Being a Pastor and being Single

Lots of people have lost their spouses. In some churches when that happens it is a double loss because they are discarded as trash as though they are no longer of any value. Some pastors who lose their spouses have also lost their job.

 

That is sadly true . . .

 

Friend

It is a shame that I read any of your post(s).

How can you hold the Truth and the Word in 'high regard', and discuss a homosexual or adulterous pastor?

I really found what I read to be offensive.

If that was not your intent, then write in a manner that excludes homosexual hyperbole . . .

I am a conservative servant, and when you go out on a limb to assault Biblical Theology - I will continue to tune you out. From what little I have read of your posts, you do not characterize what I write with any regard - and then dismiss conservative Biblical Theology as 'unbiblical'.

In Christ

 

It could be argued He's not single...the Church is His bride. Even considering His earthly ministry, you fail to show where He was a pastor of a local church. I wouldn't argue that I hold to the "pet doctrines" found in 1 Timothy 3...they are quite clear.

All service to Christ requires being a pastor?

 

Where does 1 Corinthians exclude pastors from what is said in chapter 7?

 

Read the post, THEN comment. Its a pattern that works

 

Thank you for your kind words - can you give me a scripture?

Specifically, can you give me a scripture that indicates that I should EVER read homosexual hyperbole?

After you find that scripture - THEN I will read your comments.

Maybe if you had practiced what you preached and THEN commented your words would have had better application.

 

He was saying that to call for a homosexual or adulterous pastor would be a big problem. What is wrong with saying that's a problem?

 

Stefan

What he claimed that I wrote did not characterize what I had written, and then he went off on the homosexual tangent (I think he said gay pastors).

I quit reading.

If his intent was to be offensive - he succeeded.

If it was not intended to be offensive, then he can try to write a little less offensively.

I have not said, that a pastor must be married or must be single - but, I have held to the Scriptural admonition that he should be the husband of one wife. I remember being called unbiblical and I remember the discussion about homosexual pastors . . .

To be honest, I did not get past any of that.

 

I typically sit back and take in all the wisdom of your debates...but I'd like to chime in on this one!

We must remember to interpret Scripture w/ Scripture and keep it in context. I Corinthians is written to the Church - the context is correcting a problem of Gross Sexual Immorality in the church...keep in mind the context of the Corinthian society. This is an admonition for all Christians.

The I Tim. context is specifically the qualifications of the Pastor. The context is leadership that was hurting the church. Timothy was there to set the church in order. Whether we like it or not, this passage (also Titus 1) give us a CLEAR list of qualifications for the Pastor. I don't always like what the Scripture requires of me, but we must be careful to not to give God's Word an interpretation we prefer or can make fit w/ society or our own understanding. I am thankful for the wisdom that requires that the Pastorate be given to men who are proven!

And to address those who claim "Christ wasn't married," we must not tread lightly on the Diety of Christ. We are not equal w/ God and to compare the credentials of the Pastor to the Incarnate Son of God is inappropriate. Christ couldn't marry...the creator and the creation are worlds apart.

God Bless!

 

Joe

Welcome to the Board!

Wayne

 

okay - if 1 Cor 7 is to all Christians and it advocates singleness - then why are pastors excluded? if it did not apply to pastor's why didn't paul say so in 1 cor?

wouldn't interpreting scripture with scripture cause us to question (in light of 1 cor 7) if the timothy passages reference to a "one woman man" be if the pastor were married instead of a command - "be a one woman man!"

also if in 1 timothy paul meant that the overseer/pastor had to be married why did he use the word "one." "one" implies a distinction between one and more than one. if he just intended to say that the pastor had to be married the "one" would be completely unnecessary.

oh - and yes we do need to observe context - especially the cultural context. I agree with why Paul was writting to the corinthians - but if you read vs 8 it obviously went beyond their situation - because paul points to himself as an example of singleness and he wasn't a corinthian. and in vss 34-35 the purpose goes beyond avoiding sexual immorality - it affects devotion to the lord. a single person has more time/energy to give to the lord without distraction.

 

in the context of answering a question, Paul says that it is better to be single. But, in the same context he states that men should have their own wives . . .

His logic as he answered their question was something like, "Yes, it is good to be single. It is good to be like I am. But, it is still good to be married."

 

in 1 Tim

the intent of the greek is to communicate that the overseer belongs to one woman.

'of one woman (a) man' is what the greek reads (if my memory serves me correctly - I'll check tomorrow). without the 'one', digamy would have been allowed . . . and based on this passage, the early church banned digamy. Based upon this passage, the early church required pastors to be married for a while (again if memory serves me correctly - and I think that it does).

night all

 

so if it's good to be single - why is it bad for a pastor to be single?

it is an equally valid interpretation to understand that "one" is distinguishing between 'one' and 'multiple' wives - not 'one' and 'none' or even the whole digamy thing. the greek is not conclusive on this issue. and with a whole huge premise resting on one three letter greek word that seems like a fine line to walk.

i will concede that it is possible that your view is valid. but i do not believe that view in light on 1 cor 7. in light of interpreting scripture with scripture - i hold that paul was prohibiting polygamy (which would have been okay culturally) and that if a pastor were married it had to be to one woman (i'm not even going to get into the whole digamy thing) but that as 1 cor 7 says - singleness is good too.

 

Without the one, it would not have necessarily allowed more than one wife. It still would have been "a man of a woman." The word would still be singular. The "one" seems to be the emphasis. IMO, it carries the notion of "the husband of only one wife."

 

First, I have not stated my position during this thread.

Now to your comments . . . if you are going to interpret scripture with scripture . . . and in 1 Cor 7 you no longer have the question that was asked, but in 1 Tim 3:1 You have Paul (a 'single' man) telling a ('single') man to appoint men as church leaders that are in a relationship with one woman (usually read wife). Why would you interpret the clearer Timothy passage with the uncertain premise (question) of Corinthians?

Because trying to follow your logic, I come up with "It is bad for a pastor to be married (not single)".

Further, in interpreting Scripture with Scripture, I do not find Paul saying that it is 'good to be single' - I find Paul (& Jesus) saying that if God calls you to remain single - that is good.

I do not know what your 'equally valid interpretation' is based upon. But, the Greek Fathers (many had Greek as their first and primary language) seemed to focus on 'one and only one wife'. Digamy for any reason was viewed badly.

You can hold to polygamy . . . but, I have yet to see any support for that position. And I was unaware that recent discoveries have shown that polygamy was common during the Roman era.

 

Wrong.

I did not say anything about your view being unbiblical. I said that I did not interpret Scripture to prohibit single pastors. And I was saying that a homosexual or adulterous pastor is a big problem to have...and that I would not classify a single pastor anywhere in that realm.

I am sorry if my wording was confusing. In no way am I advocating having pastors "serving" while living in rebellion to God. And your view is not unbiblical; I interpret the passage differently.

El G, others have posted that they understood what I meant. Once again, I apologize if my wording was unclear.

However, it did bother me that I was accused of saying you were unbiblical. That was nowhere in my post.

 

I read more of it this time . . .