TIME Magazine: "An Evangelical Rethink of Divorce?"

[b]An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce? [/b]
By DAVID VAN BIEMA
Tuesday, November 6, 2007

On questions relating to the Bible's treatment of family and morals, one might expect assurance, if not rigidity, from Evangelical Christianity. So, it may surprise many to learn how "live" the topic of divorce remains in Evangelical circles. Last month, the cover story of the monthly [i]Christianity Today[/i] was titled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce." The heated controversy provoked by the story showed how Biblically flexible some Evangelicals can be — especially when God's word seems at odds not just with modern American behavior, but also with simple human kindness.

As the article's author, the British Evangelical scholar David Instone-Brewer, points out, for most of 2,000 years Christians have viewed divorce through two scriptural citations. In Matthew, the pharisees ask Christ, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" Jesus refers to the Old Testament and then replies, "Whoever divorces a wife, except for sexual indecency, commits adultery." The apostle Paul adds in the book First Corinthians that a Christian is "not bound" to a non-Christian spouse who abandons him. Simple, right?

Instone-Brewer radically reinterprets the first passage using, of all things, quotation marks. The Greek of the New Testament didn't always contain them, and scholars agree that sometimes they must be added in to make sense of it. Instone-Brewer, an expert in Jewish thought during Jesus's era, writes that Christ's interlocutors were not asking him whether there was any cause at all for divorce, but whether he supported something called "any-cause" divorce, a term a little bit like "no-fault" that allowed husbands to divorce wives for any reason at all. Instone-Brewer claims Jesus's "no" was a response to this idea, and that his "except for sexual indecency" condition was not a statement of the sole exemption from God's blanket prohibition, but merely Christ's reiteration of one of several divorce permissions in the Old Testament — one he felt the "any-time" advocates had exaggerated. Finally, Instone-Brewer tallies four grounds for divorce he finds affirmed in both Old and New Testaments: adultery, emotional and sexual neglect, abandonment (by anyone) and abuse.

[i]Christianity Today[/i] has written previously on divorce, often bemoaning how easy it is in today's America. However, the Instone-Brewer essay appeared to be its editors' attempt to offer Evangelicals an escape from a classic dilemma. The "plain sense" of Jesus's words without quotes seems clear enough, but also inhumane: how could a loving God forbid divorce, even by omission, in cases of wife-beating, or of abandonment by a Christian spouse?

Each branch of Christianity deals with divorce in its own way: Catholicism bans it entirely, but many divorced and remarried couples nonetheless find that their conscience permits them to take Communion. Liberal Protestantism accepted divorce some decades ago without much engagement of the scriptural issue. Evangelicals define themselves as being tightly bound by scripture. But besides the humanitarian problem, there are some uncomfortable facts on the ground: The divorce rate among Evangelicals, which first became news after polls released by the Barna Research Group in 2001, has been as high or higher than the national average.

The Evangelical movement has actually made tremendous accommodations given the strictures it lives under. Ministries for the newly divorced are common at megachurches; and on the historically less-rigid Pentecostal side of the spectrum, celebrity preachers Juanita Bynum and Paula White both recently [url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1666552,00.html]announced their intention to divorce[/url]. Most experts interviewed for this story attested that whereas 30 years ago, a pastor might well order a battered woman home to return her husband, that is rare today.

More conservative Evangelicals remain uneasy about divorce. If a split itself is inescapable, notes [i]Christianity Today[/i] editor Andy Crouch, "remarriage is where the rubber meets the road," and many remarried couples find themselves denied church membership. Says Russel Moore, dean of the 16.3 million-member Southern Baptist Convention's influential Southern Seminary, "We teach our future pastors that marriage is a lifelong, one-flesh union." Any woman in an abusive marriage should "leave that situation," he acknowledges, and a "majority" probably accept remarriage. Asked if [i]he[/i] does, Moore demurred: "Let me think about that for a little bit. I could answer in a way that would be very easily misunderstood."

Evangelical conflict on the topic was obvious in reader response to the Instone Brewer essay. Initially the mail was heavily negative. The most stinging broadside sas a column by John Piper, a respected theological conservative, that called the essay not just weak but "tragic." The magazine's editor in chief, David Neff, felt the need to explain online that "Instone-Brewer's article did not... give people carte blanche on divorce." The mail eventually leveled off at 60% negative to 40% positive.

Still, the controversy suggests that even the country's most rule-bound Christians will search for a fresh understanding of scripture when it seems unjust to them. The implications? Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power. (The ever-active Barna folks have found that 57% of "born-again" Christians age 16-29 criticize their own church for being "anti-homosexual.") It could also give heart to a certain twice-divorced former New York mayor who is running for President and seeking the conservative vote. But that may be pushing things a bit.

:-(

[url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1680709,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-nation]CLICK HERE[/url] for full article.

This is a case when the scripture says something clearly, in several places, and we ignore it in order to continue living our practically aethiestic lifestyles. Does God's word speak any more?

Hi Ian,

Does God's word speak any more?

This is indeed sad.

I am reminded of the old puritan wisdom; a land is not made wicked when the wicked living in it do wicked things, but when the righteous living in it do wicked things without reproof.

From this perspective, we can honestly say our land is being made wicked by the very church who should be preserving righteousness. May God truly and powerfully help us.

Blessings brother,

MC

Instone-Brewer radically reinterprets the first passage using, of all things, quotation marks. The Greek of the New Testament didn't always contain them, and scholars agree that sometimes they must be added in to make sense of it.

[url=http://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Remarriage-Bible-Literary-Context/dp/0802849431/ref=sr_11_1/105-0342729-3886825?ie=UTF8&qid=1194542812&sr=11-1]Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible; the Social and Literary Context.[/url]

One of the difficulties, sometimes, in understanding the scriptures is trying to work out the question that was being answered. This is particularly so in 1st Corinthians. This book tries to understand the social context of the key scriptural passages. His thesis is that we cannot understand the scriptural comments without the cultural context. He certainly explains the cultural context well. I think this is an honest book written by a man of integrity. He has been a 'research fellow at Tyndale House in Cambridge, England'.

I don't believe that everyone who is divorced is going to end up in eternal hellfire. That being said, I do think it's an indicator of spiritual lack, especially when we start dealing with remarriage.

This man may present some good arguments, but if I have to be a scholar and know my greek and my jewish history and so on and so on, then my Bible is worth nothing. If I need to present a 350 page, difficult to read argument of why any doctrine is Biblical, it probably isn't. Chris

JelloTaster wrote:

This man may present some good arguments, but if I have to be a scholar and know my greek and my jewish history and so on and so on, then my Bible is worth nothing. If I need to present a 350 page, difficult to read argument of why any doctrine is Biblical, it probably isn't. Chris

Well, then maybe the book just isn't for you? What's the purpose of making comments like this?

It is interesting that in 1900 the episcopal church in NY was split over this issue of remarriage after divorce: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9405E5DF1339E733A25756C1A9649C946197D6CF

Some of the churches at that time broke away with the main church over this issue. It is ironic that today we see the same thing going on in the Episcopal church......same actions of separation, different sin. Then it was adultery (remarriage), now it is homosexuality.

I read an excerpt someone sent me by R.A.Torrey in his book, How to Pray. In it, he calls divorce, 'legalized adultery' and says that those who remarry are actually living with other people's spouses. What some of us believe today to be true was even believed by some of the great men of the faith of yesteryear.

You know, sometimes things need to be restated...

From this perspective, we can honestly say our land is being made wicked by the very church who should be preserving righteousness

Some more little winged birds that can never be completely reeled back in...

I thought about quietly editing my statement below, but then I thought maybe there is some benifit in being more open. It seems Carter Conlon's concern over "Angry Watchmen" hits closer to me then I suspected.

Whether I spoke from poor logic, or by ungodly frustration, I should not have made that comment. The Church isn't making anything wicked...

Too often I find my frustrations are expressions of personal offenses more then Godly burdens. This fitful indulgence is unhelpful to those who might indeed be rediscovering the grace and rest of God.

I've been spoiled by a cheerful and long-suffering wife. Because of this, when it comes to clucking my tongue over divorce, I supposed I considered myself exempt from Paul's warning: But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

'Such things' includes more then the one thing I happen to be pleased with myself over...whatever my sin and corrupt fruit has been it is surely equal to be counted among 'such things'.

If there is any encouragement in Christ in me, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, then let me heartily offer my prayers, my fellowship, my deep sympathies, and my humility, to those who may be hurting right now in some aspect from divorce. I gladly receive this same grace. O, there is more forgiveness and more hope in Christ then I was representing. May the love of Jesus overflow into your heart this night.

Blessings,

MC

First of all, looking back, I realize my purpose for posting what I did was not Christ-like. I feel quite strongly about this issue and apparently let that get in the way. It was not directed at anyone posting here but rather at the fellow who wrote this paper. I apologize if I've offended anyone.

I do though think that if we look at all passages pertaining to divorce and especially remarriage, it becomes quite clear that we should at the very least be erring on the side of rejecting it. I guess because it seems so cut and dry to me, I wonder if this fellow has a hidden agenda, needing to use a large paper to argue in favor of divorce. I hope that clears things up. Chris

It is ironic that today we see the same thing going on in the Episcopal church......same actions of separation, different sin. Then it was adultery (remarriage), now it is homosexuality.

And I think it to be an honest observation. And in my opinion the homosexual agenda is God’s judgment against a Church that has approved of heterosexual sin. The issues facing the Episcopal Church rest assured will be coming to a Church near you if it has not already.

I look forward to buying the book.

I believe the more radical issue is idolatry, which the basis of sexual sins in all their forms.

And not only sexual sins! Isn't idolatry, worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator, pretty much the whole ball of wax? The old man is homo idolatrous.

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful...

MC

You know, I was walking to my car thismorning and thought of this thread again... and I was thinking about the excuse that these people make using 'context.' That the verses in the bible were made in a 1st century context... but then they never go on to explain what that context is.

But then I remembered reading in a sociology book what one of the major problems was in the decline of the Roman empire: Divorce.

Even in 1st century Rome there was divorce, it was rampant, and it was a sin that the early church recognized. If there was any context besides infidelity that was permisable for divorce, they surely would have mentioned it in scripture.

What we've done is excuse ourselves to ignore the Word of God. We all know it is wrong, but for the sake of filling up pews and not hurting people's feelings we do not preach against sin!

We've let Satan build a stronghold within many of our churches, and he continues to take ground. There must be a counter-offensive, we must pray!

These are sad times in America, indeed. Our "section" of Christ's Body is becoming a weak, sickly, unfruitful branch that is in real danger of being cut off instead being pruned (purged) by our Father, the master gardener. May God have mercy on our present blindness and apathy! Why is it if we read a hundred theological discourses, hear a hundred sermons, or read a thousand secular opinions when it comes to marriage, divorce, and family issues what is heard is more agreement than the different views the above mentioned sources should have.

Why do those who profess to know God through Christ, claiming to have God the Spirit dwelling in them now are more concerned about searching the scriptures to find excuses for our disobedience and lack of faith...as opposed to diligently searching the Word to learn of Him, to be transformed in our being to reflect His glory in this dark world?

We are to be a people that want to rightly divide (skilfully handle) the Word of Truth. The heart of Jesus teaching was not about what sin or sins give us a right to divorce, but why God had to give His people the provision of divorce in the first place. It was not about what was done to the hurt, offended, or wronged party, but about the hardness of heart and root of bitterness springing up in the inner man toward this person that the Master has declared that I am one with.

Please don't think I am judging any particular individual...I have been previously accused of that in another forum here...that was not the case then, and it isn't now. "Who am I to judge another man's servant, to his master he either stands or falls." No this is my heart cry to the Lord, and to my genuine brothers and sisters in Christ: lets stop looking for and making excuses that only smack of false religion, and not reality in Him.

I would never be an advocate for an unrepentant husband or wife abusing the Christ-likeness of their husband or wife. However, the one who offends is no less sinful than the unforgiving party. God has accountability for husband and wife, regardless of the performance or non-performance of their mate. No I'm not advocating bondage...the scriptures in Corinthians address that.

I'm simply saying that there must be reasons why God expects us to treat marriage as a holy covenant, not one to be casually entered into, and even more seriously considered before tha last resort of divorce is done.

May GOD grant that we return to honest seeking of GOD's face to determine what the will of the Lord is in our unique situation. Then have the grace and heart to be obedient and walk in the will of the LORD, and not walk in our hurt,
our emotions, or our own thoughts.

The LORD Bless You & Keep You All,
Harold

...I thank God that I only look to HIM for condemnation and since there is NONE in HIM, I can stand around folks like you.

Sister, there is merit in what you are expressing here.

I am sorry that some of our posts added to your grief. Let me ask for a little patience...many of the people here might not be expressing condemnation but their own grief over the dramatic increase of divorce within the Church. Certainly, whether we have personal experience with divorce or not, we have strong feelings in reaction to this trend,... but I do so desire to be careful, humble, and most of all Christlike, in how we treat those brethren who have been affected by it.

...the calling of God are WITHOUT repentance."

Blessings sister,

MC