It's an interesting human dynamic: what should bring people closer together in many cases drives them apart.

Diversity (racial, ethnic, giftedness) should help us recognize our inadequacy in ourselves and the value of differences to created balance and wholeness. But instead we favor homogeneity and show biases and discriminations.

Corporate worship is to be the gathering of people from every tongue and nation, every tribe and clan to the worship of our God who delights in variation. Instead we like to worship only with those who have the same preferences we do.

The church is supposed to be made up of people who see things differently and have different preferences, but who live out God's mandates to consider one another as better than ourselves, regard someone else's interests more highly than our own, seek peace as much as it is possible with all, value love above all things, give regard to the weaker brother, and make effort to be unified in the Spirit. Instead we drive people away who say and believe anything we disagree with.

Instead of being a people held together by one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is above all and through all, we are a people held together by a thread of uneasy tolerance.

Somehow, to truly be the church, we must learn to set aside anything natural to our human nature that so easily entangles us, and fix our eyes on Jesus alone. Hebrews 12.14-28 is another good watchword for your congregation.

Thank you Jim for your wise words. They are very helpful. This week, my observation about human behavior (because of my profession): It is interesting (looking in from the outside) that the concept of corporate worship, which should in theory bring people closer together (unity), in many cases drives people apart. This is all part of the human condition, and the sinful nature. Thank God for mercy and grace.

Yes, it's a difficult road we all walk. As I said above, especially in areas where there is not a specific "This is what God says," we are left to make our best decisions according to Scriptural principles, and there are a number of keys to this: love, discernment, considering one another as more important than ourselves, grace, peace, and unity. These things are SO difficult when we feel deep conviction about an issue such as divorce:

"Divorce is the devil's device, and it excludes a person from church leadership." But this is not something the Bible teaches.
"Christian leaders should be the best examples of godliness we have in the congregation." And some people feel that divorcees are therefore not the best candidates.

We all feel the tension of the dichotomy. Which is the godly course? We should all hope that if the church leadership is making the decision on the basis of their study of Scripture (which doesn't give certain guidance here) and their deep prayers seeking the way of the Spirit, that the people would follow their leadership even if they don't agree. But alas, and unfortunately, that's not the way things work in the real church. People get angry, they are sure what they think is RIGHT, and they hold their convictions over and above the mandates to love (1 Cor. 13.1-13, which, honestly, is about churches, not lovers. 1 Cor. 13 sits between 12 & 14, both of which are about churches and their disagreements!). Romans 15.1-13 are momentous words for a congregation in your situation.

Let me know if there are other ways I can be of help.

Thank you for this discussion. Interestingly, the reason I brought this up is because the church that I currently attend had a lack of documented structure and function that led to some real problems and ultimate resignation of a pastor. Now, as the current church leadership works at writing a constitution, there are "rules" and "regulations" being set forth that were not previously clear.

This issue about divorce is one of them, and based on recent decisions made (through vote of leadership), some current leader(s) who are divorced will now no longer be able to serve in that capacity (if the constitution is ultimately approved by the congregation) because it will be forbidden. As you can imagine, this maneuver is probably not going to help heal already tumultuous relationships. While the leadership is now taking strides to make something clear, they are in essence "sacrificing" a current leader who is actually very well respected and has served faithfully for years.

On another note, part of the reason that this issue has surfaced is because of problems with a previous Deacon (not the one I mentioned before) who was divorced. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the problems were not necessarily because of his previous divorce. Rather, they were due to many other issues that were not necessarily all his own.

So at this point, it is my opinion that the church that I currently attend is in essence starting over. It is not the same church. I think regardless of what happens here, there are going to be members who feel they need to leave. I hope and pray for restoration, healing and unity.

Great question. Thanks for asking. To me the question of divorcee leadership in the church falls into the biblical category of "Christian Discernment." It is neither mandated nor forbidden in the Bible, so we read the text as accurately as we know how, make decisions that are the most godly in our cultural and community context, set policies that are known to be congregational (in the absence of specific biblical mandates), and we don't judge others who choose differently.

In Romans 12, Paul counsels us to accept differences in each other even as they pertain to the expression of the Spirit in us. In Romans 13 he talked about the importance of love in our relationships, but even love submits to proper authority. In Romans 14 he addresses the idea of Christians judging and working to change other Christians. This is a historic problem in the church: "I'm right, and you're not. You have to go away." In the areas where we do not have a specific "Thus says the Lord," it comes down to several things:

1. Christian freedom, where we are not bound.
2. Christian love, where the other is more important than ourselves.
3. Christian discernment, where we seek the Lord to find the best course.
4. The stumbling block principle, where we understand the value of someone's spiritual position.
5. Christian grace, where we show forbearance for those who see things differently.
6. Christian unity, where we find areas of common ground so we can continue to fellowship.
7. The ultimate goal of "What really matters is that people end up in heaven."

I will say, to be honest, that Christians are atrociously bad at this game. We have a reputation that is not complimentary, to say the least, and a history that is disastrously regrettable. Paul's conclusion in Rom. 14.19 is a valuable watchword: "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to usual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of..." Then after a few more comments he added in 15.5-7: "May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." Become servants to each other.

But you referred specifically to Mt. 23 and Jesus' rebuke of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. There's nothing wrong with a church setting policies about things that aren't specified in the Bible. Certainly you understand that most of what we do in churches isn't biblically mandated. We know precious little about how they conducted the affairs of the church, about their church polity, and even about their worship. We have snippets, glimpses, and snapshots, but we don't have clear vision. I think there's a reason for that: God didn't want us doing church like they did. Worship is dynamic, not static, and it needs to ebb and flow with the Spirit, not according to a list we find on a page in the Bible. (In the same way God didn't tell us how he led Abraham to the Promised Land. If he had, we'd all think God should do that for us, and that's the only biblical way that God guides. It's better that He left the door open to guide us the way he wants to guide us.). We do need to beware about placing undue burdens on people, making the church a whole pile of rules, and being OCD about our faith so that it becomes a straightjacket rather than Spiritual freedom. Unfortunately, the church too often chooses the path of rules (for the sake of purity, purpose, and power) instead of the path of liberty (and reliance on and perceiving the Spirit, which most people aren't very good at). But there's nothing wrong with setting policies and making rules about our lives together as a congregation. It can be a tricky balancing act, and not everyone will agree with where we decide to draw lines. The church was never meant to be a democracy, however. We are not trying to please everybody, but we are trying to live at peace with everybody as much as it depends upon us. Our goal is to guide people into truth, lead them to Jesus, and bring them to heaven. Whatever best accomplishes those goals is what we are free to do.

Leadership and decision-making in the church is a terrible burden, a wonderful blessing, and a powerful privilege. It must be approached with humility, a servant's heart, discernment of the Spirit, a clear focus of purpose and goals, a shepherd's approach, knowledge of the Word, and a fixed gaze on Jesus.

I saw that someone else had started a thread on basically the same question and thought it best to respond here as opposed to having two similar threads running simultaneously.

You said, "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.". So if a church decides to exclude divorcees in their leadership policy, and it is not prescribed by the Word of God, how would it not be out of line? Isn't this a little like what Jesus condemned the pharisees for in Matthew 23, by placing undue burdens upon the people?

Be sure to ask them as they come up. Glad to talk about this more.

Thank you so much! This is very very helpful and provides a framework for where I need to go next. I am certain I will have more questions as I let this soak in.

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.

The first and most obvious place is the qualifications for leaders in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. 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? 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.

My question is really about what Scripture says or doesn't say about people who have been divorced serving in leadership capacities in the church. In particular, my question is focused on pastors, elders and deacons. I know this is a controversial issue, so just wondered what your thoughts are and what Scripture really teaches and doesn't teach. I think I understand the principles here, but I am wary of a legalistic approach such as "no, never, absolutely not "(which is pervasive in my part of the country).