divorce and qualifications for the officers

[Willem van Oranje]

Question for discussion:

Is it permissible given the biblical qualifications for elder and deacon for a man who has been divorced to be later ordained as an elder or deacon? Assume for the purpose of this question that the man being proposed as a candidate is seen by all as a godly and capable man, that his divorce is many years behind him, but that he did not divorce for biblical reasons. For example, say a man remarried 10 years ago after an unbiblical divorce adn now is proposed as a candidate for the office of elder. Would this be permissable?

 

[raekwon]

This is one of those questions that you're not going to get a consensus on. Some will say that any divorce, under any circumstances, biblical or not, regardless of who was at fault, bars a man from office. Other (such as I) will say that there are still other factors that play into this question -- was this man a believer or not when his first marriage failed? What's been the pattern of his life since then? Were there attempts to reconcile with his wife even after the divorce? Who was the "guilty" party? (etc etc etc)

To answer your "would this be permissable" question, the best answer I can provide is "could be."

 

[jbucklin]

That would be up to the discretion of the session that is considering/training/examining the candidate.

Some would interpret the 1 Timothy and Titus passages which list the qualifications for eldership---you know, "a husband of one wife"---to mean someone who has never divorced and remarried. Others would read it as addressing polygamy.

I think a good question to ask is this: would God call someone who has divorced, yet is currently living an exemplary life, to the office of elder? If you answer no, then why would God call anyone to any office, being that all have sinned, and fall miserably short of the glory of God? I think if the candidate has given sufficient evidence that he is a member in good standing, seeking to live a godly life, and is obviously gifted for governing the church, then judging him by how he lived his life years ago is superfluous. Once again, this should be left to the discretion of the particular session, since every case is different. Obviously if he has recently divorced, then that would give good cause for serious consideration/caution.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I agree that this one will be subject to a number of differing responses. But I would ask some of the same questions as others have raised. If he was not yet a believer at the time of the divorce, I believe that it is quite a different matter. The biblical qualifications for elder presuppose faith. Judging a candidate solely on the basis of his conduct before he was reconciled to Christ would exclude most from the office. Far more relevant (in my mind, anyway) would be his conduct since regeneration. If the divorce occurred after that point, I certainly think it is relevant, yet not (again, in my mind) exclusionary. All of the qualifications would need to be considered, including the ability to manage his household well. This takes time to demonstrate. Thus, if there is a "new" household, I would think that it would need to have enough history to adequately gauge his management of it. Exegetically, I do not take the "one wife" qualification to mean "only one wife ever," but many do.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I agree that this one will be subject to a number of differing responses. But I would ask some of the same questions as others have raised. If he was not yet a believer at the time of the divorce, I believe that it is quite a different matter. The biblical qualifications for elder presuppose faith. Judging a candidate solely on the basis of his conduct before he was reconciled to Christ would exclude most from the office. Far more relevant (in my mind, anyway) would be his conduct since regeneration. If the divorce occurred after that point, I certainly think it is relevant, yet not (again, in my mind) exclusionary. All of the qualifications would need to be considered, including the ability to manage his household well. This takes time to demonstrate. Thus, if there is a "new" household, I would think that it would need to have enough history to adequately gauge his management of it. Exegetically, I do not take the "one wife" qualification to mean "only one wife ever," but many do.

I tend to agree with you. Although I think some would also say that it makes a difference whether or not the divorce was biblical, because otherwise they might view the remarriage as invalid and an adulterous lifestyle.

 

[jbucklin]

I think it's important to remember that we should not go beyond what Scripture teaches on this matter. You will not find anywhere in the Bible a direct command regarding an elder and his past conduct, whether before or after conversion. I am afraid many sessions and congregations have refused/denied the nomination of many a good candidate based on the fact that he was involved in a divorce many moons ago. There are many biblical examples of men of God who fell in much greater measures (Samson, David, Solomon, Peter to name a few) and God used them for his glory and in the service of his church. The command in 1 Timothy 5 is to "...not be hasty in the laying on of hands" i.e. use discretion and wisdom when deciding on a candidate, taking the time to see how he walks and if it is genuine.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I tend to agree with you. Although I think some would also say that it makes a difference whether or not the divorce was biblical, because otherwise they might view the remarriage as invalid and an adulterous lifestyle.

Certainly that would be a major consideration. To clarify, I am only speaking theoretically when I say that one may still be called to the office under such circumstances. Practically, I would imagine that the likelihood of one being found qualified would be pretty rare. Just saying that I don't think such a man is necessarily disqualified without further examination.

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

I think it's important to remember that we should not go beyond what Scripture teaches on this matter. You will not find anywhere in the Bible a direct command regarding an elder and his past conduct, whether before or after conversion. I am afraid many sessions and congregations have refused/denied the nomination of many a good candidate based on the fact that he was involved in a divorce many moons ago. There are many biblical examples of men of God who fell in much greater measures (Samson, David, Solomon, Peter to name a few) and God used them for his glory and in the service of his church. The command in 1 Timothy 5 is to "...not be hasty in the laying on of hands" i.e. use discretion and wisdom when deciding on a candidate, taking the time to see how he walks and if it is genuine.

While I definitely agree that discretion and wisdom are the guiding principles, the matter of divorce has always been in a somewhat different "category" from the other qualifications. This is due to the covenantal (and optimally indissoluble) nature of marriage. Thus, where one may have been a drunkard but is not one now, having been married and not being so now are not analogous.

 

[Scott1]

Question for discussion:

Is it permissible given the biblical qualifications for elder and deacon for a man who has been divorced to be later ordained as an elder or deacon? Assume for the purpose of this question that the man being proposed as a candidate is seen by all as a godly and capable man, that his divorce is many years behind him, but that he did not divorce for biblical reasons. For example, say a man remarried 10 years ago after an unbiblical divorce adn now is proposed as a candidate for the office of elder. Would this be permissable?

There have been several threads on this topic generally, that might be helpful by doing a search function. Some have good information and references, including to the PCA study paper done on this topic.

With the fact pattern as you present it, and without further information, the most biblical answer is "no."


Here is a brief summary from the Study paper, which I think faithfully represents Scripture and the various circumstances:

II. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE 20TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PCA
....

a. That according to both the institution of marriage and its regulation in Scripture, marital vows are to be kept until death. Adopted.
b. That nevertheless, Scripture does provide for the dissolution of marriage under certain circumstances. Adopted.
c. That the innocent spouse is free to divorce and remarry when the other spouse commits sexual immorality (porneia, Mt. 19:9), in the sense understood in the Committee report (Chapter 2, Section II.D.3.f).
Adopted.
d. That while divorce is permitted to the innocent spouse, divorce is n mandated in the case of porneia, however, and forgiveness is always be offered to the one who has sinned (cf., e.g., Mt. 6:12, 14, 15). Adopted.


e. That when believers divorce for other than Biblical grounds, they should remain unmarried or else be reconciled (1 Cor. 7:11). Adopted.
f. That when an unbeliever separates from the marriage relationship with a believer, the believer is free from that marriage and free to remarry but only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:15, 39). Adopted.
g. That under extreme circumstances, a Session following the BCO may properly judge (see i below) that such desertion (separation) has occurred, even though the deserting spouse is still physically present in the home (“desertion” being viewed in the sense understood in the Committee report, Chapter 2, Section II.E.4.). Adopted.
h. That the believer in the aforementioned cases (f, g) is free to make the Biblical divorce a legal divorce in the eyes of the State. Adopted.
i. That in matters pertaining to sexual immorality and desertion, the pastor and Ruling Elders are responsible for providing counsel, direction and judgment, according to the Scriptures and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America. Adopted.

 

[Mushroom]

Most old hands around here know my position on this subject, as unimportant as it may be, but I will state it again for the purpose of discussion. We are Reformed Christians who acknowledge the sovereignty of God over all things. I submit that this sovereignty extends even to the marital status of His people. This discussion always devolves into one of the moral qualifications of the candidates. However, not all Officer qualifications are moral in nature, such as that he be a man. It is not immoral to be a woman, but it is a disqualification to Church Office. It was not immoral to be a Benjaminite, but it was a disqualification to the priesthood. If God has ordained that a man was to divorce and remarry, regardless of whether 'biblical' or no, why would that be any different than Him ordaining a child of His to be born a woman or a Benjaminite? What men intend for evil, God intends for good, and not only that, but He works ALL things for the good of His people. My position is that a divorced and remarried man is by that evidence ordained to some other calling than that of Church Officer. And that is not necessarily a moral distinction, particularly if the divorce was biblical in nature. It's both a matter of what God has ordained, and a matter of avoiding bringing scandal upon the Bride of Christ. There are plenty of other avenues wherein a Christian man may serve the Lord than Church Office that are no less valuable, and not all men are called to be Officers. This is one evidence that a man is not so called.

And I am a divorced and remarried man. I haven't come to a conclusion about a divorced man who has never remarried and intends never to do so. Just one layman's perspective. A hundred years ago, this question would not neven have been asked. That's always a red flag for me.

 

[TimV]

because otherwise they might view the remarriage as invalid and an adulterous lifestyle.

Then they'd need to force him to leave his current wife on penalty of excommunication. So it would be put up or shut up.