Conference yukon::christian_v7

Hello Jack, 

This is a knotty one which is liable to vary not only between denominations,
but between churches within a denomination.  I know of a deacon who was
divorced prior to salvation, and later remarried a christian lady.  His
election caused a lot of friction in the church over this matter, a good many
years back.  We have another deacon who has been divorced for many years 
(predates my time), but who has never remarried.  I don't think his election 
aroused any reaction.

The contention on the former case was that he was not 'the husband of one
wife'.  However, the very awfulness of divorce is that a marriage union is
severed; it 'is' no more. The two are no longer one, so he is not 'the husband
of this wife'. 

   "Now the overseer (elder) must be above reproach, the husband of but 
    one wife....."
							1 Timothy 3:2 
							(Also in Titus 1:6)

   "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife....."
							1 Timothy 3:12

The main chapter on divorce is 1 Corinthians 7, where verses 10-16 spell out
that if a married person becomes saved, that does not break their marriage
bond per se.  However, their unsaved marriage partner may find this new 
relationship untenable, and if they do, the saved partner has no option but to 
release them.  This is in verse 15, which is, in full :

    "But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so.  
     A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; 
     God has called us to live in peace."

Note the second line, which clearly indicates that the saved [former] partner
is 'not bound' - ie is no longer in the marriage bond.  This is divorce,
leaving the 'unbound' individuals free to be rebound in a later marriage.
Obviously this cannot undo relationship complications, but it has legally (in 
God's eyes) undone the moral interdependence.  They are no longer husband and 
wife.

The Timothy and Titus passages also indicate that in order to hold office in 
the church, anyone should first be demonstrating that they are able to 
administer their own home :

   "He must mannage his own family well and see that his children obey him 
    with proper respect (if anyone does not know how to manage his own family, 
    how can he take care of God's church?)"
							1 Timothy 3:4-5

Someone who has been through divorce, without showing significant spiritual
growth since, may be sen as violating that injunction!  However, in that area,
the decision has to be at the leading of the eldership or church meeting, on
each individual case. 

That's my understanding on this issue to date!  However, the contention comes
with every stage of divorce / remarriage.  I have known divisive problems in
churches over remarrying divorced people, and over admitting divorced and
remarried people into membership, as well...  The bottom line, of course, is 
that divorce is to be avoided where at all possible, but that it is not an 
'unforgivable sin'!  Much more could be said on that issue, but I think it 
would be outside your direct query.  I hope this is helpful!

						God bless
								Andrew

If you know only that someone has been divorced, you know *nothing* about their
spiritual state.  

If a spouse turns and chooses to leave, or becomes abusive and dangerously
destrutive, there is sometimes absolutely nothing the remaining spouse can do. 
We cannot control each other's actions.  The remaining spouse is now a divorced
person, and they have no sin attached to that fact - they are simply wounded.

Others may have been the one to pursue the divorce, yet have since repented,
but reconcilliation is no longer possible.  There are no unforgivable sins in
the church; none that preclude people from leadership and ministry.  Paul spent
his life killing and persecuting followers of Christ before he was called to
ministry.

Yet at the same time, many people in our culture today have come to believe
that leaving the lifetime vows that they made before the Lord is compatible
with following Christ.

No general statement can be made about someone who has been divorced, each case
would have to be viewed individually.

Paul

    Hi,

    the *Grace* of God covers much sin through the Blood of Jesus. *I* am a
    direct recipient of that Grace wrt divorce, and much other muck -
    including apostacy.

    My Testimony stands. Ok, I admit to not being (anywhere near) perfect -
    but I am a work under construction.

    God Bless you all - especially those who are divorced and are struggling
    with this - there is freedom from the guilt and pain in Jesus Christ.

    In Him who has Redeemed us,

				Harry

    I think it varies from denomination.  As far as I'm concerned, if God
    forgives you of your BC (before Christ) days, man ought to as well.  
    
    For instance, I know some great men in the Assemblies of God, who feel
    called of God to be pastors, yet they can't because they've been
    married more than once in their BC days or were divorced and could never
    remarry.  Their church government says a pastor can only be married
    once.  I think this is tragic to put so much emphasis on the BC
    experience of the saints.
    
    Mike

    I think this is one of those tragic things because of the legalism that
    occurs and really bangs people up in regards to a bunch of things like
    membership, and teaching, and serving on the worship team.  I think
    it's important to note that this is a teaching concerning being a
    deacon.  A deacon is held to a higher standard as are pastors because
    they are to shepherd the flock.  They do need to be above reproof.  We
    tend to single this one issue out, but I find that more fall short on
    having their houses in order than on this.  I think God meant just what
    he said in this teaching. A man is to be the husband of one wife.  I
    don't think a divorce is the worse thing to happen.  There are many
    reasons that people get divorced and they don't always want the
    divorce.  I think a divorced man could serve as a deacon.  I don't
    think a remarried divorced man can.  This is not a personal bias.  I
    just think it's what the Word says.  Since Harry already mentioned
    it...I love Harry and cherish him as a brother...if he was nominated in
    my church for a spot as deacon, I would vote him down.  Now, I would
    love to see Harry serve in my church in the worship team, newsletter
    editor, or in any other capacity.  (Will you consider commuting Harry? 
    ;'D  )  But I think God set a standard for the office of deacon that we
    need to follow.
           
    Jill

	I think a lot of Bible principles, like mutual submission between
husband and wife, not to get divorced etc., apply only to the "normal"
situation.  When it comes down to "exceptional" situation, like domestic
violence, some of the principles no longer apply.  In stead, only God's Grace
and Love can heal and reconcile in those extreme conditions because any rule
will only condemn.  After all, the first coming of Jesus is to save not to
condemn. I think any Christian who has repented and been getting out of sin in a
"higher state" of the sanctification process by God can serve as a deacon.  It
does not matter whether this person was divorced or has any other sinful but
repented and redeemed record, as long as currently this person meets all the
qualificaitions of 1 Timothy 3. If the things in the past have been redeemed and
reconciled, I do not think imposing forever "consequence" to the person will
serve any purpose, let alone love.  Or put in another way, we should base more
on the Biblical principle of Love than other principles.

Wally

    Jill,

    (as you mentioned me... ;')

    I would agree with you. I wouldn't even stand!

    I once had a 'dream' (as in deep desire, not those things you have when
    you're asleep) to be a Preacher/Pastor.

    And I could *do* that, even now. *BUT*, any denomination that would
    allow me (because of my divorce), I wouldn't want to serve in. Their
    standards wouldn't be high enough for me.

    So, that door of ministry is closed. But there are *heaps* of other
    places that I can (and do) serve. (and in this place is one where I
    hope to serve more).

    As Jill mentioned, music ministry, singing, newsletter editor, and host
    for Bible Study are those _in_ my church fellowship. Add to that
    co-ordinator/facilitator for the Digital (SNO) Christians at Work
    fellowship - and you can see that the Lord has be pretty busy even
    without the 'high profile' job of Pastor.

    And I mustn't forget my most important task of all.

    Full-time Husband to Karen, and Father to Joshua and Nathaniel. *THEY*
    are my most important ministry of all.

    p.s. I forgot another important one... being a Friend to some very
    special people who are dear to my heart. 

    RE: .6
    
    Hi Wally,
    
    Please remember that this life is like a blink of an eye...hardly
    forever "consequences."  I've seen marriages healed.  I believe that
    God can heal any marriage.  Naive?  No, I'm not.  God is willing. 
    Usually, people are not.  I also think it's important to note that God
    inspired this consequence, it wasn't made up by men.
    
    Love in Christ, 
    Jill

Hi, Jill,

> I also think it's important to note that God
> inspired this consequence, it wasn't made up by men.

I just have great difficulty about this statement in this case.  I see the
other way around.

Wally

    Jill, (and others)

>                        ...  I've seen marriages healed.  I believe that
>    God can heal any marriage.  Naive?  No, I'm not.  God is willing. 
>    Usually, people are not...

    Yes. It is the 'willingness'. I remember the last days of my first
    marriage :( We (Sharyn and I) couldn't get our act together. One week,
    she'd be wanting to seek councelling and heal the marriage, and I was
    unwilling. The next the r�les would be reversed. In the end, we both
    went, but I was just so antagonistic that there was no point in
    pursuing it any further.

    By that time I was apostate, and had already (in my heart) committed
    adultery.

    Could God have healed that marriage? Yes, I *know* He could. If *we*
    had let Him, if *we* had worked together *with* Him.

    It is my responsibility now, to ensure that this doesn't happen again.
    I love my wife. I honour my wife. I serve my wife.

    I fail, I admit that. (She'll admit it too ;') But I'm trying. (and
    they all said "Amen! Very!" :'D

    I still sometimes get feelings of guilt, which I've tried to talk
    through with some others (I just _can't_ talk it over with Karen :( )
    about the guilt of the failed marriage, but... {sigh}

�    I still sometimes get feelings of guilt, which I've tried to talk
�    through with some others (I just _can't_ talk it over with Karen :( )
�    about the guilt of the failed marriage, but... {sigh}

A constant reminder of His mercy and love, which cleanses us from all sin.
We all have our 'worst moments', which seem unforgivable to us.  As they
are, in our strength.  They hold us close to Him, Who is our salvation,
instead of relying merely on the palliative of mutual encouragement.
Nothing, but nothing can separate us from His love, for now or for eternity
... Romans 8:l, A.V. (Andrew's Version;-) 

							Andrew

    If a someone who was divorced and later married another cannot
    serve as a deacon because over their life-time they've been married
    more than once, does this also mean that one whose spouse died, and
    they subsequently married another also cannot serve as a deacon
    because they too have been married to more than one person over
    their lifetime?

    Leslie

Hi Leslie,

The Word makes clear that death dissolves the marriage bond to make 
remarriage totally permissable (eg in Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39).

The criterion is whether the marriages are sequential or in parallel.

The view that divorce and remarriage renders someone unfit for service as a
deacon is presumably based on the idea that the first marriage is not 
completely dissolved, while the whole point of the matter is that it *is*
dissolved (cf Malachi 2:14-16).  I don't know a place that specifically
upholds this as a rule, only of individuals, who don't actually carry the
resonsibility of church administration, but I would imagine that the demise
of the divorced spouse would then render the man eligible for service.  
Which, on the face of it, seems an unreasonable distinction.

							Andrew

Andrew, my own ideas on this subject are close to what you posted in the 
your first reply, .1 I think it was.  Divorce is not a good thing, it is sin
that leads to divorce and that sin might be a myriad of different things,
different people's sin - sin from someone outside the two people directly
involved could actually contribute the final result which is divorce as well
as the sin of one or both of the two directly involved.  But it all is 
forgivable, even when an individual was already a Believer when the divorce
occured.  I asked my previous question because it seemed the idea behind 
prohibiting one who was divorced and then married was that they had been 
married to more than one woman in their lifetime.  Since this would also 
be true of one who was widowed and remarried I thought I'd point that out.  
Your reply brought up a consideration that I had not thought of when I wrote 
my questions - that is divorce does not disolve a marriage.

I think that when divorce occurs, the marriage is disolved, it no longer 
exists.  I do not consider that I am committing either bigamy or adultry by 
being married to a man who was divorced.  Nor is he a polygimist, bigamist, 
or adulterer.  He has one wife only, and she is me!  If my husband could serve
in church office after his divorce, but not after his marriage to me, that 
would indicate to me that the sin for which he is barred from serving is the 
sin of marrying me.  

Yet in reality, God has blessed our marriage so much in so many ways, and we 
have been pulled more and more into serving the Lord both together and inde-
pendently.  We have been good for each other.  We have both grown spiritually 
because of our relationship.  With every passing year the bond only grows 
stronger.  It does not make sense to me that the desire, opportunity, and 
resources to serve Him in leadership capacity as deacons and as teachers should
flourish after our marriage, and flourish in ways that cannot be attributed to
happenstance, circumstance, fluke, but can only be attributed to the hand of 
God, if it is wrong to serve Him in this capacity because of our marriage.  
Why is God blessing us in this direction if its opposed to His will?  What is 
it, some sort of test to see if we can resist the temptation of serving Him ?
Wouldn't God do better to give those gifts He has given us to someone who could 
actually use them in His service rather than to a couple on whom they must be 
wasted because it is forbidden to use them?

Those are more or less rhetorical questions because What I think is this:

My husband's mistake, and there is a multitude of sin which brought him to it, 
was to marry the woman who was once his wife, but who is no longer his wife.  
The divorce was the tragic consequence of the sin which led him into that 
marriage situation, and which also prevented them from living out a true 
marriage.  The divorce has its consequences, mostly felt because there were
two children involved.  A complex interblending of sin through generations on 
both sides is what brought about the marriage/divorce situation.  Now however, 
he is no longer married to that person, she is not his wife in way.  He has 
been forgiven for the the sins which led to the marriage and its dissolution.
God brought us together across 3,000 miles because we are the right partners 
for each other.  Our marriage was not founded in sin, and prospers because God
is blessing it.  God has given us opportunity, resources, ability, and the 
desire to serve Him in abundance because He wants us to use them to serve Him
in these capacities.  When we respond to that call, we are not in sin.  Neither
my husband nor I have to apologize for our marriage or repent of it, nor is our
only option to sit in the back of sanctuary and be listeners only because of 
some terrible blotch on our lives that can never be forgiven, healed, and
covered.  Our slate has been wiped clean by the blood of the Risen Lord.

Deacons should not be polygamists.  They should have only one partner whose
needs they must respond too, so that they have the capacity to turn their
administrative and giving (nurturing) skills outward to the community.  If
a person is consumed by stress within their family, how can they give of their
time and to oversee the needs of those outside their family?  I don't think 
Shaul was talking so much about sin and being good examples as he was giving 
practical, pragmatic, realistic guidelines.

I hope people can understand that the reason my reply here is so long and
forceful is not because I am angry, attacking, or antagonistic, but because
this is something quite pertinent to my life, and to the life of my chosen 
love, my life's partner, my husband, a God-fearing man whom I have utmost 
respect for and hold in high esteem, and whom I see God calling to leadership
in our congregation and other arenas of serving Him as well.  Also because
I see this as an area where the church (in general) seems to have promulgated 
more legalism, hurt, and harm than it has repentence, forgiveness, healing,
and restoration.

Leslie

    My Pastor is one that believes in the commandments of the Bible and
    oftimes has taken quite a rebellion for standing by the I&II Timothy
    teachings on the church leadership.
    
    Including that no-one divorced be a deacon.
    
    These same men who are divorced serve in other positions in the church
    i.e., Sunday School Teachers, Bus Drivers, Maintenance, volunteers for
    whatever needs to be done, etc.
    
    I think the problem is we place a level of importance to God on these
    different positions.  I believe the one who cleans the toilets is as
    important as the preacher who preaches the word of God.
    
    As my Pastor says, and I agree.  If we are going to err as Christians,
    lets err on the side of holiness.  The ministry of the Lord, needs to
    be as pure as we humans can offer and while a person, who is divorced, 
    may be leading pure and sanctified lives, the scar of a
    divorce is still there and opens the door for the world to point
    fingers and demoralize the cause of Christ.

    God placed an importance on this, not man.
    
    I pray that one whose life has been broken by divorce, doesn't live in
    condemnation, but also realizes that God is not mocked, for whatsoever
    a man/woman sows that she/he also reaps.
    
    Nancy
    

Leslie,

You will find (I'm sure you have already) that there will be some disagreement
about parts of what you said.  But rather than focus on disagreement, let me
highlight something you said:

>nor is our
>only option to sit in the back of sanctuary and be listeners only because of 
>some terrible blotch on our lives that can never be forgiven, healed, and
>covered.  Our slate has been wiped clean by the blood of the Risen Lord.

Amen and Amen.  The idea that any sins in our past can forever bar us from
service in any given capacity to the Lord goes against the entire concept of
Christ's atonement.  There is no similar injunction against former murderers or
adulterers or sabbath-breakers to be prohibited from office in the church. 
Former sin, identified, repented of and washed by the Blood of Christ, is GONE.


That said, the Bible gives only two options for divorce that I'm aware of; the
case of adultery by the spouse, and the case of allowing an unbelieving spouse
to leave.  Other than those cases, I believe divorce is a sin in itself
(regardless of how the marriage came to be) that must be repented of.  I
realize that it doesn't sound like your husband fits into either category,
Leslie, and I don't want to stir things up for you.  But those are the only
options I see the Bible providing.

Paul

    In agreement Paul with your .17.

    I said in my previous reply that I think the passage in Timothy has 
    been misused to apply to something other than having multiple wives 
    at one time.  Apparently other people consider that "husbands only of
    but one wife" to mean one cannot have been married to more than one 
    woman ever.  If so, it should be applied to widowers as well as 
    divorced persons, unless it means that divorced persons are still in
    marriage to their departed spouse, which I think is false.  I believe 
    in being obedient to God's Word also, but I think people sometimes make 
    their own rules and call them God's.
  
    In terms of spiritual responsiblity, a teacher probably carries the 
    greatest burden.  If the blotch of divorce mars one's suitability for 
    service as a deacon even though one has repented, then why isn't it a 
    blotch that mars one's suitability for teaching?  Shouldn't a teacher 
    be subject to the same "high standards" as deacons? 

>    These same men who are divorced serve in other positions in the church
>    i.e., Sunday School Teachers, Bus Drivers, Maintenance, volunteers for
>    whatever needs to be done, etc.
    
>    I think the problem is we place a level of importance to God on these
>    different positions.  I believe the one who cleans the toilets is as
>    important as the preacher who preaches the word of God.
    
>    As my Pastor says, and I agree.  If we are going to err as Christians,
>    lets err on the side of holiness.  The ministry of the Lord, needs to
>    be as pure as we humans can offer and while a person, who is divorced, 
>    may be leading pure and sanctified lives, the scar of a
>    divorce is still there and opens the door for the world to point
>    fingers and demoralize the cause of Christ.

     If its going to demoralize the cause of Christ, then what are they doing
     being teachers?  And if one who cleans the toilets is as important as
     the preacher, than why are such distinctions being made in how much
     sin is forgiven and who gets to start over with a cleansed slate?  To
     me this says only some people get the fresh start - repentent murderers, 
     child molestors, rapists, and thieves are somehow more pure than someone 
     who has been through a divorce and is repentent.  Its a scenario that says 
     that the Messiah's atonement operaters differently depending on what
     the "sin" was.  

     And finally, perhaps we should consider the possibility that the error
     here is not on the side of holiness, but on the side of unforgiveness?

     Leslie

     PS.  I just read through the replies that came in since my last note.

     Nancy, since you agree with Paul Weiss that:

>>Amen and Amen.  The idea that any sins in our past can forever bar us from
>>service in any given capacity to the Lord goes against the entire concept of
>>Christ's atonement.  

     then have you revised your thinking which you stated in .16:

>>    while a person, who is divorced, may be leading pure and sanctified 
>>    lives, the scar of a divorce is still there and opens the door for the 
>>    world to point fingers and demoralize the cause of Christ.

Don't other sins carry scars as well?  Don't theft, fraud, dishonering
one's parents, and all the others also cause hurt that lasts beyond the moment,
and that have scars even after repentence and reconcilliation? 

Leslie

>    I said in my previous reply that I think the passage in Timothy has 
>    been misused to apply to something other than having multiple wives 
>    at one time.  Apparently other people consider that "husbands only of
>    but one wife" to mean one cannot have been married to more than one 
>    woman ever.  If so, it should be applied to widowers as well as 

The "one at a time" scenario has crossed through my mind, I admit.  It's 
a good question and one that I cannot answer.  It says more than one 
wife, it doesn't qualify the "at one time" scenario, though I'd be 
remiss to say more than that.

  
>    In terms of spiritual responsiblity, a teacher probably carries the 
>    greatest burden.  If the blotch of divorce mars one's suitability for 

You are attempting to put earthly wisdom in rationalizing the word of 
God.  I cannot answer the questions fully that you are asking, I can 
only turn to scripture and if doesn't make sense to me, I can either 
accept it for what it says, struggle to show it says what I *think* it 
says or I can use human logic to reason that it that it really "can't" 
mean what it says. :-) and lastly I could declare that the Bible is not 
inerrant and faulty and therefore abandon all belief in God.


>     If its going to demoralize the cause of Christ, then what are they doing
>     being teachers?  And if one who cleans the toilets is as important as
>     the preacher, than why are such distinctions being made in how much
>     sin is forgiven and who gets to start over with a cleansed slate?  To

To me this is where your logic breaks down, you are seeing this as a 
vehicle for unforgiveness versus a consequence of sin.


>     me this says only some people get the fresh start - repentent murderers, 
>     child molestors, rapists, and thieves are somehow more pure than someone 
>     who has been through a divorce and is repentent.  Its a scenario that says 
>     that the Messiah's atonement operaters differently depending on what
>     the "sin" was.  

Everyone gets a fresh start, though one is divorced, one can be forgiven 
and begin again, but the consequence of this will remain and with my 
current understanding of scripture that means being in the corporate 
body of believers [i.e., an office of the church as in bishop, deacon, 
pastor]


>     here is not on the side of holiness, but on the side of unforgiveness?

I defer this to my above statement.

>>Amen and Amen.  The idea that any sins in our past can forever bar us from
>>service in any given capacity to the Lord goes against the entire concept of
>>Christ's atonement.  

>     then have you revised your thinking which you stated in .16:

No... I was referring to the reasons for divorce as being acceptable via 
the Bible.

>Don't other sins carry scars as well?  Don't theft, fraud, dishonering
>one's parents, and all the others also cause hurt that lasts beyond the moment,
>and that have scars even after repentence and reconcilliation? 

Yes, they do, but we don't choose the consequences, though I do believe 
there are some choices in life where even though we know the possible 
negative consequence, that choice is still made.

The reason I believe that "divorce" is such a strong issue to our Lord 
is because of the spiritual covenant that is made between a husband and 
a wife.  I truly believe that being one isn't equated only to sexual 
intercourse, but I do believe that intercourse symbolizes the union of 
two to one.

In the Bible God even likens himself as Bridgegroom awaiting the Bride.  
The church is His bride.  We are the Bride of Christ.  God also uses the 
term adultery to mark the Christians who were linking themselves to 
other gods.

Nancy

    Hmm,

    the Lord just revealed to me something about the 'unbelieving partner'
    and divorce. Particularly (and specifically) in relation to me.

    I have already admitted that at the time of the final breakdown of my
    first marriage, I was apostate. i.e. I was an unbeliever.

    Ok, I seem to be 'grasping' at straws here, maybe. But for the
    'Legalist' part of me, it is a balme, a salve on the weeping sore of
    guilt.

    Still pondering and praying,

				Harry

  
>>    In terms of spiritual responsiblity, a teacher probably carries the 
>>    greatest burden.  If the blotch of divorce mars one's suitability for 

>You are attempting to put earthly wisdom in rationalizing the word of 
>God.  I cannot answer the questions fully that you are asking, I can 
>only turn to scripture and if doesn't make sense to me, I can either 
>accept it for what it says, struggle to show it says what I *think* it 
>says or I can use human logic to reason that it that it really "can't" 
>mean what it says. :-) and lastly I could declare that the Bible is not 
>inerrant and faulty and therefore abandon all belief in God.

      What is the earthly wisdom you think I am using? - that a teacher 
      carries the greatest burden in terms of spiritual responsibility?  If 
      that is what you are refering to then I point out that I get this from 
      the Bible.  I'll look up the references for you.

      I don't think the Bible is faulty or inerrant.  I believe that
      God is the One who created the heavens and the earth, and is Lord
      of all, and that the Bible is His inerrant revelation given to us 
      through people inspired by the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit).  But 
      I do think that human understanding and/or application of God's Word 
      can be faulty.  But please don't ever confuse me with one who does
      not put their faith in God or His Word.

      If a certain passage doesn't make sense to us, we should ask God for 
      wisdom, and I have done that and continue to do it.  Nancy, I am not 
      trying to twist Scripture to my liking.  I am trying to understand it 
      with all the tools that God has given me as I am sure you do too.  In 
      this, we have been talking about what it means to be husband of one wife,
      and we each have different conclusions.  Since we do not generally 
      come to conclusions for no particular reason, I have been stating why 
      I think it is refering to polygamy and not to repented divorce, and 
      those reasons have nothing to with throwing out God's Word, okay?  
      I have also been giving my reasons for disagreeing with those who
      say that a person who has been divorced cannot serve as a deacon or
      pastor even if they've repented and have been forgiven by God.  You
      may counter my position, but not my motive, okay?
         
>>     If its going to demoralize the cause of Christ, then what are they doing
>>     being teachers?  And if one who cleans the toilets is as important as
>>     the preacher, than why are such distinctions being made in how much
>>     sin is forgiven and who gets to start over with a cleansed slate?  To

>To me this is where your logic breaks down, you are seeing this as a 
>vehicle for unforgiveness versus a consequence of sin.

       Seeing what as a vehicle for unforgiveness?  I see the application of 
       treating divorce different from other sin as a faulty application of 
       the Scriptures.  

       I see the way human beings sometimes claim holiness as being a reason
       to not allow God's atonement to cover the sins of the sinner as being
       the unforgiveness part.

>>     me this says only some people get the fresh start - repentent murderers, 
>>     child molestors, rapists, and thieves are somehow more pure than someone 
>>     who has been through a divorce and is repentent.  Its a scenario that says 
>>     that the Messiah's atonement operaters differently depending on what
>>     the "sin" was.  

>Everyone gets a fresh start, though one is divorced, one can be forgiven 
>and begin again, but the consequence of this will remain and with my 
>current understanding of scripture that means being in the corporate 
>body of believers [i.e., an office of the church as in bishop, deacon, 
>pastor]

So the other sins carry no consequence in this regards?



>>>Amen and Amen.  The idea that any sins in our past can forever bar us from
>>>service in any given capacity to the Lord goes against the entire concept of
>>>Christ's atonement.  

>>     then have you revised your thinking which you stated in .16:

>No... I was referring to the reasons for divorce as being acceptable via 
>the Bible.

Would you allow those persons to serve as deacons, or would they still be
under the stigma of sin even though Shaul's statement seem to imply that they
do not sin by divorcing an adulterous spouse, or allowing a non-believing
spouse to leave the marriage?

>>Don't other sins carry scars as well?  Don't theft, fraud, dishonering
>>one's parents, and all the others also cause hurt that lasts beyond the moment,
>>and that have scars even after repentence and reconcilliation? 

>Yes, they do, but we don't choose the consequences, though I do believe 
>there are some choices in life where even though we know the possible 
>negative consequence, that choice is still made.

Could you expand a little on this?  I am unclear as to your meaning.  Are you
saying that a person who divorces chooses the consequence of being unable to
serve the Lord as deacon or pastor (even when they may not even come to know
the Lord until sometime after their divorce?), but when people commit other 
errors and sins they do not choose the consequences of their sin?

>In the Bible God even likens himself as Bridgegroom awaiting the Bride.  
>The church is His bride.  We are the Bride of Christ.  God also uses the 
>term adultery to mark the Christians who were linking themselves to 
>other gods.

If God forgives the adulterous bride and cleanses her, and gives her new
clothing to wear, and in every way restores the person to his fellowship and
to the status of wife,  it makes sense to me that He would also restore the
one whose "adultry" is divorce.

I really think that if Shaul meant divorced, he would have said divorced, - 
a deacon must never have been divorced, but instead he says the one who 
becomes a deacon must have only one wife.  Hazza, do you think you have two
wives now - Karen and ?(I've forgotten her name?).  I certainly don't think
my husband has two wives.  He has only me.

Well that's it for me, more or less, I'm off on vacation until Tuesday, and 
beyond that, I've probably said my quota of words on this subject, except I 
will look up the teacher reference I mentioned.

Leslie

>      What is the earthly wisdom you think I am using? - that a teacher 
>      carries the greatest burden in terms of spiritual responsibility?  If 
>      that is what you are refering to then I point out that I get this from 
>      the Bible.  I'll look up the references for you.

I'm not being very clear am I.  I am interested where you think a sunday 
school teacher carries a greater or equal burden than a pastor/deacon.  
But that is not what I meant.

Because of the sensitive nature of this discussion its easy to let 
it become too personal... and I need to step back here and make sure 
that it doesn't come off that way and still be true to my convictions.

Please forgive me for not wording this better.  

>      can be faulty.  But please don't ever confuse me with one who does
>      not put their faith in God or His Word.

I honestly wasn't and I contend that I know this to be true of you as 
well.


>      I think it is refering to polygamy and not to repented divorce, and 
>      those reasons have nothing to with throwing out God's Word, okay?  
>      I have also been giving my reasons for disagreeing with those who
>      say that a person who has been divorced cannot serve as a deacon or
>      pastor even if they've repented and have been forgiven by God.  You
>      may counter my position, but not my motive, okay?

I wasn't questioning your motive, number 1.  And number 2 I believe you 
completely.  And I apologize that this is what you saw which means I 
again did a very poor job in conveying the right message.

But back to what you said above:

The Bible is very clear that marriage is a serious and spiritual 
decision that we make.  

Matthew 19:9  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. 

I Corinthians 7:10-11 is very clear.
    
Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not
to depart from her husband.
But even is she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be
reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

>So the other sins carry no consequence in this regards?
    
UnBiblical divorce is sin, no more or less than any other sin and as
such it is covered by Christ's blood on Calvary-forgiveness is given by
the Lord when sought. (Praise Him!!) However, sin has consequences. In
some cases, God miraculously removes consequences, but other times He
allows the consequences and even uses them to make us more like His
Son. (Romans 8:28-29) He's awesome!!
    
>Would you allow those persons to serve as deacons, or would they still be
>under the stigma of sin even though Shaul's statement seem to imply that they
>do not sin by divorcing an adulterous spouse, or allowing a non-believing
>spouse to leave the marriage?

Pardon me but who is Shaul?  Paul perhaps?  If we wish to follow precept 
upon precept and concept upon concept, I'd have to agree that under 
these circumstances that a person should be free to hold any official 
position in church from janitor to pastor. :-)

>If God forgives the adulterous bride and cleanses her, and gives her new
>clothing to wear, and in every way restores the person to his fellowship and
>to the status of wife,  it makes sense to me that He would also restore the
>one whose "adultry" is divorce.

The Bible says there will be no adulterers in heaven.  How do you reconcile 
that verse with the above?  I'm not sure... but it sure makes me walk in 
caution.

>I really think that if Shaul meant divorced, he would have said divorced, - 
>a deacon must never have been divorced, but instead he says the one who 
>becomes a deacon must have only one wife.  Hazza, do you think you have two
>wives now - Karen and ?(I've forgotten her name?).  I certainly don't think
>my husband has two wives.  He has only me.

You didn't ask me.. but many times during my marriage [my husband's 
2nd], I felt as though he had two wives.  As you look at Paul's writings 
and I look at Paul's writings, we see different things.  I, for one, 
knowing Paul's writings on marriage cannot believe that divorce was not 
intended here... but then again as I said above... I'd be remiss to say 
it was either.

Again, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Nancy


    

    Leslie (and Nancy),

    (sorry I didn't respond more quickly - I missed the question to 'Hazza'
    ;')

    Do I think I now have two wives?

    Leslie, until recently, I wasn't really _sure_. Hence my guilt voiced
    in a previous reply here. I just didn't know for sure.

    I read Reb. Shaul's (yes, Nancy, that is 'Paul') admonitions in
    Corinthians, and I found a seemingly 'hard and fast' rule there! And,
    the way my 'legalist' side interpreted that _placed_me_under_guilt_!

    I admit, I am *still* learning more and more about the Grace of God.

    Now, the question that I need to really ask is "Does God think I have
    two wives?"

    Until recently, I thought maybe 'yes'. And this increased exponentially
    my (feelings of) guilt! And then Sharyn got re-married. And if I'm
    still married to her, what of my marriage to Karen? Should I divorce
    her and re-marry Sharyn even though I am happy and devoted to Karen, and
    not all that fond of Sharyn anymore? And what of Sharyn's new husband?

    Can you see the complexity that explodes!? And then I was reading (I
    think Leviticus) about it being a sin for a divorced couple, who have
    re-married others, to re-marry each other!

    Wave upon wave of guilt crashing down! And NO ONE to share with!!! I
    tried to talk with someone who would understand, and they ingnored the
    subject - probably because it was too painful for them, too :( :(

    I forget who started this string - but thank you, thank you, thank you.
    This has started to clear up some problems that have been gnawing at me
    for a couple of years now.

    So, does God consider me having 'two wives'?

    I don't think so. I have confessed what I thought was sin, I have
    accepted His Grace and His Forgiveness. It's gone, it's past.

    Does Karen at times think that I have two wives? No, not at all.

    This was probably *the*main*reason* we chose to merge our surnames, to
    create a new one - so that she wouldn't be the 'second' Mrs Clarke!

    And, Heaven forbid, if Karen were to die (the *only* way I plan on
    being re-married, again), then I would have to re-think the surname
    thing all over again - but I really can't imagine lumbering anyone with
    Mrs Woodward-Clarke-??? :') :') *** Action: Harry chuckles

    God Bless you all,

    Harry

I've only got about a minute, but in James 3:1 it says that those who 
teach will be held in greater judgement.  There is more, but I'll have
to pick it up when I get back.

Deacon is a transliteration of the Greek Diakonos  which means one who
serves.  The N.T. contains at least one reference to a woman diakonos -
Phoebe.  Somewhere in Acts is the account of the first 7 people chosen
as diakonos.  I'll put in all the specifics when I get back.

Leslie

    I can't tell the future, but with my current understanding I would be
    surprised if the Lord ever called me to be a pastor or deacon, or even a
    teacher (that is, the Church office of Teacher, as opposed to one who
    teaches) -- these are simply not part of me at this time. So what I'm about
    to say isn't personal in any way, because I have no need to defend my own
    position (i.e., divorced and perhaps remarried someday, Lord willing) with
    respect to qualification or disqualification for these offices.

    This issue of being married to one wife as a matter of qualification for a
    particular Church office is one where your pastor and I disagree on the
    interpretation. My view is exactly the same as Leslie's and has been all of
    my Christian life. Now, I've never been taught this view by anyone, so the
    viewpoint I hold is either mine or God's. My leading is that it is God's,
    for what it's worth. But I don't claim to fully know that, because I don't
    know anything as I ought. However, to interpret this verse as your pastor
    does violates everything I have ever come to understand about the grace and
    mercy of God. If, for example, no adulterer shall enter the Kingdom of
    Heaven, then my own walk with the Lord is totally worthless and completely
    in vain, for I am an adulterer. And yet by His grace I stand forgiven,
    restored in His sight, and am being drawn ever closer to Him. 

    As far as erring on the side of caution, I don't believe that this can ever
    really be done. Erring on one side or the other is still erring, which
    means that it is very possibly wrong in God's eyes (where "wrong"
    constitutes a failure to walk by faith in God and in His love for all). And
    the consequences for erring could be disastrous, as Harry testified
    concerning his feelings of guilt.

    The only case that comes to mind where God permanently visits the
    consequences of a person's sin upon him (or her) is suicide, and even then,
    who am I to say that God would not raise that person back to life? And even
    for the general case where the wages of sin is death, a penalty which no
    one can escape, were not Enoch and Elijah spared from dying, though they
    shared the same sinful nature as the rest of us? And if I am an adulterer
    (which is probably the most serious marital sin that can be committed --
    Jesus clearly labels it as grounds for divorce) destined for Hell because
    of my sin, then how can I account for my current walk with God except for
    His mercy?

    Does it really make sense, in the context of the whole Bible, and in view
    of God's mercy, that a remarried man must be forever barred from any
    specific service to God? It doesn't to me, given what He's done for me and
    is still doing in me. The only interpretation of that verse that makes
    sense to me is polygamy, not divorce and remarriage. Am I still married to
    my wife, in any way? Remember, I committed adultery, and she divorced me,
    which is expressly permitted by Jesus. Am I still bound to her in any way?
    Are you still bound to your ex-husband in any way? Or does divorce truly
    sever any and all ties? I can testify that for me, it felt like an
    amputation, and when a limb is amputated, it is fully removed from the
    body. How did it feel to you? I wouldn't to presume to try to understand
    God's Word based upon my feelings, but in light of His Word about the
    severity of divorce, it makes sense that I would feel what I did.

    God is sovereign and merciful, and I see no limits to His mercy in the
    Bible, even to forgiving those whom He said would not enter the Kingdom of
    Heaven. He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and it is not for me to
    judge whether someone can or cannot be forgiven for their sins.

    I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense or touches on a sensitive area for
    you. In this case, while as I said, I have no need to defend my own marital
    state, or even my position on this, for that matter, I find it painful that
    anyone would choose to err on any side, whether that of caution or
    otherwise, rather than seek the Truth from God Himself. He knows what He
    meant, and to anyone who is willing to accept His teaching, even (and
    especially) if it disagrees with the teaching of men, He will make Himself
    known.

    With love in Christ,

    -- Daryl

    

    I'd just like to add:  Isn't God's grace wonderful!  And isn't His love
    vast!  I think this is important to remember.  If we've sinned in the
    past isn't it great to know that when we've asked for forgiveness God
    isn't going to hold that against us and that he will still pour out 
    his blessings on us.  I think we have trouble understanding how
    unconditional God's love is for His people.  We seem to think that if
    we had done something wrong that he'd withhold his blessings from us.
    I'm sure there are times for a lesson that God does just that, but I
    remember a discussion a while back about why God had still blessed
    Abraham even though he was doing things that he knew were wrong in
    God's sight.  It was because the blessing wasn't based on Abraham's
    action, but on God's unconditional love.
    
    I think we're blurring two issue here of whether God says a divorced man
    can serve as a deacon or not with whether God will still bless a
    marriage where one or both of the people have been divorced.  
    
    Love in Christ, Jill

    
    I would also add after reading Daryl's message posted by Nancy that
    just because God forgives us doesn't mean that we are completely 
    free of consequences.  God called David a man after His own heart
    but David still had a great deal of consequences that God Himself
    set before him.  
    
    Jill
    

One other thought:

If a previous sin - cleansed, washed in the Blood of Christ, and forgotten -
shows a particular area of weakness, then that person should not be in ministry
in such a way as to overly expose that area of weakness.  This has nothing to
do with the prior sin not being forgiven - it is completely covered.  But Satan
will always attack at the weakest point, and weak points tend to remain - as a
"thorn in the flesh."

It is simply not wise to have a compulsive gambler (recovered and forgiven) be
the church treasurer.  It is not wise to have someone who fell to adultery
(repented of and forgiven) be put in a position where they would have any
private contact with members of the opposite sex.

I'm not necessarily saying that this applies directly to the divorced/deacons
issue, though it might if visiting widows was part of the task of deacons.

But I am saying that while past sins, covered by the Blood and forgiven, can
never be a justification for exclusion from any area of ministry, areas of
weakness to a particular temptation - an area that may have been exposed by the
sins in the past - *ARE* a valid reason for exclusion from an area of ministry
that would require resistance to that particular temptation.

Paul

    re .0
    
    This situation requires the application of more love and less law. 
    Whenever I write in this conference I usually call for a balanced
    approach to law and gospel.
    
    Pre and Post salvation are meaningless in this situation.  That would
    be an inappropriate application of the law.  Why?  If this man is
    repentent over the sin of their divorce, then God has promised to drown
    this in the depths of the ocean.
    
    Now, to the matter of serving as a deacon.  If the man's past would
    create a situation wherein he could not fulfill his job as deacon, then
    he should not be placed in that position.  This situation could be the
    distrust of portions of the congregation.  This is indicative of a
    bigger problem (i.e. the lack of love and inability to forgive in the
    congregation) and should be addressed separately.  In the near term,
    your deacon would be a casualty of this lack of love, and should not be
    placed in this position.
    
    Remember, we all sin and fall short of the mark.  Paul, one of God's
    most powerful apostles, considered himself the chief of sinners.
    
    I personally know of two people who were abandoned by their church
    after their divorces.  Their churches failed to recognize these folks
    as repentent sinners in need of love and forgiveness.  Instead, the
    congregation isolated them, and drove them away.  This is a legitimate
    and loving application of the law for the UNrepentent, but NOT for the
    repentent.  When somebody repents, you don't keep applying the law, you
    then reassuringly apply the gospel news of forgiveness.
    
    dp
    

    RE: .30 and the rest
    
    What would be the purpose of God giving this command then?  If God was
    not going to have consequences for this, why would God have this in his
    Word?  And why doesn't He talk about the difference between the
    repentant and unrepentant divorced man?
    
    I must admit.  This has me a little baffled.  I believe both Jesus and
    Paul called this a hard teaching.  Why are we so willing to try to
    smooth it over?  Could be that in the past we so stigmatized divorced
    people and now with the numbers of divorced people rising in the church
    at the same rate outside the church, we are trying to make amends?  To
    soothe the pain?  And somehow we see backing away from this "hard
    teaching" as a way to do that?
    
    In Christ's love, Jill
                                   

 I fully accept, that as a divorced man, though my sin is forgiven, I am
 unqualified to serve as a Deacon.  I am still qualified to serve in the
 Bus ministry, the building committee, I can still usher, I can still go 
 soul winning, I can sing in the choir and on and on and on.

 Why can't we just take God's Word as it is written?





 Jim

    Jim,

    agreed.

    Add to this music ministry, bible study host, newsletter editor, etc.
    and there is *more* than enough to keep us busy without having to go
    through the angst of 'can I be a Deacon/Elder/whatever'.

    H

 "There's lots to be done in the family, a job to fit every man
  there's caring and lifting and loving to do, so pitch in 
  and help all you can"....Bill and Gloria Gaither

Re .30 - Hi David,

I'm not quite sure whether you're saying that we should not apply 'law' to
the exclusion of 'love', or that the application of love should override
God's explicit instructions in the New Testament? 

I would agree with with the first, absolutely.  We have the particular
example of 2 Corinthians 2:5-11, as well as the injunction of Galatians 
6:1.

However if you mean the second (and I'm not absolutely sure that you do),
it's a matter of basic principles.  Where God says that certain rules of
life pertain to those who are used in certain forms of holy service, we are
not obliged to accept only those rules which we can rationalise.  We accept
salvation, and God's word by faith, not by reason.  Certainly there is
logic, reason and sense behind it, but man's logic is fallen, and relying
on that alone can lead down all sorts of paths which deviate from God (you
can prove anything with statistics). 

Hebrews 10:1 tells us 
	"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming"

We're so used to thinking of 'the law' negatively - as a heavy burden that 
man could not carry, that even in this verse we are liable to miss the 
point, focussing on the negative image of 'shadow', etc.  However, God does 
not even give the law just to be a burden.  Psalm 119 is a eulogy on love 
for God's law, because the Psalmist has learned the practise of Hebrews 
10:1.  'The law' tells us how we, as God's creation, have been designed to 
live and relate to God and the rest of creation.  Because of the fall, we 
do not 'fit' as as we should, and invariably deviate from the ideal.  
However, 'peace' lies, not in jettisoning God's law, but in realising 
that as we are enabled to live it, God is revealed to us.  The basic 
enabling, of course, comes through salvation.  The understanding comes 
through practise rather than a rigid legalism.  The law, instead of being 
our taskmaster, has become a part of our very expression.

In many cases, we can see the reason behind God's instruction for our 
lives.  In other cases we cannot, but that does not invalidate the 
instruction.  We also need to bear in mind that we are spiritual beings as 
well as physical, and God's rules cover us in both capacities; our logic 
is usually only aware of the physical side.

Some of the laws of the Old Testament may seem arbitrarily disciminating
until you bear this in mind - like the ban on certain people from serving
in the priesthood.  Our logic doesn't set God's reality aside.

In fact, I guess all those words just meant that I'm agreeing with Jill in .31

					God bless
							Andrew

    RE:  .35
    
    >In fact, I guess all those words just meant that I'm agreeing with
    >Jill in .31
    
    That's okay Andrew.  It's always nice to know there is someone out
    there with more verbosity than myself.  I had my Pascal teacher yell at
    me one time for my overcommenting of my program.  ;'D
    
    Jill

� I had my Pascal teacher yell at me one time for my overcommenting of my
� program.  ;'D 
    
!!!!!!  That must have been a renegade teacher!  - or else he got onto
reading some political memoirs instead?  I didn't think it was possible to 
overcomment a program!  I've only ever heard of commenting meanness...

							Andrew