Posted on 01/04/2005 12:24:26 PM PST by Keyes2000mt
The words were said countless thousands of times last year as a minister concluded the ceremony. "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." But so often man and woman do.
While gay marriage has been roundly condemned in most churches (and rightly so), you will not hear much about divorce. In many cases, if divorce is discussed in church, it's talked about as this horrible circumstance that comes upon people, listed in the same breath as automobile accidents or serious illnesses.
The Bible is quite clear on the issue of divorce. Malachi 2:16 says it clearly, "For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away (i.e. Divorce)..." Hate's a strong word and Christ reiterates this in the New Testament. Yet, in the church, even in Conservative churches, a man is more likely to feel uncomfortable with pierced ear than with a couple divorces behind him.
There's good reason why the church and conservatives are skittish about this topic. There's no one who doesn't know someone who's been divorced. They fill our church pews every Sunday. We know them to be decent folks who agree with us on a lot of cultural issues. Randall Terry, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh have all been divorced.
We also know folks who have been victimized by their ex-spouse: abused, cheated on, and treated like dirt. Or, perhaps you dear reader have had a divorce where you weren't at fault and that you didn't choose.
On the other hand, most Christians know very few homosexuals and even less know homosexuals who'd like to get married. The odds of a pastor offending a large tither whose gay and wants to get married is quite small.
To say our current divorce rate is a national sin is not to say that all divorcees are to be condemned and treated as despicable outcasts. The church should be compassionate, but even as Christ said, "Go and sin no more," It must be proactive in dealing with divorce.
Divorce must be taught against strongly in the church. The church as a community should be dedicated to helping preserve the marriages of the church. Strengthening the marriages of believers should be considered as important if not more so than evangelism. Children of broken homes often wander spiritually and in many cases fall from faith. Thus, a large church may win 100 converts, but if it produces 40 broken homes in the same year that leads to 100 angry and embittered children, it is not truly building the Kingdom of God.
Also, church discipline should be used when appropriate for those who divorce without just cause and refuse reconciliation efforts. Watching Cornerstone Television, I saw former NFL player and Pastor of Antioch Bible Church Ken Hutcherson. He organized the Mayday for Marriage rally in Washington, DC opposing gay marriage. Call him anything you like, but don't call him a gay-hating hypocrite. Hutcherson said that in the past year, he'd censured five members of the church, including some for ending marriages without just cause.
The structure of most Protestant Churches is anti-authoritarian and the idea of church discipline is scary to most of us as we've heard horror stories about how cults have abused it. However, desperate times call for desperate measures and a biblical use of church discipline could aid in preserving marriages.
Secular Action
The devastating number of divorces is an area where the interests of church and state collide. Studies have shown that divorces lead to economic problems for states and communities, as well as the long term problems that come from children of broken marriages. It's no accident that the richest states are those with the lowest divorce rates.
The fact is that anyone who finds themselves in a bad marriage made a mistake at one time or another. Half the time, their biggest mistake was getting married in the first place. To prevent these bad matches or to help get the marriage off on a better start, marrying couples should be required to undergo several hours of marriage classes and/or marital counseling from a licensed minister or marriage counselor.
Secondly, no-fault divorce laws must be reformed. Marriage is the most important relationship a person has legally, yet it has all the force and effect of a month-to-month lease thanks to no-fault divorce laws. The laws should be reformed so a no-fault divorce can only be obtained if both parties consent. This would also reduce the court costs associated with issues of custody and division of the property as a no-fault divorce could only be obtained if both parties were agreed on it.
Those who believe in gay marriage have pointed to divorce as an argument against those who seek to protect marriage from same sex unions. I reject the argument that one evil prospering requires that we allow another blow to traditional family values. However, preserving the family is about more than one single issue and if we're going to be serious about it, we have to address all the issues that threaten the survival of the Family.
Divorce and Remarriage
|
Few subjects stir the emotions like the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. It cuts to the core of our most intimate relationships and touches virtually every family to some degree. For these reasons, many refuse to discuss the issue at all. Others search for easy and painless solutions to complicated and often sinful situations. Neither approach serves the cause of truth. The Ideal vs. Modernism Most Christians are aware of God's ideal plan for marriage. From the early chapters of Genesis we learn: (1) that we are created in God's image, on a higher moral plane than the animals, (2) that God ordained the marriage relationship, (3) that marriage is between a man and a woman, (4) that to marry is to "cleave," implying a life-long commitment, and (5) that in marriage we can enjoy the richest blessings of companionship and sexual fulfillment. This biblical ideal stands in sharp contrast to the modern view of marriage. Basing their ideas on humanist philosophies (atheism, evolution, moral relativism, etc.), many view marriage as a relic of antiquity — a product of societal evolution. Others are attempting to redefine the very concept of marriage, in an effort to justify homosexual and lesbian relationships. Still others view marriage as a curse — an unwelcome hindrance to a carefree and self-gratifying lifestyle. In view of these perceptions, we are not surprised to find that divorce, to many, is a readily accepted alternative to a "bad marriage." Having long since abandoned biblical authority, they feel free to divorce and remarry at will. The real heartbreak, however, comes in knowing that many Christians are following the same path. Few do so by an outright rejection of biblical authority. Most seek to justify divorce and remarriage on more sophisticated grounds, arguing a variety of different views from a variety of different passages, but all having the same result: the loosening of God's plain law on divorce and remarriage. Matthew 19:9 A pivotal New Testament text on the subject is Matthew 19:9. "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." In this passage Jesus considers two possible scenarios. The outcome of either one is an adulterous relationship. The first scenario is simple. Whoever (Christian or non-Christian) shall put away (send away, boot her out) his wife and marry another, commits adultery. The only exception to this rule is the putting away of an unfaithful spouse. In such a case, the one who puts away the unfaithful spouse is free to remarry without being in adultery. The second scenario is equally simple. Whoso (Christian or non-Christian) shall marry a person who has been put away (sent away, booted out), commits adultery — no exception. One would seem hard-pressed to find any loopholes in such plain language, but multitudes attempt it. Their efforts range from the absurd to the plausible, yet all seek to do an "end-run" around God's simple law. This is not to say that all such are dishonest. It is simply to say there are two types of seekers in the world: those who are seeking truth, and those who are seeking an excuse. At all costs, we must be numbered among the truth-seekers. Searching for an excuse to justify an unlawful relationship is a sure sign of a hardened heart. Denominational Objections When preaching the simple truth on Matthew 19:9, one may be accused of being factious or contentious. Some, indeed, are guilty of preaching truth with a bad disposition. The answer, however, is not to stop preaching truth, but to preach in meekness (2 Tim. 2:24-25). Similarly, one may be accused of not showing enough love, but again the solution is not to cease preaching the truth. In fact, love rejoices in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6); thus, we should speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Others admonish us to preach only the positive, inspirational aspects of marriage — but faithful preaching of the gospel demands warning and rebuke as well as exhortation (2 Tim. 4:2). Considering the current trends, warning on this subject is needed everywhere, and rebuke is needed in many places. We are also told not to judge, and objectors quote Matthew 7:1. The same objectors fail to consider the next four verses (which clarify the subject as hypocritical judging), or the plain command of Jesus in John 7:24 to "judge righteous judgment." Objections Based on Matthew 19 Some claim that nothing is said in Matthew 19:9 about the guilty party remarrying. On the contrary, a guilty party who puts away his innocent wife is forbidden to remarry per the first scenario. A guilty party who is put away is for-bidden to remarry per the second scenario. So much for the guilty party. Others claim that Jesus is simply clarifying the Mosaic code on divorce and remarriage, implying that it is not a part of the gospel; however, the context strongly suggests otherwise. The Mosaic law gave permission for divorce under certain circumstances because of the hardness of their hearts (vv. 7-8). The code which Jesus offered in verse 9 is clearly on a higher plane and more restrictive than the Mosaic code (note the disciples' surprise in verse 10). Still others find solace in verse 11: "All men cannot receive this saying." They interpret this phrase to mean that not everyone is able to abide by the teaching of verse 9, thus Jesus nullified his own law. Such absurdities are characteristic of those searching for an excuse. Again, the context suggests that in verse 11 Jesus is commenting on the subject of celibacy, not the Law of verse 9. Some would say that "whosoever" is not really referring to the whole world, but only to Christians. The implication is that non-Christians are free to divorce and remarry at will. Some of this persuasion believe that non-Christians are not under any law; others believe that non-Christians are under a general moral law. Both teach that non Christians are not subject to the law of Christ. In response, consider: (1) Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18), (2) the gospel is addressed to all (Mk. 16:15), (3) the words of Christ will be the standard of judgment (Jn. 12:48), (4) disobedience to the gospel will be the basis of punishment (2 Thess. 1:7-9), and (5) God at one time tolerated ignorance, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). Objections Based on 1 Corinthians 7 Quoting from verses 17, 20, and 24, some argue that individuals who are in an adulterous marriage upon be-coming Christians, are justified in staying in that relationship. The immediate context, however, is clearly focused on non-sinful options: single vs. married, married to an unbeliever vs. married to a believer, circumcised vs. uncircumcised, slave vs. free. By no stretch of the imagination can these verses be used to justify a sinful relationship (shades of Romans 14!). Others focus on verse 15, stating that "not under bond-age" means that an abandoned spouse has a right to remarry. Besides contradicting the simple law of Christ in Matthew 19:9, this view forces a definition on the word "bondage" (Greek, douloo) which is nowhere else found in Scripture, de-spite its very common usage. In the context, Paul is not referring to the marriage bond (Greek, deo — vv. 27, 39; Rom. 7:2), but to a virtual slavery, by which a committed Christian woman might feel compelled to chase after the husband who has deserted her. Objections Based On Definitions On the concept of forgiveness, some argue that God is able to forgive all sin, even adultery. Certainly, no one disagrees with this. But the implication is that individuals who have violated God's law on divorce and remarriage simply need to ask forgiveness. Nothing more, they say, is required. Notice, however, that forgiveness is always conditioned on repentance. Whether a non-Christian (Acts 2:38), or a Christian (Acts 8:22), repentance is required — and while the technical definition of repentance involves a change of mind, the practical definition involves a change of behavior (Matt. 3:8), including any restitution (Lk. 19:8) or altering of current life-style (Ezra 10:1-4). Some of the Corinthians had been adulterers. They became Christians and were justified (implying forgiveness), but they were also sanctified (implying right-living — 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Some today want the justification without the sanctification. The term "adultery" is often misused. Some view it as a one-time act, rather than an on-going condition. Of course, one act of unfaithfulness would certainly qualify as adultery, but an individual who is in an adulterous marriage is in a perpetually adulterous condition as long as their rightful spouse lives (Rom. 7:2-3). Furthermore, Paul argues that it is possible to "live in" adultery, implying a perpetual condition (Col. 3:5-7). Another abuse of the concept of adultery confuses the metaphorical use of the term with the literal use. Quoting from Jeremiah 3 and James 4:4, we are told that adultery may include virtually any sin, from abuse to drunkenness. Such sloppy exegesis is a violent twisting of the Scripture. Jesus is not speaking metaphorically in Matthew 19. We have no right to so interpret it. A simplistic concept of the marriage "bond" has led to some sinful relationships. These view marriage as no more than a covenant between two people. If it is broken for one, they argue, it is broken for both; thus, the guilty fornicator can remarry. But the marriage bond is not so simple. God has done the joining, and God makes the rules for loosing. A guilty fornicator who has put away his innocent spouse, or a guilty fornicator who has been put away, cannot remarry. To remarry is to commit adultery (see earlier arguments). Regardless of our understanding of "bond," he is in adultery simply because God said he is. To reject such a plain statement is to reject Christ's authority. Miscellaneous Objections Others argue that because some people commit adultery in their hearts (Matt. 5:28) and are allowed to continue in fellowship with the saints, therefore those who commit the physical act of adultery should be allowed to continue in fellowship. Besides ignoring the plain thrust of 1 Corinthians 5, this position overlooks the fact that we are only able to judge others by their fruits (Matt. 7:16-20). Emotions are often appealed to in such discussions, especially if children are involved. Children are, indeed, the most pitiful victims of divorce. This is one reason we should preach so boldly on the sanctity of marriage. Yet, many who did not hesitate to break up their families to please themselves, refuse to do so to please God. Such individuals need to read Ezra 10. Humane arrangements can be made to provide for children — but we cannot simply ignore God's word with an appeal to emotion. Finally, some say that making things right is simply too difficult. Jesus responds, "There is no man that hath left ... wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting" (Lk. 18:29-30). Many of your brothers and sisters have made difficult decisions — including the decision to die for the Lord. After all, where the kingdom is involved, is any decision really too difficult? Indeed, divorce and remarriage is an emotional and difficult issue. But death is also emotional. The second coming of Jesus is emotional. The judgment is emotional. Eternity is emotional. Heaven and hell are emotional. We must make a choice — but we will endure the very real consequences of that choice forever. |
Even after reading your posts, I'm still trying to figure out your reason for posting them.........
I,for one,was insulted,called names,and harassed,by someone who had no other means at hand,to deal with a factual post.
YOU presume to know GOD's inner most thoughts and feelings.You don't.
You came into this fray,because "what you saw made you want to puke". Your words. You didn't approve of anyone standing up for themselves,against a hailstorm of insults and calumny spewed by people who you agree with. That's YOUR problem and a rather large one,at that;since reading things that aren't in lockstep with your way of thinking,makes you so ill,that you want to vomit,you really should go live in some remote place,where you can blissfully ignore those who don't share your views.
I was called "JEZEBEL" by someone. I'm not divorced. I've never committed adultery,before,nor after I was married. There is absolutely NO way that that slur of a sobret is fitting. But,and I am assuming that you put me into the "clique",you found nothing at all wrong with THAT behavior...only in the behavior and replies of those women (NOT THE MEN!),who were taking the other side of the debate.
Objective? You haven't been "objective" since you began to post.Neither have you been truthful about who said what to whom and when.You took one side and that has colored ever single reply you've posted.
When will YOU take exception to those on your side,who who took this personal and attacked others with ridiculous and spurious names like "JEZEBEL" and "cackling" and "immature little girls"? My guess is never.
We all are...sometimes. :-)
Walk a mile in my shoes before you judge my character.
Well they do speak to the topic at hand.
Do you not find them to be informative in any way?
Bless you.
And happy anniversary. I'm coming up on 8 next month.
I personally don't care what the sanctimonious twits say about me, I'm a big girl with an aligator hide..........but some others don't and I try to look out for them.
You are advocating something that could be very, very dangerous to a woman who reads and comes to believe it. You should be very sure of your position or you may find yourself with the burden of moral responsibility for the physical harm some sociopath does to a woman.
Whether or not I find them informative is immaterial. I asked you about you point in posting them.
I would certainly not say it is better.
Divorce for reasons other than infidelity of the spouce is a sin and can be forgiven as with any other sin. We all sin and fall short.
The real problem lies in a divorced persons eligability to remarry.
Isn't that what most have been pushing throughout this thread?
To be informative.
They state my understanding and position on the matter better than I can.
I divorced and remarried - if you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine. It's also none of your business, so get over it.
Okay,here are a few hypotheticals...........
If a husband commits adultery,his wife,according to your view of Matthew,can't divorce him.If he molests their children,she can't divorce him,if he beats her to a bloody pulp,she can't divorce him,and if he does anything horrific at all,she can't divorce him,otherwise,it's a SIN and if she does divorce him and remarries,she's committing adultery. Is that it?
I believe scripture is very plain on the matter.
I have to get to work. I'm sorry to say, this thread has not been pleasant. Not in the least.
No, my understanding is that the exception holds true for either the husband or the wife. If he commits adultery she is free to divorce and remarry. No sin on her part.
Sticking with the language I feel appropriate for my 6yo to hear.....You are a DINGBAT.
And on that note I'm am going to place my head on my pillow and continue this discussion after my daughter goes to school in the morning.
Maybe by then you will have comer to your senses.
You're right, it has not been pleasant....not at all.
Good night, FRiends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.