divorced peachers teachers

[Guest yod]

Yod, Baracuda, if I were ever a pastor and either one of you wanted to be in my worship team or worship leaders, I would have no problem bringing you on board (course, I'd have to know both of you a little better.  )

thanks SJ...what a sweet sentiment.

I loathe the stigma of divorce but it's easy to find a church where you can get lost in the shuffle so it has never really been a problem. My brethren who knew what I went through will tell you that it has proven me to be MORE faithful than someone who has never had the same test.

And I'm not bitter when I see people arguing in ignorance of the topic. Everyone gets a clean slate from me every day...and I expect the same.

[irishcowboy]

forgot to ask if it would make any differance if a person was or had been living their life in an adultress state prior to applying to be a pastor .... and if so would the same church say that they could be a pastor because they were never married and divorced and never remarried.....

what sin is so bad that God can not use a person?????

can a person that has been a drug dealer ( murderer by proxy ) and has actually killed some one become a pastor? yes..... hmmm.... am I sure??? yep!!!!!!!!!!! no problem, even in denominations where divorcees are forbidden to be pastors....

look, even Paul was used by God... and look at the people that were brought to death from his acts.......

why limit the usefulness of a person just because of one single "past" blemish...

who has not sinned?

who has never lived in sin?

whowas not born into sin?

why place more guilt and shame on some one cause of something that has happened?

i know of one man, that was a pastor, and his wife cheated on him with a deacon, and the deacon was still allowed to be a deacon, but the wife divorced the pastor, and he lost his church, but the wife never married the deacon, the deacon never divorced but was allowed to stay....

a bit odd, but by the "rules" the deacon was the husband of only one wife, and not divorced ( even thou was living in an adultress state ). the pastor was divorced against his will, by his cheating wife, and he was the one that was the victim and yet he again looses out.......

now, if a person was married. and divorced, the person no longer has a spouse.

if they remarry, they only have one spouse..... if we want to get technical about it, some one that is divorced and remarried, still only has one spouse. a man has a wife, after a divorce, then by law, they have only one wife....

mike

[Work in Progress]

Sandy Patty Amy Grant etc are in christian entertainment divorced yet are held in high esteme because the music they sing is christian and all are fogiven.

How do you know these people are "held in high esteem"?? Amy Grant certainly isn't by me, especially since she broke up not only her own family, but that of Vince Gill's also, all so they could be together in their 'true love'.

What Paul is addressing in 1 Timohy is the culture of the day

No offense, SJ, and JMO, but that is what is always said when someone is rationalizing something. That comment always sends up a red flag for me. He wasn't addressing the culture of the day, he was inspired by God to write words that are applicable for teaching and instruction until the coming of Christ.

What Paul is addressing is that pastors are to be committed to their wives that they have upon entering the ministry.

Where is that?? I think you just added a bit.

Further more, where does this idea that pastors have to have perfect lives, or at least amazingly godly ones, come from?

From the Scripture, clearly, where we are instructed that those in that position are required to be "blameless" and "above reproach".

And, there aren't Scriptures to say that someone who was in sin as a homosexual or other sin can't be a Pastor. But the Scripture does say that a divorced man can't be. That's the difference. I'm not going to argue with God about His purposes in that. But, like Island Rose said, there are so many other ministry opportunities for them. Why the insistence that they should be Pastors? Could it be pride in some circumstances? They have to have "the best" position, or none at all? Sometimes I wonder. Not talking about anyone here, of course. "Pride" is the last thing that comes to mind when thinking of some of the Godly men here who happen to be divorced.

Well..if we're going to follow the first part strictly..I guess we'll be getting rid of every pastor who's children are out of control?

YES. Is the Scripture not clear?? If a man can not keep his own life and household in order, than he does not meet the requirements for the position. The point of the whole passage is that a man who is living a dedicated, obedient life to God will have the relationships in his life show it. If a man's children are constantly in trouble, rebellious, living an unGodly life - what does that say about the way they were raised? Obviously there is a problem there. Those things don't just happen for no reason.

I don't understand why people are so offended by God's standard for Pastors. Or why it is viewed as some sort of insult if they don't meet the requirements for Pastor. Several here have talked of "pariah" and "shunned". I think the scarlet letter is in their own mind. JMO.

And I agree that there are many wonderful, Godly people who are divorced. Their mistakes are not any different than anyone else's mistakes. They are no "less" in any way.

A really good commentary: On Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery

[apothanein kerdos]

No offense, SJ, and JMO, but that is what is always said when someone is rationalizing something. That comment always sends up a red flag for me. He wasn't addressing the culture of the day, he was inspired by God to write words that are applicable for teaching and instruction until the coming of Christ.

See, this is the ignorance I was talking about. I wish there was a kinder term for what you're saying, but there isn't. It is pure unadulterated ignorance. Let me show you what I said:

What Paul is addressing in 1 Timohy is the culture of the day in which men of authority (pastors) had mistresses and/or were sexually promiscuios. To add to that, many had more than one wife. What Paul is addressing is that pastors are to be committed to their wives that they have upon entering the ministry. To say otherwise, to say that if a pastor has been divorced in the past, is to bring shame upon the interpretation fo the Bible and to take the concept of Grace and basically flush it down the toilet.

I am not saying the scripture is culture specific. What I am saying is that Paul is not as stupid as you are suggesting he is. He knew the difference between "divorce" and "husband of one wife". He brought this issue up to Timothy because in Timothy's culture it was not uncommong for a man of authority or for a pastor to have a mistress, or to have more than one wife at the same time. It is not refering to divorce. If it were then Paul would have specifically used the term. His plea for men not to have mistresses or to engage in polygamy while in authority in the church still stands for today. The idea that he's refering to divorce, though, lacks proper interpretation and I challenge you to show me how it means divorced.

Where is that?? I think you just added a bit.

Saying it refers to divorce is adding to it. If you took the time to study ancient Greek culture, especially around the time of Paul, and to study the Bible, you'd find this interpretation (of what I said) much more applicable and reasonable.

From the Scripture, clearly, where we are instructed that those in that position are required to be "blameless" and "above reproach".

So, answer these questions:

Would you let a former homosexual be a pastor?

Would you let a former murder be a pastor?

Would you let a former pimp be a pastor?

Would you let a former child molester be a pastor?

I'm amazed that you actually hold to this belief, and so ardently ignore the facts of it. It is nothing but a legalistic interpretation and a faulty one at that.

[Work in Progress]

I am not saying the scripture is culture specific.

Thanks for the clarification. Glad to hear it.

It is pure unadulterated ignorance.

Nah, I just read the Word and believe it.

I am not saying the scripture is culture specific. What I am saying is that Paul is not as stupid as you are suggesting he is. He knew the difference between "divorce" and "husband of one wife". He brought this issue up to Timothy because in Timothy's culture it was not uncommong for a man of authority or for a pastor to have a mistress, or to have more than one wife at the same time. It is not refering to divorce. If it were then Paul would have specifically used the term. His plea for men not to have mistresses or to engage in polygamy while in authority in the church still stands for today. The idea that he's refering to divorce, though, lacks proper interpretation and I challenge you to show me how it means divorced.

I can't "show" you, anymore than you can "show" me that your interpretation of this passage is correct. However, I have no underlying motive, I am not a divorced person wanting to be a Pastor, and I'm adding nothing to Scripture such as "it was common for Pastor's to have mistresses" or anything else. I am resting soley on what is written - not only in this passage, but in the whole of Scripture about divorce and what God thinks of it. As for Paul specificially using the term "divorced" - I'll say what you say to me - have you read the link? It's got good info about various words used regarding this issue. (Not necessarily by Paul)

If you took the time to study ancient Greek culture, especially around the time of Paul, and to study the Bible.....

I'll just ignore that offensive and presumptious comment. And I'm not looking for "reasonable" when I read God's word. Otherwise, I'd be imparting all of my beliefs about what's "reasonable" onto God.

Would you let a former homosexual be a pastor? Yes. If he is now repented and saved, there is nothing in Scripture that says he can't be.

Would you let a former murder be a pastor? Hmm. Not sure. Would have to think about it.

Would you let a former pimp be a pastor? Yes. If he is now repented and saved, there is nothing in Scripture that says he can't be.

Would you let a former child molester be a pastor? Not fair! LOL. Too emotional, so I wouldn't be able to make an unbiased decision.

I'm amazed that you actually hold to this belief, and so ardently ignore the facts of it. It is nothing but a legalistic interpretation and a faulty one at that.

Ouch. Foul!!! LOL. You KNOW how I hate legalism.

That is certainly your opinion, which you are entitled to. Just as I am entitled to mine. I think I understand why God prohibits divorced people from shepharding a flock, as I believe divorce carries a spirit of unforgiveness and goes against everything the "love" chapter in Corinthians teaches us. For some reason, He has placed an "extra importance" (if you will) on this, just as He has with other things. Not to mention that He specifically says he HATES divorce.

All JMO. Peace.

[IslandRose]

There are certain things, sins, that God seems to be very adamant about. It seems to be because these are things that God is using to demonstrate His ways.

For instance.

In Exodus 17 we read:

Exodus 17:5 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go.

6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Here God told Moses to strike the rock.

But here...

Numbers 20:8 Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.

9 And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him.

10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?

11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.

Moses is told to SPEAK to the rock. He did not. He once again in his pride and anger struck the rock.

and so...Numbers 20:12 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Why did Moses lose the privilege of leading the children of Israel into the promised land? Because Moses, in his disobedience destroyed the picture God wanted to display.

We read in 1Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

That Rock was Christ. Christ who was struck once for all, and after that one only has to ask to receive the living water.

All through out the Bible, the marriage union is used by God to demonstrate His relationship with Israel and Christ's relationship with the church. You notice that even though Israel is an unfaithful wife, God remains faithful to her. Divorce destroys the picture that God has established.

We are only human. We are bound to fail. Praise the Lord, our God is the God of the Second Chance. He freely forgives. But we often still have to live with the consequences of our decisions. Moses was never able to step foot in the Promised Land, but God did allow him to look over the river and see it's beauty. Some people are disqualified to serve in certain limited positions, but God does still allow them to serve Him in other ways. If there are Christians who look down on people for divorce, they need to remember 1Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. We are all sinners. We have all been freely forgiven and so we should all freely forgive and welcome our brothers with open arms.

IR

[barracuda]

WorkinProgress - the pride and arrogance you are showing in condemning others interpretations of scriptures is truly sinful.

And since we're going down that path tell me what pastor is "blameless" and "above reproach".

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

The legalistic Christian community sickens me just as much as the liberal "it's all about grace" side of the fence.

There is a middle common ground that needs to be found when addressing all controversial issues of scripture.

If God can forgive me of my sin, then certainly the church needs to as well. By the church casting out divorcees they are simply raising their standards above what God has given us, and therefore the church is now playing God. And that is truly despicable and wrong.

Compassion, love, grace, forgiveness, mercy, etc, etc, etc. Don't you just love the Beatitudes in Mattthew 5?

And I have yet to run across a permanently condemning spirit who refuses to forgive that I would want to hang around with and consider part of my Christian community.

[Work in Progress]

That's certainly your opinion, Barracuda. It seems you want only your opinion to bevoiced though. It doesn't work that way. Your accusation, I believe, is false. I did nothing different then anyone else on this thread - offered my opinion with Scriptural back up. Condemning? That's your own complex talking - I've gone out of my way to not condemn and be sure to say I and my sin are no better. And also to show that God's love and grace is no less for anyone divorced. Yet, you ignore that and continue to stubbornly insist that anyone who stands on the Word and what they believe it says "doesn't forgive" and "is condemning" and will "cast out". In fact, your dishonest portrayal of my opinion and accusations are what I would think is sinful here.

People will have differing opinions than yours. They will understand Scripture to say something differently than you might understand it. If you can't take a differing opinion, and get your feelings hurt easily by differing beliefs, then perhaps a discussion board isn't for you. JMO.

[barracuda]

Yep, you're absolutely correct on every single solitary issue WIP. You've got a firm grap on scripture, and we should all submit to your authority and take your word as gospel. You can't possibly be wrong. Far be it from me to point out any flaw you might have in your analysis and study of scripture. After all, I'm a lower then pond scum divorcee who can't ever be considered worthy or knowledgeable of what God has to say. Yeah, I know - my opinion is absolutely worthless since my divorce discredits me from this point on.

[Guest yod]

I would like to point out that being offended is as much a sin as being offensive.

now back to your corners and come out fighting at the bell...

I think the term "beyond reproach" covers all areas of unfaithfulness in a deacon.Someone who has truly repented of ANYTHING and has shown to be faithful over a looooooonnnnnnngggggg period of time can be restored to leadership if the Holy Spirit confirms that within the body.