just curious
Okay, it seems that the love that dare not speak its name is once again sin of the month at signposts. But whenever the conversation starts about analysing 9 odd obscure verses in the bible and having arguments about the original greek and what it all meant, I am prompted to mention the elephant in the corner. And that is the sin which is clearly set out in the gospels in the words of Jesus, but which we seem much more willing to let people have a pass on.
31″It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (Matt 5:31-32)
And I think it is time that I own up to the fact that I am an adulterer and have been for close on 9 years now (assuming I can’t take advantage of the loophole that I didn’t marry a divorced woman). Phew, what a relief to get that off my chest.
We seem to have a lot of divorced people in churches these days. But according to the above, anyone who later marries one of these poor divorced people commits adultery. I have heard some talk about forgiveness and redemption for divorced people which enables them to be absolved of their sin. However, this seems to me to be inconsistent with the nature of that sin. Being divorced is a state of being. You can’t just take it back. It is, in the language of discussions about sexual sin, a “lifestyle choice”. Even more, being remarried is a specific decision (according to the above) to engage in adultery.
And yet, many contemporary churches have few problems having people who are divorced and remarried (deliberately remaining in a sinful lifestyle) in membership. I know this because our church is one of them. And I wouldn’t for a moment like to suggest that divorce should be handled differently. Likewise I am not for a moment suggesting that divorce is fine and no problems - I think it is definitely sinful.
However, isn’t this inconsistent with the way that some other sins are approached. First, what do you think of this - are we just wilfully ignoring a few fairly significant statements by Jesus and preferring to pretend he didn’t say them? Secondly, if you want to justify forgiveness of divorce and remarriage, what makes that different in nature from same sex or pre-marriage relationships (if you think that they are different).
I was trying to frame this in a way that tries to avoid too much discussion of the topic that shall not be mentioned but I am finding it hard to avoid.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
You’re off the hook…remember Dan, if you weren’t married in the true Church (RC) it wasn’t REALLY a marriage in the eyes of God. I know, ‘cos George Pell told me
Seriously, thankyou for putting your life on display in this way….I respect the immense courage you have in doing this.
I think the danger with using Biblical quotes like sections of the legal code is problematic. The Bible is a wholistic document, as is our tradition and our faith….individual verses and paragraphs need to be viewed in the light of the whole. I don’t see it as being in the nature of God to eternally punish someone for actions they may or may not have taken 5, 10 or 25 years ago.
Much of this comes from our understanding of what ’sin’ is…it is how good you’re not, not how bad you are. It’s the gap. It’s the fact that you and I aren’t God. So whether that is made manifest in lust, gluttony, divorce, parsimony, idolatry or a hundred and one other ways, doesn’t matter. You’re still not God.
And that’s what the Jesus bit is about.
Just my two cents….I’ll go back to writing speeches on the commodities boom now
September 25th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Good call Dan.
This post highlights why it’s more useful to use the word “brokenness” than “sin” - “sin” conveys something highly individualised, and implies that we can somehow escape from it (which, theologically speaking, we can - but that’s by Christ’s blood, not necessarily something we can literally escape from in the here and now). “Brokenness” is a much wider, more helpful concept.
This post also highlights why it’s more helpful to talk about sexual ethics, rather than focus on the specifics of sexual practice - it’s far more helpful to talk about love, commitment, stuff like that, than it is to focus on questions like “so, is it ok for two blokes to do A?”; “is it ok for two blokes to do B?”; and “is it ok for a man and a woman to do C?”.
I also think that talking about sexual ethics places discussions about sex within a broader framework of conversations about community, justice, management of money, and a whole range of things that either get ignored, or are discussed in a manner that divorces them from sex.
Finally - we tend to focus so much on “the rules” rather than “the principles” that we do a gross disservice to people struggling through these issues. I know I was brought up to think about “the principles”, while many young Christians I knew were basically brought up being told “thou shalt not have sex before marriage because blah chapter blah verse blah says thou shalt not”…such instructions are ineffective in that they fail to achieve what they’re supposed to, they guilt trip people, and they don’t help people develop a wholistic ethic or world view.
I’m not sure how much sense I’m making…thinking off the top of my head right now…
September 25th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
oh yeah…and thanks for your courage, Dan.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
You are obviously a horrible person unworthy of leadership.
It is quite the little hypocrisy isn’t it? But in the denomination that I was a part of in the states, you and Phil would be disallowed from being ministers. I was also denied a license for having an occasional cigar and glass of wine with dinner. As tobaco use and alcohol consumption were no no’s. My pastor asked the president of the denomination a great question, “would you license Jesus to be a pastor?” and they admitted they would not!!! Sickening. The having a former marriage disqualified you from ministry, but on the forum they never ask if you fathered a child outside of marriage, ever committed a crime, or if you were ever convicted of sexual crimes of any nature. A couple were denied a church in the organization because he had been married before he was saved, and divorced. He remarried his current wife and had been happily married for twenty five years, but were considered unfit for ministry.
Thanks for sharing Dan, you and Phil are wonderful, honest and courageous people, and you both inspire me.
rev
September 25th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
I know as a young reformed evangelical I was very hardline on divorce and remarriage — after all, I was one of the virtuously married (and still am, though after 30 years I think that has a lot less to do with virtue and a lot more to do with grace), and it’s so easy to be hardline about the issues you’ve never had to wrestle with. These days, hopefully, I have learned to know a little more about the heart of God — while His standards are absolutes to strive towards, and not something to just shrug our shoulders at, the reality is that we are all broken (spot on Bec, I totally agree) and we have to relate to God and one another each day from the place at which we find ourselves, not pretend we are somewhere else in order to produce a spurious holiness. Our only holiness is our knowledge of our absolute need of grace. we can’t put the spilled milk back in the jug, nor do I think God requires us to live a life of perpetual penance (like perpetual celibacy after divorce would be for some). If a marriage is irretrievably broken (and other things besides adultery can breach the covenant which marriage essentially is) we live in the situation in which we now find ourselves, seek forgiveness for our own part in any relational failure and move on. I think the church would do well to spend a little less time majoring on sexual sin and a little more time worrying about how those with chronic problems with say unrepentant anger, or stinginess or jealousy or gossip or whatever are also people “living in sin”
I’ve probably sidestepped all the exegetical questions, but good biblical theology always has to interpret a verse in the light of the totality of God’s revelation!
September 26th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Rev, you should have the cigar AFTER the meal, preferably with cognac!
The question is most often what do you do if you come to Christianity AFTER divorce.
In this case you obviously can’t go back and re-marry the first wife even if you wanted to.
For single Christians Jesus’s statement is to be obeyed.
This obviously can’t happen if your wife leaves you or in the unusual event she is bashing the living daylights out of you.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Yes, I do have the cigar after dinner. I used to enjoy the cigar with a espresso while sitting on the back porch studying for my sermons. I meant, I was denied license for having an occassional cigar, and for having a glass of wine with dinner. Raquel would never let me smoke in the house anyways.
rev
September 26th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Had I been aware from the very beginning that this blog was founded in unrighteousness and brought up in sin I am sure that I would never have sullied my own soul by being a part of it - but hey now I’m doomed along with the rest of you so i’ll just keep going on.
A friend of ours has recently come back from some womens conference in Katoomba. She went with some friends of hers from another church (see this is why it never pays to mix) and came away very confused and hurt. There was a panel discussion about divorce and marriage etc and the positions taken were extr hard line. My friend (an God bless her for her bravery) got up and asked them a few questions (she herself has been divorced twice) and apparenlty 50% of the women there started clapping for her.
Sin…we all like to look at the speck in our sisters and brothers eyes before pulling at the planks in our own…I think the whle point of anything being named sin is not so we don;t do it (although there are obviously reasons for some things such as murder and lying) but to point out to us the very sorry affoicitoin we all have -as Luke ointed out as well - we are nto God, we don;t readch his standards and we need God’s grace to even approach God….and God gives us this grace in abundance.
When I see sin - and I see lots in my own life - I thank God that I am loved despite my wickedness.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:49 am
If anyone ever heres me say I’m planning on remarrying my first wife I want;’ you all to promise to hunt me down and shoot me…and pray for her cause she’s obviosuly gone mad if she was planning on remarrying me!!!
I consider Jesus’ painting the absolute picture he did as saying to his listeners “You fols - you make all these rules for yourself thinking they will get you in te good books but can’t you see that the standard of acceptability is sooooooooooooooooo much higfher than even you can think of!” Jesus is caling us to let God love us and accpet us -and to love and accept others as God does - not to try to live perfect lives…it can;’t be done
September 26th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Well done Rev,
remember the context of Jesus. It was men who divorced and one of the religious elite held that a Jew could divorce his wife because she did not cook his food properly!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:33 am
But Rev… with cigars you don’t inhale!
September 26th, 2006 at 10:36 am
PLEASE NOTE BEFORE YOU READ ON: I’m not justifying divorce, saying it’s ok, or anything else, BUT…
As Homer points out, the mandate against divorce makes even more sense in the culture Jesus lived in. Women were property, completely vulnerable and often destitute if they were divorced. I’m also sure the average age of marrying in Jesus’ time was something like 15, and most people had families and were rapidly approaching the end of their life by about 35-45…
Again, note that I’m not justifying it or anything - I think that when divorce is certainly a product of and cause of brokenness in our world - but we do need to view these things within their historical context as well as within the context of Christian ethics as a whole.
As for the whole alcohol and smoking thing…Rev, I’m sure you, like me, have seen the ban on alcohol and smoking cause at LEAST as much brokenness as the actual acts themselves. There’s plenty of churches in Melbourne that have a ban on their leaders even having alcohol in their homes.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Some churches in Melbourne drive their pastors to drink, Bec
The divorce injunction is also given against the backdrop of two major competing schools of rabbinical thought at the time - that of Hillel, and that (I think - happy to be corrected) of Shammai. One held that women could be divorced for any reason, for trivialities, and that immediately. The other held that divorce was NEVER possible. Jesus is probably answering a devotee of one of these schools, likely Shammai, smacking them down for their irresponsible approach.
I always laugh when I hear people who treat texts such as these as ‘conservative’. There’s nothing’conservative’ about that sort of ridiculous interpretation. The historical church has never treated the Scriptures in that way. The term conservative implies that such use of the Bible has always been in vogue, when in fact it’s a very new development.
What it really is is not Biblical or ‘conservative’ or even ‘hard-line’. It’s manipulation, spiritual abuse and the practising of control, using the Bible as a pretext, a sort of spiritual Macgoffin. Nothing Christ-like or even Christian about it at all.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Yes that is true you do not inhale cigars, though I know a few people that do, I do not. I don’t smoke them very often anymore, because I tend to get sinus infections from the smoke. But I do like a nice cigar with an espresso or a glass of port now and again.
rev
September 26th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
There is something about sitting around a table with a couple of blokes drinking scotch, playing cards and sucking on a stogie.
I haven;’t done it for years - but it’s a great memory
September 26th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
hows your book going rev?
September 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
okay, need to discipline myself to write more, but it is coming.
rev
September 26th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
good to hear.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I was hoping to have a chapter about my experience speaking at a cafe in the sydney area, but apparently I am no longer wanted.
rev
September 26th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
I actually think in this discussion that largely speaking we are missing the point.
Traditionally Scripture has been used as a “road map for life”. Therefore, when we want to know how to respond to different issues (divorce and remarraige, homosexuality, or whatever…..) we go to the Bible to discern whether they are right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable.
I want to propose a different way of viewing the Bible. Different lenses so to speak. A paradigm shift….
I believe that the Bible is not so much a road map for life, but is a revelation of God. God reveals Himself to us in many ways. The written Word is one of those ways. His Spirit speaking to us is another. The life and teachings of Jesus another. Creation another yet again. That is why cultures who do not have access to the Bible can still have God reveal Himself to them.
So if the Bible is primarily a revelation of the heart, character and nature of God, as we understand Him more deeply, we know how to respond to any given situation or issue. And it may be different according to different circumstances. So in one case it might not be the best or most loving response to divorce, and in another case it might be. Knowing the heart of God is what helps us discern these differences and when to make what choice.
This is not a nice and neat and packaged response. Our human nature wants to make rules that are relevant to all situations, but I think that life is more complex than that and that each case has to be treated on its own (e.g. even murder can be the best thing in certain extreme circumstances like a person holding a gun to my daughter - I would murder in that situation if it would save my daughter).
Knowing the heart, character and nature of the author of Life helps us to make decisions and choices in life that He would want. And I believe that it changes with different circumstances. The Bible helps us to know Him more, and I believe is not meant to exegeted to the extent that we do to try to discern “right” from “wrong”…….
September 26th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Homer, where are your ‘divorce is adultery’ and ‘expel them from the church’ arguments in this thread?
September 26th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
read it closely Lance.
I am saying I know of no Church where the divorcee was the person who forced the issue.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Lance, shouldn’t there be a “Divorce Court” like Homer’s “Gay Court”?
September 26th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
“This obviously can’t happen if your wife leaves you or in the unusual event she is bashing the living daylights out of you.”
But if a wife leaves you, then that is separation, but still marriage, not divorce.
Where in bible teaching is there an out if the ‘wife is bashing the living daylights out of you’.
Aren’t you being unbiblical Homer in adding clauses that are not in the bible?
Isn’t it woe to the person who adds or takes away from scripture?
September 26th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Wayne re Post 20. That is briliant mate… Possibly the most profound post I have read on singposts. I think I am beginning to see why your church decided to “let you go”. Religion wants black and white whereas love is never that simple. It is multi-faceted and inter-dimensional. Unfortunately “law” is where the entire christian world seems to be stuck, living life based on black letters in bold type.
Infact Paul says pretty much the same thing in 1 Tim 1.9 “…Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man…”
Do’s and don’ts are of no use to someone who is being made a new creation, they are not under the law, they are above it.
WIGGY
September 26th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Wayne,
That, in a very clumsy way, was what I was attempting to articulate in my post….looking at the Bible like an Act of Parliament and trying to discern whether we’ve sinned/done something illegal by examining verses as if they were clauses is just plain wrong.
The point as I see it is to treat it all as parts of one revelation, not individual do/don’t adding up to one almighty failure test.
September 26th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Thanks for the encouragement Wiggy and Luke….
And yes Wiggy, you are perceptive. The type of stuff that I have been writing about here is one of the reasons contributing to why I was “let go”. Not only was my theology a little different (or better put would be the method at which one arrives at theology), but my actions then backed it up. When someone responds to hurting people in out of the box ways and not in the usual black and white, “this is right and this is wrong”, it makes people feel insecure and uncomfortable….
September 27th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Wiggy,
you are bring up a straw man.
I have yet to read where anyone says the law provides salvation.
It does tell us how to live however which is why Jesus told us Love the Lord your God with all your heart ( I believe gut is more accurate but I will leave it at that) and Love your neighbour as your self were the commandments that were the key ie to live your life.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Homer you miss the point of what I was saying.
I was responding to Wayne’s post number 20… And I don’t recall saying “the law provides salvation”. Did I say that? I don’t think I did. So I’m really not sure where your post is coming from Homer.
What I did say was that “law” is not for a righteous man. Well, I quoted Paul’s words actually.
“Do not commit adultery” is really of no use to a righteous person because they won’t do that anyway. What is of use is “do not look upon a woman to lust after her”. Now that is impossible in the flesh. You have to be living “in the spirit” and “dying daily” to accomplish a feat like that. And that highlights Wayne’s post… It’s not a matter of black and white do’s and don’ts, it’s a spirit of living and a conceptual way of looking at things. Where is the straw man in that? I fail to see it.
WIGGY
September 27th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Homer, you’re ducking the follow-up to this point you made on divorce.
“This obviously can’t happen if your wife leaves you or in the unusual event she is bashing the living daylights out of you.”
But if a wife leaves you, then that is separation, but still marriage, not divorce.
Where in bible teaching is there an out if the ‘wife is bashing the living daylights out of you’.
Aren’t you being unbiblical Homer in adding clauses that are not in the bible?
Isn’t it woe to the person who adds or takes away from scripture?
Why shouldn’t the divorced person be removed from church if they remain in a state of adultery…and therefore uphold your precious 1 cor 5?
Or do you, like all conservatives, have double standards Homer?