serving as a deacon after divorce

[Scott J]

MTA, Are you now saying that the perceptions of the world are the standards by which a person's worthiness to be a deacon are to be judged?

You have just created a much larger monster to be dealt with. What if the world knows that a man was once a drunk, drug user, gossip... what if they know of times he was caught in lies, cheating, being hateful or rebellious towards teachers/parents/adults?

What if the world perceives him as unloving and unkind because of his "legalistic" moral stands?

If the world's opinion of and critique of a Christian is the standard then no one can ever qualify.

Not only do you require that a man be sinless but also not offensive to those who would be offended by a perfectly moral person.

You can't just pick and choose which sin(s) permanently disqualifies someone. You must go by what God's Word actually says in context. The Bible says that a deacon or pastor must be a "one woman man". It doesn't specify that this precludes a divorce in the past.

It does indicate however some period of "proof".

I am just looking for one of you guys to interpret this passage in a consistent way rather than picking divorce out of all sins to be the one permanent disqualifier... and that in spite of the fact that the relevant verses don't mention divorce.

 

[El_Guero]

mk7

Your thread topic "serving as a deacon after divorce" is a difficult concept. However long I struggle with this topic, I am still torn between God's commandments and His forgiveness.

It would seem that we all understand His commands on this, and it would seem that all would want to appeal to His forgiveness ...

In Christ,

 

[Xingyi Warrior]

However, God made the man the head of the home. He should provide godly leadership. Most failures in the home and marriage are related to or caused by a failure of the man to be a biblical servant-leader... a one woman man, "head" of her, discipler of his children, etc.

True in an idealistic sense. However modern feminist philosophy, which has infected nearly every aspect of our society, has immasculated men in the eyes of most women including Christians. Women, even Christians now demand equal bearing in the marriage and view their husbands as incompetent buffoons who, without the guidence or dominion of a genetically "superior" female is lost without a roadmap. Because of the brainwashing philosophy of the feminist (man hating) agenda women are trained at an early age by our public institutions to
1. Compete with men in all areas to prove their superiority
2. Abandon all domestic duties traditionally ascribed to the role of a "wife"
3. To use deprivation of sex as a form of punishment when they don't get their way

If you disagree with me on any of these points then please explain why the Christian population in this country comparitively suffers the same divorce frequencies as secular society?
At present, feminist philosophy is under increasing fire from sociological studies ranging from an alarming (depending on if you are a feminist or not)number of "career women" who have chosen to leave the workforce and return to the domestic role of being a mother to observations of the success of stores such as Victoria's Secret (hint, men don't shop there and women aren't buying that stuff to stand in front of the mirror and admire themselves). Though feminist philosophy is falling apart, it's wholesale destruction on the true, God-given femininity of at least 2 generations of American females is irreparable. The sole problem in the marriage today is not one of lack of leadership as much as I would ascribe to traditional roles of male and female being blurred. In evidence - a recent study of middle to top level, single male executives shows a trend of this demographic seeking not career women who are their intelectual of socioeconmic equals, but women in more subordinate roles. Of course the feminist retaliation to that is always, "THey just want a woman that they can control". Not really. Men are suprisingly attractted to these women for two fuindamental reasons.

1. The highly celebrated career woman usually has succeeded as such becasue she has acquired the same attributes that have traditionally made males successful in their careers. In essence they ARE men in that respect. Since the majority of men in America are not gay. They defer to women who seem to have less masculine attributes - suprise, suprise...real women.

2. Feminist philosophy is based upon hating men and all aspects of our patrolineal society and encouraging its female constituents to hate men as well. Why would any man in his right mind cede his emotional, physical and financial assets to and give sanctuary to someone who inherently hates him?

Another alarming (again depending on your affiliations) trend that is occuring is an exponentially increasing number of successful American men seeking and developing relationships with women of other cultures.
So you decide.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Xingyi Warrior:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> However, God made the man the head of the home. He should provide godly leadership. Most failures in the home and marriage are related to or caused by a failure of the man to be a biblical servant-leader... a one woman man, "head" of her, discipler of his children, etc.

True in an idealistic sense.</font>[/QUOTE] True in a biblical sense... which is the only sense that really matters.

However modern feminist philosophy, which has infected nearly every aspect of our society, has immasculated men in the eyes of most women including Christians. Women, even Christians now demand equal bearing in the marriage and view their husbands as incompetent buffoons who, without the guidence or dominion of a genetically "superior" female is lost without a roadmap.

In the face of this immasculation, men will either stand up and try to live biblical manhood or they will cave. The odd thing is that most women will object to male leadership in the abstract but be drawn to it in real life situations.

IOW's, the way out of this situation is for men to stop trying to figure out what women want and start trying to be a man according to the biblical model.

Because of the brainwashing philosophy of the feminist (man hating) agenda women are trained at an early age by our public institutions to
1. Compete with men in all areas to prove their superiority
2. Abandon all domestic duties traditionally ascribed to the role of a "wife"
3. To use deprivation of sex as a form of punishment when they don't get their way

True. But God created man and woman. He knows their desires and more importantly their real needs more than they do.

If you disagree with me on any of these points then please explain why the Christian population in this country comparitively suffers the same divorce frequencies as secular society?

That is a little misleading. Self professing Christians do have the same or a slightly higher divorce rate as do non-Christians.

Two things are misleading about this statistic. First, Catholics pull the percentage down (25%). They divorce less than non-Catholic Christians while Pentacostals' divorce rate is higher than the national average significantly- 44%.

Second and more importantly, from what I remember about a study conducted by Barna Research (and unfortunately I can't find the reference) Christians with a basic biblical worldview have a very low divorce rate (single digits if I remember correctly).

Here is all he required to ascribe a basic biblical worldview:

For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.

Basically, the demonized fundamentalists have successful marriages while virtually all others do not.

At present, feminist philosophy is under increasing fire...

Basically everything else you mentioned I would count as somewhat positive. "Somewhat" because people are recognizing the truth without repenting toward the One who established these truths.

 

[Xingyi Warrior]

In the face of this immasculation, men will either stand up and try to live biblical manhood or they will cave. The odd thing is that most women will object to male leadership in the abstract but be drawn to it in real life situations.

IOW's, the way out of this situation is for men to stop trying to figure out what women want and start trying to be a man according to the biblical model.

You are correct. I don't take issue with you. But it is much harder for a man to try and decide whether he should take the stand in his home and, in doing so perhaps push his marirage to the brink of divorce. Many men would probably prefer to coexist with their wives in this warped state then to do as you and the Bible suggests and suffer the consequences of, as previously outlined:

1. Increased competition on the homefront
2. Less domestic participation
3. Less sex

Keep in mind that if these women rebel against their male authority figures at face value then they will most likely rebel against any behavior that is adapted that cotradicts their brainwahed feminst worldview even if it is out of the inspired word of God. And in essence the feminist philosophy is, when minimalized, a outright rebellion against God.

True. But God created man and woman. He knows their desires and more importantly their real needs more than they do.

Again I don't take issue with you on this statement. But unless BOTH parties realize this then it doesn't matter what God knows as he will not intercede against a person's individual will. It is written "Train a child up in the way they should walk and when they are old they will not depart from it". - Hence feminism's damage on our society. They've been trained well.

Basically, the demonized fundamentalists have successful marriages while virtually all others do not.

No arguement there either.

Basically everything else you mentioned I would count as somewhat positive. "Somewhat" because people are recognizing the truth without repenting toward the One who established these truths.

Vindication........ maybe, but far from positive Scott. Because as of today we have a society full of disolussioned males obsessed with sex (something that they have been deprived of through feminism's takeover of our womens' hearts and minds). Who can never realize the full embodiment of what a Godly union between a man and a woman can be because in their collective view, the chances of this happening are ridiculously skewed. At one time society actually prepared people for marriage through apprenticeship and expample. Now all we are concerned with is making sure our children as young as 9 and 10 years can compete with students and pass the ACT/SAT so that they can establish themselves in careers. Then when they meet someone they think they love and get married they are totally unprepared and the marriage falters. Ironically the careers usually falter as well under the stresses of the divorces and associated leagal battles over assets parent rights etc....
In addition, we have these "career women" who have bought into the feminist lie finding themselves in their mid to late 30's wanting all that they forfeighted for feminisms empty promises coming up emty handed in the relationship department. Because the same disolussioned males whom they want have the resources to attract younger females (basically for sexual reasons, and males have shown time after time in studies that where sex is concerned - they go for younger prettier) because they increasingly view the females as bereft of any relationship qualities and figure they will get what they can and leave it at that - basically sex. This is hardly anything I would ascibe as being positive because it is representative of the screwed up culture that we live in currently. And sadly the church seems to have been infected by it to much the same ends as everyone else.

 

[MTA]

Originally posted by Scott J:
MTA, Are you now saying that the perceptions of the world are the standards by which a person's worthiness to be a deacon are to be judged?

You have just created a much larger monster to be dealt with. What if the world knows that a man was once a drunk, drug user, gossip... what if they know of times he was caught in lies, cheating, being hateful or rebellious towards teachers/parents/adults?

What if the world perceives him as unloving and unkind because of his "legalistic" moral stands?

If the world's opinion of and critique of a Christian is the standard then no one can ever qualify.

Not only do you require that a man be sinless but also not offensive to those who would be offended by a perfectly moral person.

You can't just pick and choose which sin(s) permanently disqualifies someone. You must go by what God's Word actually says in context. The Bible says that a deacon or pastor must be a "one woman man". It doesn't specify that this precludes a divorce in the past.

It does indicate however some period of "proof".

I am just looking for one of you guys to interpret this passage in a consistent way rather than picking divorce out of all sins to be the one permanent disqualifier... and that in spite of the fact that the relevant verses don't mention divorce.

My friend, you have read far more into what I've written than is there. First, our influence is in the world, as well as in our own congregations. Forgiveness of past transgressions does not always erase their consequences. In the case of deacons and bishops, they are held to a higher standard than the other members of the church because of the peculiar nature of their station in the church. If a deacon divorces, that does not mean their ability to serve the Lord is nullified, only that they should not continue to serve in the capacity of a deacon. That is not punitive and too many people immediately jump to that conclusion. It simply means they are no longer qualified to serve in that capacity.

Secondly, you will have a hard time defending your "one-woman man" belief absolutely. The arguments are just as sound for the one-woman only belief. Regardless, is it so important to argue this position? What is accomplished? Paul said that all things were lawful for him, but he was quick to add that all things were not expedient. That is pretty much my view of this argument. Since we cannot make the determination absolutely, what is to be gained by arguing it. There are greater considerations worthy of our time and our discussion.

Lastly, the other qualifications carry equal weight with the husband of one wife command. However they are less objective and as such much more difficult to quantify. However, not enforcing the qualifications 100% is not a license to ignore them completely. Churches should work equally hard to quantify the remaining qualifications and then hold these brethren to that standard.

What I was attempting to say in my earlier post was that the world sees what we do and we are quick to be judged by what we say and do, and by the same token, by what we do not say and what we do not do. We have a responsibility to protect the reputation of the church in the communities where we reside and part of that responsibility is holding our ordained brethren to the highest standards that is demanded by their offices.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by MTA:
My friend, you have read far more into what I've written than is there.

Judging from your response I am not so sure.

First, our influence is in the world, as well as in our own congregations.

Granted. And that goes for any and all sin, not just divorce.

Forgiveness of past transgressions does not always erase their consequences.

That's true. But we aren't talking about consequences in this case. We are talking about whether what God's Word actually says establishes the qualifications for a deacon or if human opinion does.

In the case of deacons and bishops, they are held to a higher standard than the other members of the church because of the peculiar nature of their station in the church.

Yes... but that still doesn't justify picking divorce out of the whole list of possible sins and making it the unforgiveable, unforgettable one.

If a deacon divorces...

This is an entirely different matter. If someone serving as a deacon divorces then they should most certainly cease to serve in that role. Not only may it mean that they were not a "one woman man", it probably indicates that they didn't rule their own house well.

My personal belief is that Charles Stanley worked very hard at preserving his marriage and that most of the problems were caused by his wife... but still believe he should not have continued as Pastor.

However, I was specifically talking about the qualifications for someone who was being considered for a deacon position. These passages relate directly to the character of the man and say absolutely nothing about a divorce in the past.

Secondly, you will have a hard time defending your "one-woman man" belief absolutely.

I haven't so far. No one has effectively argued against this position... because the position most of you would argue from is inconsistent and untenable with regard to the actual statement from scripture.

The arguments are just as sound for the one-woman only belief.

If you were going to interpret the passage that way consistently then I could understand that interpretation and perhaps you would. However, most want to equate "one woman only" with "no divorce only". "One woman only" must be held without bias to include anyone who had extra-marital sex or even who had fantasized about a woman outside of their wife.

Regardless, is it so important to argue this position? What is accomplished?

The integrity of the standards provided by God through Paul are upheld. If God had wanted the Bible to say no divorcee can serve as a deacon then He certainly could have. He didn't. He said that a man should be a one woman man.

Lastly, the other qualifications carry equal weight with the husband of one wife command.

Then why are men who have ever had a rebellious child not disqualified? How about men who were double-tongued in the past? Are they disqualified? I don't think so.

But your post makes an interesting mischaracterization that is caused by English translations. "Husband of one wife" is a dynamic equivalency translation. It unfortunately implies a narrow application that "one woman man" does not.

A man can be a husband of one wife and lust after women at work... but he can't be a one woman man and do so. This is just one illustration of many.

We have a responsibility to protect the reputation of the church in the communities where we reside and part of that responsibility is holding our ordained brethren to the highest standards that is demanded by their offices.

That part is subjective however. Our objective first responsibility is to abide by what God said in the Bible without undershooting or overshooting.

 

[dcorbett]

yes, and we are all saved by grace if we are truly saved, right? I mean, works ain't where its at.

BUT....certain standards have been set to adhere to in order to walk in a godly manner....right?

 

[MTA]

If you visit a man that seems to exhibit all the biblical qualifications for a deacon and walking into his home you find garbage all over the floor, the kids running rampant, and his wife sitting on the couch eating bon-bons, what are you going to think about that person's ability to serve the church? I would hope you would reconsider!

I do agree with Scott J. that the whole divorce issue is deserving of no more attention than any of the other qualifications for officers in the church. However, it seems churches jump on the divorce issue because it is far less subjective in nature. You either are, have been, or are not.

Divorce changes a person, regardless whether they are at fault or not. Effectively, they are crippled. I had a stroke ten years ago and although I have recovered to the degree that no one would ever know by looking at me, I still feel the effects. My right hand is partially numb and generally, it requires far more effort to move my right side than it does my left. I tire more easily as a result. Knowing this, you should never put me into a position that might somehow be influenced by my condition, regardless of when the stroke happened, or why it happened, or although there is no visible sign that it ever happened. But, knowing that I am changed in this manner, I should never allow you to consider me either. The same is true with the man who is or would be a deacon or a pastor.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by dcorbett:
yes, and we are all saved by grace if we are truly saved, right? I mean, works ain't where its at.

BUT....certain standards have been set to adhere to in order to walk in a godly manner....right?

Yes- and God, not men, set those standards.

Again, He could have said "a man without a divorce" but didn't. He said a "one woman man".

That means one of two things (unless you come up with a coherent third option). Either a man has been a one woman man his whole life having never committed a sexual sin (including involvement with a divorce) or else it points to a man's current character as demonstrated by some reasonable period of consistent godly behavior.

The context of these passages seems to support the importance of current behavior.

The passages in question do not say nor imply that "one woman man" = "never divorced man" nor "man whose wife has never divorced".

Obviously, a church can interpret this differently. I just don't think they can be biblically consistent outside of one of the two options I mentioned above.

 

[just-want-peace]

1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1-being found blameless.
--Never cashed a bad check,
--Never been drunk,
--Never stolen/cheated on income tax
--etc, etc, etc!

2-wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things
--Wives have never been flippant or sarcastic
--Wives never have gossiped
--Wives have never been drunk
--Wives have always been faithful in sex, finances, taking care of the family etc, etc, etc

3-be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
--Never been divorced
--Never been widowed
--Never lusted after another woman
--Currently has a wife (be the husband of one wife-- yep, no bachelors need apply)
--Never had a rebellious child
--Never had to get a child out of jail
--Never had any marital problems
--etc, etc, etc.

The point that Scott J is TRYING to press home (correct me if I'm wrong Scott) is that if the 1st item under # 3 above is your criteria to disallow a man to be a deacon, then, unless you're trying to second-guess God, why aren't you claiming the other failings as disqualifiers?? By what reasoning or authority do you pick and choose what is the disqualifying criteria when you read the WHOLE passage of requirements given by Scripture?

IMHO the ONLY way you can say any given disqualifier is applicable is to apply it to the man's PRESENT character; otherwise there will be absolutely no one qualified, and I really do not believe this is what God had in mind.

Consistency, folks, consistency; equality of application!

 

[Scott J]

Yes, Thanks JWP.

I am not demanding that anyone agree with me on the interpretation just that they be consistent.

 

[El_Guero]

mk7,

I still agree with your pastor in regards to the "office of deacon".

Today, we use the term for deacon to mean those that serve the church and those that are leaders (elders). The leaders fill the "office" of Deacon.

... There will be those that "serve" the Church, and some of these should be divorced in most modern churches. But, there will also be leaders within the Church that fill the "office" that we call "Deacon". In the Office of Deacon, the Bible's higher standard should be met.

However, we do not see that Paul, or the other Apostles, felt that the Blood of Christ removed any pre-requisites to the offices of the Church. In other words, the Apostles felt that there were requirements for the offices of leaders with in the Church.

Yes, Paul was guilty of at least assisting in murder. Yes, Paul does not seem to consider that sin an exclusion from the offices of the Church.

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

1-being found blameless.
--Never cashed a bad check,
--Never been drunk,
--Never stolen/cheated on income tax
--etc, etc, etc!

2-wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things
--Wives have never been flippant or sarcastic
--Wives never have gossiped
--Wives have never been drunk
--Wives have always been faithful in sex, finances, taking care of the family etc, etc, etc

3-be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
--Never been divorced
--Never been widowed
--Never lusted after another woman
--Currently has a wife (be the husband of one wife-- yep, no bachelors need apply)
--Never had a rebellious child
--Never had to get a child out of jail
--Never had any marital problems
--etc, etc, etc.

The point that Scott J is TRYING to press home (correct me if I'm wrong Scott) is that if the 1st item under # 3 above is your criteria to disallow a man to be a deacon, then, unless you're trying to second-guess God, why aren't you claiming the other failings as disqualifiers?? By what reasoning or authority do you pick and choose what is the disqualifying criteria when you read the WHOLE passage of requirements given by Scripture?

IMHO the ONLY way you can say any given disqualifier is applicable is to apply it to the man's PRESENT character; otherwise there will be absolutely no one qualified, and I really do not believe this is what God had in mind.

Consistency, folks, consistency; equality of application!

__________________________________________________

I agree. If this passage MEANS never having been divorced then it MEANS never having had any of the other failings. Based on THAT interpretation, I dare say that ONLY Christ can be a deacon! Or pastor.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Scott J]

However, we do not see that Paul, or the other Apostles, felt that the Blood of Christ removed any pre-requisites to the offices of the Church. In other words, the Apostles felt that there were requirements for the offices of leaders with in the Church.

The only important thing is what God said about the subject.

The Apostle Paul gave us the God inspired requirements for the office. He didn't specify divorce as a disqualifier.

The more I have discussed this, the more it seems that this isn't so much a matter of interpretation but rather that some people want to read a personal bias into the text.

Just be consistent with what the passage actually says. There is nothing in the text or context of these verses that indicate that divorce was in mind.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

I'm afraid God puts a wee-bit more emphasis on Holy Matrimony than liberal minded and comprimising men do, for them that is.

 

[Scott J]

No one here has argued that God didn't put great emphasis on marriage.

He also put great emphasis on the other things listed as qualifications for deacons/pastors.

We aren't compromising anything. I am simply asking for a consistent interpretation of these passages. Either the qualifications apply to a life time or they apply to a man's demonstrated current character.

If you want to apply them to a life time then have at it. You will of course disqualify virtually all men from serving if you do though.

Before you take off on another round of personal attacks, please explain how simply accepting what God said is "liberal minded and compromising". God said "one woman man". He didn't say a "never divorced man."

 

[Biblicist]

Originally posted by Scott J:
God said "one woman man". He didn't say a "never divorced man."

God also never said "Thou shalt not hire hitmen to commit murder on your behalf", nevertheless, I think we can agree He probably is against it.

This is a weak, weak, weak argument. An argument from silence I believe it is called.

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by Biblicist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
God said "one woman man". He didn't say a "never divorced man."

God also never said "Thou shalt not hire hitmen to commit murder on your behalf", nevertheless, I think we can agree He probably is against it.

This is a weak, weak, weak argument. An argument from silence I believe it is called. </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

If it is in your opinion a very weak argument, then at least apply it across the board.
Disqualify every man who has ever been guilty of any of the items on the rest of the list.
Can't be done? Then WHY divorce only?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[omalley]

It seems to me that this thread hinges on what God thinks about a divorced person. Does God consider a divorced person to still be married? The very idea of the term 'divorced' carries with it that there is no longer a marriage, both legally and otherwise. If he does consider them to still be married, then obviously he would want men who have never been divorced to be deacons. However, if He doesn't view them as still married, then they would still be the 'husband of one wife' and eligible for office in this sense. Does anyone have scripture to show that God feels that a divorced person is really still married?

Here's another question for you: if a man is divorced (legally and biblically) through no fault of their own (adultery by spouse), why wouldn't they be eligible for the office of deacon (they've committed no sin in the divorce, God has said it's ok for them to divorce)? We're going to punish them for something other than sin? To desire the office of deacon is a good thing...and we're going to withhold a good thing from them for no wrongdoing?