Comments on Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Go Back to Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife


Author: Onslopogas Posted: 2008-04-28 13:02:31
That is ABSOLUTE ADULTERY!! You can NEVER convince any one that it's from GOD....Your being called a man of God is henceforth VERY questionable.


Author: Yo Ho Ho Posted: 2008-04-28 13:03:24

26 years and the devil managed to break this bond and vow made before God, not to leave Frances.

Will this one last? I doubt!! But I pray God have mercy on you both.

This is confusing......

Author: Opia Posted: 2008-04-28 13:07:41
Can we as 'little' christians follow the example of the archbishop? Fact is, when it comes to the church, things are supposed to be done according to what the good book says. Christians cannot just go around divorcing and remarrying for the fun of it. The Bible has Holy spirit-inspired rules which are meant to be adhered to. If the reason for the break up of the Bishop and Francisca is not adultery, I believe God still views them as MAN and WIFE. I stand corrected on this but this is what I think. They need to have explored all other biblical methods to patch up. I believe they gave up on each other too early. One characteristic of a Bishop is that he should be able to be in control of his home. Papa Duncan obviously has not passed this. Self control is also a virtue to be posessed by every Christian. As a man of God he should have at least demonstrated that he could WAIT for a while. The divorce is still fresh and yet...
Anyway, God forgive me. I think I'm being too judgemental here but fact is, if this was committed by an ordinary church member I would not have a problem with it BUT coming from a man of God of such stature......I don't know!!!

Duncan - a scandalous minister

Author: Owuraku USA Posted: 2008-04-28 13:08:03
Duncan Williams outdoors new wife

RE: This man needs repentance

Author: Bonsu Amsterdam Posted: 2008-04-28 13:08:59
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? (Rom 6:1) This man knows Matt 19:1-6 but insted of repenting from his sins (adultery) he's using his worldly position and worldly arguments. Even a child in Christianity knows that God hates divorce, and the words of Jesus Crist our Lord was clear that what God has joined together let no man put asunder. So strage that the writer of the article misquoted Matt 19:9, the word is "Fornication" but not Sexual immorarity. That's why Jesus said, Those who have ears let them hear. Obviously Duncan Willams has no ears for what Jesus said in Matt 19.

There he goes !!!

Author: Francisca Posted: 2008-04-28 13:09:51 is only in Ghana that people would allow themselves to be fooled by idoits like Duncan-Williams who commit all sorts of crimes in the name of God. The congregation must be composed of dafts to beliece this man's cock and bull story.................ahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahhaahah......God help our people....

home used pussy?

Author: bob Posted: 2008-04-28 13:12:06
It comes as no surprise to many Ghanaians, our taste for used items has now cought up with the clergy.Oh God! so this home used lady is what our bishop wants.Was the bishop cheating on the previous wife? or how long did they know themselves to warrant a marriage.
All the bishop wants is the Pussy, he doesn't care the fuck who says what.This bishop is a 419 guy, watch out.Where are his fingers and what chopped them up?
he has stories to cover everthing.

By their deeds

Author: BABA Posted: 2008-04-28 13:13:39
Funny how the gospel can be twisted to suit situations


Author: Akadu Mensema Posted: 2008-04-28 13:18:14
Duncan-Williams has every right to marry! He should not tell lies to support while he remarried! The reporting is male-centric and sexist: consider words, etc.: like "outdoors," "advances from many ladies including church members," "Mama Francisca was dumped"


Author: Ndow, Utah, USA Posted: 2008-04-28 13:18:36
I pray that he be forgiven and that this issue does not drag the charismatic church in Ghana into a character quagmire. Duncan Williams is a man like anyone of us and I believe he's subject to the same temptations. As an ordinary christian, I pray that the same does not happen to me such that I have to jeopardize the future of my children and my mission as well. I think this issue bothers on character. You can be annointed to the toe but if you're deficient in character, you can easily lend yourself to an easy fall. The bible says one can divorce only when one's spouse is caught in adultery. We're still not sure of the cause of Duncan William's first divorce and it's very dangerous to speculate here.
He's been an inspiration to the charismatic movement in Ghana and I hope he maintains his reverence among the charismatics.


Author: papadelasi Posted: 2008-04-28 13:18:46
So he expected his congregation to lift him shoulder high after hiding his relationship and getting married to someone they know nothikng about. Married to a business tycoon indeed, not trying to judge but is he not one himself. I doubt if he took the feelings of his children into consideraton. Will be married to her till death, didn't he make the same vows before getting married to his ex-wife. Don't know much about this guy or why he got divorsed in the first place but i don't think its fair from my point of view.

Duncan Outdoors New wife

Author: JKM Posted: 2008-04-28 13:19:58
May the good LORD have mercy on us.

lord have mercy

Author: dzugu Posted: 2008-04-28 13:20:17
Two school of thought indeed. What is the learned Bishop suggesting. Did he divorced his wife because she committed adultrey or He did. I suspect this woman might have been at the center of the problem. The Bishop should accept his responsibility and stop explaining why adultery could can be committed. Two school of thought indeed.

Be careful

Author: k Posted: 2008-04-28 13:25:22
People should be careful on how they talk about this man. we dont know the covenant and the discussion he had with LORD. Furthermore he is still human.


Author: papadelasi Posted: 2008-04-28 13:29:46
This is very hard for a struggling christian like me to understand....

blind man leading blind ppl

Author: f n f Posted: 2008-04-28 13:29:51
who made Duncan William a ruler n an anchbishop over us?Away 2 ur tents oh action faith members


Author: BANSERO Posted: 2008-04-28 13:30:38
There are 2 schools of thought; Legality and grace.Our "Dad" chose grace. Also, donnot compare his situation to yours, OK? We're all different so we're going to receive different judgements from God. Let's do what he says but not what he does, OK? So then, stop going to church bcos our dad is telling us that different interpretations could be given to the Bible depending on one's situation. CRAPPY pastors!!!!!!!
I am too intelligent for this nonsense and bullshit.


Author: CHAR Posted: 2008-04-28 13:32:06


Author: THE LAST PROPHET Posted: 2008-04-28 13:38:23
Duncan Williams is basing his act on "school of thought" as against the word of God.
He is simply pleasing himself with this "school of thought" concept.
I actually have no problem with him because he is just doing the work for his father and master, the devil.
Sadly, you will still see people in his church. However,the good news is that, the ELECT of God will never be deceived by these agents of the devil, including Mensah Otabil and the rest.
The ELECTS are coming out of the churches because the devil is now in charge. Those who have ears should listen.

prophet of doom

Author: bob Posted: 2008-04-28 13:46:20
The next is to get this bishop guy arrested for drug charges and he will tell the church members another story.
wise up country men,this guy can do anything for his own comfort,including gambling with church collections in Vegas.sorry, poor church members.


Author: Posted: 2008-04-28 13:54:06
# Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
# These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
# Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.


Author: KWAKU Posted: 2008-04-28 14:16:08
MY advice to all who this man churh is flee for their souls. the blind will lead them to hell.

200% Adultery

Author: Shasha Posted: 2008-04-28 14:17:32
Osofo no aseei awaree period. Stop this beating about the bush, the man has ignored the scripture and now he says there are 2 schools of thought. So which school of thought is right? Remember the scriptures say there is ONE truth. No two.

Two schools of thought indeed! you see how these so-called men of God don't know teee. And yet people go and listen to their money-grabbing stories every week.

aden? mo ada?

Completely mistaken

Author: Kwabena Antwi Boasiako Ababio Posted: 2008-04-28 14:19:02
Duncan Williams is not known as the father of chara=ismatic churches in Ghana. I urge the author to do his research well. That statement is completely misleading!


Author: KOKO Posted: 2008-04-28 14:20:52

Re: Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Author: pinto Posted: 2008-04-28 14:27:10
African-American? This guy is finished. God should forgive our sins.

Re: Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Author: Adwo Posted: 2008-04-28 14:29:23
You claim you'll be married to Rosa till death. I believe you once said the same about Francisca. If you're capable of being married to this lady till death, why not your wife? It is a sad case.


Author: KOJO Posted: 2008-04-28 14:29:44
God have mercy on us. "BEWARE OF FALSE PROHETS". We are certainly seeing one. There is a place in the Bible to support anything one does on earth be it divorce, murder, lies, etc....

Way Duncan. Go ahead!

Author: Nebu Posted: 2008-04-28 14:40:24
He has divorced his wife. Why do you expect him to remain single when he has fallen in love. Go Bishop Go. He has not committed murder

Leave vengeance to the Lord

Author: Rose Mensah Posted: 2008-04-28 14:45:07
We should be careful the way we judge this man, have we removed the speck in our eyes?

Lets all behave like matured Christians and leave vengeance to the Lord.

"Ayefro dondoo"

Author: Yaa Nkosuo Posted: 2008-04-28 15:17:14
.... comment to follow later

sodm and gomorah

Author: hades. Posted: 2008-04-28 15:21:00
shame on you. osofo meko.


Author: AMPEM DARKO - UK Posted: 2008-04-28 15:31:10


Author: PASTOR A-A , HO Posted: 2008-04-28 15:43:55
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee" (1 Timothy 4:16).

A VERY IMPORTANT area a shepherd should watch over the flock is in continuity in sound doctrines and in practice of the same. In Paul's second letter to Timothy, he charged the latter in verse 13 of the first chapter: "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus". A shepherd should stick with the undiluted Word of God to earn the respect of the sheep. Today, in many circles, leaders are diluting the Word of God with human wisdom and philosophy. Any leader who feels he or she knows God's Word more than God, has out-lived his or her relevance both to God and His flock. Revelation says you must not doctor the Scriptures. Also, there is need to put whatever you preach or teach into practice. This is an effective way to watch over your flock. Until your subordinates see you practicing what you teach, they may never do so. A doers life-style adds compulsion, expediency and credibility to your message. John 10:4 says it is the duty of the shepherd to lead before the sheep can follow.

When a man becomes God

Author: Obrefo. Posted: 2008-04-28 15:54:27
Religion has become the opium to contol the souless masses in Ghana. Only mentally weak minded people can be control by this con man. A man of God my foot.

Sadly, people complain of not able to pay their health issurance premium, but yet manage to donate to this spiritually bankrupted con artist like this fool.

Ghana wake up, and smell the coffee. You're being taking for a big time ride.

What does this fool think he is? insulting Ghanaian women as if he's a God's gift to our hard working industrious well cultured ladies.

The hell with you.


Author: Akwasi Frimpong Posted: 2008-04-28 16:11:43
I only see Duncan twisting scriptures to suit himself. No one should take him serious.

According to scripture, if there is any justification for divorce, the parties cannot marry while the other was alive.

Duncan William is setting a dangerous precedence. Tomorrow, I can follow in Duncan's steps and divorce my wife, and marry another womnan the following week.

He would have better gone castrating himself.



Bible on Divorce_ Remarriage

Author: PASTOR A-A , HO Posted: 2008-04-28 16:27:08
Eleven Reasons Why I Believe All Remarriage After Divorce Is Prohibited While Both Spouses Are Alive

1. Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.

Luke 16:18: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

1.1 This verse shows that Jesus does not recognize divorce as terminating a marriage in God's sight. The reason a second marriage is called adultery is because the first one is considered to still be valid. So Jesus is taking a stand against the Jewish culture in which all divorce was considered to carry with it the right of remarriage.

1.2 The second half of the verse shows that not merely the divorcing man is guilty of adultery when he remarries, but also any man who marries a divorced woman.

1.3 Since there are no exceptions mentioned in the verse, and since Jesus is clearly rejecting the common cultural conception of divorce as including the right of remarriage, the first readers of this gospel would have been hard-put to argue for any exceptions on the basis that Jesus shared the cultural assumption that divorce for unfaithfulness or desertion freed a spouse for remarriage.

2. Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the husband or the wife who does the divorcing.

Mark 10:11-12: And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.'

2.1 This text repeats the first half of Luke 16:18 but goes farther and says that not only the man who divorces, but also a woman who divorces, and then remarries is committing adultery.

2.2 As in Luke 16:18, there are no exceptions mentioned to this rule.

3. Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-8 teach that Jesus rejected the Pharisees' justification of divorce from Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted the purpose of God in creation that no human being separate what God has joined together.

Mark 10:2-9: And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, 'What did Moses command you?' 4 And they said, 'Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.' 5 But Jesus said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.'

Matthew 19:3-9: And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery."

3.1 In both Matthew and Mark the Pharisees come to Jesus and test him by asking him whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. They evidently have in mind the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1 which simply describes divorce as a fact rather than giving any legislation in favor of it. They wonder how Jesus will take a position with regard to this passage.

3.2 Jesus' answer is, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives" (Mt. 19:8).

3.3 But then Jesus criticizes the Pharisees' failure to recognize in the books of Moses God's deepest and original intention for marriage. So he quotes two passages from Genesis. "God made them male and female. ...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Genesis 1:27; 2:24).

3.4 From these passages in Genesis Jesus concludes, "So they are no longer two, but one." And then he makes his climaxing statement, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

3.5 The implication is that Jesus rejects the Pharisees' use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the standard of marriage for his disciples to God's original intention in creation. He says that none of us should try to undo the "one-flesh" relationship which God has united.

3.6 Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause ("except for unchastity") mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, ("let no man put asunder") especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage. More on this below.

4. Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.

Matthew 5:32: But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

4.1 Jesus assumes that in most situations in that culture a wife who has been put away by a husband will be drawn into a second marriage. Nevertheless, in spite of these pressures, he calls this second marriage adultery.

4.2 The remarkable thing about the first half of this verse is that it plainly says that the remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away is nevertheless adultery: "Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her (the innocent wife who has not been unchaste) an adulteress." This is a clear statement, it seems to me, that remarriage is wrong not merely when a person is guilty in the process of divorce, but also when a person is innocent. In other words, Jesus' opposition to remarriage seems to be based on the unbreakableness of the marriage bond by anything but death.

4.3 I will save my explanation of the exception clause ("Except on the ground of unchastity") for another time , but for now, it may suffice to say that on the traditional interpretation of the clause, it may simply mean that a man makes his wife an adulteress except in the case where she has made herself one.

4.4 I would assume that since an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries, therefore a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. If one argues that this guilty woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, just because the guilty woman's adultery has broken the "one flesh" relationship, then one is put in the awkward position of saying to an innocent divorced woman, "If you now commit adultery it will be lawful for you to remarry." This seems wrong for at least two reasons.

4.41 It seems to elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital union and disunion.

4.42 If sexual union with another breaks the marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say that an innocently divorced wife can't remarry (as Jesus does say) assumes that her divorcing husband is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another. This is a very unlikely assumption. More likely is that Jesus does assume some of these divorcing husbands will have sexual relations with another woman, but still the wives they have divorced may not remarry. Therefore, adultery does not nullify the "one-flesh" relationship of marriage and both the innocent and guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 5:32.

5. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who divorces should not remarry.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11: To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

5.1 When Paul says that this charge is not his but the Lord's, I think he means that he is aware of a specific saying from the historical Jesus which addressed this issue. As a matter of fact, these verses look very much like Mark 10:11-12, because both the wife and the husband are addressed. Also, remarriage seems to be excluded by verse ll the same way it is excluded in Mark 10:11-12.

5.2 Paul seems to be aware that separation will be inevitable in certain cases. Perhaps he has in mind a situation of unrepentant adultery, or desertion, or brutality. But in such a case he says that the person who feels constrained to separate should not seek remarriage but remain single. And he reinforces the authority of this statement by saying he has a word from the Lord. Thus Paul's interpretation of Jesus' sayings is that remarriage should not be pursued.

5.3 As in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 and Matthew 5:32, this text does not explicitly entertain the possibility of any exceptions to the prohibition of remarriage.

6. 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.

1 Corinthians 7:39: A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7:1-3, Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during his life? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning her husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

6.1 Both of these passages (1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2) say explicitly that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. No exceptions are explicitly mentioned that would suggest she could be free from her husband to remarry on any other basis.

7. Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ's disciples to sustain them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of Christ.

Matthew 19:10-12: The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.' 11 But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

7.1 Just preceding this passage in Matthew 19:9 Jesus prohibited all remarriage after divorce. (I will deal with the meaning of "except for immorality" below.) This seemed like an intolerable prohibition to Jesus' disciples: If you close off every possibility of remarriage, then you make marriage so risky that it would be better not to marry, since you might be "trapped" to live as a single person to the rest of your life or you may be "trapped" in a bad marriage.

7.2 Jesus does not deny the tremendous difficulty of his command. Instead, he says in verse ll, that the enablement to fulfill the command not to remarry is a divine gift to his disciples. Verse 12 is an argument that such a life is indeed possible because there are people who for the sake of the kingdom, as well as lower reasons, have dedicated themselves to live a life of singleness.

7.3 Jesus is not saying that some of his disciples have the ability to obey his command not to remarry and some don't. He is saying that the mark of a disciple is that they receive a gift of continence while non-disciples don't. The evidence for this is l) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 13:11, 12) the parallel between Matthew 19:12 and 13:9,43; 11:15, and 3) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 19:26.

8. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that the "one-flesh" relationship established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or even by remarriage.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

8.1 The remarkable thing about these four verses is that, while divorce is taken for granted, nevertheless the woman who is divorced becomes "defiled" by her remarriage (verse 4). It may well be that when the Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was legitimate he based his negative answer not only on God's intention expressed in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, but also on the implication of Deuteronomy 24:4 that remarriage after divorce defiles a person. In other words, there were ample clues in the Mosaic law that the divorce concession was on the basis of the hardness of man's heart and really did not make divorce and remarriage legitimate.

8.2 The prohibition of a wife returning to her first husband even after her second husband dies (because it is an abomination) suggests very strongly that today no second marriage should be broken up in order to restore a first one (for Heth and Wenham's explanation of this see Jesus and Divorce, page 110).

9. 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she is free to remarry. It means that the Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it.

1 Corinthians 7:15: If the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

9.1 There are several reasons why the phrase "is not bound" should not be construed to mean "is free to remarry."

9.11 Marriage is an ordinance of creation binding on all of God's human creatures, irrespective of their faith or lack of faith.

9.12 The word used for "bound" (douloo) in verse 15 is not the same word used in verse 39 where Paul says, "A wife is bound (deo) to her husband as long as he lives." Paul consistently uses deo when speaking of the legal aspect of being bound to one marriage partner (Romans 7:2; l Corinthians 7:39), or to one's betrothed (l Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers to a deserted spouse not being bound in l Corinthians 7:15, he chooses a different word (douloo) which we would expect him to do if he were not giving a deserted spouse the same freedom to remarry that he gives to a spouse whose partner has died (verse 39).

9.13 The last phrase of verse 15 ("God has called us to peace") supports verse 15 best if Paul is saying that a deserted partner is not "bound to make war" on the deserting unbeliever to get him or her to stay. It seems to me that the peace God has called us to is the peace of marital harmony. Therefore, if the unbelieving partner insists on departing, then the believing partner is not bound to live in perpetual conflict with the unbelieving spouse, but is free and innocent in letting him or her go.

9.14 This interpretation also preserves a closer harmony to the intention of verses 10-11, where an inevitable separation does not result in the right of remarriage.

9.15 Verse 16 (“For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?) is an argument that you can’t know, and so should not make the hope of saving them a ground for fighting to make them stay. This supports the understanding of verse 15 as a focus on not being enslaved to stay together, rather than not being enslaved to say single.

9.16 Paul did not see the single life as a life of slavery and so would not have called the necessity of staying single a state of being enslaved.

10. 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin.

10.1 Recently some people have argued that this passage deals with divorced people because in verse 27 Paul asks, "Are you free (literally: loosed) from a wife?" Some have assumed that he means, "Are you divorced?" Thus he would be saying in verse 28 that it is not sin when divorced people remarry. There are several reasons why this interpretation is most unlikely.

10.11 Verse 25 signals that Paul is beginning a new section and dealing with a new issue. He says, "Now concerning the virgins (ton parthenon) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." He has already dealt with the problem of divorced people in verses 10-16. Now he takes up a new issue about those who are not yet married, and he signals this by saying, "Now concerning the virgins." Therefore, it is very unlikely that the people referred to in verses 27 and 28 are divorced.

10.12 A flat statement that it is not sin for divorced people to be remarried (verse 28) would contradict verse ll, where he said that a woman who has separated from her husband should remain single.

10.13 Verse 36 is surely describing the same situation in view in verses 27 and 28, but clearly refers to a couple that is not yet married. "If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin." This is the same as verse 28 where Paul says, "But if you marry, you do not sin."

10.14 The reference in verse 27 to being bound to a "wife" may be misleading because it may suggest that the man is already married. But in Greek the word for wife is simply "woman" and may refer to a man's betrothed as well as his spouse. The context dictates that the reference is to a man's betrothed virgin, not to his spouse. So "being bound" and "being loosed" have reference to whether a person is betrothed or not.

10.15 It is significant that the verb Paul uses for "loosed" (luo) or "free" is not a word that he uses for divorce. Paul's words for divorce are chorizo (verses 10,11,15; cf. Matthew 19:6) and aphienai (verses 11,12,13).

11. The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.

Matthew 19:9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

11.1 Several years ago I taught our congregation in two evening services concerning my understanding of this verse and argued that "except for immorality" did not refer to adultery but to premarital sexual fornication which a man or a woman discovers in the betrothed partner. Since that time I have discovered other people who hold this view and who have given it a much more scholarly exposition than I did. I have also discovered numerous other ways of understanding this verse which also exclude the legitimacy of remarriage. Several of these are summed up in William Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (Nelson: 1984).

11.2 Here I will simply give a brief summary of my own view of Matthew 19:9 and how I came to it.

I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.

Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew's exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia ("except for immorality") instead of the word moicheia which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. The question nags at me why Matthew would not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant.

Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneiais in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew's usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication or incest (l Corinthians 5:1) rather than adultery?

A. Isaksson agrees with this view of porneia and sums up his research much like this on pages 134-5 of Marriage and Ministry:

Thus we cannot get away from the fact that the distinction between what was to be regarded as porneia and what was to be regarded as moicheia was very strictly maintained in pre-Christian Jewish literature and in the N.T. Porneia may, of course, denote different forms of forbidden sexual relations, but we can find no unequivocal examples of the use of this word to denote a wife's adultery. Under these circumstances we can hardly assume that this word means adultery in the clauses in Matthew. The logia on divorce are worded as a paragraph of the law, intended to be obeyed by the members of the Church. Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that in a text of this nature the writer would not have maintained a clear distinction between what was unchastity and what was adultery: moicheia and not porneia was used to describe the wife's adultery. From the philological point of view there are accordingly very strong arguments against this interpretation of the clauses as permitting divorce in the case in which the wife was guilty of adultery.

The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other words, since they don't accept the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of this act. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew's record of Jesus' birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.

In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today. In verse 19 Joseph resolves "to divorce" Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was "just" in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication.

Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19 needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by Jesus) and yet to allow for "divorces" like the one Joseph contemplated toward his betrothed whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia). Therefore, Matthew includes the exception clause in particular to exonerate Joseph, but also in general to show that the kind of "divorce" that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication is not included in Jesus' absolute prohibition.

A common objection to this interpretation is that both in Matthew 19:3-8 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to is marriage not betrothal. The point is pressed that "except for fornication" is irrelevant to the context of marriage.

My answer is that this irrelevancy is just the point Matthew wants to make. We may take it for granted that the breakup of an engaged couple over fornication is not an evil "divorce" and does not prohibit remarriage. But we cannot assume that Matthew's readers would take this for granted.

Even in Matthew 5:32, where it seems pointless for us to exclude "the case of fornication" (since we can't see how a betrothed virgin could be "made an adulteress" in any case), it may not be pointless for Matthew's readers. For that matter, it may not be pointless for any readers: if Jesus had said, "Every man who divorces his woman makes her an adulteress," a reader could legitimately ask: "Then was Joseph about to make Mary an adulteress?" We may say this question is not reasonable since we think you can't make unmarried women adulteresses. But it certainly is not meaningless or, perhaps for some readers, pointless, for Matthew to make explicit the obvious exclusion of the case of fornication during betrothal.

This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages:

1. It does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke and the whole range of New Testament teaching set forth above in sections 1-10, including Matthew's own absolute teaching in 19:3-8
2. It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew's exception clause instead of moicheia
3. It squares with Matthew's own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19
4. It fits the demands of Matthew's wider context concerning Joseph's contemplated divorce.

Since I first wrote this exposition of Matthew 19:9 I have discovered a chapter on this view in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce and a scholarly defense of it by A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (1965).

Conclusions and Applications

In the New Testament the question about remarriage after divorce is not determined by:

1. The guilt or innocence of either spouse,
2. Nor by whether either spouse is a believer or not,
3. Nor by whether the divorce happened before or after either spouse's conversion,
4. Nor by the ease or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth,
5. Nor by whether there is adultery or desertion involved,
6. Nor by the on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart,
7. Nor by the cultural permissiveness of the surrounding society.

Rather it is determined by the fact that:

1. Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
2. Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
3. God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
4. The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13),
5. Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30).

Those who are already remarried:

1. Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness
2. Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)
3. Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God's eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God's will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.

Just one question

Author: domort Posted: 2008-04-28 16:29:39
Who made this guy an Archbishop?


Author: TruePatriot Posted: 2008-04-28 17:10:48
"...told his congregation that at times, some of the womenfolk in the church on their own volition, cooked for him and took the food to his house after which they would call to ask if he had eaten the food; if it was okay; and what he thought about them..".

Really, I could care less about Ghanaian Charismatic and Pentecostal Pastors because almost all of them are crooks, criminals and con-artists. However, I believe he did the right thing by re-marrying someone.

Duncan Williams is too young to abstain from sex for the rest of his life. He would be masturbating and committing adultery for the rest of his if he stays single. Therefore it is good for him to re-marry. I know a friend whose wife decided to leave him and move to another city because of free government housing. Eventually, they separated. The guy went to his Church of Pentecost(COP) leaders to annul the relationship, but they refused to do that on the grounds that the Bible is against such thing. So they advised him to fast and pray. Well, after praying and fasting for more than 2 yrs, he went back and told them that he can't hold it anymore since he has was "wetting" his bedspread almost everyday. These fools at COP refused to listen to his pleas so eventually the guy began to shag one lady in the same church. See, by their refusal to allow him to remarry, two folks (the guy and his lover) in their church are now committing adultery or fornication or whatever you call it.

Just check the above quote and see what the women were doing for the pastor; cooking and sending the food to his house. Please reader, don't be that naive; who allowed them to enter Duncan's house to bring in the food? Do you think it was the gate-man? Well, then how did they get his personal number to call and find out whether he was eating their food or not? Don't tell me his house phone is listed so they can get it; do you know it would be easier to get Obama's personal digits than getting these modern charismatic pastors' numbers. So you see, there was something going on and if nothing was going on at all, the chances of him committing adultery was higher. As for masturbation, unless you think God in his own super-natural ways has stopped producing testosterone in his systems.

"...Duncan-Williams expressed disappointment that though he had originally planned a very private wedding at his Maryland home in the United States of America ..."

This shows that he has a house in Maryland, even though he has not worked in America. See, how I call them crooks, criminals, and con-artists. Well, it is good to be re-married, but marrying American and having properties in America will make another divorce interesting. Not that I pray for another divorce, but spiritually, emotionally and physically, Duncan Williams should tread softly with this business woman, lady Rosa. One of my best relationships was with African American woman, so I am happy for him.

Re: Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Author: Issah Posted: 2008-04-28 17:22:54
Mathew 19:19 is clear and unambiguous.Duncan-Williams is a false prophet and a bad exemple to the church.By their deeds they shall be known.Your true colours are begining to show.Time will unmask you,Duncan-Williams.I even suspect that those years that your new wife was a close friend you unzipped on her that probably affected your previous marriage.How can such a man counsel couples who have marital problems?


Author: TruePatriot Posted: 2008-04-28 17:36:26
"...the man has ignored the scripture and now he says there are 2 schools of thought" --Sasha

Yeah, Duncan Williams is beginning to have doubts about some of the passages or doctrine in the Holy Book. Just look at what he said here: . ?For example, there is a school of thought that there would be no rapture and there is another school of thought that there would be rapture; so there are different schools of thoughts on various issues and they are subject to interpretation, so I came to a school of thought that said I should re-marry." --Duncan Williams.

Is he denying the rapture or he is doing this to justify his own deeds. How can an Archbishop of a charismatic church have doubts about the RAPTURE, or even believe that there are two schools of thoughts about the RAPTURE?


Author: agyefene Posted: 2008-04-28 17:54:45
this pastor has one of the most serious problem the world had seen for a long time

mercy i ask for

Author: sel Posted: 2008-04-28 18:01:53
who i'm i to judge though i don't support divorce. lets stand for the truth and forget about school of thought for in Israel people still believes and are waitting for Christ's first coming.

School of thought in did

Author: Sephi Posted: 2008-04-28 18:12:36
Heh! what is happening to the christians Does christianity depend on schools of thought? can we then interpret the bible according to our situations. This is a complete adultry,Bishop has disappointed the church. God will forgive him but has he ever thought of his kids?How can you counsell marriage. No matter what your wife has done, you still have to forgive her. Remember the vowels you took at the marital ceremony.

Re: Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Author: Sakra Posted: 2008-04-28 18:39:16
Well, Action members judge it yourself of your leader!!!

Animal Farm

Author: Nii Obishi Posted: 2008-04-28 18:47:52
Clear case of animal farm in religious circles.

what was her marital status

Author: nicman@atl Posted: 2008-04-28 18:51:18
all these akata roaming about cannot get a single man to marry. they are just roaming about in the US. has she been marries before, does she have kids? she is one of those church roaming women who clubbed all their youth and in their forties believe satan was the cause of their woes. duncan william do not be likeBAR JESUS anane,he was not told about child support , do u know what we call SPOUSE SUIPPORT?

Judas 1st in heaven

Author: Judas Posted: 2008-04-28 18:51:29
This man makes me look so good.liar,hypocrite God forgives him.Secondly does anyone know why he married an African American? Cos they are good dick suckers.

Duncan:Product of Failed Churc

Author: Dr. Red Hot Posted: 2008-04-28 19:02:48
I am withdrawing my membership from this failed church. I don't want any guilt by association as it is beind done to Barack Obama in his association with Rev. Wright. Duncan williams is a failed pastor.


Author: ETUO MO OSUM Posted: 2008-04-28 19:06:50

smart guy

Author: pepper Posted: 2008-04-28 20:06:04
dun stop playin with ur folks b'cos u know what is right, especially matt 19:9.


Author: PAA WAST Posted: 2008-04-28 20:44:02

Re: Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Author: BIG SAM Posted: 2008-04-28 21:07:04

All talk talk; no show in bed.

Author: Kofi Dollar Posted: 2008-04-28 21:22:42
His ex-wife still maintains that Duncan Williams was incapable in bed and that all te children he calls his were actually fathered by other men for him.

Now he has hired an African American cargo who already looks pregnant, it will not take even two months before she also cheats on him.

Re: Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Author: SWEDRU MBRANTEHENE OF NY Posted: 2008-04-28 23:31:58

lawsuit in USA against rosa

Author: ja Posted: 2008-04-29 01:30:57

Mama Francisca was 4 Leslie Te

Author: Don't cry for me Posted: 2008-04-29 03:30:50
Actually Duncan Williams SNATCHED Mama Francisca from her serious lover who wasn't as rich but was commited to a lifelong relationship with her. This guy is Leslie Buabasah, who is happily maried to Emily.

Mistress now the frontrunner?

Author: Don't cry for me Posted: 2008-04-29 03:48:52
Is Duncan Williams new wife the same mistress he had the accident with about 14 months ago in Atlanta. Hope she is, if not, then she should consider herself as Lady Rosa in transit. Because "abaa a owuo de boo Francisca no ode bebo Lady Rosa Whitaker

Re: Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Author: NII Posted: 2008-04-29 04:48:07
theses so called men of god are nothing but crooks. I wonder how many of the female worshippers he has slept with.

this idiot is funny

Author: jojo bruce Posted: 2008-04-29 05:21:11
"According to him, his new wife, whom he asked his followers to call Lady Rosa, had been his long-time friend, even before Mama Francisca was dumped"

he was cheating on his wife long before the divorce.
i am proud to be catholic.

Is he really a man of God?

Author: Fatimata Posted: 2008-04-29 05:58:29
He makes his money from Ghana and doesn't find the Ghanaian women good enough for him to marry. If I were a member of his congregation I would I abandon him for not only degrading them with his comments but leaving them for someone in the States. This man is using them for his own selfish ends and I don't understand why they don't attend the traditional churches.

real man of God

Author: sledge Posted: 2008-04-29 06:55:06
Bishop u are a real man of God

allow him to be

Author: sledge Posted: 2008-04-29 06:57:31
It is best thing for him to remarry. Please allow him to be.

Hard heart?

Author: Otchere , Italia Posted: 2008-04-29 07:23:10
Oh, Bishop why did you not defend your decision with bible quotation
In an answer to a question as to why Moses permitted them to divorce their wives, Jesus answered and said: Because your hearts were hard.(Mt.19:8

Close down D-William's Church!

Author: GoGhanaGo Posted: 2008-04-29 08:01:13
Mr. Duncan William has taken a bold step to marry again.If he is the cause of the desolution of his previous marriage,then there is NO DEVINE JUSTIFICATION FOR HIS CURRENT MATRIMONIAL STANCE.That notwthstanding,his disciples have but two options;GET BACK FROM FOLLOWING HIM(WHICH MUST BE),OR OTHERWISE.IS DUNCAN,TRUELY A MARINE AGENT PASTOR LIKE THE MANY OTHERS SUCH AS ADJIN ASARE?


Author: George Posted: 2008-04-29 08:13:01

Then Jesus said to them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Matt. 16: 6, 12

Why did Jesus warn His disciples to beware of the Pharisees? What did they do wrong?

(An entire chapter of the Bible (Matthew 23) is Jesus' teaching against the Pharisees.)

The Pharisees were conservative, faithful "church" members. They accepted the Bible as the written Word of God. They paid tithes. They wouldn't dream of stealing, committing adultery, divorcing and remarrying or such things. You would like living next to a Pharisee as they were model citizens. But instead of having a living relationship with God, the Pharisees took the Word of God and made just another dead religion out of it. The Pharisee way of thinking is: keep up appearances. "It doesn't matter so much what you are on the inside, as long as you keep the rules (at least publicly)." The Pharisees were hypocrites. That is, they put on an act. What they pretended to be in public was not really what they were like in private. They claimed to be perfect in keeping God's law, but as humans they were all sinners, just like the rest of the people were. Yet, in public, they insisted that others keep the Law perfectly, or be condemned. They were quick to pass judgment on others, and slow to extend mercy or help. The Pharisees had a legalistic view of God's Word and did not realize that God was merciful and wanted to
help people.

Humans are very susceptible to approaching God in this manner, "Keep the rules. Just do these 10 things and you are OK." It may be how many times each week you must attend church meetings, or what kind of clothes you must wear, or how you must wear your hair. Or, it may be a list of things you cannot do. But, as long as you meet these requirements, you are in good standing with your church (or denomination).

But, good standing with God is based on only one thing according to the New Testament: faith in what Jesus did for us. That alone is what makes us right with God. Not our works, but Jesus' work.
……….. who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Cor.3:6 NKJ

Using God's Word to "kill" instead of using it to minister life is wrong. God's Word is meant to help people and lift them up, not place such hard demands on them that they cannot ever measure up. When we load people down with heavy loads of rules to keep in order to be right with God, we are ministers of DEATH.

……. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. 3b For they don't practice what they teach. 4 They crush people with impossible religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden. 5 "Everything they do is for show. . . Matt. 23:1-5 NLT

If your "Christianity" is nothing more than a list of "do's and don't's" then you are missing real Christianity, which is a living relationship with Jesus Christ.

I endorse the Archbishop's stand - Choosing Grace over the Law. That is the spirit of the NEW COVENANT. We have all sinned YET WE MAY NOT HAVE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED!!!!
Adapted from:


Author: rj Posted: 2008-04-29 08:31:52

Bishop Duncan-Williams remarri

Author: Abena B-Gray Posted: 2008-04-29 09:02:43
I am happy for him and I wish him and his new wife well. He is a man of prayer so I believe he has sought the face of God before making this decision and as long as God says it's okay, then I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Christians are too judgmental and we must never forget the parable Jesus told us - "he who is without sin ................". Would they rather he committed fornication?

Bishop may God's grace and mercy continue to be upon you and take you from strength to strength.


Author: Dr.ALBERT SOM-PIMPONG Posted: 2008-04-29 10:31:18
It is rather unfortunate that Duncan-Williams would seek to drive nails and spear through
the palms and heart of Jesus
Christ respectively by choosing
to flagrantly disobey His word
and seek to twist it to suit his adulterous lifestyle.By
stating that the new wife has
been a long standing friend even
while he was married to his previous wife, implies that he
was so involved with her that he had no time to love,cheerish and nurture the wife of his youth,
hence his dealing so treacherously with her. God's word
cannot be altered to make it convenient for a rebellous self-
proclaimed bishop to put his wife
wife away. It is high time that the flock of God at Action Church and all others whose eyes have been so blinded by the so-called prosperity and self-adulation messages to open their eyes and
look to Jesus Christ. In the
meantime Duncan-Williams would do well to re-read 1Corinthians ch.6
and Math. 18. They both would shed light on how he as a christian should handle issues
that relate to believers, more
so his own wife.
He should also read Malachi 2;14-17, Math.19:1-9, 1Corinth.7:10-11, and Romans 2:17-24.
It is my prayer that for the sake of Christ and the flock of God,
Duncan-Williams should let 'Lady
Rosa' go or resign from the bishopric. Please read Proverbs 29:1. A word to the wise is enough. And the wisdom of God is easily intreated...James 3:13-18.

Advice for Mama Francisca

Author: Yaa Nkosuo Posted: 2008-04-29 11:13:34
If there is someone out there reading this and who knows Mama Francisca, just wish her well from us. Assure her she is in our thoughts.

My good advice to her is to be steadfast in the Lord. Don't surround yourself with Miserable people. They compound your woes.

Its hard but Hold on and work on a Ministry in Counselling. Move away from the US if that's where she is and start a new life in Marriage Counselling for instance.
Just like the Vicar who resigned her post in the church when she lost her daughter in the 7th July 2005 bombingsciting she couldn't preach "Love and forgiveness" in the pulpit when the bombers did not show mercy.
COncentrate on a Counselling Ministry with the help of Outstanding women of GOd.

There are women out there, Nigerian female Pastors for example.


Author: MUGU YARO Posted: 2008-04-29 11:31:45
I, Mugu Yaro, do not know the problem of the Arch-Bishop,except to believe he has re-married to prove to the ex-wife that a woman somewhere would love him. In fact, if were him I would have stayed un-married in order to give the word of God that I preach a meaning and life. What does he still want in marriage: children or company? If it were children he already has a good number of them; if it were company, the Holy Spirit, the most reliable companion, is always around. By the Arch-Bishop being without a wife, he was being given the opportunity to get closer to the Lord and to spend quality time with him. This opportunity the Arch-Bishop has blown away, making many to doubt his christian spirituality.

Re: Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Author: Jonathan Posted: 2008-04-29 11:43:40
Who cares!!


Author: joe Posted: 2008-04-29 11:52:30
this so called bishop has completely disgraced christians.He should die immediately in order to save christianity.a pastor who should forgive and forget for others to learn from him has commited such a sin which man should not listen to. I want to advice his Church members to find another Church to go.Even though your have made him rich, learn lesson from this.And it is an advice to all Ghanians to stop attending pravite church which the foundrs enrich themselve through your collection and annual harvest.

Papa,you'r AN ICON,donot divo

Author: Fresh S. Posted: 2008-04-29 12:17:24
But thou o MAN OF GOD , FLEE these things that could bring offences to ministry.Please, PAPA dont take this step. no matter WHAT, BUT reconcile to our MAMA FRANCISCA, the wife of your youth.cHURCH AND ALL TRUE CHILDREN OF GOD IN GHANA, PLS, PRAY FOR PAPA, the BISHOP.Destroy any form of witch-craft/manipulations against His life, ministry and destiny
I am from Nigeria. Loving Christ, and His life

Duncan Williams Has No Excuse

Author: Grieving Heart Posted: 2008-04-29 13:07:39
Duncan Williams Has No Excuse to Divorce his wife let alone marry another one. What is he teaching his congregation about the teachings of Christ? My Heart grieves for mother Ghana. How are the mighty fallen. Unfortunately, one cannot make a caricature of the word of God without paying for it. This marks the down fall of Duncan Williams, though he has amassed some wealth, but spiritually, he is heading for the lows. Pray for him.

High Libido Archbishop

Author: Kofi UK Posted: 2008-04-29 15:39:52
If it was not money the women wanted who would fall in love with this geriatric agent of satan?


Author: OJOE(Steve Bikko) Paris Posted: 2008-04-30 01:58:20


Author: LORD SKY Posted: 2008-04-30 04:53:41
There is no much problem with that.we are too judgemental in this country let God do the judging and not man

Re: Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Author: Kwabena Posted: 2008-04-30 11:25:18
Please pray for the church. Will Duncan Williams be able to divorces in his church? I do not know. Is this the begining of the end of the church? Is Mama Francisca still a member of the church? God bless her for keeping quite all this time. Marriage issues are not for public consumption. Archbishop, is it not because you had been friends with Rosa for a long time that is why you could not settle the difference between you and Mama Francisca? Did you critically study Matt 19:9? We are at a loss and I don't think your explanations were convincing.


Author: KWAME KYEREMEH Posted: 2008-04-30 14:29:25
Marriage-split bishop resigns
By Antony Stone, PA
Tuesday, 29 April 2008

A bishop who sparked a dispute among colleagues in the clergy after separating from his wife has resigned, it was confirmed today.

The Right Reverend Carl Cooper, the Bishop of St Davids in West Wales, split from his wife Joy in February after announcing they were experiencing "difficulties".

The couple, who have been married for 25 years and have three grown-up children, both stressed at the time that no-one else was involved on either side.

Despite the amicable separation, within weeks senior clergymen launched a petition calling for the setting up of a tribunal to look into his conduct.

It took the form of a letter sent out by two priests to every other priest in the St David's diocese asking them to back calls for a tribunal.

The letter argued that a tribunal would be an opportunity to see whether there was just cause for a perception of conduct giving rise to scandal or offence.

The writers were at pains to stress that they were making no assumption that there was anything to discover.

In concluded with an appeal for a united prayer for the bishop and everyone involved.

At the time, Archbishop of Wales Dr Barry Morgan said he had received no such letter signed by clerics calling for an investigation.

But a short time later it was announced that the bishop at the centre of the controversy had agreed to take a temporary leave of absence.

Now the Church in Wales has announced that the temporary leave of absence has become permanent.

"The Bishop of St Davids, the Rt Reverend Carl Cooper, has resigned," a Church in Wales spokesman said. "He has apologised for any of his actions that have caused offence and made it impossible for him to continue his ministry as Bishop of St Davids.

"The Archbishop and the Bench of Bishops of the Church in Wales have accepted the resignation as being in the best interests of the diocese and the Church in Wales at this time."

SearchQuery: The Web Go
© Legal Terms & Policies | E-mail sign-up | RSS | Contact us | Syndication | Work for INM | Advertising Guide | Group Sites | London Careers


Author: Afi Posted: 2008-05-01 08:07:45
Is this not the same Rosa Whitaker who was involved with the Kuffuor government and AGOA? The one who was sued by a Ugandal lady for breach of contact etc. Ei Osofos of today. Anyway Duncan has always been obsessed with more cash

complicated issue

Author: matilda Posted: 2008-05-01 14:20:32
It is written in the good book that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god. Also written that we shouldn't judge men of God, and again written in the same book that to forgive is divine, what surpasses my understanding is why is God ever loving no matter what we do, our sins even murder he forgives if only we open our mouth to confess and ask for forgiveness, he does and gives us a clean or fresh start,so far we have only heard one side of the story has his old wife mama francesca come out to say exactly what really happened before the famous spilt, what am trying to say is duncan williams knows the bible like the back of his hands if he is really a true man of God why and why again didnt he forgive mama francesca no matter what she did be it adultery, unfaithful or whatever, i think that by marrying again to lady rosa or whatever he has comfirmed that he simply hasn't got the spirit of forgiveness in him, how about lady rosa if she should step on his husband toes or sin (whatever sin) in the sight of arch bishop duncan williams, the question is will he be willing whole heartedly to forgive her and why not mama francesca of over 26 years of marriage.

Do not point fingers

Author: Daniel Jones- Quartey Posted: 2008-05-01 22:28:31
Chairman remember what you said to one of your faithful members back in those early days by the name of Godwin Dey, when he said he was divorcing his lovely wife Doris Dey . whrefore I remind you that he who claim to have no sin let him cast the stone , God is still in the business of judging all flesh , this is food for thought, may the almighty God have mercy on you .However I do believe that you owe this man an apology for doing the same damm shit,for the bible say all have sin and have come of the glory of god.

Duncan-Williams Outdoors a new

Author: john Ganyo Posted: 2008-05-02 04:20:22
I agree with the Archbishop.Is it better to stay and commit physical adultery or re-marry and allow God to judge.Who are you,to judge your neighbour.Put yourself in his shoes and tell me what you would do in the circumstances.Our God is a God of second chance.

Re-marry with no stree

Author: Atem Billy Posted: 2010-07-20 08:49:01
I so very much love the Bishop cause his messages has changed my life. For a man of God like him to remain unmarried is not good so to is the best thing for him to do.

Stanic Duncan Williams

Author: HOWARD Posted: 2010-10-19 09:19:24
This man is a satanist posing as a man of God.Jesus said the children of lucifer shall be known by their fruit.God says he hates divorce so hence this man is lucifer himself.

Lets not Judge Other

Author: Bradley David Poku Posted: 2011-11-02 00:52:24
Are we not afraid to criticise men that God had chosen and is using? Why not allow God himself to be the Judge. If you read your bibles well, you will stop condemning men of God. It is a very dangerous thing to do. Can God not speak for Himself or does He not know what is good and evil? Ghanaians should be very careful of what we say. Leave Arch Bishop Duncan Williams alone. For the things we judge and condemn people of, we are 1000 times guilty of the same things. For there is none righteous, no not one.


Author: CIA Posted: 2011-12-16 23:11:51
Comments on Duncan-Williams Outdoors new wife

Due to limited space we do not publish comments on comments on this page.

News Categories
Site Menu