by jimwalton » Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:49 am
The Bible never says that or even hints that divorced people are prohibited from church leadership positions or even should be shut out for the sake of expedience or "not being a stumbling block." Let's look at some specific texts so that we really understand what the Bible says. And feel free to talk to me about them.
We'll go to 1 Tim. 3 (also Titus 1), as you mentioned. Many, MANY have written commentaries on these texts; I'll aim to bring the most pertinent to bear so that I keep this both brief and thorough. The most conspicuous element of these lists is that we want to bring to church leadership the most qualified and godly people that we have access to in any particular congregation. We want people who are godly examples, in full control of themselves, humble, hospitable, good husbands and parents, and spiritually mature. Hopefully we can all agree on those things. From that point on, we'll look at some details, but you can already tell that some of this is going to be open to interpretation from one congregation to the next. But you wanted to know what the Bible says.
Secondly, we can say with confidence that church leaders are still sinners, every one of them. "There is none righteous, no not one." So the point is not to find those who are not guilty of any sins, but those, if I may say it this way, whose sins are under both the authority and cleansing power of Jesus. We all sin, and we all keep sinning, but persons whose sins are public, continuing, and problematic should not be in positions of church leadership.
Let's look at what some of the commentators say about the "husband of one wife" phrase:
A.T. Robertson: This means "one at a time," i.e., not polygamous.
Lock: "The writer cannot mean that the man must be married, but only of the true character of an overseer if married, as in verse 4 he deals only with his relation to his children if he has any children. He is also teaching that an overseer must not be a polygamist. Such a rule would still be necessary as polygamy might still be found among Jews as well as Gentiles. It also implies "a faithful husband," married to one woman and loyal to her, having no mistress or concubine. It also probably implies that this man had not divorced one wife and married another. This would make sense given the laxity of divorce in Jewish and Gentile culture."
Ellisen: "This cannot mean that marriage is required of an elder, for Paul was not married, or that monogamy is required, because bigamy was outlawed and all had only one spouse. Nor can it mean that people had been married only once, or widowers who remarried would be disqualified. He must be referring to one who has a character of marital stability."
Craig Keener: "It means not polygamous, and presupposes marriage; such a man would be helpful in standing against the false teachers who opposed marriage (4.3). Validly divorced people who remarried were considered married to one spouse and would qualify."
In summary, what are the possibilities of meaning here?
1. That he must be a monogamist and not a polygamist. (Humphreys; Burge; Robertson; Hiebert; Lock; Gaebelein; Keener)
2. That he must be a faithful husband; stable family lives. They were to be worthy examples of monogamous marriage. (Gary Burge; Lock; Guthrie; Gaebelein)
3. That he must be married (Lindsay. But many, many commentators say this is NOT the meaning, since Paul says “one” not “a” wife. Paul naturally assumes that he would be married, since elders were chosen from the mature men in the congregation. To be unmarried would incur no reproach, and would scarcely be consistent with the teachings of Jesus and of Paul.)
4. That he must be never divorced on insufficient grounds. (Hiebert; Lock; Wiersbe; Vincent; Keener)
5. That he had married only once and not remarried if his wife died. (Tertullian; Greek Orthodoxy)
As you can see, there is a range of interpretations. That's why churches disagree and write their policies as they interpret the Scriptures. It seems to me, if I can dare to interpret the comments, that most commentators and scholars do not believe that a divorced person is disqualified from church leadership.
Also in 1 Timothy 3.4 we have the statement, "...and manage his own family well." Doesn't this also imply that if a person is divorce they failed at this endeavor? It could, but not necessarily so. I'll say with confidence that the point of this verse is that someone who doesn't show godly leadership skills in the home is not going to do a stellar job in showing godly leadership skills in the church, unless they're good fakers, which some are. Keener says, "Men in Paul’s day exercised a great deal of authority over their wives and children. That children’s behavior reflected on their parents was a commonplace of ancient wisdom. This factor may have been especially important for leaders of churches meeting in their own homes; but again, it is based on a premise of patriarchal ancient culture (where properly disciplined children usually obeyed) not directly, completely applicable to all societies." Hiebert comments, "A person's character is portrayed and seen to best advantage in the framework of his own family." Again, does divorce disqualify a person from church leadership? Not necessarily. Divorce is a complex social event, dependent on lots of factors, not all of which are controllable by one person. (Sort of like, "As far as it depends on you, live at peace with all people.") If a person is divorced, let them be examined thoroughly before admitting to church leadership. (But we should do that with all who seek the office of overseer.)
I will also add this (this is getting long, isn't it?): Divorce is not the unpardonable sin,though some churches seem to treat it as such. But we should never be lax about marriage and divorce issues. We are spiritual beings governed by our relationship with Christ, not by a set of rules. Should divorced people be allowed to be church leaders? The Bible doesn't forbid it. But if congregations choose to exclude divorcees in their leadership policy, it wouldn't be out of line to do that. The Bible doesn't give us rules about such things, and the principles it gives show some flexibility and interpretation. One thing we should NOT do is judge and criticize other churches who see things differently than we do and establish different policies. "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification" (Rom. 14.19).
For more information, you may want to read the 4 Bible studies I've posted under "Divorce" in the Bible study section of the web site.
The Bible never says that or even hints that divorced people are prohibited from church leadership positions or even should be shut out for the sake of expedience or "not being a stumbling block." Let's look at some specific texts so that we really understand what the Bible says. And feel free to talk to me about them.
We'll go to 1 Tim. 3 (also Titus 1), as you mentioned. Many, MANY have written commentaries on these texts; I'll aim to bring the most pertinent to bear so that I keep this both brief and thorough. The most conspicuous element of these lists is that we want to bring to church leadership the most qualified and godly people that we have access to in any particular congregation. We want people who are godly examples, in full control of themselves, humble, hospitable, good husbands and parents, and spiritually mature. Hopefully we can all agree on those things. From that point on, we'll look at some details, but you can already tell that some of this is going to be open to interpretation from one congregation to the next. But you wanted to know what the Bible says.
Secondly, we can say with confidence that church leaders are still sinners, every one of them. "There is none righteous, no not one." So the point is not to find those who are not guilty of any sins, but those, if I may say it this way, whose sins are under both the authority and cleansing power of Jesus. We all sin, and we all keep sinning, but persons whose sins are public, continuing, and problematic should not be in positions of church leadership.
Let's look at what some of the commentators say about the "husband of one wife" phrase:
A.T. Robertson: This means "one at a time," i.e., not polygamous.
Lock: "The writer cannot mean that the man [i]must[/i] be married, but only of the true character of an overseer [i]if[/i] married, as in verse 4 he deals only with his relation to his children [i]if[/i] he has any children. He is also teaching that an overseer must not be a polygamist. Such a rule would still be necessary as polygamy might still be found among Jews as well as Gentiles. It also implies "a faithful husband," married to one woman and loyal to her, having no mistress or concubine. It also [i]probably[/i] implies that this man had not divorced one wife and married another. This would make sense given the laxity of divorce in Jewish and Gentile culture."
Ellisen: "This cannot mean that marriage is required of an elder, for Paul was not married, or that monogamy is required, because bigamy was outlawed and all had only one spouse. Nor can it mean that people had been married only once, or widowers who remarried would be disqualified. He must be referring to one who has a character of marital stability."
Craig Keener: "It means not polygamous, and presupposes marriage; such a man would be helpful in standing against the false teachers who opposed marriage (4.3). Validly divorced people who remarried were considered married to one spouse and would qualify."
In summary, what are the possibilities of meaning here?
1. That he must be a monogamist and not a polygamist. (Humphreys; Burge; Robertson; Hiebert; Lock; Gaebelein; Keener)
2. That he must be a faithful husband; stable family lives. They were to be worthy examples of monogamous marriage. (Gary Burge; Lock; Guthrie; Gaebelein)
3. That he must be married (Lindsay. But many, many commentators say this is NOT the meaning, since Paul says “one” not “a” wife. Paul naturally assumes that he would be married, since elders were chosen from the mature men in the congregation. To be unmarried would incur no reproach, and would scarcely be consistent with the teachings of Jesus and of Paul.)
4. That he must be never divorced on insufficient grounds. (Hiebert; Lock; Wiersbe; Vincent; Keener)
5. That he had married only once and not remarried if his wife died. (Tertullian; Greek Orthodoxy)
As you can see, there is a range of interpretations. That's why churches disagree and write their policies as they interpret the Scriptures. It seems to me, if I can dare to interpret the comments, that most commentators and scholars do not believe that a divorced person is disqualified from church leadership.
Also in 1 Timothy 3.4 we have the statement, "...and manage his own family well." Doesn't this also imply that if a person is divorce they failed at this endeavor? It could, but not necessarily so. I'll say with confidence that the point of this verse is that someone who doesn't show godly leadership skills in the home is not going to do a stellar job in showing godly leadership skills in the church, unless they're good fakers, which some are. Keener says, "Men in Paul’s day exercised a great deal of authority over their wives and children. That children’s behavior reflected on their parents was a commonplace of ancient wisdom. This factor may have been especially important for leaders of churches meeting in their own homes; but again, it is based on a premise of patriarchal ancient culture (where properly disciplined children usually obeyed) not directly, completely applicable to all societies." Hiebert comments, "A person's character is portrayed and seen to best advantage in the framework of his own family." Again, does divorce disqualify a person from church leadership? Not necessarily. Divorce is a complex social event, dependent on lots of factors, not all of which are controllable by one person. (Sort of like, "[i]As far as it depends on you[/i], live at peace with all people.") If a person is divorced, let them be examined thoroughly before admitting to church leadership. (But we should do that with all who seek the office of overseer.)
I will also add this (this is getting long, isn't it?): Divorce is not the unpardonable sin,though some churches seem to treat it as such. But we should never be lax about marriage and divorce issues. We are spiritual beings governed by our relationship with Christ, not by a set of rules. Should divorced people be allowed to be church leaders? The Bible doesn't forbid it. But if congregations choose to exclude divorcees in their leadership policy, it wouldn't be out of line to do that. The Bible doesn't give us rules about such things, and the principles it gives show some flexibility and interpretation. One thing we should NOT do is judge and criticize other churches who see things differently than we do and establish different policies. "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification" (Rom. 14.19).
For more information, you may want to read the 4 Bible studies I've posted under "Divorce" in the Bible study section of the web site.