|
|
| |
 - Endorsed - Indifferent - Contested
|
| |
| The Nashville Statement
|
| |
|
|
| |
Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
|
| |
Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich
His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole
[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train
This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos
Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead
There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
|
| |
|
email
|
|
| 1021: When Is Divorce Sanctioned By God? |
IN THE CASE OF "ACTUAL" ADULTERY
I say, "actual" adultery, because there are some situations where some would argue that adultery has taken place, when in fact it has not.
Consider the married woman who is raped. She has not committed "adultery" against her husband in becoming the victim of a violent sexual crime. She has been sexually violated, but she has not committed adultery.
Consider the husband who fantasizes about women other than his wife. Christ tells us in the sermon on the mount that this man has already committed adultery with the woman (or women) of his fantasies in his heart. In this part of the sermon, our Lord is exposing the erroneous Pharisaic concept of righteousness: "...unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven". The Pharisee believed that the believer attained righteousness by keeping the letter of the law; Christ was showing that righteousness required more than merely keeping the law externally. The man who hated his brother, and desired him to die, but refused to kill him - this man was not righteous, but as full of sin as the one who actually killed his brother. The man who lusted after a married woman was as sinful as the man who committed adultery. By expressing righteousness in these terms, Christ showed that those who believed you could by your way into heaven by good works were sadly mistaken - your righteousness had to be heart-deep, and not merely external.
Given that, I don't think that our Lord was saying that if a married man lusted after a woman other than his wife, that he had committed "actual" adultery - rather his point was that the man who lusted but kept himself from the external act, was just as much a sinner as the man who carried out his lust in actuality.
Thus the husband who lusts after another woman hasn't committed "actual" adultery, and therefore the wife has no grounds to divorce him on the grounds of adultery. If the man is in bondage to porn, his marriage is going to suffer, and it may eventually lead to actual adultery if he refuses to repent of it, but adultery in the heart is not the same thing as committing adultery.
Our modern age convolutes this whole idea.
Consider the married woman who is emotionally estranged from her husband, and who begins to flirt with men "online" eventually ending in a sort of virtual courtship, including but not limited to say photo passing, phone calls, or even "virtual sex". Has this woman committed adultery? She has definitely committed "adultery in her heart" - and it is probably worse than the male version, for where a man lusts after the flesh of a woman, a woman typically lusts after a relationship. But even she has not committed adultery yet.
These things are sinful, and even cripplingly so - but they are not grounds for divorce, at least not according to scripture.
Now one might argue, and I am sure that someone has or will, that we cannot have it both ways. That is, that we cannot say on the one hand Christ was teaching that it is not the letter of the law, but the state of the heart that makes a man guilty of sin, and on the other that it is not the state of the heart, but the letter of the law that makes a person guilty of adultery. But that argument defeats itself because it is comparing apples to oranges. The law describes the sin of adultery, the state of the heart determines whether there is sin. There is certainly sin in adultery, but there is also sin apart from adultery. Actual adultery requires a genuine, physical consummation.
In the case of adultery, that is, in the case where one partner physically and in person engages in sexual activity with someone other than his or her spouse - that person is committing actual adultery, and his or her spouse is allowed, according to scripture to divorce the offending spouse, providing the partner who is committing adultery wants out of the marriage (see comments below, as David Kjos was quite instrumental in pointing this out to me).
That doesn't mean that the offended spouse is -required- to divorce his or her spouse, it only means that he or she is allowed to divorce his or her spouse.
But what if the offending spouse repents? What if the adulterer/ess begs for forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration. Is the offended partner required by scripture to accept reconciliation?
No, the offended partner is not required by scripture to take the adulterer/ess back.
Actually, upon prayerful reflection, I must retract my original answer. The offended party is indeed required by the whole counsel of scripture to take the repentant adulterer/ess back. Forgiveness -must- be given, and the person who refuses to restore a repentant has (in fact) refused to forgive them. Such a one is not walking in the commandments of Christ, and no church can in good conscience condone divorce when this is the case.
Thank you again David Kjos (see comments below) in challenging my thinking on this, and driving me to prayerfully reconsider it.
IN THE CASE OF "ACTUAL" AND "BIBLICAL" ABANDONMENT
Here I say "actual" because there are some who would argue that a person can "abandon" another by being, say, emotionally distant. etc. That is, some would argue that one can "abandon" another by simply failing to live up to an arbitrary level of relational attentiveness. This is however, so patently bunk I am saddened that I even have to take the time to address it. It is a ridiculous notion that finds support amongst those who want the rubber stamp of God on their divorce, even if they have to fudge the facts to get it.
Here again I say "biblical" because the abandonment mentioned in scripture is not just any sort of abandonment for any reason - but a very narrow sort: You must be a Christian, and your spouse must abandon you on account of not want to be married to a Christian - that is, your spouse so rejects Christ, that they leave the marriage on account of you being associated with Him.
It is not reciprocal: A believer is not allowed to divorce an unbelieving spouse on the grounds of his or her unbelief. That's not how it works. Only when the unbelieving spouse walks away from the marriage on the grounds of "not wanting to be married to a Christian" is the divorce biblical.
Other situations:
The abused spouse: You know the scenario. Whether the couple are both believers, or one is a believer, typically the stronger of the two (sometimes it's the woman) physically abuses the weaker of the two. Does the abused spouse have the (biblical) right to divorce the abusing spouse?
No, the abused does not. Here again, one might try and make the argument of abandonment, but that is as lame as it is misplaced. Here is one situation where the wisdom of the world collides head-on with the wisdom of God. If the abuser is a Christian the abuser ought to be disciplined by his or her church. Notwithstanding, whether the abuser is Christian or not, and whether discipline is taking place, the abused should always seek protection from the abuser through the laws of the land. If the laws of the land do not protect the abused, the abused can separate herself or himself from the abuser, but cannot pursue divorce on biblical grounds just because he or she is being abused.
Don't get me wrong. Abuse can be deadly, and it is very, very serious. I am not making light of it. No abused person is obligated by scripture or God to remain in danger. The wise man, scripture teaches, sees trouble coming, and avoids it. So also the abused is not only within his or her rights to protect themselves against abuse, but is encouraged to do so.
The fact of the matter is that abusive behavior, deplorable as it is, is not grounds for divorce.
The substance abuser spouse: The same can be said for substance abusers, etc. Being married to an undesirable spouse, a bad spouse, or even a dangerous spouse/parent is not grounds for divorcing them.
The "jerk" spouse: Sorry, but marrying a jerk is perfectly acceptable to God.
I don't love my spouse any more!: Too bad. Seriously, many are surprised to learn that the bible doesn't mention love as a pre-requisite to marriage. Loving your spouse can make a marriage more enjoyable, but just as love is not a biblical requirement for marriage, so also the lack of it is not a valid reason for divorce.
Closing thoughts
II am sure entire books are written on this topic, and all kinds of people will find all kinds of ways to justify divorce, but scripture is not so loose. Marriage pictures the union of Christ and His church, and divorce mars that image. It is never God's intention for any to divorce, God hates divorce.
That being said, I don't believe that it is theologically sound to suggest that God -will- save a failing marriage as long as someone in that marriage has faith. I have heard preachers follow up the "God hates marriage" quote with the teaching that for this reason we can pray that God will save a marriage, and that He will, so long as we do not faint in our faith. I think that is a stretch, and a dangerous one at that. God hates sin also, but that doesn't mean that if we ask God to stop us from sinning we will never sin again (how many of us would be sinless already were this so?).
Sadly there are far fewer Christians who are so committed to God that they would continue to invest themselves in a marriage that has turned for the worse. Just as the culture vows, "for better or else" so many in the church do as well. They are willing to stay in a married relationship so long as it continues to serve their interests or satisfy their needs, but as soon as they find themselves less than satisfied, they follow the world in divorce, and all the truths in scripture will not persuade them otherwise.
I offer no advice with this teaching other than to say that if you walk in the Spirit, come what may, it will be better for you than if you do not.Labels: divorce; |
posted by Daniel @
10:25 AM
15 comment(s)
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
