Protestant Pastors Who Marry and Divorce (And Remarry!)

[ignatius777]

Could you please sing it or at least hum a few bars?

I order to prevent your ears from bleeding and in order to maintain the standards of good taste I must respectfully refrain from fulfilling your request. My apologies but you’ll thank me in the long run. LOL

 

[adelore]

I don’t believe a Pastor should be a Woman in the first place. This is not to say that a Woman can’t be a good “helper” or “teacher” of some kind in the Church.

The Bible is Very Clear that only Men should be Pastors and or Decons. To be a Decon, Having been married only Once, a man of but One Wife.

I don’t agree that a Priest/Pastor has to be married in order to “Counsel” married couples. After all just take a look at all the Professional Counselors out there that people pay to go to…either with their children or as a married couple. Some of these same Counselors don’t even have children or are even married themselves, yet society accpets that because they went to College have a degree, then it’s ok.

Our Priest, have a lot of training in these areas as well, not to mention, they all have “familes” in the Church, they learn from, and all of them have grown up in Famlies, they have relatives, so it’s not like they are in a box, away from society and have no idea on what’s going on. So being “Married” isn’t really necessary for them to be a Great Counslor.

Jesus wasn’t married and yet His Words of Wisdom about Children and Marriage, we take to heart.

Again, Women should Not be a Pastor or a Priest. And a Married Woman? Nope notta! Christ is the head of the Church, a Man is the head of the woman and the family. A Woman Pastor is just going against the Bible! (I didn’t write the Bible and I don’t mean to offend anyone who has a Woman Pastor in their Church…but the Bible clear states this.)

When mankind starts to “change” or go against the Bible and What the Word of God says…then we end up with a mess. Look at the world today, we took the Bible out of Schools, then we allowed Woman Pastors, now we are allowing Same Sex Marriages…Society in General has no Morrals…and why? Because we (society in general) thinks that “little changes” or “that’s not really what God ment” doesn’t matter. The Word of God is the Word of God, and it can’t be changed.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe a Pastor should be a Woman in the first place. This is not to say that a Woman can’t be a good “helper” or “teacher” of some kind in the Church.

Indeed. For a priest/pastor is not essentially about what he does, but *who he is, *ontologically. For, to be sure, a woman can “do” all the things that a priest does: she can say the words of consecration, she can preach and teach, she can counsel and give great insights, she can manage a parish. Perhaps even better than any man ever could.

However, being a priest is, of course, not about the job. It is not the same thing as a protestant minister. For, again, a woman could do all the things a protestant minister does. Which is why I have no objection to female Protestant ministers. They can do the same thing a man does.

A man, once ordained, is changed forever. What existed 30 seconds prior to his ordination exists no more. His soul, his ontological being, is change eternally, into a priest.

 

[PLeeD]

… are you saying that protestants are just blowing Jesus off when he declares that “what God has joined together, let no man tear apart…?”

That might be what he’s saying, but it would be wrong, at least in the case of the Assemblies of God.

I could as easily say that Catholics are blowing Jesus off when He says “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” [Matthew 5:32]

Jesus declared an exception that allows for divorce that the Catholic church ignores. Not only does He say it in Matt 5:32, he repeats it in Matt 19:9.

So who is it really that isn’t following the direct word of Jesus, Catholics, or protestants?

If you are really interested in understanding, you can read more on the AoG position on divorce and remarriage look here. I think it’s fairly mainstream thought for protestants in general:

ag.org/top/beliefs/topics/relations_09_div_remarr.cfm

 

[Erich]

I thought, how could a priest counsel married men and women if he has never experienced this? Surely a married priest could understand his congregation better.

Experiencing a marriage certainly helps, and in more ways than one. … Personal experience helps, but it’s not everything.

My wife and I were married by a priest, who obviously was never married, whose opionon about marital communication I would accept without hesitation.

I’ve been thinking about this too and I’m in agreement with the idea that a married priest is likely to be a much better counselor for married people than a priest who has no personal experience of marriage.

As if most priests didn’t grow up in – or have siblings/cousins/friends who grew up in – two-parent households headed by married parents! Of course priests have personal experience of marriage – just not their own!

Besides, the selfless giving and love of chaste priests is something that married couples – especially men — would do well take as an example. Consider that a celibate priest sacrifices sexual love for the sake of His Bride, the Church; therefore, the example of his love does not use the other as an object. What better example is there of what married love is supposed to be like?

This seems to conform well with what the Bible says. Requiring men who would be clergy to remain celebate is not commanded in the Bible, though it’s spoken of.

It’s more than simply “spoken of.” From Celibacy and the Priesthood, So far from “commanding” marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:8-9).

It is only because of this “temptation to immorality” (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their “conjugal rights” (7:3); he specifically clarifies, “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, “better” than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, “If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom”:

“Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Matt. 19:11–12).

Here are 10 reasons why a celibate clergy makes sense.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus declared an exception that allows for divorce that the Catholic church ignores. Not only does He say it in Matt 5:32, he repeats it in Matt 19:9

This is a mistranslation.

Clearly, Jesus wouldn’t have offered the “exception clause” for adultery. For as He knew human nature so well, He knew that all anyone would need to do to divorce “licitly” would be to commit adultery.

How much would that make sense?

Of course Jesus did not state that you can divorce if you commit adultery. That’s absurd.

And until the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Christian church believed that no one could divorce even if he committed adultery. They understood Jesus’ words in the same way that the CC understands them today: porneia,"meaning an attempted relationship within forbidden degrees of kinship, i.e., incest.

 

[qui_est_ce]

This is a mistranslation.

Clearly, Jesus wouldn’t have offered the “exception clause” for adultery. For as He knew human nature so well, He knew that all anyone would need to do to divorce “licitly” would be to commit adultery.

How much would that make sense?

Of course Jesus did not state that you can divorce if you commit adultery. That’s absurd.

And until the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Christian church believed that no one could divorce even if he committed adultery. They understood Jesus’ words in the same way that the CC understands them today: porneia,"meaning an attempted relationship within forbidden degrees of kinship, i.e., incest.

Isn’t this because Pagans didn’t have valid marriages, had concubines etc.? This way, if a person converted to Christianity, but was in a pagan relationship, they would be allowed to divorce (but not remarry).

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t this because Pagans didn’t have valid marriages, had concubines etc.? This way, if a person converted to Christianity, but was in a pagan relationship, they would be allowed to divorce (but not remarry).

I don’t know that I’ve ever heard this, but it certainly makes sense!

What most assuredly does NOT make sense is thinking that Jesus said we could divorce if we commit adultery. That only gives everyone a license to commit another mortal sin, no?

 

[Dokimas]

As if most priests didn’t grow up in – or have siblings/cousins/friends who grew up in – two-parent households headed by married parents! Of course priests have personal experience of marriage – just not their own!

Besides, the selfless giving and love of chaste priests is something that married couples – especially men — would do well take as an example. Consider that a celibate priest sacrifices sexual love for the sake of His Bride, the Church; therefore, the example of his love does not use the other as an object. What better example is there of what married love is supposed to be like?

It’s more than simply “spoken of.” From Celibacy and the Priesthood, So far from “commanding” marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:8-9).

It is only because of this “temptation to immorality” (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their “conjugal rights” (7:3); he specifically clarifies, “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (7:6-7, emphasis added).

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, “better” than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, “If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom”:

“Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Matt. 19:11–12).

Here are 10 reasons why a celibate clergy makes sense.

It does make sence but it’s NOT a Bible mandate as the CC makes it. Have you compared the amount of verses for celebacy with the amount of verses of church leaders and their families? It may be an interesting comparison.

Both are Biblically acceptable to put it mildly; neither are Biblically frowned upon, again to put it mildly.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t know that I’ve ever heard this, but it certainly makes sense!

What most assuredly does NOT make sense is thinking that Jesus said we could divorce if we commit adultery. That only gives everyone a license to commit another mortal sin, no?

I heard this in a Jeff Cavins Bible study. Jeff knows koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. I’m trying to look it up, but having some trouble finding anything on the internet. I believe the Greeks and Romans allowed marriage between blood relatives, like cousins. In1 Corinthians 5, Paul refers to someone who married his fathers wife.

Paul also talks about being unequally yoked. [BIBLEDRB]2 cor 6:14[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[qui_est_ce]

I heard this in a Jeff Cavins Bible study. Jeff knows koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. I’m trying to look it up, but having some trouble finding anything on the internet. I believe the Greeks and Romans allowed marriage between blood relatives, like cousins. In1 Corinthians 5, Paul refers to someone who married his fathers wife.

Paul also talks about being unequally yoked. [BIBLEDRB]2 cor 6:14[/BIBLEDRB]

Haydock’s commentary on the above verse

Bear not the yoke together with unbelievers. He does not mean, that they must wholly avoid their company, which could not be done, but not to have too intimate a friendship with them, not to marry with them, to avoid their vices. Be ye separate . . . touch not the unclean thing. **He does not speak of meats, clean and unclean, according to the law of Moses, nor of legal uncleannesses, **but what is sinful under the new law of Christ, and would defile the soul, as idolatry, fornication, &c. Wi.

 

[PRmerger]

Haydock’s commentary on the above verse

Interesting. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Erich]

It does make sence but it’s NOT a Bible mandate as the CC makes it.

The Catholic Church does not mandate celibacy. Again, from Celibacy and the Priesthood:
In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They “renounce marriage” (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: “But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge” (5:11–12).

This “first pledge” broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns.

 

[Dokimas]

The Catholic Church does not mandate celibacy. Again, from Celibacy and the Priesthood:
In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They “renounce marriage” (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

But is there scriptural precedent for this practice of restricting membership in a group to those who take a voluntary vow of celibacy? Yes. Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: “But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge” (5:11–12).

This “first pledge” broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns.

A rose by any other name is still … Sorry.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Jews do not believe the New Testament, where that passage is found, is part of God’s revelation, Sister Amy.

So God allowed something at one time, and then didn’t allow it later, is what you’re saying.

Divorce was abrogated, so to speak.

 

[PRmerger]

So God allowed something at one time, and then didn’t allow it later, is what you’re saying.

Divorce was abrogated, so to speak.

Yes.

Like God at one time advocated animal sacrifices, and now he doesn’t.

God did allow polygamy, and now he doesn’t.

It wasn’t until God’s revelation was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Divine Word made Flesh, that we came to understand the fullness of Truth.

 

[benidict]

So God allowed something at one time, and then didn’t allow it later, is what you’re saying.

Divorce was abrogated, so to speak.

just to add to what PR said. divorce was given, due to the hardness of their hearts. do you not find it good, that Jesus, put many more restrictions on it? especially in an age, when if a woman did not have a husband, her options were very limited. and quite frightning too. what is wrong with Christ, putting more value on Marriage, and also women? Peace

 

[manualman]

That might be what he’s saying, but it would be wrong, at least in the case of the Assemblies of God.

I could as easily say that Catholics are blowing Jesus off when He says “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” [Matthew 5:32]

Jesus declared an exception that allows for divorce that the Catholic church ignores. Not only does He say it in Matt 5:32, he repeats it in Matt 19:9.

So who is it really that isn’t following the direct word of Jesus, Catholics, or protestants?

Actually, I’m interested enough to have previously investigated your assertion. You most likely already know the bible wasn’t written in English, so translators have a big impact on how text is read. Many protestants translate that passage as roughly “except for the cause of adultery”. I haven’t seen your version before, which is it?

But the word here (IIRC) is “pornea” and does NOT directly translate to either adultery OR fornication. Most precisely, that translates as “sexual perversion” (you can see the root word of “pornography” in there). The best scholarship on that verse is that Paul is making an exception for pagan converts married prior to conversion in a “marriage” that by its nature could not be sacramental, such as incest, polygamy or other such inherently immoral relationships.

As usual, Scripture doesn’t conflict with the catholic teaching at all. In such cases, there is no sacramental marriage in the first place, so there is no barrier to a CIVIL divorce and subsequent sacramental marriage.

Remember, Jesus didn’t say “Whoever dresses up fancy, says I DO and has a big party afterwards, let no man tear apart…” He says “Who GOD has joined…” By the very words he said, it is necessary to figure out who God has joined and who He hasn’t.

 

[Erich]

A rose by any other name is still … Sorry.

Except that this is not “a rose by another name.”

Jesus commanded the Apostles to teach all and to baptize. He did not command them to marry all and/or to ordain all… and neither does His Church.

I don’t know any seminarians who are in the seminary at gunpoint.

 

[Dokimas]

Except that this is not “a rose by another name.”

Jesus commanded the Apostles to teach all and to baptize. He did not command them to marry all and/or to ordain all… and neither does His Church.

I don’t know any seminarians who are in the seminary at gunpoint.

I know I’m not going to persuade you that we’re looking at a ‘rose’. If those seminarians have to pledge celebacy to be a priest, it’s a rose, which for those that believe they are called to be a priest, it’s a gun.