Many years ago, Praise Fowowe was speaking at a leaders’ conference and somewhere during the Q&A session, a question came up that I have never forgotten. It wasn’t because the question was new, but because of how it exposed something deeper that we often avoid addressing in the church.
A woman stood up and asked why people who had gone through divorce were no longer allowed to remain in ministry. It sounded like a simple question, but the answers that followed were anything but satisfactory. What I kept hearing repeatedly was, ‘It is our doctrine,’ and ‘Apostle Paul said so.’
No one really explained it in a way that addressed the human reality behind the question. It was all policy, all structure, all theology, without empathy.
Because I was in a room full of leaders and the conversation was centered around family life, I decided to approach it differently. I rephrased the question, not from a doctrinal standpoint, but from a human one.
I asked them, ‘Which of you will remove your child from leadership because she left a marriage where she was being beaten and almost lost her life?’
The room went quiet.
Not one person, including those who strongly defended the doctrine, could respond.
That silence said more than all the earlier answers combined.
It exposed the gap between what we defend publicly and what we would actually do privately if it involved someone we love.
And that is where the real issue is.
Why do we hold other people to standards we would never apply to our own children?
Why do we create systems that end up punishing people, not for wrongdoing, but for survival?
Why is it that when it is someone else’s daughter, we quote doctrine, but when it is our own, we suddenly understand context, pain, and reality?
Let’s be honest with ourselves.
The question is not really whether a divorced person can serve in ministry.
The real question is whether we have built doctrines that prioritise structure over people.
Because if we strip everything down, nowhere has God said that He stops using people because their marriages did not work.
What we have done over time is create interpretations and systems that now place limitations where God did not.
I have seen situations where people remain in abusive marriages, not because they believe it is right, but because they are afraid of what will happen to their position, their relevance, or their ability to serve in church if they leave.
That is a dangerous place for any system to get to.
Because it means we are indirectly encouraging people to choose suffering over safety.
We are telling them, without saying it directly, that their calling is tied to their marital status.
And that is not consistent with the nature of God.
God is a Father before anything else.
And a Father does not withdraw purpose from His child because that child escaped something that was going to destroy them.
If anything, survival should be protected, not penalised.
Another dimension we must consider is this: not every divorce is a result of rebellion or failure.
Some people did everything they knew to do.
Some prayed, endured, sought help, and still found themselves in situations that became unsafe or unsustainable.
So how do we take all of those realities and compress them into one rigid rule?
How do we ignore the context and focus only on the outcome?
If we are going to be honest, many of the positions we hold today are not entirely based on scripture alone, but on tradition, fear of perception, and a desire to maintain control.
We worry about what people will say.
We worry about how it will look.
We worry about setting a precedent.
But in the process, we forget that we are dealing with real people, real pain, and real consequences.
I remember a family that reached out after one of these conversations. Their daughter was in an abusive marriage, and for a long time, they kept encouraging her to stay and trust God for change. Not necessarily because they didn’t care, but because they were part of a system that had taught them that leaving would be seen as failure.
At some point, reality confronted them. They had to choose between protecting their daughter or protecting perception.
Thankfully, they chose their daughter and that decision probably saved her life.
This is why I strongly believe that empathy must take its rightful place in how we interpret and apply doctrine.
Because if our theology does not make room for compassion, then we need to revisit it.
If our systems do not allow for restoration, then they are incomplete.
If our structures trap people instead of helping them heal, then they are doing more harm than good.
The truth is, a person’s ability to serve God is not defined by the success or failure of their marriage.
God has always worked with imperfect people, people with complex stories, people who have experienced loss, mistakes, and brokenness.
So the idea that divorce automatically disqualifies someone from ministry is something we need to carefully examine.
We also need to understand the unintended consequences of what we promote.
When people believe that leaving a harmful situation will cost them their place in ministry, many of them will stay longer than they should.
And sometimes, that decision costs them their health, their peace, and in extreme cases, their lives.
That is not something we can ignore.
As a people, we must do better.
We must learn to treat others with the same level of understanding and protection we would give our own children.
We must create systems that do not just uphold ideals but also support people through real-life challenges.
We must ensure that our doctrines reflect not just the letter, but also the heart of God.
This is exactly why we have committed ourselves to working with churches to build structured family life ministries and support systems.
Not just to teach about marriage, but to help people navigate crisis, healing, and restoration.
Because people will go through challenges, and when they do, the church should be a place of help, not a place of fear.
So, can a divorced person serve in ministry?
If we are truly reflecting the heart of God, the answer should not be complicated.
The real question is whether we are ready to align our systems with that truth.
