Charles Stanley Situation

4/4/02 | Dryman

[Dryman]

This is a simple inquiry into Reverend Stanley's position in his Church. A year and 6 months ago a stink was raised about him staying on as pastor after he and his wife split. What became of this situation? As you might know I have been out of touch with this forum for some time and am now only able to log back in.

Please accept my post for the vanity it is and accept my apologies in advance. Spam on (If that is necessary.)

[drstevej]

I am sure Andy's decision did hurt his dad, but apart from his own actions he was placed in the unenviable choice of violating his convictions and not hurting his dad or standing on principlee despite the hurt. It truly is sad.

I may be mistaken but I believe that the church had a rule against divorced or separated persons serving as senior pastor. Actions were taken to circumvent this rule and allow Charles to remain in the pulpit. This led to the breach with Andy. Charles initial rationale was that he would remain as pastor so long as he was separated and not divorced. This was later ammended upon his divorce. Charles Stanley is, I believe, a gifted and compassionate pastor. I respect him in many ways, however if it was his biblical conviction that separation or divorce does not disqualify a pastor from ministry he should have stated it initially. To keep redrawing the line as circumstances change is a problem regardless of whether he and I would have the same understanding of what the Bible says about the qualifications of an elder.

[DittoJed2]

I may be mistaken but I believe that the church had a rule against divorced or separated persons serving as senior pastor. Actions were taken to circumvent this rule and allow Charles to remain in the pulpit. This led to the breach with Andy. Charles initial rationale was that he would remain as pastor so long as he was separated and not divorced. This was later ammended upon his divorce. Charles Stanley is, I believe, a gifted and compassionate pastor. I respect him in many ways, however if it was his biblical conviction that separation or divorce does not disqualify a pastor from ministry he should have stated it initially. To keep redrawing the line as circumstances change is a problem regardless of whether he and I would have the same understanding of what the Bible says about the qualifications of an elder.
I heard the church gave a standing ovation when he decided to stay. I imagine if a church constitution issue were brought before the congregation, they would have ammended the constitution. This would be within Baptist polity. He isn't staying in spite of the church. They wanted him to stay. I think it would have been better if he would have laid out his reasons for changing his mind. Right now nobody knows that. He redrew the line once, and it would have caused less confusion if he would have stated why his conviction in that matter changed. He's not infallible, of course. So he could have seen in Scripture where he was wrong in that course and would be disobeying God by leaving (without God's express release). As it is now, we just are left guessing and that can look bad.

[drstevej]

I think it would have been better if he would have laid out his reasons for changing his mind. Right now nobody knows that. He redrew the line once, and it would have caused less confusion if he would have stated why his conviction in that matter changed.

I agree with you in the above. I also agree that his church was supportive of his remaining and would have approved any rule / constitutional change needed. A full explanation of his reasons for remaining would show whether he was acting upon revised biblical understanding or more subjective reasons(God's leading) and / or pragmatic reasons(the need for me to remain is so great). I am afraid that with the confusion many Christians will conclude "Whatever...," that is, that it doesn't matter what his reason is.

[11th Earl of Mar]

I think that Dr. Stanley's biggest error was in promising to step down. The Bible does not say a divorced man can not be a pastor.

Agreed.

I believe there is a big difference between the minister victimized by divorce whose wife left him even though he was willing to work it out and the minister who is 'victimized' by divorce who leaves his wife and kids so he can carry on with his secretary.

[Notwithstanding]

Your post points to one reason for the discipline of celibate clergy.

It is interesting to see that the meaning of the scripture passage is now in dispute, whereas those who criticize non-married Catholic leaders for violating the passage always claim they know exactly what the passage means (claiming that "must be the husband of but one wife" = a church leader must be married).

[Ward Smythe]

I believe there is a big difference between the minister victimized by divorce whose wife left him even though he was willing to work it out and the minister who is 'victimized' by divorce who leaves his wife and kids so he can carry on with his secretary.

Agreed. We have a similar situation in our church now with our minister of music. No affair, just a growing apart. She walked out on him and moved to another state. The kids, one just out of college the other a college junior, stayed with dad.

Several years ago we had almost the same thing happen to friends of ours. We attended an interdenominational church affiliated with the Mennonites (but we're not Mennonite). A (married) couple was studying and working together to be ministers. She decided she was a lesbian, walked out on him and filed for divorce. When he started dating another friend (also Mennonite), it was a major scandal in their church community. There was no hope that the first marriage could be saved, but they couldn't accept his getting married again. When they eventually did get married, her parents did not attend the wedding. They came around later as the grandkids came on the scene.

[sitonit]

You don't know the whole story here. I think Anna had some emotional problems. Part of this was due to Stanley's being so involved in church work but part was due to death threats made against them.

In sickness and in health, to love and to cherish till death do us part

That was a covenant agreement.He should have chosen his wife over his ministry. I believe God would have honored that

[Notwithstanding]

You: The Bible does not say a divorced man can not be a pastor.

Me: I would be interested to know how you would answer these questions:

Can a never-married man be a pastor? Single widower? (me: yes)

A woman? (no) Is a divorced man single? (me: not if the marriage was valid, because a valid marriage ends only when one spouse dies)

Can a divorced man remarry? (me: no, same answer as above)

Reminder: Catholic annulmments are formal declarations that what looked like a marriage (a civil marriage is often not a valid biblical marriage) was never a valid biblical marriage (i.e. a porno addict who seemingly "marries" and whose addiction prevented him from ever having an ordered view of marital conjugal relations cannot consent to that which he does not understand (biblical matrimony) or alternatively his civil wife is not biblically bound to a civil husband who clearly never intended to keep his matrimonial vows).

[pubmom]

Except it would seem that she was the one that chose to leave. It was stated in an earlier post that she was receiving questionable counsel. I can't tell you how many times I've been warned against seeking non-bibically based help. Reconciliation is not a popular concept in the secular world, and unfortunately not even in some so-called "Christian" counseling. We've become a throwaway society.

I do not know where Anna is spiritually right now, but the bible states that if an unbelieving spouse chooses to leave, they should be allowed to go.

[DittoJed2]

Actually, my criticism of celibate clergy has nothing to do with that passage. Peter, who according to Roman Catholic tradition, was the first pope, was a married man. Passages relating to elders assume that they are married men (but I believe do not exclude those who are single, do not necessarily exclude those who are divorced, do not exclude widowed men, and do not exclude those who have been made eunuchs by God). Paul was not married and started many churches in a very pastoral role. One's marital status, therefore, according to Scripture, is less important in whether or not one will be a good pastor as is one's character. If they are using the Timothy passage as an injunction against celibate clergy, they are misusing the text. But on the flip side, you will not find in Scripture where clergy are to be celibate.

[Notwithstanding]

Amen! We agree.

Celibacy is a discipline of the Church and can be (and has been) changed. It is a prudential matter for the leaders of the Church to determine.

The Catholic view is that there is no right to be a pastor. One can inform the Church that one feels called by God, but the Church determines if the call will benefit the Church. (Thus a reformed axe murderer may feel truly called by God to be a pastor, but the Church must discern if this "call" will truly be of service to God's people). I presume it is similar in that a protestant man cannot just demand that he be a pastor - he has to find people willing to give that honor or responsibility to him.

[DittoJed2]

Can a never-married man be a pastor? Single widower? (me: yes)

Yes.

A woman? (no)

I believe that there is a Scriptural case than a woman can not be a Senior Pastor. I do not have a problem however with women preachers as I see very little difference between a preacher and a prophetess and Philip's daughters and Huldah were prophetesses.

Is a divorced man single? (me: not if the marriage was valid, because a valid marriage ends only when one spouse dies)
Yes. Whatsoever is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Whatsoever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven. Same word loosed is found in 1 Corinthians 7, are you bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Are you loosed (valid translation of this in greek is divorced) from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if you do marry, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she has not sinned.

Can a divorced man remarry? (me: no, same answer as above)
Yes. Moses allowed it (Moses would not make an allowance for sin. Jesus assumed remarriage would occur. Paul spelled out cases where it is permissable. And in light of God's grace, I do not believe God will cause us to perpetually pay for sins that Jesus already paid for on the cross. With this said, I believe any 2nd marriage needs to be entered into with the utmost of care. If one is the guilty party in the other marriage, true repentance should have occurred and a change of heart.)

Reminder: Catholic annulmments are formal declarations that what looked like a marriage (a civil marriage is often not a valid biblical marriage) was never a valid biblical marriage (i.e. a porno addict who seemingly "marries" and whose addiction prevented him from ever having an ordered view of marital conjugal relations cannot consent to that which he does not understand (biblical matrimony) or alternatively his civil wife is not biblically bound to a civil husband who clearly never intended to keep his matrimonial vows).

I think this is where you and I will disagree because as a protestant, we do not see marriage as a sacrament that pertains to salvation. I do believe that the church can release people from marriage, but a state divorce is still a divorce. While God hates divorce, the divorce in and of itself is not a sin otherwise Moses would not have allowed it, Ezra would not have commanded it in the case of foreign wives, and Jesus and Paul would not have made acceptions to it. The sin is in what leads up to the divorce. I believe that the spirit of the law is what rules rather than a legalistic letter of the law and I believe the spirit of the law is that if the marital union is so irretrievably broken that it can not be fixed (i.e., due to something as serious as marital unfaithfulness, abandonment, a spouse who puts another spouses life in danger, etc.,) then divorce is permissible. However, I also believe that if you have divorced for a less valid reason (I just didn't love him any more, or she burnt my food to use the ancient Hebrew reason) there is still forgiveness and restoration for the offending party as well as the offended. When God forgives us He casts our sins as far as the East is from the West. He does not remember them any more. To place a lifetime sentence of having to pay for past sin on the head of a Christian whom God has forgiven goes against God's grace.

In the Old Testament, the only commandment regarding divorce and remarriage was found where Moses told men who divorced their wives to give them a bill of divorcement (basically so she could remarry and wouldn't have to resort to prostitution to support herself as women in that society had to do due to the view of women without spouses). If the man she is remarried to dies or divorces her, Moses said that the first spouse was not to remarry her for it would be an abomination.

Jesus's comments need to be taken in the context they were said. The Jews at the time were split between those who believed in divorce for serious causes only such as adultery, and those who believed that one could divorce their wife for any old reason at all. Jesus sided with the first people. Paul didn't like remarriage because he thought it was better that one remain single. He reflected in Romans and 1 Corinthians the seriousness of the marriage relationship. Yet, because we live in a fallen world, humans do not always make the right choices (even in who to date), so if for example an unbelieving spouse leaves, Paul said let them leave. The brother or sister is not under bondage in such areas.

Please do not misunderstand me. I believe marriage is sacred and should be entered into for life. I do not see, however, an absolute commandment in Scripture where "Thou shalt not divorce" and in fact see places where it was commanded. God Himself used the analogy that he was divorcing Israel because she was an unfaithful spouse. What the church should do rather than beat up on those who have been divorced and enforcing rules on people that the Bible does not assume, is teach their people from the cradle the seriousness of marriage, the seriousness of choosing the right mate in the Lord, and the seriousness of being a faithful spouse. God hates divorce. It is ugly. It is painful. It is usually bathed in the sin of one or both partners. But God does not hate divorced people and does not make this one area the one sin for which payment still must be made by sinners. God is a God of forgiveness and restoration. He justifies us through the blood of His Son and calls us to peace. It is still not good for man to be alone, even if he has been divorced, and it is better to marry than to burn in lust for one another. Just be extremely cautious when you do, and do not enter into any union with the idea that if it doesn't go well you can always divorce. Divorce for trivialities is sin. We should marry for life.

[DittoJed2]

Pastors, at least in Baptist ranks, are voted in by the church. In other denominations, I believe they are board appointed. You are right, there is no right to be a pastor.

[oprahstheantichrist]

Brilliant post, many thanks. I've been wrestling with this issue for years, and whenever I seriously ask the Lord for guidence, I keep banging into the legalism of "no divorce, except desertion or adultary. Period."

But how is it that God is so legalistic, if a situation is so despairing that it's literally killing one of the parties? (Stress-induced illness)

Wish I knew where to find it, but about a year ago, I read that the divorce statistics for atheists were almost identical to that of evangelical Christians, which leads to the inevitable "WHY?"

The only logical thing I could come up with is that if, within the marraige, divorce is considered forbidden, the fallen nature of one or both spouses feels a much greater freedom to be a complete jacka**. "Look at all I can get away with! She can't divorce me, it's not allowed!"

If the couple is atheist though, with no "rules," and no God to be accountable to, a certain fear must exist, that automatic forgiveness by the other party cannot be assumed. Perhaps, therefore, they treat each other better to begin with, always with "that little fear" in the background, that is not present within a Christian marriage.

So if this is the case, a little fear is a good thing. Unfortunately, many legalistic Christians lack that "little fear."

[Sci Fi Guy]

As far as it relates to the Stanley situation. Prior to his divorce, his church(based on Stanley's teaching) held the view that it meant divorce. Now that it would apply to him, he's changed his view.

I am aware of the alternative views on those passages. To be extremely brief, I do think that it refers to divorce. I also think that it applies to the leader(senior pastor or bishop) of a church, not necessarily every minister in a church.

The problem is that as Americans we think that serving God is the job of a professional. So we regard it as all or nothing. Either a person can is qualified to do it all, or he cannot do anything. All Christians have some sort of ministry. If Stanley had resigned from the pulpit, he still has a duty to serve God. What if he started a Bible study. How long do you think it would be before he had a "Bible study" of several hundred people? Which I think would be fine(Biblically speaking), if he ministered under the guidence of a leader(bishop, or senior pastor of a home church.) I think that God's desire would be for Stanley to continue as a minister, but not as the senior leader of a church.

[aimhigh]

Dr. Stanley didn't have an affair. That wasn't his wife's beef. I think he was too devoted to the ministry and there were other emotional problems involved.

Consider that this disqualifies Stanley on two points. First, he's now longer the husband of one wife. He's divorced. The word for "one" has the meaning of first and only.

Second, if the marraige failed due to being too devoted to the ministry, then he failed to manage his household well.

It's amazing how hard the church tries to "dumb down" the requires of 1 Tim 3. These should not be considered to be high, almost unreachable standards, but the minimum requirements for the job. It's not a matter of being legalistic, but of being obediant

[winstonchurchill]

Several years ago we had almost the same thing happen to friends of ours. We attended an interdenominational church affiliated with the Mennonites (but we're not Mennonite). A (married) couple was studying and working together to be ministers. She decided she was a lesbian, walked out on him and filed for divorce. When he started dating another friend (also Mennonite), it was a major scandal in their church community. There was no hope that the first marriage could be saved, but they couldn't accept his getting married again.

What an interesting case. It is the spiritual equivalent of a bar exam question.

We know that the one Biblical basis for divorce is adultery and absent that, remarraige is forbidden. Now, the question of the hour, can the wife's descent into lesbianism be considered within the scope of 'adultery'? In other words does the adulterous relationship require a heterosexual pairing or just a sexual partner not her husband?

[Icthus]

"...he was offered an envelope of cash if he would leave town and not take the position. He also had a deacon try to punch him out at a business meeting....(shabby treatment by professing church leaders).."

I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church and I've heard of other incidents similar in nature to this. It's a shame.

[winstonchurchill]

Consider that this disqualifies Stanley on two points. First, he's now longer the husband of one wife. He's divorced. The word for "one" has the meaning of first and only.

Second, if the marraige failed due to being too devoted to the ministry, then he failed to manage his household well.

You make two serious arguments. One the construction of "husband of one wife" and the second his ability to meet the other, independent tests of 1 Timothy 3.

The first depends on whether the requirement is to be a "husband" of (at least) one wife or a husband of not more than "one wife". I don't know of a Biblical view that this prohibits single (never married) men and widowers from the pastorate. The text really offers no clue on this issue. I take it from your comment that you believe it does prohibit single (never married) men and widowers from the pastorate. Why should that be?

The second is a more interesting question -- and more difficult. The full passage says,

"The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God? He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact. And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil's trap."

You essentially argue that even if (and I don't know the facts) his wife divorces him because she is emotionally unstable and unbalanced, this reflects on his ability to "manage his household."

Perhaps, but a husband has precious few tools left in modern society for dealing with an emotionally unstable woman. [It could be argued that phrase is a redundancy.] Wouldn't that require that one demonstrate that there was something within his power to do to calm her instability which he hadn't done?

If those were the facts -- and they were shown -- I would definitely be with you. I think I would need to know more.

Others have argued that he should have left because he earlier said he would. Suppose he was merely trying to "manage" his unstable wife by making that 'promise'? Or that he was mistaken in his understanding?

The biggest indicia here that he should go -- to me --is his son's resignation. Why did the son think he should go? Nobody is talking about facts, but presumably the son knows some. And that is troubling. Is the son speaking out?

[DittoJed2]

The biggest indicia here that he should go -- to me --is his son's resignation. Why did the son think he should go? Nobody is talking about facts, but presumably the son knows some. And that is troubling. Is the son speaking out?
It is my understanding that his son resigned out of principle. He believed his dad should have stayed true to his word and resigned if he divorced. When Charles did not resign, Andy did.