Is this a Biblical mandate?

Posted by Dawn Davis on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 12:44 a.m.

I am in need of your godly wisdom! I was asked by group leader in my Bible study if I'd consider a leadership position. I prayed and felt it was a good thing, my dh and kids supported me and I let them know I could do it. I was then interviewed for the position. It started out great. I shared my testimony of coming to know Christ as Lord and was just so enthusiastic. Then, the bomb came...I had been divorced years ago. This eliminated me from leading a group of women within this ministry (not with my church). Also, had I had the gift of tongues, I would also have been declined. I just don't understand this. I love this ministry but feel these stipulations are not a clear mandate from God's word. If it is, can you point me to it. I want to be in obedience to the Lord and serve Him joyfully. I was offered the role of a children's leader. Why am I ok to lead the children but not the ladies--in God's eyes? Can someone set me straight on this? I want to let the leadership know how I feel about this, but don't want to cause conflict either.

Joyfully His,
--Dawn


Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?

Posted by Martha on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 4:11 a.m., in response to Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 12:44 a.m.

I have known many divorced women who have done a beautiful job leading women!! And also women who spoke in tongues, too!! :) I would talk to the leadership and see what their qualifications for leadership are, and why they feel uncomfortable in these two areas. Sometimes, churches are guarded about who they place in leadership, and for good reason. They often do not want someone promoting something controversial, or different from their doctrine - not that you would be doing that, but perhaps they have had a bad experience. May God lead and guide you, Martha.


Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?

Posted by Kate Megill on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 7:19 a.m., in response to Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 12:44 a.m.

Dear Dawn,

It is possible that the criteria they are using are those for either pastor or deacon:

1 Timothy 3:2 : an overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.

1 Timothy 3:12 : let the deacons be husbands of only one wife and good managers of their children and their own households.

Many people feel the above verses refer to not having been divorced (not that they are speaking of polygamy).

I don't know how they see this position of leadership, but if they consider it an elder position or deacon position (although outside of the realm of the church I don't understand exactly) or if they feel that these same qualifications are to apply (which is their option as these standards in total are good indicators of godly character and reputation) then these are the passages about not being divorced that would exclude you.

I have NO idea why they would have excluded you if you spoke in tongues, unless their ministry personally believes tongues are positively NOT for today...but I have never heard of excluding someone from leadership in ministry for speaking in tongues.

Hope this helps.

In His Joy and grace,
Kate Megill


About divorce

Posted by Marlys on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 9:44 p.m., in response to Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 12:44 a.m.

Dawn: There is only one unforgivable sin and it is not being divorced. However, it does seem to carry some afflictions with it, however, I'm not sure that they are because God wants it that way or because we have interpreted it that way. I mean you can have been in prison for murder and get forgiven and then have a ministry, but if your divorced, you may as well have leprosy in some parts of the body. I don't know the answer, but I do know this:

Jesus died for my sins, past present and future. He loves me with an everlasting, unchanging love. He is waiting to take me to heaven as a part of a pure bride.

I don't think He is upset with me.

Marlys


Well said, Marlys. nt

Posted by Julie Hamilton on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 11:37 p.m., in response to About divorce, posted by Marlys on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 9:44 p.m.

ntntntntnt


Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?

Posted by monica on Sunday, 10 May 1998, at 6:40 a.m., in response to Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 12:44 a.m.

No wonderful words of wisdom here either. Just another rambling thought: In the verses pertaining to pastorial positions and elder leadership, they are stated as: husband of one wife. My husband has been married only once, I am his only and one wife. I have been divorced. There are some churches that wouldn't allow him to serve even as a deacon because of my prior marriage. just a thought running through my mind.
Any comments?--monica


Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?

Posted by Jill Ehrlich on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 6:39 a.m., in response to Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 12:44 a.m.

Dawn I bet I know the Bible Study!! I was a discussion leader in "this" group last 2 years. The divorce issue in this group that I'm speaking of is because you, being in a position of authority over these women, may be in a situation to offer counseling to a woman with a troubled marriage. (Not that you would) but because you did divorce that is in some way "condoning" (don't like that word but can't think of another) divorce to a person who is looking up to you in authority. God hates divorce, he allows it but it is not his will. The reason you could be allowed to be a children's leader is that you would not be in a position to counsel children on this issue.

Also because the tongues thing is so very controvesial in our day. The BS (if were taking the same one) does not want that to become an issue.It is not that they do not believe.
If we are talking the same BS> I would encourage you to let go if there are any bitter feelings. THis is a wonderful study, a great fellowship. I plan to rejoin when my schedule lightens up. LOVE IN HIM JILL E>


Some questions.

Posted by Donna G. on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 7:15 a.m., in response to Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Jill Ehrlich on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 6:39 a.m.

Wouldn't it make sense that leadership ask Dawn questions? Was she divorced before or after salvation? Was her husband a believer? What were the curcumstances surrounding the divorce? eg. abuse, infidelity. There are Biblical grounds for divorce.
As for speaking in tongues. This is Biblical, why is it pushed under the carpet as "to contraversial?" By denying this stuff, are you not rejecting the Holy Spirit? That's scary stuff to be doing. How can we deny the moving of the Holy Spirit and expect Him to move amongst us.
Yes Dawn, you must not allow yourself to become bitter. Take the situation to God and hand it over to Him. Also seek his wisdom as to wether you should even be attending this study, this may very well be the place He wants you to be, but maybe not.
God Bless you and may He use these posts to speak clealy to you.
Donna


my thoughts on tongues and divorce

Posted by joni on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 8:25 a.m., in response to Some questions., posted by Donna G. on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 7:15 a.m.

I don't think that people who believe the gift of tongues ceased after the apostolic age are "rejecting the Holy Spirit"

Quite honestly, I am studying the gift of tongues right now, and I do not know where I stand!

Tongues does not appear to be mentioned in the earliest writings after the New Testament church except in reference to certain heretical groups like the Montanists. NO, I'm not implying anything, just that a case can be made on both sides. Those writings are NOT inspired, but they still tell us a lot about the early church. Some people believe that the gift of tongues was given to the apostles, not the 120 (which is how I interpret Acts), and that the apostles passed on this gift where needed.

Furthermore, other non-Christian religions speak in ecstatic utterances, so simply speaking in a foreign sounding tongue doesn't necessarily mean that it's a gift from God.

My heart does go out to you, Dawn, over the divorce issue. I don't know if the leadership of this group handled this properly, but I do believe that they were thinking biblically. Yes, we are all washed clean by the blood of the lamb. But, scripture does indicate that "leaders/teachers" are to be held to a higher standard than others. Divorce is permitted, but not desired by God. A divorced person may not have desired the divorce. He/she may simply have been a victim. But, remember, no one has a right to "teach", but these leaders do have a responsibility to protect the ministry from scandal. In that light, their decision may make more sense. Although divorce is accepted as commonplace in society, it should not be so in the Body of Christ.

Dawn, I pray that you will take this to the cross and leave it there. The Lord knows the condition of your heart; these leaders don't.

God bless you.

Joni


Joni, you have said this MUCH better than I. Thanks nt

Posted by Jill Ehrlich on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 9:36 a.m., in response to my thoughts on tongues and divorce, posted by joni on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 8:25 a.m.

x


Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?

Posted by Deana on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 1:08 p.m., in response to Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 12:44 a.m.

Just a thought. I am interested to know why certain sins (i.e. divorce)disqualify people from leadership and other sins do not?(i.e. gluttony,gossip,coveting someone elses property, jealousy, anger,etc.) Really, when was the last time you heard a sermon on overeating just before a church potluck? I thought all sin was equal in the eyes of God? I do understand it when it is completely specific in the Bible(i.e. requirements of elders) But the only difference between someone who has been divorced and a jealous person is that one is showing their sin outwardly. The other can hide it. What is the true condition of our heart? Only God knows. Just my humble thoughts here. Please feel free to correct me if I am out to lunch.

Agape,
Deana


Okay, I must agree....

Posted by Donna G. on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 7:20 p.m., in response to my thoughts on tongues and divorce, posted by joni on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 8:25 a.m.

on your point about divorce and leadership. I now understand why some churches will not allow divorced people to hold positions of leadership.
Donna G.


Are All Sins Equal

Posted by Kevin Megill on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 9:52 p.m., in response to Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Deana on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 1:08 p.m.

Hi all,

Deana asked:

"I am interested to know why certain sins (i.e. divorce)disqualify people from leadership and other sins do not? ...I thought all sin was equal in the eyes of God? ... the only difference between someone who has been divorced and a jealous person is that one is showing their sin outwardly."

I'd like to use this, especially, the statement:

"I thought all sin was equal in the eyes of God"

to present an alternative point of view. Although most Christians would agree wholeheartedly with Deana's statement, I'd like to counter it with by suggesting that it's only true in a limited sense. See what you think of the following ideas.

a) First, how much sin does it take to be guilty?
Answer: all sin is equal in the eyes of God.

This is the sense in which I agree with Deana and most other Christians.

James 2:9-10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not commit murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law."

Specifically, if we hide our sin in our hearts where no one can see it, God still considers us guilty of it.

Matthew 5:21-22 "You have heard ... 'You shall not commit murder'... but I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court..."

Matthew 5:27-28 "You have heard ... 'You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her as committed adultery already in his heart."

b) Second, what are the practical consequences of the sin, to us and to others?
Answer: it depends on the sin

Example: 1 Cor 6:18 "Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body."

Also, a little common sense will tell you that if I a) hate my brother, or b) murder my brother, then the practical consequences for my brother are quite different in the two cases! (This is why it is important to understand that "adultery in the heart" is not the same as "adultery", and is not grounds for dissolving a marriage.)

This helps explain why "certain sins (i.e., divorce)disqualify people from leadership and other sins do not". It is because certain sins have consequences that affect the leader's ability to lead; for example, one of the requirements for an elder is that he have a good reputation outside the church.

It also explains why it is not quite true that "the only difference between someone who has been divorced and a jealous person is that one is showing their sin outwardly."

c) Third, how severely is the sin judged eternally?
Answer: it depends on the sinner -- his attitude and degree of accountability

Mark 12:38-40 "... Beware of the scribes who ... devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation."

Luke 10:13-14 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago ... it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you."

John 19:11 [Jesus to Pilate] "... You would have no authority over Me, unless you it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin."

James 3:1 "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment."

1 Peter 2:21 "For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them."

See also John 9:39-41, Luke 17:1-2, etc

It seems from these and several other Scriptures as though judgment is more severe for those who are given more opportunity to repent, for those who cause others to stumble, and/or for those who make greater claims to self-righteousness.

d) Fourth, what does the sin reveal about the sinner's spiritual state?
Answer: it depends on the sin

Many Scriptural passages seem to describe a certain type of person as so caught up in sin that we need to be especially wary of him. For example,

Jude 22-23 "And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh."

Other passages are too lengthy for me to quote in this post.

Romans 1:18-32 -- notice the progression from one kind of sin to another

2 Peter 2:9-22 -- notice his description of the complete abandonment of these men to sin

Note: I think the unforgivable sin is an example of d), i.e., the fact that someone commits it tells us they are unwilling to repent. (I believe the unforgivable sin is the lifelong rejection of Jesus as Savior and Lord.)

Feel free to disagree with my understanding of these Scriptures!

Kevin Megill

P.S. My wife reminded me of another important distinction: that between a) unrepentant sin, b) habitual sin repented of after each occurrance and c) sin that someone only falls into occassionally with repentance afterward (i.e. non-habitual). The word "blameless" in the requirements for elders probably refers to being free of any sin of the first two types above. So some of the sins Deana mentioned (gluttony, covetousness, etc..) would legitimately disqualify someone from being an elder if he hadn't repented of them or had no victory overcoming them. In addition some sins of the third type (divorce?) might disqualify a man from being an elder, even though it only happened once and he repented of it afterwards.


Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?

Posted by Dawn Davis on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 10:46 p.m., in response to Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 12:44 a.m.

To all who have contributed to this discussion...

Regarding the question of how I will deal with this: How could I be bitter? :) I have had such interesting dialog with those here and shared thoughts and ideas with you. I have been blessed by this whole situation!! I now know just where I stand on these issues and how this has been carried out. I do disagree for these criteria in this instance, but also see that it is a matter of choice of the leadership and why they made these choices. I have been told that these *may* be changed in the future and I will pray for this to happen if it pleases the Lord. I have a fresh appreciation of both my need for God's forgiveness and thanks that He brought me out of my past and I stand here a new creation. What a joyous experience it has proven to be. I see that I was developing more of a heart for this organization than my home church. God has helped me to see my need for more commitment from me to my church. I prayerfully chose not to participate as a children's leader as was offered but will return to this study next year anxious to learn more!! I know that He has provided precious time for me to minister and love my family and homeschool. I want to attend to these ministries during this season of my life. Who knows where and when God will see fit to use me, but I know that His plans will not be thwarted, though mine often are :D.
Thank you for the insightful and thoughtful responses. You have been most helpful.

In Christ,
--Dawn


Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?

Posted by Peggy on Tuesday, 12 May 1998, at 5:27 a.m., in response to Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 10:46 p.m.

Dawn,

You said: "God has helped me to see my need for more commitment from me to my church."

Praise the Lord! You cannot go wrong with an attitude such as that one. Go Dawn!!

In Christ,
Peggy


Ditto to Kevin's response + one more point of my own!

Posted by joni on Tuesday, 12 May 1998, at 5:57 a.m., in response to Are All Sins Equal, posted by Kevin Megill on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 9:52 p.m.

None of the other sins mentioned involved the breaking of a covenant or solemn oath. Our God is a covenantal God. (Is that a word?!)

Yes, God permits divorce. But, in order to obtain a divorce at least one person must choose to go back on his oath to marry "until death do us part." And as Kevin said, the ramifications to others are certainly more serious for certain sins.

And, yes, often one party to the divorce does not desire it and is really a victim. Unfortunately, even with $10,000 worth of private detectives looking into the matter, church leadership would still be involved in a he said/she said war. Sad, but true.

I was so happy to read your latest message, Dawn! God bless you.

Joni


Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?

Posted by Lisa TX on Tuesday, 12 May 1998, at 6:28 a.m., in response to Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Kate Megill on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 7:19 a.m.

People at my old church used to be politely escorted out for raising their hands. I shudder to think what would have happened had they spoken in tongues!


What a great attitude you have, Dawn! God will surely use you in His way and time! (And probably already is in more ways than you know!) (nt.)

Posted by Tamara Eaton on Wednesday, 13 May 1998, at 12:14 p.m., in response to Re: Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 10:46 p.m.

nt.


Just some thoughts on tongues

Posted by Linda Lee on Thursday, 14 May 1998, at 1:27 p.m., in response to my thoughts on tongues and divorce, posted by joni on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 8:25 a.m.

I come from a very Un-charismatic church, if you can call it that. It is holds scripture to be the inspired word of God and seeks to evangelize. It is a very sound church, but does not practice outward spiritual gifts.

I grew up in the same denomination and never thought much about speaking in tongues.

A friend of mine spoke on this issue with me recently and she got the impression that I didn't "believe in tongues". I explained to her that it wasn't that I didn't believe in it, but that I had seen it used in confusion (and the Bible speaks against that in 1 Cor. 14) and thought that it was misused sometimes. I also told that I believe in anything that God ordained.

Anyway, that very evening, I was praying in my husband's study (he's a pastor)and my conversation with Carol came to mind. I told the Lord, "o.k. if you want me to have this gift of tongues, I'll take it." As I continued to pray my words CHANGED and I was no longer speaking in English (it may have been some kind of Arabic). I felt "filled with the Spirit" (which I am coming to understand is different from being indwelt by the Spirit).

This was an utter surprise to me...and I did a lot of study of the topic, but kept reminding myself that tongues will cease and that is not to be my focus. Christ and His redemptive work on the cross should always be my focus. However, speaking in tongues has been a very edifying experience for me in my devotional times.

Keep studying and allowing the Lord to lead you through it. :o)

In Him,
Linda
ps. I am still uncertain on the issue of marriage and divorce. My husband and I are continuing to study that as well.


sorry, meant to say REmarriage in my last post (nt)

Posted by Linda Lee on Thursday, 14 May 1998, at 1:31 p.m., in response to my thoughts on tongues and divorce, posted by joni on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 8:25 a.m.

nt


Amen Linda, seek the Giver, not the gift.

Posted by Donna G. on Thursday, 14 May 1998, at 3:36 p.m., in response to Just some thoughts on tongues, posted by Linda Lee on Thursday, 14 May 1998, at 1:27 p.m.

Anyone who has ever had questions about different things they see happening need to take it to the Lord as you did. I have gone to the Lord about several things that I've seen and prayed Lord, show me if this is form you or if it's flesh. He is always faithful to answer that kind of prayer, if we are seeking honstly.
In Him
Donna G.


Re: Are All Sins Equal

Posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 16 May 1998, at 11:19 p.m., in response to Are All Sins Equal, posted by Kevin Megill on Monday, 11 May 1998, at 9:52 p.m.

Hi Kevin,

I agree with your assessment of sin but you go on to say..."This helps explain why "certain sins (i.e., divorce)disqualify people from leadership and other sins do not". It is because certain sins have consequences that affect the leader's ability to lead; for example, one of the requirements for an elder is that he have a good reputation outside the church."

Is divorce always sin for *both* individuals? In many (maybe most) cases, one person seeks the divorce leaving an "innocent party" as they say. Is the innocent individual therefore barred from any future leadership within the Church? Can it be said that they have sinned?

William


Effect of divorce on leadership

Posted by Kevin Megill on Sunday, 17 May 1998, at 11:30 a.m., in response to Re: Are All Sins Equal, posted by William Eaton on Saturday, 16 May 1998, at 11:19 p.m.

William,

Part of the statement you quoted from me was itself a quote from a previous poster. On re-reading my own post, I realize I left a wrong impression about my views of divorce and leadership.

Personally, I think divorce is justified (i.e., not a sin), where the other partner has committed adultery, or where the other partner is an unbeliever and leaves voluntarily. If the other partner just SAYS he (or she of course) is a believer, but shows absolutely no evidence of it, and leaves voluntarily, that might be OK too. If one partner is abusive, I am not sure about divorce but I am sure that it's appropriate to call in the authorities and perhaps have the abusive partner jailed!

Regardless, I agree with the thrust of your other post that the priority is to show love to those who've been involved in divorce, to help heal the wounds, without being either judgmental or condescending. But anyone who's been divorced will sooner or later have to come to terms with the divorce, and decide whether they need to repent of sin or simply walk in confidence that there was no sin -- and at that point what they need is truth, not just comfort.

As far as divorce and eldership, there are a lot of questions still out there. What if the elder was divorced but it was Biblically justified? What if the elder was divorced before he was saved? What if he was divorced after he was saved, and it was wrong, but he has since repented? What if his wife was divorced, not him?

My personal opinion (not Kate's) is that in all these cases, he is NOT necessarily disqualified from being an elder. I've heard that the basic thrust of the phrase "the husband of one wife" is to say that the elder must be "a one-woman man" in terms of his character. An elder must be the type of man who is devoted to his wife only. This refers not to his past history but his present attitude and actions. (Kate, on the other hand, does feel that a man who's been divorced since salvation for non-Biblical reasons is barred from eldership).

At the same time, the Scripture also says that the elder must have a good reputation oustide the church -- so I think it IS possible for a person's past history to bar him from OFFICIAL elder-ship in a church (not from ministry). Divorce might play a part in this in some situations.

Also, the Scriptures say that an elder must be "blameless". I take this to mean that a) his life is balanced, with no glaring sins or weaknesses, and b) there is no significant area of unrepentant sin in his life. In the case of a man who had divorced his wife in a way that WAS sin, and refused to acknowledge it as sin, this would disqualify him from being an elder.

Remember, I consider elders to be the same as pastors, so I am assuming this means a man who is involved in determining the spiritual leadership of the church and the content of the doctrine and preaching in the church. If the position of "elder" in some church is instead to be a financial administrator and general custodian, I'd not expect the same standards to be met (that sounds more like a deacon to me).

I have to admit, there are lots of issues here I am not clear on. We have a pastor here who is godly, gifted, and the main reason this church has grown from about 50 members to about 700 in the last 15 years, with lots of evangelism. He and his wife have a wonderful marriage, and their two daughters are models of godly Christian young women. But his grown son is in rebellion against the Lord. The congregation knows this, and oddly it has enhanced his ministry because they know he understands the pain of wayward children. But is he disqualified by Titus 1:6, "having children who believe"? I don't think so, but I'm not sure I can justify my stand. Fortunately it's not my call!

I think a lot of these issues require wisdom and compassion to temper the tendency to regard a list of rules as just a list of rules. (On the other hand, I think most churches are far too lax in their standards of character for leaders.)

Offered in a spirit of humility (I hope),
Kevin Megill


Some other thoughts...

Posted by Melanie - WA on Monday, 18 May 1998, at 1:10 a.m., in response to Is this a Biblical mandate?, posted by Dawn Davis on Saturday, 9 May 1998, at 12:44 a.m.

I, too believe that I know which BS you are discussing and I have attended for 6 years, but have never been in leadership. At first, I saw all of the rules as ridiculous and I truly chaffed under them. I loved the study, however, and I was willing to put up with them.

I have progressed from that point to now seeing the need for very strict guidelines. It is a non-denominational study and both of these issues can be handled so differently by different denominations. Should we not be very careful about causing a sister to stumble? These two issues can be divisive and a stumbling block to respect for authority.

So, the way I see it, it comes down to a submission to authority issue. Are you willing to put yourself under the authority of these women with these guidelines? No one was trying to hurt you, but they are trying NOT to hurt other women.

This study strictly stays in the Word of God. It does not even allow the use of commentaries until after the Holy Spirit has shown you what he wants you to see in it first! I truly believe that they are seeking God in these guidelines.

I pray that you will see the value in their guidelines and make every effort to support the good work they are doing in the lives of those dear, sweet children.


Re: Effect of divorce on leadership

Posted by William Eaton on Monday, 18 May 1998, at 4:58 p.m., in response to Effect of divorce on leadership, posted by Kevin Megill on Sunday, 17 May 1998, at 11:30 a.m.

I agree with your summary, and I apologise for taking your comment out of context. I just breezed in and started responding to notes that looked interesting. I still haven't had the time to read all of the threads (topic discussions) that I would like to jump into, but there's always tomorrow! (Well, maybe I need to check out the rapture thread before being dogmatic about tomorrow!)

William


Re: Effect of divorce on leadership

Posted by William Eaton on Monday, 18 May 1998, at 5:13 p.m., in response to Effect of divorce on leadership, posted by Kevin Megill on Sunday, 17 May 1998, at 11:30 a.m.

Hi Kevin,

You said:

Remember, I consider elders to be the same as pastors, so I am assuming this means a man who is involved in determining the spiritual leadership of the church and the content of the doctrine and preaching in the church. If the position of "elder" in some church is instead to be a financial administrator and general custodian, I'd not expect the same standards to be met (that sounds more like a deacon to me).

Do you believe that the Church has both types of elders --ruling elders and for lack of a better term, general elders (those Godly men that over the years, by their faithfulness, have gained the respect of the Church)?

I believe that, like Israel, who had many "elders" in the latter catagory, and from these, the 70 were chosen to have the oversight and leadership, the Church also has both types.

It's very interesting to do a study on the different words used for the elders and deacons.

I read somewhere that you are interested in Church government? (a subject that I also love) Perhaps we can get into this in the next few weeks!

William


Husband of *one* wife

Posted by William Eaton on Monday, 18 May 1998, at 5:23 p.m., in response to Effect of divorce on leadership, posted by Kevin Megill on Sunday, 17 May 1998, at 11:30 a.m.

You said:

"" I've heard that the basic thrust of the phrase "the husband of one wife" is to say that the elder must be "a one-woman man" in terms of his character.""

I noticed that you didn't mention the culture of the time where having more than one wife would not be unusual. *grin* Do you think that this could have played a role in Paul's comment?

As far as your other questions, I'll need more time to think.... perhaps someone else will jump in with their wisdom?

William