Tag Archives: Christianity

September 11, 2008 · 5:43 am

If I wasn’t a psychologist…


I think I’d like to run a mission oriented suburban farming coop. Here’s the idea: Get a block of neighbors to agree to use space in their back yards for small 10×10 gardens. Each family that participates agrees to let the coop manager plant and cultivate small organic gardens. One family would have tomatoes, one would grow squashes, another would grow cukes, another peppers, etc. All the families would have to do is agree to let the manager use their water. If they wanted to participate in the weeding and care of the plants then they would get free produce when it arrived. Once the produce arrived, it would be offered for a “suggested donation” which would be far below grocery store price. The benefit to the neighbors and anyone else coming by would be that they could have access to “locally grown, organic, low-cost, very fresh produce” for their family. Such savings on the produce could be calculated showing that the coop is helping to keep the money of the community in the community.

Now, here’s the kicker. The “suggested donation” would not only cover the costs of growing the produce but allow for a small profit to be used entirely for missions work in an impoverished community, whether in the city or in another country. So, the food we would get for a donation would actually be working to feed individuals in another location.

Okay, so I’ve spent too much time daydreaming this summer…

What visions have you had that would take you in another direction?

5 Comments

Filed under Christianity, gardening

Tagged as , , ,

August 28, 2008 · 8:10 am

What does hope feel like?


Ever thought about what hope feels like? When ministers and other christian leaders speak or write about hope, what do you envision? Does it include confidence? Peace? Contentment? Belief? Assurance? Or does it include pain, longing, and the like?

In reading Romans 8:18f Paul speaks of present suffering and that yet reminding himself that it is nothing in comparison to heaven and our glorification. And yet, we wait, he says. Notice some of the words used in this passage (up to v. 29):

eager expectation, frustration, groaning (like in childbirth), wait eagerly, patiently?, wordless groans.

This is all included in this passage about hope–hope in what is not seen. Hope, it appears, includes eagerness and expectation, but also groaning and waiting for something that seems to be killing us despite the good we hope will come (like childbirth). Though hope was present, the experience the Christians were facing was difficult enough that Paul in v. 31 reminds his readers that if God is for them, then nothing can conquer them in this period of waiting. They were in pain!

So while the hope of heaven sustains us, it is not something that is at all peaceful or without suffering since we long for something that we yet do not see.

How do you put longing/groaning and hope together in the same breath?

5 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, suffering

Tagged as , ,

August 4, 2008 · 5:09 am

Divorce & Remarriage 13: A conspiracy?


On our journey thought David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church we come to chapter 13 where he raises the question why, if the church has had access to rabbinical literature and understanding of the issues at play during Jesus and Paul’s time, hasn’t the church revised it’s understanding of the divorce passages. If you have been following along, I-B has been arguing that most of the church was unaware of the controversy surrounding the “any cause” divorce during Jesus day and that was what he was reacting to in Matt. 19. But now that we have this background available to us again, it helps us understand the context of Jesus comments. So, why hasn’t the church revised divorce teachings? Is it conspiracy? Or just disagreement with I-B?

I-B tells an interesting story at the beginning of this chapter. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, one scholar refused to make public one particular scroll. After he died, the scroll was translated and made public. The controversy? The scroll contains a 1-2nd century divorce certificate written by a woman for an “any cause” (or better, no cause) divorce. The scholar had previously published that this sort of thing didn’t happen in this wonderful period of orthodox Judaism so he sat on the document to hide it. I-B tells the story here because he believes this shows how even Jews had forgotten the only reasons allowed for divorce in Exodus 21 (neglect, infidelity) and that no cause divorces were allowed by both men AND women.

Yet I-B doesn’t really believe conspiracy is the problem with the church. Just confusion. Why the confusion? I-B reviews the sexual mores of the early Christian world. Outside the church immorality was a given at levels we don’t even have today–open sexual contact with prostitutes, friends, etc. even when married. So, I-B reports that the church reacted to this to even become suspicious of conjugal love in marriage. If a marriage ended due to the death of a loved one, the widow should not remarry and if he/she did, it was a sign of lust. He quotes Tertullian’s belief on this matter that Christians should seek abstinence. It is I-B’s believe that this view of sex and celibacy is what grew until the 9th century when the Roman church instituted celibacy for priests and comes out the believe that Paul and Jesus both taught that celibacy was superior to marriage. (Remember that in a prior chapter I-B stated his believe that Paul’s comment in 1 Cor. 7:1 that it is good for a man to not marry is not Paul’s belief but his quotation of a common belief which he rejects in following verses).

Further, I-B reports to us that many early church fathers (and contemporaries as well) believed that the OT was for then and the NT is for the church. So, even if the OT had other rules about divorce, Jesus rules supercedes and is the only rule for Christians today.

But since this “any cause” dispute has been known to us for 150 years why haven’t we reconsidered the divorce interpretations? I-B ultimately says it is because of the status quo. Church doctrines shouldn’t change. He says the thinking goes like this: God doesn’t change, the bible doesn’t change, doctrine doesn’t change.

I-B ends this chapter rather abruptly (IMHO) with the admission that he has undertaken this scholarly study given our better understanding of the misery of abuse within the church. And yet he believes his understanding of the key issues surrounding the culture of the 1-2nd century Judaism and Christianity helps us re-consider the meaning of Jesus and Paul’s words on divorce.

So, what are we left with? There may be more ambiguity in some of our passages on divorce, reasons for divorce, and remarriage. Certainly, we must admit there are some silences that trouble us. We would have liked greater clarity. We all recognize that Jesus and Paul rejected baseless divorces. That sexual purity is essential. That marriage is good, sex is good, but not to be worshipped. I think we can also see that divorce is part of the fall but a reality. It is forgiveable but there remain questions of whether remarriage is possible. If we take the no remarriage passages as speaking about baseless divorces, then we are to work for reconciliation. But if that is not possible, we must acknowledge that there are many situations with the Scriptures do not provide us clear direction. In those cases we ought to be careful not to act as if we did get a clear message from the Lord. We ought to be very careful not to hang weights on the necks of believers and to bind their conscience where there is ambiguity. This does not mean we cannot seek to preserve marriages as our ideal.

Well, we are almost at the end of the book. Two more chapters on recommendations for what the pastor/church should do given the possible new interpretations.

3 Comments

Filed under Abuse, book reviews, Christianity, church and culture, conflicts, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage

Tagged as , ,

August 3, 2008 · 5:31 am

Enduring well?


Last week I wrote on the theme of endurance and how I find it difficult to do so. When we suffer ongoing difficulties, we are tempted to give up hope because when we look at the big picture we cannot see any way of escape or change of situation. Today I’m thinking about healthy and unhealthy endurance patterns.

While remembering the biggest picture (one day with God in heaven) can be helpful when we have time to reflect, it may be better to narrow our focus to the thing at hand when we are in the thick of the battle. I remember seeing a PBS special about a man trying to get down a Himalayan mountain by himself. He had sustained severe leg injuries (both broken I believe). He had no hope of making it back down to camp alive. He was sure he was going to die. But he didn’t give up. He would hoist himself by his ice axe and then fall forward. 10 yards and rest. Then 10 more. He kept his eye on the next 10 yards. Several days later he made it back to camp and to help. Most of us wouldn’t have the strength to do what he did. But we can learn the lesson in the benefit of just looking at the next 10 yards of life.

It is when we step back to reflect on our situation that we face the temptations to become bitter, isolate from the comfort of others (or the opposite–gathering a chorus of voices who will tell me I have a right to be bitter), and begin making demands on God. Now, reflection isn’t bad. In fact, it is necessary. But with reflection comes the opportunity to listen to the wrong voices. There are those who will tell you to give up on God. And there are those who will say that any attempt to try to relief the suffering is a lack of faith. Both voices are wrong.

But narrowed focus on the next thing has its own problems as well. We can put up with things that should not be (e.g., abusive behavior from a boss) and believe that we ought not try to change things because that is trying to do God’s work for him.  We can choose bitter isolating martyrdom over asking others for help.

So, how do you know whether your narrowed focus is Godly endurance or merely learned helplessness?

7 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Christianity, suffering

Tagged as ,

August 1, 2008 · 1:00 am

How do you endure hardship?


Life is hard. Harder for some than others. Really, really hard for some, so much that our hardships are rather light and momentary in comparison. Nonetheless, life is hard. And the call of Hebrews 12:1-3 is to persevere, to endure. That has been the message in my church for the last two weeks.

But I don’t like to endure. I was a runner in high school. A good runner though not a great one. One of the reasons I wasn’t better is that I mentally gave up and had the wrong attitude. I would start out well but then the realization of the pain set in. I would mentally think about the distance left. “2 miles to go…I’m only 1/2 way of this awful hill…1 mile to go…the last hill is going to kill me…just stop…maybe you’ll trip over that root…” Not a good way to think when you are trying to do your best and when you live in a hilly part of the world.

Now here’s a funny thing. On my team was one of the best runners in New England. He broke course records wherever he went. Chris liked to run with me and I with him on non-race days. We would run at his pace. I would fall in step just behind him and let the rhythm of his steps capture me and lo-and-behold, I ran fast. Somehow that never worked on race days…

My point is that I don’t like to endure. I want endurance to be short and rare AND to always lead to victory or that thing that I want. There are some people (like Olympians) who seem to be better at enduring pain and hardship with little chance of getting the gold just because there is some other fantastic athlete just ahead of them.

Steve Young (pastoral intern at my church) reminded us of Hebrews 10:36: that we have need of endurance. What??? Yes, we have need so that we receive the promise of a better possession.

So, what is your response to sustained hardship? What do you find helps you maintain your “pace?” What do you use to evaluate how well you are doing in your perseverance?

Since there can be bad kinds of endurance, I’ll write more on that topic later.

4 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, suffering

Tagged as , ,

July 23, 2008 · 10:51 am

Divorce & Remarriage 12: How did the early church misunderstand Jesus?


We’ve covered 11 chapters thus far in our review of David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce & Remarriage in the Church.  His main point is that the Scriptures in Exodus 21 require marriages to be built on the covenant promise to provide food, clothing, and sexual love. When these were not provided then the woman was allowed to go free. The controversies in the NT are about the “any cause” divorce that some Jewish leaders supported. Jesus, I-B says, is only speaking to this problem in Matt 19 when he says no to “any cause” and only yes to causes that break the covenant. Much of I-B’s argument is based on how early rabbis interpreted the OT and Jesus’ lack of criticism of their interpretations. He also looks at cultural/evangelisticreasons for the matter of submission in Eph. 5 and questions whether these are timeless truthes (last week’s post).

So now we come to a key question in chapter 12: How did the early church misconstrue Paul and Jesus so quickly? Why did they come to believe the texts taught that divorce was never allowed.

I-B suggests the following reasons:

  1.  
    1. The Destruction of Jerusalem of 70AD. He reports that almost all of the various Jewish teachers were killed–with the exception of the Hillel Pharisees who then became the dominant interpreters of Scripture. This is key in that it was the Hillel teachers who argued for the “any cause” divorce. Thus, the no cause but sexual immorality proponents were gone and so the debate that Jesus weighed in on was lost. 
    2.  Changes in word meanings. I-B points out the changes in the meaning of “wicked”, “gay”, and “imbeciles. ” The sentence, “Isn’t it wonderful that so many imbeciles are naturally gay” has obvious meaning differences depending on which generation says it. (p. 143). He also notes the different meaning of “intercourse” (speaking) in the 1800s
    3. Similarly, how we use shorthand phrases change over time. He reminds us that he explored the phrase, “Isn’t it unlawful for a 16 year old to drink” and that it obviously means alcohol to us but may not to later generations. So, shorthand phrases interpreted outside the context have a great chance to be misunderstood. And I-B believes that Matthew uses shorthand phrases regarding divorce because it wasn’t necessary for his readers to say the whole thing.
    4. Punctuation. I-B reminds us that the original Greek text does not have punctuation markers. Translators must provide punctuation. On p. 145 he shows how the addition quotation marks changes Mt 19 from the Pharisees asking if any divorce was legal to whether “any cause” divorces are legal. The church got this wrong, he thinks, because it forget about the “any cause” controversy.

Of course this brings up issues around interpretive process, authorial intent, and how God intends these passages to be timeless, or better yet, for all time. I-B says we ask the wrong questions when we try to ask what it says in plain English or what the traditional interpretation has been. Better, he believes, is to ask what the original audience understood it to mean.

As Christian we have to assume that the Holy Spirit was able to convey truth accurately to the original readers in language and with concepts they would understand. We who come later have to do more work than they did in order to understand the same message, because we have to learn an ancient language and read it through the mindset of ancient thought-forms. p. 147

But if you are following I-B’s argument you can see that he believes we need the historical evidence to interpret the bible correctly. Does he believe we need more than the bible to interpret the bible? Yes! But he does not reject sola scriptura. This means that that while Scripture itself gives us everything we need to know for salvation it does not provide us with the background on things beyond our salvation (i.e., divorce and remarriage principles mentioned in the bible).

He ends with the question of whether there has been a conspiracy to withhold teaching on the background of this issue in the church. It might be understandable that those in the first 2,000 years of the church would get it wrong since they didn’t have access to such resources. But in the modern era, these resources have been available. So, why didn’t they teach us the background? In the next chapter he will take up that matter.

MY THOUGHTS: I-B clearly believes that we need historical records to understand the original intent of Scripture. I think it is important as well. But, I would also assert that the NT writers interpreted the OT in ways that seem not to follow that system. It would seem that they cherry picked verses and gave them entirely different meanings than the original hearers of the OT passages–especially those that they interpreted as foretelling Christ’s birth.

At heart, I-B challenges us to understand the shorthand in Scripture regarding marriage and divorce. It is good for us not to become too self-assured that we have it all right. This doesn’t mean we can’t have convictions but we must be careful here when many good and godly men and women differ in interpretation. For example, John Piper at DesiringGod.org has strong reservations about this book and continues to assert that there should never be divorce and definitely no remarriage. You can check out his thoughts here and find links to Instone-Brewer’s only webpage (HT: Ron Lusk). The point is good Christian scholars disagree. Be careful to avoid being an uninformed know-it-all.

14 Comments

Filed under book reviews, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Relationships

Tagged as , , , ,

July 17, 2008 · 12:30 pm

Divorce & Remarriage 11: Where do our vows come from?


In Chapter 11 of Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, David Instone-Brewer explores the origin of the promises made in wedding vows. You know, to honor, cherish, love, obey, etc., depending on cultural contexts. I-B suggests that from good scientific evidence (findings in Cairo of ancient Jewish marriage contracts) we can be confident that vows to honor, cherish, nourish come from Exodus 21:10. But what about “obey” or “submit”? Is that part of Scripture? You might be surprised at what I-B contends. He suggests that this idea comes from Greek moral law. He doesn’t deny that Jewish women didn’t practice submission to their husband, but that it wasn’t part of the contract. He reports that the issue of submission became more significant during the 1st century AD when Roman and Greek women were demanding equality and freedom. In response to these societal shifts, leaders of the day tried to force folks back to the writings of Aristotle who believed that hierarchies in families and between masters and slaves would make for a peaceful, well-working society.

Paul himself picks up on these rules (wives to husband, children to parents, slaves to masters) but with “Christian comments added to it.” (p. 132). Yes, wife submit to husband, but husband should love sacrificially, children submit to parents but fathers should not provoke…and so on.

I-B suggests that Paul encouraged Christians to keep this code so that they wouldn’t be seen as immoral and give a bad impression of Christianity (Tit 2:5, 9-10; 1 Tim 6:1). Interesting. So, are these commands to submit God’s views on what makes for right living or peace? OR, were they given because they would most aid evangelistic efforts. [DOES THIS DISTINCTION MATTER?]

I-B then turns again to the question of whether the church should allow a divorcee to make vows again to honor, cherish, etc. Should the church remarry divorcees. He believes that if they have made an effort to reconcile and cannot then they should be allowed to remarry. However, he does not believe that the divorcee who causes a divorce by his/her adultery should then be allowed to marry the person they slept with. This, he says, would be condoning the sin of adultery. And he argues that the OT and NT Rabbis flatly refused to as well. He admits this position doesn’t have clear biblical support but thinks it makes good sense.

My thoughts?  This chapter has some good points but doesn’t hang together very well. There is good reason to remove the words “obey” as it was an idea designed to make Christianity not be offensive to the surrounding moralistic culture. This helps us understand why women were told not to bejewel themselves (as the out of control women of the day were doing).

Finally, he adds in this interesting line from an early English marriage vow (from 1085) , that the woman promise to, “be bonny and buxom in bed and at board.” He translates this for the readers, which I will give you tomorrow. What would you think it means? Give me your best shot!

3 Comments

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, Christianity, divorce, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as , , ,

July 16, 2008 · 10:18 am

Is burn-out an American phenomenon?


Part of my sabbatical is designed to understand how better to help pastors and their families avoid the crash and burn. There are many pressures (finances, conflict, loneliness, the fishbowl, etc.) on ministry families and while any one of them may not be overwhelming, together they can bring a minister to his/her knees. Worse yet, they can tempt the leader to seek comfort in ungodly ways.

But a friend of mine who cares greatly for ministry leaders was recently talking to an African pastor. This pastor has NOTHING. He ministers to those who have NOTHING, to those living under trees. They live in a country that is in the midst of a civil war.  He has his wife spend months apart ministering to the poor. When my friend asked about pastoral burn-out, this pastor could not comprehend the question. It didn’t compute–and not because he didn’t understand the concept.

Why? Are we Americans soft and weak given that we live in the land of plenty? Probably. But are there other explanations? I think so. Foremost in my mind is the place of expectationsin the life of Western pastors. Expectations of success, growth, contentment (from self and church community) create pressure and when expectations are only partially met, it leads to the temptation to discouragement and looking to greener grass. Secondly, I think living in constant crisis without hope for change rarely allows for collapse–unless it is to die. It is common for the greatest emotional collapse to happen when one has the opportunity to pause and reflect. In crisis, we do not reflect. When the crisis abates, then we reflect and see that our assumptions and expectations do not fit with reality. It is that point that leads to either leaning on the Lord while changing our expectations to match his OR either trying harder or choosing another assumption that causes greater pain.

What do you think?

7 Comments

Filed under Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, church and culture, Cultural Anthropology, pastoral renewal, pastors and pastoring

Tagged as , , ,

July 8, 2008 · 5:43 am

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

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, Biblical Seminary, Christianity, Doctrine/Theology, Evangelicals, missional, Missional Church

Tagged as , , , ,

June 25, 2008 · 5:38 am

Divorce & Remarriage VIII: 4 Biblical Grounds for Divorce


Last week I took a hiatus from reviewing Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church  (IVP). This week we explore chapter 8. I-B starts with a story about a woman whose husband attempted to murder her. Her church leaders decided that it would be okay for her to separate due to the threat to her life but that she could not divorce because the Bible didn’t allow it. He suggests that this is a common response to abuse in marriages: Separation for safety but no possibility of divorce unless adultery.

I-B makes this very clear response: “…[this] solution is not biblical. A couple should not separate without getting divorced, because Paul specifically says that married couples may not separate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).” (p. 94-5)

But we have already witnessed I-B argue that the OT allowed the victim to decide to divorce in the case of abuse, neglect, and adultery. Did the NT abandon these grounds? I-B reminds the reader,

He [Jesus] spoke about the ideal of lifelong marriage, the facts that divorce was never compulsory and that marriage was not compulsory, about monogamy and, of course, about his interpretation of “a cause of sexual immorality’–that it means only sexual immorality and not also “Any Cause.” So if Jesus believed that neglect and abuse were valid grounds for divorce, why didn’t he say something about them? (p. 95)

I-B infers that Jesus didn’t say anything because it was so obvious a reason. It was not considered controversial as was the “any cause” debate that was raging at the time of his ministry. He argues that Jesus didn’t teach about rape, manslaughter, the oneness of God either. Does this mean he didn’t believe those things either? Bolstering his argument is the fact that he reports that no other ancient Jewish literature debates the validity of divorce for abuse/neglect. Therefore, it wasn’t an issue needing attention. He goes on to tell us that what was debated was how one defined neglect (i.e., minimum quantities of clothing and food and conjugal love needed in order to avoid being considered in neglect of one’s spouse).

So, to underline this, the Matthew 19:9 passage is in regard to the question of Deut. 24:1 and the debate about whether any cause divorces were valid and not to say that no other grounds were possible.

So, I-B suggests that Paul teaches 3 grounds for divorce (implicitly) in 1 Cor. 7: neglect of food, clothes and sex. The reason why he talks about the obligations to care for the spouse and not to withhold is because of the known (at that time) grounds for divorce existing in Ex 21:10-11. Further it is assumed that Paul accepted the cause of unfaithfulness as grounds but that he doesn’t speak to this issue.

So how do we apply these grounds for today? While it is easier to assess unfaithfulness, I-B says that we too frequently neglect the matter of neglect that may have helped cause the rift that resulted in adultery (p. 101). Neglect doesn’t excuse adultery but, “it is important to realize that the fault is often not just one sided.” (ibid).

What about frequency of sex a reason for divorce? The rabbis thought men should provide sexual love at least 2 times per week, less if you were an “ass driver” (HIS words not mine), and nightly if you were out of work! Of note were NO rules for women as to how frequently they would need to offer conjugal love. Despite these pieces of advice, I-B reports that, “rabbis were reluctant to allow a divorce on the ground of refusing conjugal activity…” Further, notice that while Paul encourages both parties to see sex as something they owe each other, I-B points out that nowhere does he give permission for one party to demand sex from the other. “…Love is something that we give and not something that we take.” (p. 102). Still further, I-B suggests that we should not define conjugal love as narrowly as intercourse, “because this can become impractical or inappropriate in cases of illness or frailty.” (ibid)

I-B wants us to look at the principles. The husband that never allows his wife to buy make-up, occasional leisure items and the husband that provides weekly sex but no other kind of affection may not violate the technical side of things but certainly has missed the spirit of the biblical mandate to protect and care for her.  

What about the couple who no longer finds themselves in love? Can they divorce? I-B says it would be improper to read back the idea of being in love into the biblical passage. Love is an act, not a feeling.

I-B ends with the question about what can be said to the abused party. Here’s what he would say to an abused wife,

First, we can tell her that God’s law has taken such sin into account. God’s ideal for marriage is for a husband and wife to be faithful to each other and, as we saw in the [OT], for them to support each other with food, clothing and conjugal love. If these vows are broken, then there are grounds for divorce.

Since there is no question that the abusing husband is “neglecting” to support his wife, she should be aware that she does have the option to divorce him…

We should not forget, though, that Jesus emphasized forgiveness…so we should not advise this woman to divorce her husband the first time he breaks his vows. However, if he continues to sin hardheartedly (stubbornly or without repentance), Jesus says she may divorce him. In practice we have to depend on the individual concerned to decide when enough is enough, because we cannot know what goes on inside a marriage. We cannot know how much emotional abuse is happening, and even physical abuse is largely unseen or unreported. (p. 103-4)

I-B speaks of the false facade that we erect or allow to be erected about “happy” marriages that in fact are not. This is sad and not the way it should be. God does, however, know our secret sufferings and so he says this to the abused,

“God is not a ruler who sits on a high throne in isolation, ignorant of the suffering of his people. He aches with us, even in divorce, which he too has suffered. God loves you and knows your secret sufferings. he wants to help you and has given us practical laws to help deal with your hurt.” That is what we say to a person in a neglectful or abusive marriage. p. 106

—-

So, do you agree? Where does your mind go when considering these as grounds for divorce that the victim uses to decide if she or he has had enough? I have found that while some concede these, they are very afraid that some will cry “victim” when they are not. That these grounds will be used for all manner of excuses and that “victims” will assert that only they can know that they have been abused.

While it is true that some and even many will abuse the divorce rules in the bible, it doesn’t make them any less true.

27 Comments

Filed under Abuse, biblical counseling, Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, Relationships

Tagged as , , ,