Dealing with divorce.

[ALAYMAN]

... As a pastor, would you request this information in writing or verbally before someone joins your church?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but to try to answer it to the best of my ability (guessing at what I think you mean)....


If the original spouses were remarried (one, or both), making reconciliation impossible, the matter of the church's position on the seriousness of divorce would be discussed (this is only fair to the prospective member), along with a host of other matters and distinctives of our church.  If the persons being interviewed (a more serious sounding word than I intend for the process of talking over matters with them prior to their actual joining) are the guilty party(s) in the divorce then it would be recommended that they attempt to do the right thing regarding making amends with their former spouse(s), as soon as possible (and in a manner which I spoke of in the last post to you).

 

[raised2walk]

... As a pastor, would you request this information in writing or verbally before someone joins your church?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but to try to answer it to the best of my ability (guessing at what I think you mean)....


If the original spouses were remarried (one, or both), making reconciliation impossible, the matter of the church's position on the seriousness of divorce would be discussed (this is only fair to the prospective member), along with a host of other matters and distinctives of our church.  If the persons being interviewed (a more serious sounding word than I intend for the process of talking over matters with them prior to their actual joining) are the guilty party(s) in the divorce then it would be recommended that they attempt to do the right thing regarding making amends with their former spouse(s), as soon as possible (and in a manner which I spoke of in the last post to you).

Thanks for the answer!

Would the guilty party have to furnish proof to the church that attempts at reconciliation (making amends) have been made before they church would allow membership?

I'm only asking because I have never heard of this before. It's taken 5 1/2 years for my ex and I to get where we are today. We have a pretty good relationship *knock on wood*, actually better than many divorced people I know. . .but it's certainly a delicate dance that could change in a heartbeat.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I'm only asking because I have never heard of this before.

Probably because it appears nowhere in the Bible.  The only thing close to it is this:

1 Cor 7:10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

In this case, "reconciled" doesn't mean settling your personal differences.  It means going back to your husband as his wife again. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Would the guilty party have to furnish proof to the church that attempts at reconciliation (making amends) have been made before they church would allow membership?

Good question, and one I hadn't really thought about.  My first inclination is to say no, they wouldn't have to furnish proof they made an effort at reconciliation, but rather take their word for it.  This would be on the basis that they were transparent enough by disclaiming their former relationship status.

I'm only asking because I have never heard of this before. It's taken 5 1/2 years for my ex and I to get where we are today. We have a pretty good relationship *knock on wood*, actually better than many divorced people I know. . .but it's certainly a delicate dance that could change in a heartbeat.

This is good to hear.  Last time we talked about this, if I remember correctly, you and he were not on so good speaking terms, so I'm glad to know things are working out. 

As far as a Biblical rationale for this, just one Scriptural principle....

Matt 5:23 23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

There are others, like "blessed are the peacemakers", "live peaceably with all men", etc.

 

[Castor Muscular]

As far as a Biblical rationale for this, just one Scriptural principle....

Matt 5:23 23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

There are others, like "blessed are the peacemakers", "live peaceably with all men", etc.

So do you apply that to everyone who comes to your church, or just divorced people?  Do you interview everyone to see if they've had a falling out with friends or family or co-workers or neighbors or that guy at the bus stop who's so annoying with his cell phone, and make sure they've reconciled (made amends) with them? 

 

[Torrent v.3]

As far as a Biblical rationale for this, just one Scriptural principle....

Matt 5:23 23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

There are others, like "blessed are the peacemakers", "live peaceably with all men", etc.

So do you apply that to everyone who comes to your church, or just divorced people?  Do you interview everyone to see if they've had a falling out with friends or family or co-workers or neighbors or that guy at the bus stop who's so annoying with his cell phone, and make sure they've reconciled (made amends) with them?

Probably not, because, as you know, Divorce is one of the big sins among fundamentalists.  RIght up there with drinking alcohol, smoking and dancing.  And his application of that verse to divorce is the only one that he would lift up to the point of keeping someone away from the communion table with.

 

[ALAYMAN]

As far as a Biblical rationale for this, just one Scriptural principle....

Matt 5:23 23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

There are others, like "blessed are the peacemakers", "live peaceably with all men", etc.

So do you apply that to everyone who comes to your church, or just divorced people?  Do you interview everyone to see if they've had a falling out with friends or family or co-workers or neighbors or that guy at the bus stop who's so annoying with his cell phone, and make sure they've reconciled (made amends) with them?

Probably not, because, as you know, Divorce is one of the big sins among fundamentalists.  RIght up there with drinking alcohol, smoking and dancing.  And his application of that verse to divorce is the only one that he would lift up to the point of keeping someone away from the communion table with.

When a person comes from another church to ours, attempting to join membership, my pastor makes it known to them that he will contact their former church in order to make sure that the relationship from that church ended amicably.  If it did not, and there are unresolved issues, he recommends that they make things right with their former church, to the best of their ability.  This is a form of reconciliation, not too dissimilar to the nature being suggested regarding divorcees.

 

[Castor Muscular]

As far as a Biblical rationale for this, just one Scriptural principle....

Matt 5:23 23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

There are others, like "blessed are the peacemakers", "live peaceably with all men", etc.

So do you apply that to everyone who comes to your church, or just divorced people?  Do you interview everyone to see if they've had a falling out with friends or family or co-workers or neighbors or that guy at the bus stop who's so annoying with his cell phone, and make sure they've reconciled (made amends) with them?

Probably not, because, as you know, Divorce is one of the big sins among fundamentalists.  RIght up there with drinking alcohol, smoking and dancing.  And his application of that verse to divorce is the only one that he would lift up to the point of keeping someone away from the communion table with.

When a person comes from another church to ours, attempting to join membership, my pastor makes it known to them that he will contact their former church in order to make sure that the relationship from that church ended amicably.  If it did not, and there are unresolved issues, he recommends that they make things right with their former church, to the best of their ability.  This is a form of reconciliation, not too dissimilar to the nature being suggested regarding divorcees.

So the answer is, no, you don't interview everyone who comes to your church to make sure they made amends with everyone with whom they may have had a falling out.  You just interview divorced people about their former marriages.  And, in addition, if they're coming from another church and wish to be members, you check with that former church. 

If you do interview virtually everyone who comes to your church to make sure they have reconciled (made amends) with everyone in their past, feel free to correct me.  Otherwise, your scripture quote is an attempt to deflect criticism for how you handle divorced people in particular, and is unrelated. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

So the answer is, no, you don't interview everyone who comes to your church to make sure they made amends with everyone with whom they may have had a falling out.  You just interview divorced people about their former marriages.  And, in addition, if they're coming from another church and wish to be members, you check with that former church. 

If you do interview virtually everyone who comes to your church to make sure they have reconciled (made amends) with everyone in their past, feel free to correct me.  Otherwise, your scripture quote is an attempt to deflect criticism for how you handle divorced people in particular, and is unrelated.

I'm not the one who does any questioning or meets with prospects, I'm just a deacon.  Matter of fact, the manner in which we admit folk to membership isn't exactly a uniform process, probably because we are a small church and generally speaking,  maybe overly eager to accept folk into membership.  But to answer your question, my pastor probably wouldn't make this sort of thing (divorce) an issue at all with members, other than the fact it would prevent them from holding the office of deacon and (asst pastor).

 

[Castor Muscular]

So the answer is, no, you don't interview everyone who comes to your church to make sure they made amends with everyone with whom they may have had a falling out.  You just interview divorced people about their former marriages.  And, in addition, if they're coming from another church and wish to be members, you check with that former church. 

If you do interview virtually everyone who comes to your church to make sure they have reconciled (made amends) with everyone in their past, feel free to correct me.  Otherwise, your scripture quote is an attempt to deflect criticism for how you handle divorced people in particular, and is unrelated.

I'm not the one who does any questioning or meets with prospects, I'm just a deacon.  Matter of fact, the manner in which we admit folk to membership isn't exactly a uniform process, probably because we are a small church and generally speaking,  maybe overly eager to accept folk into membership.  But to answer your question, my pastor probably wouldn't make this sort of thing (divorce) an issue at all with members, other than the fact it would prevent them from holding the office of deacon and (asst pastor).

Thanks.  I was using the editorial "you".  I didn't assume you, specifically, did the interviewing, although I wouldn't have assumed it was out of the question, either. 

 

[raised2walk]

Good question, and one I hadn't really thought about.  My first inclination is to say no, they wouldn't have to furnish proof they made an effort at reconciliation, but rather take their word for it.  This would be on the basis that they were transparent enough by disclaiming their former relationship status.

Good. Although I don't understand the last sentence. lol!

Like I said, "making amends" is a very personal and ongoing process between divorced people. It's not just a one time, wrapped-in-a-pretty-package-tied-with-a-bow-all-done-now thing.

This is good to hear.  Last time we talked about this, if I remember correctly, you and he were not on so good speaking terms, so I'm glad to know things are working out. 

As far as a Biblical rationale for this, just one Scriptural principle....

Matt 5:23 23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

There are others, like "blessed are the peacemakers", "live peaceably with all men", etc.

Well, thanks! It helps that he's been remarried for awhile AND my fiancee is a very good influence on him. It's a long road, that's for sure. But, there's plenty of light at the end, if you're willing to work at it.

Matt 5:23-24 is not talking about church membership. It is talking about personal giving to God, and that is a big difference. Yes, blessed are the peacemakers. .absolutely! . . but peacemaker is still not church membership criteria. If it was, there are a ton of mean, gossipy women who should be kick out on their well-padded heinies. =D Or at least "disciplined" which never, ever happens.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Good. Although I don't understand the last sentence. lol!

I'm a terrible writer.

I had said This would be on the basis that they were transparent enough by disclaiming their former relationship status, by which I meant that since they revealed their previous marriage and subsequent divorce that they were obviously being forthright and transparent in the interview process, so they should be given the benefit of the doubt about their claims that they had already attempted to make things right to the best of their ability. 

Like I said, "making amends" is a very personal and ongoing process between divorced people. It's not just a one time, wrapped-in-a-pretty-package-tied-with-a-bow-all-done-now thing.

Excellent point.  It's very possible that there might be a breakdown in the process due to lack of reciprocity by one spouse or the other.  If a person tries to make amends and the other rejects the efforts, I think it appropriate to shake the dust off the shoes and move on.  And as you suggest, even when there is communication possible between the wounded parties it may take more than a one time deal.  If both are willing to do what it take, to take the time and effort necessary, then taking baby steps may be the best course of action.

Well, thanks! It helps that he's been remarried for awhile AND my fiancee is a very good influence on him. It's a long road, that's for sure. But, there's plenty of light at the end, if you're willing to work at it.

Congrats on the engagement.

Matt 5:23-24 is not talking about church membership. It is talking about personal giving to God, and that is a big difference. Yes, blessed are the peacemakers. .absolutely! . . but peacemaker is still not church membership criteria. If it was, there are a ton of mean, gossipy women who should be kick out on their well-padded heinies. =D Or at least "disciplined" which never, ever happens.

A lot of folk think that church membership in and of itself is a teaching not found in Scripture, so this is sort of a sticky wicket.  Assuming that a person believes that membership is Biblical, then part of the rationale employed in it is to assure that the prospective member knows what the expectations are for joining, especially if they are adults who have already been members of a church.  Letting them know of expectations protects us AND them.  For instance, our church covenant speaks about those many expecations for members, one of which is the pledge to abstain from recreational use of alcohol.  It would only be right to let prospective members know of such requirements prior to joining so that they wouldn't be put in an uncomfortable situation, or to violate their conscience.

 

[Torrent v.3]

A family who are church members leave your church, backslide and live immorally for a long period of time.  This sort of lifestyle is by and large a pattern for their adult life, though they profess to be saved.  They end up getting divorced.  Years go by and one of the members comes back to your church, married to somebody else.  If they want to become members, do you do anything to determine the circumstances of the divorce, or welcome them as new members no questions asked?

I would at least meet with them and ask for the details, just to make sure there are no strings left hanging, and probably to cover my butt.

 

[raised2walk]

I'm a terrible writer.

I had said This would be on the basis that they were transparent enough by disclaiming their former relationship status, by which I meant that since they revealed their previous marriage and subsequent divorce that they were obviously being forthright and transparent in the interview process, so they should be given the benefit of the doubt about their claims that they had already attempted to make things right to the best of their ability. 

Ah. Ok. Wouldn't their efforts at amends be their own business? I mean, things could be real good with the ex one week and shot to hades the next. Do they need to keep the church updated on all the goings-on after membership (on the good week) so as to avoid church discipline (on the bad week)?

Excellent point.  It's very possible that there might be a breakdown in the process due to lack of reciprocity by one spouse or the other.  If a person tries to make amends and the other rejects the efforts, I think it appropriate to shake the dust off the shoes and move on.  And as you suggest, even when there is communication possible between the wounded parties it may take more than a one time deal.  If both are willing to do what it take, to take the time and effort necessary, then taking baby steps may be the best course of action.

What does "shake the dust off the shoes and move on" mean? Many of us can't until the kids are grown----so there is a potential to always be strife, or flare-ups. Much like a bad case of athlete's foot. Would dealing with my ex's nasty behavior with possibly having to be nasty in return prevent me from being accepted for membership in your church?

Congrats on the engagement.

Now, now, ALAYMAN. . .if I remember correctly, you do not viewing remarriage favorably? =D

A lot of folk think that church membership in and of itself is a teaching not found in Scripture, so this is sort of a sticky wicket.  Assuming that a person believes that membership is Biblical, then part of the rationale employed in it is to assure that the prospective member knows what the expectations are for joining, especially if they are adults who have already been members of a church.  Letting them know of expectations protects us AND them.  For instance, our church covenant speaks about those many expecations for members, one of which is the pledge to abstain from recreational use of alcohol.  It would only be right to let prospective members know of such requirements prior to joining so that they wouldn't be put in an uncomfortable situation, or to violate their conscience.

Do you have a divorce clause in your covenant? Is it penciled in after the NO LIKKER 4 U! clause?  ;D

 

[ALAYMAN]

Ah. Ok. Wouldn't their efforts at amends be their own business?

That's a pretty complicated question.  If both parties were members of the church, and their ongoing relationship issues were known to the church, then I think it's the most prudent and responsible thing to adjudicate the matter within the body of believers.  Paul talked about that sort of thing in regards to Christians judging their own matters rather than having them dealt with by pagans in court.  If only one party was a member in the church and they were not at fault for causing the ongoing strife then I don't see any need for outside parties (church folk) to be involved.

I mean, things could be real good with the ex one week and shot to hades the next. Do they need to keep the church updated on all the goings-on after membership (on the good week) so as to avoid church discipline (on the bad week)?

Church discipline only occurs where there is unrepentant sin.  I'm not sure how the day-to-day and week-to-week nuts and bolts of shared custody would lend itself to any need for discipline. 

What does "shake the dust off the shoes and move on" mean?

It means that you don't make yourself a doormat.  If you've attempted to live peaceably with all men but some men don't want peace and they are bound to cause you misery then it is not unreasonable to limit your exposure to being around such people.

Many of us can't until the kids are grown----so there is a potential to always be strife, or flare-ups. Much like a bad case of athlete's foot. Would dealing with my ex's nasty behavior with possibly having to be nasty in return prevent me from being accepted for membership in your church?

Doubtful.  But if the "flare-up" is actually caused by some sinful attitude and behavior it would be a cause for receiving counsel.  Such incidents are obviously unhealthy for the children who inevitably witness them, so minimizing their intensity is paramount, for the child's sake if not for the spouses.

Now, now, ALAYMAN. . .if I remember correctly, you do not viewing remarriage favorably? =D

You should stop listening to all the haters of the forum.    Short answer.....I believe that a couple should reconcile if possible.  If that is not possible due to one spouse remarrying, then I don't believe it inappropriate to remarry.  Some very good men think that unless the marriage ended due to adultery or abandonment that there should not be a remarriage of the offended divorcee until the scoundrel dies.  I don't believe that though.

Do you have a divorce clause in your covenant? Is it penciled in after the NO LIKKER 4 U! clause?  ;D

There's no divorce clause is in the covenant.  It *is* an unwritten expectation for officers of the church to be "one woman men" (meaning never divorced) based on the founding pastor's view of this subject.  Though I've never made any challenge to that policy, I don't agree with it and have made my opinion known to the leadership of the church.

 

[Castor Muscular]

"one woman men" (meaning never divorced)

LOL

 

[rsc2a]

Ah. Ok. Wouldn't their efforts at amends be their own business?

That's a pretty complicated question.  If both parties were members of the church, and their ongoing relationship issues were known to the church, then I think it's the most prudent and responsible thing to adjudicate the matter within the body of believers.  Paul talked about that sort of thing in regards to Christians judging their own matters rather than having them dealt with by pagans in court.  If only one party was a member in the church and they were not at fault for causing the ongoing strife then I don't see any need for outside parties (church folk) to be involved.

Unless you happen to be Amish...then we'll label you a cult or something.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Church discipline only occurs where there is unrepentant sin.  I'm not sure how the day-to-day and week-to-week nuts and bolts of shared custody would lend itself to any need for discipline. 

What does "shake the dust off the shoes and move on" mean?

It means that you don't make yourself a doormat.  If you've attempted to live peaceably with all men but some men don't want peace and they are bound to cause you misery then it is not unreasonable to limit your exposure to being around such people.[/quote]

No, it doesn't.  :-X

 

[Torrent v.3]

... It *is* an unwritten expectation for officers of the church to be "one woman men" (meaning never divorced) based on the founding pastor's view of this subject.  Though I've never made any challenge to that policy, I don't agree with it and have made my opinion known to the leadership of the church....

"one woman man* does not mean never divorced. It means a man who is faithful to one woman.  The word divorce is not in the context, and you cannot prove it from correlation with 1 Tim 5:9, because they are talking about totally different contexts.

 

[ALAYMAN]

"one woman man* does not mean never divorced. It means a man who is faithful to one woman.  The word divorce is not in the context, and you cannot prove it from correlation with 1 Tim 5:9, because they are talking about totally different contexts.

Well, as I said in my post that you quoted, I don't agree with those who say unequivocably that a divorced and remarried man is automatically and permanently disqualified by the "husband of one wife" Scripture.  I will say however that it is not as simple as you are making it out to be and that historical data reveals that significant numbers of Christians and commentators believed divorce was a disqualifying factor.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I just heard RC Sproul say that he believes "the husband of one wife" qualification is primarily contextually in regards to a prohibition against polygamy, and that it is not an absolute exclusion of divorced people (as he cited legitimate divorces due to adultery or abandonment as exceptions to the rule) but that the passage certainly *may* be fairly understood to prohibit people from the office based on their potential lack of character as it relates to the dissolution of the marital relationship. 

That Sproul is such an Xer.