I'm a glutton for punishment...

Status
Not open for further replies.
kalawine

kalawine

Puritan Board Junior
OK, I'm setting myself up here. A while back I posted that I had been nominated as a deacon at the PCA Church that I am a member of. I made it clear that I was a "shoo-in" (not my words; someone else said that in a reply to my post but it was quite obvious from my post) What I DID NOT say (or mean) is that I was considering accepting the nomination BECAUSE I was a "shoo-in."

One guy (I don't remember who it was) thought that I should refuse acceptance because I am a divorcee. I'm not here to attack his opinion so let me get that out of the way up front. I respect that view though I don't hold to it myself. For the first forty years of my life I held that same view but I don't now. There were others that did not agree with him. It turned into somewhat of a minor "mini debate." I lost interest and didn't go back to it. But lately I've been thinking that maybe I should have given my perspective instead of just bailing on the debate.

Anyway, here's what I'd like to have your opinions on (No angry debaters please). I'm particularly interested in what you Presbyterians in the PCA (like me) believe but I wouldn't mind hearing from Baptists, Dutch Reformed or other Presbyterian denominations. Here is my question:

If the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIV, section V reads in the following way (and of course it does):

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

AND IF this reading means that someone like myself (my wife left me and broke our contract and I made it clear even after that that I would have forgiven her and tried to work things out: she would not have it) has a right to lawfully divorce AND to marry another "AS IF THE OFFENDING PARTY WERE DEAD"... doesn't that also mean that I have a "right" to act as a deacon (servant to our people) "AS IF THE OFFENDING PARTY WERE DEAD?"

I know I made this a loooong question but tell me: If my ex is (or isn't according to some demoninations) "dead" to me then wouldn't remarriage (which I haven't done after eleven years BTW) be a much more questionable issue than becoming a servant that visits the sick, provides for the poor, helps widows, mows the Church's lawn, works on the Church's plumbing etc. Can't the Lord use me to do tasks that most people see as demeaning in the first place since I commited the "sin" of allowing my ex to leave me against my will?

Please forgive the sarcasm (I'm terrible that way) but that is the way it looks to me.
 
If your divorce was biblical, then you have the right to remarry.

The only problems, or questions, I have are
1. Why did you post this when you were already ordained last Sunday. Is this post a reflection of some opposition in your church?
2. Do you really see the work of the deacon as involving tasks that people see as demeaning? Either way, I think there's something here that needs to be addressed.

May the Lord bless your service to His people.
 
The issue of individuals' divorce and remarriage and the propriety threof is a separate issue entirely from that of Church Officer qualifications. These days I am a lone voice on this matter, but 100 years ago there would have been no voices on the other side. Whenever I see that sort of 'evolution' in Church practice, red flags go flying. Why the change? My thought is that it has to do with a downward slide in our view of the Church as the Bride of Christ, coupled with (or perhaps engendered by) the effects of creeping existentialism.

The Church is Christ's Bride - why would her members ever do something that could bring scandal upon her? Is it too 'old guard' and stuffy to defend her peace and purity by deferring to God's ordained will that those of us (I'm a divorcee too) He determined would suffer the sorrows of divorce (whether for our own sin or that of others) should serve Him and His people in some other way than ordained Office?

So, three questions:

1. Why would no divorcee ever have been ordained to Church Office in Calvin's Church, or just about any other Reformed Church until sometime in the last century?

2. Is not God sovereign over the fact that one experiences divorce in his lifetime?

3. Are all the qualifications for Church Office measures of morality or gifts, or are there any that are simply matters of God's decree, such as that of Benjaminites being disqualified to the Office of Priest?
 
Clearly you are free to remarry. But that's not the issue here. I'm afraid I don't buy your argument that since the confession treats a contract-breaking spouse as if she were dead for the purposes of remarriage, it follows that we treat it the same way for the purposes of ordination. Being eligible for office is a separate issue with different qualifications. These include "husband of one wife" and "manage his own household well." They are concerned not only with the character of the man but also with how his ordination protects the church from disgrace.

Your session should have carefully considered how your divorce relates to these qualifications. Hopefully they did, and I'll stop short of making a pronouncement that is theirs to make. But Brad's point that there would have been no debate 100 years ago is one to consider. Regardless of your gifts and your godly character, does your ordination say something—both to others in the church and to the watching world—about how seriously we take marriage vows and divorce? That may not be the deciding question, but it must be in the mix.

That issue is for your session. For you, I would suggest another matter to ponder. Why is ordination important to you? Would you feel hurt or somehow less affirmed/honored if you labored in those serving, deacon capacities without the recognition that comes from ordination? I ask this because I think I detect a bit of an "I'm entitled" spirit to your argument. If I'm wrong, ignore me. But if I'm right (and I recognize it only because I struggle with the "I'm entitled" spirit too), you need to deal with this as you take office.

The hurt of your wife's rejection would sting even more if one result of it were your disqualification from office. Is Jesus big enough to you to overcome that sting? Would it truly be okay if it turned out you couldn't be an ordained deacon? Would there be no bitterness? Has God's grace brought that much healing? Divorce is very painful and I don't mean to suggest you shouldn't have these struggles. But I do encourage you to delight in the Father's never-forsake-you love, so that you can answer these questions with an ever bigger "yes."
 
You are to be commended for searching Scripture to determine basis for this.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXIV
Of Marriage and Divorce

....

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[11] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce,[12] to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[13]

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:[14] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[15]
Click to expand...

Scripture proofs

[14] MAT 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 1CO 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. MAT 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

[15] DEU 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Click to expand...

It would seem paragraph VI. is more pertinent to understanding the doctrine of scripture on this than paragraph V.

If I'm understanding the original posts and the facts correctly, there are three questions:

1) The question of biblical grounds in the first place.
The only grounds biblically are adultery and irremediable abandonment of a believer by an unbeliever. On any other grounds, it is sin, with lifelong consequences and perhaps to the fourth generation.

2) The question of re-marriage is another proposition.
Re-marriage on the part of an innocent victim of adultery is permitted. The Standards do not address it in the case of a believer irremediably abandoned by a unbeliever, with the implication, at least, being it is not.

3) The question of qualification for high church office is another.
A) Does someone who has had divorce on unbiblical grounds qualify to later be an officer, with forgiveness as much as within his power, repentance and current commitment to a new marriage?.

It's hard to separate the pain and emotion in this, but the heavy consequence is I do not think so biblically- not for office, as long as the former spouse is still alive.

B) Does someone who had biblical grounds, with forgiveness as much as within his power, repentance and current commitment to a new marriage?

I think so, provided the lifetime and generational consequences do not unduly hamper the exemplary life witness that is a qualification for deacon or elder. This is a very, very difficult thing and God seems to providentially arrange circumstances where this is not possible, but that is only observation.

A situation where I understand Scripture would allow (and this may not hit the posted situation, but might be helpful as an outworking of the biblical principles):

Man is abandoned by woman who moves in with another man. Man does not consent to divorce, prays and tries toward reconciliation, but magistrate forces it on him.

Assuming otherwise qualified, man serves after as an officer, unmarried. He continues to pray for former spouse (an unbeliever).

Former spouse develops serious disease in three major bouts, officer continues visitation and prayers, does not date and remains open to reconciliation.

God takes life of former spouse.

Officer, then marries second wife.

(God actually used a situation like this toward great testimony and encouragement- and, after years of modeling suffering, God brought the faithful officer a good wife, much redemption- an amazing faith building example of God's grace when officer's and others suffer to self in order to glorify God with the circumstances of their lives).

This is the kind of exemplary life pattern, and faith for officers overcoming this. It's not an ordinary standard, but an aspirational one that ought characterize the lives of those whom God would appoint as officers over His people.
 
Last edited:
I think most Baptist would insist on a deacon being the husband of one wife, though some churches have liberalized enough to accept remarriage. However,
I was always given to think that divorce without remarriage was not a disqualification. But I don't remember such an instance ever came up in any
church I've know of.
 
After re-reading the OP, I believe Kevin has not remarried. If that is the case, perhaps Scott's example above would apply here, and he would still be qualified. I would defer to wiser minds than mine on that matter.

And, to tell you the truth, I defer to wiser, ordained, minds in the matter entirely when it comes to others beside myself. If a Session has approved a nomination and the congregation voted positively upon it, then I am not in the place to challenge it. I do have questions, and an opinion, but not of any consequence except in my own case. I am divorced and remarried and would never bring that scandal upon the name of Christ's Church. I'm content to serve in other capacities than Church Office. Perhaps it's best that I stay out of others' wrestlings with the issue.

Kevin, you haven't replied yet, so I don't know if my comments offended you or not, but I can see where they possibly could, and for that I apologize. Please forgive me. May the Lord bless your service to His people.
 
For those who believe that a remarried person should be disqualified from church office, what are your thoughts on a situation like this [similar to Kevin in the OP] where someone is now ordained as a single man but then pursues a second marriage in the future? How would that be handled?
 
Brad, I've been very busy lately and have just gotten around to reading these replies. No brother, you haven't offended me. LOL
 
Wayne said:
If your divorce was biblical, then you have the right to remarry.

The only problems, or questions, I have are
1. Why did you post this when you were already ordained last Sunday. Is this post a reflection of some opposition in your church?
2. Do you really see the work of the deacon as involving tasks that people see as demeaning? Either way, I think there's something here that needs to be addressed.

May the Lord bless your service to His people.
Click to expand...

I didn't post after my ordination for any particular reason. And no, there is no opposition. I even went to the Elders beforehand to make sure there was no oppostition. Had there been any opposition I would have turned down the nomination for the sake of peace in our Church.

I'm sorry about the way I worded my post, that is, saying "that most people see as [the tasks] as demeaning." My point was that it seems to me that a person seeking (which I didn't do anyway) the office of Deacon isn't seeking a "soft" position or a "prestigious" position but rather a place in the Church where they will be "washing feet" as opposed to asking "who is the most important" to the Master. Being an ExCharismatic I have seen a lot of that.

"May the Lord bless your service to His people."

Thank you :-)
 
[/COLOR]
Michael Turner said:
For those who believe that a remarried person should be disqualified from church office, what are your thoughts on a situation like this [similar to Kevin in the OP] where someone is now ordained as a single man but then pursues a second marriage in the future? How would that be handled?
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
Last edited:
Michael Turner said:
For those who believe that a remarried person should be disqualified from church office, what are your thoughts on a situation like this [similar to Kevin in the OP] where someone is now ordained as a single man but then pursues a second marriage in the future? How would that be handled?
Click to expand...

There are at least a couple of Presbyteries in the PCA which appear to have determined that remarriage following Biblical divorce is not an impediment to serving as a TE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top