I’m getting a golden crown. Just got fitted for it yesterday….at the dentist. I broke a tooth last weekend and finally got in to get a temporary. And the crown will only be gold alloy underneath. No jewels on top though I’m paying for it like there will be!
Divorce & Remarriage X: Is remarriage adultery?
We come to chapter 10 of David Instone-Brewer’s book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church(IVP). He starts with this question: “Do people whose divorces were not biblically valid have to stay unmarried for the rest of their life?” (p. 118).
In answering this question I-B starts and finishes the chapter with the problem of how we might know whether a divorce was valid or not. Unless there is a trial, pertinent information may not come to light (abuse, adultery, etc.). So, I-B takes the stand that there are many who have valid grounds who are considered to have divorced for unbiblical reasons. He considers that God is to be the judge of this. Second, I-B reminds us that he has already covered the issue of being forced into an unbiblical divorce. The wronged partner is not enslaved and is free to remarry (1 Cor 7:15)
Third, and this is the most controversial, I-B states that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:32 (that the one who divorces for any reason other than unfaithfulness and then remarries commits adultery) is rhetorical and not literal. I-B believes this verse falls in a section of high rhetoric (5:21-31). Just as Jesus is not advocating gouging out eyes, nor is he saying that a woman has grounds for divorce if her husband lusted after another woman, neither is he saying that we ought to treat remarriage for groundless divorcees as literal adultery. This, I-B says, is not to take away the serious violation of groundless divorces. They should not happen and it is a sin if they do and all sin is serious!
Finally, I-B takes on the issue of whether an invalid divorce BEFORE conversion is any different from after conversion. Should they be treated differently as many churches do? I-B says no. He points again to 1 Cor 7:12-14 where Paul tells converts not to look down upon their marriages and not to leave their unbelieving spouses but only to let them go if they demand to leave. Here Paul is saying to honor the vow and not to be the cause of breaking up a marriage.
He concludes that since divorce is forgiveable, churches ought to be willing to remarry even the person who demanded an unbiblical divorce:
I think that a church should remarry somone even if that person had forced a wronged partner into a divorce–though only after that person has gone back to their former partner with a genuine offer of reconciliation and has truly repented of this sin. (p. 124)
MY THOUGHTS:
I-B tries to steer clear of having churches decide guilt or innocence. Seems he wants to do this because we often don’t get all the information and don’t have clear procedures for how we do this. And yet, it seems that elders and pastors are called to be leaders and to make Solomonic decisions. Maybe the problem has been church leaders too unwilling to get their hands dirty in a messy situation, or too unwilling to take the time.
Following his mindset a person who forces an unbiblical divorce ought to remain unmarried and open to reconciliation until their former spouse remarries. However, he doesn’t really say this.
I’m reminded of Philip Yancey’s line in “What’s So Amazing about Grace.” He tells the tale of a friend who asks him if God will forgive him if he divorces his longtime wife and marries a young woman. Yancey says something like this, “Yes, but the question is whether you will want it” (meaning if you want God’s forgiveness then you have to repent and turn AWAY from your sin and back to righteousness).
Share this:
Filed under book reviews, church and culture, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Repentance
Do YOU know where you are going on YOUR journey?
This post is prompted by a sermon I heard last Sunday. Duane Davis, student at WTS preached a wonderful sermon on Hebrews 11:8-22 and Abraham’s journey to the promised land. During the sermon I thought of this application to my own Seminary’s quest to teach and train missional church leaders and counselors for the 21st century. A little background: not everyone has been happy with our move to reach the emerging leadership of the emerging church. The emerging church has been willing to criticize sharply the prior evangelical style of church. In their effort to try new things, some emerging leaders, writers, etc. have tried on theological positions that run counter or at least perpendicular to conservative Christian doctrine. Because we at the Seminary haven’t led with our criticisms of emerging church, that has led some to criticize and attack us. One criticism has been the challenge that the emerging church and Biblical Seminary don’t know where they are going. We’re on a journey that can only lead to heresy and rejection of the Gospel–or so it is thought by some. Enter Hebrews 11.
Notice that Abraham travels with much uncertainty. He surely knew that God called him (at least he knew this enough to leave all his family and homeland at an elderly age) and so he went expectantly. I wonder if he grew tired of saying, “Here, Lord? This looks like a good spot. No, you want me to keep going???”. I wonder if he second-guessed himself. But Hebrews does tell us that Abraham did look expectantly to one thing: heaven (v. 11). In fact, the promise of heirs the number of sand and land was never fully realized in his lifetime. As Duane reminded us, he even had to buy some land to bury his cherished wife. Even at age 100, he had yet to receive the promise of Isaac. Then a few years later he is asked by God to sacrifice Isaac.
We who have the entire canon seem to forget that we too do not know where God is taking us. We have a clearer picture of heaven and clear calls to seek and serve God’s kingdom. And yet we do not know exactly to what God is calling us to. We, like Abraham, may try to bring about God’s promises (these usually lead to bad consequence). God is faithful none-the-less. Unless He returns, we too will not see the full promise delivered.
So, in answer to those who ask whether Biblical Seminary knows where it is going, I say no. We don’t. We do know that God is faithful, the land is foreign, we own nothing, but we trust in his goodness both now and in eternity. We seek to live faithfully in worshipful service to God and in loving our neighbors as ourselves. It would be more comforting to think we had it all figured out. It is tempting to do so since that would make our vision planning much easier. In fact, it is tempting just to say we have it all figured out. That would be more attractive to students and donors. But, we believe a more faithful response is to ask the Lord to send us into the harvest and use as as He can.
One last point. Our lack of knowing just where we are going is not to say we have NO idea nor to say all viewpoints are valid and everyone’s expression of faith is good. Those interested in knowing more what we do seek and believe are welcome to check out our President’s “Missional Journal” at http://www.biblical.edu/pages/resources/missional-journal.html
Share this:
On Churches and sex offenders
It seems to be an increasing question these days: What should the church do when a sex offender finishes their sentence and wishes to return to church or join anew? I’ve written here on this before but want to return to the subject because it is controversial. Of the questions I get relating to this are,
- Shouldn’t the church be a place where all sinners are welcome?
- If a sex offender is disallowed in church aren’t we removing the one thing they need (Christian community?)
- Should victims of abuse have so much power as to say who can and cannot attend church?
Instead of answering this questions, I think churches need to have frank conversations about the following areas:
- Repentance. What is it? What are the fruits of it? What are signs of either inadequate or false repentance?
- Protection. There are more than 60 commands in the Old and New Testaments about protecting vulnerable members of society (widows, orphans, aliens, etc. ). True Religion, James says, is one that looks after the vulnerable. What does it mean to protect them. Is it enough to tell them that they are safe even though they do not feel so? Do we ever consider giving them power and some ability to say what they can tolerate?
- Forgiveness/Restoration/Redemption/Reconciliation. These terms are sometimes used synonymously. They should not be. What does it mean to forgive? Does it mean I should act as if it never happened? Where does this idea come from? Restoration to God? The Body?
- The Church and access to it. As Christians we are called to meet together for worship and the teaching of the Word? What are the options we might think about that meet this calling but value that same calling for everyone? Can the “church” come to the sex offender? Is he willing to not demand rights to be in church but find ways to worship with other believers while also being concerned about the welfare of others?
That’s a start. If churches would be willing to explore these issues and delay answering the questions I noted at the beginning, I think they will have a better chance of ministering to all. And if either victims or sex offenders are so impatient that they will not allow the body to study the matter, then that probably says something about the interest to care well for all the sheep. If the offender becomes impatient and demanding, whining and complaining, then we have to question his/her interest in being ministered to. There may be other reasons they want in the church. As Anna Salter discovered in her interviewing many many offenders, some offenders see the church as a place of protection from scrutiny due to naivete.
Share this:
Filed under Abuse, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, church and culture, Repentance, Sex
Marriage & Divorce 9: Getting Remarried?
We’ve been following David Instone-Brewer’s IVP book, Divorce and Remarriage in the churchand now come to chapter 9. Thus far he has been arguing that there are 4 biblical grounds for divorce in the bible. Some of these grounds, he argues, become clearer when you understand the culture in which Paul and Jesus were arguing. While both argue against groundless divorce, they also allow directly or indirectly OT allowances for failure to love, support, and be faithful to one’s spouse.
But in this chapter I-B asks whether the Scriptures support remarriage. In short, his argument is that everyone in that time (Rabbis, Greeks) believed that if divorced properly, remarriage was a given, even nearly compulsory. If Jesus and Paul thought otherwise, wouldn’t they have said so? The only purpose for a certificate of divorce was one thing: freedom to remarry. He points to Paul’s quotation of common divorce decrees in 1 Cor. 7:39: “She is free to remarry…” (p. 111). While he is speaking there to widows, he uses divorce certificate language. Why? I-B states that Paul could only refer to this language if everyone believed that divorcees had the right to remarry. Further, Paul says abandoned Christians have the right to remarry though they should pursue reconciliation if possible.
But what about those who caused or actively sought a groundless divorce? Can they remarry? I-B says that Paul states that those who separated and divorced groundlessly must not remarry but pursue reconciliation (1 Cor 7:11). They should seek to “make things right” but if they cannot (because the other remarries) then they are not allowed to pursue this person and are free to remarry.
I-B raises the question about the consequence/punishment of forcing an unbiblical divorce being the inability to ever remarry. He says it is neither since the call is to reconcile until it is no longer possible and then the person is free.
We have to realize that despite the number of passages on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, there is still much silence in areas we’d like. Those who try to make that silence into meaning we can do what we want are wrong but so are those who act as if the silence is black/white and as if Jesus/Paul spoke more definitively than they really did. It is interesting to think that Paul’s teaching on this is about stopping invalid divorces but not being enslaved to an invalid divorce when one is a victim and being free to remarry. We read these passages from our context but when I-B points out Paul’s context and the supporting documents, he has a strong case!
Share this:
Filed under book reviews, Christianity, divorce, Doctrine/Theology
Movie suggestion: The Color of Freedom
Last night my wife and I watched “The Color of Freedom” (2007 movie starring Dennis Haysbert of 24). This is a movie about the true story of the relationship between a white South African guard and Nelson Mandela during 20 of his 31 years of imprisonment. The guard, James Gregory, is chosen to be around Mandela because he learned the tribal language (that Mandela speaks) as a boy playing with black children. The movie is definitely a must watch. Some of the accents are hard to understand at first and it is rated R for curse words but still a must watch in my book. The movie is based on the guard’s memoirs entitled, “Goodbye Bafana.”
Share this:
Filed under Race, Racial Reconciliation
Sabbatical!
I officially began my 2nd sabbatical yesterday. Unofficially, I’ll start Wednesday afternoon as I work to clear my desk of its clutter. Of course I’m excited about doing some different things between now and January (book proposal, small writing projects, exploring pastoral renewal, numerous speaking engagements) but I’m also nervous. You see, if you change your schedule and or structures, it can be hard to adapt. But I’ll struggle on 🙂
I suspect I’ll be making only 2 or 3 posts per week during this time, but I hope to stay connected here and to share some of my learnings with you all.
Just so you know, sabbatical does not mean vacation. It means an opportunity to do some new things that should ultimately strengthen my teaching counseling when I return to the classroom. It is a quaint idea that few get an opportunity to experience. But for those teachers/pastors out there who rely on keeping fresh and up-to-date on current thinking, it is essential. Otherwise we merely recycle old learnings that have less and less value each passing year.
Sound like I’m defensive about this wonderful opportunity? Nope. Just tired of explaining that a sabbatical isn’t really restful. Not that I’m complaining…
Share this:
Filed under Biblical Seminary, teaching counseling
Power grabs by therapists
We counselors and therapists have ways of asserting our power over our clients. Usually, we do it via subtle messages and phrases. I was reminded of this fact last week during a seminar by Paul Wachtel of CUNY. He told of a case he had of a semi paranoid and hostile client who made many complaints. After one such complaint against him, Wachtel responded with,
Isn’t it interesting that you see me as being just the way your father was
These type of insights offer pseudo-neutral “observations” that are really accusatory and given to show our intellect (but draws them away from their affective state). Further, when we are irritated and make a statement like this we are really saying that my frustration isn’t about me but is about you. I’m objective here, you are not.
When we give insights to clients we need to ask whether or not the client already understands them, will feel that we are working WITH them (not talking at them), and be motivated to do more exploration. As Wachtel stated, insights are often “implicitly adversarial” (never about us either!).
These kinds of linguistic power grabs aren’t just done by analytic oriented therapists (who might be inclined to make distant insights into clients’ unconscious). Cognitive therapists do the same by implicitly and explicitly telling clients that they are irrational and if only they could think like we therapists, they would be so much better.
Let’s not forget that the words we use with clients tell something about ourselves–maybe more than we wish they would.
Share this:
When our attempts to love our neighbor actually increase harm
Christians from time immemorial place great value in bring the “cup of cold water” mercy to those in need. Contrary to the human tendency to care first for self, Christians are called to take up their cross and follow Christ to love their neighbor as theirself. At this point in the summer, American Christians are going in droves for short and longer missions trips to their near and far neighbors. My own church has groups in Guatemala, London, North Philly, and several other regions in Africa. Sometimes the project is physical and other times the project is relational and spiritual.
But have you thought about some of the potential dangers in going to our far neighbors? Here’s some potential problems:
1. The wrong help. People who go on missions trips have a high desire to serve and help the other. But if the group going does not fully understand the problem, need, and solution to the problem, it could lead the locals to try dangerous solutions or discourage them from trying since previous group activities weren’t helpful. We need to do our homework first rather than assume we know what they need.
2. Stereotyping. The helper and helpee tend to play particular roles. One active with power, the other passive and waiting. Even when the helpee knows they need to be active they can become passive because they haven’t been allowed to be part of the decision-making process. Or, the helpee can become suspicious that the primary reason for the outsider is for their own benefit. They can add up the massive amounts of money spent on flying folks there and putting them up and imagine that that sum of money might be better spent if it were just sent without people.
Don’t mistake my raising these two problems as my opinion that we shouldn’t go on foreign missions trips. My life was changed on a summer missions trip in 1983. Lord willing, I hope to be going to Rwanda next May to explore the current needs of that country in regards to the genocide trauma. But, if we aren’t careful we do more damage than good. Our good intentions are not enough. We must learn as much as possible about the life and needs of the other (from their point of view!) and recognize that we do not yet know enough to help without that learning. Further, we must find locals who have dreams and desires for healing that can carry it out and can benefit from what we can offer. Otherwise, it may be better not to go than to go and raise hopes or offer superficial help that only serves to harden hearts from needed help.
Share this:
Another training opportunity…
I’m probably doing too many ads here but as I’m off today for conference with Paul Wachtel (see my “on my nightstand” for a link for his book), I thought I would tell you all about a conference this fall by CCEF. This year they are teaching on addictions. I, along with Diane Langberg, Leslie Vernick, John Freeman, and the usual crew of CCEF faculty, are going to be doing a number of great teachings on the problem of addictions. My talk will be for counselors trying to work with addicts. Check out www.ccef.org for more details.
Musings on Faith and Psychology 