CHRISTIAN DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

The Mosaic Covenant had permitted divorce:

·       Deuteronomy 24:1 (ESV)  When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house.

Understandably, there had been a lot of disagreement among the rabbis regarding the phrase “some indecency in her.” Did it mean that divorce should be sanctioned for any reason? This was exactly the question they brought to Jesus, who answered:

·       Matthew 19:4-6  He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Did Jesus’ answer mean that there were absolutely no grounds for divorce? However, afterwards, He did mention an exception:

·       Matthew 19:9 (ESV) And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Earlier, Jesus had articulated this same exception:

·       Matthew 5:32 (ESV)  But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Some commentators suggest that “sexual immorality” also pertains to sexual sins other than adultery. Paul adds an additional exception:

·       1 Corinthians 7:15 (ESV) But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

It would seem that, in these cases, the divorced party is now free to remarry. These exceptions represent the understanding that, if the marriage contract has been violated in these ways, the violated party is free from any obligations to it. Why? Because covenants are not always absolutely binding! Paul illustrated this:

·       Romans 7:2-4 (ESV) For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law [covenant] of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Does adultery (and perhaps other forms of sexual unfaithfulness) free the violated party from his/her covenantal obligations to the marriage? Death of the spouse certainly frees the surviving party from these obligations. I tend to think that if the marriage has been violated through sexual unfaithfulness or abandonment (by the unbeliever), it means that the husband has already dissolved the marriage covenant and there remains no obligation on the part of the spouse. It seems to be like any contract. If the buyer refuses to pay for the product, the provider is not under any obligation to send it. How else are we to understand the above-mentioned “exception clauses!”

CELEBRATE ORGASM

While walking through a college campus, I observed a table manned by two female students with a sign reading "Celebrate Orgasm."

I understood it to mean, "celebrate uncommitted, casual sex," a message not at all uncommon on our college campuses. For me, at least, it conjured up thoughts of angry Leftist professors indoctrinating youth against traditional values. I decided I had to confront these misguided young ladies.

"Are you aware that studies show that married women report having better, more satisfying sex than the hook-up crowd?"

I was surprised to hear that they were familiar with these studies. I was even more surprised by what followed:

"Of course, a woman is going to enjoy sex more with someone she can trust, with someone she knows is totally committed to her."

I was stunned. She even said these words so matter-of-factly, as if to say, "It's just common knowledge."

"Well, if it is common knowledge," I thought, "why the heck are you celebrating indiscriminate orgasm?" However, others approached the table and I never got a chance to ask my provocative question, but I continued to think about it.

Although our youth have been substituting "until dead do us part" with something like "until we no longer are getting what we want out of this marriage," they know that they and their future offspring are made for committed relationships.

Meanwhile, they mock the Christian faith as puritanical and repressive, even though it is this very faith that safeguards what they ultimately want in a family and a relationship.

It is the teachings of the Bible, which provide the light and guidance for human thriving. Quoting Genesis 1-2, Jesus taught:

• “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

I am grateful for these teachings. Marriage can be trying, but it is because we are convinced these truths, that divorce has never presented itself as an option. Consequently, we're in it for the long-haul, and therefore, we can trust and rely upon one another. We are not surveying the grass of the other side, and so spend our time fertilizing our own lawn.

The Logic and Lessons of Cohabitation

Cohabitation – sometimes termed “trial marriage” - is the new and undisputed norm. NPR writes:

• Today, more than 65 percent of first marriages start out that way. Fifty years ago, it was closer to 10 percent.

• Cohabitation before marriage, once frowned upon, is now almost a rite of passage, especially for the millennial generation. Young adults born after 1980 are more likely to cohabit than any previous generation was at the same stage of life, according to the Pew Research Center. With more than 8 million couples currently cohabiting, it is obviously a living arrangement with appeal — but it is also one with unique challenges.

The logic for cohabitation goes like this:

• Marriage is difficult. Most end in divorce. It therefore makes sense to first live together to test for compatibility.

On the surface, this makes sense, but the findings indicate otherwise:

• The research on whether cohabitation increases the risk of divorce is still being debated, but Rhoades and her colleagues have found that couples who move in together before getting engaged or committed to marry are a little more likely to have lower-quality marriages. 

In fact, the stats are frankly forbidding:

• [Trial marriage] provides some but not all of the same emotional benefits of marriage, yet only for a short time and at a high price. Breaking up with a live-in lover carries many of the same emotional costs as divorce but happens far more frequently. People who are cohabitating are less happy generally than the married and are less satisfied with their sex lives. In America, long-term cohabiting relationships are far rarer than successful marriages. (The Case for Marriage, Linda Waite & Maggie Gallagher, 74)

• One in ten survives five or more years…The divorce rate among those who cohabit prior to marriage is nearly double (39% vs. 21%) that of couples who marry without prior co-habitation.

• “Men in cohabiting relationships are four times more likely to be unfaithful…Depression is three times more likely…The poverty rate among children of cohabiting couples is five-fold greater…and 90% more likely to have a low GPA…Abuse of children is 20 times higher in cohabiting biological-parent families; and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.”

• “Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children. It is a deadly toxin to marriage, family, and culture.” 

• Spanish statistics, which have been highlighted in recent years by Europe’s Family Policy Institute (FPI), and recently reported by the Spanish Newspaper ABC, indicate that while only 11% of Spanish couples cohabit without marriage, such unions account for 58% of the most violent crimes between couples. For every one protection order issued for a married couple, ten are issued for cohabiting couples. (LifeSiteNews.com)

How do we explain this? Why are “untried” marriages more successful than trial marriages? Perhaps it has to do with the way we regard marriage. Do we regard it pragmatically (whether or not it works for me) or principally (my commitment to my family is more important than pragmatic considerations). The pragmatic approach is me-centered, while the principled approach is other-centered.

Perhaps we need to understand that our lives are about more than ourselves and our pleasures. Perhaps instead, life paradoxically works better when we are other-centered, even God centered, and when we are not primarily focused on what I can get out of it.

This is the logic of Jesus:

• But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:33)

It seems to be superior to the “logic” of cohabitation.

Hypocrisy, Judgment, and Homosexuality

One Christian blogger noted that the church is confronted with these two recurrent charges:

• “1) The church should stop harping on the sin of homosexuality, treating it as worse than all others.

• 2) Because of rampant divorce in the church, the church has lost its moral authority to speak to the issue of gay marriage, and to continue to do so is the height of hypocrisy.”

The blogger responded:

• First, is the church “harping” on the sin of homosexuality? Maybe some churches are. I’m not aware of them, but it’s possible… when the subject comes up in such churches or synods—say at a national convention or something—those who speak the most are often preaching for the acceptance of homosexuality not the sin of it. Thus, if the church is indeed “harping” on the issue, it’s harping out of both sides of its mouth.

• Even so, is the church driving and framing our national conversation about homosexuality? I don’t believe it is… At best the church is attempting to be responsive. But make no mistake, the driving and framing forces of our societal obsession with homosexuality are the institutions of media… government… and education. The church isn’t controlling the conversation.

This blogger’s observations match my own. The Bible-believing church, for the most part, has been reduced to silence on the critical issue of sexuality, while our teens are left to glean the “wisdom” of the media, schools, and universities. In the absence of a prophetic word from the church, there is nothing to counteract what they are being fed elsewhere.

In regards to his faithfulness to biblical teaching, the Apostle Paul declared his innocence:

• I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you.  For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. (Acts 20:26-27)

Had he not taught the “whole will of God,” he would not have been able to declare himself innocent. I don’t think that many churches today would be able to declare their innocence. Studiously, so as not to give offense and to lose attendees, churches are avoiding certain unpopular teachings. Has it now become better to please man than to please God!

Instead, God warned Ezekiel that he should not place God’s warnings in a padlocked drawer:

• “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me.  When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.  But if you do warn the wicked person to turn from their ways and they do not do so, they will die for their sin, though you yourself will be saved.” (Ezek. 33:7-9)

And what about the second charge? Is it hypocritical to judge if we too commit sins? Indeed, we have no right to call others to repent of their sins if we are unwilling to repent of ours. That’s hypocrisy! Well, what if we do the hard work of self-examination and confess and repent of all our known sins? Jesus addressed this issue:

• “Do not judge, or you too will be judged… Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5; Gal. 6:1-3; James 5:19-20)

The blind cannot perform surgery. However, if we first embrace the light by confronting our own sins, we then can shed light for others.

Porn Addiction and Social Upheaval

The extent of porn addiction is surprising, and its implications are staggering. Marvin Olasky writes:

• One survey of 16- to 20- year-olds found nearly one out of four young men and one out of ten young women admitting they tried to kick the habit but could not.

This raises the question, “How many more are hooked but haven’t confessed to it!” Also, “How many users are we talking about?”

•  Witherspoon Institute conference research (proceedings published as The Social Costs of Pornography) showed that two-thirds of 18- to 34-year-old men visit porn sites regularly… Many men find it harder to relate to real women. Most divorces involve one partner compulsively using pornography. (World, May 17, 2014, 72)

I’ve seen the pervasive interest in porn highlighted in another way. On the average of 100 people visit my blog posts. However, I posted one essay by Robert Peters, then president of Morality in Media, entitled Prostitution & Pornography: The Links between the Two. Amazingly, 2,438 visited this post!

What are the implications of this national addiction? Besides the breakup of marriages, there is also the breakdown of society. Porn has often made the sexual partner – a marriage-mate or otherwise – irrelevant. After all, who needs the expense and the inherent problems of relationships when one can find what he wants in front of his own computer. Besides, the addict can find a new “partner” or multiple partners at will, who will do anything he so desires.

What are the psychological implications? What will be the effects of the early sexualization of youth? And what will happen to society when the majority view others as sex objects? It is no wonder that porn is strongly associated with violent crime and sex-trafficking. In addition to this, there have been numerous reports that porn addiction is like other forms of addiction. They all rewire the brain.

How will porn addiction impact the conscience? Clearly, we know it is wrong. I still haven’t heard about any porn parties where the group masturbates in front of the screen. Perhaps there are such parties, but their rarity would suggest that most are ashamed of this addiction and want to keep it private.

What then happens when we violate our conscience? In order to live with ourselves, we have to rationalize our behavior and tell ourselves that it is normal, natural and totally acceptable. Along with this, we then find ourselves resenting those who claim that there is something the matter with porn. We drop out of church, concluding that the church is filled with judgmental hypocrites, whose opinions should be silenced.

We are heading for difficult times!