2007 State Meeting

At the Missouri State Association of Free Will Baptists this week the following constitution and by-law change was adopted.

Item 2: We want to remind the General Board of their motion (made at our Nov. 2006 meeting) to the State Association regarding the change to By-law #66. The proposed By-law #66 reads:
We believe that Paul’s statement in 1 Tim. 3.2,12 and Titus 1.6, namely “the husband of one wife,” be looked upon as making ineligible as pastors or deacons anyone who has been divorced and remarried, or who marries a divorced woman, regardless of the cause of the divorce or the guilt or innocence of either partner.
We believe that said persons, whose marital status disqualifies them to be pastors or deacons, not be discouraged in their Christian lives or Christian service, but that they be encouraged to live faithfully for Christ and serve Him in the ministry of the local church; and that such be reminded that pastors and deacons are the only church officers for whom the “husband of one wife” prohibition is given.
While certainly it is the ideal for all believers, it is biblically insisted upon as a requirement for deacons and pastors.
While not insisting that this bylaw be made retroactive, we do establish this standard to be upheld for all new candidates for pastors or deacons.

This is a change that I am opposed to, and so stated on the floor of the annual meeting. Below is an explanation of my reasons for opposition to this bylaw change. Much of what follows is what I tried to state on the floor of the business session.

I read that Dr. Pinson, President of Free Will Baptist Bible College is a fifth generation Free Will Baptist. I am proud to say that I am a first generation Free Will Baptist. I am a bus kid from the wrong side of the wrong side of the tracks. I came to Christ as a result of the ministry of the Farmington FWB Church. I was the first in my family to come to Christ. My father and mother came to Christ as a result of my begging and pleading for them to come to church with me, and so while they are older they are the second generation, I am the first. I have been loved, encouraged, taught, mentored, discipled and even disciplined by Free Will Baptists. Whatever I am today, I am by the grace of God and by efforts of Free Will Baptists. I am deeply indebted to Free Will Baptists, but I am disappointed by Missouri Free Will Baptists today. I am disappointed by this constitution and bylaw change.

I recognize that divorce is a difficult and complex issue. It is regrettable, but it is a reality, even among pastors and deacons. I understand the need to give some guidance to our churches regarding this issue, but I am disappointed that the General Board has offered this statement as the solution.

I am disappointed, first of all because of the questionable exegesis embodied in this bylaw change. With a difficult issue, the easiest solution is to gravitate to one extreme or another. But to do so is to be lazy with our exegesis. That seems to be what our General Board has done. Not wanting to appear liberal they have given us a very conservative statement, but just because a position is conservative does not mean that it is correct.

The passages given in this bylaw change cannot support a restriction against ordaining someone who has married a divorced woman in any way. The idea that the phrase “and wives likewise” in 1 Timothy 3.11 applies the one-spouse obligation to the wife also is erroneous. Paul very clearly states what pastor’s and deacon’s wives must also be – they like their husbands must be dignified, not slanderers, sober-minded, and faithful. He says nothing about their marital history. To insist that this is embodied in this phrase is to do injury to the text. It is adding to the text a requirement that simply is not there! This restriction actually is based upon Jesus’ statement in the Sermon on the Mount that “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matt. 5.32). That seems straightforward enough, until we remember that Jesus himself qualifies his statements with the exception for sexual immorality. “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” is not an absolute statement. Unlike this bylaw change, Jesus does concern himself with the questions of guilt and innocence in the divorce. Jesus is not saying that a man commits adultery when he marries a woman whose husband has divorced her to marry another woman. She is does not commit adultery because her marriage covenant was already broken by her husbands unfaithfulness. She is the innocent party in the divorce. This is the sexual immorality exception. What Jesus is saying is, if you are the man that the woman has left her husband for then you are committing adultery. That should be obvious.

This bylaw change also misunderstands the meaning of the phrase “husband of one wife.” The Greek phrase is μιᾶς γυναικὸς ̓άνδρα, which literally translated is a “one-woman man.” It says nothing directly about a man’s marital history, rather the phrase is a Greek idiom which means “committed to his spouse.” Craig S. Keener explains in the phrase by stating,

“Husband of one wife” no doubt means a faithful husband and presupposes marriage; such a man would be helpful in standing against the false teachers who opposed marriage (4.3)… “Husband of one wife” refers to one’s current marital status and behavior; validly divorced people who remarried were considered married to one spouse, the second one, not to two spouses.[1]

We might express the same idea today with the idioms “he does not have a roaming eye,” “he is not on the prowl,” or “he is not shopping around.” A man engaged in such activity should be disqualified from ministry since according to Jesus he is engaged in adultery by looking at other women and lusting after them (cf. Matt 5.27-28).

This passage does not speak to the pastoral or deaconate candidate’s marital history directly. Obviously, if his marital history calls his devotion to his spouse into question, he should not be ordained, but we need to ask ourselves if a divorce in his history regardless of the circumstances always does this? Is it possible that a man could be devoted to his spouse and yet become divorced? I argue that it is. We know that while a man may be submitted to God and devoted to his spouse, his wife still has a free will and she may choose to sin by her own will. He may love her and want to stay with her, but she chooses for whatever reason to divorce him and marry another. Is he guilty? No! Has he violated Paul’s requirement of being a one-woman man? No! Should we pull his credentials under such circumstances? No! To do so is punish an innocent party and that is contrary to the idea of free will. We believe each person has a free will and that they will be held accountable for their own free will, but no one can be held accountable for the free will of another. To be held accountable for what is not and never was under your control is both immoral and unjust.

Some would argue that this bylaw change does not prohibit a divorce, only remarriage. A generous reading of the bylaw does of course read that way, although it must be admitted that no one believes this article will prevent the church from shooting her wounded. There is no protection for the pastor or the deacon offered here. Pastors and deacons who suffer divorce will continue to have their papers immediately pulled by their churches and associations. Nevertheless for the sake of the argument, we will consider the idea that a pastor or deacon may continue to serve as long as they do not remarry. The position they take is that a pastor or deacon may continue in their ministry after a divorce as long as they remain celibate from that point forward. Those who hold such a position see the remarriage rather than the divorce as the violation of the phrase “the husband of one wife.” This position still rests upon very questionable exegesis because not only does it fail to recognize the idiomatic meaning of the phrase, it also fails to understand the biblical concept of divorce. Divorce was intended by God to be a substitute for the death penalty. Under the law, adulterers were to be put to death, but due to the hardness of our hearts God allowed us a substitute – a person could divorce their spouse rather than put them to death. The divorce was intended to end the relationship as completely as the death sentence would have. The idea that the divorced person would not be allowed to remarry is preposterous because certainly the person whose spouse had been executed would have been free to marry. Those who advocate that Paul is permitting divorce but prohibiting remarriage should go back and reexamine the text. The only support for their view is a misunderstanding of what the phrase “husband of one wife” really means. If their view were correct, then we should also require widowers who remarry to surrender their papers because they also have had more than one wife. While we might agree with Paul that celibacy might be preferred, we should also remember that he said “it is better to marry than to burn” (cf. 1 Cor 7.8-9). Certainly this principle applies to the divorced as well as the unmarried and the widowed.

I am disappointed with this bylaw change secondly because it leaves no room for consideration of the biblical reasons for divorce. The authors of this statement practically state that all divorce is wrong. They would not admit that this is what they have said, but by issuing a ruling “regardless of the cause of the divorce or the guilt or innocence of either partner” that is what they have essentially done. By doing so, I believe they have overstepped their place. As humans we have no right to condemn what God has said is permitted. We can hate the sins that lead to divorce as God does, and we may hate the pain and suffering that divorce causes as God does. But we cannot prohibit what God has allowed. Although divorce is regrettable, God has allowed it as a solution to our sinfulness. We are wrong to be indifferent to the biblical reasons for divorce and to be indifferent to the question of guilt or innocence. Certainly God is not indifferent to these questions.

This bylaw also takes no consideration as to whether or not the divorce occurred before or after conversion. This is an important distinction. According to the scriptures after coming to Christ we are a new creation (cf. 1 Cor. 5.17), which means that in Christ we have a new start. Whatever sins we may have committed are gone never to be remembered anymore (cf. Micah 7.19). In Christ we are no longer stand condemned by our sins (cf. Romans 8.1). But according to this bylaw change divorce is some type of exception to these and other similar passages. Divorce is made out to be some type of unpardonable sin that may not prevent you being saved but permanently bars you from ministry. In essence we are saying that God forgives but he does not really forget because after all the divorce continues to be remembered and continues to disqualify from ministry. Or perhaps we are saying, God forgives and forgets but we don’t have to.

I wonder what Jesus’ reaction would have been as we gathered as a denomination to cast stones at those who had been divorced. Maybe he would have formed a whip and drove us out, or maybe he would have simply and quietly stooped to write on the ground some of our sins until embarrassed by our own sins we would have left. Would he have then stood and said to the divorced, “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.” I am disappointed with Missouri Free Will Baptists because this bylaw change seems so contrary to the love and forgiveness of Christ.

Thirdly, I am disappointed with our denomination because this bylaw change will hurt people. The wording of this bylaw encourages as it puts it “said persons, whose marital status disqualifies them to be pastors or deacons, not be discouraged in their Christian lives or Christian service, but that they be encouraged to live faithfully for Christ and serve Him in the ministry of the local church.” That is a nice sentiment, but it will not happen. This bylaw change, which is based upon personal preferences rather than sound exegesis, will continue to be a discouragement to men whose desire is to serve God and answer his call. Even the bylaw’s supporters admit such. On the floor of the state association they stated that discouragement to others should not prevent us from adopting the measure. They knew what they were doing will eventually hurt someone and discourage them both in ministry and in their Christian walk.

I know that this bylaw will hurt and discourage from personal experience. My father was a Free Will Baptist minister. He served as the Associate Pastor at the Southside FWB Church in St. Louis, as the Pastor of the Jones Creek FWB Church, and as the Associate Pastor at the First FWB Church of Flat River. You noticed I said he “was” a Free Will Baptist. He was until my mother died of cancer at age 39. After her death my father met and married a wonderful Christian lady. She has been a blessing to him and to our family and we are happy to have her as part of our family. The only problem was her past. Her husband had left her for another woman and divorced her leaving her as a single mother. My father loved her and married her anyway. What did Free Will Baptists do? They responded by pulling his credentials. That decision was wrong for two reasons. First, Paul does not prohibit a minister from marrying a divorced woman and second, she was the innocent party in the divorce and was free to remarry. Needless to say my father is no longer a Free Will Baptist. I think in his heart he would still like to be – he has several friends even today among Missouri Free Will Baptists – but the hurt and discouragement the denomination placed upon him prevents him from remaining among us. The fact that he is not among us today is our loss! He is a good man who is committed to God and to his spouse. (By the way for those who would say he should have married a virgin or a widow or remain unmarried, a widower at age 41 is in a difficult position. He still has a long life to live if he chooses to remain celibate, and there are not many women his age who have never married or who are widowed. If he chooses to remarry he will likely marry a woman who has been divorced.)

This is just one of several stories that could be told that would illustrate how this bylaw change can and will hurt people. Fortunately, my dad while no longer a Free Will Baptist has remained faithful to God, church, and the ministry. That is not always the case. Sometimes the hurt and discouragement we inflict as we shoot our wounded is so great that we cause people to have a severe crisis of faith where they find it very difficult to continue in ministry and even in the church. This not only hurts them, it hurts our local churches and it hurts our denomination. We need these people!

Advocates for this bylaw told us that they acknowledged that everyone had a story they could share, but that we should not concern ourselves with these personal stories. They should not be allowed to deter us from adopting this bylaw. Really? Should we really not be concerned about how our decisions will affect people? Excuse me, but I thought the church was to be a hospital for sick souls. I thought it was supposed to be place that encourages rather than discourages faith and service. I thought it was to be a place of love and forgiveness. I thought the church was to draw people to God, not push them away. I thought the business of the church was investment in people. If we should not be concerned about people and how what we do affects them, then what exactly is our purpose?

I am proud of the fact that I voted against this bylaw, I would do it again. I only regret that more of my brothers did not vote with the dissenters. It is not that we are advocating a policy of open acceptance toward all divorce. Divorce is a serious problem in our society and even among members of the clergy. It is not that we are taking a low view of marriage. Certainly we regret that divorce happens and pray and work that every marriage would last a lifetime as God intended. Nor is it that we are willing to compromise the Bible as some on the floor of the state association implied. No indeed, we want to be biblical and exegetically sound which includes our desire not to add to the scriptures. We do not want to fall prey to the sin of the Pharisees and exchange the commandments of man for the doctrines of God. We do not want to add unnecessary burdens upon God’s people.

What we were asking for was that the state association would not tie our hands. That it would leave the ordaining council of each association or church autonomous to apply the whole council of scripture to each individual case, rather than covering every case with a broad stroke based on a narrow interpretation of one particular phrase. We want the ability to base our faith and practice upon the word of God for ourselves rather than have a ruling handed down from above that we must obey or face expulsion, whether or not we think the ruling is right. We believe that a reaffirmation of local autonomy would have been the most judicious way to preserve the unity of our body.

So, yes! I am proud to be a Missouri Free Will Baptist, but I am simultaneously disappointed with our association. We have dropped the ball. I hope and pray that we will see the error of our ways and either repeal this bylaw or replace it with a more exegetically sound one.


[1] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993) ISBN: 0-8308-1405-1, p. 612. Emphasis mine.