[Technogeeb]

I'm not 'deliberately' ignoring scripture

Perhaps; but you are still ignoring scripture that rather explicitly says that your position is incorrect. I suppose your definition of "deliberately" could be different than most.

You may consider the teaching of Jesus on divorce and adultery (Matt 5:32) to be irrelevant to the discussion of divorce and adultery

That is called a strawman argument. I never said it was irrelevant to the discussion of divorce and adultery, I said it was irrelevant to the qualifications of church leadership; the requirements of which are more than (but include) the requirement of marital fidelity.

The standards for Church leaders are indeed more stringent than those for others, and as I said before, it is certainly possible to interpret the Scriptures in restrictive ways. Do you, for example, maintain that a widower who remarries cannot be a church leader?

The marriage vow is generally "till death", so this would be a bit more flexible. But in such a case where the person is devoting his life to the church, he should not re-marry, and such re-marriage is an indication that the candidate may not be suitable.

Do you prohibit someone who smokes (addiction to modern drugs are surely the modern equivalent of the prohibition in 1 Cor 6:10 on 'drunkards').

Yes, smokers, or at least those addicted to smoking (which is probably the majority of smokers) should not have such positions of leadership in the church.

If a father of several faithful children has one child 'go bad' does that disqualify him?

Definitely. The requirement is that his house be in good order, and this would disqualify him just as much as a divorce.

Perhaps it does in your doctrine, and perhaps it should. But I will continue to believe that true repentence, and commitment to Jesus as Lord and Christ, can overcome sin

The issue of church leadership roles is not simply an issue of sin. There is no corruption of blood for sin, as in the case where a father has a disobedient child (i.e., the sins of a disobedient child are not those of the father). Nevertheless, such a situation disqualifies the father from a church position. The requirements for church leadership positions are clearly stated; that they are often ignored by the pseudo-churches in no way changes those requirements.

I would not consider that a cause for disqualification for leadership within the Church for someone who has demonstrated true repentence and honestly desires to serve Jesus

God's word disagrees with you. Just because you refuse to accept God's word in no way changes those words.

My original point was that men who quit on their marriages short of the point of giving up their lives to preserve them have committed a sin. There is no 'no fault' divorce. I offered the sole exception of adultery, strictly because Jesus did.

The exception for adultery was not extended to nor included in the requirements for Church leadership roles. Just because God may allow you to divorce your wife due to her infidelity does not mean that he also grants you an exemption to the requirements listed for church leadership roles. The very fact that a man would marry an unfaithful wife is itself suggestive that he lacks the wisdom to be a proper steward of God's property.

If that's not good enough for you, then I guess you'll have to pick and choose what you will follow.

It is ironic that you would make such a statement, considering that is you who are "picking and choosing" a subset of the bible, using only those scriptures that are to your liking to support your position and ignoring those that directly contradict it.

[Gorjus]

The exception for adultery was not extended to nor included in the requirements for Church leadership roles.

So you say, but those words are not in the Bible. I am not ignoring Scripture. You are ignoring Scripture. And worse, you are claiming for your own additions and interpretations the sanctity of Scripture itself.

There, have I convinced you? I have claimed grandly to know what is right, by accusing you of whatever error it takes to make my position right.

You entire argument is circular. By your claim I am ignoring Scripture that explictly says my position is incorrect, when in fact the whole point is that isolated passages do not provide complete guidance and therefore the Bible does not explictly say what you claim, except when isolated passages are taken out of context with the rest of Scripture. In essence, you are ignoring all Scripture except that which (in isolation) supports your point. And yet, even in that you are inconsistent. There are many requirements for members of the Church other than those which are explictly tied to the leadership qualifications themselves. Are you claiming only those qualifications that are 'explicitly' identified with leadership positions apply to leaders? So that it is not necessary for a Church leader to forsake idolatry just because it's not mentioned in 1 Tim 3? Or, in fact, that it's not necessary for a Church leader to be baptized, since that's not mentioned there either?

Or are you claiming that Jesus taught us that we should sin? Since Jesus said divorce when a woman has been an adulteress is an exemption to the faults that follow other divorces, I would maintain that He has explicitly made an exception that applies to Christians - all Christians, whether leaders or members. Your position is not logically sound, ignores critical Scriptural passages, and ultimately is not convincing.

Let me make it 'explicitly' clear how these passages can be integrated together. A Church leader should be the 'husband of but one wife' except that (as Jesus 'explicitly' said) adultery of the woman is a valid basis for divorce and therefore a marriage to an adulterous woman becomes irrelevant. Just as a marriage to a woman who has died becomes irrelevant.

That is how they can be integrated together. Perhaps they are not supposed to be integrated. But I'm not the one to make that call, and unless you've got qualifications no human has had since The Revelation was written, I don't think you do either.

You're welcome to cherry pick the parts of Scripture you find satisfying - and to declare that therefore your views on disputable matters are explicit and written down by God Himself.

I choose a more modest claim to authority. I believe I'll let God tell us what is right at Judgment, and in the meantime trust in his mercy if I - in good faith and honest scholarship of the Bible - am wrong.