At church, you numbskull!

Numbskull, n

“Thick-headed, dumb, oblivious to the obvious”

Many of you know, but some of you don’t. I spent the early years of my ministry (wait . . . these are still the early years!) doing many things. As a pastor at Stonebriar Community Church, I spent time in various departments: small groups, missions, evangelism, and singles. In fact, the primary role I settled into for many years was in the singles dept. While I don’t necessarily miss being a singles pastor, I miss all my singles tremendously (many of which are now married). I performed over thirty weddings in the a five year period. I saw a lot of “hook-ups.” I oversaw a lot of hook-ups!

While my philosophy of singles ministry was limited, it was very focused. I did not want our ministry to be a “meat-market.”

Meat-market, n

“A gathering with the primary purpose of hooking-up”

Therefore, when I taught, I taught too singles, but I intensionally did not speak about singles issues. (FYI: Single’s ministries can quickly become a self-help group—then it belongs in the counseling dept). This created an environment where there would be a timidity necessitated for those who only came for one thing—looking for a spouse. If people were to meet and “hook-up”, it would be “along the way” of their discipleship. We focused on their relationship with God, which is the most important aspect of preparation for “hooking-up”.

I am incredibly encouraged by the outcome the relationships that had their genesis in that ministry. All the marriages that I was a part of are still strong and moving in a very positive direction. In fact, if I did not have this as an anecdote for my thoughts, I might be very discouraged about the prospects for any marriage now days. Why? Because, outside of this environment, I have seen so many marriages that did not last.

Most of the time it seems that people are just not prepared to get married. They don’t take it seriously. They simply don’t want to be alone and they will search for solutions in the most unhealthy of places. Specifically, they look in where I would consider the worst of all places: the bars.

You may or may not be familiar with this phenomenon, but it effects more people than you think. It effects more Christians than you think. The bar, nightlife, drinking situations, and the like represent the default place to find that someone special. It is either churches that tailor to the meat-market ministries (usually because it brings in the beloved numbers) or the bars. Those of the defaults. I don’t really know which of the two are worse, because they are not that much different.

The pastor in me says this: Singles: Don’t look at either place. Neither are good. Both are filled with desperation. Both are filled with those who are misrepresenting themselves in order to accomplish their goal. For the most part, both are filled with selfish people who are wearing a mask. Both are filled with immaturity. Neither represent the “best-of” when searching for true character and someone who is truly following the Lord.

Wait…put on the brakes. Put it in reverse and go back to the fork in the road and come again Michael.

It was Sunday night at my favorite sports bar, the “Dug-Out.” It was five dollars all you could drink. I was 21. Perfect age for spouse hunting. That is where I met Kristie, my wife. Was I following the Lord? I was trying. I was praying. I was reading my Bible. But…I was at the bar. I wanted a Christian girl, but the local church meat market Tuesday nights was not providing the necessary environment nor the prospects. Let’s see how the meat was at the Dug-out. It was good that night. Kristie was there! Continue Reading »

I have been asked this quite a few times over the years and the issue was brought up again recently. Can homosexuals be Christians? Or, better, is there such a thing as a “homosexual Christian.” Many would believe that someone who engages in a homosexual life style is necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God unless they repent. Repentance here would mean a change of thinking about and, shortly following, action to change this lifestyle. In other words, while some would be willing to say that a homosexual can be saved, their salvation guarantees their change of lifestyle within a short period of time.

While I agree with those who say that homosexuality is a terrible sin (Lev. 18:22, 20:13 Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:6; 1 Tim. 1:10), I do not believe it is one that is outside the realm of a believer’s carnality. Neither do I believe that if one practices in homosexuality their entire life that they are necessarily excluded from the Kingdom of God. I hope that people do not misunderstand my purpose here. I, in no way endorse homosexual behavior or seek to relativise its abominable standing before the Lord. But I do think that we who are not tempted in such a way often fail to see the seriousness of the struggle that people go through who engage in this sin.

Sexual sin and temptation is part of everyone’s life. We are born with a drive toward fulfillment of this God-given part of our humanity. Some will deny this drive because of God’s calling in their lives (e.g. singleness). Yet sin has corrupted this drive and we are all born infected with sin. Because of upbringing, genetics, cultural influences, and other factors, people will experience this corruption to greater and lesser degrees. I personally have never felt any inclination toward expressing my sexual corruption in a way that was focused on the same sex. Why? Not necessarily because of good choices I have made, but because the genetics, upbringing, and influences were not there. I have just never had that sinful bent within me that compels me to lust after someone of the same sex. Don’t get me wrong. I have a sinful sexual bent, but it is of the more natural kind. This does not justify it or make me more innately righteous than the homosexual, it is just a fact that this is not a sin that I have ever had to deal with. Continue Reading »

Here is a question I recieved from someone as a follow-up to my last blog.

Question:

I have a deep love for the lady who I’ve been dating and I’m getting set to pop the question to her. 

I love apologetics. You know that. I love teaching it as well. However, apologetics is not God. It is not the gospel. No one’s ministry is God. I have told my Princess repeatedly that God will always be #1. She must be second place. I must put her before that without putting her before God. How can I teach and defend the gospel if I am not living it? Part of living it means giving my wife the proper place in my world.

So while I’m on that, let me ask you how you make a division. How do you keep up a life of study properly with a life of marriage? I know if I give all of my attention to study, well she’s deprived and that’s not right. On the other hand, if all I do is give her attention, well we don’t eat. I have to do both. I’d like your insight.

Answer:

Let me start by saying that Kristie and I love each other deeply and we are totally committed to each other. However, we have not had a “good” marriage by any stretch. I am not sure I should be saying this. Not because Kristie would not approve, but because it exposes something that causes me a great deal of shame to reveal. I wish that I could say that I had even a typically decent marriage, but I don’t think this is the case.

Kristie and I are worlds apart. Not only in personality, but spiritually as well. Well, let me qualify this some. I am not saying that one of us is super spiritual while the other is a dud, but that we are different. Kristie has never resented my ministry and has, at times, served as an encouragement. But she is not that interested in what I do. Theology is not her thing. The same is true for me with regard to her priorities. Sometimes it feels as if we are like magnets turned the wrong way. Our relationship is, for lack of a better word, clumsy. We have good chemistry in a very real way (which I am so thankful for), but, from a human standpoint, we are not a “match made in heaven.”

There is a lot more that can be said.

I don’t, at this point in my life, have a nice red bow that is coming in the form of a “but…” I am just giving you some of the background so you can understand my answer. If Kristie and I were to allow our relationship to go in a direction that “seems” natural, I think we would drift completely apart, she in her world, and I in mine. I could very easily say to myself that my work and ministry are far more productive than the treadmill of problems that come by way of my marriage. My ministry could easily get separated from my marriage and become the de facto priority of my day (and it sometimes does when I am in one of “those” moods).

However, I would say from experience that if your marriage is not going well, nothing is going well. Your ministry, insights, and everything else will suffer when your wife is not your priority. And if it does not, then that may be an even bigger problem: apathy. Apathy toward your marital relationship. Solution: Redirect all passion to ministry. What a terrible place to be. Understandable, but terrible.

“But, but, I am doing so much good in ministry. I suck at marriage.” I know how it feels, but don’t separate the two. Your marriage is and should always be your first and foremost ministry. Even if it is not as “successful” as your other pursuits, don’t compare them. Before God, you are called to love her and give yourself up for her as Christ did the church, even if you are worlds apart. Christ and the church were worlds apart, too.

(Sheesh…what self-therapy here.) Continue Reading »

It was 2000. Or was it 1999? Not sure. My wife and I had been married for three years. Katelynn was two; Kylee was on the way. We lived in a little one bedroom apartment about ten minutes from campus. I was living my dream as I started the four year ThM program at Dallas Seminary (DTS). Kristie was ready to get in and get out, tolerating the time spent away from home in Oklahoma.

It was early on in Dr. Mark Young’s missions class that the epiphany came to me. It was from the Lord, I was sure. My passion for theology, truth, and changing the world were rising every day. Dreams were big, but they were about to get a lot bigger. Mark had been talking about the importance of missions (of course…it was a missions class). Contextualization, culture, redemptive analogies, and the like were all being discussed every day. Our passions were on the rise as Mark told his stories about his time in Poland. He could hardly hold back the tears and neither could we.

The next week he brought up a map. He showed us the break down of the world in relation to the Great Commission. “You are here.” You know how maps are. We were in Dallas. He showed us from there where all DTS grads were serving. I think that they were marked with a pin. There was a high concentration of pins around the Dallas area showing that many DTS grads stayed close. There was also a high concentration of grads in a fifty states. They were everywhere. Oklahoma, California, Nebraska, Washington, New York, Illinois, New Mexico, and every place else in the United States. When we looked beyond the United States, their was no famine for the need of pins. There were only a few, comparatively speaking, in other countries. Mark began to explain how 95% of the graduates from DTS stayed in the United States, while only 5% served abroad. However, as he explained, 95% of the need was in other countries that did not have the Gospel, theological training, or churches. It was alarming and Mark’s passion for missions made the alarm that much louder.

Well I heard the call that day loud and clear. I knew what I was called to do. I was not sure before, but the Lord’s voice was coming through like a megaphone. I was supposed to go overseas. I was supposed to be a missionary!

When I got home, Kristie attempted to probe for the passion and the source of my excitement. I held back some naively thinking it was going to be a surprise. I wanted to walk her through all I had learned and let the excitement build in her as it had in me. I told her everything we had been learning doing my best to work without the pins. I explained to her how much of a famine for the Gospel existed in other parts of the world. Then, when the time was just right, I gave her the “good” news: “We are going to be missionaries!!!”

Let’s just say that the rehearsal in my mind did not mirror the actual events. I thought that Kristie would be excited. I thought that her heart would break for those less fortunate people. I thought that she would hear the Lord’s voice as clearly as I did. But such was not the case. She began to cry . . . and these were not the type of tear I wanted. Continue Reading »

There has been some recent discussion about this issue in my part of the woods. As with some other issues, I am open to amending my theology, especially when it is in an area of great controversy such as this. In fact, I have nuanced and refined my stand on this issue since I last wrote on this. I know how much many Christians who love the Lord struggle with great distress concerning divorce, remarriage, and what is expected of the committed Christan.

The question is: Can there be remarriage after divorce for the committed Christian?

This is not an easy question to answer by any means. While I was on pastoral staff at Stonebriar Community Church, I could not dodge this issue by reducing it to some objective theological position as I would have liked. Practically speaking, it was always before me. I performed many marriages while I was at Stonebriar, so much that I was called the “marrying man.” In many of the marriages I performed, at least one of the two people had been through a divorce. Each pastor on staff had a different position concerning the issue of remarriage after divorce; I think mine was one of the most liberal (relatively speaking). Stonebriar gave us some freedom in our decisions of whom we would marry. If another pastor did not feel comfortable performing a ceremony, they would probably just say “I will send you to Michael, he will marry anyone!” (That is not really true, but there was only one¹ that I turned down in my six years in the pastorate.)

As briefly as a blog will allow, I want to give you my current position on the matter and hope that you understand what a struggle this is. I am in no way dogmatic about this, but I do have some thoughts. Generally speaking, I believe that people are either too liberal or too rigid when it comes to this issue. I think that there needs to be a middle ground (as I do with many issues). I hesitate while I write this due to the fear that people will find in my view an excuse for divorce, which is the last thing I want or intend. Yet at the same time, I believe that if what I propose is true, it, like all truth, will always undergo the risk of misapplication.

First let me say that the argument is not over whether divorce is bad. Everyone agrees that divorce is a result of sin and that healthy reconciliation is the perfect will of God. Well, let me rephrase. God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16). Let me make this a bit stronger. God always hates divorce. This much is true. We must, however, keep this in perspective: there are a lot of things that are the result of a fallen world that God hates. God hates death (Ez. 18:23). God hates war. I believe that God hates hell, deformities, addiction, and cancer.  But God also, to be sure, hated that he had to divorce Israel:

“And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.” (Jer. 3:8; see also Isa. 50:1)

So for God to say “I hate divorce” helps us recognize that divorce, as a part of the fallen order, is a result of sinfulness in the world and it is this that God hates. It also helps us recognize that divorce, like death and war, is sometimes a necessary part of a fallen world due to sinfulness. Continue Reading »

Where do I begin with this? Not sure. I don’t want to be misunderstood in what I am trying to say—Or better, I don’t think that I am trying to say anything, just ask some questions. I will try to give you the essence of my thoughts, then I will attempt to explain what I mean. Here is the question: Is there ever a time when people are justified in threatening divorce? No, that won’t due. I need to qualify this. Is there ever a time, even when abuse or marital infidelity are not an issue, when the threat of divorce is justified?

When you get married, you say “forever,” right? I know because I said it and I have counseled dozens of people to say the say thing. During premarital counseling I would make one thing plain: Marriage is forever. If you don’t have this in mind then don’t get married. For better or worse. In sickness and health. Whether we are rich or poor. Until death do we part. In other words, I will NEVER leave you! If the future husband and wife were able to say this with understanding, then I was pretty comfortable doing the marriage. Marriage is serious business. If you are going to bail, then do it before you tie the knot.

However, I think I have changed with regards to this commitment. I think.

I remember reading a book about eight years ago called “His Needs, Her Needs.” My wife and I listened to it together. While there were some great points that were brought up, I could not overcome my feeling that the author was compromising in the most important details about marriage. Although I don’t have the book in front of me (I don’t know what happened to it—maybe I threw it out the window!), this is what I remember was the essence of a main point that formed the canvas to his arguments: Divorce needs to be seen as a real possibility in order for the marriage to work. Did you get that? Divorce, even for Christians, needs to be seen as a real possibility.”A real possibility?” I said to my wife, That will only create insecurity in the marriage. People need to have ultimate security. They need to know that no matter what happens, their spouse will never leave. Never, never, never, no matter what!”

I am not so sure any more. It depends on the day. Really, it depends on the situation. No, I am not advocating a form of marital situational relativism. I believe that God is never pleased with divorce. I have said as much in a previous blog series. Yet there are some issues with this. If you say you will never leave no matter what, and your spouse believes you, won’t that pose an opportunity (or liberty) for some to take advantage of your commitment, consciously or subconsciously, and bring about abusive, or at the very least, unhappy and unfulfilled marriages?

Let’s go a different direction than this for a moment. Some people only change when there is a threat—a real threat—of serious consequences for certain behavior. We find this in governmental laws. When my father received his third DUI in the mid-eighties, they took away his voting right. This scared him. This really scared him. The thought that he could lose many of his rights as a citizen was enough to make him quit drinking for many years. When Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go, God said that he would persuade him with calamity. These were serious consequences that caused him to rethink his decisions and ultimately let the Israelites go. As well, my mother would often threaten my father with divorce. Only when he believed the threat did he change.

I am pondering these things because there have been a few situations brought to me lately concerning difficulties in people’s marriage. In each of the situations there is one person who is following the Lord and the other who is either antagonistic to God or spiritually apathetic.

In one case, the husband is angry all the time. I would not qualify the behavior as necessarily abusive, but that which brings the wife down and has created a chasm in their relationship for quit some time. I call these situations “illegal divorces” because they have not had a formal divorce, but they live like they are not married. The wife desperately desires a good relationship, to be care for, loved, and teated with respect, but the husband does not put forth any effort. He knows that she will never leave because that would not be the “Christian” thing to do. So he is not motivated to change at all. What are her options? To ensure the husband that she will never leave him even though she is miserable? To say that being “happy” is not what is important, but obeying the Lord? Is she doomed to live a life of contentment in a non-marriage? Or should she threaten with divorce? What if the threat would cause him to change and bring about a good marriage—or at least a much better one? Has she done wrong?

Another situation comes to mind where the wife, again a committed Christian, has to watch helplessly as her husband drinks his life away. He neglects the kids and her for his love for drink and friends. Sometimes he comes home and sometimes he does not. There is no suspected adultery, only the reality of an “illegal divorce.” The wedding happened, but there has never been a marriage. She is faced with the real possibility that she will never have romance. Outside of a slim hope of an unmotivated miraculous change in her husbands character, she has not hope. She has seen too many people wait for this change and she knows that things don’t “just” happen, people don’t “just” change. They are motivated by something else. But she can’t leave, nor threaten to leave because, again, it is not the “Christian” thing to do. Sure, she can separate (Christians are much more tolerant of this), but this separation cannot have any directions to divorce on the map. Yet the husband would know this. Therefore, any threat of a “separation” would not be too serious. It might just give him a break—a vacation!

However, I have seen threats that work. I have seen Christians who live with the reality that a divorce is possible, as advocated in the book His Need, Her Needs. They know that both they and their spouses are imperfect sinners. Therefore, no matter how good you suspect yourself or your spouse to be, you live with the possibility that it might not work out. In these cases the threat of divorce—the real threat—keeps them on their toes. They are continually trying to keep each other—indeed, to win each other. They see marriage as a battle. If it is a battle, it can be lost. They know that there are casualties of this war and they could be one of them. In these cases, I have seen change. I have seen the spouse threaten divorce and scare their spouse into change. They know that there are boundaries and they do not cross them or they will suffer the real (not fake) consequences.

I have gone on quite long enough. I don’t know if I have communicated too well my ponderings, but would like to hear what you have to say. Here are my questions (they all really ask the same thing in different ways):

Is the threat of divorce ever justified outside of infidelity or abuse?

Can a fake threat be justified (in other words, you threaten divorce, but it is really an empty threat)?

Do you think that there are boundaries that justify this threat other than abuse and infidelity? How about just a miserable marriage or “illegal divorces”?

Is it sinful pragmatism to threaten divorce when you are not really willing to go through with it?

Should we counsel people to say “Until death do us part” or “Until death do us part, God help me.”

Divorce is sin. Divorce is bad. God hates divorce. Divorced people can never remarry. If you remarry, you will be in a perpetual state of sin unless you remarry your former spouse. These are all the things that constitute good conservative Christian counsel to those who are considering divorce. Right?

Yet after divorce and subsiquent remarriage, the same person gives counsel to the repentant remarried person. God is gracious. Divorce is not a sin that cannot be forgiven. Two wrongs don’t make a right, so don’t divorce again in order to go back to your former spouse.

It would seem that with such bi-polar counsel, the one considering divorce should just act now and ask questions later!

My two previous posts asked Is Divorce Ever Good? and Is Divorce Ever Understandable? These two drew heavily on experience and situations that seemed to call for a “greater-good” approach to some divorce cases when abuse was present. Now I want to deal with the Bible and what it has to say about divorce asking the question Is Divorce Ever Biblical?

The problem comes when we begin to use Scripture to support our positions concerning divorce and remarriage. Those who believe that Scripture is the ultimate and final authority on all issues upon which it speaks will see these things differently. In my opinion, some have a more balanced hermeneutic, while others have a “proof-text” mentality. In the end, I believe that divorce is always sin in that it is the result of sin. I believe that our focus should be on marriage the way that it was intended, one man and one woman, both of whom are doing the best they can to sustain a godly marriage who don’t give up at the first sign of trouble. Yet I also believe that we need to rethink our hermeneutics with regards to divorce understanding that things are not the way they are supposed to be.

Here are some of the reasons why I don’t believe that the issue of divorce in the Bible is as black and white as people so often make it.

First, concerning experience: No one can separate their theology from their experience. This is not only impossible, it is, I believe, outside the will of God. Experience constitutes our life. Without it we find no point of referent to any Scriptural account. It is only when our hermeneutic recognizes the vitality of experience that it can be kept in check. I become very leery of those who act as if they have what I call the “white-coat-scientific” interpretation of Scripture. This is just not possible. If there is anything the failures of the Cartesian system have taught us, it is that we are not as objective as we would like to think. The overly literal proof-text approach to Scripture assumes that God wants us to step outside of experience and interpret it without its regards. While experience is not the final arbiter of truth, it has a needed and godly contribution to make. Without it, there is no wisdom.

Second, concerning systematic theology: Systematic theology assumes the contribution of many different elements to our quest for truth. Among other things, we must understand that all of Scripture contributes to our interpretation, not just one proof-text. Not only does each individual passage have a context, but there is also the canonical context, meaning that all that Scripture says about something must contribute to any formulation of a doctrine concerning such. Protestants should understand this well as Catholics have often attempted to proof-text a denial of sola fide by quoting James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Catholics rightly point out that this is the only place that the phrase “Faith alone” is used and it says justification is NOT by faith alone. Yet Protestants rightly understand the tension that this creates with Pauline theology. In the end, Protestants resolve this tension by suggesting a both/and approach rather than an either/or. “Salvation is by faith alone,” as the saying goes, “But not by faith that is alone.” We find the same issues with regards to divorce. There are some passages that, when the context is not fully understood, seem to suggest that the Bible teaches that divorce is always the wrong decision (with two exceptions). I argue that when systematic theology is taken into account and the full counsel of Scripture is allowed to speak that the teaching of Scripture is that divorce is always sin, but it can be the least sinful of two options. Therefore, my encouragement is for us to do systematic theology, not proof-text theology.

Third, problems of Biblical data: Let’s do a test using the Scripture for our support. If were were to seek proof-texts rather than a deeper understanding of the canonical whole, we are going to have a lot of problems.

Problem #1: Everyone Qualifies for Divorce. Using the overly literal hermeneutic all people have legitimate grounds for divorce. How? Let me demonstrate. Christ said that divorce was unacceptable except for immorality (pornia) (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Christ also said that anyone who has ever lusted has committed adultery (moicheuo) (Matt. 5:28). It would be a safe assumption to say that adultery constitutes immorality of the worst kind. Therefore, everyone who has ever lusted has given his or her partner grounds for divorce. Since everyone has lusted, all marriages qualify for divorce.

Problem #2: Many people are polygamists in God’s eyes. Not only does an overly literal approach to Christ’s words cause a problem, but let’s add another proof-text. Paul tells the Corinthians that whoever sleeps with a prostitute has become one flesh with this person (1 Cor. 6:16). Paul utilizes that same text that Christ used to illustrate his point “The two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Christ said that those who have become one flesh are forever bound in God’s sight, right? Paul said that the person is one flesh with whomever he or she has had sex with. Ergo option #1: You are joined in marriage to all those with whom you have had sex. Ergo option #2: You are only married to the first person you had sex with and any after this are those with whom you are committing adultery, even your present wife!

Problem #3: God seems to approve of divorce for something other than adultery. Most people don’t realize this, but in the Old Testament post-exilic period, the Israelites were required to divorce their spouses. Israel had broken the covenant of God and married foreign women. God informed Israel in Deut 7:3 that intermarriage was not allowed. Therefore, as the narrative of Ezra suggests, in order to be reconciled to God, they had to divorce their foreign spouses. Ezra 10:10-11 “Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, ‘You have behaved in an unfaithful manner by taking foreign wives! This has contributed to the guilt of Israel. Now give praise to the Lord God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the local residents and from these foreign wives‘” (emphasis mine). They did just that. In this case, while their spouses were not guilty of infidelity, the greater good was for them to divorce. This introduces an explicit instance of the greater good possibility. While divorce is always evil, it might be the lesser of two evils.

Problem #4: When Christ speaks of divorce and remarriage in Matt. 5, the context is that of universal condemnation. In other words, this section of Matthew has Christ presenting to the people a seemingly impossible code of ethics. Many of the religious leaders thought that they stood before God as righteous due to their own self-righteousness. By Christ’s seemingly radical words, these leaders were condemned based upon a higher standard of Kingdom ethic. While these ethics are not wrong, there is no one who can stand in their site without a pronouncement of guilt. Christ was bringing a universal condemnation upon mankind. Everyone who hates has broken the fifth commandment. Everyone who lusts has broken the sixth commandment. Everyone who has divorced has broken the law. In the end, this evidences universal sinfulness and universal need.

Humanity is inherently sinful with no hope outside of Christ. In this context, divorce is seen to be out of concert with God’s original intent just as all sin is. Divorce is not the way it was supposed to be. In Matt 19:4-6, Christ says about marriage, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED 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 no man separate.” God did not intend divorce, He intended faithfulness. God did not intend lust, He intended fidelity. God did not intend hate, He intended love. Yet the world is not what it was intended to be. Divorce happens because we are fallen and relationships take on characteristics of the fall. Sometimes, this fallen condition is more evidenced in one spouse while the other, in futility, fights for the preservation of the marriage. Once divorce occurs, the fault cannot ever be laid at the feet of the abused. The fault is always the abuser. Yet, ironically, those who divorce their spouse due to abuse are often villified more severely than the abuser. Who is really at fault?

Nevertheless, the divorce is a result of sin, therefore the divorce should always be defined as sinful since it is not the way it was supposed to be.

Is divorce ever biblical? Well it depends on what you mean by “biblical.” Objectively, from the standpoint of the way things were meant to be, divorce is always bad, just as killing is also always bad. But because of the hardness of the human heart, as Christ put it, because of the falleness of man, divorce, like killing, is often a necessary evil. Only in this sense it is biblical.

In the end, I would caution those who use proof-text to counsel about divorce and remarriage. Please consider the entirety of the Scriptural witness and clothe this with the wisdom of experience. In the end, while you will not have the black and white answers that you may seek or desire, you will find that the tension with which the Scripture speaks on such matters is a healthy tension that, only when recognized, makes the Scripture sufficient to deal with such issues. Imbalanced proof-texting is not the way it is supposed to be and can be very sinful.

My counsel to those who are struggling through marriage is always to understand the terrible effects that divorce has on a family and culture. It is never a good thing. But if the abuse of the other spouse is so severe that it is doing damage, physically or mentally, to either yourself or your children, consideration needs to be made if an ultimate divorce is not the greater good of the situation.