Premarital Fidelity

Do we elect a man who has been sleeping his live-in girlfriend for 7 loyal years, since he
has indeed been a “one-woman-man” with her? Why not? If He married her specifically to
appease the church, is then automatically equated to a man who has truly been married 7 years?

A loyal man indeed.

A man tells you, “I have been loyal to one woman for 5 years; Yes, for two years I had an
affair during my first marriage, my wife found out and divorced me, so I have been married to
this other lady for 3 wonderful years.” I can honestly say I was not loyal to my first wife, she
was not the “one-woman” in my life, I almost treated her like a nagging neighbor, so my heart
was never divided from my mistress.” I see no reason that my 5 years is less valid than the other
deacon who has only been married for 2 years now. He has been loyal for two, I have been loyal
for five.”

What is not in the text, but not needed.

What if the texts never included “mias gunaikos andra.” Is that needed to guide the tone
of the text and those of a wise prudent mind? The Bible never says that my daughter cannot
marry a prisoner who is guilty of either drugs, rape, murder, or theft, but the Bible does not have
to spell that out for me to consider the danger for my daughter, and also my responsibilities as
father to guard her.
A good father would have grave concern despite the passage of 10 years from the
drugs/theft, despite his current maturity and character, despite theft being an equal sin to divorce.
The father would advise finding a man not in prison for theft. Why is the father not as merciful
to the man? He is concerned about the safety and joy of his daughter. How much more should a
congregation be concerned about the safety and joy of Jesus’ purchased bride, whether it be a
local congregation of 90 or a large church of 300 souls versus one daughter.
If a daughter wanted to marry at the age of 28 to a man who is 32, who has been married
5 years yet divorced for 7 years, the father might still prefer his daughter show discernment and
caution. Others ask, “But if he has character is he not better than a single man who has never
been divorced, yet seems to have roaming eyes?” The answer is yes; but the father is not going
to his daughter and thinking well at least a 5th place man is better than a 10th place man; rather he
wants a 1st place man, and that is what we what for our deacon office too.
So if the texts left out “mias gunaikos andra.” it would not make a difference in my
judgment. Obviously “my judgment” has no authority, but I will demonstrate later the
distinction of marriage: the first institution of God in Genesis 2 before the Fall of man, before
the Law of God, before any patriarchs were approached. Marriage is theme used for God to
Israel, and for Jesus and the Church.
Other Standards placed on the text with higher weight.

If a member or even visitor of the church stood up one Sunday Morning to rant and cuss
for 5 minutes over an issue, how long would he have to wait to be considered as deacon or
pastor?
1. 5 minutes of impersonal frustration seems to be less of a sin than a personal divorce or
3 years of a rocky marriage. Why does it seem more scarring to his reputation, when the text
does not highlight this outburst, or at least not place ‘more weight’ on it.
2. His other strengths can outweigh his one weakness that happened 10 years ago.
3. 10 years of time can show his maturity, character and that now he is a man of self-
control.
4. Will the People not consider all sins equal and show mercy on him, since mercy is
shown to a divorced man, and divorce should not be considered more weighty than drunkenness.
Will they single out one character trait of the past?
It is unlikely that an offended church would be so trusting and forgiving.

Subjectivity example: Single Mother of Three

If a man divorced his wife and left her with 3 kids under the age of 3, but yet 10 years
passed should a Christian see the man’s current maturity and show mercy on him, and vote him
for deacon? Is 10 years of maturity enough to clear his reputation? Why is a mere 5 years not
enough time? Who decides? What basis did they use to determine these acquittals?
What would the single mother and three kids think of this: absentee father and think of
the church who elected this man? Will the church write a letter to this woman so she can rejoice
with the mercy of the church? (even if the scenario did not involve offspring, much less when it
did?).
Why are his sins against three children more grievous than merely divorcing a wife of no
offspring.
1st, If a divorce frees a man from his wife, then is he not free of his offspring? If he is
free from the one whom “God has from the beginning joined together has one flesh that no one
should separate” how shall he not be free from offspring which is not described as “one flesh
joined together as one flesh by God.” (wife bond is great than offspring bond)
nd,
2 If the vote for a “regularly divorced man” can be acquired by his numerous other
strengths and traits, then is it not possible that an “absentee father” can also acquire numerous
strengths to outweigh his sin. (other traits outweigh past?)
3rd, If 7 years of consistent maturity in other traits absolves a man of a simple divorce,
then why can’t 10 years of consistent maturity from being an “absentee father” acquire him the
rights of being a deacon. (length of time undo past?)
4th, If the premise is that all sins are equal and the church needs to show mercy, then is
odd that this sin is held out as greater than ‘mere’ divorce or mere ‘two counts of slander.’ If
divorce is equal to the requirement of ‘not double-tongued’, than maybe ‘divorce and
absenteeism’ will be equal to both ‘not double-tongued and not greedy’
(mercy and singling out among all sins being equal)
 5th, Moreover this absentee father, if given enough time and other strengths, and given
mercy considering all sins are equal should also be a viable choice for head pastor in the same
ease as the office for deacon.
Why are we holding to the pastor to a higher standard than that of a deacon? Can we not
continue the principle of “mercy, all sins are equal, other traits outweigh his past, and the length
of time has healed all wounds. Is there a list of how many pastors across the SBC were absentee
fathers of 3 kids 15 years before their pastorate?

Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, Ananias, Sapphira.

These men did not commit divorce yet faced God’s judgment to death. These men were
operating in the shadow of the law, the new testament church is operating in the light of Jesus
Christ. Is God not merciful, could time not heal all wounds, could other strengths not outweigh
their weaknesses, are not all sins equal? Yes, but holiness is paramount.
Some may rebut, “Since God could strike down every church member like he did the
lying Ananias and Sapphira, but yet is merciful, we too should be merciful” Good point. Yet
the matter of God striking down liars only goes to emphasis that God is still holy and demands
holiness among his people, and the congregation should lean more towards holiness than mercy.

Three months after the death of Ananias and Sapphria the Christians did not reason “Hey
it has been a while since God has struck anyone down, I guess we can loosen up our standards
since He is being merciful.” No, rather, they remembered their judgment and death to be solemn
indications that God is Holy and we should be holy, our leaders and offices must be holy.
Some may rebut, “We cannot be legalistic” True. Yet we do not hear that charge given
when a candidate’s past does indeed break a threshold of comfort. The only difference is whose
threshold is being broken. The solution is to reflect the high calling of Scripture and Christ.
A deacon is not an apostle, yet for the sake of teaching priorities, we learn that the
replacement of Judas could not be just the average nice guy that Peter might prefer. While we do
not cast lots for deacons, the emphasis is that the replacement’s qualifications were crucial, and
important in God’s eyes. This example should be a pattern for us when nominating a man to be a
deacon.
1 Corinthians 5 is stern against a man having his father’s wife. Are we to say that if this
was 10 years in the past then his strengths and the passing of time could bring a church’s display
of mercy, since all sins are equal? As it will be noted later, the Timothy and Titus texts do not
spell out the issues of previous incest, admittedly they only deal with “present maturity and
character” but are such warnings needed to guide the already discerning and reverent mind?
There is no Scriptural Office of Choir member and Usher.

There are women in the choir, yet they are not deacons. Why not? If forbidding a man to
be a deacon yet does allow him to sing in the choir, obviously we are not calling his position of
singing in the choir as equal to being a deacon. If singing in the choir is equal to being a deacon,
then why cannot women be consider as equal to deacons, when Scriptural gives no office or
standards of singing in the choir.
Can choir members join all deacons meetings or all elders meetings? Are deacons and
elders not equal? Are choir members not just the same as servants of an elder, or a deacon? Can
choir members not preach, can women not preach, since they are only varieties of the same
“servant spirit.” Are all male choir members elders and preaching elders too?
A janitor or lawn maintenance man is a servant, is he a deacon, an elder, a pastor? Why
not? Obviously Scripture provides no office for these things, and does indeed hold the elder
above the deacon, choir member, and janitor.

Other functions besides the office.

A divorced man can do many things and yet never be a pastor, elder, or deacon. A
woman can do many things and yet never be a pastor, elder, or deacon. A church member who is
rejected as a deacon due to currently failing in 5 traits is still a Christian and can be fruitful in
many things though not currently a pastor, elder, or deacon.
When 3 men are nominated by the church for deacon, and only one candidate will be
accepted to the one open office of deacon, what do we tell the two who were not selected? Do
we tell them you can do nothing for God, that you are looked down upon? Obviously they can
be used of God and are not looked down upon though they did not get the approval of the
congregation.
It is very reasonable to tell the divorced man that he will not be considered for
nomination to deacon, yet like those two who were not elected, he too can be used of God and is
not looked down upon.
If a church of 100 people has 7 deacons, what are the 30 other adult males supposed to
do? Did the fact that 7 offices were filled up make them to be fruitless before God each day at
work, home, hobby, and life.
These 30 men can go to door to door witnessing, visit each nursing home weekly, write
booklets against cults and heresies, cook meals for the homeless, volunteer at the soup kitchen,
hand out bibles at fairs, join flood recovery efforts, pray in secret, give in secret, write letters of
encouragement to pastors, teachers, widows; visit jails, prisons, hospitals. These 30 men can be
very fruitful though not among the 7 in the office of deacon; likewise a divorced man can be
fruitful too, though not a deacon.
We bring other Standards to the text, that are not in the Text, (why not also fidelity).

Will we honestly come to church and say, “I know a man who has every single trait in
these texts, yet he attends the church 9 miles away. This passage does not say he has to be a long
standing member, and if we get a letter from his current church of his history will we call him as
deacon here?” Such a scenario only works for pastors and other rare church plants, but why
will the congregation not be trusting of such a candidate, but rather feel more comfortable voting
for a frequent attending member who has had flaws in his past.
We impose racial prejudice against blacks and Hispanics who have just as much current
character traits as any other man.

Romans 6 preached.

After Paul expressly explains that salvation is wholly of grace alone, apart from works,
merits, obedience, and contributions of sinners, he handles the questions, Romans 6:! “Are we to
continue in sin that grace may abound?; Galatians 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by
Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin?” Paul replies,
“God Forbid, and Certainly Not.”
Some read the qualifications of deacon and start with the premise, “First, remember
mercy, especially when thinking if a man has been divorced.” Romans 2 and Galatians 6 both
include strong words about mercy, humility, and grace in viewing the sins of others, yet Romans
12 calls the Christian to be a living sacrifice, fervent ins Spirit, zealous for good.
When we approach the texts of deacon qualifications with the preface “mercy first” the
danger is that the congregant leaves the text with a shrug and yawn, “well we are all sinners, so a
past divorce is immaterial, because all divorces are immaterial.” However the text presents the
mindset of “be ye holy for God is holy,” and “pick ye holy men for deacons, prefer the totality of
righteousness above merely 4 years of good recovery from past sins.”
Romans 6 and Galatians 2:17 speak nothing about deacons, they address that every
Christian and what we might term the “average” Christian, yet how much more should the
“elected offices” of deacon and elder be guarded for purity.

The nature of the text: high standards, not merciful standards.

If we are going to be merciful for a man’s past character, why not be merciful to a man’s
present character. Tell Paul that if we place this troubled man as deacon, give him time and
attention, he thus can be molded into one of better character, after all we need to be merciful.
Paul does not allow for such current mercy as a ‘test run’.

Is the first cornerstone of our deacon selection: holiness, or mercy.

 As soon as we pick holiness we are called unforgiving legalists, but again what is the tone
of the text, why does Paul give any standards at all? Listing the ‘present traits’ is indeed more
geared to ‘present holiness’ rather than ‘present mercy.’
Paul has to speak in present tense verbs because the vote is at the present time. Paul
would not say, “Pick men who used to be holy (past tense) or who will be holy (future tense)”
Thus Paul says “Pick men who are holy (present tense)”
However this is not to imply that Paul is limiting their reputation to the present time. Are
we to deduct that as long as “present holiness” is attained, that “future holiness” is irrelevant?
Obviously if future events show sin and wickedness, the past vote is not to overlook “future
character” Thus the future character of the deacon is included while considering the present
character of the deacon; thus it is reasonable that prior character is an instrumental facet of
measuring a man’s ‘present character.

As will be asked later, “How can present character be measured without limiting the
‘present’ to the most recent and current 7 days, else the ‘past’ of a man is being invoked to
determine his present character.” Who determines how far back in the weeks is escaping the
‘present’ character and meddling in or measuring his ‘past history’?
It is an ‘argument from silence’ to suggest that since Paul does not explicitly state what a
‘prior’ reputation should be, that a ‘prior’ reputation has NO bearing on who is selected.

Is a cornerstone of our deacon selection: present maturity, or TOTALITY.

The traits mentioned by Paul are present tense verbs, but must this imply that a man’s
“total” reputation has no impact on his reputation. This angle is a nuance of the previous, but yet
distinct.
On a pragmatic level the mailman does not need to smile, just drive and delivery mail in
an honest and timely manner; but if we knew a candidate who smiled as well, will we not favor
his “additional” qualifications as a great plus. The rebuttal comes, “Yea, but is the text saying
this is required, or just that it would be nice option if you find such a man without divorce?” My
reply, “The tone of the text is for holiness, for high character, and thus we imitate that in our
values, it means being the best stewards of the office.”
God does not require me to place money in the bank, I can place it under the sofa and be
a “good steward” nonetheless, yet the ease to be a “better steward” by using the bank seems to
show obvious wisdom.
Surrendering to Jesus and doing all for His glory is not about seeing how little we can
obey or do and how much we can get away with. This must not be the mindset when
approaching the texts of qualifications and merely “settling” for deacons.
Choirs could quit practicing and just sing familiar hymns since the congregation never
bothers to practice either, but it is not just playing music to the Lord, but playing skillfully. It is
not about finding a fair deacon, but an excellent deacon—yet this message does not seem to be
communicated when we immediately preface our text: Be merciful, Some deacons can be
divorced.
The motto of Tiger Woods is not: At least 2nd place is better than 3rd place; If he is driven
to quality in his game, not letting one strength excuse other weaknesses, how much more should
the church desire a “comprehensive” reputation among their elders and deacons.
Define Present Maturity?

If we are not judging a man on his past, then what time frame “creates his present.” If we
look to a man’s character in the past 9 years is that going too far in his ‘past’ or is that merely
what is needed to determine his ‘present’ maturity? Can a man’s past 6 months determine his
“present” maturity.
It is odd that we are forced to use one’s “past” track record to determine the “present”
Others say a man’s “past” infidelity should deter us if he is “presently” a man of character; yet
his “present” maturity is still requiring a “past” consistency for 1,2,3,4,5,6 years, or more. Thus
his present character was indeed created by looking too his “past record” yet minus one event—
the date of his divorce. This is a strange way of measuring one’s reputation.
If a man has shown “present maturity” for the past 3 months, is his divorce 9 months
considered as prying too far in his past?
Who determines how long of a time frame of consistency is needed to acquire “present
maturity?” If the congregation rejects a man divorced 9 months ago are they being too legalistic
since that is so far in the past? What is the time frame? Who determines this?

Avoiding Personal Subjectivity and complex evaluation, by an easy objective condition.

Once we accept divorced deacons, then we can either consider all divorces equal, or
measure some divorces as more horrendous as others; that some are more damaging to a man’s
character than others. Here are a few factors that each congregant will have to weigh while
judging the nature of a divorced man:
1. Where kids involved. Yes, No.
2. How Many kids. 1,2,3,4,5.
3. What where the ages of the kids? 1,4,8,12,16; were they three toddlers?
4. What was the character of the wife? A nasty grumpy nag, a sweet little ole Gem?
Do we sympathize for her, or think “she had it coming”
5. How old was the wife at the divorce? 24? 34?
6. How long had they been married? 3 years, 8 years, 12 years?
7. Was the wife left with a good job and good pay? Or unemployed?
8. Was the wife left with a rich father, or hard poverty?
9. Was the wife left while she was physically healthy or with disease and poor health?
10. Did they seek any counseling prior? How much? Was He willing for counseling?
11. Was there a long bitter legal case for possessions, house, land, car? Or no?
12. During the divorce were one or both attending church, who was, how consistently?
13. Does she…or he….currently have relatives in church making this vote?
14. Was the grounds over money, no intimacy, fornication, major, minor, foolish etc.
Was the grounds single, multiple, issues.
15. Did one or both fast before getting a divorce?
16. In the marriage was he leading in home devotions and prayer or no?
17. How do we pry and gossip for the truth when the divorce happened 10-15 years ago?
 Is every congregant explained with a “fact sheet” of the nature of the divorce.
18. How soon is a divorced man eligible 4 years, 6 years, 8 years later?
19. How do we hear both sides of the past? Do we interview her? and him?
Who is lying? Who is telling the truth? What is the WHOLE story?
20. Among all these questions which ones to do weigh as more detrimental while all sins
are supposedly equal.
21. Among all these questions, will they be the same standard for considering a divorced
man as pastor, elder, and deacon? Or is a pastor held to a higher standard? Why?
22. Will the divorced wife be asked for her permission to allow this man to be deacon?

A fair rebuttal to this issue notes, “The selection of deacon is already subjective, since
one might be forgiven of past gossip, drunkenness, greed, and points of immaturity; and each
congregant votes in a subjective manner to the limits of sound mercy.” True enough. Yet we
will consider the primacy of marriage and fidelity: as instituted before Original sin, and being a
picture of Christ and the Church.
The main question is, “Why do some divorces break our threshold of acceptability, yet
others do not, when every divorce is a horrific against God, not merely a sin against the spouse.”
Remember, marriage is a sacred“COVENANT” with God, a “VOW and PROMISE” to
God, the other traits of a deacon do not entail such a public covenant ceremony performed by a
pastor, witnessed by a church body, and accomplished by God. None of the other traits listed in
the texts entail such a sacred life covenant with God. (this needs to be expanded)

Hypothetical cases necessary for practical livable theology.

Would you elect a deacon who only has one arm? One says, “Yes, if the character traits
existed.” So obviously every hypothetical question is not irrelevant, even if the case seems a
rare application. Asking questions about a man’s past and his traits compared to another man is
not vague and speculative, but merely a reasonable understanding of principle.
The more direct question is to learn the principle behind the decisions made. Is this a
principle:
All other traits being equal, a man without divorce and without roaming eyes is to be
preferred over a man with divorce yet now of good reputation.
If so, is that principle being taught, emphasized, valued, held out in preaching and
discussion.

God using Moses, Paul, David, Rahab, Samson, and many other dire sinners.

These men had a dynamic revelation from God, none of these men were merely elected by the
congregation. Paul does not say, “Since God uses Solomon with multiple wives, feel free to
elect anyone who has had 10 wives but is currently loyal to one.” In fact God used Peter despite
his prejudice against gentiles, yet Paul rebukes Peter; this does not mean we should freely elect a
prejudice man now simply because we know that later can confront him, since Peter was not
confronted immediately.
 Again men did not “select” Moses, Paul, Jacob, Peter, so the choice of a congregation is
not based on “imitating God” but rather remaining loyal to the text at hand, otherwise Paul
would have said, “Appoint deacons just in the pattern displayed by God”

Pragmatism: look what Popular, Successful, Famous People we would lose.

If a popular, successful, famous Pastor is caught in sin, do we uphold church discipline or

attempt to make “pragmatism and results” the standard of our choices. What sins in leaders do
we forgive AND DISCIPLINE? What sins do we forgive and WITHHOLD discipline.
Does a popular, successful, famous pastor get to continue preaching if he
a. robs the church of $1000, or $2000, or $3000, or $6000, or $9000 dollars?
b. remains married but is having a ‘mere’ one night stand.
c. is caught with only selling illegal drugs, but not using them.
d. only ‘attends’ strip bars.
e. ‘only’ uses crude language in public and the pulpit.

People think, “A divorce is about ONE day and ONE contract signed with a lawyer,
maybe like blowing the horn loudly ONE time in traffic; that it is not like an ON-GOING sin of
drunkenness, drugs, profanity, or gambling” However it indeed is an on-going sin.
Divorce represents what Jesus calls a “hardness of heart” that is not used to describe
other sins. All sins are do involve a wicked heart, but that common trait does not mean every sin
should be characterized by a “hardened heart.” Divorce involves unforgiveness to the spouse, it
involves lying to God…to the spouse…to the Christian church…to the community… while in
the marriage covenant ceremony. Divorce involves lack of communication, lack of servanthood,
and many other facets of neglect.
Did the family put aside television, sports, jobs, , hobbies, golf, weekend entertainment to
seek counseling, home devotions, prayer, fasting, and help. Did the husband begin and continue
his marriage with the a foundation of prayer, devotions, and church. Mouth cancer should not be
a sudden surprise to someone who has been chewing tobacco for years, and ‘some’ divorces
should not be a surprise when personal spiritual attention is not given.
[Note: There are indeed times when a man can begin and continue a foundation of
personal spiritual ministry to his wife, and she still rebel; However for the sacredness of the
office we should guard it from allowing unguided souls from blindly accepting all divorced men
to office. If a wife were to cut off the legs of her innocent husband, he would suffer and not be
able to walk, though he could be mobile in different ways. If a wife divorces her innocent
husband, he will have to suffer the loss of pastorate, elder, and deacon, though he could be
fruitful in other ways.

What does fidelity and forgiveness, or the lack thereof (key in marriage) teach and signify?

Elaborate later.
MY EXCEPTONS:

#1 If a man has been divorced, but his spouse has deceased, I would consider him as
candidate if the other traits were present.
#2 If a man divorced in his 20s but for 30 years now has shown remarkable godliness in
mind, heart, deed, fruit, faith, and labor, then I would consider him as candidate; this seems to
counter all my concerns previously mentioned; However this is extremely rare;
furthermore, what must be preached and strived for is fidelity. We must not allow such
exceptions to in any manner imply to the congregation that divorce is fine, and divorced man can
be deacons, and the mentality that 5th quality is better than 10th quality so lets not look for (long
for, press for, press for) 1st quality.
Idealism must be our firm message, even when we are all recipients of mercy. When
Idealism ceases to be our message we are left with ambiguous and ever fading winds which
cannot be held or looked upon. Each man is left with “doing what is merciful in his own eyes”
bringing chaos till God’s King brings unity to the Kingdom through the absolutes of the Word.
No mother looks at her adolescent daughter and says, “The first premise I want to teach
my girl is that she should not quickly dismiss men in prison for possible marriage; nor the first
premise I want to teach my girl is that the basic guy will do.”
When we look for brain surgeons we do not begin with: ‘mercy’ towards a few botched
operations-- as our mantra.
1 Tim. 3:1-12 (ESV)
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
[2] Therefore an overseer must be
1. above reproach,
2. the husband of one wife,
3. sober-minded,
4. self-controlled,
5. respectable,
6. hospitable,
7. able to teach, [3]
8. not a drunkard,
9. not violent but gentle,
10. not quarrelsome,
11. not a lover of money. [4] He must
12, manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, [5] for if
someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's
church?
13. [6] He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into
the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover, he must be
14. well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

[8] Deacons likewise must be

1. dignified,
2. not double-tongued,
3. not addicted to much wine,
4. not greedy for dishonest gain.
5. [9] They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
6. [10] And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons
7. if they prove themselves blameless.
8. [11] Their wives likewise must be dignified,
b. not slanderers,
c. but sober-minded,
d. faithful in all things. [12] Let deacons each be the
9. husband of one wife,
10. managing their children and their own households well.
Titus 1:6-9 (ESV)
if anyone is
1. above reproach,
2. the husband of one wife, and
3, his children are believers and
4. not open to the charge of debauchery
5. nor insubordination. [7] For an overseer, as God's steward, must

6. be above reproach.
7. He must not be arrogant
8. or quick-tempered or
9. nor a drunkard
10. nor violent
11. nor greedy for gain,
12.[8] but hospitable,
13. a lover of good,
14. self-controlled,
15. upright,
16. holy, and
17. disciplined. [9]
18. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that
19. he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and
20. also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Our Goal is to
Glorify the Triune God.
Best reflect the text.
Best reflect the whole of Scripture.
Portray holiness to our kids, church, and community at large.

Is the message of Fidelity Important? How important? Is it preached?

Why might the message of Fidelity take precedent above the other traits listed.

Should the message of Fidelity take precedent among the other traits.

What weight do you place each attributes?

The issue of divorce; and hardness of heart.
1. Did the man have hardness of heart? Is that good?
Ever sin is a hardness of heart, but only divorce is given this description by Jesus.

What is ideal?
If two men both kept all the other traits to 100% perfection, yet one had been drunkard 20
years ago and another had not, yet now for the past 20 years both are fully sober would God
consider them both equal outside of Jesus Christ. (no)
If two men both kept all the other traits to 100% perfection, yet one had been divorced 20
years ago and another had not, yet now 20 years later both are “one-woman-loyal” men would
God consider them both equal outside of Jesus Christ. (no)
If one candidate had slandered his mother 20 years ago and another had been divorced 20
years ago, yet each they hold the other qualifications to 100% perfection. We would show a
distinction of sin.
Objection but with these numerous traits 2 different candidates can make 60s, 70s, 80s,
90s and different scores on each area, how to we give extras weight to this one topic above all
others?

Can we fire a deacon who seems to have a lustful heart? How is it proven?
Can we fire a deacon who gets a divorce? Yes, it is proven.

The issue of singling out one trait?

There are roughly 10 traits given for deacon qualifications.
There are roughly 14 traits given for elder qualifications.
There are roughly 20 traits given for overseer qualifications in Titus.
Why single out “mias gunaikos andra” to receive more weight than the other 9, 13, 19
traits listed in this text.
If the phrase “mias guakios andra” was erased totally, but replaced with the English off
“not currently a murder, rapist, child abuser, wife beater” would you hold these 4 traits in higher
weight despite 20 years of reform?
It is highly likely that you would throw preference to one who has never been guilty of
these things at all, compared to one who has been 20 years ago. I have never heard of a pastor
give his testimony, “I have been thankful to be your pastor the past 5 years, thanks for forgiving
me of how I abused children 20 years ago.”
No, we would not liken divorce to be equal to these 4 hideous sins; however I think
there is precedent and wisdom for us to value marriage and fidelity to such an extent that we
would likewise through more weight on “mias gunakios andra” than the other traits.
 An objection says, “but could a man keep the other 9, 13, 19 traits to such an noble and
grand extent that his divorce which happened 20 years ago should not bar him from serving as a
deacon. I respond with “What is the spirit and direction of the text? Is it of low, medium, high
standards? Is it mainly about being merciful or of thoroughness. The length of the list points to
a more thorough and lofty goal.”

What do you communicate to the loyal husband and his spouse?

“You want to be deacon and you have never been divorced? This other guy does too, but
his divorce was 20 years ago, you guys are basically of the same character now, and the people
voted and voted for him, I guess they weighed they other 9,13, 19 traits and figured he edged you
out in 1 or 2 of the areas. I mean after all, every sin is equal.

What do you communicate to the kids and community?

“Kids, Community: We want you to understand all sins are equal, well at least divorce is
on an equal level of the other 9,13,19 traits; yet honestly we do not think that divorce is as bad
as murder, rape, child abuse, and a previous wife beater, on this issue all sins are not equal.

Deacon is different than a choir member/usher.

Are women singers in the choir deacons? Pastors?
Can all choir members join and be equated to a deacon.
The book of Acts did not have choir members nor ushers.
If a women cannot be a pastor, can she not be a choir member or usher?
There is an office of deacon and elder, not an office of choir member/usher.

We are condemning anyone, everyone can serve.

We are not trying to bow to culture to hold a

Let’s suppose that Paul did allow for divorced men to become deacons.
If man A has been divorced, but

Hypothetical Churches

What is the principal of these hypothetical drama. It is to show some “beliefs” might not be
“livable.”
The principle: All sins are equal. Is that true? Is that livable? No.
The principle: Having deacons of prior infidelity is equal to deacons of fidelity? No.
CHURCH A.
We have only 6 deacons. They all used to be slanderers, but always loyal to their wife of
20 years, and since they repented of slander 19 years ago they are now in office.

CHURCH B.
We have only 6 deacons. They all got divorced, but never a slander on any level for the
past 20 years, and since their divorces were 19 years ago they are now in office.

CHURCH C.
We have only 6 deacons. They all abused children, but that was 20 years ago, and since
they have reformed we actually consider them equal to men who never ever abused a child at all,
even equal to men who have never been divorced at all.

CHURCH D.
We only have 6 deacons. They all got divorced 20 years ago, but since then have
repented; so oddly enough, we considered them of equal qualifications among 6 members who
have been married 20 years without a divorce and no roaming eyes. We thought there might be a
danger in placing too much weight on the value of fidelity since all sins are equal; we are sure
the kids and community can still translate that we value fidelity above divorce despite our
choices for office.

Andra 58x as husbands,

Why would it talk about single men who are “loyal to one woman” and then quickly explain the
nature of children involved. ,

The Objection

God’s Grace, Mercy, and Restoration can be applied to the divorced

man.

God’s Grace, Mercy, Restoration will be demonstrated to kids,

church, and community.

God’s Grace, Mercy, used Moses, Samson, David, many other

sinners.
If we applied the text strictly: We would lose great famous pastors.
Pastors who abuse children? Pastors swindle $80,000 dollars fired or forgiven?
One act, versus non-forgiveness, let no man separate.
Man#1: Character now is great. Never been Divorced. No roaming eyes. Not negligent.
Man#2: Character now is great. Has been Divorced 20 years ago.
Man#3: Has roaming eyes, negligent husband, yet never divorced.
This does not mean we settle for man #2.
Man#4: married for ever to one wife, yet always has affairs.
This does not mean we settle for man #2.
Man#5: Non-Adulterer Character now, Been divorced.

Man#2: married for

Man#3: