I want us to return, for a moment, to earlier passages of scripture that we reviewed in which Paul tells Timothy that both elders and deacons in the church must be the "husband of one wife." (please read 1 Timothy 3: 2-13 preferably in the KJV).
In my opinion, this means that the elder or deacon should be the husband of one wife in the most scriptural sense; meaning that, as Paul also discusses elsewhere in scripture, those passages that we have already discussed in this study, a spouse is not released from a marriage covenant except through death.
Now this is very difficult for us to comprehend in this day and age. And I will give you two examples of how I believe churches can mishandle this passage.
The first example is that of a church going beyond what scripture has told them to do:
This believer is a pastor of a church, whose wife divorced him. (Remember that today it is possible to get a divorce whether you want a divorce or not.) This particular man did not want this divorce. Because of the divorce he not only lost a wife that he loved and full custody of his very small daughter as his wife now had custody leaving him with only visiting rights (again normal in today's divorces), but he was also made to step down from his position as pastor of the church by the board of his church. Now, this man had not remarried, yet he was asked to step down simply because he was divorced. (I do not know whether the wife remarried once she received her divorce, but we will assume for these purposes that she had not yet remarried.) Of course, this man was left devastated by all the losses he sustained.
From a scriptural standpoint, this man was still the husband of this one wife, whether she divorced him or not, because a death had not occurred. ["A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord." 1 Cor. 7:34] That divorce was not valid in God's eyes. The wife had not remarried, neither had the husband. So why did the church remove him from his position? Because they have gone beyond scripture in their legalism and determined that "divorce" can break a marriage covenant, even though God says it does not. They were quick to remove the embarrassment of "D-I-V-O-R-C-E" (as the country western song goes) from their legalistic midst and they left a man devastated in their legalistic wake.
In the second example, a church board hires a believer to become their new pastor. This man was married not once, but twice. He divorced his first wife, not even for unfaithfulness, but simply because of "unreconcilable differences" as civil law (not God's law) allows. And then he remarried, and the woman he remarried had been divorced as well. But the man was not a believer then. He did not become a believer until about half-way through his second marriage, which is his current marriage. The church board deciced that everything that happened before he became a believer should not be considered. Some of us have sinned greatly before we became believers, but God doesn't hold it against us once we have repented. And so now, the only wife he is considered to have, by the church that hired him, is the one he currently has.
Yet, scripture says, an elder or deacon (in this case, a pastor is an elder) should be "the husband of one wife." Do we then take that to mean one wife at a time, or one wife since he became saved, or simply as one wife "ever" because eternal covenants are involved? This man is definitely a believer and is gifted as well, but is the church obedient to God's Word in making him their Pastor/Elder?
This second church has not been legalistic as the first church has, but might have erred in the matter of "grace" by hiring whom they believe will be of great benefit to their church. But does our thinking count versus God's commands to us through His Word? Do we ask ourselves "Why did God say this in His Word? And is it possible that we don't understand all that is involved, but God in His wisdom does, and has given us instructions that He simply expects us to observe and follow?"
I am using pastors as an example here, but the same applies to any and all of us. Do any of us have the right to rationalize our way around God's Word? How often do we do this, not only in the church, but in our own lives? Or do we instead say "God says it, I believe it, and that's the end of it!" Not allowing ourselves "wiggle-room." And certainly not, as the first example shows, over-stepping what God has commanded, such as the scribes and Pharisees tended to do and were rebuked for.
Do we have to understand God's reasoning in order to agree with and do what God has said we need to do? Or do we choose to do only that which sounds reasonable and logical to us in this modern day and age? Are we, instead, to strive to never allow our own thoughts to over-ride what God has said to us?
How you answer these questions will be colored by your understanding (and possibly your past church traditions) of "legalism" and "grace."
I wil leave you with one more thought. David was a "man after God's own heart." He sinned greatly. God forgave him. Much later, David wanted to build the temple, that which was known as the Lord's "house" at that time. But God had reasons for not allowing David to build His house. Was God not being a God of grace to David? Or does a Holy God require holiness in certain areas of our lives (His temple, His house: our own physical bodies), holding us to His higher standard, even while still being that God of grace who forgave David his terrible sin, as He forgives ours?
In my opinion, this means that the elder or deacon should be the husband of one wife in the most scriptural sense; meaning that, as Paul also discusses elsewhere in scripture, those passages that we have already discussed in this study, a spouse is not released from a marriage covenant except through death.
Now this is very difficult for us to comprehend in this day and age. And I will give you two examples of how I believe churches can mishandle this passage.
The first example is that of a church going beyond what scripture has told them to do:
This believer is a pastor of a church, whose wife divorced him. (Remember that today it is possible to get a divorce whether you want a divorce or not.) This particular man did not want this divorce. Because of the divorce he not only lost a wife that he loved and full custody of his very small daughter as his wife now had custody leaving him with only visiting rights (again normal in today's divorces), but he was also made to step down from his position as pastor of the church by the board of his church. Now, this man had not remarried, yet he was asked to step down simply because he was divorced. (I do not know whether the wife remarried once she received her divorce, but we will assume for these purposes that she had not yet remarried.) Of course, this man was left devastated by all the losses he sustained.
From a scriptural standpoint, this man was still the husband of this one wife, whether she divorced him or not, because a death had not occurred. ["A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord." 1 Cor. 7:34] That divorce was not valid in God's eyes. The wife had not remarried, neither had the husband. So why did the church remove him from his position? Because they have gone beyond scripture in their legalism and determined that "divorce" can break a marriage covenant, even though God says it does not. They were quick to remove the embarrassment of "D-I-V-O-R-C-E" (as the country western song goes) from their legalistic midst and they left a man devastated in their legalistic wake.
In the second example, a church board hires a believer to become their new pastor. This man was married not once, but twice. He divorced his first wife, not even for unfaithfulness, but simply because of "unreconcilable differences" as civil law (not God's law) allows. And then he remarried, and the woman he remarried had been divorced as well. But the man was not a believer then. He did not become a believer until about half-way through his second marriage, which is his current marriage. The church board deciced that everything that happened before he became a believer should not be considered. Some of us have sinned greatly before we became believers, but God doesn't hold it against us once we have repented. And so now, the only wife he is considered to have, by the church that hired him, is the one he currently has.
Yet, scripture says, an elder or deacon (in this case, a pastor is an elder) should be "the husband of one wife." Do we then take that to mean one wife at a time, or one wife since he became saved, or simply as one wife "ever" because eternal covenants are involved? This man is definitely a believer and is gifted as well, but is the church obedient to God's Word in making him their Pastor/Elder?
This second church has not been legalistic as the first church has, but might have erred in the matter of "grace" by hiring whom they believe will be of great benefit to their church. But does our thinking count versus God's commands to us through His Word? Do we ask ourselves "Why did God say this in His Word? And is it possible that we don't understand all that is involved, but God in His wisdom does, and has given us instructions that He simply expects us to observe and follow?"
I am using pastors as an example here, but the same applies to any and all of us. Do any of us have the right to rationalize our way around God's Word? How often do we do this, not only in the church, but in our own lives? Or do we instead say "God says it, I believe it, and that's the end of it!" Not allowing ourselves "wiggle-room." And certainly not, as the first example shows, over-stepping what God has commanded, such as the scribes and Pharisees tended to do and were rebuked for.
Do we have to understand God's reasoning in order to agree with and do what God has said we need to do? Or do we choose to do only that which sounds reasonable and logical to us in this modern day and age? Are we, instead, to strive to never allow our own thoughts to over-ride what God has said to us?
How you answer these questions will be colored by your understanding (and possibly your past church traditions) of "legalism" and "grace."
I wil leave you with one more thought. David was a "man after God's own heart." He sinned greatly. God forgave him. Much later, David wanted to build the temple, that which was known as the Lord's "house" at that time. But God had reasons for not allowing David to build His house. Was God not being a God of grace to David? Or does a Holy God require holiness in certain areas of our lives (His temple, His house: our own physical bodies), holding us to His higher standard, even while still being that God of grace who forgave David his terrible sin, as He forgives ours?
1 comment:
The scenarios mentioned here regarding the two divorce situations are good. Churches are democratic organizations and as such the actions described are not surpising. In addition to the issues raised, I am ashamed of this because the world sees this and the Church can be disgraced. But, divorce happens and the application of one wife is clear. But...one wife at a time or ever? I feel sorry for the man whose wife left him and he also lost his job. I guess some churches are worried about perception. Totally off subject, but I wonder how many divorced couples that are shunned by the church who if welcomed might serve God in all ways imaginable. Might some in the church change their mind? MDW
Post a Comment