The church’s dilemma with gay marriage
May 10, 2012
What a week it’s been for the topic of marriage. It seems the nation has been forced to think more critically about the topic of marriage. What actually is marriage? Who defines marriage and who writes the rules? This week North Carolinians took to the polls, voting to disallow gay marriage, and President Obama took to the media, announcing that he now supports gay marriage.
Throughout the discussions, conservatives and religious groups repeatedly pointed to the importance of cultural disconformity, arguing for the right to define and interpret marriage according to their sacred, ancient Scriptures.
But what many Christians have overlooked in this discussion is the glaring contradiction staring them in the face–many Christians vehemently fight to protect marriage from cultural (i.e. homosexual) influence without realizing that Jesus’ most basic teachings on marriage have been compromised and ignored by the church for decades. Let me provide an example. Jesus plainly teaches that divorce is not an option for a married couple. Period. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke Jesus directly forbids remarriage after divorce, teaching that such an act is sinful (e.g., Matt 5:32, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18). Similarly, the Apostle Paul echoes Jesus’ teaching, saying, “I command the married, according to Jesus’ own teaching, that a woman must not divorce her husband, nor a man his wife. But if a divorce does occur, they must remain unmarried or be reconciled to each other” (1 Cor 7:11).
Although I’ve only provided two examples, these serve to capture the Bible’s consistent teaching on marriage and divorce. Yet, despite such clear and consistent biblical teaching, these practices are increasingly common among todays Christians. Perhaps Christians who remarry after divorce are just ignorant of the Bible. In my own discussions, however, I find that Christians simply choose to ignore, reinterpret, and make lame excuses to justify their own need to divorce and remarry. How many times does one hear a Christian say, “I know the Bible’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, but surely God is more concerned about my personal happiness. Those teachings on divorce and remarriage are outdated. They were meant for a culture very different than our own.”
Suddenly, one realizes that Christians are using the exact same excuses to justify divorce and remarriage as gays are using to justify their need to marry–personal happiness and a different culture as the end all justification and reason.
If the church has so blatantly ignored the Bible’s teaching on marriage, why should the secular culture be expected to follow biblical norms? Why do Christians picket and campaign against gay marriage, but not against remarriage after divorce? Why do pastors agree to marry a couple that has been divorced? Why is okay to uphold the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality but not on divorce? Why do Christians walk around carrying signs that say, “God hates fags”? Haven’t they read the Bible? “‘I hate divorce’ says the Lord God of Israel” (Malachi 2:16).
C.S. Lewis writes concerning legislature on divorce in Britain,
The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the [Muslims] tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.
My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.
(from Mere Christianity, the chapter on “Christian Marriage”, c 1952, 1980 by C.S. Lewis Pte. Ltd., Harpercollins Edition, 2002, p112)
Andy. You are really misconstruing the scriptures here about divorce and remarriage. I commend this short reading to you, and would like your thoughtshttp://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/october/20.26.html . Finally Paul tells the Corinthians that if the unbelieving spouse leaves, they are free to remarry, they are not bound…what do you make of that Scripture and how do you apply it today?
Craig, Paul does not write, “you are free to remarry.” That phrase is something you are readin into the text. What Paul does say is, “each one should retain the place in life that the Lord has assigned him.” Paul shows that he can write about remarriage later in the book, but it is always in the context of a widow (and even then he urges singleness). Here’s a good position paper on the subject from Desiring God. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper
So you are discounting other scholary studies done on that passage by Pauline scholars?
My main point was that Paul did not write “you are free to remarry.” I’m not aware of any Greek variant that includes those words in Paul’s writing on divorce. As to disagreeing with scholars, yes. I disagree (not discount) scholars who approve remarriage from this passage just as you disagree with scholars who disapprove of remarriage from this passage.
Jonathon. I am a divorced and remarried man. Before you comment on my state of being, have a read of my story here http://mencanbeabusedtoo.wordpress.com/my-story-part-1/ Think very carefully about the grace of Christ and how God calls us to live at peace with one another, before you tell me I did a sinful thing and have no hope of forgiveness.
@Craig I don’t believe that Jonathan ever said, or would ever say, that you have no hope for forgiveness. You both happen to disagree on the interpretation of Paul’s commandments on divorce, and have conducted this discussion peacefully. We, as Christians, must struggle with the text and its implications, and our conscience (as it is led by the spirit) will convict us accordingly.
Jacob, the thrust of the blog post was that the church is waay to lenient when it comes to the subject of divorce. However, where is the grace in what you are saying…I know of few people who divorce ‘gleefully!’ I am yet to meet any. There is much heart ache and pain. One must remember that in discussions like this, the scriptures are not removed from horrible heartache of the human condition.
My experience of a church that didn’t allow for separation / divorce led me to being totally blackbanned by that church…it led me to a state of homelessness – because the abuse continued unchecked and not believed.
Craig, I am sorry that you have suffered the way you have. I pray that God’s grace will continue to sustain and encourage you every day. I also want to point out that I haven’t condemned you in any way, nor do I feel the need to. My motive in discussing Paul’s writing, as I believe is yours, is to understand as best I can what Paul is saying and then draw conclusions for life. In 1 Cor. I believe Paul is writing to a believer who is abandoned. He tells the believer they are not bound to stay with their spouse who is leaving them. I do not believe Paul is talking about remarriage here. Furthermore, I believe that while divorce and remarriage are inseparably linked, they are two separate issues. The one does not logically necessitate the other (as an aside, I do not believe that remarriage is a perpetual sin that is remedied by a second divorce). I appreciate the perspective your experience brings to this subject, and I do not want to belittle you in any way. I do, however, gracefully and peacefully disagree with what I understand to be your interpretation of Paul. One common ground you and I should have is that at a minimum the church should teach against divorces filed for ‘irreconcilable differences’ (or no-fault divorce), which seems to have claimed the top spot for divorce in the US. The church should teach on divorce with grace. That, however, is not the main problem in my experience. As Andy hints at, the main problem seems to be the church’s failure / reluctance to teach on divorce at all.
Hey fellas, I’m enjoying the discussion. I have been busy at work and look forward to replying to your comments this evening.
Andy,
You make a good point indeed about the way that much of the church has ignored Jesus’ comments about divorce.
It sounds like the point you are making has to do with consistency. (If we are going to focus on Jesus’ teaching about marriage, then we ought also to focus on what He says the basis is for divorce, and for re-marriage). Furthermore if we are going to make a compelling case for biblical marriage (between a man and a woman), the we ought to also pay attention and not sluff what is said about divorce.
That is a great summary of what I was trying to communicate: the church should be CONSISTENT in its focus on marriage–not only upholding what the Bible says about who may get married, but also obeying Christ’s teaching about staying married.
@Jacob and then Andy
I find myself sharing a lot of the same thinking as Lewis. Ultimately marriage is simply a covenant or a contract if you will. There is nothing, I am aware of, that makes the term ‘marriage’ distinctly Christian, but there are several things that make Christian ‘marriage’ distinctive. Some of these examples were mention by Andy. Most important is that Christian ‘marriage’ is a covenant made before YHWH and is binding under him. This marriage is permanent and presumed only possible between a man and a woman. There are several other distinctions to this marriage that differ quit a lot from our culture’s understanding of ‘marriage’. I think the reason this is such a big issue for so many Christians is that we have lost our ability to uniquely define this Christian union. We have no word that refers to Christian ‘marriage’. Because the ownership of this covenant has been handed to the government, all we have is the generic term marriage. Bob and Joe can get ‘married’. Mary, sally, Jane, Wendy, and Mike can get ‘married’. Susie and the Eiffel Tower can get ‘married’. ‘Atheist’ Andrew and ‘Agnostic’ Alex can get ‘married’. And, all I can about the Christian union between my wife I is that we are ‘married’. Surely though all these unions are not the same.
We don’t need a marriage license for Christian ‘marriage’, and we probably should find another term to describe our union. We need a uniquely Christian term for marriage that cannot be defined by government or anyone else for that matter. NC cannot redefine ‘marriage’, in the Christian sense, all it can do is make changes to legal contracts. We can argue later about what kind of contracts are appropriate for couples, but let’s stop all this gloom and doom talk about preserving the sanctity of ‘marriage’ as if to say that can be preserved a law of man.
As Andy points out we have for a long time failed at preserving ‘marriage’s’ sanctity. The Bible never even conceives of same-sex ‘marriage’, but it certainly has a lot to say about other areas where we seem much less concerned with sanctity. We look quit silly getting all hussy fussy over this when our ‘marriages’ look about as committed as a Jr. High romance.
First, I appreciate the loving spirit that has been displayed by all in discussing this sensitive topic.
Second, I think Jacob and Matt raise an important question that helps clarify the issue of marriage. That question may be posed like this: What exactly is the difference between Christian vs. secular marriage? This leads to the next logical question: What should be the difference? And here the excellent Lewis quote offered by Jacob helps. Instead of there being a difference, say, in terminology, the difference should be in consistency of practice within the believing community. And of course, consistency of practice would need to be firmly grounded on the Scriptural guidelines for marriage, so that selflessness, Christ like love, refusal to divorce, sexual fidelity, and partnership in the gospel, would be the norm. I also think that things would be different if Christian couples who were about to marry were solemnly warned and reminded that should their marriage somehow end in divorce, they are accountable before God NEVER to remarry. Thus, marriage is once and for all, with no hope of a second chance.
If biblical guidelines for marriage were consistently followed by the believing community, there would be little need to look to the state to “save” or “protect” this “sacred institution.”
And this leads me to the practical application–a challenge I direct at myself and my own marriage. God sets the expectations high. Am I living up to these? Am I viewing my marriage as a ministry for which I am held accountible before God? Am I building with gold, silver, precious stone, wood, hay, or stubble?
Now let me respond to Craig. Thank you for your willingness to share your personal story with us–for being willing to be vulnerable and honest. I can only imagine how God has worked and continues to work through this experience in your life. I agree with Jonathan’s previous comment, that remarriage is not a continual sin, and that the solution is not to divorce from the second marriage.
What I wish to comment on is not your (Craig’s) situation, but on the passage in 1 Cor 7. Jonathan’s comment on that passage captures my own viewpoints. But for the sake of clarity, let me make a couple more comments. As was already mentioned, Paul NEVER says in 1 Cor 7 that the divorced can remarry. Let me quote what Paul does say: “But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not bound” (v. 15). How do we interpret this word “bound”? As Craig mentioned, some argue that this means one is free to remarry, although the text does not say this. I think a better interpretation, and one that is more consistent with the passage and with the teaching of the NT, is to interpret “bound” as meaning “free to be divorced.” First, note the parallelism in this verse: let the unbeliever leave/the believer is not bound. In other words, the believer in this circumstance may accept the divorce. He or she need to feel compelled to perpetually seek to save or preserve the marriage. Second, note Paul’s teaching in the rest of this chapter: nowhere else does he allow for divorce. Third, note that Paul is relying on the teaching of Christ in this chapter, since he says, “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord)” (v. 10). I doubt very much that Paul would then turn in the next verse and contradict Jesus by allowing remarriage. Instead, such a drastic teaching would require much more than the vague term “bound.” Fourth, the theological implications are dangerous if one interprets Paul here to allow for divorce. What could easily happen is that Christians seeking divorce might argue that their spouse was/is not really a believer.
I understand that many will disagree with my view on this passage, but I hope this at least helps explain my position on divorce and remarriage.