This is the second in a series of posts regarding questions I have been asked to answer for pastoral candidacy at various churches. This particular question (What Is Your View On Ministerial Opportunities For Divorced And Remarried Persons?) has caused me to step on no less than a few toes along the way. And although I know there are godly and more well-versed pastors/theologians out there who take a different position, they have the right to their own interpretation…and to be wrong on this particular issue. 🙂
It is both interesting and sad that almost every church I have communicated with has had this question on their application. And I have to ask the question: Is it really that prominent of an issue in contemporary American Christianity? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
Besides the question regarding Predestination & Election, this question has caused the most controversy for many churches. With the average American church membership being around only 70 people total, many of these small churches have few men to choose from for church leadership (elders and deacons). It seems that, over the last 20 years or so, churches across America have taken a new stance on this so as to allow enough men to be considered “qualified” for church leadership. And while I certainly feel that repentant divorced/remarried persons can faithfully serve in their local church, I believe that the positions of Pastor and Deacon do not, necessarily, fit into this category.
Below is how I answered this specific question (What is your view on ministerial opportunities for divorced and remarried persons?) on a previous pastoral resume. Let me know your thoughts on this. Do you believe I am I wrong, misinformed, a heretic, or do you agree with me? Why or why not.
——————————————–
“In Matthew 19:3-9 Jesus taught that divorce was a permitted accommodation to our “hardness of heart” (vs.8) but that divorce violates God’s plan, purpose, and permanence regarding marriage between one man and one woman (c.f. Genesis 2:24). Divorce was permitted as a concession for the faithful partner being sinned against, either sexually or through desertion/abandonment. Therefore, the faithful believer should never consider divorce except in desperate circumstances; yet even then it should only be pursued reluctantly due to the fact that God hates it (c.f. Malachi 2:14-16), it permanently destroys the family/marital structure, and it produces a negative reproach upon both the testimony of the divorced Christian and that of the local church as well.
The only two acceptable grounds for a biblical divorce are unrepentant sexual sin (c.f. Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and desertion/abandonment by an unbeliever (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7:12-15). The word Jesus used to define sexual sin is the Greek word porneia (“but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery” Matthew 5:32; “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” Matthew 19:9). Porneia is a general term used to describe sexual sin such as adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and incest. Other than sexual sin, the only situation in which divorce is permissible (though divorce is never encouraged) is when an unbeliever abandons their believing spouse. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her…Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:12,15).
Remarriage for a Christian is only permissible if the divorce was on biblical grounds. Scripture makes clear the fact that the faithful partner is free to remarry, but “only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39). If either of the divorced partners remarries after an unbiblical divorce, it is an act of adultery (c.f. Mark 10:11-12). It is for this reason that Paul told the Corinthians that a believing woman who unbiblically divorces her husband is to “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:11). The only time a person involved in an unbiblical divorce may remarry is if he/she has truly repented of that sin, and the former spouse subsequently remarries, proves to be an unbeliever, or dies (in each case reconciliation is no longer possible). Furthermore, Jesus taught that a person who marries someone who was unbiblically divorced becomes—themselves—an adulterer (“whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” Matthew 5:32).
The Bible does not teach that a pre-conversion divorce is to be viewed any differently to that of a post-conversion divorce. Therefore, I do not believe the Bible teaches that a man who has ever been divorced may hold the office of pastor or deacon. The office of deacon, for example, requires that a man be “beyond reproach” (1 Timothy 3:10), as well as “good managers of their children and their own households” (1 Timothy 3:12). To have ever been divorced is to have brought upon oneself a certain reproach that can never be taken away and, therefore, excludes the divorced man from ever serving as a pastor or deacon (“The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; he who would destroy himself does it. Wounds and disgrace he will find, and his reproach will not be blotted out.” Proverbs 6:32-33).
However, a pre-conversion divorce does not mean that person can’t minister in the church at all. Such a man or woman would be eligible to minister in other non-pastoral/non-deacon positions or ministries in the church, such as a Sunday school teacher or usher, for example. Moreover, some churches create official (yet subordinate) positions in the local church under the leadership, guidance, and discretion of the pastor and/or deacons. Although these are not prescribed offices in the Bible (and therefore have no God-breathed/ordained qualifications required for eligibility), such positions can and have been created in order to strategically serve the local congregation. A few examples of such positions could be labeled as: Treasurer, Church Clerk, or Sunday School Superintendent.
However, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Therefore, so long as the ministry assigned to the woman would not cause her to become a teacher of men or have any authority over men in the church, she would be eligible for such a ministry.”
The only problem I personally see (as a daughter of divorced mother – by adultery, rape, kindnapping and attempted murder on part of the men) is that no person is beyond reproach except God and his son. Even a married person is not beyond reproach. Only God knows what goes on in a home behind the closed doors. Although a marriage may stand on paper and to the public, how do we know what goes on in the home behind the door. The married person may be committing grave sins against their spouse who is too frighted to speak up. Yet you could have a divorced person who divorced their spouse for “Biblical” reasons and nothing more. Yet the church would single out and exclude the one that is divorced. That is problem with passing personal limits and dare I say judgements on another persons, the whole truth of the person is never known to us. I personally do not believe that any person should be excluded from God’s church on any level. God would not exclude us if we came to him, so why and how would I have the right to do so to someone else?
I do believe that divorce is a last resort and should be avoided if possible. But when safety is an issue, divorce is necessary and should not make a person punishable by the church. In my view, excluding a person from certain levels in the church is punishing them. Let God pass his judgement and punishment in his time, not man.
Kitty, I truly appreciate your thoughts and comments. The question (and the post) had to do with whether or not divorced/remarried persons are eligible to serve in “leadership positions” at their church, not whether not not they can serve at or attend the church, whatsoever.
God most definitely does provide lists of character qualifications for pastors and deacons (c.f. 1 Timothy 3), as well as for every other Christian, and He also explains when and how a person can be kicked out of the church for discipline (c.f. Matthew 18). God does not show partiality for salvation, for instance, but regarding the church, He most certainly does have rules, regulations, and guidelines…of which there are dozens and dozens throughout Scripture. So it is not a matter of whether or not God has given His take on it, but whether we will obey God or serve the god called Self-Interest.
Being above reproach (or blameless) literally means “not to be held” in a negative sense, such as in a criminal sense. The character requirements have to do with whether or not, frankly, the man has a good testimony with believers, outsiders, and in his community.
With regards to how people in the church perceive/treat others at their church who are divorced, that is a completely different issue altogether. Christians should never sin, period.
And if husbands/wives have a poor marital or home life, that is also a different issue (this issue is addressed for church leaders in 1 Timothy 3 also).
To not discriminate and judge people (who claim to be Christian), according to the guidelines provided by God in Scripture, however, does a disservice to the church, to the sanctification of the people in the church, and, frankly, shows a willingness to be flippant/disobedient to what God commands in His Bible. Ultimately, that is the issue. We need to honor and glorify God in all things, including our words, thoughts, and deeds. Our relationships with people in and out of the church need to be guided by what God says, not by how we “feel” or what we “think” should be acceptable, but rather by what God has said.
Lastly, if a spouse is being physically assaulted, get of the house immediately, seek godly counsel, and separate for a time if need be. But physical abuse is not one of the two acceptable reasons (unrepentant sexual sin and abandonment) Scripture gives for a biblical divorce.
Does that make sense?
The Jewish people had abuse as a reason for divorce. It was considered abandonment of the vow. Do some more studying, please.
If you dont mind me saying so, I would review your application of the verses in 1 Timothy regarding qualifications.
You apply them as though Paul intended those qualifications to apply to every church, in every circumstance, throughout time.
The context Paul was writing to Timothy about concerned the church in Ephesus that was dealing with a crisis. Paul’s instructions were for the purpose of saving the church. For the first time you see Paul bringing leadership front and center. Compare this to a much earlier Epistle to the same church in which leadership was to remain in the background, equipping the saints for their work of ministry.
Because the Ephesian church had been infiltrated with false teaching, one of the major remedial steps Paul instructed Timothy to take was to establish strict guidelines for who would be able to serve as leaders IN THAT PARTICULAR CHURCH, UNDER THOSE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
Therefore, read in context and properly interpreted and applied, we see that Paul wasn’t mandating a plan for everyone and every church, rather for that particular church dealing with a serious crisis, and therefore there was an UNUSUAL and ABNORMAL need to apply restrictions to those who would be qualified to lead in the Ephesian church UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
Take note:
*Only married men were allowed
*Only married men with children (plural)
*Only married men with families that demonstrated these individuals had a proven context (their families) to point to for proof that they were not false teachers and could be trusted
If you were to apply this in the way you are to every church under every circumstance, taking the instructions God gave to Timothy OUT OF CONTEXT, then you would need to agree:
*No single man would be allowed to serve
*No married man without children would be allowed to serve
*No married man with only one child would be allowed to serve
*No women would be allowed to serve
If this is what you believe, then you are promoting exclusion of all kinds of people from leadership within the Body of Christ. Perhaps you fit the description and is why you are comfortable with holding to your interpretation. However, if you read the entire new testament, you will never see Jesus or the Apostles call for the kind of marginalization of believers you advocate. We are all called to full participation. Remember, Christ destroyed the barriers that divide us like gender, nationality, social/economic status. Let’s examine scripture in its totality before we advocate excluding people. It may be necessary at times, as the brilliant Apostle understood. But remedial actions shouldn’t be interpreted as eternal requirements, anymore than grounding your child to the house is meant to keep him indoors the rest of his life.
Shaper, thanks for your comment. I love the dialogue…
But I also have to disagree with you. Strongly disagree, that is.
Are we to then interpret every verse in the Bible subjectively? Are there any verses in the Bible that are to be taken literal then? If yes, which ones? If not, then why bother. If not, then do we really have God’s inerrant Word or just a collection of interesting writings? If it is truly God’s Word, then wouldn’t God want us to use it as such, and apply them in our own daily lives and in the life of the church as well? And if there truly is an omniscient God, wouldn’t He be able to ensure that His ONLY holy book contains the necessary information we need, and nothing else?
To say that those verses only applied to a specific church at a specific time, frankly, doesn’t make much sense. Why did God waste the ink by putting it in the Bible then? No, I truly believe that God’s Word is exactly that, and it is not our place to say otherwise. Yes, I think it would be wise to do what the apostle Paul said and agree that, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching , for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Finally, taking “loose” our “liberal” interpretations of Scripture is a dangerous endeavor. And the reason is it because demonstrates a desire to not follow God’s Word, to disregard it, and that shows little to no relationship with the Lord. It was to those sorts of churchgoers that Christ gave this resounding declaration, “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS'” (Matthew 7:23).
Yes, it is much safer to believe God than it is not to.
Revelation 22:18-19 “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.”
Charles
What I am saying is you need to read the bible in context. Paul wrote letters so specific churches. Those letters addressed specific people dealing with specific problems. Such is the case with Paul’s letter to Timothy.
I’m not sure where you are confused. Do you not believe Paul was writing to specific people, dealing with specific problems? Why do you find that so threatening?
Hello Shaper an again, thanks for your comments. I love the dialogue.
No, I don’t believe I’m confused, and I do certainly believe that Paul was writing to specific churches (Ephesus, in this instance) and with specific issues in mind that those churches were facing. But I also believe that God inspired the books found in the Bible for our instruction and edification today as well. God’s Word has much farther reaching application than for only a few dozen people at one church in one city 2,000 years ago.
To use your own reasoning against you…the apostle Paul gave a nearly identical list of church leadership qualifications in Titus 1. Obviously Titus and Timothy are not the same people. In fact, just before listing the qualifications in chapter 1, Paul wrote, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you…(Titus 1:5). Based on your reasoning of Timothy 3, you must also be saying that every church in Crete and the “every city” Paul mentioned were dealing with identical issues, and thus the identical list. Thinking that wouldn’t be logical. No, it makes a lot more sense to understand that these leadership qualities are God-inspired and God-ordained for every Christian church, in every city, regardless of era.
Wouldn’t that make sense?
It would be much more helpful if in the course of dialogue you would refrain from making assumptions and judgments regarding my belief in scripture. I find it offensive. Moreover, you seem to suggest that even though Paul was writing to specific churches and specific people (which you agree with), that the instructions he gave them are not applicable beyond that situation. In doing so, I feel you do an injustice to Paul and his obvious display of wisdom in dealing with the crisis in Ephesus and you do an injustice to me by assuming I limit what Paul said to one instance in history and disregard what he wrote as if it were irrelevant today.
I never said any such thing. Surely you are not claiming to be a mind reader. Perhaps you might ask questions before jumping to ill-formed conclusions. You are communicating with a fellow believer in Christ. Therefore, I would check your use of scripture against me as well. Very bad form. It smacks of pride and self-righteousness. I am under no condemnation, therefore why should you condemn me?
If you claim to enjoy dialogue as much as you do, I would suggest you employ a bit more wisdom and patience which go a long way in successful communication. As it is, you come across as fairly narrow minded and quick to judge.
“Be slow to speak and quick to listen.”
I feel I need to clarify something. What I meant to emphasize is that it seems to me you think since I am stressing the importance of reading the bible in context, and then applying the wisdom we learn within the that context, that somehow it limits scripture and lessens its eternal significance.
For example: revisiting Paul’s letter to Timothy once again. The church, I hope we can agree, was in a crisis. If you disagree with me, I believe this can be easily researched. False teachers had infiltrated the church, thus seriously affecting its standing as an authentic new covenant community which the Apostle Paul could continue to support.
Remedial action was called for. Paul had the authority and he focused on setting forth clear guidelines for the leadership of the church.
You seem to think the actions Paul took to deal with the crisis are not applicable to the church today. You said, “God’s Word has much farther reaching application than for only a few dozen people at one church in one city 2,000 years ago.”
So, where I think you may be confused is in how you are reading the text. It seems to me as though you are giving yourself liberty to read outside of the context and then apply your interpretation liberally in how you desire for it to be applied rather than being faithful to the text.
If this is the case, I am not the one that needs to be corrected and accused of not respecting the authority of Paul and of God’s word. I am reading scripture in its context and learning from how it was applied accurately, in the manner God intends for his Word to be read. You, however, are taking verses out of context and then going bungee jumping with them. That, my friend, is hardly being true to scripture. Instead you are placing your own application above what is written. Surely you don’t presume to be a greater authority than Paul?
Shaper, I apologize if I came across as offensive. That surely was not my intent.
From these two comments of yours, it seems that maybe we misunderstand each other’s position.
I was under the assumption you were saying that Paul’s letter to Timothy regarding the qualifications for church leadership (pastors and deacons) do not, necessarily, apply to churches today because Paul was writing to address specific needs/issues at one church in particular. Is that what you were saying?
And I was trying to communicate that I believe the letter to Timothy regarding the qualifications for church leadership are absolutely relevant and necessary for today’s church. But it sounds like you understood me to be arguing for the opposite view, in that it does not apply for today?
Anyway, I do appreciate the dialogue and, yes, I apologize if I came across as offensive or unloving. Sometimes I find it difficult to come across as compassionate in my writing style.
You wrote, “I was under the assumption you were saying that Paul’s letter to Timothy regarding the qualifications for church leadership (pastors and deacons) do not, necessarily, apply to churches today because Paul was writing to address specific needs/issues at one church in particular. Is that what you were saying?”
How can I be more clear? I have repeatedly said you are not reading what Paul wrote in context. You are not applying what he wrote in context. You are taking what Paul wrote and applying it out of context, making universal application.
Assume what you will. Regardless of your assumptions, however, you will need to take a look at how you have taken liberty with the scriptures. at You have taken them out of context and then used them to teach that God always excludes people from leadership that do not meet the specific requirements laid out by Paul to Timothy for that particular church, under the particular crisis they were dealing with.
Do you disagree that
The above reply posted by mistake before I was finished with my thought, sorry.
I am not sure why, but you don’t seem to be seeing that churches are comprised of people, and since no two people are a like, so no two churches will be a like.
Paul didn’t write each epistle to every church did he? Do you not see the significance in that the letters were written to specific churches? And are you unwilling to see that what written is applicable in the vital sense that we are not to treat each individual church as something homogenuous, but rather with wisdom, addressing situations and problems that arise in churches with reliance upon the Spirit’s guidance, and with specific answers to sometimes difficult circumstances.
You seem to be the type of man who wants to use Paul’s epistles to construct a very rigid model by applying what was written to individual churches in such a way as to suppose what was written to one was intended for every single church in every single location.
What I am trying to tell you is, if that is your way of interpreting Paul’s letters (by taking verses out of their context and applying them to every church), then you are mishandling the scriptures.
Furthermore, you appear hell-bent on using Paul’s instructions to Timothy on leadership requirements in that one church, to mean Paul was saying that should always be the requirement for every church in every place throughout the ages.
You simply cannot make that assumption and be true to the scriptures. You are marginalizing people and teaching that is what the Apostle Paul intended for every church.
Sorry, but that simply doesn’t wash. It may fit what your particular denomination believes. But according to your statement of belief, you put a higher value on the bible.
I was troubled by how you referred to the members of the trinity as the 1st Person, 2nd Person, 3rd Person, etc. Perhaps thats where your problem lies. You have been conditioned to think of the godhead as a three-tiered hierarchy…?
Shaper, I believe that Paul’s N.T. letters had both direct and inspired application to the person/people he wrote to. And I also believe that these letters have that for us today as well.
Ultimately, I do believe that all Scripture is profitable, edifying, and able to make a man approved and acceptable to God. We should take a literal approach to interpreting Scripture, whenever possible, and apply the Scriptures to our lives as best we see fit, for the glory of God alone.
Blessings to you.
Nonsense. We should let the Holy Ghost help us interpret the Word and study deep. You don’t even understand the Jewish thoughts on divorce and what abandonment really was. Nor do you know God’s heart. He hates divorce but will use the repentant divorcee. Study up some more and spend about 100 hours in God’s presence and praying in tongues. You are a man of the law not the heart.
Shaper, please see my reply to your comment above. Thank you.
Thank you for your article. I have seen that divorced and remarried people in the church can have a negative impact on marriage in the church. When my Christian husband and I had trouble, a man in the church said ” I shouldn’t tell you this but I divorced my wife and married someone else and I am sooooooooo glad. This second marriage is so much better!”
Also ther is a second marriage couple serving in a lot of ways in my current church and when my husband and I were trying to reconcile she was assigned to mentor me. However, everything she said was for the next relationship….such as, “ok, so now you know what to look for in your next relationship,”. Or “. Do it right in your next relationship”. We had not done anything wrong. We had waited for marriage for physical intimacy, we had had premarital counseling by a pastor…..neither of us had an affair. That is why I believe we should still reconcile. Now my ex is entering into a leadership position as a men’s recovery group leader. I think this esteem will limit his desire to reconcile because he will feel justified by his new church. I feel strongly that if divorced people seek any position at all, the church should make sure that the person was either the deserted spouse or the person is repentant to the point of reconciling if possible.
I very much agree with what you’ve written. And I believe that is precisely why God has this requirement for church leaders (i.e. pastors and deacons). When men and/or women who are divorced serve in church leadership, it sets a standard for what is acceptable for the rest of the congregation. It waters down the covenant of marriage.
PS: I’m saddened to hear about the poor “counsel” you received regarding focus on the next marriage. I pray that God leads you and blesses you in the path he has for you and your husband. God bless you!
I think that some people who have been divorced have a great testimony. Just because someone is divorced doesn’t mean that the divorce was their fault, so why should they not be considered for church leadership? A woman who’s husband became addicted to drugs and alcohol, that beat her repeatedly… this reason does not fall under the two acceptable reasons for divorce mentioned. In this case it’s not adultery and it’s not abandonment. Certainly this woman would not be expected to remain in a marriage that was physically violent and dangerous to her and, quite possibly, her children. Things like crack and meth didn’t exist when the quoted scriptures were written. What should she do then? Stay until she’s dead? Until her children are taken away from her because of her husband’s involvement with drugs? After years of seeking counseling and help for her husband to no avail, should she not flee this man and divorce him? And then, once she is free, what makes her disqualified to be a leader in her church? She has a testimony for women and couples. Sometimes people who have been through something can lead others with an even greater passion than those who have not because they have experienced something and traveled a path that can relate to others in a way that others cannot. The people that Jesus chose to surround himself with and to lead the spreading of God’s word were not without sin. They too were guilty of some of the things that we are told not to do in the Bible, but The Lord saw them fit for leadership. These people went on to be some of the greatest leaders of all time. Just because someone is divorced shouldn’t mean that they are not qualified to lead. If that’s the case…in essence, saying that those who break God’s laws and do things that He “hates” should not be church leaders…then that would mean that anyone who has ever disobeyed God’s laws, any of them, should be disqualified. No liars, no thieves, etc. If that were the case I am pretty sure that all churches would be without leaders entirely.
I believe in the sanctity of marriage and that, as Christians, we should always strive for our marriages to stay in tact. But it’s my opinion that if we happen to make poor choices or have bad judgement in a marriage or if we are pushed to divorce, that we are forgiven and that we should learn from our experiences. Our experiences, whether bad or good, should be testimony to others. Everyone that feels moved should be encouraged to be leaders in their churches. Shame on a church for making a divorced member wear a “scarlet letter” as if they may not already feel bad enough for their failed marriage. It just doesn’t seem right to me.
There’s a difference between a church leader (i.e. a pastor/elder or deacon) versus merely serving at a church in ministry. All Christians can serve, regardless of what they might have done in the past, but that doesn’t mean they qualify as a church leader.
Regarding physical abuse, I would always counsel the woman to leave. Get out of the house/environment immediately and get all your kids out of there as well. Then call the police. Leaving would be separation. It isn’t divorce.
We live by grace and not because of our holiness. None is holy, all have sinned and short in front of God’s Holiness.
True, and praise the Lord for that! But sin does have its consequences in this life. Like the Scripture teaches, we reap what we sow.
Your teaching on divorce and leadership doesn’t make any sense. So you can hold a lessor position in the church but not a prominent one if you are divorced? What about the blood of Jesus? What about people who didn’t want a divorce but had no choice? What about those who had spouses who left them, but were Christians (backslidden ones)? YOU don’t know the heart of God, sir. He will use anyone who He chooses. There are many divorced people who love God and whom God uses. He forgave the sin. God divorced Israel Himself. You are wrong.
Dear Charles,
I know nothing about you, but I would guess that you are young and happily married. I would guess that you and your wife are of gentle temperament and you surround yourself with people similar to yourself. If you are not young, then you are old and in an empty marriage, but have vowed to stay married because your wife takes care of your day to day needs and you want to remain in your church position. And if either of those scenarios aren’t quite correct, then my guess is that you have never faced divorce yourself. You have pushed away all of your lustful thoughts of other women because you know they are wrong. Nobody knows what is going on in your mind or in your heart and nobody ever will unless you take action and end your marriage. Jesus said that any man who looks at another woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery. Why do we not ever talk about this in church? How are we ever certain that the men in leadership positions have not committed adultery in this way? We aren’t. But, we don’t care. All we care about are the sins our leaders commit out in the open. If you are going to punish Christians for being divorced and/or remarried, I think you need to punish all sinners the same way. Why does divorce get such prime value in the earthly church? Please realize how happy Satan is with you in keeping some wonderful divorced and remarried Christians from serving in your church. Please open your eyes and see who you are serving with your strict laws. And let me ask you this- will you take the money that the divorced people have to give the church? I’m sure you would make an exception that this isn’t really service so they are allowed to do that.