The Narrow Path Ministries

There is an elder (I'll refer to him as "elder Joe") seeking advice on a question regarding divorce/remarriage and the qualifications for being an elder.

The precipitating issue for him is the issue of divorce and subsequent remarriage. As in many churches today, there are many members in his who have been divorced and remarried in their past. They have come to Christ, been forgiven, and are Christians in his view, although he is not knowledgeable about many details of their past. Some of them have become deacons, and one of his fellow elders was divorced and remarried before becoming a Christian. This particular church has been lax in its teaching regarding divorce.

Now there is a move on in his church to elect as an elder a man who has been in the church for many years (15-20). He was married, divorced, and remarried when he and his wife at the time began attending the church. Many years ago he and this second wife divorced. Elder Joe had heard his wife felt he did not treat her son, from a previous marriage, right. She initially wanted a divorce, then to reconcile, and then he had "had enough" and wanted to divorce her, and did. Their pastor at the time, a man the elder Joe highly respected, had tried to counsel them. The man asked if he would lose his salvation over the divorce, to which the pastor replied that he was very close to it.

After this divorce, the man kept attending the church. Soon enough, he found another woman to become his third wife. They married and she became a member of the church. Elder Joe has never been convinced the man had proper grounds for divorcing wife #2. After some time, marriage #3 began to crumble. Others in the church were involved in counselling the couple; elder Joe was not. He heard, second hand, that wife #3 felt her husband ignored her needs. She had an affair. Elder Joe has been informed that the husband was willing to forgive her and save the marriage, and she was not willing, and also that she wanted to reconcile. Whatever the truth is, the marriage resulted in divorce.

A few years back, the man met and married wife #4. They seem happily married. Now he is seen by those close to him as a changed man. Elder Joe has been told by some of the other elders that the man is spiritual and has grown greatly as a Christian. That he was not really a Christian all those years, just a seeker, but now he is, and shows that he is sincere. That the man must be forgiven; we must not be judgemental.

Another arguement the supporters of this man have advanced is that of the requirements Paul gives for an elder, the only one referring to the past rather than present is the requirement that the man must not be a new believer.

All the elders, except elder Joe, are in favor of this man becoming an elder. Elder Joe is at the point of leaving the church he has been a member of for many years because of this issue. He believes that although the man may have sincerely repented and been forgiven, there are many other ways he can serve, and that the man is not now qualified to be an elder. Elder Joe believes he must leave in peace and does not want to cause division, which would be difficult to avoid because of his conviction regarding this matter.

My view of the matter, and my counsel, is that no matter whether the man has repented and been forgiven, and regardless of whether "husband of one wife" means no more than being true to his present wife as some contend, at least three interellated factors should remove the man from consideration as an elder:

1. He must be "above reproach". His treatment of his former wive(s) is questionable, and there was no suggestion of adultery by wife #2.

2. He must have a record of having managed his family relationships well. He does not have a record of success in this, but one that a least implies repeated failure. How then can he be expected to succeed at the much larger responsibility of shepherding a congregation?

3. The "husband of one wife" standard. Although sincere Christans may disagree over the meaning of this text, it was argued that the meaning is "not a womanizer". This I reject on the grounds that not being a womanizer is a requirment for all Christians. The phrase must mean more than this.

I believe elder Joe must follow his conviction.

How would you advise elder Joe?

In my opinion Elder Joe was right to be against the appointment of this man to the role of elder. But, that being said, I think Elder Joe may be incorrect in his decision to leave the church. The church needs MORE people like Elder Joe, not LESS. I think the tendency is, far too often, to leave a problem church rather than stay and be a conscience and a change agent. Yes, the church should have identified a more ideal candidate for the role of elder, but the man IS showing evidence of true discipleship. It would be different if they were appointing an obvious non-Christian (I'd leave over THAT too). But I'd stay in this situation.

mattrose wrote:In my opinion Elder Joe was right to be against the appointment of this man to the role of elder. But, that being said, I think Elder Joe may be incorrect in his decision to leave the church. The church needs MORE people like Elder Joe, not LESS. I think the tendency is, far too often, to leave a problem church rather than stay and be a conscience and a change agent. Yes, the church should have identified a more ideal candidate for the role of elder, but the man IS showing evidence of true discipleship. It would be different if they were appointing an obvious non-Christian (I'd leave over THAT too). But I'd stay in this situation.

Would you counsel him to step down from eldership?

Ask Elder Joe to step down? Or the man in question?

If you're referring to Elder Joe, no. The church needs a man like him. I think it is a mistaken notion that everyone on a board should agree or there is some spiritual problem. I think disagreement is often an avenue toward health. Elder Joe should be valued as a passionate voice.

If you're referring to the man in question, I think Elder Joe would do well to have a good conversation with the man. Maybe the man would be willing to step down if Elder Joe explained the problems in a godly way. More likely not. But that doesn't render the conversation worthless. I think Elder Joe should voice his concern and submit to the decision of the larger body. Time may prove him right. And it'd be a shame if he was gone at that point.

Sorry if I misunderstood your question.

mattrose wrote:Ask Elder Joe to step down? Or the man in question?

If you're referring to Elder Joe, no. The church needs a man like him. I think it is a mistaken notion that everyone on a board should agree or there is some spiritual problem. I think disagreement is often an avenue toward health. Elder Joe should be valued as a passionate voice.

If you're referring to the man in question, I think Elder Joe would do well to have a good conversation with the man. Maybe the man would be willing to step down if Elder Joe explained the problems in a godly way. More likely not. But that doesn't render the conversation worthless. I think Elder Joe should voice his concern and submit to the decision of the larger body. Time may prove him right. And it'd be a shame if he was gone at that point.

Sorry if I misunderstood your question.

I did mean Elder Joe, though I agree with the need for him to go to the other man. If I were an elder, I would expect not to have perfect agreement among the eldership on all things, but something as fundamental as qualifications for eldership, I would expect to be on the same page with them. I would not step down unless I could do so without controversy within the church body, but I think disrupting the elders themselves by such an act might be a worthwhile effort if it could be done without corporate controversy. I do share your position on the need to have such men in the eldership, but I am also not really sure how I would handle it if it were me.

I guess the way I see it, Elder Joe would be a 'disruption' provoking contemplation ONCE if he stepped down, but may be a positive 'disruption' dozens of times if he continues to speak up for a higher standard.

mattrose wrote:I guess the way I see it, Elder Joe would be a 'disruption' provoking contemplation ONCE if he stepped down, but may be a positive 'disruption' dozens of times if he continues to speak up for a higher standard.

You're probably right.

I see the whole matter as revolving around one’s view of as to how to deal with sin. I think it is related to how we understand the manner in which God deals with sin. Does God punish for past sin, or does God work toward the correction of present sin? If we opt for the first, we will tend to want to make a sinner, such as this prospective elder pay for his past sin. One of the ways to make him pay is to deny him the oversight of the church. If we opt for the second, then what is important is the present state of heart of the prospective elder. If he has repented truly and been delivered from this sin, then he qualifies to be an elder. It seems that elder Joe opts for making people pay for past sin, while the other elders opt for dealing with people according to their present state or condition. Paul and Peter both taught that the very purpose of Christ’s death was to we might die to present sin, no longer serve ourselves but Him, that He died to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds, and that Jesus came to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. We may notice that each of these reasons for Jesus’ death is to correct our present nature, not to deal with our past sin.

However, regardless of which of the two we opt for, we may not be convinced that the prospective elder has truly been changed, and we may be concerned that he might be incapable of being an effective overseer and that he will harm the flock if placed in that position. If we are not convinced that he has truly changed, we may require a certain period of time in which he proves himself, that is, demonstrates that he has been delivered from the selfish attitudes which accompany the act of marrying a woman and then throwing her away when she is no longer useful or when she displeases him.

I’m no sure how everyone views forgiveness, but I see it as a restoration of broken relationships. Jesus said that if a man sins against you seven times in a day and says, “I repent”, forgive him. I must admit that if someone did that to me, I would start to wonder, around the 6th or 7th time whether his repentance were sincere. Yet Jesus asks us to take the man at his word. It seems that Jesus didn’t require that we suspend forgiveness until the man first proved that his repentance was genuine.

Concerning Homer’s reasons for not considering the man as an elder:

1. He must be "above reproach". His treatment of his former wive(s) is questionable, and there was no suggestion of adultery by wife #2.

If the man is PRESENTLY above reproach or not open to censure, he meets one of the qualifications of being an elder. Whether he is above reproach for his past sins is not in question here.

2. He must have a record of having managed his family relationships well. He does not have a record of success in this, but one that a least implies repeated failure. How then can he be expected to succeed at the much larger responsibility of shepherding a congregation?

Paul didn’t write that he must have a record of HAVING managed his family relationships well. Rather Paul wrote:

He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way.

The question isn’t about the man’s past record, but about his present performance! Is he managing his household well NOW? Does he keep his children submissive and respectful NOW? If he does, then he meets this criterion for becoming an elder.

3. The "husband of one wife" standard. Although sincere Christans may disagree over the meaning of this text, it was argued that the meaning is "not a womanizer". This I reject on the grounds that not being a womanizer is a requirment for all Christians. The phrase must mean more than this.

I also reject that the meaning is “not a womanizer”. I think the meaning is “not a polygamist”. Although today, Christians (at least in North America) are all monogamists, I don’t think this was the case in Paul’s day.

God makes clear through Ezekiel that He judges people according to their present characters rather than their past sins or their past righteousness:

"… if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord GOD, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

"Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies.

"Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair? Ezekiel 18:21-29 NKJV


In summary, I would advise elder Joe to recognize that God deals with present sinful natures not with past sin, and that we should do likewise. Elder Joe should listen to the reasons his fellow elders give for including the man in the eldership, and if he feels the man has truly repented and been delivered from his sinful tendencies in regard to marrying and throwing away his wives to marry another, then he should consider him for eldership on the basis of his present character, and to give no thought at all with regard to his past sinful actions.

Hi Paidion,

Regarding the man in question in the original post:

Many years ago he and this second wife divorced. Elder Joe had heard his wife felt he did not treat her son, from a previous marriage, right. She initially wanted a divorce, then to reconcile, and then he had "had enough" and wanted to divorce her, and did.

Let us say this man becomes an elder. How could he counsel, or what could his testimony be, if one of the flock is considering divorcing his/her spouse because her sees the spouse as difficult and has "had enough" of him or her? What could he say regarding the sanctity of marriage? Or the vows made before God and man to be faithful "for better or worse"? It would seem his credibility would be zero.

You wrote:

However, regardless of which of the two we opt for, we may not be convinced that the prospective elder has truly been changed, and we may be concerned that he might be incapable of being an effective overseer and that he will harm the flock if placed in that position. If we are not convinced that he has truly changed, we may require a certain period of time in which he proves himself, that is, demonstrates that he has been delivered from the selfish attitudes which accompany the act of marrying a woman and then throwing her away when she is no longer useful or when she displeases him.

Good point. I have considered this also. Considering his history of repeated divorce/remarriage, how much time do you feel would be needed? I'm thinking perhaps ten years. It would be a very bad thing to place him as an elder and then have another divorce.

You wrote:

I’m no sure how everyone views forgiveness, but I see it as a restoration of broken relationships. Jesus said that if a man sins against you seven times in a day and says, “I repent”, forgive him.

I do not see it as a matter of forgiveness at all. The man has done nothing to elder Joe, who feels no personal offense. It is simply a matter of having a credible testimony as an elder. There are many other ways he can serve.

If the man is PRESENTLY above reproach or not open to censure, he meets one of the qualifications of being an elder. Whether he is above reproach for his past sins is not in question here.

I have heard this "present condition" argument before but I am not at all sure what is meant. Except for what the person is doing at this moment, everything he has done is in the past; it is history. How recent do you mean?

Thanks and God bless, Homer

Greetings Homer:

You wrote:Let us say this man becomes an elder. How could he counsel, or what could his testimony be, if one of the flock is considering divorcing his/her spouse because her sees the spouse as difficult and has "had enough" of him or her? What could he say regarding the sanctity of marriage? Or the vows made before God and man to be faithful "for better or worse"? It would seem his credibility would be zero.

On the assumption that the other elders were correct in their assessment of the man, that is, that he has repented ( had a change of mind and heart), and that his outlook is now quite different --- a regeneration, you might say, he is now able to counsel such a person. Supposedly he now believes deeply in the sanctity of marriage. If he has truly changed in character, and people of the church recognize this, then no longer would his credibility be zero. On the other hand, if the evidence is that he has not been truly changed by the grace of God, then there is every reason not to permit him to become an elder.

Good point [Giving the man a period of time in which to prove himself]. I have considered this also. Considering his history of repeated divorce/remarriage, how much time do you feel would be needed? I'm thinking perhaps ten years. It would be a very bad thing to place him as an elder and then have another divorce.

I would say, that if there is any doubt that the man has truly changed, then he should be given whatever time it takes until the church is convinced that a genuine change has taken place.
I wouldn't put a figure on it, such as your suggestion of ten years. What if the reality of his repentance becomes obvious in 6 months?

Some people who hold the view that a person "must pay" for his sins would not find the person acceptable as an elder even after 10 years. Do you think you and/or elder Joe would? I know one man who was involved in great sexual sin about 30 years ago. Since that time the man repented, really began to serve the Lord, and had a good reputation in the community. Recently his children found out about his sin and made it known to the community. Now nearly all of his relatives ostracize the man. What does it take to free the man from his past? Apparently nothing as long as his relatives allow the man's past to break their relationship with him, and refuse to forgive him.

I do not see it as a matter of forgiveness at all. The man has done nothing to elder Joe, who feels no personal offense. It is simply a matter of having a credible testimony as an elder. There are many other ways he can serve.

Elder Joe may feel no personal offence. But hasn't the man sinned against the whole church also? Obviously the man's relationship with some (at least with elder Joe) has been broken in some way. Joe does not see the man as truly changed. He does not trust him to be true to his wife and not throw her away as he did with his previous wives. When Joe is able to see that the man has truly repented and changed, he needs to forgive him. My understanding of forgiveness is a mending of broken relationships in such a way that as far as those relationships go, it's just as if the man had never sinned. Isn't that the way God forgives us? He doesn't remember the sin which He forgives (doesn't hold it against us). It's as far away as the east is from the west. Is that not the way we need to regard the past sin of those whom we forgive?

I have heard this "present condition" argument before but I am not at all sure what is meant. Except for what the person is doing at this moment, everything he has done is in the past; it is history. How recent do you mean?

I see what you mean, Homer. Even if our sin took place 30 seconds ago, it is in the past. A man's present condition is what he is at this instant. The problem is that none of us know the present condition of any other person. So WE may require a period of time by which to judge his present condition. To my mind, I would think of the actions of a man during the last year (365 days) might be sufficient to make this judgment. On the other hand, God may reveal to the church the true state of the man's present condition so that this period of time is unnecessary.

Upon what basis have the "other elders" judged that the man's present condition before the Lord is right?