The Pastoral Office, Divorce and Remarriage By Bror Erickson I was asked to write this paper, I suppose, because

as a divorced pastor Ive had a lot of occasion to think on the dilemma of being both a pastor and having been divorced. To the chagrin of many, I have even dared to marry again and yet stay in the office. There is, in fact, today a dilemma concerning all this. For one, our church is against divorce. God hates divorce, and Christ spoke out against it in ways that leave no doubt for the Christian as to what his or her attitude should be concerning divorce in general. You will not find me arguing in favor of divorce. Jesus allows it in the case of adultery; but even in those cases, I am one that will counsel for reconciliation if at all possible. But as Paul soothes the consciences of many in his day and ours by saying let the unbeliever go, thereby allowing for divorce in the case of malicious abandonment, so undoubtedly the pastors in this room have watched with disappointment as couples have split and have tirelessly sought to comfort, as the unbelievers go, with the forgiveness of sins. Perhaps you have also reprimanded with the law, holding out forgiveness for those who have left, all the time mourning this sinful world in which such things happen to those we love. I have no problem with our church bodys position on divorce. It is not a light thing to be sneezed at. Though, I do have a small problem with some other views centering around how divorce should be handled among the clergy. This is the dilemma we face today. Where clergy and divorce are concerned, many in our church body still hold views I myself once held views that say divorce unqualifiedly disqualifies a man for the pastoral office, and remarriage even more so. I have had to forgive myself for holding them, and I ask others to forgive me as I forgive others for holding them. Many of us were raised with these views that are typified by Martin Scharlemann in his 1980 paper, The Pastoral Office, Divorce, Remarriage, and Moral Deviation,1 a paper he presented to the Council of Presidents in February of that year, which was later published in CJ in July of that year. I was four that year, but I figure these views had, by that time, been long entrenched in the synod. I figure that, because Scharlemann does little more than present them and take it for granted that everyone will agree with him. He hardly defends the views, and the rational he gives for keeping them typifies a theology of glory. He quotes 1 Timothy 3, as it reads in almost every English translation, without once referencing the Greek or wrestling with what it might mean in that society and how it should then be applied in our society. He comes to conclusions vastly different than those of the late Bo Giertz, who actually does look at what the Greek says and meant in Pauls day and in an evangelical Lutheran way addresses what that might mean today. Like I said, I once held these same views. I have come to understand that there was not a little bit of self-righteousness involved, and perhaps, even some fear. There is ample reason for a man to fear divorce, but thinking about Gods word rationally and allowing a divorced man to stay in office is hardly going to spread divorce like gangrene through our ranks, not anymore than it already has. Yet for all the shortcomings of Scharlemanns paper, the views he presented

Scharlemann, Martin, The pastoral Office and Divorce, Remarriage, Moral Deviation (Concordia Journal, St. Louis, July 1980)pg. 141-150

have remained largely unchallenged in our ranks, even by those such as I, who have stayed in the office despite divorce. As I was struggling with the question of whether I should stay or go, I found few who could help rationalize staying in the office without recourse to merely pragmatic arguments. I know of not a few who think they are flouting these passages concerning divorce, and especially those verses in 1 Timothy and Titus that deal with the qualifications for being a pastor. Perhaps some of the most helpful advice I received was that I had to apply law and gospel to myself, just as I do to my sheep. That was nice. The more I have thought on that advice over the years, the more wisdom I see in it. Really, more pastors ought to do the same. But this advice hardly convinced me that I had a right to stay in the office. That there was forgiveness for anything I might have done to contribute to the breakdown of my marriage was something I understood. The question was: Do I and others like me still qualify for the office? That is a big question, and one that needs to be answered, and the only way to do it will be to take a scalpel to the law and dissect it like a lawyer so as to properly divide the word of truth. So it is necessary to look at First Timothy 3 in the English, with perhaps a perusal of Titus also, in order to understand why it is that we have come to where we are. But it will also be necessary to look at it in the Greek to understand where we have gone wrong.
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. [2] Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. [4] He must 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? [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 well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3:1 -7 (ESV) This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you [6] if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. [7] For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, [8] but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. [9] He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9 (ESV)

These two passages have much in common. Both speak to the character of the man who is to hold this office. Over the years elder has come to mean something quite different in the church, and what Paul called an elder, we call a pastor. Whenever I find myself getting a little too prideful, I read these admonitions and let them cut me down to size. There is a lot there, and Im left wondering if anyone qualifies for the office under these qualifications. I have yet to see a pastor, or even hear of a pastor, being defrocked because his daughter ended up pregnant out of wedlock, or his son ended up in jail. And I doubt that is due to the fact that we all manage our households so well that this never happens. Truth be told, PKs of my generation and many generations previous had reputations to uphold. I know I did my best. Songs have been written concerning this phenomenon that make fathers just a bit leery of their daughters dating such boys. We could talk about quick tempers and pastors' conventions, drunkenness and pastors' conferences. Violence? Greedy for Gain?

Each of these qualifications could be a paper of its own a book no less. I wont even touch the aspect of being able to teach and holding to sound doctrine. All this is to say that it seems a wonder that the only phrase anyone seems to pay attention to is husband of one wife; and if they were really qualified to teach or held to sound doctrine, few would actually think that is what it says or even means in the Greek. This is actually quite a problem. The Greek just doesnt say that. Given what it says, the translation husband of one wife makes some sense, but quite a bit is lost in that translation. What it actually says is , or , or , all of which, in their roughest state of translation, translates as one woman man. The ESV even gives a man of one woman as an alternate reading. It is easy to see how this quickly gets turned into husband of one wife. Even so, this is unsatisfactory for many reasons. The most obvious is the fact, apparent to any pastor having been in the office for any amount of time, being the husband of one wife does not necessitate being a man of one woman. This situation is not new to our day. A cursory reading of the Old and New Testaments makes it abundantly clear that the temptation for multiple sex partners has been around for a while. Many men manage to stay married to one woman while having mistresses and multiple extramarital trysts along the way. However, the text has a long history of being translated husband of one wife, and has more or less been interpreted to mean that through the years. Yet, even in this translation, it has not always been considered that digamy was the issue being addressed, as it is thought today and taken for granted by Scharlemann in his paper. Digamy is an old word used to describe the issue of remarriage after the lawful termination of a first marriage, whether because of death or divorce. A peculiar case for this interpretation is made in The Expositors Greek Testament, Vol. 4. Commenting on in the third chapter of Timothy, Newport maintains:
, of course does not mean that the episcopus must be, or have been, married. What is here forbidden is digamy under any circumstances. This view is supported (a) by the general drift of the qualities required here in a bishop; self control or temperance, in his use of food and drink, possessions, gifts, temper; (b) by the corresponding requirement in a church widow v. 9 , and (c) by the 2 practice of the early church

However, Newport is forced to undermine point c in his very next paragraph conceding that, whatever the practice of the early church was, it was not based on their understanding of the verse in question. The early commentators on this passage thought it was dealing with something far different than digamy. He continues:
On the other hand, it must be conceded that the patristic commentators on the passage (with the partial exception of Chrysostom)Theodore Mops. Theodoret, Theophylact, 3 Oecumenius, Jeromesuppose that it is bigamy or polygamy that is here forbidden.

White, Newport, Edited by w. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositiors Greek Testament Vol IV (New York, Hodder and Stoughton, 1912) Pgs 111-12
3

IBid

He then seeks to justify himself, though, by commenting that: Commentators are prone to go too far in the emancipation of their judgments from the prejudices or convictions of their contemporaries. In some matters the common sense of most is a safer guide than the irresponsible conjectures of a conscientious student. 4 Honestly, I dont even know what that means. He mentions a few early church documents in support of his position and a bunch of early church commentators that disagreed with it. But the argument that many church fathers were against digamy, and therefore their reading of this verse is the correct one, meets quite the counter argument in Keener:
The argument made by proponents of the divorce but not remarriage view that many church fathers forbid remarriage, and that they were closer to the New Testament culture than we are, does not help the case against remarriage in Matthew: these same church fathers often read their own cultures growing asceticism into these texts and preferred a literalisti c harmonizing of tests to a consideration of what the authors meant in their own historical situation. We must sometimes choose between what the inspired authors were communicating in their own situation and how later Christian interpreters have understood them. The choice should not be too difficult here. The church fathers themselves preferred the earliest Christian traditions to those of their own contemporaries, and Jesus clearly favors the authority of inspired scripture above that of human tradition (Matt. 15:3-9; Mark7: 5-9)5

Yes, it just may be that Newport is the conscientious student with the irresponsible conjectures, as common sense would say a guy who marries another woman after the death of his spouse is still a man of one woman, or husband of one wife. And what applies here to the death of a spouse also applies to those who are the innocent victims of divorce or have acquired divorce for reasons in line with scripture. Divorce implies the right to remarry.6 Keener is absolutely right to draw attention to the way in which asceticism was encroaching upon the church at the time digamy became an issue in the church. Peter Brown discusses the roots of this asceticism in the pagan culture of antiquity and how it came to be expected that one who was to become bishop would leave his wife for this purpose! He even brings attention to the fact that Chrysostom successfully deposed the bishop of Ephesus for having taken his wife out of a convent to deal with unfinished family business.7 It can hardly be maintained that such a spirit is at all in line with the meaning of this text or Biblical views of marriage in general. The God who hates divorce does not make an exception for those who do so in order to pursue the pastoral office. Though, it is rather peculiar that what today is viewed as a disqualification for the office was viewed by many in the early church as a prerequisite. This perhaps underlines Keeners point that we should value the authority of inspired scripture more than manmade traditions. It should also be mentioned that the entire tenor of Pauls letter to Timothy cautions against such asceticism. At the very beginning Paul warns of those who teach the law without
4

Ibid

Keener, Craig, and Marries Another (Peabody, Massachussest; Hendrickson Publishers, 1991) Pgs 44-45
6

Hosier, Helen Kooiman, The Other Side of Divorce (New York, Hawthorne Books, 1975) Pg. 121

Brown, Peter Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity, Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press; 1992) pg 138 ft 93

understanding. (1 Tim. 1:6-7) He warns against those forbidding marriage and counseling others to abstain from certain foods. (1Tim. 4:3) He even admonishes Timothy to start drinking wine. (1 Tim. 5:23) Young widows, he tells to remarry if possible! (1 Tim. 5:14) It is rather ludicrous, then, to think that he would counsel a young widower to not do the same. Bo Giertz notes that Paul seems to have reversed his counsel to the agamois, meaning the unmarried whether by divorce or death, at this time. (1 Cor. 7:8 ff) Perhaps he realized that the end was not as near as he once thought.8 This, though, brings us to the next point Newport enlists for the husband of one wife requirement being a ban on digamy. We will work backwards and look at point b: by the corresponding requirement in a church widow v. 9 . This is interesting, but as Keener points out: It is not impossible that something different is meant by the two terms.9 We can, however, be certain that this is not talking about polygamy or concubinage, and perhaps has something more to do with adultery, divorce or widowhood. The idea that this has anything to do with remarriage after being widowed, is quite preposterous. Paul, as has been mentioned earlier, actually recommends that younger widows get remarried. He certainly would not then object to them being enrolled as widows later in life if their second or third husband died. Given his advice that divorced women stay single on the off chance that they could be reconciled to their husbands in 1 Cor. 7, it could have something to do with divorce and remarriage. However, even that is doubtful, as his advice to the divorced or unmarried is a bit mixed, depending on the circumstances of the divorce. Paul is the first to realize that not all are given the gift of celibacy, and it is better for them to marry than to burn with passions. In light of the fact that was a phrase used by surviving husbands praising their deceased wives, and a common inscription found on tombstones, Keener has this to say:
Rather than forbidding marriage to those whose marriages had ended, Paul may be emphasizing that they should have been faithful spouses during the marriage. As we have mentioned in this period the term wife of one husband was not normally used for widows in the inscriptions; most of these inscriptions were dedicated by surviving husbands. This could mean that the wives are praised not as having married another man before their surviving husband, but a more natural explanation lies at hand: the functional stress of the term is on the wifes faithfulness as a good wife through the duration of the marriage. The implication may be that had she not been, she would have needed to find another husband, because the current husband would have needed to divorce her. Or it may be that she was faithful to her husband, never taking interest in another man during their marriage. Either way, it is meant as a positive moral judgment about her; it does not simply reflect that she was never so unfortunate as to have had a husband trigger-happy 10 about divorce.

Perhaps this is why the ESV provides, as an alternate reading for this verse, woman of one man, just as it alternately translates husband of one wife as man of one woman; because in the end, what we are dealing with here is a persons character and not their history.
8

Giertz, Bo Frklringar till Nya Testament vol 3 (Gteborg, Frsamlingsfrlaget, 2009) pg. 142 Keener. Pg 90 Ibid Pgs 94-95

10

Which brings us to Newports first point that the phrase husband of one wife should be interpreted in accordance with the general drift of the qualities required here in a bishop; self control or temperance, in his use of food and drink, possessions, gifts, temper. The problem here is that if we heed the general drift of what is required of a bishop here, then it is not at all digamy that is being addressed, but womanizing. Perhaps womanizing manifests itself in multiple divorces and remarriages, but that is a different issue than a pastor whose wife leaves him for reasons other than those given in scripture. In the day of Paul and Jesus it was extremely unlikely that a woman would voluntarily leave her husband. Malicious abandonment was most often the case of a man leaving the woman. Though, it was not always necessarily so. In the upper classes divorce had become so common that some women were said to divorce in order to remarry and remarry in order to divorce.11 But Paul did not discourage remarriage where the innocent party is concerned anymore than Jesus did. Where the divorce was valid, so was the remarriage. 12 These are the conclusions that Bishop Bo Giertz comes to also in his commentaries:
They should be above reproach so that nothing could legitimately be noted in their behavior. In connection with this it is also mentioned that an episcopus should be a one woman man. Even here it is only a question concerning basic Christianity. Roman law allowed a man to have concubines. Free relations were not seen as objectionable. But a Christian was to live a strictly monogamous life and not divorce. To divorce in order to take on another wife could be seen a kind of polygamy, and a leader in the congregation was not to be guilty of this .13

What you see, in his interpretation here, is not that a pastor could never be remarried after a divorce or death, but that he was not to be guilty of extramarital affairs or seeking a divorce in order to marry another woman with an emphasis on in order to. The reason it is looked upon as a type of polygamy has to do with Jesus and his instruction concerning divorce in Matthew 5 and 19
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:31 -32 (ESV) And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9 (ESV)

No doubt, that is also at the root of ongoing concern regarding the interpretation of 1 Timothy 3. Yet it should be noted here that Jesus does not forbid divorce outright; there are exceptions to the rule. In both of these verses a man is allowed to divorce if his wife has been unfaithful to him. The divorce would be a silly solution if it didnt mean the man could remarry. As Keener notes:
To argue that remarriage is forbidden after a valid divorce is to argue entirely on the basis of an inference not stated in the text. The text, indeed, militates against such an interpretation; a valid
11

Keener, Pgs 50- 51 Ibid 41. Giertz, Pg 136.

12

13

divorce by standard ancient definition implied the right to remarry (The phrases used for it relate to releasing someone from an attachment to allow them to engage in another such attachment). No ancient Jewish reader would have read Matthew otherwise. Again, the exception clause would have little practical value if the divorced person could not remarry. If Matthew meant something other than what his first Jewish-Christian readers would have understood him as saying, the ambiguous positioning of his exceptive clause does not make that clear, nor does he provide any other indications that he wishes his readers to understand his phrase in a manner different than the 14 way they would have naturally read it.

In short, not all divorces are the same, and not all parties in a divorce are equally to blame. We do not live in a day where one partner can just refuse to be divorced. It takes two to tango. This is as true of a marital squabble as it is of the marriage itself, and if one partner refuses to tango, then there is no tango. Perhaps we wish that marriages among pastors didnt break down and didnt end in divorce. I dont know of many divorced couples who have ever gotten married hoping for divorce. I dont know of any pastor who really wanted the divorce, as relieved as he may have been after the fact. People are sinful, and evil happens in this world, this is just as true for pastors and their wives as it is for anyone else. Divorce among clergy is becoming a more common problem. One hopes that it doesnt become more common than it is. I suppose in 1980 it might have looked like the problem could be stemmed by taking a hard line against divorce and remarriage. Scharlemann would like to preserve the sanctity of the office with such a hardline position. He says:
It is my conviction that we live in a day when it is imperative to witness to the world als o by the way we handle such difficult problems as are encompassed in the title of this paper ['The Pastoral Office and Divorce, Remarriage, and Moral Deviation']. We must insist that there is a sanctity about the church, especially with respect to the pastoral office, which demands of us that we do not conform to this world but that we be transformed by the renewal of the mind (Rom. 12:12).

I would suggest that the sanctity of the office is never found in the filthy rags of earthly righteousness, but that God actually uses the weak in this world to manifest his power, that he chooses the weak to shame the strong. (1 Cor. 1:27). We Christians live in the church by the grace of God. We are forgiven sinners. This is no less true of pastors. Yes there are reasons that one must be removed from the office from time to time, but that is a weighty thing that should not be taken lightly. Will the world see the righteousness of Christ when his bride, the church, persecutes those to whom she is to give double honor when she kicks such a man while he is down rather than lifting him up and embracing him in his time of need? I hear horror stories from some pastors going through divorce. I hear of DPs who seem to swarm in like buzzards on road kill, rather than alighting upon them as envoys or the Holy Spirit bringing comfort and peace. I hear of men being forced out of the ministry or being told they need to take time off and being put on CRM status. It is a black mark in his PIF that is sent to calling congregations. One does wonder about the legal propriety of such things. In what other occupation is it legal for the employer to inquire concerning your marital status? In what other line of employment would it ever be appropriate to suggest that a man take a couple years off while he sorts things out because his wife left him? It is understandable that a man going through such a time may find himself incapable of handling the stressors of ministry and decide himself to go do something else. He is free to make
14

Keener, Pg 45

such a decision. But the church herself ought to be wary about telling him to make it. If the circumstances surrounding the divorce put the man at fault, then yes, he perhaps should be removed from the office. But if the circumstances of the divorce do not warrant his removal, then neither do they warrant forced leave, CRM status, or even the question to be asked by would-be calling congregations. Congregations who are seeing their pastor suffer a divorce would perhaps be best encouraged to show love, mercy and understanding during that time. Perhaps the pastor should be allowed a little leeway in his obligations, so he can carry the added weight. But I find the people in the congregations get that. They are rarely the ones who need to be coached in this day and age. If they havent been through it themselves, they have watched it with their sons and daughters, their friends and coworkers. They know God is not glorified, the pastoral office is not glorified, the church is not glorified when these men are abused with a misapplication of the law in a brutal and hard manner, but when the gospel and forgiveness of sins that these men are called to proclaim is also shared with them.