Divorcees in Ministry

dkicklig · #1 (**permalink**) 07-09-2004, 09:44 AM

I have heard many different takes on the subject of divorcess in ministry:

1. They can never be in mininstry
2. They can serve, but not as a senior pastor or elder
3. They can serve in any capacity, so long as it wasn't there fault.
4. They can serve if they were divorced before they were saved.

This is quite a hot potato in many churches, what say ye Puritanheads?

Joshua · #2 (**permalink**) 12-04-2004, 06:26 PM

Matthew (webmaster) has a good article concerning such:

http://apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/Mc...AndDivorce.htm

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by joshua]

C. Matthew McMahon · #3 (**permalink**) 12-04-2004, 09:00 PM

You stole my fire. :P

Joshua · #4 (**permalink**) 12-04-2004, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by webmaster
You stole my fire. :P

Nay...I offered your fire to the inquirer

PuritanBouncer · #5 (**permalink**) 12-04-2004, 09:10 PM

I found this very helpful within the entire text.

Quote:

If the man was recently divorce, lawfully, (his wife would have to be an unbeliever and have left him, or an unbeliever in a series of unrepentant adulterous affairs with no possibility of reconciliation after every effort has been placed forth) then this should be taken into consideration. If the man was not divorced lawfully then remarried, biblically he and his newly wed wife are committing adultery and should not be considered for the office, and should enter into counseling to see whether or not they are even Christians, why the divorce and remarriage took place, etc. Gentle Pastoral care over situations of this nature are important.

Are there many who would disagree with this?

Joshua · #6 (**permalink**) 12-04-2004, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by houseparent
I found this very helpful within the entire text.

Quote:

If the man was recently divorce, lawfully, (his wife would have to be an unbeliever and have left him, or an unbeliever in a series of unrepentant adulterous affairs with no possibility of reconciliation after every effort has been placed forth) then this should be taken into consideration. If the man was not divorced lawfully then remarried, biblically he and his newly wed wife are committing adultery and should not be considered for the office, and should enter into counseling to see whether or not they are even Christians, why the divorce and remarriage took place, etc. Gentle Pastoral care over situations of this nature are important.

Are there many who would disagree with this?

Adam, probably not. The biggest problem with most "Evangelical" churches today is an out-and-out ignorance of the Biblical teaching on Divorce anyway. An excellent resource, IMHO, is Dr. Jay Adams' Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible. Also, John MacArthur has an excellent tape series called "The Divorce Dilemma". Both resources deal with all the major texts concerning Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage.

yeutter · #7 (**permalink**) 12-05-2004, 09:28 PM

The question is timely. I am aware of at least two schisms in Dutch Reformed communions in America where this has been the central issue.

I would note at the start, that the Webmaster assumes that the innocent party of a divorce may take a new spouce. That is not the historic position of the Western Church. Conservative Anglicans and Protestant Reformers do not agree that this is permissable, though the Westminster standards seem to permit it.

Having said that, let me ask if scripture is not holding deacons, presbyters, and bishops to a higher standard?

1 Timothy 3 verses 4 and 5 says; "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection, with all gravity. But if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God."

How can one, that has been through the chaos of divorce, be said to rule well his own house?

It would seem very much the exception that a divorced man would meet the qualifications for presbyter even granting the Webmasters understanding of 1 Timothy 3

The early church cannons understood this passage not to permit divorced and remarried persons to the office of deacon, presbyter or Bishop. They were permitted to be readers, and subdeacons, but they coiuld not hold an ordained office.

If a person who has been ordained is divorced does he forfiet his office. The understanding of the early church fathers was no, not necessarily. If he subsequently remarried did he forfiet the office. The ealy church fathers would answer yes. He should be content in the state that God called him or put him.

That is the historic position of the whole western church. Conservative Anglicans hold that position to this day.

Joshua · #8 (**permalink**) 12-05-2004, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yeutter
I would note at the start, that the Webmaster assumes that the innocent party of a divorce may take a new spouce. That is not the historic position of the Western Church. Conservative Anglicans and Protestant Reformers do not agree that this is permissable, though the Westminster standards seem to permit it.

Matthew acknowledged that not all are in agreement of such.

Quote:

Having said that, let me ask if scripture is not holding deacons, presbyters, and bishops to a higher standard?

1 Timothy 3 verses 4 and 5 says; "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection, with all gravity. But if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God."

How can one, that has been through the chaos of divorce, be said to rule well his own house?

Matthew spent some time on talking about the tense of the verbiag "to be", exegetically concluding that it is in the present tense. Thus, after some time, one who has been lawfully divorced (i.e. desertion by unbeliever, or spouse who unrepentantly persists in adulteries with no "chance" of reconciliation), could still own all of the qualifications.

Quote:

If a person who has been ordained is divorced does he forfiet his office. The understanding of the early church fathers was no, not necessarily. If he subsequently remarried did he forfiet the office. The ealy church fathers would answer yes. He should be content in the state that God called him or put him.

"content in the state that God called him or put him."

Yes, and that state may very well be that which is found in 1 Cor 7:15

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

What would this peace be? Just singleness for the rest of their lives? I think not. Earlier in verses 8-9, Paul says this:

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

From Matthew 19:10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." 11But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

Would a man, who is otherwise qualified for eldership, have to give up his calling so that he could be remarried. Or, what it be more likely, which I believe, that the elder can remarry, on top of other things, because he has not been called to singleness, and so that he does not burn with passion?