Does divorce disqualify someone from being an evangelist, missionary, and or teacher?

I was wondering about biblical divorce in relation to different aspects of ministry such as evangelist, missionary, teacher etc…

"If the whole church goes off into deception that does not mean I have to follow."

On important issues like this it is good to read church history and seek the scriptures before God honestly. To ask men in our day what they "think" can lead to much error even though people are not trying to advise error.

To be a active missionary and elder in most mainstream churches 50 years ago would require you not being re-married after divorced. This again is a very tough issue and must be sought after between yourself and God to have a "clean and clear" conscience on the matter.

First of all, we must address the idea of ministry. What is it? To most, ministry is associated with what I will term, the professional ministry; the outward, organized and religious functions of a church or group. This is not necessarily the "ministry" at all. The ministry must be defined as the acts of the Holy Spirit; Christ in us bringing comfort, grace, life, and justice to others, inside and outside of the church.

There are, however, guidelines that speak of Godly character, especially in the Pastoral letters to Timothy and Paul, concerning public ministry and responsibilities in service to the church in the roles of the shepherds.[ ALWAYS PLURAL, by the way..] Divorce does not necessarily violate these standards of Godly integrity, though they may, as has been noted in this thread. This does depend on the circumstance of the divorce.

I think of the scripture, "If an unbelieving spouse depart, let him depart...a brother or sister is not in bondage under these circumstances..."

Now consider a Christian wife, who has been betrayed by her believing husband, who after forsaking her, drifts into the occult, and then into a slide into Satanic depravity. Is she bound to the marriage covenant, unable to marry the rest of her young life, because her husband chose the wicked? I think not. This, in my opinion, would fall into "the unbeliever." He slid and embraced unbelief. or visa versa...

In a time in my life, my marriage was a living pit of pain. My wife seemed to live to curse me. I have always been involved in evangelism, and sometimes traveled here and afar. I have been rebuked and confronted by some, saying in effect, with your marriage in such a shambles, how dare you minister. You are disqualified!

my response was : "well OK...but could I "just share my testimony? Would that be alright??

"I guess', was there reply.."Well, is it alright if I might just pray for the hurting and the sick??" "I suppose".

"Well, is it alright if I share my faith, and maybe try to lead someone to the Lord??"

"Can I comfort my brother or sister, as they struggle?"

Eventually red and angry faces appeared. The religious spirit arising to defy Christ in me.

Jesus was not qualified, in the eyes of the pharisees to minister. "on what authority do you do these things?"

No one can ever take Isaiah 61 away from any believer, male or female! No one, however they may want to. Ministry is an act of the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, the hope of glory. If it is from Him, the fruit of God will follow, no matter what or how man may oppose.

ps: I endured my struggle, and before my wife died suddenly one night, we were reconciled in a wonderful way in Christ. We were married, and I am so grateful that I had the grace not to bail out because of the pain. I enjoy a clear conscious now, that I might have lost if I did. I will not remarry, for other reasons...Tom

.
I for one just wanted to thank those who have not condemned divorced people in this thread (we have taken quite a beating on SI at times, but are still smiling and loving one another). I thank you for bringing Godly reasoning to the matter. Specifically the following:

Baohongen 2008/5/24 1:43 wrote:
I have known a number of people who were never technically divorced but lived with someone before they met and married their spouse. I know even more who slept around with various people before getting married. They technically are qualified to pastor many churches, whereas someone who actually married and was divorced is not.

I have known a number of people who were divorced before they ever became Christians. Is there grace to cover and restore them sufficiently to serve as missionaries and pastors?

We probably have all met pastors convicted of murder, robbery or other horrible crimes in their previous lives. Should they be allowed to serve where a divorced person is not?

Brothertom 2008/5/25 11:54 wrote:
No one can ever take Isaiah 61 away from any believer, male or female! No one, however they may want to. Ministry is an act of the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, the hope of glory. If it is from Him, the fruit of God will follow, no matter what or how man may oppose.

Thank you for the clarity.

God bless,

Author William J. Petersen wrote about John Wesley, father of the Methodist Church, as one who was divorced from Molly Vazeille, after a 25 year "explosive union."

John Wesley married late in his 40's(47 or 48)in the year 1751. She was a wealthy widow,and their marriage was nothing short of tumultuous. She left him numerous times,and in 1771 John wrote in his journals, "I have not left her; I have not sent her away; I will not recall her." (John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, Nehemiah Curnock, ed. (London: The Epworth Press, 1912; reprint),5:399-400.

J.C. Ryle, in his biographical chapter, writes this of Wesley's marriage to Molly: "'The union was a most unhappy one. Whatever good qualities Mrs Wesley may have had, they were buried and swallowed up in the fiercest and most absurd passion of jealousy. One of his biographers remarks: 'Had he searched the whole kingdom he could hardly have found a woman more unsuitable to him in all important respects'. After making her husband as uncomfortable as possible for 20 years by opening his letters, putting his papers into the hands of his enemies in the vain hope of blasting his character, and even sometimes laying violent hands on him' - I indeed read one account where it said she used to swing him around the room by his hair! - Mrs Wesley at length left her home, leaving word that she never intended to return."

After 25 years of marriage,the marriage ended in divorce in 1776. Ironically 10 years earlier in June of 1766, John Wesley wrote these words in a letter to his brother Charles Wesley, "In one of my last [letters] I was saying that I do not feel the wrath of God abiding on me; nor can I believe it does. And yet (this is the mystery), I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word.

Therefore I am only an honest heathen … And yet, to be so employed of God! And so hedged in that I can neither get forward nor backward! Surely there was never such an instance before, from the beginning of the world! If I ever have had that faith, it would not be so strange. But I never had any other evidence of the eternal or invisible world than I have now; and that is none at all, unless such as faintly shines from reason’s glimmering ray. I have no direct witness (I do not say, that I am a child of God, but) of anything invisible or eternal.

And yet I dare not preach otherwise than I do, either concerning faith, or love, or justification, or perfection. And yet I find rather an increase than a decrease of zeal for the whole work of God and every part of it. I am borne along, I know not how, that I can’t stand still. I want all the world to come to what I do not know." (quoted in Stephen Tomkins, John Wesley, A Biography [Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2003], p. 168.

According to scripture divorce disqualifies a person from being a pastor or an elder.

It's very clear about this.

Krispy

KrispyKrittr wrote:
According to scripture divorce disqualifies a person from being a pastor or an elder.

It's very clear about this.

Another verse that is absolutely clear in Scripture is "The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance." Period.

Again I post these wonderful words in case someone needs them who is divorced:

Baohongen 2008/5/24 1:43 wrote:
I have known a number of people who were never technically divorced but lived with someone before they met and married their spouse. I know even more who slept around with various people before getting married. They technically are qualified to pastor many churches, whereas someone who actually married and was divorced is not.

I have known a number of people who were divorced before they ever became Christians. Is there grace to cover and restore them sufficiently to serve as missionaries and pastors?

We probably have all met pastors convicted of murder, robbery or other horrible crimes in their previous lives. Should they be allowed to serve where a divorced person is not?

Brothertom 2008/5/25 11:54 wrote:
No one can ever take Isaiah 61 away from any believer, male or female! No one, however they may want to. Ministry is an act of the Holy Spirit, Christ in us, the hope of glory. If it is from Him, the fruit of God will follow, no matter what or how man may oppose.

1. Pastor and Elder are are not two distinct persons but are words which are descriptive of one and the same men who are functioning in the body of Christ as such. They are terms which denote more of what they do for the body than what many have assumed as their being a title to be called by. This must be understood to begin. Bishop and Overseer are synonymous terms as well. All of the above terms describe men who are gifted by God and therefore called of God to lead and guide the flock. Having been graced with wisdom from above and maturity in the faith, evident to all, who consequently are willing to give deference to them due to their caring example and exemplary lives.

2. A widow is to be "the wife of one man (1 Timothy 5:9)." Young widows are encouraged to get remarried (1 Timothy 5:14). The word one(Heis) in 1 Timothy 5:9 is the numeral one. In "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2;Titus 1:6) the word one is an adjective(Mia). As insignificant as this may sound at first,the actual ramifications are that prohibition of remarriage is clearly not the correct interpretation in the elder context. These qualifications mentioned and addressed here are clearly in regard to his character rather than his past marital status. These are qualifications of what he 'must be' in the present tense. The word "be" in both 1 Tmothy 3:2(Einai) and Titus 1:6 (Esti) are both verbs. In 1 Tmothy 3:2 the word "must" is dei. The same word dei is used in Acts 4:12 ...by which we must be saved.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states "The tense of dei is present. This means that the action of the verb is occurring at the time that the writer composes the letter. This reinforces what is known from the historical background. The qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 are qualities that must be observed in men who are serving as elders. Of course, it would also be logical to use these qualities as qualifications for elder candidates."

Here are some words(not mine)which I consider to be very insightful on this apparent dilemma:

"First Timothy 3:2 does not say "an elder must be married only once" nor does it say "an elder cannot remarry."

To place this type of stern restriction on a godly man seems quite unjust. One should avoid the Pharisaical error of binding men with unnecessary and oppressive burdens (cf. Matt. 23:1-4; Acts 15:10) and should seek to be gracious at every opportunity.

If Paul had stated "eschon mias gunaikos mones" ("having had only one wife"), it would be easier
to argue that Paul meant possessing only one wife in one's lifetime up to the point of his being examined. However, he did not make such a statement.

Some would treat divorce and remarriage as the unpardonable sin and practically force some genuine, godly Christians into a life of spiritual exile, treating these forgiven children of God as though the blood of Christ could not thoroughly cleanse them, as though they are not quite as pure as other Christians.

The translation "husband of one wife" is not the best understanding of the Greek phrase "mias gunaikos andra," but it should be translated "a man of one woman" or "a one woman man." This understanding emphasizes the character of the man rather than his marital status. Thus even
a single man or a man who has been married only once must demonstrate that he is not flirtatious, but that he is stable and mature in
character toward his wife or other females. A man who demonstrates a character of loyalty and trustworthiness in such personal relationships is qualified in this area. This shifts the emphasis away from an event that took place in a man's life before his conversion and properly
concentrates on the character and quality of his life at the present time.

The importance of understanding what Paul means by a "one-woman man" is critical. The lives and Christian service of hundreds of Christian men are affected by one's view. It may be safer simply to offer an impersonal and broad judgment forbidding any one who is divorced (or married to someone who has been divorced) to be an elder/pastor.

Paul's instruction includes only three words, "mias gunaikos andra," as one of
several requirements for being an elder (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1;6) or a deacon (1 Tim. 3:12, where the pl. "andres" is used).

the other qualification in 1 Timothy 3 deal with the man's character and since the grammatical structure is more naturally consistent with this emphasis, it seems best to understand the phrase as meaning that he is a one-woman type of man.

Since neither the grammar of the phrase nor any reference in the context implies that Paul was discussing a once-in-a-lifetime situation, then that idea must not be forced into the text.

Again, if Paul had said something like "eschon mias gunaikos mones," then one could speak more assuredly that Paul meant having had only one wife ever. Paul, however, simply said he must "be" ("einai," present tense) a man of one woman.

Kenneth S. Wuest states, "The two nouns [for 'woman' and 'man'] are without the definite article, which construction emphasizes
character or nature." He concludes, "Thus one can translate, 'a one-wife sort of a husband,' or 'a one-woman sort of man.'" (Kenneth S. Wuest, "The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament" (Grand rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), p. 53.

"In a culture where men frequently cohabited with more than one woman, Paul needed it very clear that an elder in the church was to
be a 'one-wife man' -- loyal to her and her alone."

If a church is bound to judge its members on the consequences of their lives before conversion, who then could meet the majority of the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3? Are churches as quick to forbid a man to be an elder or deacon because before his conversion he was not "above reproach" or because he was "pugnacious"?.

Certainly one cannot attempt to make the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3 apply to a man's life before he was saved. If God has forgiven him and made him a part of His church, why do Christians hold his past against him? When one is saved, all his sins are forgiven (Col. 2:13); he becomes a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13); his body becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19); he receives a new nature created after God's own holiness (Eph. 4:24); he becomes a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17); and he becomes a part of God's "spiritual house" (1 Pet. 2:5) and "royal priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:9). Before a man is saved, he is dead toward God and his holy standards. He has no power
over sin, no knowledge of God's Word or will; thus to judge one's life before his new birth is totally unjust. Paul states that even adulterers (as in divorce and remarriage) were 'washed . . . sanctified . . . justified"(1 Cor.6:9-11).

Paul's concern in 1 Timothy 3:1-10 is that if a man desires to be an elder he must be qualified "at that time," not before his conversion. Is the church guilty of Peter's prejudice (Acts 10:9-16) so that God must also rebuke believers and say as he did to Peter, "What God has cleansed, no 'longer' consider unholy?" It does not seem possible that by Paul's phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2 he intends to
hold a man's preconversion sins against him.

Apparently those who prohibit a remarried man from service as an elder or deacon overlook the obvious point of the list in 1 Timothy 3. Paul's list deals primarily with the "character" or "attitudes" of men seeking these services in the church. The requirements are based on what the man "is," not what may have transpired in his past. Thus Paul wrote, "an overseer, then,
must be " ("dei oun . . . einai"). He expressed the same idea in Titus 1:6 ("ei tis estin"). Even as "temperate," "prudent," "respectable." and other qualifications deal with his character, so also a "one-woman (kind of) man" is a character trait demonstrated by a chaste and mature attitude toward his wife and other females. Lenski offers a similar explanation: "The emphasis is on "one" wife's husband, and the sense is that he have nothing to do with any other woman. He must be a man who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity." Lenski points out that converts did not always immediately withdraw from their pagan customs and become instantly
perfect in sexual purity; thus Paul set up this standard of moral character.

Indeed, to say that a man's character means that he is content with his one wife is not lowering God's standard; it is putting the emphasis where it belongs -- on the quality of a man's moral attitudes after his conversion. To judge a man's spiritual qualities on the basis of a sin committed before he was saved, before he was capable of understanding God's will or Word, and
before he had the power of Christ's life within him is to create a false standard that detracts from God's wonderful grace and which also fails to deal with the real issue of 1 Timothy 3."

I add an amen to the above!

Intens4Him...

You said:

Another verse that is absolutely clear in Scripture is "The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance." Period.

This makes no sense in this context. This is a good example of wrestling a verse out of context to make it mean what you want it to mean.

Are we to believe that someone can commit gross sin as a minister and still carry on in the ministry? No, that would be absurd.

You talk about pastors who have committed murder, or theft... etc... but did they commit it before or after they were saved? If before, then it doesnt matter. And it's absurd for you to even suggest that I would think it does.

Divorce after salvation, however, is a different story. Homosexuality after salvation is a different story. Murder after salvation is a different story.

How you cant comprehend that is beyond me.

We have to ask why Paul put so many restrictions on those who would be elders/pastors. It is because it is a calling, and it is one of high purity. Those who would claim to represent God from the pulpit, or shepherd a flock need to be above reproach. Paul even says if they can not rule over their own home properly, how can they be expected to conduct God's house properly?

Divorce is never caused by only one spouse. If a wife cheats... her husband is partly to blame. Something went haywire. If a man cheats, something went haywire, and the wife is partly to blame.

A divorced man has split loyalties all the way around. Usually he is constantly having to deal with an ex-wife, child custody, accusations, etc. In other words... he has too much going on trying to keep his personal life, and the life of his family from unwinding that he does not have the time or energy to properly shepherd God's people.

If being in the ministry was just an occupation, then perhaps a divorced man could do it. But it isnt... and in order to maintain the integrity and purity of the office of elder/pastor [b]GOD[/b] (thru Paul) put very restrictive qualifications on those who would seek that office.

I dont care if a divorced man appears to be doing a good job of pastoring, the fact is... he isnt qualified scripturally. People want to argue with me that women can be pastors... but scripture is extremely clear that that is out of order. It's completely out of God's order, and Paul even gives an explanation of why it's out of order... and yet people who call themselves Christians want to ignore it... because they know a woman pastor who is sincere.

Yea, and Hitler was sincere too. Sincerity is not the litmus test for what is godly. Scripture is.

There are a lot of people even on this forum that may get sucked into believing a false teacher because he has charisma and sounds good and seems to be running a dynamic church.

So just because someone appears to be used of God doesnt make it so... especially when his life doesnt line up with scripture.

God will still save souls and minister to people... but it's [b]IN SPITE OF[/b], not because of the man.

And that's the truth of the matter. Scripture is clear, scripture says it... and thats just the way it is.

In the future, dont please dont bend scripture to meet what you want it to mean.

Krispy