Funny thing. There is one very big problem our society faces about which Christians are almost completely silent. There don't seem to be any voices crying in the wilderness, let alone on Main Street. No one is calling for changes to the laws or beating their chests protesting the sin and its damage to our people. Also, oddly enough, it is a sin about which most of us are in agreement. I use the word "most" there to be generous, because I don't know of and have never heard of anyone who actually disagrees. I just wanted to allow for the possibility.
This particular sin about which people are almost entirely silent has devastating effects on people and society. No one doubts it for a moment. It causes the loss of friends, produces guilt (both in those who do the sin and those who surround it), causes loss of identity, loneliness, loss of security, anxiety, fear, sleeplessness, dislocation, worry, withdrawal, financial damage ... oh, the list keeps going and going. Adults are injured, to be sure, but the common wisdom is that the most damaged by this sin are the children. Author Pat Conroy said of this particular sin that each time is "the death of a small civilization."
According to WABC, "New York is the only state in the union that doesn't allow a 'no fault' divorce, but that may soon change." It seems that on Tuesday, June 15, "the New York State Senate vote[d] 32 to 27 giving New York no-fault divorce." If this goes into law, then, the United States will be entirely under a "no-fault" divorce system.
What does the Bible have to say about it? "Wait!" you stop me. "The Bible doesn't have anything to say about 'no-fault' divorce. What nonsense!" Now, now, let's see.
And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" (Matt 19:3).Now, be careful. You may try to reword that question. "Is there any cause for which it is lawful to divorce one's?" That wasn't the question. The debate was between two schools of thought on the subject. One said that divorce for any reason whatsoever was perfectly acceptable and the other was that it could only be for reasons of "uncleanness". (Remember, divorce in biblical times was never for adultery. That was a capital offense. If your spouse cheated on you, you didn't get a divorce; you got widowed.) So what was the question? "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" The question, essentially, is about no-fault divorce. Do you really need a reason to get a divorce, or can you get divorced for any reason at all?
Jesus's reply was, in fact, shocking. So shocking was His reply that His disciples responded, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." What answer did He give that caused such a reaction?
Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate (Matt 19:4-6).His answer? No! There is no reason for divorce. Not "no-fault" -- no reason. His answer to their straightforward question was a straightforward reply: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
"Ah!" you quickly say, "What about His famous 'exception clause'? What about the next line? Don't leave that out." No, we don't want to leave that out. I just wish to point out that the question was asked and answered. I'll actually leave the next line for another time or even for others to examine, because this was the point that I want to get at. Jesus's opinion of divorce is "never".
I said that we all agree about this sin. Of course, that will also receive an objection. But no one (no one in their right minds, no one that I've ever heard of) starts a marriage with the aim of divorce. No one enters into a "lifelong commitment" with the expectation of terminating it. One of the reasons marriage is on the decline is that young people bemoan the fact that so many marriages end up in divorce. They see that as "bad". We all agree that divorce is bad. So here's my question: Why are we so silent on it? Why are we pounding our fists against homosexual behavior and abortion and sexual immorality but giving this very clear sin of divorce the silent treatment? Why, when someone does put their hand up and say, "Ahem ... is it possible that divorce is a sin?", they get shouted down by the secular and by Christians? These things, brethren, ought not be.
19 comments:
Well, I guess I missed the 'shouting down' stuff. Most conservative Christians agree that divorce is a sin.
As for why it is so accepted I can give you at least two reasons:
1) The first is that unlike murder (abortion) and Sodomy, Divorce is not a civil crime. Scripture teaches that divorce is a moral crime to be condemned, not a civil crime to be punished.
2) The second is that we accept divorce from the very first step in our marriages. Dating and courtship both include 'divorce' as integral (and indeed even as a 'positive') part of their principles. You cannot then 'blame' their practitioners when the take this to its logical extreme.
von: "I guess I missed the 'shouting down' stuff."
You haven't had the conversations I have. I've claimed that it was a sin and "conservative Christians" have responded, "Yes! ... Well, as long as you're not talking about adultery ... or abandonment ... or abuse ... or ..." And their lists are long. Most conservative Christians believe it to be a sin only under certain conditions.
von: "Dating and courtship both include 'divorce' as integral (and indeed even as a 'positive') part of their principles."
I understand in general what you're getting at, but I don't get this suggestion that it's regarded as a "positive". I thought the aim of dating and courtship was to find a partner that they could marry for life, not that they could divorce. You know, "we're so compatible". They're thinking, "How can you know if you'll get along for life if you don't date/court (or more)?" Isn't the aim to avoid divorce?
Ah, maybe you don't quite get what I am talking about. Dating and courtships are considered a 'success' under one of two condtions:
1) You DO marry the RIGHT person or
2) You DO NOT marry the WRONG person.
So you enter into the 'dating' or 'courting' relationship. You become 'boy/girlfriends'. And then, somewhere along the way, you or someone else 'discovers' that this relationship 'isn't right'; and so you 'break up' (ie, divorce).
Then you try again. That was Mr. Wrong, now you try for Mr. Right... by entering into relationships with a series of Mr Maybe's. Each of which you 'divorce' until you finally find 'Mr Right'.
And then, after a few years of watching him roll the toothpaste the wrong way, leave the toilet seat up, etc. etc., your old instincts kick in and you suddenly 'discover' that you are 'incompatible'... and you divorce.
>>You haven't had the conversations I have.
Oh, I've had those. See mennodiscuss.com and search on me and divorce. I just haven't seen them 'shouting'. Mostly the speak in low tones of 'the unfortunate necessity' etc.
Now, on abortion and Sodomy I have seen the other side shout.
von: "Ah, maybe you don't quite get what I am talking about."
Okay, I see my original error. You're approaching it from a betrothal perspective. A couple of problems here.
1. Do you consider the dating and courtship approach as betrothal? I would think that they are two methods. I would think that in your view that is a wrong method. I wouldn't consider them the same thing by any means. So I wouldn't see a relationship that "breaks up" as a divorce because there was no betrothal involved.
2. You said that the dating/courtship approach sees divorce as a positive. Assuming that approach is indeed a betrothal, I still don't know of anyone who sees "breaking up" as a positive. You know ... "breaking up is hard to do." It's not pleasant. It's not positive.
Certainly you see the betrothal approach as the only right one. I get that. I won't even argue it. But I'm not entirely sure your evaluation that dating/courting breeds divorce is accurate since the dating/courting approach has been in play for quite a long time (good or bad) and it is only in the last half of the 20th century that divorce has become so prevalent. That is, the dating/courtship approach did not used to produce divorces like it does now. I'm not sure the evidence would support your argument.
von: "I just haven't seen them 'shouting'."
Try telling them that there is no biblical justification whatsoever for a divorce on the basis of abuse. Try telling them that divorce precludes remarriage. Oh, yeah, they'll get agitated. At least, some. Try, for instance, telling a Christian woman who divorced her husband because he was abusive that it was a sin to do so. That will not be a "low tone" response. ;)
I see I overspoke and was confusing. Well, I'm sick, and so need a bit of grace. Let me rephrase:
In dating and courtship the young man and young woman are encouraged to enter into a 'relationship'. This 'relationship' is not the 'brother and sister' relationship allowed for in Scripture, nor is it the husband wife relationship also allowed for in Scripture. It is a third, disallowed, relationship of quasi-covenant which goes by the name of 'boyfriend/girlfriend'.
One of the basis of this relationship is that it is actually encouraged to 'break up'... to end the relationship at the whim of any of the participants. This 'breaking up' is considered a positive thing because, as you point out, they are supposed to be shooting for a (false and unBiblical)idea of 'compatibility' with the (false and unBiblical) principle that only 'compatible' people should be, or will be able to remain, married.
As Chesterton said, "If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible."
It is the duty of a husband to love and lead his wife... not to be 'compatible' with her. It is the duty of the wife to love and submit to her husband, not to be 'compatible' with her.
And it is certainly not the duty of either of them, at any stage of their relationship (including the unBiblical stage of 'dating') to determine their 'compatibility', never mind deciding to end their relationship on that basis. 'It is not good for man to be alone'. It is not any better for them to be alone because they have failed to find someone 'compatible'.
Bottom line, of course, is that we are in agreement that divorce is sin ... and that we are in the minority with that view.
>>Bottom line, of course, is that we are in agreement that divorce is sin ... and that we are in the minority with that view.
Yes, divorce is sin. Altho, since divorce is not a person, you really have to be a little more specific and say 'those who divorce' sin. Which could lead to some interesting discussions on what exactly it is to 'divorce'.
Now I would add that divorce *laws* are also sin, at least those which differ from the rather stark Biblical laws. As are marriage *laws*. And the church is rather due to get confronted with the results of their support, over the years, for marriage laws; as these same laws get turned against them.
I don't know if you read my post,"http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/2010/06/citizens-magazine-scores-own-goal.html"??
von: "I don't know if you read my post..."
I did.
Merely curious and not really up to a lengthy dialog on this, but ...
"Marriage laws are a sin"
Is it sinful for government entities to regulate in any way at all marriage? Since I don't see any such prohibition in Scripture (against government regulating marriage), I'm not sure on what you base that. I suspect it's because I didn't understand you.
Well, keeping in mind that I am a theonomist, the general principle is this:
The laws of God are perfect, thus anything that either adds to or subtracts from His law is... wrong.
Not that we can't take His laws and applying them appropriately is wrong. But God's laws lay out very important jurisdictions; and adding to them is adding to His law, and subtracting from some other jurisidiction.
In this case God's law gives the jurisdiction, and thus the responsibility for any sin in this area, to the husband. It is to the husband that it is said, "Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. Deu 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. "
This jurisdiction, then, is with the husband. Not the state. We don't improve God's law (and how much have we seen this recently?) by adding areas into the State's jurisdiction.
The Deuteronomy reference, of course, is only a partial delineation of God's law on the matter. In fact, Jesus said that was given due to hardness of heart. When asked if there was any reason for divorce, Jesus said, "What God has joined together, let no man separate." It was, in fact, in reference to that Deuteronomy reference, because the idea was that "uncleanness" could be anything at all that displeased the husband. From the New Testament, at best we can find only two possible reasons for divorce: 1) sexual immorality, and 2) desertion. While the Deuteronomy reference allows remarriage for any type of divorce over "uncleanness", Jesus and Paul were more stringent.
But it is your view, then, that a government that regulates marriage for, say, accounting purposes (by "regulates" I simply mean that they require registration of marriages) would not merely be unwise; it would sinning. Seems like Paul's command in Romans 13, then, is foolish and redundant. If the government is only allowed morally to legislate God's laws, then "obey the government" is merely an echo of "obey God" and entirely useless. As a prime example, no biblical law exists to preclude polygamy, but you say that we must not do it because it is illegal by government mandate. Isn't that a sin?
No, Jesus and Paul did not disagree with the law. The law stated what was civily 'allowed', it did not define sin. Even in the OT God made it clear that he hates divorce. Not all sins are subjects of civil law punishment.
>>Seems like Paul's command in Romans 13, then, is foolish and redundant.
Not, not at all, but much otherwise. God's law is always mediated through a series of authorities. Part of His law is obedience to those authorities, within their jurisdictions.
The prodigal son, for example, demonstrates the authority of the father, as does Jer 35.
It is when an authority steps outside of his jurisdiction, as we see with Daniel, that we are to disobey them.
>>As a prime example, no biblical law exists to preclude polygamy, but you say that we must not do it because it is illegal by government mandate. Isn't that a sin?
Isn't what a sin? The government mandate? Yes. Our obedience to it? no... unless it breaks some other of God's laws. (which I can think of only a couple examples of.)
If we were commanded to marry multiple wives, then obeying the gov't would indeed be a sin... as we see with Daniel and the food issue.
von: "If we were commanded to marry multiple wives, then obeying the gov't would indeed be a sin."
Wait ... you confused me again. I thought you argued that polygamy was sanctioned by God. If the government commanded it and God sanctions it, why would it be a sin to do it?
Sorry, let me restate:
"If we were commanded *by God* to marry a second wife, and forbidden *by the government* from marrying a second wife... then obeying the government would be sin.
Here's another reason you don't hear Christians being so loud about divorce: Most have had one (or more) themselves and don't want to lump themselves into the same category as those other sinners... you know, the homosexuals and sodomites.
My experience around Christians is that while pretty much all of them admit they are sinners, they are loathe to get too specific. Especially about sin they tend to condemn... and in order to do that, they have to leave divorce off the list.
Yeah, we're not to good at "confess your sins one to another" ... for reasons I don't fully understand. It is, in my opinion, a failing with serious consequences.
Interesting discussion. Don't think there's any sanction for polygamy anywhere in the Bible unless I don't understand the definition of the word. I merely say there was tolerance for it. There may have been no Levitical law against it, but clearly it is outside God's intention.
Anyway, it has been my experience that I've heard on more than one occasion some who have stated before their big day, "Well, if it doesn't work out, we'll just get divorced."
Anytime I've heard someone speak of divorce, I always encourage them to do all they can, above and beyond the call of duty, to prevent a divorce from happening. My position is that no matter how bad the marriage, the vow was taken and is required to be seen through to it's natural end. But I am aware that many ministers and priests will recommend divorce and annulments (a term I never understood---it's supposed to mean it never happened. Where did God lay out THAT option?) when someone laments how bad their marriage is.
I just know that I took that vow and no matter how long I have to keep her tied up in the closet, my wife and I will stay together until one of us dies. :)
Great post Stan! This IS an important issue, and yet it seems to not get any notice.
Post a Comment