Russell Moore on divorce: "we speak in very muted and ambiguous terms ... "

There are good and just reasons for a believer to be divorced. There is never a good and just reason to be homosexual.

When someone who was divorced for an unbiblical reason and has confessed and been forgiven, he is still a divorced person. If someone who was a homosexual has confessed and been forgiven he is NOT still a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

Apples/Oranges

Not sure what he’s thinking.
An out of the closet homosexual is one who is living a sexually immoral lifestyle and declaring it to be right. A divorcee is somebody to whom something happened once (maybe with or maybe without his/her approval). Even if we make the assumption that he’s only talking about divorcees who disobediently abandoned their marriages, what’s done is done. So even in that case, they’re just folks who sinned.

I’m not sure the situations can be summed up so simply…

On the one hand, a homosexual that has repented and been forgiven may always struggle with homosexual temptations and might never develop what we would call “natural” heterosexual attractions. He / she may not engage in the behavior any more, but that does not mean that the fleshly bent is completely gone.

On the other hand, I think it’s misleading to refer to a divorcee as “somebody to whom something happened once.” To divorce is to break a covenant. Yes, there are people whose spouses have wreaked havoc in their lives and homes, but does that make divorce “good and just?” “Good and just” might imply some correlation to the character of God, but He has said, “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” We can talk all day about how to interpret all the “exception” passages (worthy discussions, to be sure), but I’m afraid we have spent a lot of time and ink attempting to dilute Jesus’ categorical statement in order to fit better with our experiences.

Let’s be clear - both homosexuality and divorce reflect a sinfully marred understanding of marriage, and marriage is the human institution chosen by God to illustrate His covenant relationship with His people in redemption. I think that makes it pretty serious. Apparently, so does Moore. Whether or not the circumstances surrounding the two issues are similar, both have a detrimental effect on our understanding of marriage. And we have found it far easier to condemn one than the other.

[A. Carpenter] Let’s be clear - both homosexuality and divorce reflect a sinfully marred understanding of marriage, and marriage is the human institution chosen by God to illustrate His covenant relationship with His people in redemption. I think that makes it pretty serious. Apparently, so does Moore. Whether or not the circumstances surrounding the two issues are similar, both have a detrimental effect on our understanding of marriage. And we have found it far easier to condemn one than the other.

Agreed. I think Moore is saying we need to make sure we attempt to save marriages with equal fervor that we expend to denounce homosexuality.

In my neck of the woods, folks have generally been overly judgmental toward divorcees. Depending on how you understand Matt 19, some of them are justified. If you take a view that erases the exception clause there, you still have divorcees who had no choice. I think in most states, you cannot ultimately stop a spouse from divorcing you if he/she is determined to do it.
So many of our church consitutions and bylaws—as well as pulpit rhetoric—are way too hard in “divorcees” as a category.

[Aaron Blumer] In my neck of the woods, folks have generally been overly judgmental toward divorcees. Depending on how you understand Matt 19, some of them are justified. If you take a view that erases the exception clause there, you still have divorcees who had no choice. I think in most states, you cannot ultimately stop a spouse from divorcing you if he/she is determined to do it.
So many of our church consitutions and bylaws—as well as pulpit rhetoric—are way too hard in “divorcees” as a category.

That’s a good distinction to make: divorce / divorcee. Our attitudes ought to be different toward each, and now that I’m thinking about my own preaching, I think I try to be brutal toward divorce and gentle toward divorcees. Still, I wonder if the people in the pews are making such distinctions. Perhaps that’s why I try to be gentle toward divorcees - I don’t want people to transfer the condemnation of a practice to the condemnation of a person. Perhaps this is why many churches shy away from the topic - the fear that people will take it personally.

On the other hand, you mentioned that a homosexual insists his lifestyle to be right, and I think it fair to point out that there are likely legions of divorcees attending churches who would insist upon the same for themselves. In some of these cases, what we defend with “divorce,” the Bible may condemn with “adultery.” There are hurt divorcees, who, though they did not foster a perfect marriage (and none of us have), have been grievously sinned against; but I have met plenty (as I’m sure you have) who are actually defending a lifestyle just as sinful as that of the homosexual.

So, instead of walking on eggshells every time the subject comes up, why not carefully teach the Biblical perspective so that there are no misunderstandings as to whom or what is being addressed? Easier said than done, I know.

I agree it was an odd comparison for all the reasons mentioned above. But A. Carpenters observation that divorce and homosexuality both “reflect a sinfully marred understanding of marriage” has some basis.
The divorced person almost certainly has failed in his/her marriage over the years, even if he/she is the one who is filed against contrary to his/her desire. I have seen a marriage counseling situation that lacked two guilty parties, if not more.

Still, it seems to mix apples and oranges.

I have frequently made the comparison to how we deal with heterosexual fornication. In many churches, people just expect some level of such problem. While tolerance is not the right word for what happens in those churches (we hope), the attitude is clearly “Marry them and get it over with.” The underlying spiritual difficulty still exists, though. And we hardly deal with the heterosexual promiscuity as severely as any single homosexual act.

Don’t believe me? Try this test:
1). A young adult male raised in a Christian home engages in serial fornication with multiple young women over several years. This is well-known in the community. He seems broken after these events, seeks advice, and repents verbally, at least. Yet he seems powerless to stop these events that happen several times per year. The reaction of your church is… [probably mercy, sympathy, patience]
2). A young adult male is saved from a life of homosexual activity. He is submissive to Christ and His Word as well as spiritual leaders, and grows rapidly. After 8 months of faithfully walking with Christ, he stumbles into a one-time return to the same sin with an old flame (flamer?). This becomes known in the community as well. He is repentant, and submissive, and attempts to put things right. The reaction of your church is… [probably discounting the reality of his conversion]

Mike, A. Carpenter… good points all around. Can’t disagree with any of that (really tried though :) )

It’s true that we are biased toward what we understand and harsh toward what we find repulsive. I imagine most of us understand and even sympathize with someone who has committed fornication or been divorced, because it’s a battle we are all familiar with, and one most of us have lost at some time or other, whether physically or just in our thoughts. But we find homosexuality repulsive, and because Biblically it is the result of a reprobate mind, we have trouble believing that someone could recover from that sin, and we lack sympathy, most likely because we tend not to befriend anyone who is or has been GLBT. Probably the only good thing that came out of my brief career in mortgage banking was the friendship of a young man who was struggling with his homosexual desires. I was able to witness to him over several months, and learned to have genuine concern for him (and others) that overcame any disgust or fear I felt.

It bothers me when I hear name-calling from the pulpit. You don’t hear preachers calling divorcees adulterers, but they can certainly go on and on and on about all the perverts in “Hellywood”. I think some preachers feel safe addressing sins they believe are not represented by the tithers in their congregation.

we find homosexuality repulsive, and because Biblically it is the result of a reprobate mind

Susan,

I think you have revealed an assumption that most of us carry, and that is that homosexuality is the result of a reprobate mind. Somehow, this debases it beneath other sins because of its prominence in Romans 1. And while I agree that there is a kind of “otherness” about it due to the inherent reversal of the created order, I’m not convinced that the context of Romans 1 supports what we usually say it does. In fact, if we look in vv. 28-32, we will find a host of evils that are the result of a reprobate mind, such as being disobedient to one’s parents and covenant-breaking (divorce?). Verse 24 could arguably refer to heterosexual fornication. Vv. 26-27 - the verses on homosexuality - are really an expansion of vv. 24-25, rather than a new category. Homosexuality is mentioned in these verses as an example of the results of God giving them up. In other words, homosexuality is one sin on a spectrum of sins that ALL result when man replaces his Creator with idolatry. That does not mean that it is inconsequential; it means that as a category of sin, homosexuality does not differ in kind but in degree. We may argue about whether or not it is the greatest degree, but for the moment, I think it may be more biblical to consider it as a subset of fornication, a class of sins that would also include adultery.

Bro. Carpenter- I agree somewhat, but I believe that homosexuality doesn’t just differ in degree, but in kind as well. Now, I understand that when it comes to sin, one does not go from point A to point X with no stops in between. Romans 1 gives us quite an extensive list of wickedness besides homosexuality that are either the result of or lead to a corrupted conscience, but a desire for a physical relationship with someone of the same gender is clearly “against nature”- the ‘otherness’ to which you refer. However, one could also include such extremes as gluttony and sloth that has gotten to the point where someone has to be surgically removed from their couch and removed from their home with a crane, or self-mutilation, or bestiality… all of these violate some basic human programming. That’s where I’m coming from- we recognize that some sins, such as fornication, are the misuse of an otherwise allowable activity. There are many things that God has given us to enjoy that we abuse at times. But there will never be a time or place in a person’s life when homosexual behavior is acceptable, as Bro. Arms pointed out. We tend to disconnect because of that, and it feels safer to get upset about sins we don’t believe we will ever be guilty of than to condemn those behaviors with which we struggle. And there’s the double-standard and self-deception that results in a seared conscience and here we go ‘round the mulberry bush thinking we’re going in a straight line.

[Susan R] Bro. Carpenter- I agree somewhat, but I believe that homosexuality doesn’t just differ in degree, but in kind as well. Now, I understand that when it comes to sin, one does not go from point A to point X with no stops in between. Romans 1 gives us quite an extensive list of wickedness besides homosexuality that are either the result of or lead to a corrupted conscience, but a desire for a physical relationship with someone of the same gender is clearly “against nature”- the ‘otherness’ to which you refer. However, one could also include such extremes as gluttony and sloth that has gotten to the point where someone has to be surgically removed from their couch and removed from their home with a crane, or self-mutilation, or bestiality… all of these violate some basic human programming. That’s where I’m coming from- we recognize that some sins, such as fornication, are the misuse of an otherwise allowable activity. There are many things that God has given us to enjoy that we abuse at times. But there will never be a time or place in a person’s life when homosexual behavior is acceptable, as Bro. Arms pointed out. We tend to disconnect because of that, and it feels safer to get upset about sins we don’t believe we will ever be guilty of than to condemn those behaviors with which we struggle. And there’s the double-standard and self-deception that results in a seared conscience and here we go ‘round the mulberry bush thinking we’re going in a straight line.

Well, I agree with the distinction you have observed - as far as externals go, but I don’t think you can sustain it biblically. Neither 1 Cor. 6:9-10 nor 1 Tim. 1:8-10 treat homosexuality in a different category. And, as I have argued, I don’t think that distinction exists in Romans 1. Even Leviticus 18 treats in a list of sexual sins that were already present in the Canaanite nations, including incest and adultery. As far as the “created order” or “nature,” it is true that God never intended for humans to have intimate relations with those of the same gender; then again, he never intended for them to have relations with anyone to whom they were not married. We can talk about the purpose of procreation and its impossibility within a homosexual relationship, and this is true so far as it goes. But as a violation of God’s will, homosexuality, like fornication, arises out of a lustful and idolatrous heart, neither of which are ever acceptable. Due to the primary role played by idolatry and the uniform way in which Scripture treats homosexuality along with other sins, I tend to think that the gender issue is more superficial.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there is something patently perverse about the sin, but I also think that we operate more often by “gut reaction” than by Scriptural exegesis. I see this underlying the repeated insistence that one “would never do that,” (in violation of 1 Cor. 10:12), as well as a kind of self-righteous pride when dealing with homosexuals. The homosexual is not a different kind of sinner than the rest of us just because his sinful heart produces different sinful actions. If we disagree about that, then we might be disagreeing about the basic nature of sin itself.

Actually, a couple important distinctions are in order here about Romans 1:
1). Paul is describing the human race’s descent from God as a class, not as individuals. I do not believe you can point at any one person and say “they’re on the Romans 1 slide from God”.
2). As a people, “God gave them up” to some or other sin or set of sins. Their abandonment of the knowledge of God and His person caused God to actively remove certain limits on them as a class. The intended order for mankind from creation is now lost. The reason the extended example of homosexuality works so well is that it is a graphic and obvious departure from “Adam and Eve”. But we might equally well observe that “backbiting” is a departure from God’s order for communication, or “haters of God” a departure from God’s order for communion with Him.
3). The place this serves in Paul’s argument of Romans is to place all men equally as sinners (see Rom. 2:1). It is not to distinguish one set of sins as distinct from another.
4). It is important to note the structure. God first gives them up to “uncleaness” — morally. This causes them to dishonor their bodies with one another. In the 2nd case, God gives them over to “vile affections”, with homosexual sin as a result. It is possible that the 2nd case is just an expanded example of the first. Giving them over to a “reprobate” state of mind comes after the mention of homosexuality and refers mainly to the sins listed in verses 29-31. Extensive debate exists as to whether these verses are saying that God giving them over to these things caused the descent into those sins, or that because they were doing them, God gave them up to them (probably a little Reformed vs. Wesleyan argumentation appropriate here; insert as you like).

Relevant conclusions:
By the most sharp distinction one could make, the only difference in God’s statements on homosexuality vs. other sins would be that the affections are “vile” — and that may be only another way of expressing “unclean” (which one translator renders as “bestial profligacy”). It is also “unseemly”. It also has a natural impact within the person that is not mentioned for the other sins on the list, though an argument from silence is not provable.
So, in short, homosexual sin may be “different”. But it is still sin. “Fornication”, which includes the whole range of human sexual deviation from God’s will, is also on the list of sins here.
To argue that homosexual sin makes one unredeemable, or that it proves one is unredeemed, is foolish. Reprobate, the most severe term, is applied to “fornication” as a whole, and a list of other sins, some of which are universal to humanity in our fallen state.

So, why do we look at homosexual sin with such disgust in comparison with other sins?
It is “vile” — if Paul does intend to make a distinction here unique to homosexual sin vs. other moral sins. But I suspect that the real reasons is the history of our nation. In Greece or Rome, such practice would have been familiar, explaining the “such were some of you” line Paul uses elsewhere. History certainly records that in many of the cities where Paul planted churches, it would have been commonplace. Our nation, with its “Christian Nation” overtones (which I have serious questions about), had standardly rejected homosexual activity as an open sin. Only as we have departed from God has it become an option. So, instead of being part of the common background of unsaved life. we view it as symptomatic of the larger departure from God we have seen in America.*

I do not argue that we should take it more seriously than other sins (agreeing with Dr. Moore). In fact, I argue that it belongs in the sin list equivalent to other sins in the sense that God can save people from it (something we forget, as we call it sin but sometimes act like it is a transmittable disease). Is it more serious? Well, sexual sin is more serious for the believer (see I Cor. 6:15-20) because it is uniquely a sin against the body as God’s dedicated temple. It is perhaps more serious as it is symptomatic of our nation’s departure from God. Frequently, “gayness” as a category and as a movement makes the person feel obligated to choose to hate Christianity. But to say that in the mind of God the unsaved homosexual offender is more evil than the unsaved womanizer is farther than I think we can authorize from Scripture.

_____________________
* Of course, lynching black people was a pretty serious departure by some who considered themselves part of “Christian America”.

[Mike Durning] I agree it was an odd comparison for all the reasons mentioned above. But A. Carpenters observation that divorce and homosexuality both “reflect a sinfully marred understanding of marriage” has some basis.
The divorced person almost certainly has failed in his/her marriage over the years, even if he/she is the one who is filed against contrary to his/her desire. I have seen a marriage counseling situation that lacked two guilty parties, if not more.

Still, it seems to mix apples and oranges.

I have frequently made the comparison to how we deal with heterosexual fornication. In many churches, people just expect some level of such problem. While tolerance is not the right word for what happens in those churches (we hope), the attitude is clearly “Marry them and get it over with.” The underlying spiritual difficulty still exists, though. And we hardly deal with the heterosexual promiscuity as severely as any single homosexual act.

Don’t believe me? Try this test:
1). A young adult male raised in a Christian home engages in serial fornication with multiple young women over several years. This is well-known in the community. He seems broken after these events, seeks advice, and repents verbally, at least. Yet he seems powerless to stop these events that happen several times per year. The reaction of your church is… [probably mercy, sympathy, patience]
2). A young adult male is saved from a life of homosexual activity. He is submissive to Christ and His Word as well as spiritual leaders, and grows rapidly. After 8 months of faithfully walking with Christ, he stumbles into a one-time return to the same sin with an old flame (flamer?). This becomes known in the community as well. He is repentant, and submissive, and attempts to put things right. The reaction of your church is… [probably discounting the reality of his conversion]

I think it unfair and unwise to accuse anyone who has been divorced of ipso facto failing in their relationship. Sin is the primary cause of divorce, not failure to adhere to some western idea of what a perfect spouse should be. Too often I see this attitude in counselors. There is no pefect relationship due in large degree to sin. Many people learn to manage this fact and stay together recogizing they married a sinner. God will hold the person who rejected His clear command not to divorce accountable for their autonomous behavior. Divorce is legitimate for two reasons: adultery and abandonment. Having an imperfect spouse whose faults are easy to point out does not serve as grounds for divorce. Who wouldn’t have grounds for divorce under such conditions? When we display this kind of empathy toward rebellion over the Marriage covenant, we embolden people to sin against God. Repentance for divorce can only take a very limited number of paths:

1. Reconcile with your spouse if that spouse has remained unmarried and is living. No other option exists.
2. If reconciliation is not possible because the divorced spouse has remarried or cannot be located, then the divorcing spouse must remain single.

To contend that people who profess Christ can unbiblically divorce their spouse, turn around and say “I repent” and refuse to reconcile or refuse to remain single where reconciliation is not possible, and have that repentance accepted by the church makes a joke of the gospel, underminds the institution of marriage, and destroys the credibility of the Church as the fiduciary of Scripture. True repentance produces genuine fruit. First, godly sorrow is what produces genuine repentance. People who refuse to subject themselves to that which they do not desire, demonstrate that they remain far too much in love with their own self to love Christ. In this case, true repentance equals reconciliation where it is possible. If not, true repentance equals singleness. Any church that takes a liberal position on divorce risks losing her credibility to be a guardian and propagator or Christian truth. It isn’t harsh, folks. It is the truth. Let us not forget how the disciples responded to Christ when he taught this: “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” In essence, Jesus said, that’s right! You got it. But that is a gift that not all men possess. However, if you are able to do that, then do it. (I paraphrase of couse) The biggest problem in churches where this is an issue is there utter and complete failure to carry out church discipline. This is terribly embarrassing for the church. In the name of keeping the peace, we keep it quiet. Church discipline is the God-ordained process by which He protects His sheep from such rebellious sin and by which He exposes those who have no true commitment to the Christian community. Somehow, we think we are wiser and more loving than God by withholding that which God commands we apply. Every believer is entitled to benefit from the practice of church discipline when the circumstances call for it. No man has the right or the authority to determine that God’s process be circumvented for utilitarian reasons. If my tone is a little strong, it is because I have grown weary of seeing this non-sense in the church now for too many years. It is one of many practices that serves to weak our moral integrity in front of the unbelieving community.