Does God "call" men to preach?

[jds1977]

TheLambofGod, Sorry, I'm somewhat confused by your post. Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

 

[Caeroth]

He based this logic on 1 Tim.3 where a bishop (overseer) is to be the husband of one wife. His claim was that, that applies to preachers as well. However, in my opinion of which I believe is biblical, these are two seperate ministries, and not all preachers are pastors or will become pastors. We pretty much agreed to disagree.

Honestly, I think your pastor is over-reaching with a doctrine that doesn't have a sound basis in Scripture. Yes, 1 Timothy 3 does indeed talk about the qualifications for those who would lead a church, and that list does indeed include a stipulation that such a man be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2). It seems that if your pastor excludes you because of that passage, then he somehow thinks you are in some way still married to your first wife -- thus making you the husband of two wives.

The Greek for that passage is pretty clear and the King James and others all translate that passage quite literally. The passage does not say "Husband of only one wife ever" nor "Husband of only a first wife." It says "husband of one wife" -- or for you NIV users, "husband of but one wife." In either case, the clear implication (at least to me) is that God wants men who are married for love and for life, just as Adam and Eve (1 man, 1 wife) became "one flesh." The implication is that "bishops" ought not to be men who have two or more wives -- thus being men who may have married for social, financial, political or purely sexual reasons. The passage does not specify nor does it imply that the man may not have been divorced or widowed and then remarried.

The only other prejudice I could think that your pastor might have would be that you have been divorced and remarried, and that he does not recognize those as legal in the eyes of God. It is plain, however, that he does recognize them, as he has accepted you as a teacher in other areas of the church.

As a divorced man who remarried and is studying for the pastorate, I honestly think your pastor is confused or that he is perhaps over-interpreting a doctrine of your particular denomination. I have had my own call discerned and confirmed by a Baptist preacher, an evangelical pastor, and an Episcopal elder. I can't see why you would be disqualified for the pastorate.

 

[TheCheat1]

Honestly, I think your pastor is over-reaching with a doctrine that doesn't have a sound basis in Scripture. Yes, 1 Timothy 3 does indeed talk about the qualifications for those who would lead a church, and that list does indeed include a stipulation that such a man be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2). It seems that if your pastor excludes you because of that passage, then he somehow thinks you are in some way still married to your first wife -- thus making you the husband of two wives.

The Greek for that passage is pretty clear and the King James and others all translate that passage quite literally. The passage does not say "Husband of only one wife ever" nor "Husband of only a first wife." It says "husband of one wife" -- or for you NIV users, "husband of but one wife." In either case, the clear implication (at least to me) is that God wants men who are married for love and for life, just as Adam and Eve (1 man, 1 wife) became "one flesh." The implication is that "bishops" ought not to be men who have two or more wives -- thus being men who may have married for social, financial, political or purely sexual reasons. The passage does not specify nor does it imply that the man may not have been divorced or widowed and then remarried.

The only other prejudice I could think that your pastor might have would be that you have been divorced and remarried, and that he does not recognize those as legal in the eyes of God. It is plain, however, that he does recognize them, as he has accepted you as a teacher in other areas of the church.

As a divorced man who remarried and is studying for the pastorate, I honestly think your pastor is confused or that he is perhaps over-interpreting a doctrine of your particular denomination. I have had my own call discerned and confirmed by a Baptist preacher, an evangelical pastor, and an Episcopal elder. I can't see why you would be disqualified for the pastorate.

This will illuminate what the Bible says about divorce a bit more clearly...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html?start=1

 

[Caeroth]

This will illuminate what the Bible says about divorce a bit more clearly...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html?start=1

I remember reading that article when it appeared, and I was intrigued by Instone-Brewer's socio-historical read on divorce. As a divorced man remarried, of course I want there to be some allowance within God's church for people who simply cannot function while they are together.

I did not agree to divorce easily, but I knew my own faults and I acknowledged that my own sinfulness had ruined my marriage to the point where my ex-wife didn't feel like even God could repair it. (Oh ye of little faith!) Anyway, we split, we divorced, we met new people, both got engaged, I remarried, she's due to get remarried next year, and we are both happier and our families are better off in the long run. The rest of my testimony is all over these forums, but suffice to say that the result of our divorce has been God-glorifying.

That having been said, there is a lot of disagreement among scholars, pastors and theologians as to the validity of Instone-Brewer's interpretation of divorce passages in the Bible. Too often, when we find out something "new" about the socio-political situation in Palestine at the time, we read those ideas into Scripture and try to reinterpret what has been "known" for centuries. In such cases, some people are sure they've gotten the "ultimate" understanding of God's Word. But remember this: Such interpretations assume that God Himself would allow His inspired Word to be influenced by temporal concerns, that He did not inspire the writer to put something down that is truly eternal. When we assume that, then even more verses become suspect, and we find ourselves doubting if we ever can know what was truly intended. As a firm believer not only in Scripture as God-breathed but also as Spirit-protected, I do not think God would have allowed His Word to be grossly misinterpreted for 1900 years, only to have the "real" interpretation of the Savior's words come to light in a period of rampant immorality. That just seems a little too convenient for a liberal interpretation of Scripture, if you follow me.

Nonetheless, I do think Instone-Brewer's article and book can offer us food for thought, prompting us to look at the Bible as a whole -- as we always should do -- and not just laying down church doctrine based on one particular passage. In that case, we ought not to rely solely on 1 Timothy 3 for our understanding of the role of elders/bishops and deacons, we should look at all of Scripture, and then we'll find that it is not the acts that God seeks but the heart of the man, regardless of his marital status. His heart will rule his life, and his life will display who reigns, the Spirit or the flesh. A man with only one wife who contributes to his ministry would seem to have himself under control, whereas a man with a wife and a mistress plainly does not, regardless of their roles in his life. As I said, the pastor is narrowly interpreting a passage that has generally never been interpreted that way before.

 

[TheCheat1]

I remember reading that article when it appeared, and I was intrigued by Instone-Brewer's socio-historical read on divorce. As a divorced man remarried, of course I want there to be some allowance within God's church for people who simply cannot function while they are together.

I did not agree to divorce easily, but I knew my own faults and I acknowledged that my own sinfulness had ruined my marriage to the point where my ex-wife didn't feel like even God could repair it. (Oh ye of little faith!) Anyway, we split, we divorced, we met new people, both got engaged, I remarried, she's due to get remarried next year, and we are both happier and our families are better off in the long run. The rest of my testimony is all over these forums, but suffice to say that the result of our divorce has been God-glorifying.

That having been said, there is a lot of disagreement among scholars, pastors and theologians as to the validity of Instone-Brewer's interpretation of divorce passages in the Bible. Too often, when we find out something "new" about the socio-political situation in Palestine at the time, we read those ideas into Scripture and try to reinterpret what has been "known" for centuries. In such cases, some people are sure they've gotten the "ultimate" understanding of God's Word. But remember this: Such interpretations assume that God Himself would allow His inspired Word to be influenced by temporal concerns, that He did not inspire the writer to put something down that is truly eternal. When we assume that, then even more verses become suspect, and we find ourselves doubting if we ever can know what was truly intended. As a firm believer not only in Scripture as God-breathed but also as Spirit-protected, I do not think God would have allowed His Word to be grossly misinterpreted for 1900 years, only to have the "real" interpretation of the Savior's words come to light in a period of rampant immorality. That just seems a little too convenient for a liberal interpretation of Scripture, if you follow me.

Nonetheless, I do think Instone-Brewer's article and book can offer us food for thought, prompting us to look at the Bible as a whole -- as we always should do -- and not just laying down church doctrine based on one particular passage. In that case, we ought not to rely solely on 1 Timothy 3 for our understanding of the role of elders/bishops and deacons, we should look at all of Scripture, and then we'll find that it is not the acts that God seeks but the heart of the man, regardless of his marital status. His heart will rule his life, and his life will display who reigns, the Spirit or the flesh. A man with only one wife who contributes to his ministry would seem to have himself under control, whereas a man with a wife and a mistress plainly does not, regardless of their roles in his life. As I said, the pastor is narrowly interpreting a passage that has generally never been interpreted that way before.

I don't agree.

You see, the Bible was not written to Americans. Not to say that it doesn't apply to us, not saying that at all. But it was written to the people in the time of Jesus (the New Testament, anyway-- the OT was written to various peoples at various times), and thus the NT contains allegories, parables, etc. that only make sense when you understand the culture of the time.

For instance, Jesus called the mustard seed the "least among seeds in all the earth"(Mark 4:31). This isn't true, mustard seeds aren't the smallest seeds on earth-- they ARE the smallest seeds that the people Jesus was talking to at this point (farmers and commons folk) used, and the word "earth" here (the specific Greek word used) means "region"!

English doesn't always (in fact, it usually fails to) get the entire point across, because Greek/Hebrew is a lot more specific.

People have indeed misinterpreted the Bible over the last 2000 years, but not ALL the people. When we don't know the context, the history, and the exact meaning of the words used, we don't get the entire picture, and thus we end up with a false interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Caeroth]

I don't agree.

You see, the Bible was not written to Americans. Not to say that it doesn't apply to us, not saying that at all. But it was written to the people in the time of Jesus (the New Testament, anyway-- the OT was written to various peoples at various times), and thus the NT contains allegories, parables, etc. that only make sense when you understand the culture of the time.

I guess I wasn't clear before. I am not saying that some passages in the Bible might not have a specific sense when interpreted in the light of the times. Your mustard seed example is a very good one. Honestly, not being a horticulturalist I still think of the mustard seed as the smallest seed. The point is not that the mustard seed is the absolute smallest seed in the whole world, the point is that it is so tiny and yet produces a good-size tree (or shrub, depending on your perspective). But comparing a mustard seed to other common seeds does not depend on the time or the place. Pretty much anyone who has ever seen a mustard seed next to a grain of wheat or an apple seed will notice how tiny it is.

I once watched what I thought at the time was a wonderful Nooma video by Rob Bell, called "Dust." Bell explains this wonderful idea of how rabbis would teach the boys and young men of their communities, gleaning the best of the best as they went along, until only the very best students were left for them to disciple. Then Jesus comes along and turns that whole system upside-down by calling upon grown men with little learning to come and follow Him. Nice idea, but from what I've read elsewhere, the rabbinic teaching system Bell talks about wasn't widely practiced at the time of Jesus' ministry -- in fact, not for about 100 more years -- which makes Bell's little story kind of, well, wrong. He still made a good point about how God qualifies the called rather than calling the qualified, but his historical background for the message was off. He was trying to place a template of an historical idea on top of a story that is told quite well on its own.

It is written in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
​

If that is true -- which, as Christians, we generally accept as true -- then God would certainly know what cultural and political references might prove to be stumbling blocks for people in later places and times. In such a case, does it not seem reasonable that, regardless of the language that the writer wanted to use, regardless of the words directly spoken by Jesus, God Himself might want something else recorded for later study and use? The counter argument might be that God might also provide us with the appropriate tools to learn about those references (as we have today), and so we gain a greater understanding of the Bible than ever before. It could be argued either way, but the latter argument still begs the question, "Why would God allow His Word to be so completely misinterpreted for nearly 2000 years?" In my view, He would not.

Still, I agree that some intentionally ignore the cultural context of much of the Bible, from Genesis right through to Revelation. For example, when they read the New Testament, they ignore the negative Jewish view of Samaritans, forgetting the historical context that is so clearly laid out in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, and to some extent in the OT Prophets. And if we don't understand more about the Saducees and Pharisees and their relationship to Rome, then a lot of the Gospels makes no sense at all. So, yes, we need to keep these things in mind.

But I still have to wonder about the passage in Matthew 19 which Instone-Brewer dissects through the cultural eye of 1st century Jewish divorce laws. Not having read the rabbinic writings he saw, I cannot say if the terminology used in the Greek manuscripts of Matthew is the same as that used by rabbis of the time. The usage of the term "divorce for any cause" may indeed be the same or it may be different. In either case, Jesus was plainly making a case for divorce only in the case of immorality -- adultery, sexual perversion, abuse, etc. The ever-popular "no fault" divorce we see in US law today is the close kin of the "any cause" divorce from Jesus' time. Any pastor worth his or her salt would also consider the other passages about divorce throughout Scripture, using Jesus' words (in essence, God's words) as the centerpiece of any "doctrine" concerning divorce.

But for a pastor to restrict a man's ministry because of a passage like 1 Timothy 3 that doesn't even mention divorce is frankly ridiculous, and it ignores the wider teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. Like I said before, I think Instone-Brewer raises some good points, but we have to be careful when we look at the Bible through what we believe is a certain cultural context. Namely, we must be careful not to bring a specific agenda into the equation, so that we make the Bible fit our thesis rather than truly testing our thesis against the Bible. The danger is that we come to only accept those parts of the Bible we find relevant to our own times and ignore anything that we think is specific to the time in which it was written. By doing that, we ignore Paul's reminder to Timothy that I mentioned above. Or was that reminder another culturally-contextual saying we can ignore?