A Question about "Elder Requirements" as outlined in the Bible

[LovesOfMyLife]

Specifially in 1 Timothy (is it Timothy or Titus???) where Paul tells says that the elders are to be "man of only one wife."


Here is my question : WHY do so many fundamentalist Churchs (I consider my Church -- but not myself -- to be a Fundamentalist/Conservative Church -- we are Church of Christ) believe that this means that they cannot ever have been divorced? (And, I believe, some even extend it to include widowers.)


I submit to you that perhaps Paul was talking about men who were in monogamous marriages, that is, the men who were not polyamorous (or, the men who LITERALLY had only one wife rather than 5 or 10 wives/concubines).


I guess I'm looking for a perspective from the Fundamentalist viewpoint on why this is interpreted this way because I do not believe Paul is clear on this.

TIA for the input! :wave:

[TwinCrier]

Some churches do not recognize divorce except in cases of clear infidelity. So, if they aren't sure their wife commited adultry, they shouldn't be getting divorced. There are several divorced pastors (Charles Stanley and Peter Ruckman come to mind) but of course, if the church wants to dismiss a pastor for being divorced, that is their option.

By the way, this is a great page by a friend of mine on the subject of divorce: http://www.bright.net/~bkrajcik/marriage.htm

[Andyman_1970]

One thing to keep in mind, is all those requirements are in the present tense in the Greek. The "one woman man" is the only requirement that my church (fundamentalist leaning Southern Baptist) view "retroactively" - the other requirements (drunkeness, misbehaved children, greed, etc) are viewed with the understanding that the person is not currently doing them.

I think most traditional fundamentalist churches hold this view.

[LovesOfMyLife]

One thing to keep in mind, is all those requirements are in the present tense in the Greek. The "one woman man" is the only requirement that my church (fundamentalist leaning Southern Baptist) view "retroactively" - the other requirements (drunkeness, misbehaved children, greed, etc) are viewed with the understanding that the person is not currently doing them.

I think most traditional fundamentalist churches hold this view.

So does your Church view that to mean they could never have been divorced or remarried due to their first wife passing away?

[Andyman_1970]

So does your Church view that to mean they could never have been divorced or remarried due to their first wife passing away?

First wife passing away is a "maybe" - but as for divorce, that's right out as far as our staff is concerned. However I don't think that is Biblical according to those passages in 1 Timothy.

[LovesOfMyLife]

It is so interesting to me, because "man of one wife" seems to me (in Biblical context, anyway) to be referring to a man who literally is married to ONLY one woman. BUT, if we're going to be broader about it, can we not maybe accept that someone could make a mistake in their youth (ie marrying someone who was wrong for them) and they get a divorce, only to meet their "TRUE" wife? It has happened, I have seen it.

What brings this up for me, is that my husband and I wanted to nominate someone during this last round of Elder nominations and he was rejected because he has been married before (he was married for 3 years to a loveless woman and they divorced, he remarried and has been married for 44 years now). Frustrating.

[Andyman_1970]

What brings this up for me, is that my husband and I wanted to nominate someone during this last round of Elder nominations and he was rejected because he has been married before (he was married for 3 years to a loveless woman and they divorced, he remarried and has been married for 44 years now). Frustrating.

I've experinced the same thing -

Some things to remember about those passages in 1 Timothy:

>The Greek is in the present tense. I beleive God gave Paul the words to use for a specific purpose, if those requirements were meant to be "retroactive" they would have been in the past tense.

>In the Gospels a specific Greek word for divorce is used, that word is not used in 1 Timothy. The passage literally reads "one woman man". So again under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, why did Paul not use the word divorce? Typically fundamentalist/traditional churches build a "fence" around the phrase "one woman man" to mean divorce as well - IMO this is treading awfully close to being a tradition of man.

>Typically the church tends to focus on only one of those requirements (divorce) and not the others. If the same logic were applied to how they interprete the "one woman man" (viewed as past tense rather than present tense) was applied to the rest of the list, our church would not have a pastor. Both the senior pastor and our education pastor preach that no one can be a elder/deacon/pastor if they are divorced - they view that requirement as "retroactive" even if it was before the individual was saved. Now the intersting thing is, both of my pastors would be disqualified if they applied that same logic to the rest of the list - one admitted from the pulpit that before he was saved he was a drunkard, the other admitted from the pulpit his children misbehave.

So you can see the difficulty this raises. IMO, in an effort to protect itself from perceived liberalism (some liberal churches don't bat an eye at divorced pastors) many fundamentalist/traditional churches have IMO added to and misinterpreted those requirements Paul tells Timothy.

Anyway, I hope this was helpful.

[rural_preacher]

I have a problem with the idea of holding a person's past against them. God doesn't hold these things against them, why should we?

II Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


I John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.



--

[Andyman_1970]

I agree RP...................well said................. :thumbsup:

[LovesOfMyLife]

I have a problem with the idea of holding a person's past against them. God doesn't hold these things against them, why should we?






--

That is how I feel, too. It seems unfortunate that not enough people in the CHURCH LEADERSHIP feel that way.


And you are right Andy, if they were to apply the same principles retroactively to themselves my Church would not have ANY ministers! ;)

[rural_preacher]

That is how I feel, too. It seems unfortunate that not enough people in the CHURCH LEADERSHIP feel that way.


And you are right Andy, if they were to apply the same principles retroactively to themselves my Church would not have ANY ministers! ;)

If I applied all of the requirements to myself retroactively, I would not be a pastor. It is only by the grace and power of Christ living in me that I am able to meet those requirements now.


--

[Andyman_1970]

This is where I run into problems.

I am divorced (before I was saved) and am struggling with God's calling on my life to preach. But according to my pastors I am not eligible - a point which they do not wish to discuss. Which if this is the case (that somehow I'm not eligible), why is God still calling me to preach?

[LovesOfMyLife]

This is where I run into problems.

I am divorced (before I was saved) and am struggling with God's calling on my life to preach. But according to my pastors I am not eligible - a point which they do not wish to discuss. Which if this is the case (that somehow I'm not eligible), why is God still calling me to preach?

You have JUST HIT on my problem with the Fundamentalist attitudes of many Churches (most specifically, MINE). I am a woman (duh ;) ) and by the code of man by which my Church is indoctrinated (is that the right term?) I cannot be a minister. So, can someone explain to me WHY it is that I feel called to use my Spiritual Gifts in ministry? Was my calling intended for the man who was sitting next to me the day I got the call, and I accidentally got in the way? Or, is it possible that God calls people according to HIS Divine Will and man should get out of the way?

I do not think that people who have been divorced are any less capable of Spiritual Leadership than people who have not been divorced. I think the concept that divorce is bad (which I agree with to some extent) goes back to the Church of England, if I am not mistaken. I do not think Divorce has anything to do with corrupting the Sanctity of Marriage, I think OTHER things corrupt that Sanctity. But there ARE "good" reasons people get divorced and I don't think God holds that against you, even if mankind does. Besides, I think I'd rather have HIM in my corner than a bunch of men, wouldn't you?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

You have JUST HIT on my problem with the Fundamentalist attitudes of many Churches (most specifically, MINE). I am a woman (duh ;) ) and by the code of man by which my Church is indoctrinated (is that the right term?) I cannot be a minister. So, can someone explain to me WHY it is that I feel called to use my Spiritual Gifts in ministry? Was my calling intended for the man who was sitting next to me the day I got the call, and I accidentally got in the way? Or, is it possible that God calls people according to HIS Divine Will and man should get out of the way?

I do not think that people who have been divorced are any less capable of Spiritual Leadership than people who have not been divorced. I think the concept that divorce is bad (which I agree with to some extent) goes back to the Church of England, if I am not mistaken. I do not think Divorce has anything to do with corrupting the Sanctity of Marriage, I think OTHER things corrupt that Sanctity. But there ARE "good" reasons people get divorced and I don't think God holds that against you, even if mankind does. Besides, I think I'd rather have HIM in my corner than a bunch of men, wouldn't you?


I feel that scripture lays out roles for marriage and the church structure. However we have changed church structure over the centuries and we have evidence of women in ministry, Anna in the temple, the women under the tree, and others. So in our current structure I do feel there is a place for women. Our church draws the line at the pulpit as the pastor is an elder but we have women that minister through leading worship, teaching Sunday school, ministering to the infirm, and so on. I still struggle with women teaching men in Sunday school but we have Biblical examples of women teaching men outside the church setting and since Sunday school is outside of the church we know of in the first century as long as they are in submission to their husband there is no Biblical mandate against it. Of course we also hold our elders to the same standard of being in proper submission to their wives as laid out in the same bit of scripture so it's not a sexist statement I am making there.

I have no doubt that God calls women to minister but I would agree that there is a line and that women have a place in ministry that is scriptural. If they don't then we have to go back and take a bunch of scripture.

[TwinCrier]

Well, the title of the thread is "Elder Requirements" as outlined in the Bible. Can't hold it against your church for following what God wrote. I personally don't think God would call someone to do something He has forbidden. Not everything we want to do is a calling. (kind of like Daniels Mommy's signature line)

[Andyman_1970]

Well, the title of the thread is "Elder Requirements" as outlined in the Bible. Can't hold it against your church for following what God wrote. I personally don't think God would call someone to do something He has forbidden. Not everything we want to do is a calling.

The problem is it's not forbidden, the Text literally reads "one woman man" there is no mention of divorce, even in the KJV, in that passage. Also those passages are in the present tense, not the past tense - they are not retroactive - so why does the church insist that some of those requirements be retroactive?

Also, has your pastors children ever misbehaved? If so, then if we use your logic he's no longer eligible to be a pastor.

Remember in 1 Timothy Paul says "if a man desires this office" - I don't desire to preach (in my flesh) but God continues to call me to do that, beleive me my life would be easier if I didn't. Once I studied this passge, and discovered the inconsistancies of it's application by fundamentalist/traditional churches I was quite discouraged.

[LovesOfMyLife]

Well, the title of the thread is "Elder Requirements" as outlined in the Bible. Can't hold it against your church for following what God wrote. I personally don't think God would call someone to do something He has forbidden. Not everything we want to do is a calling. (kind of like Daniels Mommy's signature line)

I do not believe that the Bible forbids women in the ministry, and I also do not believe the Bible forbids divorced men from serving as Elders. But perhaps that is because I tend to read that passage literally and do not read anything else into it (which makes me a fundamentalist on that passage, I guess, but I tend to read the Bible and take it at face value anyway).

And trust me, I sometimes WISH I didn't have the desires I have. There is a difference between wanting to do something and being called to do it. Now, if I just wanted to follow my calling I'd be set wouldn't I?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The problem is it's not forbidden, the Text literally reads "one woman man" there is no mention of divorce, even in the KJV, in that passage. Also those passages are in the present tense, not the past tense - they are not retroactive - so why does the church insist that some of those requirements be retroactive?

Also, has your pastors children ever misbehaved? If so, then if we use your logic he's no longer eligible to be a pastor.

Remember in 1 Timothy Paul says "if a man desires this office" - I don't desire to preach (in my flesh) but God continues to call me to do that, beleive me my life would be easier if I didn't. Once I studied this passge, and discovered the inconsistancies of it's application by fundamentalist/traditional churches I was quite discouraged.

I don't think they are misused for choosing elders but I think that they are applied well outside of the context they are given in by many churches and in doing so they have set up restrictions that are not scriptural. We have to be careful to apply the law of liberty and not apply restricitions farther than they are given. God lays out roles for men and women throughout the New Testament and some churches apply these roles outside of their given context and in doing so really cross the line into teaching the letter and not the spirit. There are very few things spelled out explicitly in the NT when compared with the OT and we must be careful to apply them in their given context and not outside of it lest we restrict God from doing his work.

[LovesOfMyLife]

I don't think they are misused for choosing elders but I think that they are applied well outside of the context they are given in by many churches and in doing so they have set up restrictions that are not scriptural. We have to be careful to apply the law of liberty and not apply restricitions farther than they are given. God lays out roles for men and women throughout the New Testament and some churches apply these roles outside of their given context and in doing so really cross the line into teaching the letter and not the spirit. There are very few things spelled out explicitly in the NT when compared with the OT and we must be careful to apply them in their given context and not outside of it lest we restrict God from doing his work.

I agree that many things are applied outside of their given context, and it seems that a piece of Literature written so many years ago would lose a bit of its timeliness (and it has in many places, the application of "slaves obey your masters" has long since ceased to be viable), but since we believe it to be the Divine Inspiration of God then shouldn't we realize that while the context it was originally written in was A today it is B, and that it should adapt to fit the situation we are in today? Or am I totally off base and not getting what you were saying at all?

[Andyman_1970]

I don't think they are misused for choosing elders but I think that they are applied well outside of the context they are given in by many churches and in doing so they have set up restrictions that are not scriptural.

I would characterize using the Scriptures outside the context they were given, as you state, as misusing the Text.

We have to be careful to apply the law of liberty and not apply restricitions farther than they are given. God lays out roles for men and women throughout the New Testament and some churches apply these roles outside of their given context and in doing so really cross the line into teaching the letter and not the spirit. There are very few things spelled out explicitly in the NT when compared with the OT and we must be careful to apply them in their given context and not outside of it lest we restrict God from doing his work.

I couldn’t agree with you more.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I agree that many things are applied outside of their given context, and it seems that a piece of Literature written so many years ago would lose a bit of its timeliness (and it has in many places, the application of "slaves obey your masters" has long since ceased to be viable), but since we believe it to be the Divine Inspiration of God then shouldn't we realize that while the context it was originally written in was A today it is B, and that it should adapt to fit the situation we are in today? Or am I totally off base and not getting what you were saying at all?

Well since there are still slaves, just not in the Western world for the most part, I would say that even that has not lost one bit of it timeliness. I am saying that as far as elders go, in cotext, they are to be men. Some churches take this farther and apply it to all positions within the church. We know the deaconate includes women and we have added Sunday School in almost all churches, which is not mentioned in scripture at all. So we have more places for women to minister than there were in the first century church. I believe that the line is drawn in scripture at eldership so to speak. I do not believe in ordaining women but I also believe that God has reasons for that I do not understand. I also believe that scripture shows us without a doubt that there are places for women to minister, and even places where women are to minister to men. Women are shown ministering to men outside of a pastoral setting so we know for sure that is allright, older women are told to minister in a fashion to younger women, and in other places to children so we have many places where women are not only allowed to minister but called to do so in scripture. I firmly believe the line is drawn at eldership. I do not believe that the Bible has lost any of it's timelieness due to the fact we read through cuturally colored glasses. God doesn't change with society and neither does his plan for the church or for husband and wife. We may not understand it but that doesn't change what he has laid out in scripture for us.

[LovesOfMyLife]

I actually agree with you that women are not necessarily to be Elders. After all, even if the argument can be made that Paul was a male chauvinist pig (tongue in cheek, here) he still wrote the books, and he says "men" for elders. My problems with the "elder requirements" is today's application of them to exclude men who have been divorced, or remarried for other reasons. It seems as though the rules are changed and molded to fit what the Church leaders want them to fit.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I actually agree with you that women are not necessarily to be Elders. After all, even if the argument can be made that Paul was a male chauvinist pig (tongue in cheek, here) he still wrote the books, and he says "men" for elders. My problems with the "elder requirements" is today's application of them to exclude men who have been divorced, or remarried for other reasons. It seems as though the rules are changed and molded to fit what the Church leaders want them to fit.

Just as I do not agree with church leaders who apply these requirements in a manner in which they were not meant to be applied outside of the direct context, I do not agree with that either. Changing the requirements is a big huge no-no as far as I am concerned. I doubt you will find much disagreement around here from what I have seen.

[Andyman_1970]

Just as I do not agree with church leaders who apply these requirements in a manner in which they were not meant to be applied outside of the direct context, I do not agree with that either. Changing the requirements is a big huge no-no as far as I am concerned. I doubt you will find much disagreement around here from what I have seen.

I’m not looking to “change” the requirements, just a) apply them in their correct context linguistically (i.e. “one woman man” present tense) and b) apply them “evenly” – not retroactively for some and present time for others.

I understand the knee jerk reaction to not becoming liberal was to “build a fence” around the term “one woman man” to exclude anyone that is divorced. I would even venture to say that a man who is a Christian and divorced his wife for reason’s other than those specified in the Bible (I know of one pastor who divorced his wife because she was mentally ill) should be excluded. But for someone who was divorced before they were saved, and God is now calling them as a new creation to preach and teach His Word – to exclude them based on a “fence” put there by man is IMO a misuse of God’s Word.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I’m not looking to “change” the requirements, just a) apply them in their correct context linguistically (i.e. “one woman man” present tense) and b) apply them “evenly” – not retroactively for some and present time for others.

I understand the knee jerk reaction to not becoming liberal was to “build a fence” around the term “one woman man” to exclude anyone that is divorced. I would even venture to say that a man who is a Christian and divorced his wife for reason’s other than those specified in the Bible (I know of one pastor who divorced his wife because she was mentally ill) should be excluded. But for someone who was divorced before they were saved, and God is now calling them as a new creation to preach and teach His Word – to exclude them based on a “fence” put there by man is IMO a misuse of God’s Word.

As far as divorce goes I would say it hinges on remarriage. My brother divorced his wife because she was hearing voices that told her to hurt their kids and she wouldn't stay on medication. He isn't getting remarried but the divorce gave him legal custody of the kids and insured that she is supervised 100% of the time she is with them. It was a necessary step due to the way that marriage is handled on a legal basis in this country. He is still a one woman man as he will not remarry. That said, he is not planning to go into the ministry but it's a good example of a divorce that is not addressed in scripture. I would see remarriage as the issue and not the divorce itself. You also have to consider that in this country a man could be divorced against his will, he could have fought the divorce every step of the way in the courts. The one woman man admonition would be invoked at remarriage.

I would also think that if the divorce and remarriage happened prior to the man coming to Christ that it shouldn't matter at all to the church as you stated we are "new creatures" once we are in Christ. I am still up in the air on a Christian that divorces and remarries for reason not acceptable in scripture and wants to go intot he ministry. How do you repent from something you are still doing? That one situation is a real kicker for me and I thank God that I will likely never be in a position to make a call on it. If I were in the position I have a feeling a lot of prayer and fasting would be involved before I ever made a call on it.

[Andyman_1970]

Another point to consider is that with the logic that divorce renders a man not eligible for the ministry, that means every pastors wife essentially has "control" of their husbands ministry - at any time they can (if they choose) play the "shape up or I'll divorce you" card with the understanding that would ruin her husbands career - this to me also flies on the face of Scripture as the wife is not to have control, or be in a position to control the husband.

The one woman man admonition would be invoked at remarriage.

I disagree on this point as the Greek is in the present tense, the emphasis on how this man is currently living.

I would also think that if the divorce and remarriage happened prior to the man coming to Christ that it shouldn't matter at all to the church as you stated we are "new creatures" once we are in Christ.

Unfortunately not all churches see it that way, including the one I am currently a member of.

I am still up in the air on a Christian that divorces and remarries for reason not acceptable in scripture and wants to go intot he ministry. How do you repent from something you are still doing? That one situation is a real kicker for me and I thank God that I will likely never be in a position to make a call on it. If I were in the position I have a feeling a lot of prayer and fasting would be involved before I ever made a call on it.

I agree, I'm glad I'm not in the position to make a decision on that.