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 was 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.
Like all literalistic Protestant evangelicals, DIB is untroubled by the notion that the church got it wrong for 2,000 years until he came along to fix the Greek for them for the first time. This brand of biblicist really does believe that hermeneutics is just a matter of fusing two horizons: “what it meant” (which I’m here to tell you) with “what it means” (which as a result I’m uniquely equipped to tell you).
when people conflate GLBQT with some imagined threat to marriage and those same people traffic in parsing like this post, it REALLY stretches any understanding of what it means to live a life that follows Jesus formed by Scripture
and the irony is that I suspect commentors on T1:9 and StandFirm will bypass this new item as they feast on the political frame that consumes all the oxygen right now
shame, shame, shame on the over-whelming majority of us heterosexual married people for scapegoating
Actually, Bob, I’ve already commented on the article on TWO OTHER Christian forums this afternoon. It’s actually an old article, already about a month old now.
[url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2443_Tragically_Widening_the_Grounds_of_Legitimate_Divorce/]John Piper[/url] covered it on his blog as well, which prompted a [url=http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/10/more_from_david.html]response[/url] from the author, David Instone-Brewer clarifing his position.
Oh, and [urlhttp://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/10/can_we_talk_abo.html]Christianity Today[/url] also published a responsive article on their website as a result of John Piper’s article.
One wonders how far and how deep our society will sink in destroying the family, destroying morality, and destroying ourselves in the process. Somehow I don’t think it is what Christ had in mind. Maybe instead of all this being “simple kindness,” He had a solid reason for calling the embracing of evil officially and as part of a purported Christian religion:: “Hardness of heart.” But of course the mass media is brainwashing us in another direction. No wonder so many past societies warned against those who parade across stages as being morally dangerous. Now we pant and grovel to copy the latest Hugh Hefner, or the latest bimbo tart as they promote their own ego-driven immorality.
Just one of the reasons I have just cancelled (failed to renew) my subscription to Christianity Today after many years. Two years ago, during the final days of Terri Schiavo’s life, when even Congress had an emergency session, there was not one peep from CT, but there were daily postings on its web site –about the Final Four and spring training. No more for me.
Bob – I’ve always said that “gay marriage” is a result of the decline of traditional marriage, not the cause of it. We are where we are because we fail to understand the nature of marriage. It is not simply a social construct where one person makes contractural obligations to another person and, just like all contracts today, can reneg on those obligations at will. Marriage is not a social construct at all. It was instituted by God in creation and Paul speaks of it symbolizing the mystery (=mysterion =sacramentum = sacrament) of the union between Christ and his Church. It is because we have devalued marriage to the point that divorce is “no big deal” that society is beginning to see no problem with marriage between any two (non-related) people. In 50 yrs, I suspect that group marriages will be as common as gay marriage is today and I also believe we will begin to see the consanguinity restrictions lifted as well.
The solution is to recover marriage as it was insituted by God and kept by the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The intensely reasserting rector of a formerly Episcopal church in Plano, Texas, was divorced. And didn’t seem aware of the irony.
I’ve always said that “gay marriage†is a result of the decline of traditional marriage, not the cause of it
Amen, Amen, Amen!!!
We sown to the wind with loose morality on divorce and remarriage, the statistics reflect there is little difference inside the Church as outside and now we have reaped the whirlwind!
Tragomylos,
Could you expand on what The Church’s position on divorce has been for 2000 yrs?
Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God. (BoP, p. 422, cf Genesis and Jesus)
Gay and Lesbian people can and do marry, but most find marriage unappealing. Gay and Lesbian people do not want to be married (i.e. to be in a covenant with someone of the opposite sex). There is nothing hateful about recognizing this fact. Two males or two females simply cannot get married to each other. There is no marriage. They can love each other, engage in homoerotic behavior and live together. But they cannot be husband and wife. The so-called “gay marriage” issue is really a debate about blessing and affirming sex outside of marriage (called fornication) and there is lots about that in the Bible (including Jesus). Jesus does not talk about “gay marriage” because there is no such thing.
Divorce is a different issue. The marriage covenant is supposed to be forever. In some cases marriages are not real, for example someone is too young or too drunk to make a covenant commitment. These can be annulled. In other cases, the people in the marriage fail to live up to their commitment. Sometimes one partner carries sufficient blame for the demise of the marriage, in other cases it is more shared responsibilty. To marry someone else while your first spouse is still alive is adultery (cf. Jesus) This is a sin. Sin can be confessed, repented of and forgiven. The troubling pastoral response to failed marriages is difficult: legalism and laxity are both possible.
Should the church bless such second marriages? Obviously not as often as it does. Does blessing such marriages require further accomodations to other people in an effort to be fair? I am not sure. I think the better question is to equate homo-sex with out of wedlock hetero-sex. Should the church affirm sexual activity outside of marriage?
There is a difference between doing the wrong thing (‘gay marriage’)and doing the right thing in the wrong way (marriage, then divorce and remarriage). I am personally troubled by the widespread ease of divorce and remarriage. I think it is dangerous to assume that the best way to deal with this problem is by adding to it another innovation to be fair…. Policemen let off speeders many times. Does this mean they should let off stop sign running, too? What about drunk driving? There is a need to draw a line.
Has God drawn a line? I would love to hear the Progressives talk some about the limits of their openness….
I want to place some questions up for discussion which are pointed to in Instone-Brewers article. I see that there are essentially four major views on divorce and remarriage. One view completely disallows divorce and may even frown on separation. A second view allows divorce only under very limited conditions but disallows remarriage. A third view allows divorce only under very limited conditions and allows remarriage only to those whose divorces were under those limited conditions. A fourth view allows divorce and remarriage without condition. I would hold that the first three could be Biblical while the fourth is not. Now my questions.
To those who hold the first view, why in all discussion I have seen do you disregard Matthew 5 and 19 where Jesus allows divorce under [i]porniea[/i] which is commonly interpreted as sexual infidelity? If we hold all in the Gospels to be truth, this is only an expansion of what is in Mark and Luke.
To those who allow divorce but not remarriage, if Jesus allows divorce, does not the allowance of divorce infer that remarriage is allowed after an allowed divorce? Would this not be something that was, by Mark 10, not separated by man since it is allowed.
To those who allow limited divorce and remarriage, what of the restrictions in Mark 19, Luke 16 and 1 Corinthians 7? What is the weight of the fact that remarriage is disallowed in all of these.
I will say that I am of my third view. I am divorced under the restrictions of Matthew and remarried. The remarriage was done in the Church (Anglican – ECUSA at the time) with approval of a very orthodox priest and a very orthodox bishop. I do not fully understand the reasoning and scriptural support of the first two views and would like to better understand them.
[blockquote] To those who allow divorce but not remarriage, if Jesus allows divorce, does not the allowance of divorce infer that remarriage is allowed after an allowed divorce? [/blockquote]
I’ll bite for the ‘second view’.
It does seem that Jesus’ contemporaries (and some evangelicals) would argue your very point – a legal divorce is a direct permission to re-marry. However, Jesus himself rules it out – in Mark and Luke it is the re-marriage that constitutes ‘adultery’. Matthew 5 is dealing with the situation of an abandoned wife who has to re-marry in order to survive in a world with no welfare system for divorced women. A man who does this to his wife ‘makes her commit adultery’ because she has to re-marry.
Paul certainly allows a believing husband/wife to let their unbelieving spouse go ‘for the sake of peace’ in 1 Cor. 7, but he also says just before that that couples who separate must either reconcile or remain single. There is no room for re-marriage.
NO. 6 – Just guessing – Maybe CT thought that the Terry Schiavo affair was mainly a “Catholic” issue. But, are you upset with CT for publishing an article that has an unpleasant message for Evangelicals, whether true or not?
Bill B,
In answer to your question regarding interpretation of scripture it is the custom in Orthodoxy when attempting to resolve apparent contradictions to seek our answers in the Fathers and the praxis of the early church. In this respect we find a substantial body of evidence that supports a diversity in approach depending on locality with some overall commonalities in theme. This commonality approximates your option three.
Broadly speaking a certain pastoral tolerance in extreme cases for divorce preceded the great schism by many centuries in the East. Indeed, even in the West the prohibition against second and third marriages is clearly a later development. I would refer you to the canons of the (Western) councils of Elvira (300-314 AD) and of Arles (314 AD) that laid down canonical rules governing remarriage and explicitly affirming the existence of “acceptable reasons†(Canon 8 Council of Elvira) for a woman to leave her husband for another. This coupled with admonitions of early (pre-Constantine) Christian Bishops in both the East and West provides ample evidence for a tolerance, at least in extreme cases for divorce and possibly a second or even third marriage.
Later but still quite early in the history of The Church St. Basil the Great (+379) affirms the practice of economy with respect to divorce in his 188th epistle (canon four) and discusses the canonical discipline in place at the time regulating divorces. The Roman Catholic author and church historian Dr. Joesph Martos also makes reference to the practice of the early church when he notes that the anti-Nicene Fathers are largely silent on marriage. The practice of early Christians was to marry within the framework of existing civil law and this also extended to divorce. He describes early bishops as urging Christians to marry within their own faith and to avoid divorce. However he also notes that divorce and even in some cases remarriage was tolerated (Doors to the Sacred: A Historical Introduction to Sacraments in the Catholic Church- Pg. 352)
The development of the prohibition against fourth marriages also dates to the early part of the first millennium as a response to an attempted imperial abuse of the church’s pastoral tolerance for divorce. Although this is strictly speaking a disciplinary canon and not to be confused with dogma it is one that has enjoyed such immemorial and universal acceptance that within the Orthodox Church it is generally considered inviolable.
For a more detailed discussion of the Orthodox Church’s position I would suggest the article linked below.
http://tinyurl.com/39mxpu
At least all could agree that the restriction of divorce to the most serious case (adultery, abuse, abandonment) in no way resembles TEC’s current acceptance of no-fault divorce and easy remarriage. In this case, as in so many others, the church followed the culture.
I think the new Anglican body will need to reinstate something like BillB’s option #3 at a minimum. This will necessarily involve some discussion about what to do for people who have previously remarried outside of these restrictions. We may have to, for a time, grandfather in existing violations, but not for clergy and most certainly not for bishops. There’s going to be some pain here, since there are many people whose civil divorces were not their choice but who could not prevent it under no-fault laws.
No. 11, Fr. Jeff, excellent!
Given our society and the rather poor job of catechesis that we do as a Church, divorce will happen. There is little or no social stigma attached to it. There are all sorts of reports about “stater marriages” where the couple enter into the marriage expecting it to fall apart. Given that, what is our best response?
1. Education – each couple wanting to get married in the Church needs to fully understand the importance and permanence of what they are doing. I believe a weekend such as Engaged Encounter is vital to a healthy marriage. Also make sure that the couple knows that divorce is much more like amputating the arm and leg of the same side than it is cutting your fingernails or even getting your tonsils or appendix taken out. Neither person is every truly whole after divorce.
2. Limit divorces for clergy to 1 (under special circumstances such as the spouses infidelity or physical/emotional abuse) or zero.
3. Limit remarriages in the Church to 1 after joining the church. In special circumstances, allow a private blessing in the couple’s home with a small group of family and friends for a 3rd marriage after joining the church.
As C S Lewis said, divorce is surgery. It is more like the separation of conjoined twins – joined at the head, chest, pelvis, and foot – than it is minor surgery. Our society treats it like changing clothes.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
phil your tone is so different when you posted #19 on divorce – the first one is allowed – compared to #7
i would imagine that with all divorced people you counsel or pastor, you share with them your prediction:
In 50 yrs, I suspect that group marriages will be as common as gay marriage is today and I also believe we will begin to see the consanguinity restrictions lifted as well.
Scapegoating gay people is SO much easier than talking honestly with your friends – fellow clergy – about how their divorce destroys marriage.
#10 Ad Orientem, my point was not that there is a single church position for the last 2,000 years, nor that the documented diversity (not perhaps of doctrine so much as of pastoral latitude) included no arrangements capable of leniency and accommodation – as you rightly, if eclectically, illustrate in your subsequent post. No, my point was that in good Protestant evangelical fashion DIB acknowledges that there is a history of the church on this, but pretty much dismisses everything between the Bible and our own (or rather DIB’s) day as a history of ignorance and incomprehension (see his book, esp. pp 266-67): the Fathers are hermeneutically insignificant because there is no ecclesiology to accommodate them in what, thanks to DIB, “we now know”.
Bob – There are two issues here. The first is what has happened and is happening with “marriage” in society. I made that prediction based on the trajectory I see. The prediction has no bearing on whether it is right or not. I believe that society is getting marriage and its equivalents terribly wrong and going more wrong as time goes on.
The second issue is what to do about it in the Church. Since our people are growing up in our society where marriage is as disposable as diapers and bottled water, how do we as faithful Christians respond to the mess that society leaves us. How do we respond to people who have been raised to eschew real intimacy in exchange for casual sex? How do we show them that God’s way is better than society’s? Finally, once they are full members of the Church and integrated into New Life within the Church, what guidelines do we give for living as Christians when it comes to marriage?
I don’t see a conflict between posts 7 and 19. I see a different focus. The first is a focus on society and I am acting in the prophetic role of Deacon to sound an alarm on where we are going and why we are here now and the second is a proposal on how to deal with the problem within the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Paul seems to allow for divorce in some limited cases. The only arguments I’ve heard for gay marriage are from experience, not scripture.