268B — continuing “Who’s In Charge Here?”
I tend to write as I would speak but since this is a “one side at a time” conversation, I sometimes forget important parts of the question when I reply. I did that with 268. There were aspects of the question — critical ones — that I didn’t address. With the comments received so far, it may require yet another column to answer all of them.
I cannot stress enough that who is called to lead is up to the individual congregation and not up to me, the beliefs of other congregations, or books written by experts. A man who might serve capably and effectively in one church might be a complete dud in another. Only the local church can make that call. As noted in the last blog, the New Testament example we have of appointing elders is that the minister picks them out and appoints them. I know of no congregation in my tribe that follows this “pattern” which is a stunning example of the bankruptcy of the “all things by the pattern of the New Testament” folk. They, like everyone else, picks and chooses much more than they would like to admit.
No congregation, website, paper, or preacher has the right to criticize the minister chosen, the elders appointed, or the worship conducted by another congregation. The New Testament could not be more plain about that. The only exceptions were those ordained by God — the apostles — to establish the faith. And, while I saw a license plate with “Apostle” on it yesterday, it was a five year old Saturn that was going over the speed limit so I’m going to think a bit before assuming an actual apostle was driving it.
Now — can a leader in the church be a divorced or a remarried person? Of course they can… with some reservations. The lists in Timothy and Titus are not qualifications, as such, but descriptions and they do differ because the situations Timothy and Titus faced were very different. Crete was a hard place to work (Paul had some very nasty things to say about the Cretans) so while Timothy was told that elders should have believing children, Titus was told that elders shouldn’t have children that were accused of riot. That’s a wee bit of a different standard.
Still, both were told that elders should be respected in the community. I have know of quite a few elders who should have stepped down for that reason alone. As one commenter wrote in, I have also mentioned an elders name and had hard, almost physical, reactions from people in the community. Some were known as cagey, dishonest brokers in their business. Others were known for suing their neighbors or bullying them. Others were known for dominating their wives and driving their children off. All of them were not qualified and the minister should have stripped them of that office (if we followed “the pattern”) or the congregation should have removed them (if we follow the more American, democratic pattern). So, how does this apply to the question asked?
It applies this way: how does the community of faith and the greater community in which you live view that man and his divorce/remarriage? There would be a huge difference between a bad marriage made early on in life that was followed by a divorce and a later, successful, marriage and a nasty divorce (or two) that left hurt in the community; hurt that was unredeemed by the evidence of a good life. I’ve met elders who were divorced and remarried who I thought were very qualified to hold that post (and it MUST be noted that my opinion means absolutely nothing if the local congregation accepts/rejects them). They had a successful marriage and a long track record of living the faith daily in the community. The past was long ago, forgotten, and redeemed by their holy lives. I have met other elders who made me uneasy with their divorce and remarriage for a variety of reasons. The one that made me most uneasy was the elder I met on his third marriage. When I asked him about his earlier marriages, he was very la-dee-dah about it all. Both marriages ended for vague reasons centered around not getting along, growing in different directions, etc. THAT didn’t smell right to me.
Some reject any divorced and remarried man because they say the Bible says “husband of ONE wife” and that precludes any remarried one. They are wrong. They have a sacramental, Roman Catholic view of marriage that is not found in scripture. They will even talk about a “so called wife” and teach that the first marriage is forever binding in heaven. The man who is remarried is “living in adultery.” These are not Biblical constructs or concepts. I can post a LONG article about that if enough are interested. Suffice it to say this: When David committed adultery and murder to get Bathsheba, she was called “the wife of Uriah the Hittite” even after they lived together as husband and wife. However, after David’s repentance, she was ever after called “David’s wife” and God blessed their union. While Paul put out the ideal in First Corinthians 7, he said several times that those who could not attain it had not sinned… and he was talking about marriage.
The questions here are fairly simple to ask and simpler to answer than we would like to pretend: how is this man’s reputation? Does he have a track record of a successful marriage and successful family life? How do his children and mate regard him? If there is a former mate, how were they treated? What stains — if any — remain there in the community of faith or the greater community in which we live? Does this person have the moral authority to correct anyone in this congregation including the minister? Does this person have moral weight in the community by virtue of their example (not “faithfulness” to a doctrine or a tradition, but a life that reflects the character of Christ ESPECIALLY in their home life but also in their business and community life)?
And when it comes time to step down, step down. Sadly, in my religious tribe it is rare to see an elder step down for too many look at it as a life appointment to a managerial post. It is neither. Elders are not managers but guides by love and example. They are not corporate decision makers, but advice givers. And if they are tired, sick, wanting to quit, or unqualified, they should be allowed to gracefully step aside with our thanks and love. Too many elders would not be kicked out regardless of their hard hearts, lack of love, or lackadaisical leadership unless, as was said about a southern governor, they were caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. That is tragic. We should be much more flexible, much quicker to adjust to change than that.
And when a good elder steps aside for a rest or to do something else with their life the congregation should rise up and bless them. Congregations should also remember to do specific things to show their love and support for each remaining elder and for their teaching minister(s). And if anyone from outside the congregation has anything to say about it? Ignore them.
patrickmead
July 17th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Excellent thoughts/points on your last two posts!
I would be very interested in your LONG article on remarriage and “living in adultery.”
July 17th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I, too, could benefit from the long article. Thanks for your reasonable insights and explanations.
July 18th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Very good. Now bring on that LONG article. Or at least a moderate summary thereof.
July 18th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
I knew a girl who took the “husband of one wife” thing to an even stranger extreme. She believed that an elder had to be married, as in if his wife died she expected him to step down from eldership. People really do need to consider wider contexts and not just exact wording.
I’m also interested in the long article if you get a chance.
July 18th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Please, do post your article on MDR. I would be very interested in your thoughts. Maybe you can provide some insight on past MDR debates, and why each side holds to it’s point of view.
July 18th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Particularly, maybe you can shed some light on how those on each side of the MDR debate arrive at their viewpoint. It’s been my experience that few are ever converted from one side to the other.
July 18th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Thank you for both posts. Like everyone else, I’d like to see the post on divorce. Thank you for all the time and effort you put into this blog. It is an amazing teaching tool.
July 18th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Dr. David Instone-Brewer’s book Divorce And Remarriage in the Church is the definitive answer to the MDR controversy.
http://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Remarriage-Church-Solutions-Realities/dp/0830833749/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279499003&sr=8-1
Here are links to slide shows explaining the major points of MDR in the Bible:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=418618&id=533841022
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3280966&id=533841022
Please note that I approved this comment merely to not impede personal study and discovery. I have not looked at, reviewed, or personally approved the links or book. It might be fantastic. It might not be.
July 19th, 2010 at 2:12 am
Nicely done, Patrick–both this post and the last. Our church is studying 1 Corinthians, so I’m interested in your take on Chapter 7 (which you touched on here).
And yup, I am also casting my vote for that MDR post. No pressure.
July 19th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Patrick, I think the article on MDR would be very welcome.
July 19th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Patrick, I would be very interested in reading your long post on MDR as well. The church I grew up in was extremely strict about divorce and remarriage and even as a child their stance seemed very harsh to me. The small congregation my dad pastored for a time was afflicted by differing beliefs on this issue as well and the rifts that it caused ended up leading to the demise of our church.
July 19th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Patrick, I’m praying about your visit to the Pleasant Valley church in Little Rock this Wednesday. I’ve looked in on your blog from time to time, & listened to some of your CD’s. I can’t wait to hear you in person, & have told so many to come hear you speak, too! I think I might get to meet you at Guillermo’s coffee house after your lesson, & am glad about that. Safe traveling to our ‘neck of the woods’…..
July 19th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Patrick,
I Tim. 5:9 seems to be saying that widows supported by the church must have only been married once. The greek seems to support this. NIV is the only translation that I find that differs from this in saying that she must have been “faithful” to her husband. I know elders and widows are two different animals, however, elders seem to me to be more essential to the health and leadership of the body, so why would Paul be more lax on elders than widows? (if he is teaching two different standards on marriage- and if your understanding is right, that divorced men can serve as elders) I have assumed (right or wrong) that in most divorces both parties are at fault in some way. I believe in forgiveness and remarriage. I think I agree with you on MDR. I agree with Olan Hicks on most of what I have read of his writings. However, being an elder is not a right. Most men do not have the character of Hosea – to lovingly pursue and remain faithful to a wayward wife. I understand the “case by case” approach, however, I was just wondering if you saw any relationship to the two sets of instructions (elders/widows.)
July 19th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Robert said, “I have assumed (right or wrong) that in most divorces both parties are at fault in some way.”
Jeremiah 3:8 teaches us that God Himself is a divorcee. So it is possible to divorce without sinning.
The Law of Moses taught that there were 4 grounds for a legitimate divorce. In another passage, God justified His divorce by pointing to all 4 grounds. Jesus & Paul reiterate these 4 grounds for divorce in the NT (see my previous comment).
The point in getting a legitimate divorce was so that you the right to remarry without incurring sin. God does remarry – He takes a new wife, the church.
July 19th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Like everyone else here, I’d be interested in that article, too.
Also interested in something else Dee asked in the comments on the previous post, I believe, about a church having someone as both an elder and the minister.
Interestingly enough, I was just recently (as in just within the past few days) listening to a couple of your sermons about Shepherds/Elders from a couple of years ago. In the one i listened to yesterday, you addressed that topic, reminding us that Peter was both an elder and a minister.
However…I’ve gotta admit that the only time I’ve ever seen that scenario in a church…where the minister was an elder…it was not a good thing. So could you elaborate on that any?
Thank you, sir.
July 21st, 2010 at 10:06 am
I would like to point to the passages in Timothy and Titus for this discussion. If we look through the lists, every other item is get-overable. If a man used to drink, or get into fights, or was greedy 20 years ago we do not consider that a problem. If a man co-habitated with a woman 20 years ago for 5 years we don’t consider that a problem. There wasn’t the distinction at that time (before marriage certificates and tax structures) between cohabitation and marriage, so it is ludicrous to think it a couple shacks up for a couple years the guy can become an elder later, but if they marry and then divorce that he is then disqualified.
I cannot look at a list and say that every item but one is based on right now, but that one single item stuck without any special offset is different.
Think about when you donate blood. There are a series of questions “In the last two weeks…” “have you ever even once…”, there is a serious difference between those two qualifications that is offset by the context. In this case there is no context offset, so “not given to much wine” is in the same manner as “the husband of one wife.” We should probably ask something more like where this guys eyes are headed on a regular basis. I think that today in the 21st century meeting this qualification would not look as much like “were you divorced 2 decades ago,” but more like “let’s look at your computer history over the last 6 months.” How many women does he have in his mind?
Any thoughts?
No. I think you said it very well.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
thank you Patrick. Like the others, I’d be interested in the MDR article, too.