The Marriage and Divorce Controversy
 

Hi, I was just reading a post and someone touched on marriage and divorce as far as being able to pastor.
Here in the south the book that all the "brethren" use is "The Home" by Stinnett Ballew. This work is the main supporter for the can't preach if you are double married camp.

A couple of years ago a Pastor Karl Baker wrote a blistering and quite Biblical rebuttal of that position. It is a EXCELLENT book that refutes (with scripture) the divorced = never pastor or lead viewpoint.

I believe the book is $15.00 and can be ordered only through the church.

I am not a member of this church, just friends. The church is to far from my home.

Here is a link to a photo of the cover:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59027007@N00/

Calvary Baptist Church
Karl Baker
256 Old Savannah Hwy
Burton SC 29906
803-525-6426

Bro. Baker is a graduate of PBI and has been pastoring over 20 years.

1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me, not to mention that the Book says "husband of one wife," not "having only one wife his entire life." I find it absolutely ridiculous that people get hung up on this issue; it's completely a non-issue!! The Bible is clear; it's only self-righteous people that want to twist the Scriptures to justify their pride.

That's it, exactly. Baseball used to be called "the American pasttime;" but it seems that self-righteous Pharisaism is the favorite pasttime of many "fundamentalists."

Don't get me started on this stuff. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!

http://images.vimeo.com/10/34/97/103...80_506x380.jpg

1 Timothy 3:1-5 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

I understand and realize that every Ruckmanite here is going to take the position of the first three posts [VR, I'm not trying to get you started:)]; [I begin also by saying, although I'm not a "Ruckmanite", I do enjoy listening to his materials, a very learned man] but, I'm going to take the common sense approach....first of all, divorce is not the unforgiveable sin....secondly, there is a big difference [as I see it] between being a preacher, evangelist or a pastor....A man that is pastoring a Church should be held to higher standards, else there wouldn't be these qualifications given [any time there are qualifications, that means there can be disqualifications]....I'm not mentioning the Scriptures concerning divorce and remarriage being adultery or husband of one wife in this discussion, but how about the above scriptures concerning "ruling his own house"??....does switching wives prove that a man can rule his house well?? When a man stands behind a pulpit as pastor and has had marriages in his own life, is he not a stumbling block to any couple who may be having marriage problems?? [O I guess no Christians have marriage troubles??]....maybe I'm looking at this backwards, maybe a man that is divorced and has had several marriages would attract the same, I don't know....but how could he give heart felt advise to the young couple having marriage problems?? By saying he knows what they're going through?? That would be a little hypocritical because he's divorced twice.....I also am a realist and if a man has a calling from God [see Hosea] nothing I say or do or anyone could say or do can stop that man.....having said that, I know this won't be the popular approach because most of you are "Ruckmanites" but I close by saying that the world is getting churchy and the church is getting worldly and we have the same type of synchronocity that Constantine implanted happening all over again....Brothers and sisters we need to be different than the world......God bless....Scott

Re: The Marriage and Divorce Controversy
 

Aloha brother Scott,

I’m a bit disappointed that your “intro” was little bit “antagonistic” (i.e. “Ruckmanites”). There are so few genuine Bible believers left in the world, that unless obvious sin or heresy is involved, we should be seeking to edify one another and building each other up, instead of taking “cheap shots” (name-calling) at some of the brethren that may not see “eye to eye” with you.

Just for the record:

Brother Ruckman's first wife (they married before he got saved), with whom he had five children, "abandoned" him (after 14 years of marriage) after he got saved and called to preach. Should he "abandon" his "calling" because his wife was unwilling to follow him?

After ten years brother Ruckman married the sister of his assistant pastor, and was married for another fourteen years, when his second wife "abandoned" him when she "ran off" with a cop from his congregation. Again - should a brother in Christ, who is obviously called to preach and teach God's word, "abandon" his calling because of an "unfaithful" wife? Hmmm?

I have been blessed of God that my wife of 47 years has not been like brother Ruckman's first two wives (and there is no doubt, that on occasion, I may have given her a reason to leave me), but, just because I have been blessed with a Proverbs 31 wife, doesn’t mean that all of the brethren have been as fortunate as myself (and the same may go for a sister in Christ, who has been “abandoned” by a no-good husband).

I have been a Christian for 50 years, and have never heard or seen any man who is as capable (“gifted”) as brother Peter Ruckman when it comes to teaching the word of God. Now that doesn’t mean that I agree with everything that he teaches, nor am I always in agreement with his “response” to some of the brethren for what he may perceive as their unfaithfulness to the King James Bible.

But having said that I think it is both unfair and unjust for Christians (especially in “leadership” roles) to continually engage in destructive criticism of a fellow brother in Christ, who God has used mightily in the preservation of His Holy word. (And I sometimes wonder if there isn’t maybe just “little bit” of jealousy and envy going on).

Unless a man of God is living in open sin and rebellion against God, or unless a man called of God falls into a clear heresy, I for one am going to give him “a pass”, when it comes to these matters, and leave it up to Almighty God to judge him and his ministry at the Judgment Seat of Christ – I’ve got a whole lot more concern about my service to God, to concern myself about another man’s ministry! :confused:

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

I've said before that God uses people that Baptists don't think He should, to do things they don't think He should use them for. Also, people tend to get hung up on attacking or attempting to disqualify Doc when instead we should give glory to God for how He's used the man this whole time. Satan has gotten so many "funnymentalists" sidetracked, shooting their own people. He's an imperfect general in the Christian army, but show me one soldier that's really perfect. Quit shootin' the good guys and FIGHT for cryin' out loud!!

I think that's a very valid question. And, although I'm a Ruckmanite (and a divorced Ruckmanite, at that), I find little to dispute in your very good post.

Two points come to mind, however:

Please do not assume that all "Ruckmanites" accept Dr. Ruckman's teachings on this issue. I do, but many do not. And, with my marital history, I am not in the best position to argue the point.

Also: if I take exception to anything in your post, it's the term "switching wives." It's not usually that callous and cavalier a process, dear brother. You're talking about Bible believers, not Hollywood bed-hoppers. If some of us have divorced and remarried, it is not because we took a low view of marriage, or thought that a "switch" was a legitimate option.

Life's a little more complicated than that.

Hello, George....I appreciate your thoughts, I don't take them personally, and I did not mean "Ruckmanite" in a derogatory sense [I thought you guys were proud to be called that]. I was not taking any cheap shots, I'm not that kind of person....The point in the thread [which, this subject been gone over before when this forum was first established ][ah, remembering when Jerry was here] was divorce and remarriage and you took my response as a shot at Dr. Ruckman....As I stated, I'm a realist and all of you that embrace Dr. Ruckman are going to defend divorce and remarriage even in the pastors role [am I wrong there?]....But the Scriptures I used were in the KJV and whether I'm being a smarty or not, you decide, but the questions I raised [which you did not answer] are valid [I'm not going to restate them, just reread them]....And, lastly, your dander seemed to be up [I meant no harm] and you even seem to imply that I was judging someone?? I don't know where that was in my post, but I appologize if you feel that way. I always enjoy reading your posts, George, but that doesn't mean we can't "agree to disagree" on this issue.....God bless....Scott

Brother, I enjoy reading your posts and your point is well taken, that phrase was not meant to be as "loose" as it sounded, and in fact I can see why one would think I was overly cruel with the statement, I used the phrase in contrast with a well ruled house.... I would like to reiterate that if a man has a calling, it makes no difference what I think period end of story....God bless....Scott

Bro. Scott, I must say I appreciate your spirit in the matter. It's a tough topic to discuss, and in the amount of times I've talked about it with different people, almost every time someone winds up making pointed, derogatory comments about Doc or someone else (usually Doc; they hate his guts) in the intent to make us "Ruckmanites" get hot under the collar and retaliate.

Thank you for your attitude about this. :)

When the Scripture says, "husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6), how is it that some read this as "husband of one wife at a time"?

This is not a standard set for all believers, but for those who will be in leadership positions within the local church. The two chapters shown above clearly indicate that a much higher standard is set for the bishop (pastor) of a church.

Thank you for your comments, Brother...I want to reiterate that I enjoy Dr. Ruckmans Bible studies and knowledge....I enjoy listening to him, I've spent several hours doing so, and I can honestly say that I learn, laugh and cry listening [sometimes all at the same time]....and because I don't want to start a fire here, I'll end with that thought, but my original post on this thread shares my feelings about the office of "pastor", and I feel there is a difference between pastor, preacher, teacher and evangelist.....God bless....Scott

Vendetta Ride: I don't want to discuss you personally; I simply want to make a point.

You being divorced, have how many wives?

Are you therefore the husband of one wife?

Thank you sir. :)

Good question and answered both by Scripture and marital vows: and I believe that the reverse would apply here

and the vow:
"till death do us part" (or similar words)

In order to sort this whole mess out, I believe we need to understand what marriage is and what divorce is. The following is adapted from an article I wrote (adapted so that it didn't sound so "teachy" since I am a woman and most of you guys are men).

It is no secret that marriage is under threat in society today. Well meaning Christians try to fight for godly marriage without really knowing what marriage is. So I am going to concentrate on what I believe the Biblical definition of marriage is and not some man made cultural rules.

Let’s begin with the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings. Most of the time, when a thing is first mentioned in the Bible, it indicates the meaning. This is commonly called the “law of first mention”. Genesis 2:24 gives us our definition, and it is the first mention of marriage. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” The Biblical definition of marriage is when flesh joins flesh. Marriage is consummation, not a wedding ceremony.

Another proof text for the Bible definition of marriage being sexual relations is found in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16. “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”

There are several mentions of marriage suppers or feasts in the Bible, but never the mention of a wedding ceremony. That’s because a ceremony does not equal marriage. Consummation equals marriage. An example of this is in Genesis 38:8 where it says “And Judah said unto Onan, go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.” Onan already had a wife, but Judah was commanding Onan to have sexual relations with Tamar to produce an heir as was commanded by Jewish law. Instead of telling Judah to “have sexual relations” with Tamar, he told him to “marry” her, which means the same thing. Judah and Tamar did not have a wedding ceremony, they had what would be seen today as “a one night stand”. Yet God considered this as marriage.

In Genesis 24 we read about the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah. They did not have a wedding ceremony, they simply consummated and that was marriage. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mothers death.”

Many young people in our society have had several marriages although they have never had a wedding ceremony. They have also had several divorces although they never had a ceremony, for divorce is when flesh leaves flesh. They consummated, had flesh join flesh, and then tore it apart in divorce by going on to another person.

In the Old Testament, God had a divorce. He "put away" Israel.

I believe this needs to be understood before discussing the topic of divorce etc.

Where? Yes, He separated Himself from her uncleanness, but there was no divorce.

The LORD was asking for proof a a divorce, which they could not produce.
The LORD is seeking reconciliation, which is what we should counsel as much as is earthly possible, and not divorce.

I agree that in most instances nobody should be counseled to get a divorce!

I'll go so far as to say that divorce should never be counseled at all. While sometimes it's the only possible outcome to a situation, I would never suggest that to a couple.

I've only been married a little over six months, so I'm not really the one to lecture on the subject (though she and I have known each other for 2 1/2 years and still haven't had a fight ;) ), yet I think it's important to understand what aussiemama pointed out. Just like on the Inspiration topic I started: if you begin with a faulty definition, you'll end up with faulty doctrine. The Biblical meaning of a word, phrase or principle must be ascertained before one can truly and honestly approach the topic.

By God's definition, marriage is obviously a joining of flesh, or sexual intercourse (the "one flesh" statement should make it clear to anyone who has participated in such actions). Added to that is God's judgment of the heart: "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." God judges actions based on the intentions of the heart (that's not to say that a sinner gets off because he was well-intentioned). In Bible times, a man took a woman as his wife, and it became official by their consummation. Our culture has changed so the wedding ceremony is regarded as the "marriage," but in God's eyes, sexual congress is, in fact, the deciding factor in a marriage.

In reality, the only difference between the two clauses in Hebrews 13:4 (see above) is the intentions of the participants: the married folks intend to be together for the rest of their lives, while the other two people are intentionally sleeping together without the intention of commitment.

"...man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart."

From the Websters 1828 dictionary:
FORNICA'TION, n. L. fornicatio.

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

Just my opinion, but we're kind of getting off topic. According to your definition, the term fornication, used in the KJV 32 times, would be unnecessary, because, according to your definition, they are officially married, so they couldn't commit fornication....and how could anyone commit adultery according to your definition because now they are officially married again [and divorced]??

I find that we are better off defining words in the Bible using the Bible, rather than using a dictionary. The dictionary is wrong. Yes, even Webster was wrong sometimes. The only thing that is never wrong is the King James Bible, and it defines fornication as any sexual acting out.

Two people having sex without wanting to commit in marriage, although married technically, are still fornicators. A man who commits adultery is a fornicator. Homosexuality is fornication.

Though we have covered this elsewhere, I will repeat, because of the above reference to Scripture defining Scripture. Count the number of times fornication and adultery appear in the same list within a verse or passage. The Scriptures distinguish between the two.

As to the Biblical defining of marriage as the initial sexual union, then what do you do with this?

Culturally, they were man and wife at the betrothal. That many times occurred a ear in advance of the wedding feast and subsequent consummation. Also, Mary and Joseph are a slightly different circumstance from the run-o'-the-mill couple.

In Scripture, fornication is any sexual impropriety, from pre-marital or extra-marital sex to sodomy and bestiality. Adultery is used to speak specifically of extra-marital sexual relationships. Yes, Webster's is a great tool, but God's definitions are better.

So, the King James Bible defines fornication as "any sexual acting out"......Chapter and verse, please....

I don't want to press this any further, because this has nothing to do with the thread [just my opinion], but the above comments are based upon what?? So if they are still fornicators [although technically married] when do they graduate to being adulterers??;) ......Just having fun....God bless....Scott

I know this is a side thing to the remarriage, but I'm curious.

Sex = marriage?
No (public/private?) commitment = fornication?

So what about the woman at the well?

John 4:16-18 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

There seems to be bit more to it than just sharing flesh.

Isaac and Rebekah isn't a good example because they had their marriage all arranged before she left her home and family to travel with the servant who went there to bring a wife back...and then once she got there upon seeing her he took her to his tent and to wife.

What of the case of Dinah? It was a forced joining, but no one considered it a marriage on either side just because he lay with her.

Excuse the delay, brother: I answered this question earlier, but I must have hit "Preview" instead of "Submit," because I don't see the post.

I don't have any wives, as a matter of fact; I was divorced, against my will, by my second wife 16 years ago. I seriously doubt that I'll be getting married again; the idea terrifies me! But, as the Jews say, "Do you want to make God laugh? Tell Him your plans!"

:D

To answer your real question: After my first divorce, I remarried (obviously), and was married for a number of years. During the time of my second marriage, I did not committ adultery or bigamy; I was faithful to my lawful wedded spouse, and so I had one living wife. I was indeed "the husband of one wife."

I believe the pertinent verse applies to bigamy, not remarriage. You can make the case against divorce/remarriage, or divorced men serving in the ministry, without using that verse.

As I said in an earlier reply, I think the notion of "ruling one's house well" is applicable; but, it's quite possible for a remarried man to do that.

Is it ever God's will for a divorced/remarried man to be a pastor? Yes, I think it is. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

In my own case, I do not think that my marital history would be an asset in counselling, or in preaching on the subject of marriage, and I do not intend to return to the pastoral ministry. But it's not because I think I'm "disqualified;" it's because, in my own personal judgment, it wouldn't be prudent.

And, although I am specifically not referring to you, I think that this subject engenders more hypocrisy and self-righteousness among ministers than nearly any other.

And, by the way, I agree with Here Am I: God most certainly did divorce Israel in the Old Testament. The book of Hosea is pretty clear on the matter!

Thank you brother.

To be honest, Dr. Ruckman is the last person I'd ask for marital counseling. Or child rearing counseling, for that matter. He's been called to pastor a church and defend the King James Bible and sound doctrine, but when it comes to counseling and things of that nature, he has Bro. Donovan to take care of that.

In reality, the only person I'd ever talk to about marital issues would be my parents. They've been married for almost 23 years now, and I cannot remember one single time where they fought or argued. I'm sure they disagreed behind closed doors, but my parents' marriage is an incredible testimony to the mercy and grace of God, and I wish to pattern my marriage after their pattern.

Even in today's middle eastern culture, they allow multiple wives. I believe this is what the Apostle Paul was addressing. The Muslims of today allow multiple wives, and they even maintain them when they come to America (as long as they never become a citizen it is possible...). Many of the Native American tribes allowed multiple wives; many African tribes allowed multiple wives, and do not condemn adultery or fornication. The bible-believing Missionary has to teach them these biblical truths, and has to fight that battle constantly in his work. Even in the OT, we saw this same problem - Jacob, David, and Solomon are the glaring culprits in my view.
The NT teaching reaffirms the OT teaching of Genesis - One man, one woman for a lifetime. God allowed the Israelites to have the option of divorce "for the hardness of their hearts." This could mean many things:
1. Two people who are not serving the Lord marry. So they are already out of the will of God. Let's say one of them gets right, wants to serve God, and the other doesn't. Enter I Cor. 7 - the unbelieving is NOT bound. The Christian is commanded to let them depart. I Cor. 7 does not differentiate between pastor or church member. Therefore, it would be adding to the word to say that it ONLY applies to the church member.
2. Two married people can't get along so they want a divorce. THere is no NT teaching to allow for this behavior, and therefore, I believe this is wrong.
3. One person cruelly beats his wife and children. His heart is hardened. THe woman can and should report him to the police, and remain faithful IF POSSIBLE. It may be that the only possible protection for her is divorce.

There are many other reasons that could fall under the definition of "for the hardness of your heart." I am only attempting to demonstrate that it is not so cut and dried as many make it to be.

Further, if a man has a problem with dumping his spouse for any old reason, committing adultery, fornication, etc., and has multiple wives, there is reason to wonder.
If a man does everything he is suppossed to do to love his wife and provide for her, and she runs off, then what? If this same man continually promotes ONE marriage, is anti-divorce, counsels AGAINST divorce, and demonstrates openly and publicly his love, support, protection, provision, and care for his current wife, then I don't see the need to throw stones at that particular man, especially in the circumstance where the first marriage started when they were both lost or backslidden.

These are two different scenarios, and in my view demand two different responses.

The pharisaical attitude of many fundamentalists reek on this one: Many fundamentalists who have a high profile will condemn one man for not "being the husband of one wife" (ie divorced and remarried), but they allow wanton fornication and adultery in their churches, even amongst staff members.

In Christ,

*wishes he could rate Bro. Steve Schwenke's post a perfect 10!*

Good post brother!

Is this not a very wide accusation without substantial evidence?

I am not finger pointing at you in particular. I can understand why people take the position they do on this issue, and I have no quarrel with a responsible, reasonable person who takes the anti-divorce position. My accusation is not lacking in substantial witnesses. On the contrary, I have eye-witnesses.
I also understand that this is not normal; but if it is done in one or more of these highly visible "big" fundamentalist, KJV churches, it is very likely to filter down to the churches that are spawned from it. "More is caught than taught."

Brother, I did not take it as a personal accusation, but I again emphasize the error in using a broad brush. There are thousands (hopefully) of fundamental churches in the world. You could not possibly be aware of enough instances of your description that could qualify as "Many fundamentalists". I would even say of the numbers of high-profile leaders, however that could be defined, that the ones who openly condemn one behavior while granting the other are a minority as well.

I don't want to get into a spitting contest here. I just think that when one uses broad-reaching accusations, there should not only be ample evidence, but also authority to make such a charge.

Understood...