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?

Discussion

Even unsaved people have lasting marriages: I know many. My parents managed to live lives committed to each other until Dad died at 80

What it takes

  • Wisely choosing a mate (two actually wisely choosing)
  • Having reasonable expectations
  • Putting the other first
  • Living daily commitment
  • Faithfulness
  • Growing love

I’m not in favor of divorced & remarried pastors

[Craig Toliver]

Even unsaved people have lasting marriages: I know many. My parents managed to live lives committed to each other until Dad died at 80

What it takes

  • Wisely choosing a mate (two actually wisely choosing)
  • Having reasonable expectations
  • Putting the other first
  • Living daily commitment
  • Faithfulness
  • Growing love

I’m not in favor of divorced & remarried pastors

This is a pretty good summary of what’s involved, but overlooks one detail: all six points have to be performed by two individuals… and neither of the two can control what the other chooses. Influence, yes, control, no. An additional complication is that the choices made by one of the two can greatly limit the choices left to the other. Marriage is truly a boat that one person can sink. Maybe an airplane with two wings is a better analogy.

This speaks a bit to an earlier point about whether there is an innocent party. A couple of points on that.

  • The concept of innocence is often muddied when folks are dismissing it. As far as causality is concerned, there are different kinds of innocence: as in when a blind man trips over some rubbish someone left on a sidewalk, falls into a “little old lady” and knocks her into oncoming traffic. He is arguably the “cause” of her death. But he is innocent of her death. On the other hand he may be a mean spirited man with a serious gambling habit… who enjoys frightening kittens. But these flaws did not contribute to the woman’s death, much less “cause” it.
  • A marriage is always a union of two sinners and they always both fail each other in many ways. But when one of them chooses to walk away in response to problems other couples have chosen to solve—and while the other spouse is still trying to solve them—who is responsible for the “end” of the marriage? Neither of them is ever “innocent” in any absolute sense. But one of the two is quite often the actual cause of the death of the marriage.

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.

[Aaron Blumer]

….it’s easier to maintain a ministry involvement mindset of “only exemplary people with exemplary families need apply.”

The church we have been attending for the past few years seems to follow this model. Two-thirds of the present congregation has come to the church since we’ve been there, and two-thirds have left. The church is meeting in a “store front” and preparing to move to a school, and we will not be moving with them, but will go to another church. The church has many good things going for it: solid preaching, good music, great fellowship, but appears to lack compassion for less than “exemplary families.”

Yesterday was communion and a great sadness washed over me, when I realized I would never again celebrate it with this fellowship of believers - it’s very hard to leave.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[Aaron Blumer]

Craig Toliver wrote:

Even unsaved people have lasting marriages: I know many. My parents managed to live lives committed to each other until Dad died at 80

What it takes

  • Wisely choosing a mate (two actually wisely choosing)
  • Having reasonable expectations
  • Putting the other first
  • Living daily commitment
  • Faithfulness
  • Growing love

I’m not in favor of divorced & remarried pastors

This is a pretty good summary of what’s involved, but overlooks one detail: all six points have to be performed by two individuals… and neither of the two can control what the other chooses. Influence, yes, control, no. An additional complication is that the choices made by one of the two can greatly limit the choices left to the other. Marriage is truly a boat that one person can sink. Maybe an airplane with two wings is a better analogy.

This speaks a bit to an earlier point about whether there is an innocent party. A couple of points on that.

  • The concept of innocence is often muddied when folks are dismissing it. As far as causality is concerned, there are different kinds of innocence: as in when a blind man trips over some rubbish someone left on a sidewalk, falls into a “little old lady” and knocks her into oncoming traffic. He is arguably the “cause” of her death. But he is innocent of her death. On the other hand he may be a mean spirited man with a serious gambling habit… who enjoys frightening kittens. But these flaws did not contribute to the woman’s death, much less “cause” it.
  • A marriage is always a union of two sinners and they always both fail each other in many ways. But when one of them chooses to walk away in response to problems other couples have chosen to solve—and while the other spouse is still trying to solve them—who is responsible for the “end” of the marriage? Neither of them is ever “innocent” in any absolute sense. But one of the two is quite often the actual cause of the death of the marriage.

First of all there are seemingly two strains of thought on this thread:

1.) Divorce and the perfect family in general (as in John Brian’s previous post)

2. ) Divorce and the pastor (as in Peet’s above) (the “reality check” post)

–-

Focusing on # 2:

* A pastor trying to pastor a church while his marriage is falling apart. Divorce just doesn’t happen … it’s the end of a miserable road. So can a man effectively pastor during that journey?

* A divorced man seeking the pastorate? Is this part of his history “a disclosable event” during the interview process? Or immaterial?

Hey Craig,

I did respond, here: https://sharperiron.org/comment/93273#comment-93273. Is there something there that was unclear or did you have a follow up question?

JohnBrian, it’s a terrible feeling to have to leave a church body, esp. if you have been there for a while. I will pray for you and your family.

"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

Craig, well said, but it’s worth noting that if we have a church culture of “the perfect family in general” (at least to outward appearances, as Aaron noted), we then would expect a fairly tight “rule” about divorce vis-a-vis the pastor, no? I would argue that the two phenomena are pretty tightly linked.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Assuming a reasonable amount of stability vs. turnover in the pastor role, I think the two would not have to be linked much, if at all.

Expanding that to everything from teachers to SS Supers, and Treasurers and committee chairs … there I think a strong correlation would be evident.

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.

To any young preachers out there -

For the huge majority of pastors, a divorce ends, or seriously limits their pastoral ministry.

Do your very best, under God, to avoid divorce.

My preacher dad used to say, “I’d rather be known as a great husband and father, than as a great preacher. I believe he was all three.

God, family, ministry. Don’t neglect your family!

David R. Brumbelow

No!

Straight Ahead! jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Tell us what you really think. :-D

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.

Jim, and others,

What about a pastor who had never been divorced, but his wife had been divorced?

Not wanting to start an argument, just wondered about viewpoints on this.

David R. Brumbelow

[David R. Brumbelow]

Jim, and others,

What about a pastor who had never been divorced, but his wife had been divorced?

Not wanting to start an argument, just wondered about viewpoints on this.

David R. Brumbelow

….of the questions we ought to be asking. If a pastor marries a divorcee, has he dealt with the Biblical issues surrounding it well? Great interview question at the very least—how do you deal with the ex-husband, stepchildren, and the like? Was it before or after she came to faith, etc..?

Definitely a deal-killer, per Jim’s comments, in a lot of cases. But I think if we back off just a touch from the absolute ban and start asking questions and getting to know each other better, everybody’s going to be better off for it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

If some was divorced and/or remarried before their conversion, does conversion erase the consequences and make everything all right?

I know of a case where a pastor committed adultery, divorced and remarried and then “really got saved” and returned to the ministry.

I’ve also discovered that people outside of the church don’t understand “under the blood”.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan