Protestant Pastors Who Marry and Divorce (And Remarry!)

[Reuben_J]

Why does it make you weep? Did you used to be Orthodox or something?

Perhaps for the fact that they allow three marriages, two divorces, and contraception?

 

[Reuben_J]

Pre-nuptial seminar can cover topic like:

• Christian marriage
• Communication in marriage
• Christian husband
• Christian wife
• Parenting

And yes, I forgot another important topic - Christian sexuality.

Obviously one would need married people who are experienced and expert in those subjects to give the seminar. But there is always a role for priest, like who best can speak on Christian marriage, or in the area of healing and repentance when necessary?

 

[dzheremi]

The sad fact is that the Eastern Orthodox allow three marriages, two divorces, and contraception (the latter does not concern this thread). It makes me weep. I’ve never looked into the Oriental Orthodox. Does anyone know?

Jim Dandy

I’m not sure about the others, but the Coptic Orthodox Church does not allow divorce. This has actually been a huge issue recently in Egypt and the wider Middle East, as it is assumed by the media there (and unfortunately also in the West, which apparently uncritically repeats whatever rumor is presented to them) that the two women that Islamists falsely claim are being “held hostage” by the Church, Wafa Constantine and Camelia Shehata, converted to Islam to escape their marriage problems with their Christian husbands. Of course the truth is that neither of them actually converted to Islam for this or any other reason, but such things are not unknown to happen since the Church is very strict in not allowing divorce. There was also a lot of tension between the state authorities and the Church when last year the Egyptian courts granted civil divorces to some Copts who were dissatisfied with the fact they could not get divorces. It led to protests by Copts who want the state to stay out of how the church runs its affairs, as certainly the Egyptian state would not intentionally violate Islamic law in a similar manner.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I just wanted to open a friendly discussion about what you guys think about a leader of a church getting married. Obviously it is widely known that Catholic priests generally do not marry (and certainly do not divorce or remarry). For a long time I thought this seemed unfair (the getting married part, not the divorcing part). 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.

Then I met a very kind and knowledgeable United Methodist Pastor who was not only married, divorced, and remarried but also a woman. I respect this woman, and I have attended many of her church services. She does well with her work, and I do not doubt her faith. However, it is hard for me to see her as role model. I do not know the reasons for her divorce, and I know the Methodists do not view divorce in the same way as Catholics. However, I personally believe marriage is a contract between two people to love each other unconditionally and remain together until death. If you don’t think you can do this, you shouldn’t get married in the first place. I understand that people get divorced every day, and there are many good reasons. However, I believe that if you love someone when you are married, you can work things out in almost every situation.

So I guess the question is, should someone who has been divorced and remarried be a Pastor? To me a pastor or a priest is a man or woman of God, someone who is to lead a pure life and set an example for the congregation, the people who look up to them.

Is marriage impure? Is it bad for Catholics to get married? Such that they’re supposed to follow the example of someone forbidden to do so?

 

[cooterhein]

Rather I would guess that most of them (perhaps not explicitly) end up accepting the meat of the catholic understanding of marriage and the potential for an apparent marriage NOT to have accomplished the status of “what God has joined.”

I think Protestants do things a little differently with annulments, in that we usually don’t do annulments. When approaching the possibility of a divorce, the question on the Protestant mind usually has something to do with whether or not you’re looking at adequate grounds for divorce. The thought of declaring it invalid from the beginning is one that doesn’t usually even show up in the Protestant awareness, and for the Protestants who spend time thinking about it at all, many of them wonder why it even makes sense to consider such a possibility. Especially when a marriage results in children, the marriage is annulled and regarded as invalid from the beginning, and the children are still considered legitimate. When that happens, it seems that considerable skill in the art of doublethink is practically a requirement.

I would guess that it depends on denomination as to whether each person decides for him/herself if there was a defect and that the putative marriage was null (though unlikely in those words) or whether there is a denominational structure that assists in this discernment.

Not only will you not see those words, I don’t think you’ll generally see that same idea put forth in other words, either. In these situations, it’s a marriage on paper, it’s a marriage in a church before God, and two become one flesh in consummating the marriage. It is a marriage. Then, in many unfortunate cases, the marriage comes to an end. But hopefully (though too often not), the silver lining is that there were at least adequate grounds for divorce. Usually, however, no one’s even thinking about a retroactive annulment. Everyone accepts that it happened, and then they must also accept that it ended quite badly. The marriage is still a marriage, and it was a marriage for as long as they were married. And then a divorce ends it. But retroactive annulments almost never play a part in it.

I find it amazing that anyone with a grey hair or two to demonstrate experience with human bias and rationalization could defend the idea of self-administered annullments, but stranger things DO happen…

It’s rare for a Protestant to get an annulment (or anything similar that’s put in different terms), and when it happens, it usually comes from the Catholic Church for one reason or another. For the most part, annulment doesn’t happen for Protestants. And it’s not like it kind of happens in a non-Catholic sense- it really and truly just doesn’t happen.

So yeah, if we were Catholics, we’d be really bad Catholics. I guess it’s a good thing we’re not Catholics.

 

[benidict]

Is marriage impure? Is it bad for Catholics to get married? Such that they’re supposed to follow the example of someone forbidden to do so?

marriage is not impure, my dear friend. its when there is divorce and REmarriage that a problem arises. i am divorced. i will not only not remarry, i dont even have relations with a woman. unless one or the other partners die. in the eyes of God they are still married. so any remarriage while one of the partners is still alive, is adultry. im pretty sure, conservative pastors from protestant denominations would view it this way as well. its only the liberal left, that does not have a problem with blatently disreguarding the scripture in anything. Peace

 

[MSSheBear]

I attend a moderately conservative Presbyterian church (PCA) and the pastor only once turned down a remarried divorced man for the eldership. Any other remarried divorced person seemed to be okay with the church leadership as long as they were not in a church leadership position.

Also, I once worked for a fundamentalist Baptist who was on her third marriage. Her reasoning was that she was married twice before she became a Christian.

Generally, the teaching in the Presbyterian church is divorce is okay if your partner committed adultery or abandoned you. A case like this would also allow a pastor to remarry.

I don’t think I’d trust a Protestant pastor who was on his second or third marriage though since divorce has become so easy in our society.

 

[manualman]

I think Protestants do things a little differently with annulments, in that we usually don’t do annulments. When approaching the possibility of a divorce, the question on the Protestant mind usually has something to do with whether or not you’re looking at adequate grounds for divorce. The thought of declaring it invalid from the beginning is one that doesn’t usually even show up in the Protestant awareness, and for the Protestants who spend time thinking about it at all, many of them wonder why it even makes sense to consider such a possibility.

I don’t mean to be polemic, but are you saying that protestants are just blowing Jesus off when he declares that “what God has joined together, let no man tear apart…?” You seem to be essentially saying “yeah, but Jesus couldn’t really have meant that, so we’re going to ignore it.”

Or are you saying that protestants read that gospel text differently somehow? I’ll grant you that the catholic line of thinking gets (literally) byzantine on this subject, but isn’t that at least TRYING to apply Scriptural concepts justly?

 

[ignatius777]

I don’t mean to be polemic, but are you saying that protestants are just blowing Jesus off when he declares that “what God has joined together, let no man tear apart…?” You seem to be essentially saying “yeah, but Jesus couldn’t really have meant that, so we’re going to ignore it.”

Or are you saying that protestants read that gospel text differently somehow? I’ll grant you that the catholic line of thinking gets (literally) byzantine on this subject, but isn’t that at least TRYING to apply Scriptural concepts justly?

Thats a very common practice for protestants I notice. They seem to discount a lot of what Jesus says but when you point that out they say we take things “out of context”. Quickly translated Jesus couldnt possibly have meant what he said. This is most apparent in any discussion with a protestant aboutthe real presence in the Eucharist.

 

[manualman]

Ignatius, what they do with John 6 isn’t correct, but it at least doesn’t amount to simply ignoring the text either. Misinterpretation is inevitably at times, but I would think that simply ignoring a teaching of Christ would not be tolerated. They must have some attempted rationale for what they do.

 

[ignatius777]

Ignatius, what they do with John 6 isn’t correct, but it at least doesn’t amount to simply ignoring the text either. Misinterpretation is inevitably at times, but I would think that simply ignoring a teaching of Christ would not be tolerated. They must have some attempted rationale for what they do.

Agreed but I have had protestants tell me its impossible for bread and wine to be the actual body and blood of Jesus because jewish law prohibited the consumption of blood thereby its inmpossible thats what Jesus intended. Thats not a misinterpretation its a down right denial of the possibilites available to God and a statement that God was subject to the law of man. And isnt that really what protestants believe that their personal interpretations are all thats needed.

 

[manualman]

Agreed but I have had protestants tell me its impossible for bread and wine to be the actual body and blood of Jesus because jewish law prohibited the consumption of blood thereby its inmpossible thats what Jesus intended.

They were unfamiliar with Passover?!? I guess protestants come in all flavors of zeal and education just like catholics, but I’ve not had much content with such blatant ignorance of the Scriptures.

 

[ignatius777]

They were unfamiliar with Passover?!? I guess protestants come in all flavors of zeal and education just like catholics, but I’ve not had much content with such blatant ignorance of the Scriptures.

There were unmoved by the references to passover.

 

[Sister_Amy]

marriage is not impure, my dear friend. its when there is divorce and REmarriage that a problem arises. i am divorced. i will not only not remarry, i dont even have relations with a woman. unless one or the other partners die. in the eyes of God they are still married. so any remarriage while one of the partners is still alive, is adultry. im pretty sure, conservative pastors from protestant denominations would view it this way as well. its only the liberal left, that does not have a problem with blatently disreguarding the scripture in anything. Peace

If you ask me, that bit of “Scripture” is being misinterpreted. Jews are allowed to get divorced.

 

[Dokimas]

I just wanted to open a friendly discussion about what you guys think about a leader of a church getting married. Obviously it is widely known that Catholic priests generally do not marry (and certainly do not divorce or remarry). For a long time I thought this seemed unfair (the getting married part, not the divorcing part). 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.

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.

Then I met a very kind and knowledgeable United Methodist Pastor who was not only married, divorced, and remarried but also a woman. I respect this woman, and I have attended many of her church services. She does well with her work, and I do not doubt her faith. However, it is hard for me to see her as role model. I do not know the reasons for her divorce, and I know the Methodists do not view divorce in the same way as Catholics. However, I personally believe marriage is a contract between two people to love each other unconditionally and remain together until death. If you don’t think you can do this, you shouldn’t get married in the first place. I understand that people get divorced every day, and there are many good reasons. However, I believe that if you love someone when you are married, you can work things out in almost every situation.

 

[PRmerger]

If you ask me, that bit of “Scripture” is being misinterpreted. Jews are allowed to get divorced.

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

 

[William_Pitts]

When I studied Greek, the professor pointed out an often overlooked aspect of the situation. The phrase translated “husband of one wife” is “μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα” which literally means “one woman man” which implies loyalty to one woman. A man can be married one time, to one woman, and have roving eyes, and a disloyal attitude.

 

[Dokimas]

When I studied Greek, the professor pointed out an often overlooked aspect of the situation. The phrase translated “husband of one wife” is “μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα” which literally means “one woman man” which implies loyalty to one woman. A man can be married one time, to one woman, and have roving eyes, and a disloyal attitude.

Good point. Didn’t Jesus say that He sees ‘having wandering eyes’ as adultry?

 

[ignatius777]

Good point. Didn’t Jesus say that He sees ‘having wandering eyes’ as adultry?

That brings an Eagles song to mind…lol

 

[Dokimas]

That brings an Eagles song to mind…lol

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