I have attended the ABA Messenger Meeting 32 of the last 33 years.
I love the color guard and the pledge - MB are flag waving Americans.
The wonderful choir from County Ave MBC led by James Bull was very uplifting.
The powerful Moderator's Address concerning revival.
Annual sermon in KJV in text only and commended fund raising.
A crowd of 2700.
956 messengers, yet the vote of about 1100 on the next meeting place.
Is it open communion for a missionary to be given permission for observing the Lord's Supper with the mission? Overwhelming majority (all but 4) voted it was not.
Rudeness of clapping after a vote was taken to exult over one who lost the vote.
A 261 to 220 vote to put a man on to receive designated funds as a missionary who was divorced and remarried and the discussion revealed many were willing to take verses out of context to try to prove a missionary with 2 living wives was acceptable.
The mission offering was $10, 973.
A 310 to 244 vote to postpone indefinitely not to consider men for any missionary support that had been divorced and remarried.
The missionary recommendation form leaves it possible for a man to just say he is married without revealing he has previously been divorced (a don's ask, don't tell policy as it stands).
Supporting divorced and remarried men as missioaries is much like open communion - just let each one decide for himself if he qualifies biblically.
Special mission program involving 6 missionaries from 6 countries around the world representing Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America and Australia.
ABA missions is now 191 missionaries, 31 countries, budget 2.7 million
5% literature increase.
5 cent across the board quarterly cost set aside for replacing equipment, will amount to about $60,000 per year.
Writers got a 10% raise, BM and EIC got a 3% raise.
Sec. Treas. of Missions withdrew offer of raise when opposition was expressed.
Procedural problems hindered messengers from taking a stand on sexuality and marariage.
How few messengers were present for SS committee report, decisions on Thursday.
Going to the mike to speak 3 times - nominated 2 men who were elected and to speak for the Bible qualification of a preacher (or missionary) being the husband iof one wife. "Brudder Mawderater, blue mike."
Watching my son-in-law serve as head teller.
Apparent inability of some messengers to vote and discuss at the appropriate times.
The joy and encouragement of seeing friends from around the country and having fellowship with them.
Having our granddaughter spend 2 nights with us in motel at Springfield and getting to see her at the meeting.
As Messenger Meetings go, it was better than most (a mixture of disappointment over the growing number who voted the way they did and the joy of the discussion being brotherly even in times of disagreement.
Seeing my LMBIS friends at Springfield was great.
The joy of the final Amen and leaving for vacation in Branson.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Bro. Merritt,
ReplyDeleteAs far as the issue of the missionary administering the Lord's Supper to the mission, it does not fit the definition of open communion, as according to the missionary, they did not allow non-mission members or non-Baptists to partake. Perhaps we need to coin another term for it. As they are still technically members of the sponsoring church, I would consider it, however, an unscriptural practice. A church cannot Biblically take the Lord's Supper in two places. (1 Corinthians 11:20). There again, this highlights the problems with our current missiology. We should be planting good, solid Landmark Missionary Baptist churches instead of starting missions. When you make the claim that a mission in a far distant place is only an arm of the sponsoring church, you are inevitably gonna have these conflicts with our beliefs about local church, the Lord's Supper, etc. That's all I'm going to say about that.
You do realize that qualified ministry is part of our doctrinal statement (# 19), yet why can't we just get together on the Bible on that one? Again, the reproach and dishonor (a preacher must be blameless) comes when he commits adultery. (Proverbs 6:32,33) Jesus said that a man who remarries, [b] unless the cause of the previous divorce was fornication (sexual sin), [/b] commits adultery and so does he who marries a woman who has been put away. Romans 7 says when your spouse dies, you are free from to marry again (However, I don't agree that if you divorce, just wait until the first spouse dies. Refer to Jesus' command above.) An unmarried man who has never committed fornication is blameless, so the qualifications do not prohibit a single man from pastoring. However, a man who has been promiscuous in his youth is disqualified. Since a man is to be an example of purity (1 Timothy 4:12), I have doubts that a man who has committed sexual sin in his youth can be qualified, even if he only has one partner and marries the young woman that he defiles. Seems pretty clear to me.
Also, as far as resolutions and amendments in general, why do we have to get so bogged down in procedural technicalities, so that fundmental issues cannot get an up or down vote? To me, regardless of who brings a resolution or how it's brought, the resolutions need to be voted on their own merits: i.e. the resolution on Promise Keepers in 1997. You are either for a resolution or against it. Those who feel they don't want things "codified" in the Doctrinal Statement or Articles of Agreement forget that nothing in the ABA Doctrinal Statement or Articles of Agreement are enforceable. Why can't things that might generate a little controversy (even though they shouldn't in a Landmark Baptist association) get taken off the table?
I respectfully have to disagree with you and say if we have to take things incrementally, let's do it (with the Articles of Agreement). We desperately need more clarification as to who we are and who we want to fellowship (those that agree on fundamental Biblical doctrines and spiritual worship). I don't think we are going to be able to continue the status quo. There are too many "progressives" who are agitating for change.
It's a good thing we are not so under the microscope of the media, as it would have looked bad on our association for voting down amendments pertaining to sexual perversion and the definition of marriage. Those things need to be included in our Doctrinal Statement. Even the SBC expelled a church who had gays serving in leadership from their convention.
What is your take on the harmony of our work? Do you a see a lot of dissension and divide between those with Biblical convictions and those wanting change or do you see it continuing to be brotherly despite disagreements over some issues?
I think there are a lot of private differences but few willing to make a public issue of it. The old preachers used to say we could disagree without being disagreeable. I think we have got to the point as the ABA that we want peace in fellowship more than truth in practice.
ReplyDeleteI agree we need to have a clearer identity. We need to take stands on things like immorality and the family. The procedural problem was the church voted it as a change to the Doctrinal Statement when I think it wiould have passed as a resolution.
Associated work will never produce carbon copy churches - even two preachers may disagree on many things, so multiply that by many churches. When the majority is in the middle (where the truth is), things will be good - but when either extreme gets a majority, then the association is in trouble. We are headed for the progressive liberals moving into the majority (already there on some issues like preacher qualifications). The opposite extreme is isolationism, where we feel we cannot associate with anyone. At present, there is a great difference between how churches practice, while they still think of themselves as preaching and standing for the same truths.
The doctrinal statement is good - but few interpret it the same. We have for years (at least 20-25) had some who believed more than 3 spiritual gifts were in operation. We have those who follow easy believism that present salvation as just believe, all you have to do is believe. We have many going outside the association (if the truth is there, all of us should be there - but it is not) for literature, Bible conferences, leadership seminars, youth programs. We have churches using diffrent BIble versions (I heard of one pastor who was glad a church was willing to use his particular choice of a new version). We have some who think a credentials committee would be OK and others who think it interferes with church autonomy and sovereignty. We have some who practice the Lord's Supper diofferent ways (I know of one who had the church line up and the pastor put the bread in their moouths as they passed by). I know of one who thinks baptism is a spiritual thing and total immersion is not necessary. We have some who will ordain, call as pastor and send as missionaries men who have been divorced and remarried. (And think they are OK with the doctrinal statement). Some no longer practice church discipline and others have created their own church discipline doctrine (not found like that in the BIble).
What used to be the most conservative association is not so conservative anymore. I predict it will keep getting more liberal. Organizations grow so big to a point and then they split. Are we there yet? Maybe not, but we are headed that way.
Amen younglandmarker to your comments about missions. The issue you brought up has been the biggest hinderance I have found in the mission field aside from the actual doctrines we defend. When you get a new convert and start to disciple them and we teach a local church and practice different, they see a denomination with a mother church and not a local independent body.
ReplyDeleteYou just cannot teach one way when you are practicing in a universal form.
From the "mission" in Utah which is an arm of a group two days away.
Have a good day.
Bro. Mike,
ReplyDeleteLet me say this about the starting of missions (and I'm not arguing with you). I don't look at starting missions in near the same light as someone who teaches that all the saved make up the church even though I do see it as inconsistent with what we teach about the local nature of the church. I understand the pure motives of those who see that it needs to be done in order that strong doctrinal churches might be produced. I'm afraid that many today see planting churches as a vehicle to free themselves from all shackles of doctrinal accountability (that's why I clarified in my comment about how we need to plant good, solid Landmark Missionary Baptist churches). There are those among the progressive liberals in our work who want to see a church planting fellowship organized. They claim it is not an insurgency as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is to the to the SBC but I'm not sure. Long story short, if I had to choose between progressive liberals who plant churches and those with solid Biblical convictions who start missions, I would choose those who start missions every time.
Jonathan wrote, "A church cannot Biblically take the Lord's Supper in two places." Isn't the foundation behind that the fact that a local church cannot exist in two places at the same time? But that is exactly what the popular mission system requires.
ReplyDeleteSorry to isolate one part of your post & the comments (because I agree with much of it)
ReplyDeleteHowever,
Jesus gave grounds for divorce ("saving for the cause of fornication," Matt.5:32)
Disdaining/rejecting any divorced preacher (even though their divorce was for scriptural grounds as stated by Jesus) makes one more strict than Jesus.
I know that divorce compromises a man's ministry (whatever the reason) and I know that this subject has been run to death of late. I personally know a few preachers who were divorced for the reason Jesus allowed for (AND before they were called to preach)and who have had wonderful ministries. One of which was a pastor of mine who had a very positive impact on my life. To continually hear/read insulting comments towards them & the churches who called them almost borders on persecution, in my opinion.
If for allowing what Jesus allowed for with regards to divorce makes me a "progressive liberal" in your eyes, then so be it.
It seems that by contending that ALL divorced preachers have no place in the ministry, you are saying that Jesus was wrong & can't be trusted. I don't know you, but I'm sure you don't believe that.
I'm not writing this to start another divorce/remarriage thread...and I know & have seen the tragedy of divorce in people's & preachers' lives....just wantd to express my belief on the issue. God bless... <><
Just to clarify the "save for the cause of fornication" Matt. 5:32. It refers to when a Jewish man got married and discovered his wife was not a virgin. There is no way a married woman can commit fornication - when married, it is adultery. One does not decide Bible issues on who one knows in such a situation, but rather by "Thus saith the Lord."
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't seem to be a clarification, but an interpretation. Bro. AB, what source of information do you have that limits fornication as such (just curious)?
ReplyDeleteDoes the fornication of Ephesians 5:3 apply only to Jews? Or does the "fornication" of Acts 20:25only refer to Jewish men? "As touching the Gentiles...that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."
I do not decide Bible issues on who I know or how they live their lives. I simply provided an anonymous example of someone who has a seemingly good ministry and who fit the grounds for divorce as outlined by Jesus.
This is likely not where you wanted to go with this post & I have no desire or illusions of persuading you after having read previous posts and comments on this subject.
Fornication is defined as a general term for unlawful sex. Lawful sex is between a man and a woman who are married to each other. Both Nelson's Bible Dict. and New Unger's Bible Dict. explain fornication as sex between unmarried people.
ReplyDeleteNelsons also adds that fornication is a general term in the New Testament for unchastity (which means, acc. to Nelson, that only one of the parties is married and perhaps not the other...for example, a married woman cheating on her husband with someone who is not married would also constitute fornication)
ReplyDeleteBrother AB, I hope for consistencies' sake that you will lead out in exercising church discipline on any church members who have been divorced for any reason (unless they are Jewish men by your definition) as they are currently living in adultery just like all of the divorced preachers are. I also hope that for consistency reasons you will never again present a divorced person for membership to the church you pastor as you believe they are living in adultery.
If you are and will be consistent, I admire that at least.
I do think it unfruitful to continue at this point...I respect and admire your convictions, but in some areas (rapture, tithing, divorce/remarriage, etc.) the fact that so many Missionary Baptists even have varying opinions, tells me that there has to be some allowance for interpretation in these areas without being branded as a heretic (or a progressive liberal).
If you would like to respond, that's fine, but I do not intend to.
God bless <><
Very good. I agree with both of you. Arch Bishop is 100% correct about the qualification of the pastor, as well as the word fornication.
ReplyDeleteBro Neal is also right about disciplining church members who take on a second spouse. They should be treated the same as we do with those that are shaking up while unmarried.
They are living in open sin when they commit adultary by remarrying another person. We cannot allow open sin to be part of the Lords's churches.
I hope we do hold to this conviction, not just for the preacher but also the potential member.
Bro. Neal,
ReplyDeleteBrother, don't rush to judgment on my comment. I agree with you that sexual sin committed against a man IS the exception to the prohibition against remarriage. That is clearly what Jesus said. The controlling principle behind the qualifications of a pastor is that he be "blameless". When the sin is committed [b] against [/b] him, he is still blameless. According to Proverbs 6:32,33, the reproach comes when [b] he himself [/b] commits adultery, by sexual sin against his wife, by divorcing and remarrying for a reason other than for sexual sin committed against him (even if the divorce was before he was saved. Jesus speaking to the Pharisees about divorce and remarriage and his telling the woman at the the well that she "truly" had had five husbands shows that he recognized the marriages of the lost. When he said "Whosoever putteth away his wife", it clearly meant either Jew or Gentile just as "whosoever will" means everyone and not just "the elect" can be saved.) or by marrying someone put away for a cause other than adultery (such as they couldn't get along) or who committed sin against their first spouse. I know of of a case of a preacher whose wife left him for [b] another woman. [/b] Do those of you who are opposed to divorce and remarriage [b] for any reason [/b] believe this brother must remain unmarried for the rest of his life?
Bro. Richard,
The word for fornication in Matthew 19 is pornea which means illicit sexual intercourse as you said. Notice over in 1 Corinthians 7:2 implies that such can be committed by a [b] married person. [/b] I believe you are opposed to divorce and remarriage by a pastor [b] for any reason [/b] and I highly respect your position although apparently we disagree in this one exception.
Again, I do not believe those men who have committed sexual sin before marriage are qualified either, whether it was one partner or not. 1 Timothy 4:12 says that a pastor is be an example of purity. He cannot be that example if he committed fornication before he was married.
Bro. Mike, Bro. Richard, and others,
Was not divorce at one time considered an excludable offense? There are a lot of things that people are let by with these days. It's harming our churches just as Paul said it would in 1 Corinthians 5.
Paul was FOREVER deemed a murderer, and even most Christians did not want to accept him. How can you claim someone who divorced is forever spotted as unblameless, yet Paul wasn’t? Are you truly claiming that if a person pre-salvation lost his virginity to a girl, then got saved, baptized, and called to preach, that you believe he cannot pastor? WOW! What a foreign view. Also, this idea that your view is the Bible’s view and we are not looking at what the Bible says is inaccurate. The question isn’t, “What does the Bible say?” The question is rather concerning how to understand what the Bible says. It says “man of one wife.” This is the verse the majority of people use to argue against a remarried man pastoring. The question is what does this mean? It can mean “Man of one wife in the present” which is the most logical understanding since the verb is in the present tense (even though I know this doesn’t dictate it must be so, it is the easiest understanding with this verb. Given some other evidence, it can mean something else, and which evidence has not been given.) The way of how to understand this phrase is your view. Just as my understanding is to add the phrase “in the present”, your view adds the phrase “in the past and present” making it “a man of one wife in the past and present.” I’ve stated this before, and people always ignore it, so I hope you or others can directly comment to this next part.
ReplyDeleteIn John 4,
Jesus told the woman at the well that she spoke TRULY and WELL, when she said she had NO husbands. He explained how that she had in the past 5 husbands, but at the present, she had NONE. He told her this was TRUTH. So she was obviously a woman of NO husbands. If God considers a remarried person one of MULTIPLE spouses, then Jesus lied when He told her she spoke truth in that she had no husbands (in the present) even though she had 5 in the past. Jesus is God, and Jesus stated that a woman divorced 5 times presently had NO husbands. Therefore, a remarried man has only ONE wife, a divorced man who isn’t remarried (just like her) presently has 0 wives. If this is the case, the remarried man is a man of one wife.
So the easiest understanding, the most simple, the most literal seems to be to me that a man cannot presently have multiple spouses, what we call polygamy. This coincides with the phrase “office of bishop” since all other offices of that such as Herod’s office allowed their officers to break the law and be polygamists (remember Herod had many wives.) Also, it was an important teaching that the leader of the New Testament church was not to behave the same as the leader of the Old Testament family such as Abraham and Jacob who had multiple wives.
I leave with three questions.
1. If a remarried man is a man of two wives, IF he currently has multiple wives, then is he living in sin?
2. If so, then why don’t we preach all our remarried spouses in our church should immediately divorce and reconcile?
3. How is the second paragraph (term used loosely) of this comment wrong?
Bro. James,
ReplyDeleteSo, your position can best be described as "one wife at a time"? Also, according to your use of John 4 to defend your position, would you in your view say that a man who has been married 5 times is qualified to be a pastor? Interesting to say the least.
Okay, since you asked us to apply John 4 to our view, I will ask you a similar question. How do you view Proverbs 6:32,33 regarding your position?
Bro. Richard,
ReplyDeleteA couple of highlights from the meeting that we have failed to discuss are:
Bro. Robert Myers gave the annual sermon. Did he read his text from the KJV and then quote other versions during the course of his sermon? Also, did he speak favorably of fund raisers in his sermon when the Bible teaches tithes and offerings?
Also, you said that there were 956 registered messengers and that 1100 voted for the meeting place? Why the difference?
So basically you won't answer any of my questions, but you will ask your own? That shows you have no answer. Out of respect for my view, I will answer your questions, but let it be noted, you cannot in any way answer mine, or at least you have chosen not to.
ReplyDeleteMy view is simply a man who has (PRESENTLY) one wife, a man who must be (in the present tense in the Greek AND English) a man of one wife. Your view is a man of one wife (in the past and present). You add more than I do, so don't make it out like I'm adding something and you aren't.
As to a man being previously married and divorced, and still pastoring, it depends on the situation. Is he a womanizer? Or did he divorce and remarry four times at age 19, then get saved, baptized, and married a good Christian woman, and then remained married for 30 years? This isn't about the question at hand of "man of one wife" though, this is the question of blameless, NOT the Scripture we are addressing. So let's not divert attention away from the subject. If you want to argue the blameless scripture, we need to go into much more detail, and again, you won't answer about Paul being a murder and this not being a spot.
Thirdly you asked about Proverbs 6:32, 33. When you read verse 34 and 35 with it, it seems (and appears) this refers to a man sleeping with another man's wife, thus causing the jealousy and rage in verse 34 and 45. This is the dishonour. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the qualification of "man of one wife." Stop trying to redirect attention somewhere else, and defend your position that a remarried man is a man of two wives. If you cannot, then you have NO evidence to support your view according to the "man of one wife" scripture.
Again, my position is that a man cannot be remarried and be qualified to be pastor with the narrow exception if the divorce was caused by the fornication of the previous spouse.
ReplyDeleteBtw, Proverbs 6:32,33 has MUCH to do with the the husband of one wife issue. It says that a man who commits adultery has a reproach, a wound, and a dishonor which shall never be wiped away. Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife and marries another (except for fornication) has committed adultery.
Again, fornication is a general term for unlawful sexual intercourse and can be applied to married persons, and not just to something that occurred before the couple were married, according to 1 Corinthians 7:2.
ReplyDeleteBro. Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteYou are using the word "blameless" from I Tim.3 as though it only relates to "the husband of one wife." Although many of these qualifications overlap, the "blameless" and "husband of one wife" do not have some kind of special connection.
A pastor could be guilty of reproach (blame) for almost anything on the list....drinking & fighting (v.3), having wild "preacher's kids" (v.4), etc.
Now that Bro. Merritt's thread has been hijacked, let's move on to something really important about those qualifications: If Brother Wilkes (for example) woke up one morning and decided that he wanted to be called "Bishop" Wilkes (as this is the Bible term from qualifications of I Tim. 3) could we really say anything negative about it??? :)
Anyone else find it funny how Brother younglandmarker refuses to answer my three questions? Is this b/c he cannot do it, or b/c he knows he is wrong?
ReplyDeleteAlso, he didn't even acknowledge or refute what I said in answer to his questions. He just restated his position without noting the flaws I showed in his reasoning. He ignored what I said completely and restated his position.
C'me on Brother younglandmarker, I love you, but you've got to do better than that if you want to persuade anyone to your view. Instead of just restating your view, please answer my 3 questions above and the flaws in your reasoning I pointed out.
By the way, Brother young landmarker, in a debate format (and I know we aren't in it, but it is a good rule to follow), if you ignore someone's questions or flaws in your reasoning, the peanut gallery (audience) acknowledges that you concede to your opponent's statements. Either you agree with them, or do not know how to disagree with them. This is why (even though I feel your arguments redirect attention away from the phrase "man of one wife" which you have not been able to explain concerning your position, I still answered your question.
ReplyDeleteBro. Neal,
ReplyDeleteI will ask a couple of questions and then move on: why is it always alleged of those who hold a strict view on pastors and marriage that we minimize the rest of the qualifications (which is not true). If a man drinks alcoholic beverages, for example, he no more qualifies to be a pastor than if he has been divorced and remarried. While a man may stop drinking, you are either the husband of one wife or you're not. That cannot be changed. Secondly, why do those who hold to the position that it doesn't matter about a man's marriage status call for us to broaden our belief about the issue and then turn right around and disparage us because we take an uncompromising stand?
Well, while there is Biblically nothing wrong with the title of bishop, it has been so misused, that it would be wiser not to use it, just as we would not want to call our churches Christian or church of God (which were both used of true churches in the Bible) because of getting confused with denominational groups of the same name. While were on that subject, I am against dropping Baptist from the name of our churches because the Bible calls us to "be ye separate" and I believe that it is a matter of identity, that we should not be ashamed of what we believe, and that we should be upfront with what we believe and not seek to draw the world in and then spring it on them once we have them inside.
Lastly, since you came back (you said that you did not care to comment further), why did you feel the need to question Bro. Richard's integrity on the issue
(I hope for consistencies' sake that you will lead out in exercising church discipline on any church members who have been divorced for any reason...)? I take issue with that.
Bro. James,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note, though, that Jesus did recognize the five marriages of this LOST woman.
It is also interesting to note that the word translated "one" in 1 Timothy 3:2 is translated "first" in Matthew 28:1.
Just pointing out, Brother younglandmarker again makes a broad statement such as he takes "issue with that", but gives no evidence or reasoning behind it.
ReplyDeleteBro. James,
ReplyDeleteDid you even read my last post?
Yes indeed. You didn't prove your argument, you just stated facts of the situations. Jesus recognized that she had (in the past) had five husbands, but said she spoke truely and well in that she said she currently had no husbands. Thus, in God's eyes, a divorced woman or man has no husbands.
ReplyDeleteAs to the "one" and "first" issue, I do not fault your lack of understand, since you've not yet had Greek class. This is actually something you learn in the "beyond the basics" book in fifth year. In basic terms, the syntax (word order) of the sentence and what is said is the reason it is translated "first" in Matthew 28:1. This is not the most common usage.
Concerning translation from the Greek, don't get ahead of yourself. The most important rule to understand about it is that the King James translators were right, and using Greek should only ever clarify, NEVER change the meaning. There is a vast difference between the meaning of "one wife" and "first wife". Also, the word translated "one" is in the genitive case (of one) and the word translated "first" is in the accusative case, making it objective.
Whether we agree or disagree, please don't get ahead of yourself in Greek. That is wise advice from preachers much older than myself. I tried to do the same thing, and looking back, I realize how I made man incorrect statements due to ignorance. Don't make the same mistake many preachers have made before. Wait until you have taken all the courses at seminary in the languages before making bold statements with the language.
Bro. Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteI didn't allege that you minimized the rest of the qualifications for pastor. I simply asked why in a few previous comments (one was July 2 ,10:39) that you seemed to only tie the marriage issue to being blameless.
In the previous comment (7/4, 11:12), you imply that I am someone "who holds to the position that it doesn't matter about a man's marriage status..."
If that's your implication, you're wrong (at least about me).
My previous comments point out why I believe Jesus gave grounds for divorce and that there could be pastors today who are qualified based on the reason for the divorce. You have even agreed that fornication could apply to married couples in several of your comments. So why wouldn't this allowance be extended to pastors in that case and that case alone??
The bishop comment was a joke & another attempt to divert the discussion. Sorry you wasted a paragraph on it.
Yes, I came back. Not to discuss the "husband of one wife" issue per se, but simply asking about you tying the word blameless only to the marriage issue. I didn't really see that as being connected to mine & Bro. Merritt's discussion.
Lastly, I have heard that Bro. Merritt is one of the kindest men walking. I respect him. But the disparaging begins when people in the ABA are referred to as liberals or worse when they interpret Jesus's very words as possibly applying to preachers also. I merely extended the line of reasoning that "ALL divorced/remarried preachers are adulterers" as applying to church members too. Church discipline or exclusion is the consequence of that thinking. What is there to take issue with? That I made sense?
If Bro. AB is personally offended by something I wrote, I'm sure he will be mature about it, and let me know privately.
What you will have to come to grips with, Brother, is that there are actually, saved, Spirit-led, Bible believing Missionary Baptists who may not always interpret scripture as you do.
If these few differences bother you so much, you will be miserable in the ministry.
Of course I mean personally miserable...
ReplyDeleteI posted this earlier and it appears that I inadvertently deleted it. So I'll try again...
ReplyDeleteBro. JamesCharles, in your view -- It can mean “Man of one wife in the present” which is the most logical understanding since the verb is in the present tense...So the easiest understanding, the most simple, the most literal seems to be to me that a man cannot presently have multiple spouses, what we call polygamy -- would a polygamist who has put away all his wives but one meet the qualifications for a bishop?
Younglandmarker, I cannot agree that it is wiser not to use biblical names just because some heretic has hijacked and misused them. We should not lay down our swords and give the day to the enemy. If biblical names, doctrines, etc. are abused we should contend for what they really mean rather than giving up on them.
Brother Merritt, like Jonathan, I am curious how that there were only 956 registered messengers and yet 1100 voted for the meeting place??
Wow, this has been busy since i last checked in. First, Happy 4th to all of you.
ReplyDeleteNow, Bro JamesCharles, There are churches that do teach that members should divorce a second spouse and lead in reconciliation. And some are ABA churches. So, to you questions, I say
1-Yes,
2-Yes,
3- she had no husbands but had 5 that she used in the role of husband in a sexual relationship unlawfully. I need to read the actual text to see if he mentions divorce anywhere.
I also have no problem with the term bishop. It is biblical and correct. And it should be used in the Lords churches no matter what the world has done to the term. If we treat all biblical words the way we do with Bishop, we will soon be trying to coin a new term for "marriage".
To teach someone to divorce their current spouse and remarry their first is to teach in direct opposition to God's Word (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) and (1 Corinthians 7:26-28, especially "if you marry, you have not sinned" in reference to remarriage according to the previous two verses.)
ReplyDeleteBrother R.L. Vaughn... I'm not sure that the Bible gives proper procedures for once a man is married twice (unless of course she is a lost woman bringing in idolatry such as in the book of Nehemiah, and even then, this is not necessarily a command to all men.) This is a question I've pondered... if a man came to me who was a polygamist, what is the proper procedure? Looking at all the Old Testament characters with multiple wives if God would want them to remain married to all but one. Honestly, I don't know the answer. What if they married two at one ceremony? Concerning the issue of bishop, I'd have to decide what God wanted them to do first. To divorce all but one, or whether or not he considers them married to all. I just don't know in this case.
ReplyDeleteLet me know the answer to the polygamy question, when you get it. I have asked it myself because we have 10,000 of them here
ReplyDeleteI haven;t been on the blog sins July 2nd, I think. Thanks for all the posts.
ReplyDeleteBro. Myers read his tex from KJV and then all the rest of his scripture reading (several verses on each point) were from another translation.
The 1100 votes - there wre less than a thousand registered messemgers/voters. Unless some had not turned in their letters at that time, I do not know. No other counted bote had more than 700 total.
There have been some older churches that have excluded for divorce, I have heard of it but I cannot give a specific example. In some cases apologies have been made to the church when a member gets a divorce.
Proverbs 6:29 is adultery - has relations with someone's wife.
The word one in the preacher qualifications before the word word wife means only one, someone. This does not specify the first wife or the present wife. According to some on this post, a man who had premarital sex can not be a preacher. Some however believe that you can stop doing what ever you are doing and be qualified to be a preacher. Maybe we should all step aside and let the perfect men of the world pastor the Lord's New Testament Churches. I heard a fellow pastor at the Nat Meeting say outside that God would not call a man to preach who had been divorced. I think where we might get into trouble is when we pretend to know what God would or would not do. There were preachers who stood up at the meeting that sais that they were divorced, but they would vote against a missionary that had been divorced. That wreaks of something. I am not advocating compromise. But the translation of this verse and the intent can not be proven 100 % even if we think it is in our minds. If so, explain how a pastor that has been divorced can be enjoying a ministry blessed by God?
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly an interesting topic. One thing is for sure: we all have strong feelings (convictions) concerning this subject. Can any of us truthfully say that we have known someone who met all of these qualifications all the time? I have noticed our doctrinal statement (ABA) is silent when it comes to an explanation of, "the husband of one wife." Great men in our past have compiled doctrines that are "most surely believed among us," yet, this topic is not mentioned. Could it be because Baptist people have always had varying views on this subject and they never made it a test of fellowship?
ReplyDeleteBrother GCope, I agree with you. I am on the opposing view of what the majority seem to believe. I do believe a man can be remarried and still meet the qualifications, nor do I believe the "man of one wife" issue is referring to anything other than polygamy. I believe this is the most literal and easy to understand, as well as the studied (from biblical and historical standpoint) point of view. That being stated, let me defend some of my brethren in one thing you stated.
ReplyDelete" ... someone who met all of these qualifications all the time?"
Of course we all answer emphatically, NO. However, their point of view is that any of the other qualifications can be fixed, corrected, changed throughout life. The other qualifications are ones they can strive to meet if they fail. This one, however, if it were as they say, cannot be overcome or changed. This is why they feel justified in saying this man is different than other preachers who do not meet up to other qualifications at any given time. While I disagree, I am as fair and unbiased as my mind will allow.
"But the translation of this verse and the intent can not be proven
ReplyDelete100% even if we think it is in our minds."
Bro. Barry,
The qualifications are a "must" (1 Timothy 3) and an "if" (Titus 1). That means that these are requirements (all of them) for a man to meet if he is to serve in the office of pastor (I also don't believe God is going to call a man to preach who is unqualified to pastor). Would God put a requirement in His Word that would be impossible to determine the meaning of?
"Maybe we should all step aside and let the perfect men of the world pastor the Lord's New Testament Churches."
Another question: would God put a requirement in His Word for an office that would be impossible for a man to keep?
Bro. JamesCharles, I see that you have started a thread on your blog about proper procedure/practical dealings concerning the situation of men with multiple wives. So I'll address this further there when I have time. My main point in regard to this discussion is that logically if Paul means "man of one wife in the present" the qualifications do not exclude from pastoring a former polygamist who has become a "man of one wife in the present".
ReplyDeleteArch Bishop: "I love the color guard and the pledge - MB are flag waving Americans." I would have thought there would have been some MBs there who were not Americans at all -- Filipinos, Mexicans, Indians, Costa Ricans, et al. American Christians often confuse their "Americanism" with their Christianity. I question to wisdom of mixing the two in worship context.
I think there were MB from 31 countries at the meeting. I am a "God and country" MB. We occasionally pledge the flag which we display prominently in our sanctuary.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the phrase, "the husband of one wife," it seems that all of the focus is on the word "one" and the word "husband" is neglected. Does it matter what kind of husband he is? If a once married man is abusive to his wife (physically or mentally) is he still qualified to be a pastor? If he fails to meet the needs of his wife, though he's just been married once, is he still qualified? Maybe churches should talk with the prospective pastor's wife before issuing a call to the man. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteI have been discussing the preacher qualification "the husband of one wife" in principle. It has not been an attack on anyone. But for the grace of God, any preacher could be in that situation. As to a test of fellowship, to my knowledge it has never been more than a difference of opinion between brethren. I have several preacher friends that are divorced and remarried. It has been a situation for many years involving pastors, missionaries, seminary instructors who are pastors. I have good fellowship with them on a friendly basis.
ReplyDeleteIn practice, some churches will and some will not use preachers in that situation. Each church has its own right to make their own choices in the matter. Some preachers will and some will not sit on a presbytery to ordain such a man. I have sat in congregations where men in this situation preached, and they are like other preachers - some do pretty good and some don't in my perspective.
As to the differences in practice, in an associational context, the support of missionaries must be by a standard that the majority of the churches can approve and supoprt or the mission support through the office of Sec. Treas. of Missions will suffer. For years, the precedent in the ABA has been to recommend missionaries that have not been divorced and remarried. A church that cares about this issue would have to designate their mission offering or resign themsleves to supporting a missionary they would rather not. The whole issue involves how churches can cooperate together to supoprt missionaries.
Bro. Richard,
ReplyDeleteC'mon! Bro. Grappe has already posted twice since your last post!
Btw, my last comment does not mean that discussion of this issue should be stopped. ;)
ReplyDeleteThere are some other issues brought up by this post that were not given due time, I think.
Bro. Copeland,
Very good thought and one that should be given very serious consideration. If a man is abusive to his wife/children, I would not want him as my pastor. Would that fall under whether he "ruleth his house well"?
Also, here is another aspect that does not involve the qualifications as given in the Bible in I Timothy and Titus, but is a measuring stick by which we either jokingly or in all seriousness gauge a man's ministry: his oratorical skills. Do we judge a man too much on his clever use of illustrations, alliteration, length of his sermon, the volume of his preaching, outward decisions made under him, etc.?
Brother YoungLandmarker, I don't think you understand the word "judge" in a biblical sense. From every aspect in the Bible, the word judge (used as a verb) seems to mean to place a sentence. You'll be judged with the same manner of judgment you mete out, etc. It seems always to be placing a sentence on someone, not knowing them by their actions. I am so tired of hearing "You're judging me" b/c I simply believe what Scripture teaches.
ReplyDeleteJesus told us to know them by their fruits. He said by our love and actions people will know us as his disciples. This is not judgment. This is the action of a jury, to decide guilty or not guilty. If you see a man kissing another man, saying they are homosexual is not a judgment. Saying they need to be killed is judging.
Brother ArchBishop,
I do not send money through the office of secretary treasurer of missions for other reasons. How can we say we won't send money through the office b/c a man is divorced, but we can for all those anti-KJV missionaries? I think our priorities are off a little. Also, if you send $$ designated to one mission which is on salary, the money they would have given him is then taken back and given to some other heretic. SO either way, if you send through the sec. treas. of missions, you support false-teaching.
Personally, I'd rather send to the missionaries I agree with who are not on salary, and if they are on salary, I'd like to send to their benefits so it isn't taken out of their paycheck.
Also, isn't the whole salary deal like a (wow, I don't know how to spell this word) wellfare system when churches don't support their own missions financially?
I will leave the "gauging" of other men's ministry to someone else. I know that illustrations can be helpful in presenting Bible truth. I also think that a preacher ought to be excited about what he is preaching; which is not necessarily revealed by his volume. Modern technology is a wonderful thing but it is a weak substitute for a man of God standing up with a Bible in his hands and preaching the book, illustrating the truth, painting the picture, driving home the point, confronting men right where they are. This kind of preaching is ordained of God. I had an old wise preacher tell me once that if I properly cared for my garden I would not have time to see the grass growing in my neighbor's garden. May every man judge his ministry in light of Scripture so that no grass will be found in his garden.
ReplyDeleteAmen, Bro. Gary. Most of us probably spend too much time worrying about someone else's garden -- and probably not in a good way or we might volunteer to help!
ReplyDeleteRather than continue a flag discussion here, I started a thread on the Landmark forum, Flags in Church.
Hopefully, illustrations and modern technology are ONLY used as tools in "standing up with a Bible in his hands and preaching the book, illustrating the truth, painting the picture, driving home the point, confronting men right where they are." If not, someone has missed the boat, and most likely gone away from the entire reason they wanted those things in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAbout not supporting men on salary, you missed it - I am concerned about our church's support - if we support by designating a missionary, the salary someone else gets is not our monety. We did our best to send it to a worthy missionary.
ReplyDeleteThe salary deal has been misused to be a welfare thing, but the other extreme is putting a time limit on a missionary (almost like being GOd or at least a missinoary's HS, which is still God). It's not a perfect system, but the best we have.
I'd have to agree with Bro. Gary about the right method ofpreaching - those are my sentiments, also. God still has the ability to bless the preaching of the Word.
You haven't done your "best to send it to a worthy mission" since you KNOW that money that WAS going to them is going to be reassigned to a bad mission. To do your best, you can send to their benefits which isn't accounted for or taken away from their salary from the ABA. Or you could designate it towards supplies they need, or something ministry related. This is 100% honest and fair. If you send something through the secretary treasurer of missions, it is going into the same pot, regardless. I can not do this with good conscience. Perhaps you and others can, but I can not in any way knowingly support the use of false Bible versions, or practice of open communion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if I understand correctly, designated funds won't send money to another mission, and there are PLENTY of great missionaries who aren't on salary for many great reasons.
What I was trying to say is to do your "best to send it to a worthy mission" requires going above and beyond writing a missions name down when you send it. It may require finding out a lot about a mission, and finding out where they can use the money that won't take away from the money the ABA already sends them. Just writing a mission's name down is surely not your "best", but rather a half-hearted attempt with an excuse behind it. If you wouldn't send money to all ABA missionaries on salary, you shouldn't send any through the office of secretary treasurer of missions. ANY money you send through the office goes to the same pot, to be distributed to them all, even if you 'designate' it, it is just a phrase to help ease one's conscience.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I love Brother Randy and am appreciative of what he does. It is the system that is flawed, and without some restrictions such as missions who VOLUNTARILY agree to receive salary must agree to some sort of standards, there is no solving it. Some say this takes away from the sovereignty of a church, however it no more does so than saying that a mission MUST be a regular baptist church. The reason is that associated work is PURELY voluntary. We aren't telling your mission they HAVE to practice a certain way. We aren't telling a church they can't send a missionary to wherever b/c they use another Bible version. We are simply saying if you want to receive the funds we send, you have to be a true church who isn't wrong on point A, point B, point C, etc. After all, would we ever allow a catholic mission to be put on salary if they labeled themselves regular baptist? No.
You don't understand the system. Also, I do more than put a name down. Kind of oversimplifiying, wouldn't you say?
ReplyDeleteBro. Younglandmarker
ReplyDeleteNo God would not put a requirement in that is not understandable. But from reading the verses for qualification, you can not 100% say that this means only wife forever and always. If you say this it is an opinion. Limiting God is a very dangerous path to take. Can God call a convicted murderer to be a pastor if he has repented of his sins and served his time? If not, then why? Should remarriage then not even come in to the picture? If a precher is dovorced and remains single, he has not ruled his house well? How do you explain away the pastors that have been divorced and divorced and remarried that have ministries blessed by God?
You are most likely right. I guess I don't understand the system. Explain to me how I'm wrong. Here's how I understand it.
ReplyDeleteMissionary A, B and C are on salary. Assume they get $30,000 per year from the ABA sec. treas. of missions. No matter whether someone sends directly to them, the ABA will meet that amount.
I decide I agree with missionary A, but not missionary B or C. I decide to send $30,000 a year of my own pay check through sec. treas. of missions for missionary A's salary. The sec. treas. of missions decides since the salary is already met (or part of it), they take the other $30,000 they WOULD have given to missionary A, and give it elsewhere (perhaps in store for next year) which will then be divied out into the salaries of the missionaries including B and C with whom I disagree.
In so doing, I've given (knowingly) money to the NIV preaching missionaries B and C. Is this a correct assessment? Explain why not if not.
As to oversimplifying, yes it is, but the point was that by sending to missionary A's benefits or missionary supplies instead of through the office to his salary, the money will be given elsewhere as in the above example. Again, maybe I misunderstand it. If so, please explain it to me using the missionary A, B and C example above, and correcting it.
Bro. James,
ReplyDeleteThe way I understand is that the ABA always complies with the express wish of the donor. They have always believed and stood for this as a principle. Your money would go to missionary A if you so designate it.
I know, but then they subtract the amount of money I designated from what they would have given to missionary A, and then they give it to someone else. Therefore, since my money ends up in the same pot, it is in actuality distributed to missionaries A, B, C, etc.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's just another thing we'll disagree on. I don't feel responsible for what the office does with other churches money, just ours.
ReplyDeleteBut why support the office by sending to it when you could send the money directly to the mission/missionary who needs it? If you disagree with where the office sends money, why support the office at all?
ReplyDeleteWell, I obviously only know a couple of preachers on this blog, but I thought I would address something that I didn't see on here. First, let me say that I agree with James Charles on the marriage/divorce thing. Our ABA is dying. Why? Because many of us have become legalists. Just the thing Jesus fought while on earth. The Pharisees always wanted to verbally stick with the law, when grace abounds. Second, I must ask, how many so-called qualified pastors have had big troubles with their kids and all the church does is pray for them. Pastors are not thrown out of the church because of their children's mistakes. If so, it is not many that do it. No man has the right to tell another man that God did not call him to do anything. YOU DO NOT KNOW THE RELATIONSHIP OF THAT MAN AND GOD! We need to get back to the basics. Bro. Charles, thank you for the example you gave in John 4. Obviously, many think they have a qualified answer to rebutal this statement. Truth is, they don't. God's Word does not contradict itself. thank you for the conversation.
ReplyDeleteWas God wrong in using Moses (married to at least two women), Abraham (two women), Jacob (Four women for the founding of His people), David and Solomon (multiple wives) in leadership positions? If so, what has changed? While I'm not condoning divorce or polygamy, what I'm saying is that obviously multiple marriages don't put a HUGE enough scar that keep a person from leading God's people. If it did, then none of these men could effectively lead.
ReplyDeleteSorry about that last post, it was made by me, James Snyder, not Savannah my wife. I didn't know I was logged in under her name.
ReplyDelete