* * *
I read this excerpt by Dr. Russell Moore recently. He was asked what to do if someone is in a miserable marriage:
Does God want you to be miserable? Long-term, no. And that’s why God has designed marriage as a life-long covenant signaling the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the long-term, God wants you to be deliriously happy. But by long-term, I mean the next trillion years, and beyond. In the short-term, one often must bear difficulty and, yes, even misery. Remaining faithful to a wife you wish you hadn’t married might seem miserable to you, but taking up a cross and following Jesus is “miserable,” in the short-run. That’s why the Book of Hebrews presents the life of faith in terms of not receiving what was promised (Heb. 11:39), but seeing it and embracing it from afar. Dr. Russell Moore, Source
This seems to be a common thought I’ve heard before – if Christ is our head, then we can and should be able to endure all kinds of suffering and persecution because this life on earth is just a moment in the bigger scheme of things. We look with great anticipation for eternity, in light of our momentary sufferings – you know, the count-it-all-joy gig.
From my Bible reading and teachings in churches, I was always taught that divorce was permissible for desertion and adultery. But read what Piper says:
The Covenant Remains till Christ Removes
One of the reasons that I have emphasized the ultimate meaning of marriage so much in this series is that the meaning of marriage is such that human beings cannot legitimately break it. The ultimate meaning of marriage is the representation of the covenant keeping love between Christ and his church. To live this truth and to show this truth is what it means, most deeply, to be married. This is the ultimate reason why marriage exists. There are other reasons, but this is the main one. Therefore, if Christ ever abandons and discards his church, then a man may divorce his wife. And if the blood-bought church, under the new covenant, ever ceases to be the bride of Christ, then a wife may legitimately divorce her husband. But as long as Christ keeps his covenant with his bride, the church, and as long as the church, by the sustaining grace of God, remains the chosen people of Jesus Christ, then the very meaning of marriage will include: What God has joined, only God can separate, not man. John Piper, What God Has Joined Together, Let Not Man Separate, Part 1
I have not paid much attention to the varying views of marriage/divorce/remarriage in Christianity. John Piper holds to a permanence view of marriage. I must have been living in a bubble my whole adult life. I had no idea until a year or so ago that some popular Christian leaders hold to a “permanence view of marriage.” The permanence view of marriage maintains that there are no biblical grounds for divorce or remarriage. Both Voddie Baucham and John Piper ascribe to this belief.
I found an article from the Pyromaniacs blog, On Divorce which had some discussion of this viewpoint in the comments. Here was a helpful comment which fleshes out what the permanence view of marriage can look like after a biblically-sanctioned “permanence” divorce:
The permanence view creates an enigma that leaves the divorced or innocent party defenseless and instructs them to try to be satisfied with a life of singleness, a life of consequent frustration and hardships. They believe for example, that if a man with two small children divorces his wife for another woman and gets remarried, his former wife is to live her life without a companion and raise the children without a father (in the home). The exception clause Jesus gives allows her recourse to deal with a husband that has abandoned God’s will.
A few of these men concede that a spouse can be involved in gross sexual immorality that warrants a divorce, but teach that the innocent party should not remarry. Ironically, most in the permanence view would instruct the man in this example to continue his second marriage while instructing his former wife to remain companionless. I see no biblical justness in that. This position should be shown to be erroneous so that the innocent doesn’t suffer needlessly, attempting to live their whole life without a companion. (Source)
In contrast to the above excerpts, I wanted to share with you a recently published interview with author and blogger, Barbara Roberts from A Cry for Justice. Barbara’s research on divorce was very informative and gives hope to those who are in abusive marriages.
I took a few notes, but strongly urge you to take the time to watch the video. It is excellent. And as an added bonus for watching the video, you get to hear two Aussies!
* * *
* * *
A Few Notes from “Does God Hate Divorce?”
Mark Brown interviews Barbara Roberts
Does God Hate Divorce? Barbara begins by explaining that “God hates divorce” is a mistranslation of a widely known slogan from Malachi 2:16.
Abuse “A person who is an abuser and we talk about abuse as a pattern of coercive control that is designed to maintain control over the other spouse and often of the children in the family, too.” Ms. Roberts mentioned that “it’s a pattern of behavior which is intentionally designed to maintain control.”
Idolatry of Marriage “The problem in Christian circles a lot of the time is that they have elevated marriage to be more important than the individuals within it. They have actually made an idol of marriage. . .” Barbara notes that Christians “prioritize the institution rather than the health and well-being of the individuals.”
Doctrine of Suffering Ms. Roberts discusses the common confusion some Christians have about persecution. Suffering persecution for the cause of the gospel is not the same as being persecuted by abuse in marriage.
* * *
photo credit: woodleywonderworks via photopin cc
Spiritual Sounding Board 
It is crucial that one understand the cultural context of what Jesus and the rest of the NT says on marriage and divorce. David Instone-Brewer does a great job in this area. John Piper has a very flawed understanding of marriage and divorce, one that will lead to much suffering for those that believe his distortions of what the Bible actually teaches. I teach that Piper’s flawed marriage and divorce teaching coupled with comp marriage doctrine is a double whammy of pain and misery.
LikeLike
Don, Thanks for your comment. I thought we weren’t supposed to remove anything from the Bible. If Jesus gave an exception clause, then why are we going against that? It certainly does seem that in the case of abuse in a marriage, this teaching would only re-victimize the abused. Either God cares for the oppressed or He does not. Which one is it?
LikeLike
The Kingdom is intended to be breaking into this world and not “pie in the sky, by and by” which is why what Moore and Piper teach in this area is an example of spiritual abuse.
LikeLike
This pastor who asserts that suffering misery in this life is a meagre sacrifice for joy in the next life, begs the question, “And what if this life is ALL YOU GET???” That kind of divine arrogance just astounds me – talk about spiritual abuse!
LikeLike
Wade Burleson(who is my minister btw) said in a sermon that when a husband cheats or abuses his wife or a woman the same to her husband, the marriage vow has already been broken.
I never understood why divorce in the above cases was something to stay in. In my opinion when one is in the church, the burdens increase. Why in the world would Christ have died to add on all of these burdens. Life is full of them as it is but it is also a taste of heaven. We were not born to be children, grow up and be miserable. Who in their right mind would choose this when coming to Christ or joining the church? Not me. It’s bogus and full of control issues. It angers me that the church is more a proponent of misery than joy.
LikeLike
“Don Johnson on July 23, 2013 at 8:55 AM
The Kingdom is intended to be breaking into this world and not “pie in the sky, by and by” which is why what Moore and Piper teach in this area is an example of spiritual abuse.”
Don,
Would you label many of these preachers/teachers gnostics/mystics because of the “pie in the sky” notions that they teach? They really seem to have no concept of God’s will be done, His kingdom come, on EARTH as it is heaven . . . they seem very unbalanced.
LikeLike
Seems to me that divorce is simply the legal recognition (with its accompanying financial, material, and parental resolutions, etc.) of something that has already occurred. That “something” is the breaking of the marriage contract/covenant made between the spouses. That is why Moses allowed for marriage because of the “hardness of heart” of people–their hardened hearts had already, in effect, destroyed the marriage, and they therefore required a legal/civil form to acknowledge that dissolution. That’s also why Paul spoke in 1 Cor 7 of the intricacies and contingencies of marriage, divorce, and separation. He was acknowledging the need for a formal, civil manner to recognize the (mostly tragic) failure of a marriage, so that children, the community, the victims, etc., might be protected and valued, and not forced to continued in a life of misery and hypocrisy. And while it is true that a healthy marriage certainly represents the inviolable, eternal relationship of Christ and His church, an unhealthy marriage certainly does not truthfully represent that relationship, and we should not act like it does. I disagree that marriage troubles rest with whether one is complementarian or egalitarian, and believe such labels have done very little help marriages, and have only serve to give Christians something further to argue about, and bloggers to write about. But since there exists obedient, blessed, “deliriously happy” marriages of both persuasions (and such marriages do exist) to blame troubled or unhappy marriages on one or the other is futile and illogical. The troubles come from unhealthy, spiritually immature, and willfully sinful independent human beings, not from either of those views on marriage roles, IMO!
LikeLike
“That is WHY Moses allowed…” Yes, I’m Type-A(ish)….
Mod note: JA’s got your back. It’s fixed!
LikeLike
Hi Bridget,
Yes, when one enters into eternal life, eternal life starts right now, not at some later point. Telling someone that all will be fine in a trillion years in this case facilitates abuse, we are to work to stop abuse today (for example) as a part of being children of God.
This is why I see this false teaching by Moore and Piper as constituting spiritual abuse because it ends up working to NOT seek to end other forms of abuse.
Marriage is not permanent, it ends with the death of a spouse or with divorce. False teaching that marriage is permanent can lead to no good end.
LikeLike
Makes no sense at all for Calvinists like Piper and Baucham to say anything against divorce. After all, if a couple gets divorced, then it must have been predestined through God’s sovereignty. Just another example of guys like them talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Conservative Arminians can be just as bad, though. In a Church of Christ I once attended, the elders disapproved of me even dating anyone unless I was willing to get up in front of the congregation and throw my ex under the bus by accusing her of adultery. Whether she did or not is none of their business at all. Any congregation that holds such a condemning view of divorced people so that it is only forgiven under very specific circumstances is effectively making divorce equal to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, since an “unscriptural” divorce can’t be forgiven at all.
It frustrates me to no end that so many conservative Christians think that we have to live under legalism and that we must abdicate logic, reason, and simplicity in order to live according to the “sound doctrine” of their legalism. Might as well just change John 8:32 to “You shall know the sound doctrine, and the sound doctrine will put you in bondage.” If you’re going to remain in bondage, then you’d probably be better off being in bondage to your own sins, rather than the sins of a power-hungry authoritarian.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Regarding Piper and the exception clause, he believes it would only apply in the betrothal period (which we no longer have). The other “exception clause” is 1 Cor 7 where it says an abandoned spouse is “no longer bound” which he interprets to mean they no longer have to pursue the marriage, but it does not mean they are free to remarry.
This was the teaching of my church, unknown to me until I chose to get a divorce.
Incidentally, Piper’s church disagrees with him and they do allow divorces and remarriages based on the exception clauses (adultery and abandonment).
One final note, any Reformed church that adheres to the Westminster Confession Of Faith would allow divorce for adultery or abandonment, and the PCA officially (though in a non-binding manner, so individual churches may ignore it) says that physical abuse fits into the categories of abuse/abandonment. Obviously their limitation to physical abuse is problematic, but it’s a step in the right direction.
LikeLike
Ken said: ” I disagree that marriage troubles rest with whether one is complementarian or egalitarian, and believe such labels have done very little help marriages, and have only serve to give Christians something further to argue about, and bloggers to write about.”
Lol, Ken. But I do agree with you. Marriage troubles and abuse have no boundaries.
LikeLike
Ken, when you leave a comment like that, it only encourages me to keep the typo there. Btw, look out your window and wave to me, buddy. I’m waving and leaving Ptown right now. 🙂
LikeLike
Just when you thought you’d heard it all. So let me get this straight: women are to live under the authority of their fathers until they are married. Their father must give his stamp of approval of the husband. Once married, the woman must now live with a constant sense of being under her husband. And if he becomes abusive, SHE is the sinner for leaving because there is no circumstance in which divorce is permissible? I wonder what Piper, Moore and the like think of independent single women like me. wowzers. Which century is this again?
LikeLike
Julie Anne, you’re the busiest, most productive person I’ve ever met! Safe journeys! My “keep bloggers blogging” remark was not directed at you, BTW. As a faithful member of the blog-world, I only write comments like that about people I disagree with :)!
LikeLike
Just when I thought someone would just take it to the Bible, my hopes are dashed again! Let me help, please! Here are Jesus’ words on divorce and remarriage.
Mark10:1-12
Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
“What did Moses command you?” he replied.
They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘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.”
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Just reading the text, we hate two groups asking Jesus about divorce and remarriage – the Pharisees and the disciples. Jesus replied to the Pharisees with a question about Moses, they replied about what Moses permitted and Jesus told them it was allowed because of ‘hardness of hearts’ BUT not God’s original plan.
When the disciples asked Jesus about it, he (Jesus) kicked it up a notch, as he was wont to do (real murder and murder by hatred, etc), and told them that IF a husband or wife got a divorce and then remarried, the remarriage was ADULTERY.
That’s about it. We can however deduce rather easily that the ‘permanence’ view of marriage, that God intended for marriages in fact be ‘til death do us part’ is biblically accurate. It was God original intent and present plan for marriage.
Any questions?
LikeLike
Carmen, why don’t you ask the Apostle that question? His answer might surprise you.
LikeLike
“That’s about it. We can however deduce rather easily that the ‘permanence’ view of marriage, that God intended for marriages in fact be ‘til death do us part’ is biblically accurate. It was God original intent and present plan for marriage.
Any questions?”
What if a spouse becomes abusive?
LikeLike
And BTW, I’ve seen Christ heal some pretty ‘miserable’ marriages that brought Him great glory! There’s nothing in the Bible about having made a bad decision and wanting a ‘do over’.
LikeLike
Yes, when one enters into eternal life, eternal life starts right now, not at some later point. Telling someone that all will be fine in a trillion years in this case facilitates abuse…
“In the Sweet By and By,
You’ll get Pie in the Sky when you die…”
— Old Wobbly anthem, “The Preacher and the Slave”.
LikeLike
What if a spouse becomes abusive?
This is called “Win-Win Situation” for the abusive spouse.
LikeLike
Marriage is not permanent, it ends with the death of a spouse or with divorce. False teaching that marriage is permanent can lead to no good end.
Sounds like Mormon Temple-Sealed Celestial Marriages to me…
LikeLike
B4B – Speaking of taking it to the Bible, you left out Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9. If I am not mistaken, those are also Jesus’ words on divorce and remarriage.
LikeLike
Well…. there are plenty of “questions.” For one, does the fact that Jesus appealed to the pre-fall condition of marriage “…from the beginning…” mean that He was in fact challenging or nullifying Moses’ teaching regarding it? Did his disciples seem to take it that way? Did Paul? Did the early church? Also, since the first marriage was a pre-fall relationship, are we then to suppose that it has remained normative for all, subsequent, post-fall relationships? Also, what about Paul in 1 Corinthians? It takes a number of somersaults (exegetically) to argue that he did not allow for any divorce whatsoever, when he clearly wrote of the conditions upon which a Christian might divorce! If the simple appeal to the most narrow, dogmatic view of text really precludes any further questions, then I guess there’s nothing more to speak of, but the issue is much more nuanced and complicated than such an approach implies. As a pastor, I’ve found that the “no divorce anytime” or even the “no divorce except for adultery” arguments don’t hold water with the daily rigors and challenges of marriage and family, including the prevalence of various forms of abuse, and of drug/alcohol addiction. They lead to the absurd suggestion that the mere continued, legal existence of a marriage relationship is somehow honoring to God, obedient to Scripture, and a compelling example of the gospel to the world around us. It isn’t, on any account, IMO!
LikeLike
Ken said: “My “keep bloggers blogging” remark was not directed at you, BTW. ”
Whew!! You’re right, tho, I have been crazy busy. I won’t be traveling nearly as much this year, though. Volleyball girl will have a college responsible for her transportation instead of me.
LikeLike
For Random Methodist Reader’s July 23, 2013 @ 11:46 AM
God can and has healed some very bad marriages. It’s a testimony of His love, grace, and healing power. Jesus said what he said.
The Bible gives two clear grounds for divorce: (1) sexual immorality (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and (2) abandonment by an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15). Even in these two instances, though, divorce is not required or even encouraged. The most that can be said is that sexual immorality and abandonment are grounds (an allowance) for divorce. Confession, forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration are always the first steps. Divorce should only be viewed as a last resort.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/grounds-for-divorce.html#ixzz2ZtoNJIRa
LikeLike
Good observation, Brian.
LikeLike
As was said in my earlier comment, divorce should be an absolute last resort for believers. It was for my wife’s first marriage (abusive husband) and mine (she departed and was an unbeliever). We were both believers, however living in ODF Land (Out Dere Flappin), having largely given up on organized religion. We did not return to Christ until after we married, by a marvelous set of circumstances only God could have engineered. We have also heard about everything there is to hear about divorce and remarriage for believers. One East St. Louis Pastor even told us we hadn’t really committed adultery because our former spouses had been married before being married to each of us, rendering our marriage invalid! .At any rate, we know all about divorce and remarriage for believers, all of the passages relevant to it. We have now been married for close to 40 years, are a mixed race couple (in the mid 70’s you didn’t see white men married to black women) and we plan on going quietly sitting on the front porch in our rocking chairs, if possible.
LikeLike
B4B,
There are some people here who are believers, who read God’s word, and have come up with different conclusions than you. Obviously this is highly debatable. Look at the contrast represented in the post.
Those who are Saints also have the Holy Spirit to guide us. We are all equal here, not one person has any better access to God than the other. It’s important to keep that in mind to avoid condescension. Let’s search scripture, let’s challenge each other respectfully. I think this is a very important topic.
LikeLike
B4B, Yes, you certainly were not the norm with an interracial marriage in the 70s. Good for you for making the most of the social challenges you faced, as well as dealing with residual from failed marriages. Odds were not in your favor for marital success. That’s great.
LikeLike
“And BTW, I’ve seen Christ heal some pretty ‘miserable’ marriages that brought Him great glory! There’s nothing in the Bible about having made a bad decision and wanting a ‘do over’.”
It’s not that simple.
LikeLike
JA,
All I know is what the Bible tells me. It is CLEAR that divorce isn’t/never was God’s plan. HE designed it to be a permanent covenant. How we have messed up that plan by bad decisions in getting married, getting divorces at the same rate as non-believers, or whether a marriage turns abusive DOES NOT alter God’s plan. My Mother was in an abusive first marriage and went to the Lutheran church with her grievances and received church approval for the divorce. I am not accusing anyone of anything and if they ‘feel’ as if I am, it’s not my fault. Believers divorce and I am not faulting anyone. We’ve wrestled with these issues personally. I got in this just to offer what Jesus said in Mark. Then I addressed the exception passages. I am still only saying that divorce is not God’s plan or intent for marriage. Am I in the doghouse for having said what Jesus said? He said it is not God’s plan. In the OT divorces were allowed, but because of the hardness of hearts. In the NT Jesus still said it wasn’t God’s plan, but allowed exceptions.
LikeLike
Born4Battle, I don’t have any questions. The permanence exegesis does not survive the test of being consistent with other scripture. Any interpretation of scripture must not lead it into conflict of other scripture. A permanence view violates Jesus teaching that divorce is allowable when there is adultery. It violates Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 7 that abandoned spouse are no longer bound. It violates the OT law governing divorce, unless you believe that God changed his mind regarding divorce. It also has God violating his own teaching by divorcing Israel. And finally, it violates the character of God by teaching that a commitment to a religious practice is more important than the well being of a child of God. Jesus understood that the Sabbath was made for man. Was man made for marriage?
Divorce necessarily means allowing for remarriage. Divorcing and not being allowed to remarry makes no sense in the culture of the first century. The whole point of a Divorce was to allow for remarriage.
You say that you have heard everything there is to hear about divorce and remarriage, but it is clear you have not read David Instone-Brewer’s “Divorce and Remarriage In The Bible”, or you read it and tossed it out. If it’s the latter, then I’d love to know on what basis you did so. He is a true Biblical scholar and his exegesis is far more researched and documented than any other source I’ve read on the subject. And oh yes, his is one of the only works I’ve read that does not set scripture against itself without doing some major, and unwarranted, twisting of the words (Barbara Robert’s book is also quite good and does not set scripture against scripture).
I agree that divorce is a “last resort”, but sometimes people get there. Yes, God has healed some miserable marriages. People have also died from not leaving abusive marriages. You can decide for yourself where the line is that God has called you to endure. It is not wise to pressure others in different situations to stay in dangerous situations. Let each person decide between him or herself and God to what degree God has called him or her to suffer.
LikeLike
“All I know is what the Bible tells me. It is CLEAR that divorce isn’t/never was God’s plan.”
I actually agree with you that divorce isn’t in God’s plan. However, neither is abuse, neglect, adultery, or any number of things that can ruin a marriage that aren’t specifically laid out in the Bible.
This is a complicated subject, and we can’t declare anyone’s reasons for divorce automatically invalid, or declare it to be automatically out of God’s will, because of a few Bible verses removed from their historical, situational, and literal context. We all need to trust God on this matter, and what God’s will is on any individual marriage can only be known by those in it, not by anybody outside of it.
LikeLike
Lots of yelling faulting people for not following God’s plan, yet zero grace for anyone else that may find themselves afoul of that plan for whatever reason.
Does anyone really wonder why people are leaving the church in droves? Who in their right mind would want to attend a church full of haranguing invective?
LikeLike
Thank you Eric. Furthermore, there are those of us who believe that the Bible was written BY men FOR men. . need I say more?
LikeLike
statement: “he is a true Biblical scholar” — means no one can disagree with him (it just sounded like that in the comment)?
I’m just asking as John Piper is a “is a true Biblical scholar” and many disagree with him (unless I have a bad understanding of biblical scholars – help?).
Also, I’m scratching my head about the often used (mentioned above) method of not applying scripture today, that is considered only for those people in their specific culture and time (not that understanding the times, culture, and circumstances isn’t helpful).
What do y’all think guides us in knowing which scripture is mere culturally relevant, only, and which is for believers today?
LikeLike
“Also, I’m scratching my head about the often used (mentioned above) method of not applying scripture today, that is considered only for those people in their specific culture and time (not that understanding the times, culture, and circumstances isn’t helpful).
What do y’all think guides us in knowing which scripture is mere culturally relevant, only, and which is for believers today?”
It’s not that the scripture in question isn’t relevant or that it shouldn’t be applied to today; it’s just that it needs to be understood what was being talked about at the time the words were spoken and/or written. When we know what was being talked/written about then, we can have a better understanding of both what God was trying to communicate to the various churches and cultures back then, and what God is trying to tell us now, almost 2,000 years later (it’s too bad we don’t have the letters that the various churches wrote to Paul, so that we could know for sure what Paul was responding to).
I believe God never intended the Bible to be a strict rule book for all people for all time.
LikeLike
The cultural context of divorce in the first century is really interesting. At some point, Caesar outlawed sex outside of marriage, because there were too many fatherless children, effectively orphans, being abandoned. But divorce was easy under Roman law. So a host of a party would have a priest available who would marry the couples who wanted to be intimate that night. Then sometime later, there would be a divorce. It was serial marriage and divorce on steroids. Of course, the Jewish and Christian communities, as well as many affiliated with neither, were appalled at this practice.
LikeLike
It would have made Elizabeth Taylor look like a marriage loyalist!!!
LikeLike
No, I did not mean that no one can disagree with him. I mean that he is someone who has done extensive advanced study of ancient Jewish culture at an academic level. I would not consider John Piper a “scholar” in that sense.
If you want a good insight into what I mean, read everything John Piper has to say on marriage and divorce (summed up in his position paper, so that’s a good place to start) and then read David IB’s “Divorce and Remarriage In The Bible”. His work is far more thorough, documented, and comprehensive than Piper’s, which makes sense because he has a larger body of knowledge accumulated on the subject.
The point is NOT that we ignore scripture as not being relevant for today, but that we must first understand it in the context it was written before we can accurately translate it.
For example, IB makes it very clear (and shows through using first century examples) that no one listening to Jesus talk about divorce would have understood him to be prohibiting divorce in cases of neglect or abuse. So is it reasonable to interpret his words to mean something different now? That would be the height of liberal interpretation .
Another point he makes is we have examples of first century religious leaders saying word for word exactly the same statements as Jesus and we KNOW those leaders permitted divorce for neglect and abuse. For Jesus to means something else means he had to have been using the same words in the same context, yet mean something different. If that is the case, how can we understand anything he said?
All scripture is useful for us today and is culturally relevant, but first we have to make sure that our understanding of what it says is sound. And scholars who have spent their lives studying the ancient world and practices and greatly help us with this if we are willing to listen.
LikeLike
RMR – I agree, it would be neat to see exactly what Paul was responding to in his letters… so much easier.
I’m in agreement on the “strict rule book.” Simply, the book even says we can’t follow the rules. 🙂 Even Paul failed to do what he always wanted to do.
Back to practice, then, how we use the Word in counsel, whether with our friends, or those seeking help, must be with much grace and love.
LikeLike
Jeff S – thanks for the reference, I’ve saved it for future study. Appreciate your expounding on my question. I think others will find it helpful as well.
LikeLike
You’re welcome, and I appreciate the question and the chance to answer it. I sure do not want to come off as a guy who wants to cut out pieces of scripture as “not culturally relevant”.
LikeLike
I’ve not read Barbara Roberts’ book, but I think I may purchase it. Very interesting interview, and translation difference noted in the ESV. I did a cursory review of other versions, and found it interesting that ESV is certainly in the minority – probably as Barbara mentioned, this is a newer translation rendering.
I don’t have issue with Barbara’s comments on the interview, regardless of the rendering of Malachi 2. The reason I say it this way is because hating “divorce” (old rendering) and hating people is two completely different things.
I’m reminded of Don Francisco who spoke on a tape (metallic ribbon encased in a plastic cassette recorded with music or discussion) 🙂 he he… couldn’t resist) about divorce where he stated that the Church has turned divorce into the, “unforgivable sin.” He was reaching out to those who had been divorced and those who had an improper view of divorce. There were some other things, but thinking back to Jesus’ way of working with people, he loved them.
He loved the sinners, the prostitutes, the adulteresses, and their version of the IRS employees, and yes, the divorced. I think its important to remember this as we read and apply scripture, to prevent what RMR referred to as using the Bible as a “strict rule book.” No, we don’t want to continue in known sin, but where the Word allows grace, I believe there is grace.
LikeLike
I don’t have the reference, but I remember reviewing Piper’s convictions on divorce and remarriage and what he described to be Bethlehem Baptist’s position. Their by-laws allow for Piper’s more conservative view along with a more liberal application. He stated that their organization allowed for the pastors to act in accordance with their convictions. I found this applause-able on many levels, but two in particular catch my eye.
The first one is Bethlehem’s polity structure that permits variation among their leaders. The second is Piper’s views were expressed with an understanding that his convictions were his, and that others he respected and loved had less strict convictions. He expressed humility in that, and I would surmise that upon his convictions changing, he would make amends. I think that’s pretty neat.
LikeLike
I actually am impressed by Piper’s attitude toward his difference of opinion with his church.
I only wish that his teaching hadn’t been such a destructive force in my life and the lives of others. It’s tragic that there are consequences when men like him teach doctrines that cause so much suffering to others when they apply it, but beliefs are not without consequence.
LikeLike
Ok, just got home so I’m going to catch up real quick.
Recovering Pharisee said:
RP – I’m so glad you mentioned this because this has been going in my head, too. Notice the two I mentioned who promote the permanence view of marriage are those who adhere to strict complementarian and Baucham fits into the Patriarchy category. So, if the abuser is a guy, she is forced to remain unmarried for the rest of her days. She may not have $$ means. Will the church stand beside her and offer assistance if she needs it? Who will help her with practical needs? Does the abusing husband suffer any consequence by the church? No wonder some pastors like the permanence view of marriage. There is no accountability for husband and possibly no consequence.
LikeLike
Debbie Kaufman said:
Right! And tell me, how can you have the joy of the Lord under that kind of bondage? How can a wife be a decent mom? How can the abused wife be a witness to her children and the world around her when she can barely survive? It just doesn’t add up for me.
LikeLike
Jeff S – agreed with what you said, “beliefs are not without consequence” and application.
I’ve found that even ‘sound doctrine’ can often be abused when applied. Sad! The application of biblical teaching typically boils down to us (me), the believers, and how we (I) live out our (my) faith, or not. How we treat one another can be indicative of our level of faith, and will certainly bring glory to God when done well. Loving one another, serving one another, etc., is what the unbelievers can, and will, notice as we live to spread the Gospel; and these things are most important, I think, within the marriage relationship.
LikeLike
Don Johnson said:
“Telling someone that all will be fine in a trillion years in this case facilitates abuse, we are to work to stop abuse today (for example) as a part of being children of God.
This is why I see this false teaching by Moore and Piper as constituting spiritual abuse because it ends up working to NOT seek to end other forms of abuse.”
THIS!!! Right here!!! When there is abuse that ends in divorce – – what happens to the abuse? Who is the one who suffers? Do these pastors institute church discipline on abusers? Why not? It seems this system only perpetuates more abuse because abusers know they can get away with it.
For some reason this situation just reminded me of the clergy exemption for reporting sex abuse cases. My former pastor and SGM pastors were able to avoid the mandatory reporting laws that most people in the helps/service jobs must abide by, ie, teachers, counselors, police, medical professionals must abide by because of the clergy exemption laws in many states. This must be changed. They know they have the loophole and how many cases of abuse are in churches in which pastors use that exemption?
LikeLike
Eric: Your whole 10:23 post was very good. I cracked up at this:
LikeLike
B4B said:
And if God doesn’t heal a very bad, abusive marriage – – – then what? It’s a testimony of what? And what happens now?
LikeLike
Jeff S. — Your whole comment was excellent! Thanks so much for your contribution. I loved this:
LikeLike
Born4Battle – – Why did God create us? What is our purpose on earth?
LikeLike
Julie Anne, it is a funny line but it’s absolutely serious in pointing out the inconsistencies that come from the authoritarians. Let’s take another example, one that even non-Christians know. In Mt. 7:12 and Lk. 6:31; do unto others what you would have them do to you. The authoritarian crowd is very comfortable with interpreting their legalistic rules, declaring that everyone should live by them, and imposing them upon their congregations. Therefore, according to Mt. 7:12 & Lk. 6:31, this is what they would have other do unto them. Does this line up with their words and actions when the secular society imposes a rule that they don’t like? Hardly. For some people it could just be a case of illogic and ignorance, but for these preachers that have degrees in ministry, we can only presume it to be pure hypocrisy.
The real point is that everyone cherry-picks from the Bible, no matter what they may claim. Some may quite honestly claim that they don’t, and they may earnestly seek not to do that, but the fact remains that everyone does it. We have to keep in mind that everyone’s personal experience is an influence on their own psychology, and that a person’s psychology is inextricably linked to their theology. When being an authoritarian works for you, it’s absorbed internally and expresses itself externally. Likewise when people are the victims of authoritarianism.
LikeLike
Thanks for this. Yes, I read Piper’s position on this and interpretation of the verses in Matthew several years ago. At the time I believed the Bible had no errors, and so I simply agreed that a person could not get divorced even in cases of infidelity. Piper is okay with birth control, though. Odd mix.
LikeLike
“cherry-picking” verses, say it ain’t so… 🙂 I just thought it was an interesting, that “everyone cherry-picks from the Bible.” My mind went to, “how could we not?” 66 books, thousands and thousands of verses, written over 4 thousand years. WOW! Simple enough for simple people to hear and believe in Jesus, and complex enough to keep even the smartest minds busy for a lifetime! Oh great and glorious God! How can any one person contain thorough understanding of it all? Do you think Paul did? Peter? Matthew? I don’t know, but we’ll certainly have a long time to hear about all the intricacies as the disciples on the road to Emmaus.
Can’t wait! But till then, we’ll keep on… 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Lana, if at that time you “believed the Bible had no errors,” why did you believe there was no exceptions for divorce, when the Bible provides it? maybe it was the way it was taught at your church?
LikeLike
Ok, I must be missing something here. I read B4Bs post and this is what I got. B4B, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. God’s original plan for marriage was that we never get divorced. But knowing sin would creep into the world and our marriages, he allowed for divorce under certain exceptions. Jesus basically said the same this. B4B also talked about his wife and mother being divorced from an abusive marriage. I also got from what he wrote he would not judge anyone for this. But he did me say divorce should be a last resort not the first or required step. I had no problem with this. Obviously each situation dictates a different approach. Am I the only one that read it that way? Was I wrong? I keep reading arguements against what he said, but they end up arguing for what he said. Now I am confused. B4B, if this is not what you meant, let me know. I will stand corrected.
LikeLike
As another mentioned, it is obvious that B4B has not read David Instone-Brewer on marriage and divorce as B4B so thoroughly misunderstands what Jesus meant. There are many terms that need to be understood in 1st century context. Piper has read DIB and so has no excuse, but I recommend that B4B read DIB before he again claims to know all the verses about this subject, as he clearly does not.
LikeLike
Piper’s okay with birth control? No way. Wow. My head is spinning. I think I need to make me a big ol’ chart so I can keep this stuff straight.
LikeLike
Julie Anne, I have been begging the CBMW folk for years to compile a Christian Talmud so we can keep up with all the rules roles and formulas. They can keep coming out with new Editions. :o)
LikeLike
“What do y’all think guides us in knowing which scripture is mere culturally relevant, only, and which is for believers today?”
Do you greet your brothers with a Holy kiss? :o)
LikeLike
“Marriage is not permanent, it ends with the death of a spouse or with divorce. False teaching that marriage is permanent can lead to no good end”
it is a form of Mormonism. CBMW was chocked full of this stuff for years. Not sure if still there since they re imaged themselves. (They money was drying up)
LikeLike
“Any questions?”
Why not check out David Instone Brewer a Hebrew Scholar at Tyndale House. He is long time happily married and thinks marriage is sacred. He disagrees with you simply because of bad interpretations. Check him out he has some interesting teaching. He must be good because Piper went after him. That is like an endorsement for me. That is how I heard of NT Wright! :o)
This is #4. You can start at 1. There are about 20 short vids.
LikeLike
Sorry Don! I did not see your comment on DIB until now.
Yep, Piper is no scholar. He is a shock jock marketer. Christian Hedonism? The Scream of the Damned? The flowery verbosity. Please. Sure did work well for him. Anyone see his Geneva vid?
LikeLike
B4B said, ““We can however deduce rather easily that the ‘permanence’ view of marriage, that God intended for marriages in fact be ‘til death do us part’ is biblically accurate. It was God original intent and present plan for marriage.”
A kid falls off the bike & breaks their arm. Now they need a cast. No, not part of the plan. Necessary, yes! So why focus on the kids fall not being part of the bike riding plan? B4B is stuck in Genesis. The kid is stuck with a broken arm.
Take care of the kid, get the darn cast, and be a good parent already. Take care of the wound. That’s the rest of the Bible, the solution. BTW, this logic is one reason believers leave & unbelievers run.
B4B, I don’t find your “I’m stuck in Genesis” comments helpful, they are bad news for a victim. I don’t believe in a yin/yang, good/bad God. God is good. I think he wants us to deal with wrong now and He will eventually deal with it Himself. God does not want us to pretend everything is fine, when it is not.
IMO, you seem even more disconnected now. Then you said you agreed with Comp views (you described it as commander/soldier, boss/employee), but when I pressed you, you later said you did not treat your wife that way and that she ran the house for long periods of time without your “authority”. The only difference to me is your views this time around seem more tone savvy.
You tell us you’ve both been divorced and remarried. I am falling off my chair right now. Why? Not because, again, you seem to act with some common sense.
It’s because you seem pretty consistently hypocritical. You seem to parrot views you’ve been taught, views which are opposite of what you do.
Your actions seem progressive. What you do seems exactly like what we believe here. Get rid of the dichotomies, double standards, hypocrisy already! It hurts those who are already hurt. Offer solutions. Care for the wounded.
Does anyone else see the irony? I do think B4B reflects very well the “do as I say, not as I do” leadership.
LikeLike
A Mom – – Wasn’t B4B saying that they did all of “that” before they were Christians and so that excuses the divorces? Did I read that correctly?
LikeLike
“Wasn’t B4B saying that they did all of “that” before they were Christians and so that excuses the divorces? Did I read that correctly?”
I have heard this one many times. Here is the logic. If you are married to an abuser before becoming a Christian you CAN leave them because you are going to hell anyway at that point. . If you marry a Christian who turns OUT to be an abuser you are stuck. (in hell on earth?)
But isn’t that backwards? Or more importantly, can a “Christian” abuse someone consistently over time? Wouldn’t the Holy Spirit at some point convict that person if that person is a real believer?
So…..perhaps the professing believer is NOT a believer at all so that makes divorce is ok! ( Seriously, is all one to do is say “I am a believer, attend church and they can do pretty much what they want? This is what I see happening in Christendom today)
See, told you all we need a Talmud.
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple
July 23, 2013 @ 5:40 PM
“What do y’all think guides us in knowing which scripture is mere culturally relevant, only, and which is for believers today?”
Do you greet your brothers with a Holy kiss? 😮 )
Nicely played. 🙂
I have a Russian brother who does, though. Cultural.
LikeLike
David Instone Brewer – I do hope he finishes well, along with all of us.
LikeLike
Julie Anne said, “A Mom – – Wasn’t B4B saying that they did all of “that” before they were Christians and so that excuses the divorces? Did I read that correctly?”
Well, if that’s true then it seems he understood the Bible more then than he does now.
But seriously, B4B. What do you propose for hurting people/families? To wait to become a christian until the divorce is final & they’re married again?
I would think you’d have more compassion and wisdom after going thru what you said you both went thru in your previous marriages. This is what drives people away.
LikeLike
Actually, the Bible was put in writing after about 500 BC and before 150 AD, so only about 650 years. Most of the OT was put in writing in Babylon during the exile, though some of it was penned post exile, e.g., Ezra, Nehemiah.
LikeLike
Ric @ 5:12 pm: Fantastic post!
Here’s some of my thoughts: God loves us. Each and every one of us are His favorite person. He knows we have many similarities, and He knows that we have differences that can seem incomprehensible to each other. He gave us a corpus of writings to proclaim the Good News of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, along with a great amount of timeless wisdom and guidance. He also sent us the Paraclete to comfort, edify, advocate for, and tune our hearts to hear Wisdom’s call. If all we needed were the black words on a white page to answer all our questions, guide our every step, judge all our actions, then of what real use is the Holy Spirit He sent us? If simply following any certain preacher’s teachings from scripture would cause us to lead a godly life, then why was Christ’s death, burial and resurrection necessary? We could have simply followed Hillel, Gamaliel, Maimonides, or any other number of rabbis to a godly life.
When we take the words given to us to guide us to Wisdom and Love, then tie them up into heavy burdens and throw them in people’s paths as stumbling blocks, we actually deny the most important thing in the Bible: Christ’s resurrection. We also dismiss the importance of the Holy Spirit. Think those statements are too strong? Perhaps they are, but think them over again after watching this three-minute video by Pete Rollins. http://vimeo.com/19258866
Re: Carmen’s comment @ 2:12 pm. I get where you’re coming from, I really do. I wear the idea of inerrancy as a loose garment, because I’ve seen and experienced the malignant groupthink that can arise from that doctrine. Paul never said that scripture was perfect and inerrant, he said it was inspired of God (God breathed in the Gk.) and beneficial. God breathed into something else in the Bible, and the result is certainly not perfect. Men have certainly misused scripture against women for the benefit of men, but I have come to where I judge those men and their fruit more than the scripture these days (although I do have questions and doubts about certain books in and out of the canon. Yeah, I’m honest enough to admit that I cherry-pick 😀 ) I, like every other Christian, am a priest with direct access to Christ and the Father, and have no need for a human intercessor. The Holy Spirit is available to me, as to all Christians. Yet when my beliefs are dismissed by those who seek to protect their idea of “sound doctrine” they do nothing more than make me an outcast and a scapegoat, which is another denial of the resurrection and the Holy Spirit (see video above.)
“Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” I believe this fully and completely. This verse is not describing an aspect of God like, Justice, Righteousness, Holiness, Wrath, etc., it is describing His essential being. It is only because love is His essential being that He emptied Himself from heaven and walked and died among us to reconcile us to Him and each other. When Paul describes love in 1 Cor. 4-8, he is telling us what God is.
But when the authoritarians tell us that we must submit ourselves to other Christians, e.g., husbands, elders, pastors, they’re going completely against the example of God and love Paul wrote of in 1 Cor. 4-8. Demanding that people submit to other people in the body of Christ can be called nothing but dishonoring, self-seeking, and distrusting.
LikeLike
My apologies for
so many words and paragraphs
Next post, I’ll
get my Rob
Bell/e.e.
cummings
on.
LikeLike
posting John Pipers response to Brewer’s article in CT.
http://tinyurl.com/l9vrpp6
LikeLike
I’m sorry, Eric. Im vetoing you. What you wrote at 8:06 was so important. Excellent!
LikeLike
EF: you said, “But when the authoritarians tell us that we must submit ourselves to other Christians, e.g., husbands, elders, pastors, they’re going completely against the example of God and love Paul wrote of in 1 Cor. 4-8. Demanding that people submit to other people in the body of Christ can be called nothing but dishonoring, self-seeking, and distrusting.”
Does this mean that references of submitting one to another, to our government, and to our spiritual leaders (sic) should be left out of cannon? If not, can you explain more; I’m wanting to understand what you are saying in the quoted text, as taken with your opus. 🙂
LikeLike
or, maybe the key is when “authoritarians tell us”? I’m tired and should have read it twice, if so.
LikeLike
Nice musical term, Ric. Opus! And I’m reading this at choir rehearsal. 🙂
LikeLike
hum, the time says 8:41 on my last post, but it feels more like 11:41 or so, I feel more like the later… must be west-coast? 🙂
LikeLike
🙂 sometimes I just dig, deep…. LOL…
LikeLike
One comment about that CT article from IB- it’s not very compelling, IMO. When I originally read it, I was not convinced at all of his position. To understand what he’s saying, it really takes understanding the scholarship behind his conclusions. I only got that after reading his book.
Regarding Piper’s response- that he could use the word “tragic” about IB’s position is revealing and sad. How disconnected can Piper be from domestic abuse that he would use the word “tragic” for the idea that they are offered relief from their marriages in scripture?
LikeLike
Yes, Ric, because this is my blog and I’m on the West Coast so it’s on my time 🙂
LikeLike
Ric wrote: “Does this mean that references of submitting one to another, to our government, and to our spiritual leaders (sic) should be left out of cannon?”
No, I don’t think that at all. But, I do think that there are enough valid reservations and doubts from many people that the scriptural canon shouldn’t be used as a tool of enforcement or test of faith. After all, it all is beneficial, but not necessarily in the same way for every single person (speaking only of the non-Gospel concepts). Submit to government? well, that’s kind of a common sense thing; you can either submit, resist and be arrested, or revolt and be killed. It’s also a separate thing from the body of Christ; we give Caesar what is his and God what is His. Yet the Christian Anarchist line of thought can lean towards resistance and revolt against even that.
You got it in your next post. When authoritarians tell us we must submit to their interpretation of what they think are the hard and fast “rules” is when things go pear-shaped.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
There is a serious flaw in the thinking that one is free to remarry after the death of a spouse, but not because of adultery. It is inconsistent. If one is free to remarry after death of a spouse, and God pronounced the death penalty for adultery, then the truth follows that one who commits adultery is dead in a sense, freeing the faithful spouse to remarry. That is why Jesus allows divorce and remarriage for adultery. Simply because the death penalty is not executed against the adulterer (whether by lack of such a civil law or because one may believe God may not require that anymore) means that the faithful spouse must live the rest of their life in misery? D’oh! In the OT you were allowed to remarry, but in the “new and better” New Covenant you aren’t? What makes this “better?” It isn’t.
What Piper and others miss is that God says about marriage “let not man put asunder”, not “man is unable to put asunder.” He never says that man CANNOT divorce, but rather that man SHOULDN’T divorce. This is why God has mercy on the innocent party.
LikeLike
Jeff S July 23, 2013 @ 8:48 PM
I was somewhat underwhelmed by Piper’s article as well, but it seemed he touched on some very good points. Also, Piper used the word “tragic” to describe what he considered “astonishing extension of the divorce license. It is, in our context of easy divorce and cavalier covenant-breaking, tragic.” – Piper is describing a specific area of concern, “cavalier covenant-breaking”. I didn’t get a lack of concern for anyone caught in an abusive relationship, from this article.
LikeLike
EF, thank you; understood now.
JA, sometimes I miss the west coast, like today with it in the 90s and around 100% humidity! 🙂
LikeLike
Yea, we are spoiled. I love the desert. I was in Portland yesterday and I think it was around 85, but it felt like 95 because of the slight humidity. The humidity in Portland is nothing compared to the East coast. But you can still feel the difference between there and where we live.
The 95 I came home to was nice. Where are you, Ric?
LikeLike
Those are good points, Steve. And why would we even have the word “divorce” in the Bible to begin with if it wasn’t allowed?
LikeLike
JA – I’m in the Norfolk, Virginia area. Not as bad as when I was in Mississippi, but still don’t care for it. Spent some time in Phoenix, 114 was hot, but yea, dry heat. 🙂 It DID make a difference.
LikeLike
“Regarding Piper’s response- that he could use the word “tragic” about IB’s position is revealing and sad. How disconnected can Piper be from domestic abuse that he would use the word “tragic” for the idea that they are offered relief from their marriages in scripture?”
Jeff, do you think it’s because of the preoccupation with the idea that it’s breaking a covenant with God? It seems that that is the focus of quite a few articles I read which held to the permanence view.
When Jesus came, He did away with the law by His death and said the new commandment was about love. In the context of love, how can one overlook abuse and oppression in a marriage and force an abused wife to remain, unloved, incapable of relief from that abuse by divorce and unable to remarry? It just doesn’t jive with Jesus’ overall message. It seems when the focus is solely on not breaking the covenant, keeping the marriage intact, but obviously separate in every other way, that seems like OT law, completely opposite of what Jesus came to do – to free us from that law.
LikeLike
Tidewater is pretty humid. We lived in VA Beach for 6 years. You get 2 wks in spring where it is gorgeous, can open the windows, no mosquitoes, no a/c, and then WHAMO, A/C 24/7, mosquitoes and you can’t turn off your a/c until fall.
Our desert doesn’t get that hot. We get into the hundreds, but not usually much past 105. We don’t have many bugs, either.
LikeLike
Amen to this from Random Methodist Reader (1:32)
” ‘All I know is what the Bible tells me. It is CLEAR that divorce isn’t/never was God’s plan.’ I actually agree with you that divorce isn’t in God’s plan. However, neither is abuse, neglect, adultery, or any number of things that can ruin a marriage that aren’t specifically laid out in the Bible.”
and this (Eric Fry 8:06 PM) “God loves us. Each and every one of us are His favorite person.” So beautiful and profound. Gotta say though, never heard of the HS referred to as Paraclete before! You been reading too much theology? 😉
And OMG this- hilarious! (lydiasellerofpurple 5:36): “Julie Anne, I have been begging the CBMW folk for years to compile a Christian Talmud so we can keep up with all the rules roles and formulas. They can keep coming out with new Editions.”
LikeLike
Ric, if someone says “based on my work I see how scripture allows for divorce for abuse” and someone else says “how tragic”, then the latter is showing a lack of compassion for victims of abuse. Now if he said “I understand you’d like it to be so, but a proper study of scripture shows you are wrong” then I’d disagree, but to go straight to “tragic” is unbelievably offensive. Let’s put this in a real world example.
Let’s take a woman who is being beaten by her husband. He rapes her, belittles her, financially ruins her, and smashes her head into the kitchen sink. She flees from him, but he freezes her acces to money and stalks her wherever she goes. He runs to the church ad tells them his wayward wife is being disobedient and unsubmissive.
Now you are talking to this woman and someone is sharing with her IB’s work and discussing how she can be free of her husband’s brutality. You disagree because you hold to Piper’s position, so you tell this woman that the idea she could divorce her husband brutality is “tragic”.
Now tell me, is it proper to use te word “tragic” here? Does that show compassion for a victim of abuse? You say that Piper is not showing a lack of concern for abuse victims, but is it not clear that in the example I have above that the person calling the idea of this woman’s divorce “tragic” is showing no compassion for her situation? The word is out if place, even if one believes she may not divorce.
But see, that’s exactly what has happened. I guarantee you that somewhere in the world is a woman like what I’ve described who has read Piper’s article in the search for the truth about her situation, and has heard him call her desire for divorce “tragic”. Maybe she responded by feeling shame for wanting to be free, or maybe she responded with offense that Piper showed so little compassion for her in her situation. Either way, such a word choice has grave consequences.
Beyond that, Piper has in general shows a lack of compassion for divorce victims. When asked about dealing with domestic abuse, he replied that a woman should endure emotional abuse “for a season” and getting smacked “for a night”. He mentioned nowhere in his original response going to the authorities, and in his “clarification” mentions that going to the authorities is OK (while still promoting the idea of letting the church deal with the abuse, even though most churches are untrained and ill equipped to handle abuse), because of how she can submit to authorities without subverting her submission to her husband, which Piper apparently still thinks is important even when a husband is abusing her. This stunning lack of compassion for an abuse victim either demonstrates ignorance of abuse on Piper’s part, or it makes him a monster. I assume the best, so I choose the former option to believe, but ignorance for someone who speaks so publicly with such authority to so many is not an excuse.
You cannot say “No, you cannot divorce, you must stay bound to your abuser- to even think you can is tragic” and then suggest you have any compassion for the abused.
LikeLike
Yes, the permanence view is easily rooted in the idea of not breaking “covenants”. The issue here is a lack of understanding about what a covenant is. A covenants is a contract and CAN be broken. It has promises and consequences when it is established. The idea that because it is a covenant makes it unbreakable is not supportable, scripturally or culturally. There are numerous covenants in scripture, and the only unbreakable ones are those God makes with us where we have no responsibilities, and this because he is unable to break his promises due to his holy nature. Those who enforce the sanctions in a covenant are not covenant breakers- the ones who broke the contract are. Thus, a person who commits adultery is a covenant breaker, not the one who files for divorce.
How the word “covenant” came to mean “Unbreakable” is beyond me. Historically, even within scripture, it does not mean that.
LikeLike
Hello all! Since I am on the East Coast of Canada I get up first. . . smile. ..
I’d like to point out that the almost 100 comments on this thread have illustrated, quite nicely, WHY it is that I have taken my own particular philosophical stand on religion, after being involved in church ever since I can remember. At 55, my ‘beliefs’ can be summarized to, “Jesus was a real man who walked the earth. He was a good man, kind to everyone. We should try to be like Jesus”. Period. Discussions of what’s written in the Bible, from my point of view, are pointless. Furthermore, using the Bible to justify oppression/tyranny/exploitation is just plain WRONG – yet, we see countless examples of it. (Julie Anne’s Blog is a direct result of this) I know many will disagree with me – vehemently, perhaps! – but that’s the way I feel. . . always subject to change, of course!
LikeLike
Are you denying that marriage for life WASN’T God’s plan?
LikeLike
ALL,
Trying to say that I was ‘excusing’ the divorces Dee and I sent through, is reading into the text of everything I wrote. Why, except to be petty? I could have said something like “our divorces happened, but not God’s plan, and therefore not ‘excused’, but I didn’t. I could have said that “we are not excuse, but we are forgiven”. I share life experiences to say that I was not speaking about divorce and remarriage out of some sort of know it all arrogance, as some of you undoubtedly assumed. I thought thinking adults couls figure out the intent of what I said. Wrong again?
LikeLike