THE DILEMMA OF DIVORCE
Don Hawley
The dilemma of divorce and remarriage is one of the greatest problems facing the church today. Even though we search in vain for the perfect solution, we need to do all we can to strengthen the marriage relationship that undergirds the family of God.
Jesus made clear his own convictions about marriage.
Some Pharisees came and asked him, "Do you permit divorce?" Of course they were trying to trap him.
"What did Moses say about divorce?" Jesus asked them.
"He said it was all right," they replied. "He said that all a man has to do is write his wife a letter of dismissal."
"And why did he say that?" Jesus asked. "I'll tell you why--it was a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness. But it certainly isn't God's way. For from the very first he made man and woman to be joined together permanently in marriage; therefore a man is to leave his father and mother, and he and his wife are united so that they are no longer two, but one. And no man may separate what God has joined together." Mark 10:2-9.
Obviously God considers marriage a very important relationship. It is not to be entered into lightly, nor once entered into should that bond be broken. Since the law of marriage represents the ideal, there is no reason it ever should be changed. You will never find God promoting divorce.
Some years ago divorce was rare even in the secular world. Many would say those were the good old days, when family serenity reigned. However, much of that apparent serenity was mere illusion. "Nice people" didn't get divorced, but there was plenty of pain and hurt nevertheless.
Now that divorce has become fashionable, the problem is out in the open. To the secular mind broken homes are just a fact of life, but the church cannot take the matter so lightly. To date, the church's major efforts have been limited to building roadblocks in the path of divorce and remarriage. However, statistics prove that approach has been neither helpful nor effective.
MANEUVERS TO AVOID DIVORCE
The prime approach in some denominations has been to sit in judgment, using a brief formula that in essence says:
If you have absolute, demonstrable proof your spouse has been involved in a physically adulterous relationship, you yourself are absolved of any wrong and are free to divorce and remarry.
If you do not fit into the above pattern, you are duty bound either to remain in your present relationship or at least stay single following a separation or divorce.
One reason this formula hasn't been helpful or effective is that it wasn't designed to help hurting people, but rather to keep the church's skirts clean. It was an attempt to avoid getting involved in the messiness of marital problems by remaining legally aloof. Until recent years this formula was stringently applied, while offering very little help to the victims of a failing marriage.
I want to say frankly that I consider this formula to be simplistic, legalistic, and hypocritical.
Simplistic because it doesn't take into account the complexity and uniqueness of each couple's problem.
Legalistic because it embraces only the letter of the law.
Hypocritical because it often punishes those whose sexual relations have been limited to one they consider a legitimate spouse, while those who admittedly have been involved in physical adultery occasionally are excused.
I used the word "often" above because retribution isn't evenly bestowed. Whether the formula is applied in any given case may deped on which congregation one belongs to. Or who the pastor is. Or whether one gives heavily to the organization, or is considered prestigious.
There must be a better way than the use of this failed formula.
PROGRESS
The policy of a denomination I once belonged to has shifted through the years, and some progress has been made. An action on divorce and remarriage was taken recognizing that the decision whether to divorce must be left with the individual.
"The decision whether to divorce must, in any case, be the individual's personal responsibility and not that of a third party . . . When alienation has advanced too far for reconciliation, separation by mutual consent or by legal enactment may be necessary, or the partners may decide on divorce."
Note that this action implies no condemnation or threat of discipline against the troubled participants.
Rarely do those who sit in judgment on divorce and remarriage cases have the necessary information to arrive at an unimpeachable decision. One tragedy of the legalistic formula is that it forces participants to accuse each other in public, to drag out all the dirty linen they can recall. Even so, only God truly can weigh the evidence.
The previously mentioned action wisely left the decision about divorce with the couple and their God, rather than with a third party. But why not take the same tack in regard to remarriage? What sudden wisdom does the third party now possess that it didn't have before?
The church seems to be saying, "We admit our inability to judge adequately the reasons for alienation, so we will allow separation or even divorce. As long as you remain alone, hurting and lonely, you will continue in our good graces. But should you, even in your own good conscience, reach out in remarriage for love and companionship, we will strike."
Divorce and remarriage constitute a package problem. An acceptable divorce should, if desired, open the way for an acceptable remarriage. If a third party cannot adequately determine whether the divorce is acceptable, neither can it adequately pass judgment on a possible remarriage.
I don't make decisions the way you do! Men judge by outward appearance, but I look at a man's thoughts and intentions. 1 Samuel 16:7.
Many seem to be terribly worried that someone is "going to get away with" something. Not so; God can weigh even the dust particles on the balances of life. If a person enters into a divorce or remarriage that is unacceptable to God, the omniscient One will know how best to deal with his erring child.
CREATING PROBLEMS
The simplistic divorce and remarriage formula was designed to keep the church from having to sail through dangerous and troublesome waters. That approach hasn't worked. Not only do we still face the original problem, but we've created several new ones in the process. Let's take a look at a few of them.
Take the hypothetical case of Bill and Mary, purposely overstated. Bill is everything a husband shouldn't be. Although he doesn't make much on the job, a great portion of his meager income is lost to habitual gambling. Much of what's left over from gambling goes for liquor; Bill is an alcoholic. Some people get happy when they're drunk, but Bill gets mean. And when Bill gets mean he seems most to enjoy beating Mary around the head. When he tires of beating his wife, he is not above slapping around their two small children. The family lives in a wretched little house with few of the amenities most people take for granted.
Mary is a sweet little Christian woman, but so timid she can neither stand up to Bill nor tell others about her plight. She has a loving nature and craves affection, something she never gets from Bill. He spends every spare moment he can with his drinking buddies. Bill doesn't pay any attention to other women either, probably because of an alcohol-inhibited libido.
In order to clothe the children for school and put food on the table, Mary has taken a job with a nearby business firm. Some rare excitement comes into her life when her company pays her way to a three-day seminar in Chicago. She gets to stay in a hotel and eat her meals in a restaurant. The second evening she is approached in the hotel lobby by a friendly man who also is attending the seminar. They chatter animatedly, and for the first time in years affection-starved Mary feels she may be something more than a cipher.
The next morning Mary is dumb struck to realize she has had an affair. Grief stricken and ashamed she refuses the man's further advances. Alone in her hotel room she pours out her heart to God and asks his forgiveness. Back home she feels impelled to tell Bill what has happened and ask for his forgiveness as well. Bill, of course, is not prone to forgive anyone for anything.
If one clings tenaciously to the letter of the simplistic formula so often used, the conclusion is automatic. Bill is the so-called "innocent" party, and not only has a right to divorce but also to remarry as well.
I hope you have as much trouble with that scenario as I do.
STRANGE BEHAVIOR
The letter of the law sometimes leads troubled people into strange behavior patterns totally unbefitting a Christian. Since absolute, undeniable proof of physical adultery is required, people often are driven to desperate measures. Peeking into windows is not uncommon, nor is hiring a private detective for spy duty. One can enlist friends and relatives to work on the project as well.
I'm acquainted with a minister who felt he had the right to a divorce, but didn't have the one proof demanded. The wife, not wanting to see her husband separated from his life work, offered to initiate a "one night stand" in order to take the curse on herself! Horrors! But if hearts could be read, more than one person in a troubled marriage has hoped for, if not prayed for, the spouse to be unfaithful! There must be a better way to face the problem of divorce and remarriage than one that leads to such aberrant and abhorrent behavior.
A BETTER WAY
Let me make a point here by recalling the time Jesus healed a crippled man at the Pool of Bethesda. It was a beautiful experience, except for the fact that the healing made the Jewish leaders so angry they wanted to kill the Savior. Their problem was that the healing took place on the Sabbath day.
Now one might say the Jewish leaders had a point. After all, the Sabbath commandment seems clear.
Remember to observe the Sabbath as a holy day. Six days a week are for your daily duties and your regular work, but the seventh day is a day of Sabbath rest before the Lord your God. On that day you are to do no work of any kind . . . Exodus 20:8-10.
It was the Sabbath, and this man had lived with his illness for 38 years. Could he not have made it for another few hours? Why did Jesus deliberately anger the leaders when delay would seem to have been the more expedient course?
WE'RE BACK TO PRINCIPLE AGAIN
Christ was, in public, making a tremendously important statement. He was in effect saying, "It's true that the Sabbath law calls for a cessation of work. It's also true that the Sabbath command is an important one. But I want you to realize that people are even more important than the Sabbath!"
On another Sabbath occasion, as Jesus and his disciples were walking through the fields, the latter broke off a few heads of wheat and ate the grain. Since this was "harvesting" on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders were incensed once again. Christ rebuffed them and explained his Sabbath convictions.
But Jesus replied, "Didn't you ever hear about the time King David and his companions were hungry, and he went into the house of God--Abiathar was High Priest then--and they ate the special bread only priests were allowed to eat? That was against the law too. But the Sabbath was made to benefit man, and not man to benefit the Sabbath. And I, the Messiah, have authority even to decide what men can do on Sabbath days!" Mark 2:25-27.
Again and again the Bible brings us back to living by principle. How many problems could be solved if we would just keep this truth in mind.
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6.
Paul is not denigrating the law in this verse. He is merely warning us that living by the law, while ignoring the Spirit of the law, can be devastating to God's people. The Pharisees were faithful to the letter of the law, but they had murder in their hearts.
Let us learn Christ's philosophy once and for all: People are more important than programs or systems.
Now we should be able to apply this principle to the problem at hand. Allow me to paraphrase.
Marriage was made to benefit man, and not man to benefit marriage.
Marriage is a very important, God-given institution. But people do not exist for the sake of marriage. Rather, marriage exists to be a blessing to man. When it ceases to be a blessing, we need to evaluate carefully.
If the marriage relationship has deteriorated to the extent that it is truly detrimental to the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the parties involved, then separation or divorce is preferable.
A tortured marriage can be dangerous. It can destroy the parties involved. If the relationship engenders only hatred, it certainly isn't making the participants more Christlike.
But couldn't a dishonest person use the principle stated above as a shield to end a relationship that could and should be saved? Of course. However, such people are likely going to do their own thing eventually in any case. And throwing the letter of the law at them doesn't solve a thing.
WHAT IS ADULTERY?
I've read many studies on those Bible texts that deal specifically with divorce and remarriage. As is often the case much ambiguity is involved. Even sincere and competent theologians can't agree on the specific meaning of these texts.
I'd like to present a few thoughts of my own. Most people my age learned the sixth commandment as "Thou shalt notkill." More modern translations, however, read, "You must not murder." There is a fine distinction.
The seventh commandment normally reads, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Is it possible this commandment properly could be translated "You must not be unfaithful" when applied to the marriage relationship?
In Exodus 20:14 the Hebrew word translated "adultery" is na'aph. However, this word also is used figuratively for apostasy.
The Israelites did on occasion go whoring after heathen women, but in most cases where God accused them of adultery he had something else in mind. He likens his relationship with his people to the intimacy of a marriage. When his chosen ones place their affections on idols, he charges them with committing spiritual adultery.
This problem is addressed in the King James Bible as follows:
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? James 4:4.
Note, however, how certain other versions translate this same verse.
You are like an unfaithful wife who loves her husband's enemies. James 4:4, TLB.
Unfaithful creatures! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? James 4:4, RSV.
You are like unfaithful wives, flirting with the glamour of this world, and never realizing that to be the world's lover means becoming the enemy of God! James 4:4, Phillips.
You false, unfaithful creatures! Have you never learned that love of the world is enmity to God? James 4:4, NEB.
You [are like] unfaithful wives [having illicit love affairs with the world] and breaking your marriage vow to God! James 4:4, Amplified.
Adultery, then, has to do with being unfaithful to one's spouse.
True marriage is more than a sexual union, a physical bonding, even though we sometimes seem to treat it that way. True marriage is in essence a love relationship. Outside of that framework it is not the real thing.
The way the simplistic formula is so often applied, one could assume that the first vow in the marriage ceremony is a pledge not to get into the wrong bed. Not so. The first pledge is to love, and the other follows naturally. Nothing will keep a marriage from falling into physical adultery more surely than having abiding love one for the other. In fact, before physical adultery takes place, some spiritual adultery must be indulged in. The love relationship already has been damaged in some way.
UNFAITHFULNESS
With what we've just said, I'd like to point out that it's possible to be exceedingly unfaithful to the marriage vow without ever once engaging in physical adultery.
Remember Bill and Mary? Bill never had gotten into the wrong bed, but he was hopelessly unfaithful to his wife. He had promised to love her forever, and he had done no such thing. His actions translated more accurately as hate. True, Mary did fall once (or should we say Bill pushed her), but if anyone in that marriage had a right to a divorce it was Mary.
Some would still say, however, that since Mary was not the so-called "innocent" party, a divorce could not one day be followed by a loving marriage relationship such as she had always yearned for. If Bill stayed single and outlived her, she would have to spend the rest of her days in abject loneliness.
Marriage relations are not simplistic in nature. Only an all-wise God can sort them out properly. We would be wise to let him do the judging.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Love is the basic foundation of any true marriage. If love is ever extinguished on a permanent basis, then a marriage no longer exists. There still may be a piece of paper from the state, but the marriage is actually dead. A divorce, then, is merely formal recognition of the tragic fact. And if there is no marriage, then the propriety of remarriage becomes a moot question.
Some, however, would urge couples to stay together in so-called marriage even when total indifference or even hate has replaced love. I submit that to remain together under such conditions, using each other's body for mere sexual release, is adultery of the worst kind.
By the way, physical adultery should not automatically be considered proper grounds for divorce. It may be that the so-called "innocent" party's coldness and lack of love precipitated the fall. In that event the "innocent" person is just as much in need of forgiveness as the one who has erred physically. Even though the church may approve of divorce in such an "open and shut" case, what is legal is not necessarily moral. The letter of the law is not enough. With proper counseling, perhaps such a marriage could be saved.
LET'S SAVE MARRIAGES
Instead of trying to play God, and of course failing, let's go all out to build solid new marriages, bolster those that seem in jeopardy, and save as many as possible of those that seem doomed.
Let's begin early in our families and schools to lay the foundation for good Christian marriages. Let this be the subject for much discussion and learning.
When couples are contemplating marriage, let's offer them extensive premarital counseling and testing. Many will take advantage of such an offer and be benefited for life, whether they proceed with the marriage or not.
Also, let's quit brandishing the letter of the law as a weapon. Let's show so much compassion for troubled marriages that the parties involved will seek for help while the marriage still can be saved. Divorce must always be the last resort. A hard-line approach, however, tends to keep hurting people at a distance until it is too late.
Lastly, when someone has suffered the trauma of divorce, let's not add to the pain they've already experienced. Instead we should let them know we share their hurt, and then apply the healing balm of Christian love. That is God's way.