Is a biblically divorced and remarried man qualified to be a pastor?

[Notthemama1984]

I'm sure I'm not wise enough to ever pastor a big church of thousands but there are small churches in places that need a pastor who would do his best to be faithful to the word and meet their needs in Christ.

In my opinion, more wisdom is needed at the smaller churches vs. the megachurches. A pastor of a small church has to wear many hats, but many times the pastor of a megachurch won't.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I'm sure I'm not wise enough to ever pastor a big church of thousands but there are small churches in places that need a pastor who would do his best to be faithful to the word and meet their needs in Christ.

In my opinion, more wisdom is needed at the smaller churches vs. the megachurches. A pastor of a small church has to wear many hats, but many times the pastor of a megachurch won't.

Thanks. I'm sure that's true. I was just thinking about all of those people in a large church that the pastor is responsible for. I imagine it's a hard job trying to keep track of them. I changed the word to "spry."

 

[KMK]

Why the case by case stuff if he's biblically divorced? It's like saying our sins are forgiven on case by case basis.

Biblically divorced? I've heard and read quite a lot of the view that there is no such thing as a biblical divorce. Marriage is once and that's it while both are alive. And these are individuals that are in admired standing by denoms represented here, nobody off the deep end.

WLC Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,[780] are, adultery, fornication,[781] rape, incest,[782] sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;[783] all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;[784] all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;[785] wanton looks,[786] impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel;[787] prohibiting of lawful,[788] and dispensing with unlawful marriages;[789] allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;[790] entangling vows of single life,[791] undue delay of marriage,[792] having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;[793] unjust divorce,[794] or desertion;[795] idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,[796] unchaste company;[797] lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;[798] and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.[799]

The WLC clearly implies that there are 'just' divorces.

 

[ericfromcowtown]

Why the case by case stuff if he's biblically divorced? It's like saying our sins are forgiven on case by case basis.

Biblically divorced? I've heard and read quite a lot of the view that there is no such thing as a biblical divorce. Marriage is once and that's it while both are alive. And these are individuals that are in admired standing by denoms represented here, nobody off the deep end.

So Jesus and Paul were wrong, then?

You couldn't have meant to be that crass in your response.

Perhaps I should have worded my response differently. Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 seem pretty clear that divorce in some cases is permissible. 1 Corrinthians 7:15 also seems like a clear exception. The writers of the Westminster Confession seem to agree with me here (Chapter 24, V and VI). While I wouldn't want to appear crass, it seems that anyone who held a contrary view, if not "off the deep end," would certainly be counter-confessional (in so far as their denom held to the Westminster Confession). I plead ignorance on what, if anything, the Three Forms of Unity may say on divorce.

My apologies for helping to derail this topic, as the OP was not dealing with divorce and remarriage, but on the biblical qualifications of holding office.

 

[Notthemama1984]

changed the word to "spry."

I think that word works much better

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

To say that someone cannot even consider becoming a pastor because they do not yet possess the neccesary knowledge is wrong in my opinion.

First off, reread my comment. I didn't say what you implied.

You seem to have some knowledge concerning some theological issues but it would make me question your ability to understand a calling into the Pastorate.

That is what I said. That is why I asked him to do what I implored in following comments and to work under the guidance of his church so they could evaluate if he had the gifts and talents. BTW, the disciples were not uneducated when they started to minister.

I do not see this as being biblical because the men that Jesus chose to be his disciples were for the most part uneducated.

Bill, you are gravely mistaken here. The disciples were not uneducated. They spent three years or so with God the Son. Now I imagine that they had been given a great deal of education by him.

(Act 4:13) Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Also when we look at St. Paul he was a very educated man by the standards set up in their society. He was educated by Gamaliel. Even after his very pointed charge by Jesus, he still didn't set out to go do ministry right away. He went to Damascus. There he preached and grew in the faith. He went away and spent a few years growing in the faith. Also notice that Paul didn't depart Antioch without the commission of the Church. He worked under the authority of the Church still. He just didn't go off to do ministry because he was called. He worked within boundaries and learning.

In light of all of this I would ask that you read what I said first. Don't make blind assumptions. Also go and see what I recommended. If I am wrong I will apologize and rectify. I am not always correct.

 

[baron]

David, since you attend a SBC and live down south no a divorced man, can not be a pastor. Down south in the SBC from what I understand they will not tolerate a divorced minister. But if you came up north they will considered you depending on the reason for divorce. I know pastors from up north who could not get a church down south due to being divorced. Some of these SBC state conventions even called up north wanting to know why divorced men are being ordained.

As far as needing to go to seminary in the SBC or most Baptist churches this is not required. I have been a messanger from my church to other churche's that ordained men who did not attend seminary. Or have degrees. The two most common ways are to have a pastor and x amount of messangers of like minded Baptist churches come together and question (test) the man. Or your church itself can license you and ordain you. There are diffrent ways to go about it.

I have know pastors that have a PHD, also pastors with no or very little education and they were very godly and effective men. Also some of the educated men I knew were not as good as the non educated men.

The one thing I have heard a lot was some Baptist men will compare themselves to C H Spurgeon or John Bunyan who were not educated at a school of higher learing. I try and remind them that they were very gifted men used by God and they should go to school.

As another poster said talk to your pastor, deacons, and your church members. This is the best place to start. They who know you best will be able to tell you if they think you are qualified for the ministry.

 

[KMK]

From the The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government (Westminster Standards)

(2.) He shall be examined touching his skill in the original tongues, and his trial to be made by reading the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, and rendering some portion of some into Latin; and if he be defective in them, enquiry shall be made more strictly after his other learning, and whether he hath skill in logick and philosophy.

(3.) What authors in divinity he hath read, and is best acquainted with; and trial shall be made in his knowledge of the grounds of religion, and of his ability to defend the orthodox doctrine contained in them against all unsound and erroneous opinions, especially these of the present age; of his skill in the sense and meaning of such places of scripture as shall be proposed unto him, in cases of conscience, and in the chronology of the scripture, and the ecclesiastical history.

(5.) He shall also, within a competent time, frame a discourse in Latin upon such a common-place or controversy in divinity as shall be assigned to him, and exhibit to the presbytery such theses as express the sum thereof, and maintain a dispute upon them.

The Reformed view is that a minister of the word should be educated. Whether that education comes by way of a seminary is a different discussion.

 

[TimV]

This isn't about forgiveness of sin Tim. And I think you know that. It isn't like saying our sins are forgiven on a case by case basis. This doesn't have anything to do with forgiveness of sin or sins. It has to do with qualifying for something. You do admit there are qualifications right?

Of course there are qualifications. And of one of them means more than one wife (not at the same time) then someone who's wife died can't be qualified. Like Jessi said, a biblical divorce is like whether the man needs glasses, or has thinning hair.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This isn't about forgiveness of sin Tim. And I think you know that. It isn't like saying our sins are forgiven on a case by case basis. This doesn't have anything to do with forgiveness of sin or sins. It has to do with qualifying for something. You do admit there are qualifications right?

Of course there are qualifications. And of one of them means more than one wife (not at the same time) then someone who's wife died can't be qualified. Like Jessi said, a biblical divorce is like whether the man needs glasses, or has thinning hair.

Tim, You ought to know what I am saying. You need to read through the thread. I was addressing your first comment. You have rabbit trailed. I addressed your accusation. You made a false pretense in bringing in the forgiveness issue. Now you are taking it a step farther and ignored that I said that I agreed with the WCF in this thread.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Bill, you are gravely mistaken here. The disciples were not uneducated. They spent three years or so with God the Son. Now I imagine that they had been given a great deal of education by him.

Yes, that is the point. They were involved in the ultimate internship program, but when He first chose them, they were uneducated. Whether it was intentional or not, your post came across as saying that someone without sufficient theological knowledge is not qualified to discern a calling in their own life.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I know I'm not a theologian. I also understand that you and I have some differences of view in certain areas, but I believe I have a solid grounding in scripture and that with God's help and seminary I could do the job. I'm sure I'm not spry enough to ever pastor a big church of thousands but there are small churches in places that need a pastor who would do his best to be faithful to the word and meet their needs in Christ. I would love to do that, I just want to make sure I'm really called first before I go and spend all of the money and time on seminary. I don't care how much a church would pay. I expect it wouldn't be much but I can work two jobs as long as the Lord gives me health and stamina. I believe that if I'm really called the Lord will provide a place for me to work.

The key message in PC's post was that the church determines the validity of your calling. You do not do it all by yourself. Place yourself under the care of the leaders in your church and let the process work under the providential care of God. Your sig indicates your church is Confessional, so there is a process in place, based upon Scripture, that must be allowed to work here. That process includes the determination that seminary would be a proper course of action for you.

AMR

 

[Splinters]

Matthew 5:32 and divorce...

Well, here I go...my first post (and after the arbiters of this fine establishment read it, maybe my last!) Most guys go to the "Introduce Yourself Forum" and exchange civil dialog, get to know a few people. Am I doing that? Noooo....I have to open my big yap and insert my foot here! Ah well...nothing ventured.

I always get a little uncomfortable when I see people using Matthew 5:32 as a proof text for permissible divorce. I'm not saying that there aren't texts upon which such a claim can be made, I've just never read this text that way. Let me explain my thinking and THEN you can grab the pitchforks and flaming paraphernalia.

32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 5:32 (ESV)

Now, I don't read anywhere in this text where Jesus says, "If you divorce for reasons other than infidelity, then you've sinned big time!" Nor do I read him saying, "As long as the divorce was based on her infidelity, then you're just fine!" I don't read Jesus qualifying or sanctioning any method, means or reason for divorce whatsoever.

Rather, he says, " everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

What happens to the person who divorces on the grounds of adultery? Jesus doesn't say. He certainly doesn't approve of it or give sanction for it in this text. He only says that if you do divorce for any reason other then adultery, you will cause her to become an adulteress...shame on you.

Jesus may be saying, "Divorce is wrong in all cases...and to make matters worse, if you divorce her for reasons other than adultery, you add to your sin by making her an adulteress"

Jesus never sanctions any form of divorce in this passage. He only illuminates the consequences for divorcing without a specific qualifier; namely, adultery. Based on the other five antithesis in this section of the sermon, it's hard to imagine Jesus validating any form of behavior that would give the believer the aroma of the world.

Am I saying adultery is not a valid reason for divorce? Nope. I'm just saying I don't think Matthew 5:32 is the silver bullet for that werewolf.

Maybe I'm parsing the text too closely?! I'm teachable.

[hastily dons asbestos suit]

Oh by the way...Hi! My name is Cliff.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Bill, you are gravely mistaken here. The disciples were not uneducated. They spent three years or so with God the Son. Now I imagine that they had been given a great deal of education by him.

Yes, that is the point. They were involved in the ultimate internship program, but when He first chose them, they were uneducated. Whether it was intentional or not, your post came across as saying that someone without sufficient theological knowledge is not qualified to discern a calling in their own life.

Bill,
I know you are new here. Please, read things more carefully. Words mean things. Even the disciples had no idea what they were being called into and for what Christ called them for. Please read me a bit more charitably. And read the words I write. Don't read what you think I am saying. Read what I am saying and read it in full context please. Words mean things.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter
You seem to have some knowledge concerning some theological issues but it would make me question your ability to understand a calling into the Pastorate.

I said it would make me question one's ability to understand a calling into the Pastorate. Many people feel called. And they really don't understand what a calling into the Pastorate is. Let alone do they understand the Pastorate. I have been around good Pastors and many poor Pastors for 30 years now. I have seen many people who thought they were called and were not. I even felt called at one time to the Pastorate only to realize I had a zeal for God's work. I wasn't called for Church office. I have discipled many who have been called into it. Bless the Lord for his work. And I also bless him for making me know I wasn't. I would have ruined many lives most likely.

So now let me conclude this. I do believe that it is important for someone with theological blindness to get input from their Elders concerning a calling upon their life. I do not believe theological neophytes are fully capable of discerning their callings. I was a Christian for fifteen years and had a pretty good knowledge of the scriptures and felt called into the Pastorate. Boy was I mistaken. I was confusing my desire and love for ministering to people with a calling. I was confusing my gifts and talents and sign of fruit with a calling. I was already doing just what the Lord had me doing and that is sufficient. Aspiring toward a church office is a good thing. But a calling into the ministry of Pastorate is very complicated.

Just as a side note I want to plant this here. It isn't necessarily relevant to this discussion but I love this.

Just a quote from J. I. Packer that will be relevant for generations.


Leadership

What do we Christians chiefly value in our leaders, our preachers, teachers, pastors, writers, televangelists, top people in parachurch ministries, money-men who bankroll churches and other Christian enterprises, and other folk with key roles in our set-up? The answer seems to be not their holiness, but their gifts and skills and resources. The number of North American leaders (and other Christians too) who in recent years have been found guilty of sexual and financial shenanigans, and who when challenged have declined to see themselves as accountable to any part of the body of Christ, is startling. Much more startling is the way in which, after public exposure and some few slaps on the wrist, they are soon able to resume their ministry and carry on as if nothing had happened, commanding apparently as much support as before. To protest that Christians believe in the forgiveness of sins and the restoration of sinners is beside the point. What I am saying is that the speed of their reinstatement shows that we value them more for their proven gifts than for their proven sanctity, since the thought that only holy people are likely to be spiritually useful does not loom large in our minds.

More than a century and a half ago, the Scottish parish minister and revival preacher Robert Murray M'Cheyne declared: “My people’s greatest need is my personal holiness.” It seems clear that neither modern clergy nor their modern flocks would agree with M'Cheyne’s assessment. In the past when your church has appointed a calling committee to hunt for the next pastor, I am sure that a very adequate profile of required gifts has been drawn up, but how much emphasis has been laid on the crucial need to find a holy man? Shall I guess?

Rediscovering Holiness pp. 33,34

P.S. Thanks AMR. I agree with AMR!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Welcome to the Board Pastor Schroeder.
Please add a signature to your profile. You can find the requirements by clicking the link here. http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_signaturereqtsfaq

There is no need for an asbestos suit. lol.

I am a Covenantal Baptist theologically.

I don't think anyone on this thread mentioned Matthew 5:32. The references being used are from Matthew 19 and probably 1 Corinthians 7. Even Deuteronomy 24 might be used in my estimation.

Welcome to the Puritanboard Pastor.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I know you are new here. Please, read things more carefully. Words mean things

I understood what you meant, and I agree with you. A man must absolutely seek the counsel of his pastor and elders to help discern if he is really called into the ministry. That is why every seminary requires a pastoral and church recommendation before accepting anyone. I was simply pointing out that you started your post by questioning his theological and historical knowledge, and that comes across as implying that these things are prerequisite to a calling. You did an excellent job in the remainder of your post of explaining the fullness of your position, but I just thought that the beginning was a little harsh.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I know you are new here. Please, read things more carefully. Words mean things

I understood what you meant, and I agree with you. A man must absolutely seek the counsel of his pastor and elders to help discern if he is really called into the ministry. That is why every seminary requires a pastoral and church recommendation before accepting anyone. I was simply pointing out that you started your post by questioning his theological and historical knowledge, and that comes across as implying that these things are prerequisite to a calling. You did an excellent job in the remainder of your post of explaining the fullness of your position, but I just thought that the beginning was a little harsh.

Bill, It was meant to be an awakening statement. You might take it as harsh. But you accused me of saying something I didn't. That is why I responded to you the way I did. Please be more careful about how you feel something is said and what you feel is being said.

Originally Posted by Bill The Baptist
To say that someone cannot even consider becoming a pastor because they do not yet possess the neccesary knowledge is wrong in my opinion.

I did not say this.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I did not say this.

You are correct, you did not say that and I apologize for putting words in your mouth. And I agree that anyone who thinks they are called to go into pastoral ministry should taike a really hard look at themselves and see whether or not they are biblically qualified. I also know from experience that anyone who is thinking of going to seminary should also take a hard look at whether or not this is the right choice for them. Seminary is a difficult and often discouraging experience. I also agree that sometimes people need to be awakened, I would just probably take a softer approach. But then again, sometimes people need tough love, but hopefully his pastor and elders would provide that if needed.

 

[TimV]

What happens to the person who divorces on the grounds of adultery? Jesus doesn't say.

And He didn't say whether or not you could marry your sister, or a yak. He didn't have to. The Bible starts in Genesis. Everyone who heard the sermon knew the Law.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I know I'm not a theologian. I also understand that you and I have some differences of view in certain areas, but I believe I have a solid grounding in scripture and that with God's help and seminary I could do the job. I'm sure I'm not spry enough to ever pastor a big church of thousands but there are small churches in places that need a pastor who would do his best to be faithful to the word and meet their needs in Christ. I would love to do that, I just want to make sure I'm really called first before I go and spend all of the money and time on seminary. I don't care how much a church would pay. I expect it wouldn't be much but I can work two jobs as long as the Lord gives me health and stamina. I believe that if I'm really called the Lord will provide a place for me to work.

The key message in PC's post was that the church determines the validity of your calling. You do not do it all by yourself. Place yourself under the care of the leaders in your church and let the process work under the providential care of God. Your sig indicates your church is Confessional, so there is a process in place, based upon Scripture, that must be allowed to work here. That process includes the determination that seminary would be a proper course of action for you.

AMR

Thanks. Regarding my sig, I agree with the LBCF. My church however, is an SBC church the only "confession" is the Baptist Fatih and Message. I have emailed my pastor. He hasn't responded yet. I'll see him tonight maybe I'll have a chance to talk to him.

 

[Splinters]

Thank you for the welcome Mr. Snyder! I've been lurking a little while and thought it was time to wade into the fray.

I should have used the quote feature so it didn't seem as if my reference to Matt 5:32 was out of thin air. This is one reference that was made and I think there was at least one other.

Perhaps I should have worded my response differently. Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 seem pretty clear that divorce in some cases is permissible.

It's not a huge deal...I'm probably being too pedantic.

Thanks again for the welcome and the permission to remove the asbestos suit!

 

[Edward]

David, since you attend a SBC and live down south no a divorced man, can not be a pastor. Down south in the SBC from what I understand they will not tolerate a divorced minister.

Not even close to accurate.
Ever hear of Charles Stanley (First Baptist Church, Atlanta, GA?)

And here's a discussion from the Alabama Baptist:

http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/print-edition-article-detail.php?id_art=10705&pricat_art=4

("The Alabama Baptist is an entity of the state convention owned and operated by a 16-member board of directors elected by the state convention.")

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thanks. Regarding my sig, I agree with the LBCF. My church however, is an SBC church the only "confession" is the Baptist Fatih and Message. I have emailed my pastor. He hasn't responded yet. I'll see him tonight maybe I'll have a chance to talk to him.

So do you think your calling is to the pastorate in the SBC?

AMR

 

[MountainSmith]

I think every examination of a man who senses a call to ministry is case-by-case and should take various things into account. This would be one matter that would be considered, as others have said. I'm glad to hear that it could be considered and not simply excluded. A friend years ago was accepted to seminary, spent 4 or more years in school, supporting a steadily growing family...and then the church (SBC) and association refused him for ordination because his wife had been married then divorced years before either was converted. That said, those who God uses to confirm your call to ministry will probably have more personal advice and insight than those of us here who do not know you personally, do.. Talk to one or more of them.

In any case, pray for wisdom and confirmation of the call, including understanding just what kind of ministry? I agree with others who have said that there are many opportunities to be involved in ministry other than the pastorate. First off, there are bound to be abundant lay ministry opportunities. You might explore teaching Sunday School, involvement in local missions, or (though the requirements for offices in the church all include the husband of one wife requirement) the offices of ruling elder or deacon.

On a related tangent to the question, what are people's thoughts on a never-married (yet?) man being qualified for offices of Deacon, RE, or TE based on the "husband of one wife" requirement?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Thanks. Regarding my sig, I agree with the LBCF. My church however, is an SBC church the only "confession" is the Baptist Fatih and Message. I have emailed my pastor. He hasn't responded yet. I'll see him tonight maybe I'll have a chance to talk to him.

So do you think your calling is to the pastorate in the SBC?

AMR

I don't know if I am called to pastor or not. I want to be called to pastor. I would really love that, but I have no idea if I am actually called or not. But denominationally I am Baptist. I support the SBC because of their doctrine and emphasis on evangelism. I also grew up in the SBC and have come full circle in my spiritual journey back to where I started. I believe that is God at work in my life.

 

[Notthemama1984]

David, since you attend a SBC and live down south no a divorced man, can not be a pastor. Down south in the SBC from what I understand they will not tolerate a divorced minister.

Not even close to accurate.
Ever hear of Charles Stanley (First Baptist Church, Atlanta, GA?)

And here's a discussion from the Alabama Baptist:

The Alabama Baptist - A Resource for Christian Living

("The Alabama Baptist is an entity of the state convention owned and operated by a 16-member board of directors elected by the state convention.")

These men may allow it, but everywhere I have been in TX won't. I know a pastor who intentionally hides his previous marriage in order to secure a pastorate (I am not advocating his actions, just showing how divorce is viewed around here).

 

[Splinters]

What happens to the person who divorces on the grounds of adultery? Jesus doesn't say.

And He didn't say whether or not you could marry your sister, or a yak. He didn't have to. The Bible starts in Genesis. Everyone who heard the sermon knew the Law.

You are absolutely right Tim. However, I tried to make it clear in my post that I was addressing Jesus' words found in Matthew 5:32; the whole council of God was not in view.

 

[Edward]

These men may allow it, but everywhere I have been in TX won't. I

He doesn't have a church, but Joel Gregory (pastor at FBC Dallas prior to his divorce) got back to preaching.

Whatever happened to Joel Gregory | Lubbock Online | Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

And here's one from 2001:

_Western Hills called McLaughlin, divorced and still single, as pastor late last year, after more than two years of soul-searching without a pastor.

Pastor, church find redemption through relationship

I expect it would be easier in a BGCT SBC church than in a SBT SBC church.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Even though I grew up in the SBC in TX. I can never remember the difference between the BGCT and the SBT.

 

[nicnap]

You are absolutely right Tim. However, I tried to make it clear in my post that I was addressing Jesus' words found in Matthew 5:32; the whole council of God was not in view.

Right ... but you can't just rip them out of context either; everything that Christ said, even that was in light of what had been revealed. It is all His Word, so in what He said, the whole counsel of God would be in view.


...and now back to just