Good friends are a precious, precious find. Continue Reading »

I’m liking C. Michael Patton’s writing over at the Parchment and Pen.  Today I read his latest offering called, “Is the threat of divorce ever justified?”  It’s typical of his writing - addressing real life situations where our gut feeling solutions are different from accepted Christian solutions and trying to find the mind of God in it all.

In his post, Patton asks whether a marriage should have the real threat of divorce in the background (for reasons other than adultery or abuse) in order to encourage each person to work to keep the marriage going instead of taking advantage of the fact that the other will never, never bring up the “D-word”.  He throws in examples like God threatening and carrying out threats on Pharoah when Moses asked him to let Israel go.  I think the threat of hell to protect a person’s relationship with him can be added to that. 

I gave a few thoughts in the comments, though I’m not sure I answered the main query.  Divorce for reasons other than adultery or abuse is recognised in the New Testament, but only as a concession, not permission, and remarriage is prohibited.  What this tells me is that the apostles themselves lived in the real world where sin took its toll on Christian relationships as well as non-Christians relationships.  They knew that divorce happened, and even though Paul regulated it, they didn’t throw people out of the Church for it.

That being the case, I think it behooves every Christian entering marriage to recognise that their behaviour directly affects their partner and there is biblical recognition that, while discouraged, divorce (without remarriage) is an option for their spouse.  So, in my understanding, a real threat of divorce is legitimate, though should be broached only after considerable pray and thought and ideally in consultation with wise advisors.  (And where are they?)

This post has long been in the pipeline (no pun intended).  In fact, I had written the first draft only a day before John Piper wrote about David Instone-Brewer’s work on divorce.  Then Andreas Kostenberger added his voice to the discussion.  So I wish to state I am not jumping on the bandwagon, merely carrying on with what I was intending to do anyway.

Quick Summary of John Piper’s Argument.

John Piper’s path to his present position on divorce and remarriage began from his desire to take Jesus’ words in Luke 16:18 seriously.  I appreciate that desire.  Unfortunately, his foundational assumption is that Jesus’ statement is absolute, i.e. any remarriage after divorce is adultery, with no exceptions.  It is that understanding that became the controlling thought for his exegesis.  That means that when he approaches other texts, Dr. Piper is not trying to find out what they say so much as how they fit into that initial statement.  That also means: prove an exception and the argument fails.

Now this is not an illegitimate way to study the Bible.  The idea that there is an overall consistency in the teaching of the Bible is an important part of evangelical studies.  However problems come if your understanding of one verse or passage blinds you to what other passages are actually saying.  This is what seems to happen when Dr. Piper approaches Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-12.  His intention is to try to find the chinks in these Matthean passages in order to fit it into Luke 16:18 and the like.  The result is an interpretation that does not faithfully communicate Jesus’ words in Matthew. Continue Reading »

Well, I’ve finished part four, and it occurred to me (before it was pointed out to me) that I am doing the educational theory thing - going in a spiral, i.e. considering many positions over and over again each time a new peice of information is introduced. Now, that is how I think through things, but it doesn’t make for concise and easy-to-read posts, so I have been thinking about revamping the lot…maybe. Whatever I decide, it is likely to be on hiatus for a little while longer, anyway.

So, part five, or one of the “side-posts” will be written eventually.

[Update: Divorce: Why John Piper is wrong on this can be found by following the link.]

Original Intentions or What is Marriage?

One evening some years ago I accompanied my then Pastor to drop off a guy who had wandered over to our church from his home a few suburbs away in search of food. Before we got there, this guy shared that he had been living with his girlfriend for over 10 years and had 2 or 3 children with her. My pastor made the comment on the way back that as far as he was concerned, if a couple have lived together for 10 years, and especially if they’ve had children, the Church should treat them as a married couple.

What?! I thought. No way!  There has to be a definite vow taken - a publicly recognised beginning to the marriage. The Biblically acknowledged differences between a wife and a concubine indicates that there needs to be a formal agreement entered into.

But I couldn’t deny the truth that there are many couples who live together without being married, so, I thought, sex cannot be essential to making a relationship become a marriage. Continue Reading »

Divorce, but no remarriage…type 2.

2. No marriage after divorce for any reason except adultery and abandonment.

This is a position I have far more sympathy for. Those who hold to this view can only see remarriage being an option for those reasons explicitly stated - adultery and abandonment by a non-Christian. All other divorce among Christians can result only in remaining single (unless your ex-spouse dies) or reconciling with your spouse (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

The reason I have a lot of sympathy for this view is because those who take that position desire to hold tightly to what the Bible says - a desire I share - and to permit only what the Bible explicitly permits - a desire I also share, but find difficult to adhere to in situations that are not explicitly discussed in the Bible. Continue Reading »

Divorce, but not remarriage.

There are going to be people who read what I have written in my previous post on divorce and who will agree up to a point. “Yes,” they will say, “it may be necessary at times for people in abusive relationships to divorce their spouse, but the Bible forbids them to remarry.” There are two groups who would say this: 1) those who believe a Christian who divorces for any reason should never remarry and 2) those who believe that only those who divorce for adultery or abandonment by a non-Christian can remarry ie. divorce for any other reason between Christians does not legitmate remarriage (based on 1 Corinthians 7:10-11).  I’ll deal with the first position in this post, and the second in the next.

1) No remarriage after divorce for any reason.

I think I should clarify that it was this position that made me wonder if I had sinned in marrying Paula. It’s a common thing for people to assume that a woman twice-divorced has in some way put themselves in a position where they can never be righteously married again (I assumed that at first). However, for those most who hold the “traditional position” of divorce and remarriage for adultery and abandonment only (and other related understandings), my marriage to Paula is no problem. It is a problem only to those who hold the belief that Christians cannot remarry while their original spouse is alive, no matter what. Continue Reading »

In these posts I want to recount how I got to my present understanding about divorce and remarriage. It’s unfortunate but true, of course, that the fact that I am married to a previously married woman will cause some people to immediately discount anything I have to say on the subject. What can you do? All I have to say in my defence is that I have done all I can before God to remain honest and open to His leading through the Bible and the Spirit. Having done that, I trust that God will correct my errors as He sees fit and give me grace for my errors where He does not.

As I sat and listened to the sermon, I got a little rattled. Paula and I were on holiday (vacation for you Americans) visiting another church where the pastor was speaking from Romans 7:1-6. In that passage, Paul uses the illustration of marriage and death to explain a Christian’s release from the Law through sharing in Jesus’ death. In doing so he seems to give only one option for remarriage - the death of one’s spouse. ‘Could it be,’ I thought, ‘that John Piper, Gordon J. Wenham and some of my friends are right? In God’s eyes is the death of your spouse the only situation in which you can remarry?’

You see, I have married a woman who has been divorced, not once, but twice, and neither of her ex-husbands is dead.

Continue Reading »