Should Divorcees Be Forbidden to Teach or Lead in Local Churches?
Image
The constitutions and bylaws of independent Baptist churches commonly include language that forbids divorced persons from teaching Sunday School or holding church office. The restriction is so common that of the dozens of church constitutions I’ve read and filed, only one or two lack some version of it. Since many churches with these restrictions have some history of conflict over them, the topic also tends to be seen as a minefield—best to fence it off and leave it alone.
But these same church constitutions and confessions of faith also strongly emphasize the authority of Scripture, and one question should always be welcome: Is what we’re doing biblical? Is it compatible with Scripture and the revealed nature and purposes of the church?
Let’s consider some arguments pro and con.
Pro
1 Discouraging divorce
Surely we all agree that churches ought to do what they can to discourage divorce and nurture thriving marriages. I’ve frequently heard this laudable goal cited as a reason for restrictive church policy on divorcees. The desire is that the church be perceived as univocal and consistently uncompromising on this point so that the message is unmistakable: God’s design for marriage is one man, one woman, for life.
2 Prevention by shaming
Cynical readers might be quick to suggest an alternative version of argument #1: “All these churches really want to do is scare people out of getting divorced by endlessly shaming those who are divorced.” Sadly, the cynics are probably more right than wrong on that point.
At the same time, the local church discipline passages in the NT do indicate that (a) some behavior is truly disgraceful and (b) churches can fail by being too accommodating of conduct that ought to be seen as shameful (2 Cor. 5:1-2, Ephes. 5:3).
3 Rejection of social trends – “easy divorce”
It would be difficult to research, but it seems likely that many of the divorcee restrictions were added to church constitutions in a period when divorce rates were dramatically increasing in the US. Part of this trend was the relaxing of requirements for divorce proceedings, leading to the creation of family courts and culminating in no-fault divorce laws. California became the first no-fault divorce state in 1970.
Biblically-informed Christians with a high view of marriage were appalled by this trend. Many saw the principle, “be not conformed to this world,” as requiring them to stake out a counter-cultural stand in this area. “We’re not joining this mad rush toward the destruction of the family.” Who can fault them for that?
4 The “husband of one wife” passages
Constitutions with divorcee restrictions sometimes footnote supporting passages that include 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and 5:9 along with Titus 1:6. Though most of these passages refer to qualifications for elders, 1 Timothy 3:12 does apply the standard to deacons as well.
Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (ESV, 1 Tim. 3:12)
How are these passages relevant for restricting Sunday School teachers and other non-deacon leadership roles? The reasoning is that these passages establish the principle that those who are leaders the church should be exemplary individuals with exemplary families.
Con
1 The value of participation
Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 12, and many other passages, emphasize that each member of the body has a unique contribution to the life and growth of the whole. In Ephesians 4, the language is “joints” and “parts” that must work together (Eph. 4:16). In 1 Corinthians, Paul likens individual believers to hands, feet, eyes, etc. Nobody can be what someone else has been put there to be (1 Cor. 12:14-16).
None of this adds up to, “Divorced people must be allowed to be ministry leaders,” but it does add up to a sobering principle: preventing people from serving in ways they ought to be serving is a serious injury to the body—and therefore, a serious offense against Christ who is the Head.
Whatever case we make for excluding an entire category of people from multiple categories of ministry roles had better be a strong one. Does such a case exist? If such a case does exist, the “husband of one wife” standard for pastors and deacons is not it. Not only is it less than certain that the phrase was meant to exclude all divorce-and-remarriage scenarios, but we also have no Scripture indicating that this standard was intended to extend to roles other than pastors and deacons.
2 How divorces happen now
If LegalZoom has it straight, pure no-fault divorce is the law in 17 states and the District of Columbia. In these jurisdictions, no blame for any kind of wrongdoing may be identified as the reason for divorce proceedings. In the remaining 33 states, no-fault is an option.
In practical terms, this means that if either spouse wants to end the marriage on a no-fault basis, the other spouse has no say at all in the matter. A whole lot of legal process can go into dividing up property, custody, etc., but there is no legal basis for “fighting the divorce.”
At least one conclusion should be clear: it is possible to be a divorcee and have contributed nothing, either actively or passively, to the ending of the marriage. Should individuals in this situation be excluded from ministry leadership?
3 Example of what?
The reasoning that says “let’s make sure our leaders are exemplary individuals with exemplary families” has much to commend it. But given the realities of an easy-divorce society, the question arises, “Exemplary in what ways?” In a society that exalts and empowers individualism to an extraordinary degree, it may well be that a “good example” is sometimes a man or woman who is faithfully living the Christian life in a situation beyond his or her control. Can a divorcee be exemplary at holding to biblical attitudes and obedience while making the best of a tragedy he or she was was not able to prevent?
4 The kinds of people God uses
When we look through biblical history at the kinds of men and women God has chosen to use, even in leadership roles, we don’t find that they are always “exemplary people with exemplary families”—especially in reference to past transgressions. Badly checkered histories are common, and those histories include far worse offenses than failed marriages.
In some of our churches, as far as their constitutions are concerned, you can be a former axe murderer and teach Sunday School, but you can’t be a divorcee. Can this really be the intent of the biblical teaching?
It’s past time for churches to re-examine these policies. Yes, we want to obey Scripture. Yes, we want to discourage divorce and nurture strong marriages. Yes, we want to be counter-cultural. But is a rigid ban on divorcees in leadership really helping further these goals?
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 1964 views
A lot of interesting comments and questions, and much to think about.
The references to counseling situations brings focus to what might be the biggest problem in any “case by case” evaluation approach: figuring out who is telling the truth. I don’t have any easy answers for that. Many counselors don’t even try to figure this out, much to the frustration of at least one of the parties involved.
So is it worth the trouble to try to determine if divorcees (possibly remarried, possibly not) are “fit for duty”?
Related: Several have commented to the effect of are we so short on qualified leaders that we have to pursue these questionable cases. In other words, do we need these people serving?
The answer to both the “is it worth it” and the “do we need them” questions derives from what should be non-controversial theology (ecclesiology specifically)
What we know (some of these are directly stated in NT passages, some are pretty inescapable inferences):
- Each believer is supposed to be serving
- A huge part of the responsibility of leadership is to trying to get each believer serving in the ways they are meant by God to be serving
- The wellbeing of the body is directly impacted by the degree to which #1 and #2 are accomplished.
- What is worth doing and not worth doing has to be weighed in light of 1-3. In other words, we have to ask “Is it worth it for what purpose?” and “Do we need them for what?”
The question is really not, “can we get by without these people serving,” or “is there an easier/more efficient way to staff ministries and programs.” The question is, how do we accomplish the central purposes of a local church in reference to these folks?
The issue has to be framed right before it can be answered biblically.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Divorce paperwork generally doesn’t tell the truth about why people divorce; most states are no fault since 1983, so you don’t need to put all the causes in the filing documents, and perjury is rampant in hearings over custody. Even if it’s not “no fault”, people often say just enough to get the divorce, because they don’t want their dirty laundry out in public. (I actually possess my mom’s divorce paperwork and correspondence with her lawyer—I know a lot of the reasons for my parents’ divorce, and it’s not in those documents) Plus, think about the optics of asking people for legal documents prior to playing the squeezebox or working in Sunday School. It’s a very real psychological barrier—I even make a point of explaining what happens with background checks so people don’t freak out. Some still do.
What you do is what Don did with the accordion player; simply invite them to tell you about it. If it’s remorseful, etc., then you can consider the seriousness of what happened, but as a rule they can take part in ministries. If all the blame is poured on the other person, watch out. You definitely need to get to know people, though.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, I’ll cede the point to you - in part because I really don’t want to be prying into all the details if it’s not necessary - but how else do you cut through the knot of ‘he said / she said’? Particularly in a situation like I ran into last year? I could give a couple more examples like that if I wanted to…but maybe God only sends me the ‘hard’ cases and not the easy ones.
Honestly, in a situation like Don’s where the guy not only came clean but manifested the right attitude about it, I probably wouldn’t review the paperwork anyway…his attitude would tell me most of what I needed to know. The problem is that the guy in my case manifested a similar attitude…hence the need for some sort of objective basis for a decision like court paperwork.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
The question is really not, “can we get by without these people serving,” or “is there an easier/more efficient way to staff ministries and programs.” The question is, how do we accomplish the central purposes of a local church in reference to these folks?
The issue has to be framed right before it can be answered biblically.
That’s a great point, Aaron. As I read the NT, the more I come to appreciate the shocking grace that God manifests to sinners like us. The NT church was composed of all sorts of sinners and scoundrels (1 Cor. 6:9-11) and yet God trusts us with His plan and work, so we need to be very careful about saying ‘No, God can’t use you in _______________ capacity as a result’.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay] The NT church was composed of all sorts of sinners and scoundrels (1 Cor. 6:9-11) and yet God trusts us with His plan and work, so we need to be very careful about saying ‘No, God can’t use you in _______________ capacity as a result’.
Point: There are many opportunities to use one’s giftedness in the local church. As an aside, I’m not concerned if the accordian player is divorced.
Question for Jay: In your view, is there anything that would permanently disqualify a man from the office of pastor-elder-bishop?
Jay, I’m afraid I’m not a genius in sussing these things out—I must confess I probably missed some clear signs of a marriage going bad last year at my church and opportunities to reach out—but it strikes me that one key sign (as you note I think) is a general stiff arm to talking, and especially blaming the other. “Oh, she’s just not submissive enough.”, and all that.
Great way of drawing a man out on such things is “what do you mean by that?”. Phrase from my wife and I’s premarital counseling that works wonders, really.
Really, I see a LOT of differences between what you document and what Don does. I see Don asking someone to participate and declining; you’re seeing someone who isn’t volunteering the information. I’m guessing Don’s friend didn’t blame his ex; your contacts do. It’s along the lines of one reason for judging the Bible as accurate; it makes God’s people look like idiots at times, no? It’s always a good sign when someone fesses up and blames himself.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Jim]Point: There are many opportunities to use one’s giftedness in the local church. As an aside, I’m not concerned if the accordian player is divorced.
No, neither am I. I brought it up because this man’s conscience was sensitive to his past. He was concerned for the well-being of the church even in serving in a non-teaching role.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
There are many ways for divorced people to serve in the local church apart from pastor/elder or deacon. While that seems to be the consensus view on this thread, many of us know of churches that are uncomfortable with divorced people in any visible role. There have been church splits over whether divorced people could teach SS or sing in the choir.
As an aside, my first encounter with this debate was many years ago in an IFB church with strong ties (familial and otherwise) to John R. Rice. The pastor selected a friend of mine as deacon who had been divorced and remarried. When my friend shared his experience and reluctance to serve as deacon with the pastor, the pastor just said, “We’ll make sure nobody knows.”
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Jim]Jay wrote:
The NT church was composed of all sorts of sinners and scoundrels (1 Cor. 6:9-11) and yet God trusts us with His plan and work, so we need to be very careful about saying ‘No, God can’t use you in _______________ capacity as a result’.Point: There are many opportunities to use one’s giftedness in the local church. As an aside, I’m not concerned if the accordian player is divorced.
Question for Jay: In your view, is there anything that would permanently disqualify a man from the office of pastor-elder-bishop?
I’m not Jay, but given that pastors counsel vulnerable people, practically speaking you ought not have anyone who’s name is on Megan’s List, or really anyone with a conviction for a violent felony, in a pastoral position or anywhere near Sunday School/kids activities. Writing as “Sunday School Grand Poo Bah”, no way I want to be on the witness stand while an aggressive plaintiff’s lawyer asks why I knowingly put such a person in such a position. “OK, Counsel, here are the keys to the building…”
You might have such a person in a “teaching only adults” class, though. Really, if we believe in the regenerating power of the Gospel, there ought not be too many sins one can commit that, Biblically speaking, would preclude ministry. (as the murderer, the terrorist, the thug, and the tax collector would tell you) The trick is in figuring out whether the repentance is real.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Question for Jay: In your view, is there anything that would permanently disqualify a man from the office of pastor-elder-bishop?
Sure. I mentioned that I would have a problem with #3 of TylerR’s example. I have a problem with a pastor whose sons have rejected the faith while he was pastoring, and I’ve talked with a specific person in that situation about it. I have a problem with someone who has disciplined out a teenager that was raped, especially when he told his the congregation that she was guilty of ‘fornication’ and under church discipline instead. To get away from sexual issues, someone convicted of a felony assault would not be able to serve as a nursery worker or in children’s church.
Blameless = ‘not able to lay a hand on’ this person. For a pastor/elder, the standards are incredibly high, and we do well to keep them that way. My earlier post was a general reference to how God chooses to use any of us in His plan, but that doesn’t mean that we all get to serve in all the different capacities. God’s guidelines are there for a reason.
Here’s a question for you - minister in Iowa (for example) loses his wife when she decides that she doesn’t want anything to do with God, rejects all attempts to reconcile, utterly abandons the faith and her family, even going as far as to write a book about it that you can buy right now. He ends up being divorced (again, in keeping with I Cor. 7:15), rebuilds his life, parents his children into mature Christian adulthood, and is eventually (10-15+ years later) approached about being pulpit supply for a small church desperately in need of a pastor. He explains his background, but they want him anyway. I don’t know that I could argue dogmatically that he should not serve while they look for a new minister (or even that he shouldn’t candidate himself). What do you think?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I think your man should be considered for that church, as their Pastor.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[M] any of us know of churches that are uncomfortable with divorced people in any visible role. There have been church splits over whether divorced people could teach SS or sing in the choir.
One of my real issues with Evangelicals / Fundamentalists as a whole is that we seem to generally want a church composed of polite, wealthy, upper-middle class white people. That’s a sin (James 2:1-7), and we ought to be as diligent about going after that as much as we are unmarried and pregnant teenagers. It does bother me - immensely so - when we see the kind of issues Ron notes and actively tolerate that as acceptable.
My post earlier that referenced 1 Cor. 6 was addressing this point that Ron brought up. I wasn’t saying that we can ignore 1 Tim. 3 or Titus 1. That’s not my point at all.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay] One of my real issues with Evangelicals / Fundamentalists as a whole is that we seem to generally want a church composed of polite, wealthy, upper-middle class white people.
I completely disagree with the bolded. You really have no support for your point of view.
On the scale of wealth: Baptists tend to be poorer than most denominations
Support http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among…
[Jim]Jay wrote:
One of my real issues with Evangelicals / Fundamentalists as a whole is that we seem to generally want a church composed of polite, wealthy, upper-middle class white people.I completely disagree with the bolded. You really have no support for your point of view.
On the scale of wealth: Baptists tend to be poorer than most denominations
Support http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-…
My take is that we’ve got strong cultural cues that select for middle class respectability, from our music to the way we stand with feet nailed to the floor, to what we eat at church potlucks. We get nervous around high end cars and rustbuckets alike. We don’t mean to, but we do. Might be good to make sure we get our pastors and ourselves out to ethnic restaurants, listen to music of different genre, etc.. It’s really hard to see what your native culture is until you immerse yourself in another.
One thing we tend to do right in many cases is to reach out to the poorer side of town with things like van ministries and VBS, but I simply don’t see a lot of the kids that come to AWANA on Wednesday on Sunday.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Straying from topic a good bit now it seems.
There is some relevance, though. When churches grow numerically primarily through (a) transfer and (b) births in current families, it’s easier to maintain a ministry involvement mindset of “only exemplary people with exemplary families need apply.”
There’s definitely an upside to this: I’m all for propagating strong families within a church culture of strong families, and when “outsiders” (as in outside the faith/our usual background profile) are reached, they are brought into a strong family culture. That’s all good.
The downside is that this dynamic is not reaching outsiders much. In churches that are seeing a lot of growth by conversion of people from rougher backgrounds, the idea that divorcees should only serve in relatively hidden roles kind of crumbles. There are just too many messed up people and messed up families being reached… and as I’ve already argued, these believers are supposed to serve, and some are supposed to lead, eventually.
… and let’s be honest on another point, too: many of our polished looking, stable, traditional families are more messed up than they appear. Way more. But there is no legal divorce on record, so it’s all good (a little sarcasm there). How much of this is really going on varies from church to church of course, and actually measuring how big a problem it is — this is nearly impossible for reasons that are probably obvious.
(Edit: well, not impossible for research institutions like Barna, LifeWay, Pew et. al. But these don’t generally research fundamentalist-heritage churches specifically, so it’s hard to estimate from general evangeical trends.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion