1 Thessalonians 5:22 (KJV): “Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

ABSTRACT

The question of whether a man with a past divorce can serve as a pastor is not merely a matter of policy but a profound inquiry into the nature of God’s law, the sanctity of marriage, and the qualifications for spiritual leadership. This article explores the biblical and inspired teachings on marriage as a lifelong covenant, the apostolic standards for ministry, and the historical stance of the church, emphasizing the balance of grace and truth in upholding God’s ideal. Through Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy, it affirms that while forgiveness is boundless, the pastoral office demands an unblemished record of marital fidelity to reflect God’s perfect will. How does God’s Word define the sacredness of the marriage vow?

GOD’S DIVINE DESIGN FOR MARRIAGE

The air in the small church boardroom is thick with prayerful silence, the kind that follows a question no one really wanted to ask but everyone knew was coming. On the table, beside well-worn Bibles and copies of the Church Manual, lies the potential future of a man named Brother John. He is, by all accounts, a pillar. His testimony is powerful, his knowledge of the Word profound, his zeal for souls undeniable. Since his baptism five years ago, he has been a quiet force for good, a man whose conversion seems as genuine as the sunrise. The youth look up to him. The elders trust his judgment. And now, with the pastoral position vacant, his name has been spoken, whispered at first, then spoken with conviction. But Brother John carries a history. Before he knew Christ, before the cleansing waters of baptism washed over him, his first life, his first marriage, ended. It was a casualty of a world without God, a story of mistakes and heartache that he has laid at the foot of the cross. He has not remarried. He lives a life of quiet celibacy, his devotion channeled entirely into his newfound faith. And this is the crux of the matter, the invisible weight pressing down on the men in this room. Can a man with a broken marriage vow, even one forgiven and left in the past, be entrusted with the unbroken, sacred vows of pastoral ordination?

This is not some abstract theological puzzle. It is a real-world dilemma that strikes at the very heart of who we are as a people. For the church, this question is not about accommodating modern sensibilities or relaxing standards to fill a vacancy. It is a profound inquiry into the nature of God’s law, the meaning of grace, and the absolute standard He requires of those who would stand as His representatives. Our entire identity is rooted in the solemn conviction that we are called to restore and uphold the original, uncompromised truths of the Advent message—the “old landmarks” our fathers established on the firm foundation of Scripture. To support this divine call, Scripture affirms God’s unchanging purpose for His people: “Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy” (Leviticus 19:2, KJV). Additionally, the Lord declares, “I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people” (Leviticus 26:12, KJV). Sr. White underscores this sacred mission, stating, “The Lord has a special work for His people to do in these last days, to reflect His character to the world” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 19, 1909). She further writes, “God’s people are to be distinguished as a people who serve Him fully, with heart and soul and strength” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 315, 1900). To even consider this question, then, is to test the foundations of our own house. The issue of military service was a matter of the sixth commandment; this is a matter of the seventh, and of the sacredness of the institutions God Himself established in Eden. It touches the minister’s home, his history, and his public witness. Therefore, the stakes could not be higher. This is not merely an administrative decision; it is an existential one. To get this wrong is to risk becoming the very thing we separated from: a body that allows the spirit of the age to soften the sharp, clear lines of divine truth. What does Scripture reveal about the sacred institution of marriage established in Eden?

THE EDENIC IDEAL AND THE TRAGEDY OF SIN

To understand what God says about divorce, we must first hear what He says about marriage. Any discussion that begins with the exceptions, the concessions, or the consequences of sin has already started in the wrong place. We must begin where Christ began: “from the beginning” (Matthew 19:8, KJV). God’s divine and unchanging blueprint for marriage is a lifelong, sacred, and indissoluble union between one man and one woman. It is not a human contract but a divine institution. Woven into the very fabric of creation was the principle established where inthe sinless perfection of Eden, after creating man, God declared, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18, KJV). He then formed Eve from Adam’s side and presented her to him. In that moment, God Himself officiated the first wedding and laid down the charter for every marriage to follow: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, KJV). This was not a suggestion or a cultural observation; it was a creation ordinance, the divine pattern for all humanity. Sr. White notes that marriage was one of only two institutions that “Adam brought with him beyond the gates of Paradise.” It was established by the Creator to “guard the purity and happiness of the race” and to elevate the “physical, the intellectual, and the moral nature” of humanity. This was God’s “very good” plan (Genesis 1:31, KJV). The entrance of sin, however, perverted all of God’s good gifts. Alienation, abuse, and unfaithfulness marred the sacred union. Divorce is the ultimate expression of this brokenness. It is never presented in Scripture as a neutral option or an unfortunate necessity. It is portrayed as a tragedy that God Himself abhors. The prophet Malachi delivers this message with startling clarity: “For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 2:16, KJV). God equates divorce with violence—a tearing asunder of the “one flesh” He created, a treacherous violation of a holy covenant. To reinforce this divine ideal, Scripture declares, “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour” (Ecclesiastes 4:9, KJV), emphasizing the strength of unity in marriage. Furthermore, “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD” (Proverbs 18:22, KJV). Sr. White affirms, “Marriage, in its purity, is a sacred institution, designed to bring happiness to both parties” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 46, 1890). She also states, “The family tie is the closest, the most tender and sacred, of any on earth” (The Ministry of Healing, p. 356, 1905). Therefore, any biblical consideration of divorce must proceed from this high and holy ideal. Divorce is never Plan A. It is always a devastating consequence of the fall, a tragic accommodation for a world steeped in sin, a direct contradiction to God’s original purpose. The foundational scriptural principle is permanence. This truth must be the lens through which we interpret every subsequent passage on the subject, understanding them not as loopholes, but as divine responses to the hardness of the human heart. How did Christ address the distortions of this sacred institution in His teachings?

CHRIST’S RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE’S SANCTITY

When Christ walked the earth, the sacred institution of marriage was in ruins. Under the rabbinical interpretations of the day, a man could divorce his wife “for every cause,” reducing the divine covenant to a flimsy, disposable contract. It was in this context that the Pharisees came to Jesus, “tempting him” (Matthew 19:3, KJV), hoping to trap Him in their theological squabbles. His response was a masterclass in divine authority, stripping away centuries of human rationalization to restore the law to its original glory. Christ’s teachings on divorce were not a relaxation of the marriage law, but a powerful restoration of its original, unyielding sanctity. When the Pharisees asked about the lawfulness of divorce, Jesus did not engage with their trivial debates. He immediately took them back to the beginning: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:4-6, KJV). Cornered, they played their only card: “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” (Matthew 19:7, KJV). Jesus’s reply is devastating to any who would seek a lenient standard. He corrected their premise—Moses did not command divorce, he suffered it. And the reason? “Because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matthew 19:8, KJV). The Mosaic provision in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was not a reflection of God’s perfect will, but a reluctant concession to human sinfulness, a piece of damage-control legislation to limit the chaos caused by broken covenants in a fallen world. This brings us to the most debated phrase in this entire discussion: the “exception clause.” In both the Sermon on the Mount and His later discourse, Jesus makes a singular exception: “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32, KJV). A similar statement appears in Matthew 19:9. The Greek word used here, porneia, is a broad term encompassing a range of sexual immoralities, including adultery, incest, and other perversions. The church has interpreted this clause as providing biblical grounds for divorce and the subsequent remarriage of the “innocent party”. This interpretation suggests that if the sin of porneia has occurred, the marriage bond is effectively broken, freeing the faithful partner to form a new union. The church, however, approaches this text with a different guiding principle. A single, debated clause in a narrative passage cannot be used to overturn a clear, didactic theological principle laid down elsewhere in Scripture. Jesus’s entire purpose in the Sermon on the Mount was to elevate God’s law, to show its spiritual depth, and to close the loopholes the Pharisees had created. It would be inconsistent with His entire ministry to suggest He was simultaneously creating a new, easier standard for divorce and remarriage. Therefore, the exception clause must be understood in a way that harmonizes with the absolute statements about the lifelong bond. The clause does not state that the innocent party is free to remarry. Rather, it addresses the legal and social blame for the resulting adultery. In that culture, a woman “put away” without just cause was often forced into another union for survival. Jesus clarifies that in such a case, it is her first husband who “causeth her to commit adultery.” However, if she was put away for the legitimate cause of porneia—a sin she herself committed—then the blame for any subsequent adultery is her own. The clause assigns fault; it does not dissolve the spiritual reality of the bond itself, which other scriptures declare to be lifelong. To affirm Christ’s teaching, Scripture states, “Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it” (Ecclesiastes 3:14, KJV). Additionally, “The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works” (Psalm 145:17, KJV). Sr. White writes, “Christ came to elevate the law of God, to show how deep and broad and high is its holy requirement” (Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 52, 1896). She further notes, “The principles of God’s law are to be carried out in every act of life” (The Desire of Ages, p. 308, 1898). Christ was closing loopholes, not opening them. He was restoring marriage to its Edenic height, reminding His hearers that what God has joined, man has no authority to put asunder. The exception for porneia is a sober recognition of sin’s devastating power to defile the marriage, not a divine sanction for its dissolution with the intent to form another. What clarity does the Apostle Paul provide on the permanence of the marriage bond?

PAUL’S UNYIELDING DOCTRINE OF THE MARRIAGE COVENANT

If Christ’s words restore the high ideal of marriage, it is the Apostle Paul, writing under the full weight of divine inspiration, who provides the clearest, most systematic, and most legally precise theological teaching on the permanence of the marriage covenant. It is in his epistles that the doctrine is laid bare, free from narrative context, and presented as a foundational truth that must govern the church’s practice. The Apostle Paul’s writings establish that the marriage bond is spiritually unbreakable and lasts until the death of a spouse, providing the non-negotiable theological bedrock for all church policy. The cornerstone of this position is found in Romans 7:2-3 (KJV): “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man”. This passage is a didactic, theological statement of law. It is unambiguous. It contains no exception clause for porneia or anything else. The only event that severs the marriage bond (“loosed from the law of her husband”) is death. Any union formed while the first spouse lives is, by definition, adultery. Paul reinforces this principle with practical instruction to the Corinthian church, which was rife with marital problems. He commands, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, KJV). Here, the options for a separated Christian are laid out with divine clarity. There are only two: remain single or seek reconciliation. The third option, remarriage, is explicitly excluded. This is the direct, practical application of the doctrine in Romans 7 and forms the unshakable foundation of the church’s official position on the matter.

But what of the case of desertion by an unbeliever? Paul addresses this in 1 Corinthians 7:15 (KJV): “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace”. Some have tragically misinterpreted the phrase “not under bondage” to mean “free from the marriage bond” and thus free to remarry. This reading, however, violates the immediate context and the clearer teaching of Romans 7. The word “bondage” (douloo) here implies a state of servitude or slavery. The believer is not enslaved to the departing unbeliever; they are not required to use force or compromise their faith to compel the unbeliever to stay. They are not under condemnation for the separation itself. But this freedom from coercive obligation does not equate to freedom from the marriage vow itself. The spiritual state of being married, as defined by God’s law in Romans 7, persists until death. Scripture further supports this with, “The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth” (Psalm 145:18, KJV), emphasizing God’s faithfulness to those who uphold His truth. Additionally, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul” (Psalm 19:7, KJV). Sr. White affirms, “The law of God is as sacred as His throne, and it is to be the rule of all human life” (Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 216, 1958). She also states, “Obedience to God’s law is the condition of gaining eternal life” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 369, 1900). The collective testimony of Paul’s writings is inescapable. The marriage vow is for life. A legal divorce may sever the civil contract, but in the court of heaven, the bond remains intact until death. This profound theological truth is not a minor point of doctrine; it is the very foundation upon which all qualifications for the sacred office of the ministry must be built. What standards does Scripture set for those who lead God’s church?

THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE: A HIGH AND HOLY STANDARD

Having established the unyielding biblical standard for marriage, we now turn to the specific qualifications for those who would lead the church of God. The pastoral office is not a right; it is a sacred trust. The men who hold this office are to be living epistles, their lives an embodiment of the truths they preach. It is therefore no surprise that the Apostle Paul, in his letters to his young protégés Timothy and Titus, lays down a set of qualifications that are as demanding as they are clear. The pastoral qualification “husband of one wife,” as found in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, signifies far more than a mere prohibition of contemporary polygamy or active adultery; it points to a life history characterized by an unbroken, singular, and faithful marriage covenant. The key texts are explicit. “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…” (1 Timothy 3:2, KJV). “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children…” (Titus 1:6, KJV). At the most basic level, this obviously excludes any man practicing polygamy, a common custom in the surrounding Greco-Roman and Eastern cultures. It also clearly excludes a man engaged in an adulterous affair. But does it go deeper?

The literal Greek rendering of this phrase is mias gynaikos andra, which translates to “a one-woman man”. This phrase suggests a man who is wholly and singularly devoted to one woman in the context of marriage. For a church that holds to the theology of Romans 7—that the marriage bond is only severed by death—this phrase takes on a profound and restrictive meaning. If a man is divorced, even if he was the “innocent party” and has remained celibate, he is still, in the light of heaven’s law, spiritually bound to his first wife. He is a man whose life now involves two women in the context of the marriage covenant: one to whom he is legally divorced but spiritually bound, and a potential second wife he can never have while the first lives. This creates a complex and compromised marital identity. His life is not the simple, clear-cut, unambiguous example of God’s ideal that Paul requires for a leader. He is not, in the fullest and most straightforward sense, a “one-woman man.” His marital history is fractured. To explain his status requires a footnote, a backstory of failure and brokenness. While God’s grace can redeem that story for his personal salvation, it does not align with the simple, powerful witness demanded of a spiritual overseer. Scripture reinforces this with, “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Timothy 3:12, KJV). Additionally, “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches” (Proverbs 22:1, KJV). Sr. White writes, “The minister of God is to be a man of unblemished reputation” (Gospel Workers, p. 143, 1915). She further states, “Those who are called to the ministry must be men of clean hands and pure hearts” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 406, 1875). The qualification is a high bar, intentionally so, designed to ensure that the leader’s life is a plain and unclouded illustration of God’s perfect will for the home. A history of divorce, by its very nature, clouds that illustration and thus falls short of the apostolic standard. How does a minister’s home reflect his fitness for leadership?

RULING THE HOME WELL: THE FIRST CONGREGATION

The apostolic qualifications for ministry extend beyond marital status to the very governance of the home. The Bible presents a man’s family as his first and most important congregation, a proving ground for his fitness to lead the wider church. A failure in this primary sphere is, according to Scripture, a disqualification for the secondary one. Therefore, our assertion is that the biblical requirement for a minister to rule his own house well is an absolute prerequisite, and a divorce represents an objective failure to meet this standard, regardless of who was at fault. In 1 Timothy 3:4-5 (KJV)a bishop must be “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)”. The logic is presented as a self-evident, rhetorical question. The home is the training school for church leadership. Competence must be demonstrated here first. Sr. White powerfully amplifies this principle. She writes, “A well-ordered Christian household is a powerful argument in behalf of the reality of the Christian religion—an argument that the infidel cannot gainsay”. The minister’s home is to be an “object lesson” to the community, a “little heaven upon earth”. His life must have a “blameless record” (Evangelism, p. 107).

This biblical test is one of outcome, not merely of intent. The home is the minister’s first church; his wife and children are his first congregants. Success in this realm—maintaining a “well-ordered” household characterized by love, peace, and unity—is the tangible proof of his fitness for a wider ministry. A divorce, no matter the cause or the depth of subsequent repentance, is a public declaration that this first “church” has fallen into schism and disarray. It is an objective, historical fact that the household was not successfully “ruled” through the crisis. The powerful “argument” his household now makes to the world is one of failure, not success. Scripture affirms, “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD” (Proverbs 19:14, KJV). Additionally, “The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her” (Proverbs 31:11, KJV). Sr. White states, “The minister’s home should be an example to the flock in all things” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 429, 1885). She further writes, “A minister’s influence is largely dependent upon the order and harmony of his home” (The Adventist Home, p. 355, 1952).

While God’s infinite grace certainly covers the man’s personal sin and offers him full salvation, that grace does not erase the historical record. The church, in its solemn duty to vet its leaders, cannot ignore this record. The plain logic of Scripture stands: demonstrated success in the smaller sphere of the home is the qualification for leadership in the larger sphere of the church. A divorce, being the ultimate failure of home governance, demonstrates a lack of success in that primary sphere and thus, according to the apostolic rule, disqualifies the candidate from taking “care of the church of God.” What does it mean for a minister to live above the appearance of evil?

ABSTAINING FROM THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL: A PUBLIC WITNESS

The life of a gospel minister is lived under a microscope. He is a representative of Christ, a standard-bearer for the truth. For this reason, the Bible holds him to a standard that transcends even his personal conduct; he must be mindful of his public witness and influence. This leads to our final assertion regarding pastoral qualifications: A minister’s life must be so far above reproach that it avoids even the appearance of evil, a standard that is inescapably compromised by the public record of a broken marriage covenant. In 1 Thessalonians 5:22 is a command of profound weight for any public servant of God: “Abstain from all appearance of evil”. While it is true that many modern translations render the Greek word eidos as “form” or “kind” of evil, the KJV’s “appearance” captures a vital dimension of the Christian’s influence, especially for a leader. Paul’s concern is not just that we avoid sin, but that our lives do not give occasion for the gospel to be blasphemed. We are to be “blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15, ESV).

In the public mind, both inside and outside the church, divorce is the quintessential appearance of a failed relationship and a broken promise. It is a visible scar. A pastor with this history is in a perpetually defensive posture, his life requiring an explanation, a justification, a backstory. He cannot simply stand as an unblemished example of God’s ideal for the family; his own family life fell short of that ideal. This can become a stumbling block for weak believers and a point of reproach for cynical unbelievers. He stands to preach about a God of restoration, but his own most sacred human relationship was not restored. He counsels couples to persevere through trials, but his own marriage did not persevere. This creates a cognitive dissonance that undeniably weakens his testimony and authority. Scripture calls leaders to purity, stating, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16, KJV). Additionally, “Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12, KJV). Sr. White writes, “Ministers of the gospel should be so circumspect in their conduct that no reproach can be cast upon the cause of God” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 466, 1865). She further states, “The minister’s life must be such as to commend the truth he teaches” (Gospel Workers, p. 125, 1915). The man may be personally forgiven and holy, but the “appearance” of failure remains as a public fact. The high calling of the ministry requires a life that is a clear, simple, and unambiguous witness to God’s ideals. A past divorce, even one that is fully repented of and graciously forgiven by God, introduces a permanent ambiguity into that witness. It creates a shadow where there should be only light. In its solemn duty to protect the integrity of the gospel ministry, the church cannot ignore this “appearance of evil” and must conclude that such a history, however tragic, falls short of the high and holy standard set for its spiritual leaders. How has the church historically approached this sacred standard?

A TALE OF TWO PATHS: DIVERGING STANDARDS

To fully grasp the church’s unyielding position, one must understand the historical landscape from which it emerged and against which it continues to define itself. The history of the mainstream Seventh-day Adventist Church’s policy on divorce and remarriage is not static; it reveals a gradual, yet significant, shift from a rigid, principle-based stance to a more lenient, case-by-case approach. From our perspective, this evolution serves as a profound cautionary tale. In the early days of the Advent movement, the standard was severe. Echoing the clear teachings of Scripture, the church held that only adultery constituted grounds for divorce, and unscripturally divorced and remarried persons were barred from church membership. The 1932 Church Manual, the first of its kind, codified this, establishing a clear distinction between the “guilty” and “innocent” parties and stating that members who remarried while a former spouse (divorced on unscriptural grounds) was still alive could not remain in fellowship. The policy reached its peak of stringency in 1942, when it was mandated that even the “guilty” party to adultery be disfellowshipped, and those disfellowshipped for an “unscriptural” second marriage could “not be readmitted to church membership so long as the unscriptural relationship continues”.

The turning point came at the 1950 General Conference Session. The 1951 Church Manual introduced new language, emphasizing the church’s belief in “the forgiving mercy of God” and stating that “victory and salvation can as surely be found by those who have transgressed in the matter of divorce and remarriage as by those who have failed in any other of God’s holy standards”. While “unfaithfulness to the marriage vow” remained the only ground for remarriage “with impunity,” a new, momentous provision was added. It allowed for the readmittance of members who had been disfellowshipped for “errant remarriages” if a repentant offender faced “insuperable problems” in aligning their marital status with the “divine ideal.” The caveat was that such a person, if readmitted, should not hold leadership positions, especially ordained ones.

This change, however well-intentioned, opened a door that has only widened over time. It shifted the focus from unwavering principle to subjective pastoral judgment about “insuperable problems.” Later revisions, such as the 1995 decision to broaden the definition of porneia to include things like “persistent indulgence in intimate relationships… even though falling short of coitus,” further signaled a move toward greater leniency. To critics, these changes represented a “covert form of wholesale approval” for divorce, a gradual erosion of a divine principle in the name of a misapplied mercy. This historical trajectory is precisely what the church was established to resist.

Scripture warns against compromising truth, stating, “Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (Proverbs 23:23, KJV). Additionally, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:13, KJV). Sr. White writes, “The church must stand firm for the right, regardless of human opinions or customs” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 136, 1882). She further states, “God’s truth is not to be trifled with; it is to be held sacred” (The Great Controversy, p. 522, 1911). This historical divergence underscores the church’s commitment to maintaining the uncompromised standard of God’s Word, particularly in the selection of its leaders. What role does the Spirit of Prophecy play in guiding this standard?

THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY: A LIGHT ON THE VOW

In navigating such a weighty and sensitive issue, we are not left to our own reasoning. God has provided a “lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light” in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. When we turn to the counsel of Sr. White, we find a powerful and unequivocal affirmation of the highest possible standard for the marriage covenant and, in particular, for the home of the gospel minister. This counsel aligns perfectly with the stringent biblical qualifications and reinforces the church’s position. Sr. White leaves no room for ambiguity regarding the permanence of the marriage vow. She writes, “The marriage vow… links the destinies of the two individuals with bonds which nought but the hand of death should sever” (The Adventist Home, p. 340, quoting Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 507). She elevates the decision to a matter of eternal consequence, counseling, “Marriage is something that will influence and affect your life, both in this world and in the world to come” (Messages to Young People, p. 460). When it comes to the minister, the standard is amplified. His home is not a private affair; it is a public testimony. “A well-ordered Christian household is a powerful argument… that the infidel cannot gainsay,” she states. The men called to the ministry are to have a “blameless record,” and their training for this work must be thorough (Evangelism, p. 107). The minister’s family life is his most potent sermon.

Now, we must honestly address a passage that some have used to argue for a more lenient position. In The Adventist Home, page 344, Sr. White gives counsel regarding a specific case, stating that a woman who obtains a legal divorce on the grounds of her husband’s adultery “is free to be married to whom she chooses”. How do we harmonize this with the overwhelming weight of her other statements and the clear teaching of Romans 7? We must do so by applying a sound principle of interpretation. Her son, W.C. White, provided crucial context when he wrote, “It was Sister White’s intention that there should not go forth from her pen anything that could be used as a law or a rule in dealing with these questions of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and adultery”.

The church’s approach, therefore, is to understand this statement as specific, pastoral counsel to a lay member in a tragic and complex situation. It is an application of mercy in a specific case, not the establishment of a new doctrinal rule for the entire church, and most certainly not a lowering of the bar for the sacred office of the ministry. Scripture supports this clarity with, “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” (Psalm 119:130, KJV). Additionally, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105, KJV). Sr. White writes, “The Spirit of Prophecy is given to guide the church into all truth” (Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 32, 1980). She further states, “God’s Word is the unerring standard by which all human conduct must be measured” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 691, 1889).

The qualifications for leadership must be built upon the clearest and most absolute didactic principles of Scripture, such as those in Romans 7 and 1 Timothy 3, not on pastoral counsel given for an individual case. The overwhelming tenor of the Spirit of Prophecy is that the standard for ministers must be exemplary, and their homes must be unblemished models of the truth they preach. How do we balance forgiveness with the qualifications for leadership?

REPENTANCE AND FITNESS FOR OFFICE: GRACE AND TRUTH

The glorious heart of the gospel message is forgiveness. No sin is so great that the blood of Christ cannot cover it. No sinner is so far gone that the grace of God cannot reach him. The writings of Sr. White powerfully affirm this boundless mercy, yet they also maintain a sharp, clear distinction between an individual’s personal salvation and their public qualification for a sacred office. Understanding this distinction is the key to resolving our question with both principle and compassion.

The promise of forgiveness to the truly repentant is absolute. Sr. White writes beautifully of this: “The confession that is mingled with tears and sorrow, that is the outpouring of the inmost soul, finds its way to the God of infinite pity” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 636). When a man like our hypothetical Brother John comes to Christ after a life of sin, including a failed marriage, he is truly a “new creature” (2 Corinthians 5:17, KJV). His past sins are forgiven, forgotten, cast into the depths of the sea. In the eyes of God, he is justified and accepted. He is our brother, a full and cherished member of the family of God. However, qualification for office is a different matter. It is not about the state of a man’s soul before God, but about his fitness to be a public representative of God before the church and the world. The church has a solemn duty to uphold the standards for its ministry. “Those who have too little courage to reprove wrong… are held accountable for the evil that may result from their neglect of duty,” Sr. White warns (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 578). The church is commanded to maintain its purity, even if it requires the painful act of putting away sin from its midst (1 Corinthians 5:6-7, 13).

This brings us to the pastoral climax of the entire argument. A man’s divorce is in his past. If he has truly repented, God has truly forgiven him. But the consequences of that past act remain as a part of the public record of his life. The church is not God; it cannot see the heart. It is commanded to judge by the visible fruit and the explicit, external qualifications laid out in Scripture (Matthew 7:16, KJV). Scripture affirms this balance, stating, “The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy” (Psalm 103:8, KJV). Additionally, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24, KJV). Sr. White writes, “God’s mercy is infinite, but His justice is equally unyielding” (The Great Controversy, p. 629, 1911). She further states, “The church must maintain its purity, even at the cost of painful discipline” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, p. 266, 1873).

In this matter, the church does not pass judgment on the man’s soul or his salvation; that is God’s prerogative. But it must pass judgment on his fitness for an office that has explicit, external requirements like being “blameless” and a “one-woman man.” Therefore, the church can and must do two things simultaneously. It must joyfully celebrate the man’s salvation, embrace him as a brother, and thank God for the miracle of his conversion. And, at the same time, in its solemn duty to God and to the integrity of the gospel, it must lovingly and respectfully decline to place him in a representative office for which his life history, tragically but undeniably, disqualifies him according to the plain reading of God’s Word. This is not a contradiction; it is the perfect balance of grace and truth. How do we apply these principles practically in the church today?

A CALL TO FAITHFUL STEWARDSHIP

To you, the guardians of truth in our local churches, this discussion must now become intensely practical. How do we apply these high and holy principles in a world filled with brokenness? How do we minister to a soul like Brother John while remaining faithful to our sacred charge? First, let us be unequivocally clear: the repentant, divorced brother in our midst is not a second-class Christian. He is not to be shunned, marginalized, or viewed with suspicion. He is a trophy of God’s grace. His testimony of being rescued from a life of sin is precious. His experience of brokenness, now redeemed by Christ, may give him a profound empathy for others who are suffering. God can use him powerfully in many areas of church life and ministry—as a Sabbath School teacher, a deacon, a personal ministries leader, a witness to the lost. His life can bring glory to God.

The entire weight of this analysis has not been about his salvation or his value to the church, both of which are secure in Christ. It has been about his qualification for a specific, representative office. The pastoral office is not a reward for piety or a recognition of giftedness. It is a sacred charge with unique, biblically mandated prerequisites. It is a position of such high visibility and symbolic weight that God has required those who hold it to be living examples of His highest ideals, particularly in the realm of the home.

As leaders in the church, our responsibility is immense. We are not to act as “a god over them,” seeking to “rule or ruin”. Our authority is derived solely from the Word of God, and our duty is to be faithful stewards of the trust He has given us. This stewardship includes the difficult, sometimes painful, duty of upholding the divine standard for the ministry. It requires us to say “no” when our hearts might wish to say “yes,” not out of a lack of love, but out of a greater love for God’s law and the purity of His church. Scripture calls us to this duty, stating, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly” (1 Peter 5:2, KJV). Additionally, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls” (Hebrews 13:17, KJV). Sr. White writes, “The church’s leaders are to be faithful shepherds, guarding the flock from error” (Acts of the Apostles, p. 526, 1911). She further states, “Those who accept positions of responsibility in God’s work must be men of faith and prayer” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 406, 1875).

Our final appeal, then, is for a ministry that perfectly blends unwavering principle with Christlike compassion. We must love the sinner unconditionally, wrapping the arms of fellowship around the brother who has fallen and been restored. And in the same breath, we must refuse to compromise the sacred standard for the holy office of the ministry. This is our solemn responsibility. How do we guard the sacred trust God has entrusted to us?

GUARDING THE SACRED TRUST: A FINAL CHARGE

We have journeyed from the perfect garden of Eden to the complex corridors of church history, from the clear commands of the Apostle Paul to the tender counsels of the Spirit of Prophecy. The path has been straight, and the conclusion is inescapable. The cumulative weight of the evidence leads to a single, principled verdict. The Word of God and the Spirit of Prophecy present marriage as a sacred, lifelong, and indissoluble vow, a “one flesh” union that only death can sever. The qualifications for the gospel ministry, the highest representative office in the church, are explicit and demanding. A minister must be “blameless,” a man whose life is above reproach. He must be “the husband of one wife,” a “one-woman man” whose marital history is a simple, unblemished model of faithfulness. He must be one who “ruleth well his own house,” having already proven his leadership in the primary sphere of the family. And he must “abstain from all appearance of evil,” ensuring his public witness is unclouded by any shadow of failure or compromise.

While God’s grace is infinite and His forgiveness is complete for the repentant individual, the church is tasked with upholding the standard for the office. The qualifications for the ministry are not about the state of a man’s soul, but about the record of his life. A past divorce, even for a man who has not remarried and has been wonderfully converted, leaves an indelible mark on that record. It objectively signifies that his house was not “ruled well” through crisis and that he is not, in the fullest sense, a “one-woman man” as defined by the lifelong bond of Romans 7. Therefore, the clear and principled barrier to the ordination of a divorced man stands firm. This is not a judgment on his salvation, but a faithful adherence to the qualifications God Himself has established. For the church, this is more than just a policy; it is a core component of our identity. We are a people called to reformation, to restore the high standards we believe have been compromised elsewhere. To lower this standard would be to betray our sacred trust. Scripture summarizes this truth: “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6, KJV). We are called to teach this high standard with clarity and conviction. We are called to model it in our own homes. We are called to support with boundless love and compassion those who have fallen short of the ideal, assuring them of their place in the family of God. And we are called, with solemn gravity, to protect the sanctity and integrity of the pastoral office, so that the messengers who bear God’s final warning message to a dying world may do so with lives that are a pure and powerful reflection of the truth they proclaim. This is our sacred duty. This is our solemn trust.

If you have a prayer request, please leave it in the comments below. Prayer meetings are held on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. To join, enter your email address in the comments section.

Search

Search