AOG revises official position on divorce and remarriage

[JimB]

Well, the Assemblies of God is moving like molasses on the subject of divorce and remarriage in regard to ministry. My brother, who attended the 52nd General Council in Indianapolis earlier this month, emailed me a summary of the council business sessions. It included this …

The Kansas District sought support for a resolution that would add two categories to the list of reasons individuals could receive AG credentials in spite of being divorced and remarried. ​

Supporters of Resolution 8 said it was biblically sound to add a spouse’s marital unfaithfulness and abandonment of a believer as circumstances that should not automatically block someone from receiving credentials.​

Proponents cited Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 as biblical support for their arguments, saying a believer who is the “victim” in these situations should not be banned from ministry.​

But opponents said the proposal was wrong because God has high standards for anyone serving in full-time ministry. Opponents disagreed with the application of those two passages of scripture, and one speaker said the proposal could provide a cover for any ministers who were actually abusive to their spouse. ​

After the extended discussion, the measure was approved on a voice vote.​

From the last time this issue was debated (2001), one report (here) stated:

Opponents reminded the General Council that similar measures to change church bylaws were rejected in 1983, 1991 and 1997. "Is this a response to correct an error in our theology, or a response to our culture?" asked a Minnesota pastor who spoke against the resolution.​

One argument for change, reported the Assemblies of God News Service, was that men and women in inner cities—suddenly converted and eager to serve in the ministry—were barred and could not fulfill callings because they frequently carry "the baggage" of divorce and remarriage. "We must not keep these blood-bought, born-again children of God from this noble task," said California pastor John McLaughlin, author of the resolution. "The scriptures do not, and we must not."​

So, what do you think?

~Jim

The man who strikes the first blow admits that he has run out of ideas.​

 

[Deba]

I just don't know. If it against scripture or even the intent of scripture, why would God call a divorced person to a pulpit ministry? Case in point - Joyce Meyers. Is A/G wrong or was it perhaps God's intent that she should work outside of the established A/G organization?

 

[he4rty]

Well I could become an AoG pastor now then, I would say that you cannot totally have a victim of divorce and even if a small percentage everyone at some point does something wrong or could have done something different.

As for people who are divorced and then saved is the sin of divorce forgiven on the Cross or not, as I think a different standard is in order for one who is a Christian and one who is not, but having said that all sin is forgiven. How would I stand My ex wife is now remarried so what am I to do, tell her she must get divorced and remarry me so our sins can be forgiven and to please the church?

 

[psalms 91]

First was it before the cross or after the cross? Second if you can recognize the annointing og God on someone like this to preach and are not decieved then I would say be careful lest you wrestle against God.

 

[JimB]

Well I could become an AoG pastor now then, I would say that you cannot totally have a victim of divorce and even if a small percentage everyone at some point does something wrong or could have done something different.

As for people who are divorced and then saved is the sin of divorce forgiven on the Cross or not, as I think a different standard is in order for one who is a Christian and one who is not, but having said that all sin is forgiven. How would I stand My ex wife is now remarried so what am I to do, tell her she must get divorced and remarry me so our sins can be forgiven and to please the church?

I am a divorced-remarried pastor. My situation is similar, although at the time my wife left our home and filed for divorce I was an AOG pastor. She remarried within two years and I remained a single but divorced AOG minister (not pastor) for ten subsequent years. When I met my “gift from God” and we decided to marry I was required by statute to forfeit my AOG ordination, which I did in 1995.

All of it turned out for the best (at least for me) because I found a wonderful wife and a ministry in a denomination that is more compatible to my beliefs and have since planted and pastor a wonderful church.

While I love the AOG and continue to have many close relationships in that fellowship I have always been troubled by their legalistic one-size-fits-all application of scripture to divorced/remarried ministers which, IMO, has not only caused them to lose many qualified men and women from their fellowship but has stigmatized people, often innocent people, with a Scarlet “D” and prevented them from living up to their full potential and calling from God. I am glad to see that the AOG is considering the weightier matters of law, justice, mercy and faith.

~Jim

The man who strikes the first blow admits that he has run out of ideas.

​

 

[NewSong]

I am a divorced-remarried pastor. My situation is similar, although at the time my wife left our home and filed for divorce I was an AOG pastor. She remarried within two years and I remained a single but divorced AOG minister (not pastor) for ten subsequent years. When I met my “gift from God” and we decided to marry I was required by statute to forfeit my AOG ordination, which I did in 1995.

All of it turned out for the best (at least for me) because I found a wonderful wife and a ministry in a denomination that is more compatible to my beliefs and have since planted and pastor a wonderful church.

While I love the AOG and continue to have many close relationships in that fellowship I have always been troubled by their legalistic one-size-fits-all application of scripture to divorced/remarried ministers which, IMO, has not only caused them to lose many qualified men and women from their fellowship but has stigmatized people, often innocent people, with a Scarlet “D” and prevented them from living up to their full potential and calling from God. I am glad to see that the AOG is considering the weightier matters of law, justice, mercy and faith.

~Jim

The man who strikes the first blow admits that he has run out of ideas.

​

My pastor went through the same thing Jim! I praise God that AoG rejected him because that is how we got him. They missed a true and special gift and he is right where he belongs ministering and pastoring a hurting people.

However, it is about time AoG started reconsidereing.

The denom. I grew up in done the same thing too---hardly anyone anymore isn't divorced.

 

[msbojingles]

I think it's sad that people don't recognize the power of Jesus' Blood.

It's sad that churches don't have any problem with applying the Blood to drug addicts, pedophiles, rapists and murderers, but don't recognize the Blood over a VICTIM of divorce.

It's sad that churches still brand repentant, Blood bought King's Kids with a scarlet letter all their days and even attempt to revoke the call placed on some of their lives.

May the Lord have mercy on us, and right the injustice.

 

[JeCrois]

I am a divorced-remarried pastor. My situation is similar, although at the time my wife left our home and filed for divorce I was an AOG pastor. She remarried within two years and I remained a single but divorced AOG minister (not pastor) for ten subsequent years. When I met my “gift from God” and we decided to marry I was required by statute to forfeit my AOG ordination, which I did in 1995.

All of it turned out for the best (at least for me) because I found a wonderful wife and a ministry in a denomination that is more compatible to my beliefs and have since planted and pastor a wonderful church.

While I love the AOG and continue to have many close relationships in that fellowship I have always been troubled by their legalistic one-size-fits-all application of scripture to divorced/remarried ministers which, IMO, has not only caused them to lose many qualified men and women from their fellowship but has stigmatized people, often innocent people, with a Scarlet “D” and prevented them from living up to their full potential and calling from God. I am glad to see that the AOG is considering the weightier matters of law, justice, mercy and faith.

~Jim

The man who strikes the first blow admits that he has run out of ideas.​

I would have to agree with you. I always wondered why the council never changed this sooner.

BTW, the 52nd General Council was last week...it ended only a few days ago. This is all very recent. And I was there ...well, kind of...I was actually at the National Youth Convention and Friday there was a simulcast where I saw a little bit of what went on at the Council.

 

[he4rty]

I think it's sad that people don't recognize the power of Jesus' Blood.

It's sad that churches don't have any problem with applying the Blood to drug addicts, pedophiles, rapists and murderers, but don't recognize the Blood over a VICTIM of divorce.

It's sad that churches still brand repentant, Blood bought King's Kids with a scarlet letter all their days and even attempt to revoke the call placed on some of their lives.

May the Lord have mercy on us, and right the injustice.

I agree but divorce is divorce so even the perpetrator as well as the victim will be forgiven.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Well, the Assemblies of God is moving like molasses on the subject of divorce and remarriage in regard to ministry. My brother, who attended the 52nd General Council in Indianapolis earlier this month, emailed me a summary of the council business sessions. It included this …

The Kansas District sought support for a resolution that would add two categories to the list of reasons individuals could receive AG credentials in spite of being divorced and remarried. ​

Supporters of Resolution 8 said it was biblically sound to add a spouse’s marital unfaithfulness and abandonment of a believer as circumstances that should not automatically block someone from receiving credentials.​

Proponents cited Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 as biblical support for their arguments, saying a believer who is the “victim” in these situations should not be banned from ministry.​

But opponents said the proposal was wrong because God has high standards for anyone serving in full-time ministry. Opponents disagreed with the application of those two passages of scripture, and one speaker said the proposal could provide a cover for any ministers who were actually abusive to their spouse. ​

After the extended discussion, the measure was approved on a voice vote.​

From the last time this issue was debated (2001), one report (here) stated:

Opponents reminded the General Council that similar measures to change church bylaws were rejected in 1983, 1991 and 1997. "Is this a response to correct an error in our theology, or a response to our culture?" asked a Minnesota pastor who spoke against the resolution.​

One argument for change, reported the Assemblies of God News Service, was that men and women in inner cities—suddenly converted and eager to serve in the ministry—were barred and could not fulfill callings because they frequently carry "the baggage" of divorce and remarriage. "We must not keep these blood-bought, born-again children of God from this noble task," said California pastor John McLaughlin, author of the resolution. "The scriptures do not, and we must not."​

So, what do you think?

~Jim

Eh . Whatever they decide is fine with me . It is their bylaws for their group .

 

[JimB]

I agree but divorce is divorce so even the perpetrator as well as the victim will be forgiven.

One of the great sins against grace in our culture is the way fundamentalists (who are neither fun nor mental) treat not just the victims of divorce but the perpetrators as well. I thought where sin abounds grace was supposed to much more abound ... but what do I know?​

If a husband, say, goes through his “midlife crisis” phase and abandons his marriage for a blond topless dancer, not only is he forever stigmatized by the event but his abused wife is as well. If, down the road, he realizes the error (sin) of his ways and repents, his sin is remembered against him no more (at least, theoretically). God, of course, wipes the record clean and gives the confessor a brand new start. The fundies, however, don’t. He will forever be reminded of his error, stripped of all privileges, banned from all ministry, and reminded daily of his sin by self-righteous people (i.e., those who have just not been exposed yet).

I applaud any steps the AOG or any denominations makes in the direction of grace although, frankly, they have not taken it far enough yet. When they can love the unlovable and forgive what they now consider unforgivable they will truly be a Christian organization. Until then, they will remain merely religious. ​

For the record, though, I have not met many AOG believers who are as religious as the official stance of the denom. in regard to divorce and remarriage. Most are very gracious. It’s just those who sit in “Moses seat” that make the burden heavy on the rest. But what’s new?

~Jim

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

​

 

[msbojingles]

the perpetrator as well as the victim will be forgiven.

I agree. That's the power of the Blood of Jesus.

 

[Glenda]

For the record, though, I have not met many AOG believers who are as religious as the official stance of the denom. in regard to divorce and remarriage. Most are very gracious. It’s just those who sit in “Moses seat” that make the burden heavy on the rest. But what’s new?

I could direct you to an AOG in Vermont..

Good post Jim..

 

[Tamara224]

It’s just those who sit in “Moses seat” that make the burden heavy on the rest. But what’s new?

That about sums it up.

IMO, this subject is all about the AoG's legacy of trying to mix Grace and Law.

Legalism cuts the heart right out of the Gospel.

 

[Adammi]

Without regard to this issue, I think that this quote is truly remarkable:
"Is this a response to correct an error in our theology, or a response to our culture?"

 

[JeCrois]

Without regard to this issue, I think that this quote is truly remarkable:
"Is this a response to correct an error in our theology, or a response to our culture?"

Hmmm... that's something to chew on...

 

[JimB]

Without regard to this issue, I think that this quote is truly remarkable:
"Is this a response to correct an error in our theology, or a response to our culture?"

I think the stigmatizing of divorced and remarried Christians is a culture response of a bygone era (c.1914) when divorce was such a rare occurrence, maybe 5% of marriages ended in divorce. In 1940 it was 14%, today it is around 50%. Divorce was, in 1914, when the AOG was organized, a cultural taboo that presented no real problem and it was easy to pick a few out-of-context scriptures to support the taboo.

But today, when divorce is far more prevalent, it is not as easy to stigmatize divorcees—we will wind up stigmatizing half our congregation—and the old cultural application of scripture adopted in the early 1900s does not hold water. Scholars and laymen are questioning the old traditional (cultural) interpretations of divorce scriptures.

So, IMO, traditional attitudes toward D/R people (i.e., divorced people must forever wear a Scarlet D and be shunned from ministry in the church) is more of a product of culture than the direction the AOG has taken.

~Jim

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.​

​