(Why Does
The Church
Permit POLYGAMY?)
For a number of years now I have been convinced in my heart
that someone must speak to the matter I will address here. I have withheld my voice publicly from speaking
out because I myself am affected by the matter in question. I have been concerned that many or at least
some will consider my comments to be self serving. I can be quiet no longer.
Irreparable damage has been perpetrated upon the body of
Christ by the errant and unbiblical practice of "DISQUALIFYING" from Christian service those whose lives
are touched with the unfortunate matter of DIVORCE. Sadly, divorce happens. It is a fact of life more grievous than
death. One of the things that make it so
is the stigma placed upon the divorcee by the church world.
I was impressed again to write about this matter this
morning when I saw a picture posted on Facebook by some of my dearest friends. Anyone and everyone who personally knows this
couple would be very hard pressed to locate a more humble and faithful
couple. I rejoiced to see the picture
from the wedding that started them on their Christian journey together years
ago.
I was a bit taken back, however by the location at which the
wedding took place. My friends were married at what was at that time, their
home church. The reason I was somewhat appalled with the location of the
wedding is because that this same church body and pastor in particular
erroneously used this very wedding which they obviously sanctioned to limit the
effectiveness of ministry of this very couple.
The very ceremony that brought the couple together was the same
instrument that in the mind of some disqualified a man from serving his Savior.
The reason the pastor and church used to
legitimize such unbiblical discrimination was the same as is misused by Baptist
preachers and churches throughout the country.
(Though not exclusively) My dear
friend was unfortunately a divorcee when he married his bride. As such, he is considered by the pastor and
church to be disqualified from ministry.
This estimation they based on one passage from scripture which is
unquestionably misinterpreted.
1 Timothy 3:1-2 This
is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
work. A bishop then must be blameless,
the husband of one wife, ..... There is more written, but I will stop there
for the moment for the simple reason that this is where most people evidently
stop reading. (The
husband of one wife) This
little misrepresented statement has cost the Christian church dearly in terms
of servants who are gifted by God, but discredited and disqualified by men.
QUESTION: DOES A MAN
WHO IS DIVORCED FROM A WOMAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY REMARRIED HAVE TWO WIVES? As ridiculous as it may seem, this is the
logic of those who take it upon themselves to disqualify some. You can’t preach! They declare.
You have two living wives. Let=s follow this form of reasoning to its
obvious conclusion if we dare. (For some
reason, this matter never comes up unless a remarried individual has the
audacity to desire to serve His Lord and Master. It is almost never publicly applied to the
average remarried individual. However,
if the church will be consistent in its doctrine, it must apply this principle
to all who are divorced and remarried.)
1. If it is so as
some men declare it to be, then, why is
this Polygamist not arrested? Isn=t polygamy against the law in the U.S.? Oh but in the eyes of God you are still
married, they will protest. Would
someone please provide chapter and verse for that revelation! Has the average remarried church member ever
considered the FACT that if the church is consistent in its teaching, then the
said church considers the said member’s marriage to be illegitimate? The only possible honest conclusion must be;
if indeed the man has two wives, he is a polygamist. The same must also be true of a remarried
woman. She must have two husbands;
polygamist. (Again I say this based upon
the assumption that the church’s interpretation of the husband of one wife statement is accurate.)
2. If it is so, why is such a marriage ever sanctioned by
the church? Should not the church
stand against such polygamist activity? I mean, if in fact the second marriage
is illegitimate to the point of disqualifying an individual from serving God in
any capacity, it would seem to me that the church would not permit such a
marriage to be sanctioned. I can’t help
but question, “Why would a pastor take part in the wedding of my friends; (even
if his only nod to the legitimacy of the marriage is the use of church
facilities) and then subsequently use that very wedding to DISQUALIFY them from
service?” Such logic is ridiculous!
What happens at a wedding?
Does the preacher “marry” the couple in question? No, they marry each other. The preacher observes their vows of fidelity
to each other and then summarily pronounces them to be husband and wife. Many pastors will refuse to do so. They will however encourage the couple to go
somewhere and get married at a Justice of the Peace etc., and then come back to
their church after the wedding.
Unbelievably, most couples will do exactly that. They will return and support the ministry of
the man who refused to minister to them.
The very first time and every subsequent time the preacher
refers to the couple as Mr. and Mrs., he has done exactly what he refused to do
at the wedding.
Suddenly his “convictions” do not bother him. The couple is part of his congregation and is
putting money in his offering plates so everything is ok. Do you smell the same rat that I smell here?
The preacher never explains to the remarried that they will
never be considered quite the saint as he himself is. Nor will they be
counseled that their marriage is secretly considered to be illegitimate in the
eyes of the church. (IE the individual can never serve the Lord in ministry or
as a deacon.) Believe it or not, I know of pastors who have used the need for
deacons as bait to lure people into joining their church. After all, they reason, He is qualified….IE
“one living wife”.
There is only one
legitimate answer for this question.
NO!, the man in question DOES NOT
HAVE TWO WIVES. The marriage is not illegitimate!
(Most Churches would be fairly empty this coming Sunday if
the population of the divorced and remarried members fully understood the FACT
that their pastor and their church family considers their marriage to be
illegitimate and that they indeed are polygamists.)
Did you notice that the scripture in question bore one
stipulation (if you want to call it that) for the one who desires the office of
a bishop. (That is prior to the one wife
statement) AA
BISHOP THEN MUST BE BLAMELESS@.
Are we to assume that those who hold the office of Bishop or
APastor@
are indeed blameless men? While this
matter of blamelessness does indeed require an upright character, is any among
us truly blameless? Is it not the fact
that we are all filled with blame that necessitates a Savior? Does there exist on earth a man without some
flaw in his character though possibly overlooked by men, seen by God?
Still, men who are themselves full of blame, bypass this
requirement of blamelessness and readily esteem themselves better or more
qualified for service than those who have been marked by divorce. Is not such self elevating logic
prideful? Is not pride a matter for
blame?
I do not believe Paul wrote to Timothy with the intent of
dividing the church into two classes of people (IE, the qualified and the
disqualified). Paul never intended that
this text should be so misused as to restrict a group of people from Christian
service. It is quite clear that Paul was
giving counsel to the church to take a strong look at those chosen to be their
pastors and deacons.
Please consider the phrase in verse 2; “A bishop then must
be….” The word “BE” speaks of his
present tense estate. A wise church will
consider what a man is at this present time.
Is he presently considered to be blameless? Does he so live that men do not constantly
point out his looseness of life?
Is he a one woman man?
That really is the meaning of the term “husband of one wife”. If he is a polygamist now, in other words, if
he maintains two dual and dueling marriages as some do in the state of Utah; he
is not a worthy candidate. (We have already established the fact that divorce
and remarriage do not reasonably constitute two living wives.) Also, if he maintains a lifestyle of
unfaithfulness to his wife, he should not be considered.
In subsequent verses, other “requirements” are listed. Among them is the statement, “not a brawler” (v.3). Are we to take from this counsel the idea
that if a man has ever been in a fight he is disqualified from service? I think not.
The passage is not addressing past flaws, but present tendencies. The
question is, “Does this man engage in brute force to control people?” Most
people would say, “Oh yes, I was once a fighter, but that was long ago.” The same people will hold a divorce twenty
or thirty years ago over the head of a brother and declare his unfitness to
preach.
Thirdly, and I will conclude this article with this: AIf
a man desire the office of a bishop@;
whence cometh such a desire?
Does it not come from God?
The desire to minister is not a carnal concern; at least it should not
be. If it is God who separates men to
the ministry, what right then do men have to separate them FROM such ministry? The
fact is, men have neither right nor power to do so.
I personally grieve when I consider the numerous local
church bodies which have no pastor and will not have a man regardless of his
gifts due to the foolish misrepresentation of one part of one verse of
scripture. If I gather anything at all
from the text in question, it is the fact that there are absolutely no men on
earth who are qualified to pastor men.
Only the good grace of our God chooses some for His service and it is
true:
“God does not call the qualified, He qualifies the called.”
May I humbly suggest that readers print a copy or copies of
this article and insist that their pastor read it? It is my sincere desire that this article
will provoke men and women to thought and action. I have known men who were noble enough upon
careful examination of truth to change their position. I PRAY THAT MANY GOOD MEN WILL DO SO.
Ray Vaughn (9/18/14)
No comments:
Post a Comment