Divorced Men Serving as Church Elders/Deacons? tagged: , , ,

Divorced Men Serving as Church Elders/Deacons?

Posted by in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology

Our guest author today is Jim Stroud.  Jim is a lay-elder at Crossroads Fellowship in Cadiz, Kentucky.  Geoff Baggett is his pastor.  Jim was fascinated by Dave Miller’s post last week and the ensuing conversation.  He wrote this response and submitted it by e-mail.  We received permission to print his thoughts.

We encourage you get to know Jim by reading his thoughts and interacting with him as you can.  And while you’re reading, please honor Jim by saying a prayer for him and his sweet wife, Sue.  Jim is fighting a valiant battle against a very aggressive form of prostate cancer.

***

I recently read portions of the article, Are Divorced Men Fit for Church Leadership?, written by Dave Miller posted on the sbcIMPACT! Mr. Miller presents his arguments logically and forcefully, but I have a few comments and questions. I have no desire to address each of Mr. Miller’s viewpoints . (I did not read all of the links cited in his post.)

Note: Mr. Miller’s arguments runs counter to some of the greatest minds in church history (not to mention church history, itself).

Note: As presented, Mr. Miller arguments are logical and supportive his conclusions.

Note: Mr. Miller addresses most accepted interpretations of the scriptural texts he cites in his arguments.

Note: Implicit in some of Mr. Miller’s arguments appears to be the issue of forgiveness and fairness. He presents this line of thought, especially, as it relates to men who experienced divorce prior to their conversion to the Christian faith and to those who may have had valid (scriptural) justifications for divorce. By opening a crack in the door for men to serve as elders/deacons in the church, who experienced divorce before their conversion, Mr. Miller inadvertently leaves the door ajar for believing men who experience failure after their conversions. His arguments and rationale could be equally applied to both groups of men. A restored spiritual life at the point of conversion looks very much like a restored spiritual life at some point subsequent to conversion. Of course one might rightly counter that mankind has no spiritual life prior to conversion.

God does not always appear “fair” (as men often recon “fair”) in regards to His standards for positions of leadership among His people. Added to this, sin has consequences, both before and after conversion. Obviously Moses was forgiven for his anger, but he still did not enter into the promise land. David was forgiven for his sin with Bathsheba, but their baby, a product of sin, still died. I have serious doubts the man in Corinth, who openly slept with his stepmother (although forgiven and restored) was ever considered for the position of elder in the church afterwards. If a man gets his slate wiped clean for sins he commits before conversion, why should he not get his slate wiped clean for sins he commits after conversion (especially if he genuinely repents and is restored)?

Along this line of thought, one might consider the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Bakker, and Ted Haggard. Most of these repented, openly confessed their sins, asked for forgiveness and pleaded for a second chance. Should men like Charles Stanley continue to serve as elders, even though they are divorced? Added to this short list of men, are thousands of pastors (elders/deacons) who have had moral lapses, adulterous affairs, and for a variety of reasons experienced divorce. What should be done with these men? Do they have any future in church leadership at the level of eldership/deaconship?

To bolster his argument, Miller might have cited Saint Augustine of Hippo. Augustine fathered an illegitimate son by the first of two concubines (lovers) he indulged before his conversion. He went on to serve as the Bishop (Elder) of Hippo and was subsequently widely admired by both Catholics and Protestants. Many Reformation leaders affirmed doctrinal positions once taught by Augustine.

Priests in the Old Testament most closely correspond to the roles held by New Testament pastor-teachers (elders). Both were tasked with shepherding and teaching the flock of God. The priest and high priest, in particular, were types of Jesus Christ, the ultimate High Priest. Consider first of all, only the “sons of Aaron” could be priests among the children of Israel. That, in itself, does not seem quite fair! Plus, not all the sons of Aaron could minister within the tent of meeting/temple. If a priest had any “blemish” (i.e., if he was “blind”, “lame”, had “a flat nose”, was “brokenhanded or brokenfooted”, had a “blemish in his eye”, had a “crookback”, was “a dwarf”, had his “stones (testicles) broken, or any other such physical blemish) he was “profane” and banned from the “sanctuaries” of God. To many, I am sure these standards would appear extremely “high”, if not outright “unfair” on the part of God. A priest could not take a “divorced” woman as a wife. And of course, he could not take a wife who was “a whore or profane”.  (Leviticus 21- KJV)

I only mention the standards God set for priests in the Old Testament to demonstrate the value He places on holiness. God’s value system has not changed. He still insists that the leaders of His people be “beyond reproach”, both, “within” and “without” the church. Although our American culture his changed, divorce cases still do not go unnoticed, especially in rural communities. One would like to think, every church congregation would be able to discover at least two or three men who meet a higher standard. As a husband and father of five children, without question, I would place higher esteem on a qualified man, with no divorce in his background, as opposed to a man with the “shadow” of divorce in his. All things being exactly equal, I would prefer the counsel of a man who had proven constant in his marriage vows as opposed to the man who had broken his. All the while, I am sympathetic to the man who is forced into a divorce by a wife or legal system he has little or no control over.

As mentioned above, the Old Testament priests/high priests were prototypes of Christ. Marriage is also a type, figure, or representation of the relationship Christ has with His bride, the church. As Jesus models the faithful, pure, constant “Husband”, I believe (if nothing other than a preference) we would do well to find elders and deacons that imitate Him. (Yes! I understand we are not allowed to impose our “preferences” over the word of God.)

Note: Miller makes a valid point that we should only speak where the scriptures speak and remain silent where they remain silent. We should say only what they say. No more. No less. If the scriptures do not explicitly forbid a man from serving as elder/deacon who has been divorced, we should not willy-nilly impose the restriction. Honest men have differed over the interpretations for elder qualifications Paul set forth in Titus and Timothy. Of course, Mr. Miller’s article mainly addresses what is truly meant by the phrase, “the husband of one wife”.

Note: God did “permit” the children to issue writs of divorcement (Deuteronomy 24) because of the “hardness” of the children of Israel’s “hearts”, but Jesus made it clear that divorce was never God’s original design or intent. “In the beginning it was not so.” “The two shall become one flesh.” “What God has joined let no man separate.” Jesus does allow for a very restricted divorce scenario in the Book of Matthew (Chapters 5 and 19). So strict was Jesus’ teaching on this subject, his disciples said that, if true, it would be “good not to marry” at all. Jesus did not back down His teaching at all, only noting some might find it hard to live the life of a eunuch. Matthew was directed to a Jewish audience and some have attempted to limit its teachings on divorce to that same audience. The only other reference (Mark 10:1-10) to divorce in the Gospels by Jesus, do not give the “exception” clause and is even more “severe”. Of course, Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew has all the merits of “standing alone”. One sentence in the word of God is sufficient. There will one true interpretation with one or more applications.

There are references in the Old Testament of God giving Israel (His spiritual “wife”) a writ of divorcement because of her unfaithful (adulteries) with other Gods. Mr. Miller might have used this to support his argument.

Mr. Miller (or someone commenting on his article) mentioned the issue of fornication. This is an excellent point. Should man who commits fornication prior to his conversion to Christ get a pass over a man who experienced a divorce?  In a Biblical sense (for instance, “the woman at the well” in John chapter four, who had six “husbands” or lovers), the sexual act of intercourse, itself, constitutes becoming “one flesh” or a “marriage”. When the adulteress was brought before Jesus, Jesus wrote on the ground. An old pastor friend of mine once surmised Jesus may have been writing the “names of women” her accusers may have preferred not being brought up. As they saw certain names, they one by one begin to walk away.  He freely admitted this was just his own private theory. But I am sure there are plenty of men actively serving as deacons and elders who would not want to be examined on the topic of fornication

Final Note: Paul wrote Timothy to “lay hands on no man suddenly” (KJV). As a pastor or congregation that lays hands on men to commission them as elders and deacons, the above caution always remains before them. Leaders will not only be accountable for themselves and their flocks, they will be responsible for the ones they “lay hands on”.  There have been millions of divorces. Many have occurred in the unbelieving population, many in the church community. I would venture the number reflecting the biblical standard of Matthew chapters 5 and 19, are relatively small. Even in these cases, Jesus did not command the wives be put away. I know of many Christian men who refused to put their unfaithful wives away. They struggled, sought God’s grace, prayed, and somehow the marriages survived. I have the ultimate respect for these men.

Take all of my input with a grain of salt. I do not know Hebrew, Greek, or any other of the ancient languages.  I do not have seminary training. My degrees were in history and science. I have a personality that is cautious and timid. I appreciate men who can confidently say, “Thus says the LORD!”