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

Aaron,
I think we are mostly on the same page with the exception of the view that seems to imply that it is inappropriate to single out sin. I do not think singling out homosexuality or any other sin confuses the gospel. On the other hand, I think it is right to condemn “how” some people preach against sin because it is not based on a love for truth and for sinners. There is no place for name calling and hate-speech in any preaching. However, on the flip side, I do not agree with the premise that preaching against specific sinful behavior unnecessarily confuses the gospel message. Jesus did it; Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude did it. I think it could serve as an illigitmate excuse to tone down the gospel in my opinion. In my view, I think the enemy and the world would love to limit the church’s preaching against sin to be as nebulous as possible. When I hear repent and believe, I want to know from what? Homosexuals and adulterers are constantly joining churches without turning from their sin. They do not think that believing the gospel equals a radical change in their entire person. These are false converts. And it is due in large degree to the disappearance of naming sin for what it is in many, many liberal churches. That is my perspective anyways.

Well, I would never make the generalization “Never preach against a particular sin.” But I would also not make the generalization “It’s always a good idea to preach against particular sin A.” The reason is that human beings are prone to excess. We can do too much of a good thing and turn it into a bad thing.
Another reason is that it’s possible that in a particular setting, preaching against sin A may already exist in large quantities in a manner that is confusing and, as you mentioned, hateful, etc. So when that’s the room you are preaching in, you have to make adjustments to compensate for the distortion, so to speak.

For example, someone attended our church years ago who had some racism issues. She would say things like “All Indians are thieves.” Now if I was in a community where the preachers are constantly railing on “Indian thievery,” it wouldn’t do for me to get up in the pulpit and preach against stealing. I’d need to lay some groundwork against racial bigotry first, otherwise my message is not going to be understood as anything other than the usual anti-Indian screed.

Similarly (but not exactly, of course) I think public preaching on homosexuality has to be packaged right these days or it comes across as special targeting of a group of people rather than a call to sinners to repent.

I see your point. I agree that context plays a big part in how we choose to deliver the truth. It is always good to know the environment you are in so that you can be sensitive to previous abuses that may have taken place if such is possible. I also agree that it is inappropriate to isolate any one sinful proclivity to be worse than others. In other words, I shouldn’t feel like I am a worse sinner as a homosexual than the adulterer next door.

I think that’s really about all James meant to say also…. or pretty close to that.

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

I think part of the discussion is that some believers, myself included, do not acknowledge “good and just” reasons for divorce. I believe the biblical case is stronger for the position that it is never right for a believer to pursue divorce or to be remarried while a former spouse remains alive. This would seem to shed a different light on the article, wouldn’t it?

Once you leave off the extremely open approach of divorce for any cause and step over into the views that divorce is permissible on the grounds of adultery or unrepentant adultery as some put it or abandonment, the debate becomes more complex. It is fully acknowledged that some people take different positions on the exception clause in Matt. 19:1-10 as they do abandonement in 1 Cor. 7:12-15. Personally, from an exegetical standpoint, I do not think those who reject remarriage altogether have good support in the text. The exception clause seems quite strong as does Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 7. I do not find the arguments of the “no remarriage” camp around those two texts to be cogent at all. Just my opinion.

Of course I am not sure about the idea that there are just and good reasons for a believer to divorce their spouse. However, that does not mean that God does not grant permission to divorce in extreme cases. And in those cases, where God grants divorce, the prinicple of remarriage seems to be assumed. Nevertheless, even though permission is granted in an expression of mercy, I believe the principle of forgiveness should take precedent. Where possible, the divorcing spouse must be encouraged to forgive as Christ forgives and do all he/she can to remain in the marriage covenant.

I think using the term ‘pursuing divorce’ may put more pressure or responsibility than is fair on a dedicated, faithful, loving spouse. For instance, it would be pretty tough to expect a spouse to remain with an unfaithful husband/wife if they have contracted an STD. What are they going to do with the command not to defraud each other in the bedroom? Or if a spouse is violent, dangerous, and involved in illegal activities? Are they going to separate, remain celibate, but not divorce? What’s the difference, except in the legal sense? Which brings to the forefront the concerns of a husband/wife legally tied to a criminal, a substance abuser, or a violent person. The church doesn’t/can’t/won’t protect them, so they go to the law.

It’s all easy and theoretical until it’s YOUR life, and the lives of your children, that are in danger.

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

If that is Moore’s point, I can agree with it wholeheartedly. Sexual perversion is sin, and involves two people. Divorce is also sin that involves two people- but one of them could be an innocent party. That is never true of the homosexual lifestyle.

Denouncing sin as sin, and not accepting divorce and dysfunctional families as “Oh well, that’s just the way it is these days” would be a good thing. I imagine many divorces are the result of poor teaching and a lack of accountability in churches. Only when the wound is gaping open and gushing blood does leadership jump up wagging their fingers and holding out a Band-Aid.

Every decision has to be biblically informed. The STD point is a good one. The best place to start is sovereignty. We cannot dismiss the fact that God decreed the marriage in eternity past. God has joined them together. This must always be the starting point. The next question concerns the duties of husbands and wives revealed by God in Scripture. How are we to serve God in our role as spouse? That includes how we ought to respond to certain behaviors of our mate. While it is a grey area, abuse is interpreted and understood by many as abandonment. It seems that the other spouse is not please to dwell with the abused mate. At a minimum, separation is best in order to protect the abused spouse. During that separation, counseling and discipline should supervene. If the abuser refuses to repent, discipline can help expose the sinful disposition of this person and even serve to demonstrate lack of genuine faith. In these circumstances, divorce may be permissible, under the construal of abandonment. But extreme care should guide the entire process so as to avoid placing souls in a state of confusion and sin.

Most STDs are manageable in the bedroom I think. Therefore, this condition probably falls short to merit divorce. The adultery that caused it would serve as legitimate grounds of course. But that does not satisfy the question if one discovers an STD after marriage that was contracted before the relationship began. We return to the sovereignty point made at the beginning of this post.

If that is Moore’s point, I can agree with it wholeheartedly. Sexual perversion is sin, and involves two people. Divorce is also sin that involves two people- but one of them could be an innocent party. That is never true of the homosexual lifestyle.

Denouncing sin as sin, and not accepting divorce and dysfunctional families as “Oh well, that’s just the way it is these days” would be a good thing. I imagine many divorces are the result of poor teaching and a lack of accountability in churches. Only when the wound is gaping open and gushing blood does leadership jump up wagging their fingers and holding out a Band-Aid.

Both are excellent points. The real problem with divorce is a lack of commitment to Christ. This lack of commitment displays itself in obstinate disobedience. I heard one woman who was going to divorce her husband a year ago and changed her mind. Well, here we are a year later and she said this time she was not going to be “bible-ed” out of it. Knowing what Scripture says just doesn’t matter to some of these people. I am reminded of Jesus’ words, “He that is of God hears God’s word.”

Your second point on church leaders is also spot on. I know of a conservative PCA church where a woman married a guy and within months decided she made a mistake and made him move out. The elders allowed it. Then she came up with the theory that he manipulated her to marry him and all her “Christian” friends came in to support her. The elders were paralyzed with fear, thinking that if they disciplined her, all these friends would leave. They developed a real hatred of this man on top of it all. Not only this, I spoke with two leaders who said that reconciliation was not necessary for her to truly repent of this sin. I was horrified by this response. There was no adultery, abuse, or anything. She just got cold feet AFTER the fact. She says God is an understanding God and He knows how much she really loves him and how bad she really FEELS about it. I just shake my head in amazement.

[edingess] The next question concerns the duties of husbands and wives revealed by God in Scripture. How are we to serve God in our role as spouse?…Most STDs are manageable in the bedroom I think.

I suppose the question is, if a spouse is truly loving their other ‘half’, http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/tc/safe-sex-topic-overview] how much risk are they willing to ask them to take?

Completely avoiding sexual contact (abstinence)… is the only certain way to prevent an infection.

How can a church balance the legal issues surrounding abuse while holding the abuser accountable?

What do you think is the best methodology, or combination thereof, to address family/marriage issues and divorce in the church? IOW, what do you believe are the best prevention, treatment, and discipline measures? For instance, should pastors receive some training in Biblical family counseling? Or is Scripture ‘sufficient’? (I know that question doesn’t sound quite right, but maybe you understand what I mean by it?)

While I firmly hold to the view that Scripture is sufficient, I think that pastors skill sets vary a great deal on how to apply Scripture to these very diffcult situations. I readily admit the STD issue is a very difficult one, but so is being married to a drunk. I would not want to try that or wish that on anyone. If the unbeliever is content to dwell with the believer, the believer must consent.

The best treatment for marriage/family issues is a church that has the necessary components for spiuritual health. Of course, the preaching has to focus on the very granular particulars of what it means to glorify God as a family and spouse. Sunday school classes should reinforce this regularly by introducing topics and even doing case studies and opening them up for discussion. This would be particularly helpful for the youth groups. Divorce and marriage is almost never taught to the teens. WHAT A MISTAKE and missed opportunity! Finally, there must be a very deliberate emphasis on discipleship for men and women. We don’t manage the spiritual health of our churches. We kinda just react mostly. THAT is a bankrupt approach and we are proving that it does not work. When you have all these things in place, the disciplinary process is SO much more effective. Relationships are the foundation upon which we must build. If we are intimately involved in one another’s lives, and someone comes to us in love with a gentle rebuke, that is much easier to take than the cold distant tribunals I have witnessed in some churches. Of course the tribunal is better than nothing at all, but still greatly lacking.

I believe this would go a long way to preventing ever having to come to the place where divorce is mentioned. We begin with God’s sovereignty. We then recognize that we are slaves without rights. We are His! I am crucified with Christ. For some people that means horrible persecution. For others it means living in a relationship that is very challenging. For others still, it means confinement to a wheelchair. My motto is, “I am placed here BY God FOR God.” Not for me or my pleasure. As Christians, our greatest pleasure must be found in obedience to our Lord and Master. In some instances, that obedience is particularly challenging and may require a great deal of self-sacrifice. The pain of this self-sacrifice is more sharp in a culture where hedonism and narcissism are the prevailing philosophies as they are here in the west.

such an interesting dialogue.

there’s a lady in our church here in ukraine—she’s had the whole scenario—gotten STDs from her constantly unfaithful husband, he drinks, etc. And he has no reason in world to want a divorce. He likes having a wife/family on the side. It keeps him from actually killing himself with all the excess. She finally divorced him, and the pastoral staff didn’t interfere with it. I think in situations like these, we need to be extremely careful about becoming “God” to people.

an interesting cultural tidbit—here in Ukraine, if a person is divorced before repentance, it’s not really “counted.” Like, that person is free to remarry in the Lord.

also, interesting, Dallas Willard says that Christ’s words about the woman remarrying being adultery—he says it’s descriptive of the culture of that time (rather than being prescriptive).

I would agree that unrepentant adultery, even from an unbeliever, constitutes grounds for divorce and remarriage. Divorce prior to regeneration would not be considered when marrying a Christian. This would only hold for believers. Any view that denies Matthew 19:1-10 is not an express moral imperative given by Christ is without exegetical support. Such a position borders on conjecture. The context of the text itself, and the reaction of Jesus’ disciples indicate it was an imperative and that it was extreme given the cultural practices at that time.

Didn’t Dallas Willard write that people can be saved without knowing Jesus in his book, Divine Conspiracy? I heard Dallas Willard say that he believes that everyone who deserves to be saved will be saved no matter where they are or what they do. NOT A Willard fan at all.

[edingess] Didn’t Dallas Willard write that people can be saved without knowing Jesus in his book, Divine Conspiracy? I heard Dallas Willard say that he believes that everyone who deserves to be saved will be saved no matter where they are or what they do. NOT A Willard fan at all.

can you give me some concrete sources? I’ve not read all of Divine Conspiracy, but I have it and I really doubt something of that nature is in there ;)

I’ll try to find the part where he talks about that passage and divorce. Would be interesting. Im quoting 2nd-hand from my mom.

I found http://anchorforthesoul.org/2011/07/23/dallas-willard-on-divorce-and-re… this blog that quotes Willard’s section about Mtt 5:32. I’ll post the quotes from the book here:

Oh, before I do that, I also found http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=98] this very interesting article by Willard and Foster . It has some worthwhile thoughts in it. I’m not totally gung-ho on these guys, but they have some insights that are beneficial—I’m saying that so people dont get sidetracked dumping on these guys ;).

[Willard & Foster article] The New Testament regards romantic love as such a negligible factor in marriage that it does not even mention it. Disciples can no longer neglect this form of love because in our world of today it is running amuck destroying the lives of millions by its insubordination to agape. Disciples must, above all, be convinced and must convince their children that people cannot build a marriage upon either sexual attraction or romantic love alone and that the goodness which is in these is available only within properly agapized homes and communities. The basis of the Christly marriage and family is mutual subordination to the good of others out of a respect for Christ. (Eph. 5:21) … Neither Jesus nor Paul ever discussed what we today call divorce. Jesus taught that men should not put away women. Neither He nor Paul dealt with divorce or separation by mutual consent or in cases where provision is made by a division of property or alimony or otherwise. He did not deal with this because it did not exist.(bolding mine)

OK, Willard on divorce in the Divine Conspiracy:

[Willard] In the Jewish society of Jesus’ day, as for most times and places in human history, the consequences of divorce were devastating for the woman. Except for some highly unlikely circumstances, her life was simply ruined. No harm was done to the man, by contrast, except from time to time a small financial loss and perhaps bitter relationships with the ex-wife’s family members.

For the woman, however, there were only three realistic possibilities in Jesus’ day. She might find a place in the home of a generous relative, but usually on grudging terms and as little more than a servant. She might find a man who would marry her, but always as ‘damaged goods’ and sustained in a degraded relationship. Or she might, finally, make a place in the community as a prostitute. Society simply would not then, as ours does today, support a divorced woman to any degree or allow her to support herself in a decent fashion.

Therese circumstances explain why Jesus says that to divorce a woman causes her to commit adultery and to marry a divorced woman is to commit adultery. To not marry again was a terrible prospect for the woman. It mean, in nearly every case, to old with no children as well as with no social position, a perpetual failure as a human being. But to marry was to live in a degraded sexual relationship the rest of her life, and precious few husbands would allow her to forget it. As in the phrase ‘adultery in the heart,’ Jesus speaks of being forced into ‘adultery’ to point out the degraded sexual condition that was, then if not now, sure to be the result of divorce.

[edingess] While I firmly hold to the view that Scripture is sufficient, I think that pastors skill sets vary a great deal on how to apply Scripture to these very diffcult situations.

It isn’t just an understanding of Scripture that I’m thinking about- it’s knowledge of the law and other implications of one’s counsel to dysfunctional families. The example mentioned makes it clear that sowing infidelity can result in reaping a life of abstinence- that is, if you don’t want to expose the spouse you supposedly love to a terminal illness. It is a mistake to believe the media’s constant portrayal of certain methods as ‘safe’. Safe as opposed to playing in traffic? Grabbing a pit bull by the ears? Chopping wood blindfolded?

Pastors don’t have an enviable position- they need to, IMO, do some serious research before they give advice. And when it comes to families experiencing abuse and violence- How many pastors understand the legal definition of a threat? Of blackmail? Of assault?

We don’t manage the spiritual health of our churches. We kinda just react mostly. THAT is a bankrupt approach and we are proving that it does not work.

Exactly. We also view the church as a safe place for our families, where kids can play relatively unsupervised, and we assume everyone is on the same page with regards to right/wrong or prudent behavior.

Also, I have too often seen an unbalanced emphasis on the submission of the wife that has resulted in women thinking that part of being ‘submissive’ meant tolerating verbal and physical abuse, covering up illegal activities, engaging in risky sexual behavior, and tolerating a husband’s porn habit. What’s worse is when that person is the wife of someone in church leadership. It seems that all people can think about is the shame and other repercussions of getting help- as if the shame of living with and hiding abuse and perversion is preferable, and that they are already dealing with such problems Biblically by remaining quiet.

To be fair, I also see husbands who tolerate their wives excesses, and as long as the kid doesn’t have any broken bones, they tolerate the neglect and abuse of their children. But those women are working in the nursery and teaching Sunday School. What gives?

And to bring all this back around to the OP, a decline into perversion depends on us neglecting to address and properly deal with the ‘small stuff’. No one wakes up a sexual pervert one morning- it takes time, with exposure to television shows that make a mock at sin, situations where children are left alone to attempt to satisfy their curiosity with their pooled ignorance, and granting undeserved trust to those in whose care we place our children and young people. No one gets married with an eye on divorce, but a basic lack of maturity, discipline, and emotional control greases the plank on which many a marriage slides down into unmitigated disaster.