A
AlbertaRose
Guest
I’m wondering if anyone knows of any studies examining the divorce rate among Protestant Ministers.
TIA
AlbertaRose
TIA
AlbertaRose
That is a survey taken 10 years ago …We need a new survey… Trust me, I think the end result would be different.interesting. Thanks for your post!
Not only that but it was of “senior pastors” - those who have passed the test of time as a Pastor as well as in Marriage. In other words, they would not have been “called” by a congregation if they had been divorced thus ending their careers earlier as Pastors (you know, no congregation wants you as their pastor so you can’t be one and must find a different line of workThat is a survey taken 10 years ago …We need a new survey… Trust me, I think the end result would be different.
My parish priest about a month ago, discussed this, and said they are ‘the highest group’ of all people who divorce. I found that astounding.I’m wondering if anyone knows of any studies examining the divorce rate among Protestant Ministers.
TIA
AlbertaRose
Did you ask him where the figures came from? Only I think he’s being misleading. There are divorces, but remember, Protestants don’t have annulments, and, of the three ministers I know of who’ve had divorces, two would have been eligible for annulments. I also hope any discussion of this would also reflect on the moral failings of all clergy - otherwise it seems the discussion would be not quite living up to the message of Matt 7:5.My parish priest about a month ago, discussed this, and said they are ‘the highest group’ of all people who divorce. I found that astounding.
I think the context of which he meant it in, from the vantage point of a priest…is to show why Jesus would have instituted the priesthood over having leaders of the Church allow to marry. I think that’s where he was coming from. Just in speaking about divorces…not annulments…regardless, they are not staying together…that was the main point. And, his conveying of this wasn’t saying that he as a clergyman doesn’t have his own problems, and sins…he was more I think comparing the divorce rates of Protestant ministers as a reason why God would have wanted priests…men married to the Church, so to speak.Did you ask him where the figures came from? Only I think he’s being misleading. There are divorces, but remember, Protestants don’t have annulments, and, of the three ministers I know of who’ve had divorces, two would have been eligible for annulments. I also hope any discussion of this would also reflect on the moral failings of all clergy - otherwise it seems the discussion would be not quite living up to the message of Matt 7:5.
I don’t think the reasoning here makes sense since even Saint Peter was married.I think the context of which he meant it in, from the vantage point of a priest…is to show why Jesus would have instituted the priesthood over having leaders of the Church allow to marry. I think that’s where he was coming from. Just in speaking about divorces…not annulments…regardless, they are not staying together…that was the main point. And, his conveying of this wasn’t saying that he as a clergyman doesn’t have his own problems, and sins…he was more I think comparing the divorce rates of Protestant ministers as a reason why God would have wanted priests…men married to the Church, so to speak.
Hope that clarifies what I was saying…thanks for your reply.
Saint Peter was married but was his wife still alive when he was chosen by Jesus to follow him?I don’t think the reasoning here makes sense since even Saint Peter was married.
He left her behind. It might have been easier for him/her…had he not been married to begin with. Jesus didn’t ask her to join them during their ministry…I’m assuming she had to be left behind then. I have always thought that interesting, that Jesus did select a married man though.I don’t think the reasoning here makes sense since even Saint Peter was married.
I thought she was living, but you could be right, Hell!!Saint Peter was married but was his wife still alive when he was chosen by Jesus to follow him?
We have NO evidence in the Holy Scriptures that indicate she was living. None. His mother in law is mentioned. NO mention of a wife doing anything with Peter, or any one else for that matter. not one mention.I thought she was living, but you could be right, Hell!!
Yeah…so she could have been living…and maybe not. We just don’t know.We have NO evidence in the Holy Scriptures that indicate she was living. None. His mother in law is mentioned. NO mention of a wife doing anything with Peter, or any one else for that matter. not one mention.
We dont know, and that is why I dont accept bible “evidence” to “defend” married clergy with the case of Peter. It is inconclusive.Yeah…so she could have been living…and maybe not. We just don’t know.
oooohhh…Ok I get it now…why you brought that up. Forgive me…I’m a bit slow today.We dont know, and that is why I dont accept bible “evidence” to “defend” married clergy with the case of Peter. It is inconclusive.
The funny thing is, when a single bible verse is being “tossed” at you by anyone to “defend” their postition, be very WARY.oooohhh…Ok I get it now…why you brought that up. Forgive me…I’m a bit slow today.lol
That is a good rebuttal though. I will have to remember that,because this comes up a lot with our Protestant friends who disbelieve the need for The Papacy, and the priesthood.