Should divorced men be pastors/elders?

[Guest]

Hey Steve,
I was reading your bio on the website, and noticed that after you were divorced from your first wife, and after June's death, you became an elder at Calvary chapel.

I may be mistaken, but I am pretty sure from listening to the radio show that you understand the bible to teach that a divorced man should not serve in this capacity. I suppose you may not have had that conviction then or something.

So anyway, I was wondering if you could share what you thought the passage in 1 Timothy was saying.

Is it only addressing the area of polygamy, or is it also saying that you can't be an elder unless you are married? Paul elsewhere says that it's good, if you can, to remain single, so I suppose that wouldn't exclude someone from eldership. So I understand it to say that if you are married, it needs to be to only one woman. And if you do have kids etc...

The scriptures also seem to allow divorce in the instance of an unbelieving spouse leaving someone as well as adultery. Would this person be able to be an elder still?

The passage also seems to teach that if you have unsaved children, or at least disobedient children then you shouldn't be an elder.

I was also wondering, what should be our response to a pastor/elder that is not stepping down after a divorce? I am asking this because my mother likes the teaching of prominent preacher that has been divorced, but is still the pastor of a huge ministry.

I know that you are obedient to God and His word, so you must believe that it is ok to teach and minister if you are divorced, but is it much different to have a teaching ministry than to be an elder? I know that you aren't a teacher in a specific church or anything, but it seems that it could be a fine line since you are still a teacher and giving council and doing pastor/elder-like things in the church at large.

Thanks in advance for some clarity on this stuff. God bless you and thank you for your ministry.

P.S. I welcome anyones thoughts on the elder stuff. Thanks!!

[Guest]

I would like to know what Steve's thought's are on this one too.

[Guest]

Derek, if "the husband of one wife" statement excludes a divorced man from being an overseer, would it also exclude a widower who marries again?

[Guest]

Derek, if "the husband of one wife" statement excludes a divorced man from being an overseer, would it also exclude a widower who marries again?

Hi Paidion,

I don't think so. Paul said that a person is free from there husband/wife when she/he dies. "1Cr 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."

[Guest]

Sorry it took so long. The original question was posted while I was in Canada, and I just discovered this thread today (just now, actually).

I am not opposed, on biblical grounds, to a man who has been divorced being an elder. I have often said that I do not consider myself qualified for eldership, but not because of my divorces. It is because not all of my children are following the Lord in an exemplary fashion (this may really just be my excuse; it is also because I dislike being in church leadership!).

If the passage about "the husband of one wife" means "one wife in a lifetime" (as opposed to "one wife at a time"), then it as surely excludes a man who is widowed and remarried as it does a man who is innocently divorced and remarried. While a person whose spouse has died is said to be free, so is the person whose non-christian spouse has deserted them (1 Cor.7:15).

A friend of mine had been in ministry in a denomination that withheld leadership positions from divorced men. His wife left him for another man, and he was thus thrust permanently out of ministry in that denomination. He once remarked to me, "If I had murdered my wife, and then repented, in time I could be an elder in this church; but if I was a faithful and loving husband, and my wife cheated on me, I cannot be in pulpit ministry for the rest of my life."

The Bible places no stigma nor penalties on victims who have been persecuted for righteousness' sake. I don't think a man is any more or less qualified for church leadership, whether his persecutor is a Roman emperor or his faithless wife. In every divorce, there is a criminal perjurer (the one who breaks the covenant), and a (relatively) innocent victim. While it may be that the victim has sometimes greatly provoked the criminal to commit the crime, it remains a crime to divorce one's spouse without compelling grounds.

If a divorced man wishes to be an elder, and he is in all other respects qualified, inquiry should be made into the extent to which he is the innocent victim of a treacherous spouse, and the extent to which he may have been one whose behavior and temperament may have provoked his spouse to sin against the marriage. If he has been harsh or unloving toward his wife, I would exclude him, even if it was his wife that broke the covenant.

The reasons Paul gives for the requirement of an elder having a well-led family is that the leadership of the home is the proving ground for a man's ability to take care of the household of God (1 Tim.3:5). A failed marriage does not, in itself, prove a man to be a poor leader, any more than the apostasy of a church proves Jesus to be a poor Head.

Being the innocent victim of a treacherous wife should not count against a man's testimony in the eyes of the Church. However, if there is any serious question about his innocence in the eyes of the public, out of love for the Church of Christ, he should humbly surrender any aspirations of visible leadership in the Church.

If a man has divorced his wife (as opposed to his wife divorcing him), I would be against his being an elder (except in extreme cases where his wife had become a harlot or the equivalent). This is because an elder should have an exemplary testimony—meaning (in my opinion) that, even if his wife had committed adultery and repented, he should forgive and not divorce her. A shepherd's life should be, in all points, an example to all the sheep of the highest road that a follower of Christ should take.

You raise a good point about a public teacher being little different from an elder, and thus needing to have the same qualifications. I suppose, since teachers who are not elders are not really discussed in scripture, one might either argue that there should be no teachers, other than elders, or else that any teacher should be held to the same standards as is an elder. If someone wished to take this position, I do not think that I could prove them wrong—nor would I attempt to do so.

If that were the case, people should either not listen to my teaching, or else redefine the qualifications of an elder to consider me as qualified. I would not try to influence their decision between these options.

However, I have not been appointed by any church to represent or to lead them, and I profess no authority over any person or group of persons in the Body of Christ. I claim nothing for myself that an elder could claim.

I view myself simply as a disseminator of information about the Bible and the Christian life (Of course, I also consider that my life should be such as would inspire others to live holy lives, but I would feel this same obligation whether or not I was a public figure). It is no part of my concern how many may follow or embrace my information. I only want people to follow Jesus and search out the truth for themselves.

I see myself as merely a participant in a discussion group with the rest of the Body of Christ, and would expect to be viewed only as one might view a brother who had been a Christian for quite a while, and whose opinions and experiences, among those of other participants, constitute resources to be consulted, when desired. Such a person, it seems to me, needn't hold any official title in the Church, nor qualify for an appointment to church leadership.

[Guest]

Thanks Steve. That helps a lot.
God bless,
Derek

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:

I have often said that I do not consider myself qualified for eldership, but not because of my divorces. It is because not all of my children are following the Lord in an exemplary fashion

I'm just curious. Would you apply this to adult children who have left the home as well? It seems to me adult children can be just as free to not walk with God as much as a wife who has left a man. Paul seemed to be referencing children that are in the care of a man:

1 Tim 3:4-6
4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);
NKJV

I know many a Godly man (including you) who I would hate to see disqualified from church leadership simply because their kids, by their own free will, have decided not to walk with the Lord.

Am I right? Or does this qualification extend to the adult children of a man?

I'm not sure if you're referring to your adult children or not, but I would say (just from what I know of you personally) that the only thing that disqualifies you is this:

...it is also because I dislike being in church leadership!).

Which I think is a valid disqualification since Paul said:

1 Tim 3:1
If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.
NKJV

Nobody should be compelled to church leadership (or to any ministry) simply because he qualifies for it. If he doesn't desire it, then the Lord has probably not called him to it.

I'm with you on this. I've had people tell me that God is "grooming me for leadership" and I have to answer, "It's strange He would reveal that to you, He hasn't told me about it yet". I don't desire that at all. It requires a special kind of patience for nonsense which I don't think I possess.

In my own opinion, the office of church elder doesn't make a man an elder anyways, his spiritual maturity does. Those that I feel comfortable submitting myself to and look to for godly counsel are those who I recognize as being godly and wise men. Consequently, none of them are "elders" in a church.

[Guest]

I personally take the position that Elders should not come from the ranks of the divorced, and like Steve, I have been divorced. Unlike him I would not at least at this time, become an elder.

Hugh

[Guest]

I personally take the position that Elders should not come from the ranks of the divorced...

Let's remember that the "ranks of the divorced" include those who have not remarried. I don't think that there is any scriptural injuction which can be interpreted to mean that these men should not be elders.

[Guest]

With my view, I would not become one myself. I fear, therefore I do not partake. I cannot in good conscience be assured enough to bar others from that office who do not share my view. I would, if called upon to vote for such a candidate, withhold support, but I would not preach that God had forbidden them.

Hugh