Yes, they are, in Timothy chapter 3, specifically a candidate "must be blameless, the husband of one wife..."
I am not ignoring Scripture
Yes, you are.
You are ignoring Scripture.
No, I am not. Instead, you are ignoring specific requirements for church leadership given in scripture by quoting other scripture that has nothing to do with the requirements for church leadership roles.
And worse, you are claiming for your own additions and interpretations the sanctity of Scripture itself
I am merely stating the word of God as it has been written by the Apostles and interpreted by the Church for nearly 2000 years. It is you who are trying to create your own personal interpretation of scripture, and you can only do that by ignoring Church tradition, historical teachings, and the literal words of the Bible 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
Your claims are as irrelevant as those of the modern Episcopals; neither of you have any standing when you ignore the clear meaning of scripture.
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
The Bible does indeed explicitly say what I claim, and your attempts to ignore those parts of scripture in no way invalidate them. Your argument is essentially the same as that of the so-called homosexual priests in the various pseudo-churches; both of you believe that the Bible can be re-interpreted to make various rules meaningless when you decide those rules are no longer convenient. And you are both wrong to do so.
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?
Once again, you are trying to create a strawman argument, and not a very good one at that. I do not claim that only those requirements listed are the only ones that should be taken into consideration when choosing Church leadership, but that certainly does not mean that I believe such explict requirements should be ignored. The latter is your argument, and is self-evidently un-biblical and illogical.
Or are you claiming that Jesus taught us that we should sin?
Yet another strawman, and a very poor one at that.
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
And it is you who are adding to scripture at this point, except in this case your additions go against the specific requirements in Timothy 3. What you are trying to "maintain" is in contradiction to scripture, and is as nonsensical as suggesting that Jesus's forgiveness of the woman who committed adultery means that adultery isn't relevant to church leadership roles either.
Your position is not logically sound, ignores critical Scriptural passages, and ultimately is not convincing.
It is not convincing to you only because you refuse to accept scripture as having any absolute meaning other than what you read into it. Your so-called "logical" position is that explicit requirements for church leadership should be ignored, based only on the idea that Jesus talked about divorce and forgiveness when talking about issues that had absolutely nothing to do with church leadership.
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.
You are inventing passages that are not there. There is no exception. The passage does not say "the husband of one wife unless that wife committed adultery and then this verse should probably be ignored".
That is how they can be integrated together
You are perverting scripture. God will judge you for that particular sin.
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
There could be dispute with the passage only if there were some other verse that actually provided such an exception for church leadership roles. It is a "disputable matter" only if specific scripture is deliberately ignored. That many churches ignore such scripture only proves that they are false churches; such actions do nothing to modify the clear meaning of the scripture itself.
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
It will be more than just misjudgment of scripture to which you will have to answer. Methods like yours, of ignoring those verses where are inconvenient to you, are used to justify many of the terrible abominations afflicting the church today. By advocating the legitimacy of such selective interpretation, you add to that chaos.