# divorced missionaries?



## Pergamum (Jun 6, 2008)

I guess this fits the past threads aout pastors getting divorced...


If a friend got a divorce due to a wife's adultery before he was saved and then later gets "the call" into missions, are they biblically qualified if this past divorce was for desertion and sexual infidelity on the spouse's part and this was before they were saved and now he has a strong home life.

Yes or no, and why or why not? 

If yes, he can serve, what are the best lines of argument to prove that to co-workers who think different?


----------



## raekwon (Jun 6, 2008)

Things like this have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, of course, but I'd tend to be much more sympathetic to allowing a divorced man serving in ministry (whether as a missionary, pastor, elder, or other role) when the divorce was due to his wife's infidelity -- whether or not it happened before he knew Christ -- than for some other reason.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 6, 2008)

A co-worker says that this man cannot serve because sins can be repented of, but one is still a divorcee and repentence cannot change that. Sort of like he is stuck in his ontological status of a divorcee and is always unclean....


----------



## raekwon (Jun 6, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> A co-worker says that this man cannot serve because sins can be repented of, but one is still a divorcee and repentence cannot change that. Sort of like he is stuck in his ontological status of a divorcee and is always unclean....



Your co-worker is wrong.
(Just keepin' it real!)

Is he a "husband of one wife means pastors must be married, once only, never divorced, never re-married after being widowed" type of guy?


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 6, 2008)

I was going to ask the same thing as Joshua -- was Paul then not still the ontological murderer of Stephen and others for the part he played in their torture and death?

Besides the biblical requirement is not that a man 'not be an ontological divorcee' but that he be 'the husband of one wife'. 

(If a remarried widower meets that qualification, then I believe the man whose wife has committed adultery through no fault of his own also meets it since Scripture speaks of him as 'free' from that marriage covenant.)


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 6, 2008)

yep, I agree...I am just trying hard to form the best way to word all of these things in a concise way and answer these objections...


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 6, 2008)

Pergy,

Your friend is wrong. "One woman man" (as Heidi pointed out) does not *proscribe* remarriage, it *prescribes* marital fidelity. 

One of my mentors, and the father of several of my best friends, committed serial adultery (with dozens of women). Yet, he is_ still _married to his one and only wife of 55 years. When it was discovered (he was having an affair with one of my parishioners!), I "outted" him as unfit for continued ministry due to the "one woman man" qualification. The point of the verse is to describe a person who is above reproach morally so as not to give offense to the Gospel, not to delineate minimum requirements for perfection.

Back when I wrote 450 pages on the subject 25 years ago, an article in *BibSac* proved helpful to me ("The Husband of One Wife." *BibSac* 131:523 (Jul 74) p. 229-240. It is practical, pastoral, and grounded in both exegesis and sound theology. I can e-mail it to you as an attachment if you would like to see it ([email protected]).


----------



## TimV (Jun 6, 2008)

One of the nice things about being a member of a confessional church is that you don't constantly have to re-invent the wheel and waste your time with stubborn and ignorant people. In the PCA you can just point them to a position paper, and tell them to read it, take two aspirin and discuss it in the morning.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 6, 2008)

TimV said:


> One of the nice things about being a member of a confessional church is that you don't constantly have to re-invent the wheel and waste your time with stubborn and ignorant people. In the PCA you can just point them to a position paper, and tell them to read it, take two aspirin and discuss it in the morning.


Hey Tim, could you post a link to that position paper? I'd like to read it.

I'm a divorced man. In the end I was the one most in the wrong. At the time (1993), I'd have said I was a believer. Although my understanding of the Gospel and what I believe about it has completely changed from that time, I believe I am disqualified from office in the Church. That's my position for my self.

As for situations of pre-salvation divorce, or those where a wife has committed adultery and abandoned a believing husband, I now take the position that I don't know; those qualified to Church office will have to determine that. But one thing I note as curious is that most defenses of ordaining such men is that "it was due to no sin of their own", when I think those of us who hold that Church office is barred to women would acknowledge that it, as well, is due to no sin on their part. I suppose in this case what is good for the goose is *not* good for the gander. I mean that in respect to being willing to accept the decree of God as wise regardless of the limitations it may place on us.


----------



## TimV (Jun 6, 2008)

Sure, Brad, you can find it here

PCA Historical Center: Index to the Position Papers of the Presbyterian Church in America


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 6, 2008)

> But one thing I note as curious is that most defenses of ordaining such men is that "it was due to no sin of their own", when I think those of us who hold that Church office is barred to women would acknowledge that it, as well, is due to no sin on their part. I suppose in this case what is good for the goose is *not* good for the gander. I mean that in respect to being willing to accept the decree of God as wise regardless of the limitations it may place on us.



Brad, I think this is simply resolved in that being a man is one of the biblical qualifications for being an elder; but not being a divorcee is not. The 'no fault of their own' thing is not because of trying to get around a disqualification that God has revealed; it is to clear them of being the adulterous or abandoning party, to demonstrate that they are 'the husband of one wife'. (Whether they meet other qualifications would of course, as I think someone else already said, be a different issue.)


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jun 6, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> A co-worker says that this man cannot serve because sins can be repented of, but one is still a divorcee and repentence cannot change that. Sort of like he is stuck in his ontological status of a divorcee and is always unclean....




Pity he wasn't a drug dealing pedophile and murderer who later repented. Then he's qualified according to your friend. Afterall, a man could be just about guilty of anything in his past and still qualify but if his wife played the whore and ran off on him with another man then he's forever disqualified. This doctrine of divorced people being 2nd class christians needs to be re-examined by some.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 6, 2008)

I long ago rejected the line-o-garbage that both the husband AND wife always bear some guilt when one of them goes and has an affair. 

As a chaplain I deal with MANY MANY MANY cases of adultery. The myth is that it is usually the man who cheats, but the truth is that it is pretty much 50/50. Anyway, I get so tired of the line from women in regards to their husband that "he wasn't meeting my needs." 

In this particular case, unless there was some crazy extinuating factor that you're not telling us, I'd say he is NOT disqualified from service.


----------



## Leslie (Jun 6, 2008)

I think that a person is qualified if, given his current marital (or other) condition, there is no act of repentance that is undone. So even if the original divorce was his fault, if his ex-wife remarried, reconciliation is out of the question. He can not be disqualified now on the basis of that previous divorce. 

It seems to me that missionaries who treat divorced colleagues as second-class citizens in the kingdom of God disqualify themselves by demonstrating a failure to understand the gospel.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 6, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > A co-worker says that this man cannot serve because sins can be repented of, but one is still a divorcee and repentence cannot change that. Sort of like he is stuck in his ontological status of a divorcee and is always unclean....
> ...


So to re-examine it a little further, and although I've held a similar position to that of Perg's friend (i.e. that divorce at any time for any reason was a disqualification to Church office), I am not so adamant about it now that I can't accept possible exceptions to that. However, the argument that the man's innocence in the event is a mitigating factor seems incongruous to me for the very thing you're saying. A murderous drug-dealing pedophile who was since reborn would be qualified, as was the very guilty murderer Paul. So pre-regenerate sin appears to have no bearing on any of the qualifications save this one.

What I mean is, that it seems as if you're saying if he's not guilty in the matter he is qualified, but if he is guilty, he is disqualified. The scripture does not say a murderer may not hold office, but it does say that a man who has more than one wife can't. If guilt in the matter is the qualifier, then is that only if the divorce occured after regeneration? And if so, why? Are sins committed post-regeneration somehow 'less forgiven' than those before?

All that gets very confusing, and requires some sort of definitive date of regeneration to enforce. Why does God's Spirit mention a marital requirement at all if it doesn't matter? If you reply that it does matter, please explain in what way.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jun 6, 2008)

If "the husband of one wife" means only married once then a man who gets married again after his 1rst wife dies is disqualified. If he remarried he would be the husband of two wives.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 7, 2008)

Yes, and there was a time when some ascetics interpreted the dictim in that direction. However, neither a lexical, contextual, or theological examination requires (or supports) these kinds of interpretations.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 7, 2008)

What then would the person who is _disqualified_ by this requirement look like? Obviously he is a christian, in the Church, so God must have ordained that such would be in the Church, and not qualified for office. What are the possible conditions of his situation?

Some of the qualifications for office bear moral implications, while others do not. Being apt to teach or not would not seem a moral issue, as would being a man, or some would say having believing children. We tend to view those as things within the decree of God, but set others to a different standard because we attach moral connotations to them. Is there a scriptural justification for that?

I have this picture, perhaps erroneously, of God specifically ordaining the minute events of all people's lives, and saying that out of this teeming mass of His created beings there are these whom He ordained unto salvation, and within that group there these whose existence meets this set of criteria whom He has set aside for the purpose of serving as officers in His Church. Not unlike the criteria, devoid of moral implications, of being born a Levite as a prerequisite to being a priest.

The reaction that this would 'not be fair' is similar to the arminian rejection of calvinism. It seems like it assumes some level of moral neutrality that one determines for oneself by either doing right or doing wrong. But I thought all human activity was tainted with sin, and there is no neutrality. Having one wife is tainted with sin as is having more than one. We're just quibbling over which is worse.

Are some saying this qualification had to do with polygamy? If then a man was a polygamist prior to salvation, wouldn't he still be as a christian? If that is what this is about, then are there moral implications to the qualification, or is it just that God has ordained that such men not serve as officers in the same way He ordained that Benjaminites not serve as priests?


----------



## HaigLaw (Jun 7, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > A co-worker says that this man cannot serve because sins can be repented of, but one is still a divorcee and repentence cannot change that. Sort of like he is stuck in his ontological status of a divorcee and is always unclean....
> ...



Well, as I pointed out the last time someone started a thread on this, the above quote is essentially what happened to Bahnsen, and his OPC presbytery in California vindicated him as the marital partner not causing marital breach.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 7, 2008)

The qualifications in the pastorals are pretty straight-forward. Paul is concerned that the Gospel not be maliagned by the actions of God's servants. The overarching standard, therefore, is to be "above reproach." The list fleshes that out a leader in the church of Jesus Christ should not be a new convert, or known for pugnaciousness, addictions, or be greedy and materialistic. Rather, he is to be a model of a growing Christian reflecting the graces of Christ. He should, therefore, be a person who manages his family, and is devoted to his wife without a "wandering eye" (i.e., a "one woman man"), etc.

Divorce (or any other sin or defect) in the past is not the issue in the passage. The question is present spirituality and reputation, not past sinfulness (whether murder, womanizing, crooked tax collecting, drunkenness, etc.). Matthew was a tax collector, Paul an accomplice to murder, etc.

There are pastors who have never been married to anyone but their one wife who are NOT one woman men (e.g., my mentor with the dozens of affairs). Addiction to p***, gawking at waitresses when they bend over to serve your ice tea, a proclivity for turning every conversation into some sexualized reference, and checking out women so that they feel creepy in your presence all speak to the kinds of problems Paul is highlighting. A servant of the risen Christ must be known as a devoted disciple in the area of his sexuality.

It is both too loose and too legalistic to turn the qualification into a simple matter of divorce. Too loose because it tends to limit the pinch of the passage to the few who have expeienced a divorce rather than challenging all men to watch themselves in their conduct with women; too legalistic because it falsely identifies a "disqualifier" in a manner that does not comport with the clear meaning of the rest of the passage.

Now, to practical applications. Rae nailed it, it must be "case by case" for the simple reason that comparing a man with the varied standards is intrinsically an individualized application . . .

* A fellow gets his girlfriend pregnant, marries her at 18, they divorce at 19, he becomes a Christian. At 28, this new creation is a Godly man with a reputation for being a capable teacher, a devoted disciple, and an example of Christian morality. May he respond to God's call to ministry? Yes.

* A woman leaves her husband for another man/woman. He entreats her to return, their pastor counsels her to repent, she announces that she is not only not giving up the lover, but she is converting to her lover's eastern faith. He is shattered, throws himself into volunteer service at church, and survives. Some years later, he is asked to become a church leader. His divorce would not be a disqualifier in my opinion.

* An elder has an affair with a woman in the church, "repents," reconciles to his wife, and expects to continue serving. Disqualified as not a "one woman man." Even though he is not "divorced," he has shown himself to be unreliable.

Again, divorce is not the primary disqualifier in the text, a lack of Godly discipline in using the gift of sexuality is. Divorce may or may not be the problem. Many men who are not a "one woman man" have never been married (let alone divorced). Many men who have been divorced are models of public morality and Christian examples of being faithful to their wives.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 7, 2008)

Dennis, thanks for that very helpful and pastoral response.
I would add one caveat to what you wrote in reference to the elder who has an affair... you wrote:


> * An elder has an affair with a woman in the church, "repents," reconciles to his life, and expects to continue serving. Disqualified as not a "one woman man." Even though he is not "divorced," he has shown himself to be unreliable.



The caveat I would add would be this: if after a substantial period of time - years - he has continued in his walk of repentance without hint of a proclivity towards adultery, I'd be willing to say that he is indeed a one-woman man who stumbled in the past. I mean, even patient men sometimes stumble and erupt in anger. But certainly much time is required to discern.


----------



## Galatians220 (Jun 7, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> If "the husband of one wife" means only married once then a man who gets married again after his 1rst wife dies is disqualified. If he remarried he would be the husband of two wives.


 
Not according to Romans 7:1-3.

When we get married, don't we all make a solemn covenant to be each other's alone until death do us part? It's a picture of the covenant between Christ and the Church. _Cf._ Jeremiah 3; Hosea 3; Luke 16:15-18; Ephesians 5:25-32.

We become "one flesh" when we marry. Can one take oneself and cut oneself down the middle - and survive? It's sin and sin only that causes divorce; it's hard-heartedness that refuses to forgive or to remember and respect the covenant that was once made - but hasn't been abrogated by the Lord. 

Although it can most definitely be argued that this is inapplicable to this discussion, I would just like to argue that 1 Kings 3:16-28 should be considered for its general lesson: should a living being be severed in two by an act of man that involves sin on the part of one of the people involved, even if "love" is involved? (I keep in mind that we all sin against our spouses daily. I certainly do, no matter how hard I try not to.) Life is diminished, if not extinguished altogether, when flesh that was once "one" is severed in two. A person can repent of murder but can't bring the dead back to life. A person can repent of seeking a civil jurisdiction's pronouncement that a marriage has ended, and it may be possible to rectify it. We are to have clean hands and not continue in sin, after all... 

I reiterate: the breaking up of a marriage is man's slaying of a covenant that God Himself presided over. (Mark 10:9.) How lightly even we Christians treat that!

To the original question: faithfulness to God's Word is paramount. Whatever any denomination does formally, even my own, as to who is acceptable for ordination to any office is none of my business. I have no say in the matter. Second Timothy 2:15: we are to study the Scripture and rightly divide the word of truth... Dividing married couples and proceeding as though there hasn't been a violent breaking of a God-ordered covenant? I'll leave that to the scholars, and keep the Lord's counsel consonant with conscience... Just my ' worth.

Margaret


----------



## Galatians220 (Jun 7, 2008)

joshua said:


> Call it willful ignorance, but I'll stick with the Confession. I'm pretty sure those guys knew how to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" in this matter. Furthermore, just because someone has to experience a divorce (very unwanted, at that), doesn't mean --in any way-- that they "treat it lightly."


 
Point well taken, and taken well by yours truly.

I do pray for everyone and anyone caught in that situation, for God calls us to love each other as He loves us.

Your sister in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Margaret


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 7, 2008)

> A player? A womanizer? A man divorced due to his adultery and/or desertion? I'm not sure I'm following you.


I'm asking what situation would disqualify a man from office according to this criteria? The word wouldn't mention it if there weren't some who would fall in this category in the Church. We've bantered about the reasons one would _not_ be disqualified, I just thought it may help to define things if we could determine what being _disqualified_ by it entails, at the very least to provide contrast.


> Again, I don't understand. The man in the scenario mentioned above has done nothing immoral; thus, he shouldn't be disqualified on that particular basis (i.e. the divorce). However, as has been mentioned, he may very well be disqualified on some other basis.


Why must we assume that the disqualification has anything to do with immorality? Is a woman disqualified due to immorality? How about a man who is not a good teacher, is that immoral? Is it immorality to have unbelieving children? Why can't it simply be "what is" according to God's plan?


> I'm sorry, Brad, but I am really not "catching" what you're trying to say. I can be really dense sometimes, and now is one of those times.


No denser than I, brother, so let me try to edit by just asking why is this one criteria negotiable on the basis of one's guilt in the matter, while others are not? Where does that implication arise from in scripture?


> What "would not be fair?" I think part of the reason I'm not following you is because you're not identifying what you're talking about. Quote others' statements that you're actually responding to. I'm not sure what What refers to?


I get the impression, perhaps wrongly, that some would consider it unfair for God to declare a blanket prohibition against any divorced man holding office regardless of his guilt in the matter.


> No, we're exegeting Scripture and obeying its commands, not quibbling. We're making the statement that we're not holier than God, and can't require more of an office bearer than God Himself requires.


But it sounds like you're inferring one man is qualified above another on the basis of 'greater' or 'lesser' sin, rather than the simple decrees of God that the man will possess certain characteristics that indicate his eligibility along the lines of a Levite being eligible for the priesthood. I thought the exegesis was aimed at determining what it is that God requires of an office-bearer.


> God has, indeed, ordained those Whom He wants in office. But just like Election, we don't know who they are. So there are qualifications that must be met.


Exactly. And this discussion has centered around one qualification and it's meaning; whether it is ontological or moral in implication.


> Now, these aren't always followed, but that can be chalked up to human error. I still don't quite understand what you're getting at, though. Polygamy is covered in the qualification, but it's under the greater umbrella of being single-minded (one woman) man.


The mention of polygamy is to point out that a polygamist who God saves remains ontologically a polygamist, and would that disqualify him regardless of his moral behavior? If that is so, it seems we're dancing back and forth between disqualification due to moral lapse and disqualification due to God's ordination of a man's experience. Which is it?


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 7, 2008)

> Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
> Joh 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.


The Greek word ἔχω is used twice for "have" no husband and once for "hast had" five husbands in this text. Could a Greek scholar explain why twice it is used as present tense, then finally in past tense?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 7, 2008)

Brad said:


> > Joh 4:17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
> > Joh 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
> 
> 
> The Greek word ἔχω is used twice for "have" no husband and once for "hast had" five husbands in this text. Could a Greek scholar explain why twice it is used as present tense, then finally in past tense?



Brad,

I am not sure I understand the question, but it is because the tenses are different in the Greek. So we have:

John 4:17 The woman answered him, "I have (present tense) no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have (present tense) no husband';

18 for you have had (aorist tense) five husbands, and the one you now have (present tense) is not your husband. What you have said is true."​I think this passage is actually very instructive on the matter of divorce and remarriage. Why? Because if remarriage were not possible, then our Lord would have said: "You have had one husband, and the _five others_ you have had were not your husband."

ONE NOTE: The Greek texts are identical in John 4:17-18


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 7, 2008)

Thanks, Fred. That was one portion of scripture that came to mind in this discussion, and I wanted to understand the differences since I have no grasp of Greek tenses. I'll study to figure out what aorist tense means and maybe have a clearer view.

I see your point about divorce and remarriage, but although it is possible, it is evidently not optimum. I suppose my next question would be if the woman at the well had been a man, and had been reborn after this encounter, would he ever be qualified for Church office, and if so why?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 7, 2008)

Brad said:


> Thanks, Fred. That was one portion of scripture that came to mind in this discussion, and I wanted to understand the differences since I have no grasp of Greek tenses. I'll study to figure out what aorist tense means and maybe have a clearer view.



The aorist tense is like our past tense, without the continuing aspect. Put crudely, it is like "I stopped" instead of "I was stopping"



> I see your point about divorce and remarriage, but although it is possible, it is evidently not optimum. I suppose my next question would be if the woman at the well had been a man, and had been reborn after this encounter, would he ever be qualified for Church office, and if so why?


I actually don't think the the "sin before faith" has much to do with this issue. I think the issue is whether the divorce was legitimate, and whether legitimate remarriage is possible. So a man could be divorced before conversion, and if the divorce was Biblical (i.e. his wife left him or committed adultery) he would be eligible for remarriage, and hence to qualify as the husband of one wife. But if it were not Biblical (e.g. he committed adultery, or left his wife, or they just decided to not be married anymore) then if he were remarried he could live with the results of that sin (you would not force a second divorce in order to try and fix the broken first marriage) but he would be prohibited from serving.

I think that is true no matter _when_ the divorce took place.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 7, 2008)

Thanks again, Fred. I will mull this over. I read the PCA position paper, and it made some good points. We would at least agree that any divorce not arising from a biblical cause on the part of the man disqualifies him from office regardless of when it happened or that he had repented of his sin (which one would assume a Christian has done). Anyhow, my opinion is immaterial to this discussion, just wanting to figure things out for my own mind.


----------



## AVT (Jun 7, 2008)

Great points and this is helping me understand this better.

I have understood the Westminster Confession, summarizing Scripture to say that, in effect, God does not recognize re-marriage unless the previous divorce was on biblical grounds- adultery and desertion that cannot be remedied. This would apply to everyone, whether Christian at the time or not.

The Confession also says also...

"...the person concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case."

which seems to mean the parties need to have the civil magistrate or church involved in determining these limited grounds for the innocent spouse. For example, a spouse, who moves accross town but is accessible to the children- that's not really "abandonment" as a grounds (in God's eyes). But, when it is on biblical grounds, remarriage can occur for the innocent party and God's permits it.

Now, in the case of Church officers, the standard is higher...

What I'm also stuggling with understanding is how can an Elder who was married before not cause weaker sisters and brothers to stumble by virtue of having a previous spouse or children, be of a good reputation to outsiders (if they went through divorce court and lawyers), and how can they complete reconciliation with the former spouse.

I have thought an Elder or Deacon with their very specific biblical qualifications has a much higher standard than everyone else. 

I've thought an Elder could not have been married to another before for sake of the office example unless...

it was "forced" upon them by the guilty spouse and the officer has not remarried. While we don't know for sure, this could have been the case of the Apostle Paul. 

I haven't thought this higher standard applies generally in the church, probably not even to missionaries, but only to Elders or Deacons. I'm trying to assess if this position is reasonable Scripturally.


----------



## TimV (Jun 7, 2008)

> which seems to mean the parties need to have the civil magistrate or church involved in determining these limited grounds for the innocent spouse. For example, a spouse, who moves accross town but is accessible to the children- that's not really "abandonment" as a grounds (in God's eyes).



Where do you get that from???? Abandonment is primarily against the spouse, not the children.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 8, 2008)

I had been wondering the same thing that Tim asked -- where in Scripture are we told what intervening distance constitutes abandonment 'in God's eyes'? What if the spouse leaves town and takes the children with him/her -- they are still available to the children? Also this view makes the abandoned spouse responsible for never moving out of town, or they are the abandoning party. I think all teaching about divorce that is not warranted by Scripture puts an intolerable burden on innocent parties --basically hands the adulterer or abandoner all the rights in the situation, which can only detract rather than add to the strength of Scripture's teaching about the heinousness divorce.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 8, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> I had been wondering the same thing that Tim asked -- where in Scripture are we told what intervening distance constitutes abandonment 'in God's eyes'? What if the spouse leaves town and takes the children with him/her -- they are still available to the children? Also this view makes the abandoned spouse responsible for never moving out of town, or they are the abandoning party. I think all teaching about divorce that is not warranted by Scripture puts an intolerable burden on innocent parties --basically hands the adulterer or abandoner all the rights in the situation, which can only detract rather than add to the strength of Scripture's teaching about the heinousness divorce.




The problem is compounded by the fact that the confessional position was virtually unknown before the Reformation (hence the term Erasmian View for thinking that adultery & desertions constituted "grounds" for a legitimate divorce). Prior to that the RC church viewed marriage as creating an ontological state of "matrimony." It was not that you _should not _divorce, it was that you _could not _break the matrimonial vinculum. The Erasmian position, while the broad consensus of the Protestant community, has not been without its critics and controversy. Cf. William A. Heth, "Another Look At The Erasmian View Of Divorce And Remarriage." *JETS* 25:3 (Sep 1982).


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 8, 2008)

That's interesting Mr. McFadden. I remember reading something about Erasmus and divorce in Roland Bainton's biography of him, but it didn't really register. I just noticed that Trevor's friend seems to have something of the opposite view of that that a _divorce_ is actually an ontological state. Is there any kind of history for that point of view or is that just a -- strange aberration of some other view?


----------



## HaigLaw (Jun 8, 2008)

TimV said:


> > (from Arlene - AVT) which seems to mean the parties need to have the civil magistrate or church involved in determining these limited grounds for the innocent spouse. For example, a spouse, who moves accross town but is accessible to the children- that's not really "abandonment" as a grounds (in God's eyes).
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that from???? Abandonment is primarily against the spouse, not the children.



I think Arlene's broader point is that it is not always the one who moves out first who is doing the abandoning -- that someone providing accountability such as the church or the court needs to validate the claim of abandonment.

The party who moves out first may need some brief protection and may be more willing to reconcile than the party who stays in the house.


----------



## HaigLaw (Jun 8, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> I think all teaching about divorce that is not warranted by Scripture puts an intolerable burden on innocent parties --basically hands the adulterer or abandoner all the rights in the situation, which can only detract rather than add to the strength of Scripture's teaching about the heinousness divorce.



Very good point. And it brings up another important corollary -- the church board rarely has both parties to the divorce sitting there for counseling. The primarily-guilty party has split, and we're left to counsel the victim, who's wondering -- what kind of life does God have left for me.

To tell him/her that if he/she will just do this or that, God will allow remarriage or whatever, is of little utility, because the victim has no option to do this or that. He or she has been left with a fait accompli that he/she did not want, in many cases.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 8, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> That's interesting Mr. McFadden. I remember reading something about Erasmus and divorce in Roland Bainton's biography of him, but it didn't really register. I just noticed that Trevor's friend seems to have something of the opposite view of that that a _divorce_ is actually an ontological state. Is there any kind of history for that point of view or is that just a -- strange aberration of some other view?



Because of the particular philosophical backdrop to RC thinking, the notion of an ontological state was not surprising. Indeed, it comports well with the sacramental view of the RC church. Protestants (as a rule) never sacramentalized marriage and therefore had less proneness to ontological claims. Most of the better books on divorce and remarriage deal with the historical backdrop to the RC and Erasmian views. Honestly, Heidi, it has been more than 26 years since I did any significant research on the topic and have changed my own position (back in the confessional direction) since then (can you say "flush 450 pages of writing?" I knew you could).

BTW, it is "Dennis." *Mr*. McFadden was my dad.


----------



## AVT (Jun 8, 2008)

Thanks for trying to understand my post. Although my main point was more about the higher standard of church officers with regard to marriage, let me try to be more clear regarding "abandonment" as a biblical grounds, summarized in the Westminster Confession.

"Abandonment" as a biblical grounds means that a spouse leaves without any way for the church or civil magistrate to enforce the marriage "contract."

Biblical "abandonment" is not merely a case where one spouse says they no longer "wish" to be married and moves accross town, to an address known by the other spouse and continues interacting with the children and the spouse. Sometimes, this is called "abandonment." This may be grounds for church discipline, maybe a civil action for support and alimony, but not a biblical ground for divorce unless there is an attempt to remedy it.

The church through church discipline and the civil magistrate will make an effort to investigate, not merely accept the word of one spouse, and try to find the other spouse and hold him accountable for the marriage contract, especially child support and alimony. This seems like what the Confession is saying about not "leaving the parties to themselves." I think the innocent party would need to try to avail of those means (church discipline and civil magistrate) before "abandonment" occurs so a determination can be made if there are grounds and the church can grant re-marriage.

If those narrow grounds exist, then the party may remain single or re-marry biblically. But I still am not sure even then, that that would qualify a man for the office of Elder.


----------



## satz (Jun 8, 2008)

AVT said:


> Thanks for trying to understand my post. Although my main point was more about the higher standard of church officers with regard to marriage, let me try to be more clear regarding "abandonment" as a biblical grounds, summarized in the Westminster Confession.
> 
> "Abandonment" as a biblical grounds means that a spouse leaves without any way for the church or civil magistrate to enforce the marriage "contract."
> 
> ...



I would agree that a spouse, withthe church's aid, ought to make efforts to recover the other spouse and obtain the other party's repentance (as well as repenting him or herself if need be). But I am not really sure where you are getting your definition of abandonment.

How would either the church or the magistrate 'enforce' a marriage contract? Additionally, even if an abandoning spouse could be made accountable for alimony payments and child suppport I do not believe that this means abandonment has not occured. Marriage is far more than financial provision and is primarily concerned with the spouse, not the children. Simply remaining in contact with the other spouse and the children and being willing to provide financially to some degree does not mean someone has not abandoned their marriage.

So, I agree that an 'innocent' party should try their best to restore the marriage, which include repenting for any wrongdoings on his or her part and seeking repentance on the part of the abandoning spouse. It is primarily this area in which I see the church having a duty when a marriage breaks down.


----------



## AVT (Jun 9, 2008)

"But I am not really sure where you are getting your definition of abandonment."

I think it is the one in the Westminster Confession, abandonment without remedy, the parties not being left to themselves but the church and or civil magistrate involved to try and remedy the breach to the extent possible and to make a determination if it is in fact the grounds. The Scripture proofs are Matt 19:8-9, I Cor 7:15, Matt. 19:6, Deut 24:1-4.

"How would either the church or the magistrate 'enforce' a marriage contract? "

In the United States, grounds have to be "proved" before a court "grants" divorce. Up until the 1970's almost every state required adultery to be proven, some states did not even allow abandonment as a grounds. In the past generation, spouses would temporarily move out to Nevada, live in a trailer for six weeks, to get under Nevada's jurisdiction because the state had the loosest divorce law. They could not get it granted in any other state, that is "prove" adultery as grounds for the state to dissolve the marital contract. This was all based on the common law understanding of what God required in law and equity and that it was good "public policy" to promote the stability of marriage.

The marriage is enforced in that the person cannot re-marry- that would be bigamy, a crime, and would cause other legal liabilities such as joint filing on taxes, property ownership, etc. Also, the court enforces it by requiring child support and sometimes alimony, as well as a full division of property. If a married spouse refuses, he can be put in jail in the U.S. still today. Right now, every person who takes a job is put in a registry for child support- if the spouse does not pay, it will be involuntarily garnished from his paycheck. These are examples of enforcement of the marriage contract by the civil magistrate.

The church enforces the marriage contract by church discipline.

Only after these efforts and they are unsuccessful can it be abandonment without remedy. It may be "separation" but not divorce before that.

"Additionally, even if an abandoning spouse could be made accountable for alimony payments and child suppport I do not believe that this means abandonment has not occured."

Right, this is only one, although a very important one, aspect of biblical abandonment as grounds in God's eyes to grant divorce. But "seperation" is not the same thing as grounds for divorce. 

Civil authority in the United States today will grant it for almost any reason, but that does not mean God recognizes it. This is why so many re-marriages, not being biblical, have God's chastisement upon them, why so many children are messed up, etc. 

The Westminster Confession says there are biblical grounds, but they are narrow and the parties are "not to be left to themselves," in determining the grounds.

I could be wrong but I have thought church officers are held to an even higher standard for sake of the office example. Also, I have not thought this higher office standard necessary applies to a missionary but only to Elder and Deacon.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 9, 2008)

Arlene, thank you for the clarification: I think I understand better what you are saying. I agree that further accountability than the couple themselves should be involved (though as Haiglaw pointed out, most of the time there is only one person willing to speak to the church or have any oversight, and that person is left with zero 'options'). I also understand that separation where there is a mutual desire/intent to work through issues and come back together is different than a separation where there is not. I understand the last case to be abandonment. Would you agree/ disagree?

I do have a further question -- why should elders be held to a higher standard than what is required of any lay-person to be innocent of covenant breaking in a marriage? Is there any biblical or confessional way to back that up?


----------



## AVT (Jun 9, 2008)

"Arlene, thank you for the clarification: I think I understand better what you are saying. I agree that further accountability than the couple themselves should be involved (though as Haiglaw pointed out, most of the time there is only one person willing to speak to the church or have any oversight, and that person is left with zero 'options'). I also understand that separation where there is a mutual desire/intent to work through issues and come back together is different than a separation where there is not. I understand the last case to be abandonment. Would you agree/ disagree?"

I think you are getting my points on this. Thanks for helping me work on making this more clear.

It is not an easy, unilateral decision made by one Christian seeking biblical grounds to divorce. The grounds are very limited- adultery and abandonment that cannot be remedied by civil or church actions. A Christian needs to be innocent and needs to seek help from those authorities and exhaust the attempt to remedy there before having a Scriptural basis. Otherwise, it may be a case for church discipline or civil authority and be only a "separation." Scripture does not command divorce even in cases of adultery, reconciliation is still the most God honoring goal even if there is hardship to the innocent party. 

We know of one man (an Elder) who has been standing in faith for 17 years for reconcilation to his one and only wife. He did not consent to the divorce and paid a price objecting to it in court but the court granted it over his objections. She committed adultery, moved out and is still not a Believer, even has been "living with" other men continuously. I think this man is qualified to be an Elder because he has only been husband of one wife, has continously sought reconciliation (good reputation with outsiders), and has not caused anyone to stumble because it was forced on him and he has ignored what the court did to do the very best in God's eyes. Now this former spouse has cancer and may not survive- who knows what God will do with this.

The requirements in I Timothy 3 (referenced above) do not apply to every Christian, but they are specifically directed toward Elders. It's more than what is biblical for them (the two spouses alone). This is the model God requires for the highest officers- yes, higher than for others. 

I'm confident the general standards for divorce I'm explaining are consistent with Scripture and the Westminster Confession summary of doctrine on this. This was also mirrored by our State laws until about the 1970's. My understanding of a higher standard for officers is drawn partly from explicit Scripture and partly by inference but, while I think this is what God requires, I am less confident on this. Although, I understand the Southern Baptists and others have a similar understanding.

I used to be Roman Catholic and they have ruled divorce is basically never biblical. That's not quite right by Scripture- God has given very limited grounds to relieve tremendous burden on an innocent party. However, the innocent party must act in "good faith" and not decide such a life altering emotional decision themselves. Even then, it is never required to divorce, and it is never the exemplary standard.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 9, 2008)

> We know of one man (an Elder) who has been standing in faith for 17 years for reconcilation to his one and only wife. He did not consent to the divorce and paid a price objecting to it in court but the court granted it over his objections. She committed adultery, moved out and is still not a Believer, even has been "living with" other men continuously. I think this man is qualified to be an Elder because he has only been husband of one wife, has continously sought reconciliation (good reputation with outsiders), and has not caused anyone to stumble because it was forced on him and he has ignored what the court did to do the very best in God's eyes. Now this former spouse has cancer and may not survive- who knows what God will do with this.


The issue I take with what you present above is that it does not do justice to the language of Scripture that if the unbeliever departs, the believer is to 'let them depart', or 'if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved.' Your representation seems to indicate an obligation to not letting the unbeliever depart, and to enslavement even should a divorce at last go through, if I am not misunderstanding you? You also seem to feel that a divorced man is a 'husband of one wife' only if he remains faithful to the divorced partner-- is this accurate? How do you reconcile this to the way Scripture speaks of a legitimately divorced person as 'not under bondage', even as it speaks of someone whose spouse has died as 'free'? In what respect is the believer not under bondage, if he is still bound to the law or covenant that death would free him from? How would you deal with a man who had been a widower and remarried? Is he not the husband of one wife?

I don't disagree that a higher standard is required for eldership than for membership in the church, but it does not follow that a 'higher' standard is required for an elder to have been in an innocent party in a divorce. Innocence is innocence.

I am not at all confident that this is what the confession teaches, but I've appreciated further elucidation of your views. All the best, Arlene.


----------



## AVT (Jun 9, 2008)

Quote:
We know of one man (an Elder) who has been standing in faith for 17 years for reconcilation to his one and only wife. He did not consent to the divorce and paid a price objecting to it in court but the court granted it over his objections. She committed adultery, moved out and is still not a Believer, even has been "living with" other men continuously. I think this man is qualified to be an Elder because he has only been husband of one wife, has continously sought reconciliation (good reputation with outsiders), and has not caused anyone to stumble because it was forced on him and he has ignored what the court did to do the very best in God's eyes. Now this former spouse has cancer and may not survive- who knows what God will do with this. 
“The issue I take with what you present above is that it does not do justice to the language of Scripture that if the unbeliever departs, the believer is to 'let them depart', or 'if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved.' Your representation seems to indicate an obligation to not letting the unbeliever depart, and to enslavement even should a divorce at last go through, if I am not misunderstanding you?”

Yes, you are misunderstanding to the extent you are mixing up the application I am making. I Corinthians 7:15 applies to all believers (e.g. the case of an unbeliever departing a believer). Scripture is not saying a Believer who is abandoned does not have grounds for divorce. We can discuss further what “abandonment” actually means and how it is determined, but Scripture is allowing it as a grounds. 

The situation described was for the “higher standard” for an Elder per I Timothy 3:2,7 which may also draw from the principle of not causing a weaker brother to stumble per Romans 14:21. This “higher standard” is for Elders, not for Christians at large. Per the original question of this post, *I have not understood it to be applicable to missionaries generally.*

Your focus is entirely on "innocence" between two people versus the effect that a leader has on those under his authority. It may well be (can’t be for sure) that the Apostle Paul was acting out the same situation as I described above (he may have been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse) but remained unmarried after. The point was not his “innocence” but the qualification for his office. Certainly, the Apostle Paul was qualified to be an Elder.

“ You also seem to feel that a divorced man is a 'husband of one wife' only if he remains faithful to the divorced partner-- is this accurate? How do you reconcile this to the way Scripture speaks of a legitimately divorced person as 'not under bondage', even as it speaks of someone whose spouse has died as 'free'? In what respect is the believer not under bondage, if he is still bound to the law or covenant that death would free him from? How would you deal with a man who had been a widower and remarried? Is he not the husband of one wife?

I don't disagree that a higher standard is required for eldership than for membership in the church, but it does not follow that a 'higher' standard is required for an elder to have been in an innocent party in a divorce. Innocence is innocence.”

Again, “innocence” between two parties is not the only factor when one looks at the massive influence, example and qualifications of church leaders. Maybe that’s why James 3:1 says not many should presume to be teachers because they will be judged by a higher standard. The office of Elder is not for everyone’s life experiences. Not everyone is qualified to be an Elder. 

I appreciate the interaction and hope I have been clear. Thanks for helping me distinguish this.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 9, 2008)

So what, exactly, about being a faithful man with an unfaithful wife has a negative impact on those under your leadership?


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 10, 2008)

Dear Arlene,

As I don't believe that an innocently divorced person who remarries can be biblically said to have more than one wife (any more than a remarried widower) I don't believe that the passages from 1 Tim can be used to make your point. Again this follows on the way Paul speaks of such people as not under bondage, which echoes the language he uses of those whose spouses have died and who are free -- free specifically in that context to remarry as there is no law binding one to a previous spouse.

Following on what Ruben says, I wonder if you believe elders to be a bad example not because they have unfaithful wives (as the elder you described is in such a situation) but because at some level it still seems the innocent party must be responsible for breaking the marriage covenant. Yet this is precisely the matter in which they are innocent. That being so, their testimony with those that are without cannot be damaged (any more than a person who opposes abortion and is vilified in the newspaper is disqualified -- they are not suffering for their own wrong-doing). The other thing I think of is a view that it would always be more godly for anyone, lay-person, elder, etc., not to divorce or remarry no matter what the situation, and the elders ought to model this: but this teaching is not found in the law of God, so I don't think a special kind of sanctity can be made out of it. (added: I think a strong argument against both these ideas is God's putting away of national Israel from the old administration of the covenant for their unfaithfulness, yet He is no covenant-breaker, and He is perfectly holy.) These are conjectures and if they are wrong, please do correct me (I'm trying to further clarify, not to impugn views!); however as I don't find Scriptural or Confessional support for the position you've outlined in your most recent post I'm going to throw in the towel as far as that position goes and just respectfully disagree on the basis of Scriptures and teaching already argued in this thread. Thank you sincerely for the exchange.


----------



## AVT (Jun 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> So what, exactly, about being a faithful man with an unfaithful wife has a negative impact on those under your leadership?



Being a faithful man to an unfaithful wife has had a positive impact on those under his leadership. 

In the situation I described, modeling suffering and an attempt to reconcile, and praying for her faith and repentance, and by God's grace, being willing to forgive has had a very positive impact on this couple's children. Amazingly, the children still respect their father after having been greatly harmed when the breakup occurred. Gradually, the children are being drawn into the church. 

What's also amazing is we watched this Elder's son (the son is not yet a Believer) choose the most biblical wedding ceremony when he got married recently, full of Scripture. This is really common grace, working in a covenant family- a few weeks ago the son was even in church, with his father, the Elder.

In addition, a few people in marginal situations in the church have reconsidered their own vows, ability to love, etc. In a practical sense, it's a little more difficult for two members of a congregation to seek divorce because they no longer "wish" to be married when they see this kind of (reconciliation) behavior being modeled in leadership. This is really God transforming lives for His glory.

This is extraordinary behavior, impossible without God's grace but certainly exemplary. Maybe in a small way, like the love Christ shows for us.

The marriage vows, witnessed by God are not really conditional, for better or worse, richer or poorer... etc. Again, I am saying Scripture does provide limited grounds to break the vow and even to remarry to prevent great hardship to an innocent spouse. I agree with the Westminster Confession which summarizes this. This is generally applicable to Believers and, as I have understood it, those who go on to the Mission field. However an Elder has qualifications that do not apply to everyone else, that's why it is a high office.

Soli Gloria Deo.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 10, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > A co-worker says that this man cannot serve because sins can be repented of, but one is still a divorcee and repentence cannot change that. Sort of like he is stuck in his ontological status of a divorcee and is always unclean....
> ...



Well said.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 10, 2008)

Yes, but a man whose wife left him through no fault of his own has been faithful. It is not infidelity on his part if God blesses him with a proper wife. 

Do you see any confessional grounds for saying the chapter of marriage and divorce applies to lay people but not elders?


----------



## AVT (Jun 11, 2008)

*Summary*



py3ak said:


> Yes, but a man whose wife left him through no fault of his own has been faithful. It is not infidelity on his part if God blesses him with a proper wife.
> 
> Do you see any confessional grounds for saying the chapter of marriage and divorce applies to lay people but not elders?




If I'm understanding what you are saying... please let me summarize what I said and address your question and assumption,

The Westminster Confession summarizes the doctrine of Scripture as permitting divorce only for adultery against an innocent party, abandonment of a believing spouse by a non believing spouse that cannot be remedied by civil or church effort and, in both cases, the parties are not to be "left to themselves" in determining their grounds.

This applies to every Christian.

Re-marriage on these grounds can be biblical. Not on these grounds is not biblical and cannot be made so "in God's eyes." 

I think there are higher standards for church office, Elder and Deacon per I Timothy 3 and other places. As far as I am aware, this is not specifically referenced in the Westminster Confession. Not everything is in there. I cannot make a case that the Westminster Confession of Faith requires this "higher standard" for office, and I realize many think it has no bearing on a man's present bearing for high office.

We can't know for sure- but imagine if the twelve disciples were all serving having had previous spouses, maybe having taken holy vows, then remarrying. How could the Apostle Paul advise people to "remain as I am" ? Why God would talk about family pattern in I Timothy 3 and other places for officers specifically and not address other great past sins (like the Apostle Paul's), I do not know.

It's not a matter of "serving" only; its a matter of the unique qualifications of an office which must have an exemplary standard in life. That's why few should aspire to be Elders. There are even requirements for the wives of Elders in I Timothy 3. Under that logic, how is it fair the Scripture talks about that since an "unqualifed" wife might disqualify her husband from being an Elder (even if the Elder himself was "faithful").

There are many, many important ways to "serve" besides being a Church officer.

In the example we witnessed and referenced above, an Elder or Deacon could have had a divorce forced on them by a guilty spouse, remain unmarried and still be an Elder. This is still "the husband of one wife," etc. and this was the example I cited, which has been a great testimony and reconciliation is happening, too.

General mission work would be under the same Westminster Standard, not under the higher standard of Elder or Deacon, generally as I understand it.

Thanks for helping me make this more clear. You're all the greatest here on the Puritan Board!


----------



## py3ak (Jun 11, 2008)

I think this may be the point where we are not connecting. Those who will allow a divorced and remarried man to be an elder will argue that he fits the qualification of "husband of one wife" because it is a moral qualification, and he is a man who is _matrimonially faithful_. Obviously the man who was divorced through no fault of his own and remains unmarried is the husband of one wife: but are you willing to assert that the legitimately remarried man is not? If so, what do you do with remarried widowers?


----------



## AVT (Jun 11, 2008)

*Higher Standard for high church office*



py3ak said:


> I think this may be the point where we are not connecting. Those who will allow a divorced and remarried man to be an elder will argue that he fits the qualification of "husband of one wife" because it is a moral qualification, and he is a man who is _matrimonially faithful_. Obviously the man who was divorced through no fault of his own and remains unmarried is the husband of one wife: but are you willing to assert that the legitimately remarried man is not? If so, what do you do with remarried widowers?




Actually, I think you are getting my point in this.

The qualifications are higher for church office. It's not only about present "matrimonial faithfulness" alone  The office is bigger than the person himself. Divorced and remarried is not the exemplary model of high office. It might be permissible, even blessed by God for others if biblical, but not for high office.

As far as widowers, that's a different case. I think its best we not change to that now since it wasn't really the topic plus I'm not really prepared to contend for that right now.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 11, 2008)

But the point is that remarried widowers do present an analogous case. Either they are the husbands of two wives, and hence disqualified from office, or _husband of one wife_ is a moral rather than a _circumstantial_ requirement. If you think it's a circumstantial requirement I think you have some pretty respectable company, but then the remarried widower is a potential defeater that you have to ansswer.

So unless you can *prove* that the requirement of "husband of one wife" (which remember, is setting out the requirements for office) is not so much moral as circumstantial, you haven't got any grounds except a feeling of propriety for barring a divorced and remarried man (assuming innocence on his part, of course) from office.


----------



## AVT (Jun 12, 2008)

Regarding I Timothy 3, to restate what I've tried to explain earlier:

"a bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife . . ." 

I'm not persuaded this only means polygamy. I'm not sure this really was the major issue at the time it was written, that that was meant to be the qualification.

"blameless . . . one that ruleth well his own house . . . having a good report of them which are without." 

Is a divorced pastor blameless, did he rule his home well, has his marriage situation caused him to lose a good report of them with outsiders? 

The totality of all these, plus other Scripture principles, the exemplary nature of the office, etc. make me think the honest answer is yes, and these short-comings will inhibit his ability to rule over and have teaching authority in the Body of Christ. It will cause others, including former spouses, children of former spouses to stumble.

This is both "moral" and "circumstantial"- it's not either/or.

When a spouse passes away, this is not the same thing and I do not need to address that to make the above points about unbiblical divorce and remarriage and the higher standards for church officers.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 12, 2008)

AVT said:


> Quote:
> We know of one man (an Elder) who has been standing in faith for 17 years for reconcilation to his one and only wife. He did not consent to the divorce and paid a price objecting to it in court but the court granted it over his objections. She committed adultery, moved out and is still not a Believer, even has been "living with" other men continuously. I think this man is qualified to be an Elder because he has only been husband of one wife, has continously sought reconciliation (good reputation with outsiders), and has not caused anyone to stumble because it was forced on him and he has ignored what the court did to do the very best in God's eyes. Now this former spouse has cancer and may not survive- who knows what God will do with this.
> “The issue I take with what you present above is that it does not do justice to the language of Scripture that if the unbeliever departs, the believer is to 'let them depart', or 'if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved.' Your representation seems to indicate an obligation to not letting the unbeliever depart, and to enslavement even should a divorce at last go through, if I am not misunderstanding you?”
> 
> ...




The standards for elder are applicable for church planting missionaries are they not?

What are the standards that missionaries need to operate under? Laymen or elders? Do they have to be ordained?


There are many service-support missionaries (pilots, translators) but missionaries who plant churches fall under the "elder-qualified man" category, do they not?


----------



## py3ak (Jun 12, 2008)

Arlene, the only thing that distinguishes a man who is blameless in a divorce and a widower is, _possibly_, his reputation with those who are without (unless the requirement is circumstantial, and then widowers are barred by the same logic). I think you tacitly acknowledge that when you say that a divorced man who has not remarried can be an elder: the fact of a divorce doesn't (as you've conceded) necessarily mean that he is morally unqualified to be an elder. If he has maintained a good testimony throughout the process of the divorce, etc., then I don't really at all see how it would be impossible for him to maintain it through a remarriage.

In other words, as far as I've followed what you've set out, your view strikes me as inconsistent: the grounds that would have you allow a divorced man to be an elder would allow you to have a divorced and remarried man be an elder (both with certain qualifications); the grounds that keep you from allowing a divorced-and-remarried man to be an elder would also keep you from allowing a widower to be an elder.


----------



## Leslie (Jun 13, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> AVT said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...



In some cases there is a choice between a woman going to a sensitive or difficult area and no one going. A case in point is Johanna Veenstra going to Nigeria in the early 20th century. Either she went or no one went; the men who tried to forbid her to go were unwilling. Similarly a female gynecologist in this era could go to a difficult place in the middle east. If she were to be a successful evangelist the result would be a church planted there. I don't see any problem with women functioning in church planting or even teaching/preaching capacities if/when there are no men able and/or willing to take the position. Do others have problems with this?


----------



## HaigLaw (Jun 13, 2008)

Mary, you have a very good question.

it seems to me we have a choice of:

1. disobey the great commission, by refusing to allow this female missionary go to a place no males are willing to go.

2. possibly risk disobeying Paul's command not to allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, which may relate to disciplinary excesses, and not be seen as a blanket prohibition.

If presented with that choice, I'd choose #2.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 13, 2008)

A female evangelist can be very active without falling into intentional "church planting" which indicates spiritual leadership over a church and the appointing of elders. 

In fact, females outnumber men in the mission fields 3 to 2 and are usually on the hardest fields.



They enter a difficult area and translate the bible or tell stories based on Scripture. Some locals believe and natural leaders emerge. She has merely told people the Gospel and has not appointed leaders but a church sometimes forms up around her even if she herself beleives that she should not be planting a church.


Many women (I suppose a gyno would fall into this category) come in under other support ministries and they tell the Good News to others in the course of their work, like we should all be doing, and in so doing a church is planted.

Women should be encouraged to serve if they desire. But we are not faced with disobeying anything, there is enough freedom to allow many roles in mission work for women without making them into elder-qualified church planting missionaries who have spiritual leadership authority to ordain elders and to baptize.


Maybe a new thread should be started?...


----------



## HaigLaw (Jun 13, 2008)

Yes, Pergie, that was helpful. I am not proposing disobeying anything either.

I do think that God puts us into situations sometimes where it seems we are faced with disobeying one or the other of choices, and the situation gives us a chance to revise our theology so we don't disobey.

By 1990 I had revised my theology on enough things to begin praying -- Lord, make my words soft today, because tomorrow I may have to eat them.

At the time, I thought surely that somebody famous must have prayed that prayer before, but now I'm credited with that prayer.


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 13, 2008)

So, back to the OP:

Husband of one wife is not a wife-count but a character trait of being a one-woman man.

An unsaved man who is sinned against by his wife and divorces and then converts is definitely not disqualified for future service as pastor/elder or missionary. 



If my group that I work with does not agree, how would I phrase this into a 3-4 paragraph defense to help change my org's position if I have folks that oppose the entrance of my friend to come and labor beside me in a very needy area?

Can anyone take a crack at forming a short statement (2 pages or less).


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 26, 2008)

I have written a proposal and will move to have it accepted by my group.

Here is my rough draft. Please critique it, improve it or give it the thumbs up. Remember conciseness and clearness is key ( one page is my maximum length ideally) and a positive statement instead of a rebuttal of positions I disagree with is also the key.


APPENDIX A: PROPOSED STATEMENT ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

As the fabric of Western society breaks down, an increasing number of missionaries will come from homes where divorce, abuse and dysfunctional family dynamics are the norm. Some of our candidates will have experienced divorce themselves.

Our group stresses the importance of solid families and sound reputations as a prerequisite for service on the mission field, even while understanding that we live in a fallen world and all of our lives are marred by sin and fallen-ness. We strive to both guard the high Biblical demands for holiness, even while taking note of the deep grace of God. We are not to be more lax than Scripture, nor are we to be more restrictive than Scripture on this issue, both subtracting from and adding to the Word of God being of equal guilt. Scripture gives both high qualifications and immense grace in these issues.

Pertaining to candidates who have been previously divorced, the following considerations should be made:

•	These cases should be determined on a case to case basis and candidates should not disqualified automatically. 
•	The passages in 1Timothy 3 and Titus 1 address the conduct and the state of a Christian after conversion. Therefore, the conduct and the state of Christians before salvation are not part of the new creation that God performed at their conversion and are not subject to the rules and commands of the above two passages. These passages deal with present-tense character traits and are not past-tense checklists of pre-conversion behaviors. 
•	Special care will be taken in the cases of divorced/remarried persons who are considered for service. Personnel who were divorced after they became Christians but were divorced on scriptural grounds (see Matthew 5:32) will be evaluated by our org on an individual basis.
•	The Bible teaches that divorce is permissible in the case of sexual immorality (Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Matthew 19:9) or willful desertion of a believer by an unbeliever (I Corinthians 7:15). The innocent party is therefore free to remarry, since he is no longer “under bondage” once properly divorced. 
•	It is possible for a Christian to be an innocent victim of a spouse’s covenant-breaking sin. 
•	Concerning 1 Timothy 3:2, we note that these verses are all in the present tense and not the past tense. We also note that the Apostle Paul, a persecutor of the church was not disqualified due to pre-conversion sins which likewise transgress his very own written qualifications. The phrase, “husband of one wife” is most aptly rendered as the present character trait of being a “one-women man” (mias gunaikos) and is a description of the present faithfulness of the husband and is not a wife count. 
•	Finally, we rejoice that God, through His transforming grace and in spite of ourselves rather than due to any inherent goodness in us, chooses to use any one of us.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 27, 2008)

You have done a good job articulating a proposed policy. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with its Scriptural basis or practical application.

From your policy, are you saying that a missionary who had an unbiblical divorce (not adultery or willful abandonment by unbeliever) can still be considered for this missionary position?

Also, does your policy make any distinction of standard between Pastor/Elder/Deacon function and general "missionary" status?


----------

