Sermon Tone Analysis

Over the years as a pastor, I have had to deal with a number of controversial subjects.

Subjects that no matter what position I take, someone is going to disagree with me and is invariably going to make someone angry at me.

Believe it or not, I don’t love dealing with those subjects.

I’ve been out of the pulpit on vacation and then on the mission trip to Honduras.

So, I’m thankful for the fine job that Bro.

Mike did filling the pulpit for me.

But, on stepping back in to the pulpit, I find myself needed to deal with just such a topic.

And, I haven’t really been looking forward to it.

So, let’s make a rule here at the beginning.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with me on this issue, when we leave friends.

I love you.

You love.

We are still one big happy family.

(Some of you are looking like… “I don’t know, it depends on what it is!)

Don’t worry, it’s not any major primary doctrine issue or some issue of heresy.

The issue that I want us to consider is whether the Bible permits or restricts a divorced man from being ordained as a deacon or a pastor.

This is important because we are suppose to start the deacon nomination process in a couple of weeks.

So I’m going to preach on it this morning.

Tonight during church conference, we are going to have a discussion on the issue.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE, JUST DISCUSS.

If it is clear that we have some general consensus and are ready to vote on the issue.

I will call a business meeting for a vote after church on next Sunday morning.

If it is clear that we are overwhelming divided on the issue.

We will have no vote next Sunday.

After a lot of study over this issue for well over a decade I have come to the belief that the Bible never discusses the issue of divorce as it concerns the ordination of deacon or elders.

So, in any discussion of whether the Bible permits divorce and remarriage is a different discussion to whether or not divorce and remarriage restricts a person from ever serving as a deacon or elder.

Some of you are giving me strange looks because many of you have been taught over the years that divorce immediately disqualifies a person from ever being a deacon or an elder.

I get it.

I understand why.

After all our current by-laws say that and go one step further than even that.

Here’s what they say:

“A nominee must not have been divorced and have more than one living wife or a wife who has more than one living husband.”-MGBC

Bylaws

The idea is that we are in covenant with our wives.

And, if we get a legal divorce and remarry, we are still in covenant with our first spouse and therefore have two wives.

And, if we marry someone who is divorce it’s adultery because they are still covenant with their first husband.

I’ve got my own thoughts on divorce and remarriage on what I think the Bible teaches.

But regardless on whatever view you come to on divorce and remarriage, my point is that that issue is not pertinent to the issue of the qualification of an elder or a deacon as a stand alone, litmus test issue.

Let me explain what I mean.

The only real list of qualifications of a deacon or an elder is in 1 Timothy 3:1-13.

Concerning an overseer, which is also called an elder, or a pastor it says,

So, there you go.

It says it right there, a deacon must be the husband of one wife.

(v.2)

He also uses the same phrase when discussing some elder qualifications in Titus 1:6.

And then, concerning deacons, it says:

There is again, what is the problem here?

The problem is what does Paul mean when he says an elder or a deacon must be the “husband of one wife.”

The traditional view of many churches in the Bible belt has been that it means you can’t have more than one living wife, which means you can’t be divorced and remarried.

“So what is so difficult about this.

There it is clear as day.”

The problem is that it is not clear as day.

One is that even the phrase in English is an interpretation.

In the language of the New Testament, Koine Greek doesn’t even have a word for “husband” or a word for “wife.”

In the Greek, this phrase uses three words, “mias gunaikos andres” which is just literally word for word translated “one woman man.”

Whether it means husband or wife is determined by the context.

“one woman man”

Another issue, is if Paul meant “a deacon or elder should never be divorced” why didn’t he just say that?

While there is not a word for husband or wife in Greek, there is a word for “divorce.”

And Paul knew the word.

He used the word several times in 1 Cor.

7:11-13.

Here’s what I know.

That even if we come to different views on the issue, every one here wants our standard to be whatever God meant it to be.

So the whole issue comes down to what a “one woman man” qualification means?

What does Paul mean? Well I’m sure it was clear to Paul and Timothy, but it is certainly not clear to us.

Over the centuries Bible scholars have debated the issue and come to 4 possible categories of options for meanings.

I want us to look at these and discuss each of them.

And then I’m going to propose what camp I’m in.

1.

An elder and deacon must be married.

This kind of makes sense.

If you translate “one woman man” to mean “the husband of one wife,” that seems to require that the man ought to be a husband.

However, the way our by-laws read, our interpretation is inconsistent with that.

If it means you can’t be divorced because you must be the husband of one wife.

It also means then you have to be married.

So right now, our view is inconsistent.

If we are going to say, “one woman man” means “husband of one wife” we should change our by-laws to require both elders and deacons to be married.

The problem with that is, if that is what Paul meant, both Paul and Timothy are disqualified from being elders or deacons.

Neither one of them were married.

Not to mention Jesus.

So that is probably not what he meant.

2.

An elder or deacon should not be a polygamist.

This is the view that a man should not have more than one wife at a time.

This was the view of John Calvin.

The problem with this is while there was some polygamy in the Jewish culture.

Polygamy was never acceptable practice among Christians.

And it was illegal in the Roman Empire.

It wasn’t really a big problem because it was so easy to get a divorce in that culture.

Cultures where it is hard to get a divorce have a lot more issues with polygamy.

Why would a man have more than one wife when he can easily put one away and get another one.

I also don’t think the issue is polygamy because a similar phrase used in 1 Tim.

5:9.

Here Paul lists the qualifications for a widow to be on the widow’s list to be cared for by the church.

Listen to what this says:

That phrase “the wife of one husband” is actually the phrase a “one man woman.”

If you make the phrase, one woman man be about polygamy.

A man having more than one wife.

You have to make the phrase “one man woman” be about polyandry which is one wife having several husbands.

That was never an issue in Judiasm, Christianity, or the Roman Empire.

So, I don’t think Paul’s qualification of a “one woman man” 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 2 has to do with polygamy.

3.

An elder and deacon should only be married only once.

Is it possible that Paul’s qualification of a “one woman man” means he should only have ever been married to one woman no matter whether the reason that he is not married is because his wife has died and he is a widower or whether he has been divorced.