continue to believe and teach that which I believe has been wrought by study and prayer, and I am sure that you will do the same. Fortunately, by coming to peace with our belief, gained through salvation, the Word of God, and prayer, we are unshackled to pursue the work of the Kingdom by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Some of us are right, and some of us are wrong. It is probably an issue that will not be settled during our time on earth.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Biblicist:
Hey Scott,

First, leave Willie alone.

Huh? I wasn't picking on Willie. He stated a point of view. I countered it. No animosity whatsoever as far as I know.

Second, the term is "ungrabbable" in the Greek. Divorce is a grabbable condition in the present for a past public action.

Can you cite a source? The interlinears I have access to say "one woman man".

Also you will have to flesh out this "grabbable vs. ungrabbable" concept... to include why it would not pertain to someone who had engaged in any sexual behavior before marriage, private or public (as if that should matter).

Convicted felons should not become deacons after salvation.

I disagree. You have gone beyond anything said in the text of scripture with this assertion.

Lastly, I believe this is a local church issue.

I have said that more than once if you look back through my posts.

We have here a church member that is not happy with their church's position. Rather than deal with it with the pastor, we are allowing ourselves to undermine his authority in that church and giving ammunition to one of his members to fuel strife in that congregation. This is not biblical.

I don't agree that this is what is happening. We are discussing an interpretation issue.

If the member thinks his pastor's view is in error then he should study the issue, seek good counsel, and then approach the pastor. If they cannot agree and it is an issue then the member will need to decide for themselves if it is worth separating over or if they can submit to their pastor's leadership.

My pastor interprets this the way I do and has asked me to become a deacon for the church. I have only been married once, for over 16 years but I was not "pure" when I married. Also, my wife was divorced. We have the best marriage I know- our home is certainly more in order than most of the deacons I have ever known.

If your local church doesn't agree with your position and you can't live with it, find another local church. That's my opinion anyway.

I agree. But that isn't the point of this discussion. The objective is to determine what God actually said and meant.

I am looking for someone taking your point of view to present a coherent, consistent interpretation. So far, no one has. Again, if it applies to past acts then it must be all acts that make a man something other than a "one woman man", not just divorce.

 

[gb93433]

If I may add a little fuel to the fire. I do not believe any man who is overweight qualifies as a deacon or pastor either. It shows a lack of self control and greed for excessive food which could be given to help others instead of fattening himself. It shows his self-indulgent lifestyle. It also gives him less energy to do the work of the ministry and presents himself as a health risk to both his family and congregation.

As soon as I quit pastoring my insurance went down to about one half of what it was. The insurance company knows the condition of clergy well.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Biblicist:


Adult film stars should not become deacons after salvation.

Would that include David?


Convicted felons should not become deacons after salvation.

Does that include Matthew the tax collector and Paul the persecuter and possibly murderer? How about Moses the murderer and David the man who wanted a man killed so he could have his wife?
Also would that include Peter who cut off a man's ear?

 

[Biblicist]

Originally posted by Biblicist:

Adult film stars should not become deacons after salvation.

Would that include David? Um, no. They did not have film back then. He would be disqualified because he committed adultery and had a man killed. If you go back and read about David's life, he didn't lose his salvation, but God never used him quite the same way after his sin. He was also judged because of it.

Convicted felons should not become deacons after salvation.Does that include Matthew the tax collector and Paul the persecuter and possibly murderer? How about Moses the murderer and David the man who wanted a man killed so he could have his wife? Also would that include Peter who cut off a man's ear? [/qb]

The Old Testament guys are not relevant because the church is a New Testament body. Their ministries were significantly different than today's. Also, let's not confuse OT civil law with New Testament ecclessiology.

Being a tax collector I don't believe is a sin by itself, Paul apparently never murdered anyone and Peter's act was one incident of self defense.

To be honest, I know I probably sound pretty harsh because this is the printed word and much harder to communicate than in person, but I'm not trying to be harsh or "icky" as I like to say+++++++.

This blows my mind though that believers would want to lighten up the restrictions to make being a deacon more inclusive. I think the reason for this in part is because fundamental baptist churches for too long have made pastors and deacons out to be "super christians" and have not valued lay people who are every bit as important, if not moreso.

The paradigm seems to have been that lay people can only go so far in "ministry" and if you want to do more you have to be a pastor or a deacon. I think that is a shame. The people in the pew are supposed to be the ministers and the Pastor is the example and shepherd. He should be the one who does the least "ministry" percentage-wise. He's out numbered hundreds to one! Wait....you all do believe that the pastor is a he right?

I'm not sure at this point. How about deacons? Female?

Just checking.

[ February 18, 2005, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Biblicist ]

 

[Biblicist]

Second, the term is "ungrabbable" in the Greek. Divorce is a grabbable condition in the present for a past public action.

Can you cite a source? The interlinears I have access to say "one woman man".

Also you will have to flesh out this "grabbable vs. ungrabbable" concept... to include why it would not pertain to someone who had engaged in any sexual behavior before marriage, private or public (as if that should matter).[/QUOTE]

Convicted felons should not become deacons after salvation. [/QUOTE] I disagree. You have gone beyond anything said in the text of scripture with this assertion.

The term I'm referring to is "blameless" which means "unaccusable" and I understand to mean literally "without handles" to grab onto. I would have to double check that. Regardless, the point is that the deacon is to be blameless or unaccuseable. There should be no question as to their character. A private instance of sin that is unknown, for good or bad, does not make people question one's character. Many super nice people are pretty wicked on the inside. How can we tell who is who? The bible says you will know them by their fruits.

I believe that people will reap what they sow and there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed. The ultimate revelation is in heaven obviously, but also here on earth, you can't hide a sinful lifestyle forever, it will come out. When it does, it is a public display of what's on the inside.

What Paul is talking about here is evaluating the public life of the believer to see if they are blameless. Why doesn't he tell us to delve into the candidate's innermost secrets hidden in their hearts? Because there is no way to know them!!

The people I am talking about or have used as an example are people who have had a public reputation for not being blameless. The moment strife comes up the first thing someone will say is "Who are you to tell me how to live, you've been divorced!". Fair? I don't think so, but in God's house the model is purity, blamelessness, etc. and that is the standard for leaders in His church.

We are all sinners. No one is more valuable in the sight of God than another. However, we are not all qualified for these positions.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Biblicist:

Being a tax collector I don't believe is a sin by itself, Paul apparently never murdered anyone and Peter's act was one incident of self defense.

Tax collectors were viewed as thieves. They got extra money by extortion.

I am convinced that over 95 percent of the deacons in most churches do not qualify. They are not making disciples and do not qualify at the most basic level of being tested. For anyone in the OT to have proven themselves and for the church to have survived take a look at the men in Acts 6 and consider the fact that a leader during that time made disciples not by accidnet but on purpose.

 

[just-want-peace]

This thread just proves that anybody who is at present a pastor, or a deacon needs to resign RIGHT NOW!!!

Show me just ONE of the above that meets the requirements 100%; and according to many of these posts, nothing shy of perfection will suffice! Keep in mind that Jesus condemned evil thoughts/desires just as vehemently as the deed.

But then, according to many, divorce is the only one that makes you rejectable across the board.

I'm sorry, but I have a real problem just picking and choosing; either you accept the requirements as stated, or it's anybody's call as to their "favorite" short-coming! If divorce is grounds for total rejection in pastor/deacon selection, then violation of any of the other requirements is also valid!!

The only way, IMHO, to accept these teachings is to apply them to the man AT PRESENT.

When a person accepts Christ, the past is null & void as far as condemnation from God is concerned; NOT the consequences, just the condemnation. And if God can wipe the past clean, who are we to say that someone's past condemns them to 2nd class Christianity.

We're getting mighty close to playing GOD when we set conditions that He has not set! Again, as one poster has so eloquently said, "BE CONSISTENT"! IE: If divorce (past action) is condemnable, then so is lust, brawling, drunkeness, theft, murder etc etc. And who's gonna remain to fill these vacant pastor/deacon slots?

Keep in mind that my concerns are for the condition of the man AT PRESENT, and if these characteristics and requirements cannot be met AT PRESENT, then he is most definitely disqualified for the job. Not if he stumbles, but if his lifestyle falls short.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Biblicist:

The bible says you will know them by their fruits.
The moment strife comes up the first thing someone will say is "Who are you to tell me how to live, you've been divorced!".

We are all sinners. No one is more valuable in the sight of God than another. However, we are not all qualified for these positions.

Being a deacon is not a position but an increased responsibility.

If the man being considered is not making disciples he is not qualified at the most basic level of leadership. If no followers he is not a leader.

If you think it takes a married man to tell others how to live then quit reading your Bible. Consider Jesus and Paul as just two.

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by gb93433:
If I may add a little fuel to the fire. I do not believe any man who is overweight qualifies as a deacon or pastor either. It shows a lack of self control and greed for excessive food which could be given to help others instead of fattening himself. It shows his self-indulgent lifestyle. It also gives him less energy to do the work of the ministry and presents himself as a health risk to both his family and congregation.

As soon as I quit pastoring my insurance went down to about one half of what it was. The insurance company knows the condition of clergy well.

I was getting ready to give you a hardy amen, GB, but then I read:

Originally posted by gb93433:
Originally posted by Biblicist:


Adult film stars should not become deacons after salvation.

Would that include David?


Convicted felons should not become deacons after salvation.

Does that include Matthew the tax collector and Paul the persecuter and possibly murderer? How about Moses the murderer and David the man who wanted a man killed so he could have his wife?
Also would that include Peter who cut off a man's ear?

Did any of these ever consider a call to be a Deacon or Pastor?

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Biblicist:

Being a tax collector I don't believe is a sin by itself, Paul apparently never murdered anyone and Peter's act was one incident of self defense.

Tax collectors were viewed as thieves. They got extra money by extortion.

I am convinced that over 95 percent of the deacons in most churches do not qualify. They are not making disciples and do not qualify at the most basic level of being tested. For anyone in the OT to have proven themselves and for the church to have survived take a look at the men in Acts 6 and consider the fact that a leader during that time made disciples not by accidnet but on purpose. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, OK.

I will give you an amen.

 

[Biblicist]

Being a deacon is not a position but an increased responsibility

I just meant position of leadership. Technically its an office.

As for the other points of everyone else, I'm done here.

I just hope you guys are looking at what you are saying as it applies to other areas. If we have to redefine standards because noone is qualified to be a deacon, then why have standards at all?

Bring on the drunkards, homosexuals, etc. As long as they are not practicing the sin during the vote (the present), its cool I guess.

I don't get why you guys think it means 100% perfection. It just says be "unaccusable"....blameless! I know plenty of men that are good,decent,honest, sober, godly men. Don't you guys? Is it that hard to find qualified men in your congregations?

I'm willing to bet that in most churches where this is an issue, the deacons function as senators not servants and have a position of authority at or above the level of pastor.

Am I wrong? I'm honestly asking.

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
When a person accepts Christ, the past is null & void as far as condemnation from God is concerned; NOT the consequences, just the condemnation. And if God can wipe the past clean, who are we to say that someone's past condemns them to 2nd class Christianity.

We're getting mighty close to playing GOD when we set conditions that He has not set! Again, as one poster has so eloquently said, "BE CONSISTENT"! IE: If divorce (past action) is condemnable, then so is lust, brawling, drunkeness, theft, murder etc etc. And who's gonna remain to fill these vacant pastor/deacon slots?

Keep in mind that my concerns are for the condition of the man AT PRESENT, and if these characteristics and requirements cannot be met AT PRESENT, then he is most definitely disqualified for the job. Not if he stumbles, but if his lifestyle falls short.

This is where it starts rubbing me. Is it "2nd class Christianity" if someone does not qualify for the office of Pastor or Deacon? Maybe it is time that the churches quit holding these positions up as the ultimate position in the Kingdom of God. Of course, I will not take anything away from these positions, but GB hit the nail on the head in his previous post. I maybe would extend his thoughts to include a large percentage of Pastors, but maybe not a full 95%.

Another thing. I am not as concerned with the past sins that have been forgiven, then I am about the institution that I believe was ordained by God--that being marriage. I believe the results would be interesting if we polled BB members asking 'What is the divorce rate in your church?'

 

[gb93433]

Biblicist

There are many who would probably disagree with me. I believe every leader in every church should be discipling men and women to do ministry and they should be actively training others.

The deacons and pastors should be the finest example of Christ when it comes to humility. People on the outside ought to be drawn to Christ because of who they are and the life they live. They ought to have recommendations from their employers and people in the community before finally being considered as a deacon. They should be impeccable in their credit history and business dealings. They should be sharing their faith and making disciples.

Years ago I was offered a job by an incredible company. The man who owned the company was a Christian. He had one of the best reputations in the industry and by people who sold him good and delivered services. He was often given discounts that he did not ask for simply because he always paid his bills early. If we were shipped more than we were billed for we paid the extra. The company was honest and up front with its suppliers, customers and employees. When I interviewed with that company they interviewed me for nine hours. Before I came they gave me a temperament test, acquired an MVR report and credit history. In 1977 they were given the highest award in ethics in business in the US. I was glad to be a part of such an excewllent team. Why should the church have anything less for its leadership? I have been in one church who did a thorough investigation on men they were considering as deacons. They were men who could be trusted and were men who were greatly respected in the community and church. They represented the church well. 77 years after it began it is still doing the same thing today.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by williemakeit:
I believe the results would be interesting if we polled BB members asking 'What is the divorce rate in your church?'

In one church I pastored divorce was very high. When I approached the deacons about doing something about it you should have seen the looks on their faces. Even the youth leader was considering a divorce. So one by one I confronted the people whose marraiges who were in trouble. But not one deacon would stand with me. They were cowards. But they were deacons.

Who are we to preach divorce is wrong if we do not confront those having troubles in their marriage? We must not tolerate divorce as a side issue. Those people ahve their entire life at at stake. If they choose to go their own way we cannot do anything about that. But we must not sit by and do nothing.

 

[Biblicist]

I agree with you on all that GB.

 

[Refreshed]

The question begs to be asked. How can you be a "one woman man" if you have had two wives?

Jason