Today I'm going to tackle a controversial topic - divorce and remarriage.
My personal opinion has always been that only adultery is grounds for divorce, and even then reconciliation and restoration is still the ideal. (A different passage deals with an unbelieving spouse leaving a believer, but that's a topic for another day).
There are some who believe there is no exception clause - that fornication meant discovering betrayal during the betrothal period which could result in divorce (it was called divorce even though the marriage hadn't taken place).
And there are some, John Piper included, who believe there is simply no exception clause whatsoever. Marriage is intended to reflect the ultimate convenant-love between Christ and His church and that because God will never break His vow to us, we can also not break our marriage vows. If a divorce is forced upon someone by their spouse, he believes they are to remain single until their divorced spouse dies, because they still need to uphold their part of the marriage contract - till death do us part.
He makes a persuasive argument, but I am still leaning to adultery being a legitimate exception clause. What are your thoughts about this?
Either way, David Legge makes a very interesting point which I think we can apply to every area of our lives. He says that we're looking at it from the wrong point of view.
Tom Hovestol, in his book 'Extreme Righteousness', a study of the Pharisees, commenting on the Lord's warning against oath-taking in the Sermon on the Mount, I believe really gets the nub of this problem of divorce. He says: 'We live in a culture in which promises and commitments, even solemnly made ones, are routinely broken. Our wedding ceremonies, baptism rituals, infant dedications, and church membership covenants, to varying degrees, include pious oaths which we cavalierly break. Every divorce', he says, 'is a major violation of the promise 'Till death us do part'. However, we spend most of our theological energy debating when it is OK to break our promises'. He says: 'We are like the Pharisees, seeking loopholes. We are masters at the art of evasion' - and I agree with that! Whatever your opinion of divorce and remarriage might be, we are asking the question, 'How far can I go?'. Yet the question we ought to be asking as Christians and members of the kingdom of God is, 'How like Christ can I be?'. Does this highlight a moral and spiritual duplicity in our Christian lives?
We're trying to find a loophole. Instead we should be looking at it from the other point of view - how Christ-like can I be in this area?
Same thing with sexual purity before marriage - the temptation is to ask "How far is too far?", "How far can we go?" That's the wrong question. We should be asking, "How can I keep myself pure?"
And in the marriage relationship - we should be asking ourselves how we can keep our marriages thriving.
First of all, we need to recognize the seriousness of the marriage covenant. Promises these days, even covenant ones (like marriage) are treated very lightly by secular society, and unfortunately also by Christians.
I know the stats say that Christians are just as likely to divorce as non-Christians, but I actually don't believe that statistic. And this is why. I think just about everybody and their cat would claim to be a Christian (ok, slight exaggeration, but you get my point). But just because someone says they are, doesn't mean they are (sheep discussion from the other day!) And simply from my own experience. Yes, I know of couples that are divorced. But the percentage of Christian people I know who are divorced is really, really low. Which means either the stats are off, or somewhere out there is a large group of Christians with a super high percentage of divorces in order to average out the numbers in my experience.
But either way - marriage is no longer viewed in society as a serious covenant lifelong commitment to one spouse. And as Christians, we need to be very proactive in teaching our children the value and the seriousness of marriage. This would include having a different stance on dating - and teaching them about this from very young. Waiting till they're 14 to start talking to them about dating and marriage is way too late.
We are discouraging our children from dating until they are old enough that marriage is a serious possibility in the relatively near future, and to only date someone that has all the character qualities they are looking for in a spouse. In my opinion, the purpose of dating is to find a husband. It is not to have fun. You can do that without dating. This is not a "try-out" situation where you need to sample all the goodies before making your choice. We plan on encouraging them to get to know their possible future spouse as a friend first. As soon as the "falling in love" emotions kick in, everything is viewed through rose-coloured glasses and judgement just isn't there anymore. Getting to know someone's true colours is so important because marriage IS a lifelong commitment - which means it is a decision that is not to be treated lightly!
Another way we want them to think of those of the opposite sex is that they are someone else's husband (or wife). It's true. If you do not get married to "Bob", "Bob" will marry someone else, he will be someone else's husband. It's a good way to give yourself a reality check and to evaluate how you're treating someone, and what you're doing with someone else's future spouse. We are praying for our children's future spouses now already, and we are encouraging our children to pray for them too.
Our goal in marriage should be to live as Christ-like as possible. Not to look for a way out.
Tomorrow's passage: Matthew 20:1-34, Mark 10:32-52, Luke 18:31-19:27
3 comments:
Great post, Tammy. I agree that the divorce rate among Christians isn't as high as among non-Christians. I, too, know very few Christian people who are divorced, and in fact, in my own family (grandparents and their siblings, my aunts and uncles, and my parents) there is not one couple that I know of who is divorced. I don't know about all my dad's zillion cousins, but among the more immediate family this is true. My husband and I agreed before we got married that divorce was not an option. I think it makes all the difference in a relationship to know that there's no out clause. You have to stick together and work it out no matter what. The adultery thing is a tough call. I think reconciliation is best, but if the party who committed adultery is unrepentant or repeats the offence, then I would say divorce is an option. Your vows are already broken.
A quick side note - I've heard a number of times now of people changing the marriage vows they take to say "until we love no more" instead of "til death do us part". If you're going into anything with the attitude that it might not work out and you can just bail, you're doomed from the beginning.
"Looking for loopholes" ~ that's exactly like the young man who asked Jesus "who is my neighbour?" Instead of giving him a list of people he was allowed to ignore, Jesus told him how to BE a friend.
This is just such a touchy subject!! We know God made allowance for divorce because He knew the Israelites would do it anyway, but it's tough to disregard His words in Malachi 2:16 where He says, "I hate divorce." It really doesn't get much clearer than that!!
If we truly love what God loves and truly hate what He hates, divorce ~ for ANY reason or excuse ~ should prove extremely problematic for all believers.
PS. I love that you tell your kids to keep in mind that whomever they date may end up married to someone else, so they need to think carefully about what they do with that person. That's a VERY good approach. I had that same attitude about ACTUAL sex, but not about all the other stuff that doesn't quite qualify... I wish I had.
Post a Comment