(Continuing a thread begun in the Catholcism topic)

Apparently the United Methodist Church is okay on divorce, because my pastor is divorced and remarried. We have been taught to believe that the congregation is more vital to the church than the pastor, being that he is just one person who is there for a short time. Would the whole congregation burn for eternity because we didn't change churches when we were assigned this pastor? margie

Did anyone ever ask this man why he had the divorce in the first place?) Jwb52z

If I were a member of the congregation, I would be interested in hearing him answer that question. Not out of simple morbid curiosity, and not in a snide "Bet you can't answer that" way. But because if he is going to be my spiritual leader, I would be interested in knowing what kind of things he believes and will be teaching. Things lke the relative weight one should give to Scripture, to the traditions and authority of the Church, to reason and to "feelings."

One of the best ways of guaging his beliefs is understand how dealt with a known problem in his own life and came up with an answer that, on the surface, seems somewhat counter to the ideal. (Even if we allow for divorce within the Church, those who would be pastors are held accountable to a higher standard in many areas, including their home life [1 Tim 3:2; 1 Tim 3:12; Tit 1:6].)

Going back to the "why is the tenure of the pastor so much shorter than that of the congregation" topic...

It's traditional in the Methodist church for pastors to move around about every four years. This, specifically, is why Margie mentions that "he is just one person who is there for a short time." (Also "we were assigned this pastor," since it's the decision of the General Conference (?) where and when to send people around, not the congregation.)

When I asked that question about his divorce I had a certain idea in mind. Most denominations believe divorce is a sin except when there is a partner that commits adultery at no fault of the other person.

::It's traditional in the Methodist church for pastors to move around about every four years. This, specifically, is why Margie mentions that "he is just one person who is there for a short time." (Also "we were assigned this pastor," since it's the decision of the General Conference (?) where and when to send people around, not the congregation.):: Matthew Patterson

I can't believe that! I mean, no offense, but this sounds like Methodists and Baptists are getting closer together with their little "meetings." Why do they get to order preachers around like soldiers? It makes no sense to a person who doesn't get a real congregation listening to a leader other than God, like me.

It's traditional in the Methodist church for pastors to move around about every four years. Patterson

I was not aware of that, but it only strengthens my supposition that margie's point was that the continuity of the church is in the congregation rather than in the pastor.

Most denominations believe divorce is a sin except when there is a partner that commits adultery at no fault of the other person. Jwb52z

Actually, the wording in Matthew 5 is a little odd to the modern ear. "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." If it is the man who decided to divorce the wife, why is it the wife for whom the divorce is a sin? And if he does it because she was fornicating, then the divorce is not a sin to her?

I know that some of the strangeness is bound up in Jewish culture. No matter who started the divorce proceedings, it is the man who issues the "get" or bill of divorcement. Also in Jacobian English there was often a distinction made between fornication and adultery based on the marital status of the woman, and I believe the gospel's original Greek made a similar distinction, so it is quite likely that in the original parable it was the husband who was the unfaithful partner.

However, even with this understanding, the whole meaning of the statement is not as clear as you claim. There are some who claim any divorce is a sin, and that the exception for unfaithfulness was not to give the faithful spouse an "out," but rather an aknowlegment that in this case the unfaithful spouse was already committing sexual sin, and so the divorce did not cause him to fall into adultery. Churches who hold this view see any divorce for any reason as being wrong

Other churches do hold, as you said, that adultery does give the faithful partner a "get out of jail (the marriage) free" card. (I'm being facetious here. Most of them, while they will accept this loophole, would much rather see the couple reconcile.)

Still other churches consider that Paul has provided another loophole in his warnings about being "unequally yoked" and his advice to let unbelieving partners who want a divorce have it. How far that second loophole extends (assuming it exists at all) is mot agreed upon.

This is part of what I meant when I said that asking the divorced minister about how he justifies his choices will help to shed light on how he understands Scripture and the traditions of the Church.

I can't believe that! I mean, no offense, but this sounds like Methodists and Baptists are getting closer together with their little "meetings." Why do they get to order preachers around like soldiers? Jwb52z

Are you sure you meant to say "Baptists" there? Methodist ministers can be "assigned" to a congregation because the Methodist Church's organization is "top-down," like the Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Catholics (For example in the Catholic church, power and authority flow from the Pope to the council of bishops and on down. The others do not have a pope, but they do have a council of bishops, or its equivalent).

The Baptist church is a "bottom-up" organization. Power originates in the local churches, and regional and national organizations only have the power and authority which the local churches allow them. While most Baptist churches belong to a national organization, many do not,and any of those who do are free to drop out at any time

Baptist ministers are hired by the local church in much the same way as the church secretary or the gardner, but with more emphasis on prayerfully seeking out the best qualified candidate.

The nature and focus of the entire church does not change when one pastor moves on (dies, retires, relocares) and another comes in, though he can steer some change over the course of his tenure. TomM

That could be dangerous with the wrong man Jwb52z

Yes it can. That is why it is as important for a congregation to challange its pastor just as much as the pastor is expected to challange the congregation.

And why I would like to understand a pastor's philosophy before I put myself under his guidance.

... a person who doesn't get a real congregation listening to a leader other than God, like me.

I'm not clear about what you are saying here. Are you saying "I do not belong to a (real) congregation," or "My congregation does not have a leader," or "my congregation's leaders are leaders-in-worship only, and have no claim to any greater authority (rather like the Quakers)"? Or is this just a top-of-the-head way of saying that having a leader "assigned" to you from an outside authority seems strange to you?

Pastors in my church aren't always assigned. When a church is looking for a new pastor, the local conference sends candidates based on a profile submitted by the Staff/Parish Committee. This committee interviews the minister and has to decide if this minister would be a good fit for the congregation. The committee has to say yes or no to a candidate before the next is sent, and if the answer is no, it can't be changed later. That eliminates comparing of several ministers before making a decision. After three candidates, if the committee still says no, the conference assigns a pastor. Pastors serve at least 4 years in a single church, unless there's a major problem. Some pastors serve much longer. It depends on many factors-Is the congregation happy? Is the pastor happy? Is the church growing and thriving? Can the pastor be better used elsewhere? My current pastor has been there for 9 years. (I think the reason for his divorce did come up in the interview, but I can't remember what it was. In my opinion, he's human. Because he's divorced, it doesn't mean I have to agree with that, but I accept it as part of who he is. The biggest complaint I have about him is that his sermons are boring, but that's another story!)

::If it is the man who decided to divorce the wife, why is it the wife for whom the divorce is a sin? And if he does it because she was fornicating, then the divorce is not a sin to her?:: TomM

That's not what the verse means. It means that a person (man) cannot divorce a spouse for any reason except adultery. Also, the person who marries a person who committed adultery after he or she is divorced, also commits adultery because that person they married didn't have a right to be married to anyone else.

::However, even with this understanding, the whole meaning of the statement is not as clear as you claim. There are some who claim any divorce is a sin, and that the exception for unfaithfulness was not to give the faithful spouse an "out," but rather an aknowlegment that in this case the unfaithful spouse was already committing sexual sin, and so the divorce did not cause him to fall into adultery. Churches who hold this view see any divorce for any reason as being wrong.:: TomM

I'd like to see how they reconcile that with the Bible because that's not what it says.

::Still other churches consider that Paul has provided another loophole in his warnings about being "unequally yoked" and his advice to let unbelieving partners who want a divorce have it. How far that second loophole extends (assuming it exists at all) is mot agreed upon.:: TomM

That verse about being "unequally yoked" simply was a warning/suggestion by Paul that it is not easy to be married to a person with different beliefs and that you have to be careful about going into such a relationship. Nowhere does that allow divorce.

::Are you sure you meant to say "Baptists" there?:: TomM

You've never heard of those so called "conventions" that they have? I guess what surprises me is in the difference that where I come from we have no hierarchy or anything like that. We just have members do what is necessary. That's it.

:: Or is this just a top-of-the-head way of saying that having a leader "assigned" to you from an outside authority seems strange to you?:: TomM

It's a combination of that and the fact that where I come from there is no hierarchy for religion or anyone group or person controlling congregations. We don't believe in having anyone between us and God. This is also the first place, a while back, that I learned of churches with bureaucracy. I've never seen anything like that personally here.

I guess what surprises me is in the difference that where I come from we have no hierarchy or anything like that. We just have members do what is necessary. That's it.

It's a combination of that and the fact that where I come from there is no hierarchy for religion or anyone group or person controlling congregations. We don't believe in having anyone between us and God. Jwb52z

So then your group is a lot like the Society of Friends (the Quakers). It's an interesting and valid interpretation of 1 Tim 2:5, and it does help to explain your bewilderment at the kinds of leaders othr churches have and from where they derive their authority.

About Baptist "conventions" For whatever reason, most national organizations of Baptists call themselves a Convention in their official title. Its a word like "congress" that can refer either to a special gathering for a specific purpose, or a "permanent" organization of representatives from a larger entity. There is one such convention that is especially partial to to making controversial declarations to the news media. It is their cropping up in the news that, I suspect, you are referring to.

But as I said, the only actual power they have in the structure of the church is only what the local churches allow it to have. Any one of them can drop out of that convention and join a different one, or choose to join none.

That verse about being "unequally yoked" simply was a warning/suggestion by Paul that it is not easy to be married to a person with different beliefs and that you have to be careful about going into such a relationship. Nowhere does that allow divorce.

I do not agree with the interpretation of 1 Cor 7:15 that it allows divorce, but I do see why some churches would.

My point, however was that fully understanding Matt 5 requires an understanding of more than the words in an English translation of the verses. It requires understanding the customs and idioms of Jesus' time both in the Jewish and the Greek cultures, as well as verses which seem to support or contradict it (like 1 Cor 7), and other things.

Unless I want to claim to have an infallible insight into the mind of God, I can't just say that my understanding is absolutely the right one and the other two therefore are wrong and heretical. What I can do is point out where they failed to consider a point, but I have to be willing to be shown my oversights as well.

I'll say this again, the only time you find a verse that "contradicts" another is when you are trying to find one. That means you are purposely giving something a meaning that gives it a contradiction to something else even if you don't mean to do it.

Jwb52z,

Are you talking about the new testament only or is the old in this discussion too? The new mentions different things that are not incompatable (such as the wise men and shepards at Jesus's birth) but I can get plain old contradictions in things like the price paid for the land the temple was built upon.

Blue Berry, the answer to that kind of argument is simply that not all of the old testament law was brought back into the new law of Christ. As for others, it's the fault of the person reading. It has to be.

Of course, that same logic could apply to you as well, couldn't it, Jwb?

JWB52z,

Actually JWB52z, the internal incositencies I know of in the Old Testament I would not even elevate to law. The ones I know of are more like trivia. I'll never live my life based upon if the ark animals were in groups of seven or if the unclean ones were in pairs.

I know of no real incositencies in the new Testament that can not be made to agree with one another. (That is not to say they don't exist.)