Mythology versus Theology

This morning I am thinking about recent conversations with friends who are escaping abuse… and realizing anew how horribly the Divorce Mythology commonly believed among Christians turns the biblical message upside down.
The Bible has a recurring theme of redemption and deliverance with numerous examples of God redeeming and delivering His people from covenants of bondage… yet people in abusive marriages are often told by their pastor that God requires them to remain married to their abuser.

When someone asks me for biblical support for divorce for abuse, I often point them to the second chapter of Malachi where God so clearly denounces treachery against a covenant partner and specifically addresses treachery against a spouse.  Yet it is from this wonderfully liberating chapter that people pluck three words out of context of a 36 word verse in the 17 verse chapter in the four chapter book and tell abuse victims “God hates divorce!”  No!  No, He doesn’t!  Or at least He does not hate all divorce.  And the entire chapter read in full makes it very clear that what God hates is abuse against a covenant partner.

When someone asks me for biblical support for remarriage after divorce, I often point them to the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, where the Apostle Paul clearly tells us multiple times that it is not sin for a divorced individual to marry again, and that marriage is preferable to unnecessary temptation.  Yet it is from this same chapter that people often pluck one verse completely out of context of the 40 verse chapter to tell divorcees they must forever remain single.  No!  That is not the message of this chapter at all!

When someone asks me whether it is better to divorce or to permanently separate without divorce, I may point them to the fifth chapter of Matthew, where Jesus clearly denounces permanent separation without divorce.  Yet, people often use the exact same verses plucked out of context of the 48 verse chapter to tell divorcees it would be adulterous for them to marry again.

The Divorce Mythology not only makes an idol out of marriage, but in the process of defending that position it turns the biblical message of redemption and deliverance upside down, making God out to be a calloused uncaring individual not at all like the God portrayed in the Bible.

Let’s remember the words with which Jesus announced the beginning of His public ministry:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim release to captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)
Your thoughts?

When Evil Prospers – Part 4

Lessons from Job

This is my fourth and final post in this series addressing the topic When Evil Prospers.  In this post we will discuss some of the lessons I have gleaned from the book of Job.

If you have missed the earlier posts on this topic, you can link to the beginning by clicking here.

Bad Things Sometimes Happen to Good People

The book of Job is an amazing story of faith maturing through overwhelming trials.  One of the difficulties we have with this story is the lack of definitive answers.  We instinctively want to know, what did Job do to cause such tremendous catastrophe in his life?

However, we are told at the very beginning of the book:

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. (Job 1:1)

And:

The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.” (Job 1:8)

I have heard several preachers try to nail down exactly what sin Job committed.  However, their explanations fall short and directly contradict the text.  This is exactly what Job’s friends tried to do… help Job figure out where he sinned, so he could repent.  Job resolutely defended himself and declared he had done no wrong.

In the end, God agreed with Job and rebuked his friends.  So, we must put away any thoughts that Job somehow got what he deserved because of sin.  God said Job was blameless and upright before Him.

I think we find this particularly troubling because the obvious implication is the same thing could happen to any of us.  If Job did nothing wrong yet suffered horribly, what is to keep the same thing from happening to any of us?  In our legalistic mindset, we want to find ways to ensure bad things will not happen to us or our families.

The reality is bad things can and do happen to good people.  Job stands as a testament to the fact that horrible tragedy is not necessarily a sign of sinful lifestyles, nor is it a sign of God’s absence or displeasure.  Job lived a righteous life.  Job loved God.  God loved Job.  Yet, Job suffered catastrophic loss.

Trials Transform Theory into Reality

At the beginning of the book we are told Job was “blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.”  This was Job’s reputation and we have no reason to doubt it.  However, in the first chapter, these are only the words of a character witness with nothing solid to hang them on.  Hearing someone is righteous does not carry the same weight as actually seeing them live their life with integrity.

By the end of the book, we are absolutely certain Job was “blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.”  We can feel Job’s integrity in our bones, along with his sorrow, pain and numerous questions.

Job’s faith was only theory at the beginning of the story, but through trials it became reality.  Faith must be tested before it is real.

In the beginning of the story, Job believed God was faithful, just, and worthy of worship.  Through the trials, God confirmed all of these things to be true.  In the end, Job did not believe God’s faithfulness because of what he had been told, but because of what he had experienced.

From the beginning of the story to the end, we can see Job’s faith transform.  Initially, Job trusted in his own integrity to ensure no harm would come to his family.  By the end of the story, Job learned to trust God’s goodness and faithfulness despite the harm that had come to himself and his family.  Job learned to be honest with God in his frustration and anguish, and God praised Job’s honesty.

Satan asked to test Job.  God used the test to transform Job’s theoretical faith into reality and to deepen Job’s trust in God.  By the end of the story, Job did not trust God because of the physical blessings in his life.  Rather he learned to trust God regardless of circumstances, because he had come to know God’s character.

God is Always in Control

When God finally responded to Job’s questions, it was with a lengthy list of what God can do.  For a full four chapters, God reminds Job of His power, might, and wisdom.

No matter how horrible things may seem, no matter how confusing our circumstances, God is still all-powerful and is still in control.  Although He may not seek our counsel or tell us His plans, He is still in control, and we can trust Him.

Going back to the first chapter of Job, we read:

Then Satan answered the Lord, “Does Job fear God for nothing? Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.” Then the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.” So Satan departed from the presence of the Lord. (Job 1:9-12)

God had a hedge of protection around Job.  Satan could not touch Job without God’s permission.  Yes, bad things sometimes happen to God’s children… but not without God’s permission.  God did not bring calamity upon Job… that was Satan’s work.  However, Satan had to ask God’s permission and follow God’s parameters.

I find this realization simultaneously discomfiting and comforting.  I’m not crazy about the realization that calamity could strike all at once for no apparent reason.  However, it is extremely comforting to know God… who loves me deeply and wants nothing but the best for me… is in complete control and sets bounds on what He allows Satan to do.

Trials Teach Us to Depend on God

In the end, Job made this declaration to God:

“I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
‘Hear, now, and I will speak;
I will ask You, and You instruct me.’
I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear;
But now my eye sees You;
Therefore I retract,
And I repent in dust and ashes.”

Through his trials, Job gained a fresh perspective on how much he does not know, on how awesome God is, and on how totally reliant we are on God.

Healing Begins with Ministering to Others

When Job was at rock bottom… when he had lost his children, his wealth and his health… when his friends had all accused him of sin he wasn’t guilty of… when God had put Job in his place by reminding him how little he knew of God’s power and might… then God told Job to pray for his friends.  These are the same friends who came to minister to Job in his misery, but wound up lecturing him.  Job was told to pray for them.

The Lord restored the fortunes of Job when he prayed for his friends, and the Lord increased all that Job had twofold. (Job 42:10)

As Job began to minister to others out of his poverty, he began to find healing himself.  I have found this to be true in my own life.  Healing often begins with ministering to others.

A Higher Purpose

The book of Job opens with a mysterious scene:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.” (Job 1:6-8)

The scene described is some sort of heavenly counsel with God presiding over the angels, and Satan shows up.

What is Satan doing in a heavenly counsel?  Why is he allowed to stay?  Why did God call his attention to Job?  Why did God permit Satan to test Job?

No clear answers are provided.  No doubt, one major reason was for Job’s own benefit.  As previously discussed, the trials transformed Job’s faith and deepened Job’s relationship with God.

Yet, there seems to be something more going on here.  The narrator presents this heavenly scene as though it is a common occurrence… as though Satan often enters God’s presence and frequently converses with God about the hearts of humans.

Although the Bible provides no definitive answers, I think it is worth speculating to see what we can glean.

Revelation gives us a little more insight:

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. (Revelation 12:9-11)

Satan is described as “the accuser of our brethren… who accuses them before our God day and night.”

This sounds like a court room scene… a King’s court where people come for justice and the King dispenses justice in His wisdom.  Satan, the accuser, is there bringing his petitions before God.  Jesus, our advocate is also there:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:1)

Note that Satan is our accuser and God is our defender.  That is good news!  Too often, God’s justice is viewed as His raging against our sin.  However, the Bible presents God’s justice as being exercised in our defense against Satan, the accuser.

So, what is Satan accusing us of and why?  Based on the passage in 1 John, Satan is accusing us of sin.  But why should he care if we sin?  Isn’t Satan in the business of tempting us to sin?  Why would our sin be the basis for Satan to file a petition against us?

Besides, as John stated, Jesus, “Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”  So, if our sins have already been dealt with, why is Satan bothering to continually accuse us?  What does he hope to accomplish?

Jesus has already redeemed us from Adam’s covenant with sin and death.  He has already made propitiation for our sins.  He has already cut a new covenant with the Father on our behalf.  All that remains is for each of us to add our yes and amen to the work Jesus has already accomplished, and to walk in that new covenant as children of the living God, through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.

From Adam to Jesus, Satan had a lawful claim over the souls of mankind, as well as authority over the earth.  Jesus has already defeated Satan and redeemed mankind.  Soon, Jesus will come again to reclaim the earth.

Satan is now playing the only card he has left to play… our free will.

God uses covenant to enrich and bless.  Satan uses covenant to enslave and abuse.  God does not hold us in covenant against our wills.  Satan does.

Satan continually accuses us of sin, before God, to try to make the case that we are rejecting our covenant with God and embracing a covenant with Satan.  Just as he did with Adam and Eve at the beginning, Satan is using our free wills against us to try to entrap us, in order to retain control over our souls as well as over the earth.  For His children, Jesus continually advocates.

So, what is our role in this court?

And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. (Revelation 12:11)

This verse just amazes me!  I know we are saved through the blood of Jesus Christ.  I know our salvation is “by grace, through faith, not of works.”  Yet, this passage adds something.  We get to participate in our own salvation… in Satan’s final defeat.

As that court scene is played out, Satan is defeated not only by the blood of Christ, but also by the word of our testimony and by our faith in action.  We are called to give testimony and our testimony aids in defeating our accuser.

Satan comes before the throne of God with his list of grievances… the rampant evil and wickedness found in his “wandering to and fro upon the earth”… presented as evidence against the human race… proof that our hearts truly belong to him and not to God… proof that we are more his children than God’s… proof that we don’t really want to be in covenant with God at all.

God responds, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.”

In that moment, Job’s faithfulness is God’s evidence presented to counter Satan’s accusations against the human race.  From this perspective, Job’s suffering serves a higher purpose in the final battle against Satan.

Yes, God is the final judge.  However, as a just judge, He considers all the evidence and allows all arguments to be presented.  In the final judgment, all will know God is just.

Could it be that I have, in some small way, been a part of this epoch court battle?  Could it be that God at some point has called me to the witness stand, “Have you considered my servant Joe?”

I hope so!  I hope my testimony has been found worthy of presenting as evidence.  I hope I am a credible witness.  I hope I have played my small part in defeating Satan, our accuser.

No wonder the apostles rejoiced that they had been considered worthy to suffer for Christ!

When Evil Prospers – Part 3

In Part 1 of this series, I shared a little of my personal story and discussed the importance of processing, at a deep emotional level, the reality that we are not alone.  Others who have gone before us have experienced similar struggles, pain, sorrow, horror, grief, and unanswered questions.

In Part 2, we discussed what it means to be God’s image bearers in a fallen world filled with darkness.

In this post, we will discuss how Jesus understands and shares our suffering.

The Suffering of Christ:

The truths shared in the two prior posts are truly wonderful!  Yet, they can still, at times, come across as a bit sterile and cliché.

Yes, it is great knowing God is good… that He loves me… that He never leaves me.  From a philosophical perspective, we can discuss and debate how His goodness combined with His omnipotence still fail to restrain evil and suffering.  We can understand God’s sacred respect for human free will and the consequences of living in a fallen world.  We can understand that somehow God uses all of the experiential garbage of living in this fallen world to bring about His will and purpose in our lives.  We can understand how brokenness is a necessary part of effectively ministering to people in broken circumstances.

Yet, when burdens weigh the heaviest… when our desperate prayers for mercy, justice and relief seem to go unheeded… when evil seems to prosper unchecked… when our anguished souls cry out to God in grief… it can still feel insufficient.  A God who allows His children to suffer deep loss and horrible travesties while promising to work it all out for good in some manner only He understands at some future date only He knows, with no promise of relief in the here and now, can seem cold and distant… maybe even cruel.

Sure, God sees the big picture and sees His plan unfolding across the millennia, but that seems poor comfort for us mere mortals suffering in the here and now of this fallen world.

How can God sit back and watch His children suffer while doling out platitudes and proverbs?  If God is such a good and faithful friend, why does He allow us to suffer so?

No matter how we rationalize the reasons… no matter how we explain the biblical context… in that moment of deepest sorrow and darkest evil it still feels inadequate.  Although we intellectually concede our assent, our raw emotions still cry out this question.

If God is such a good and faithful friend, why does He allow us to hurt so deeply for so long?

I have no answer sufficient for this question.  Yes, I have all the previously discussed answers for the intellect.  Yet, I have no answer sufficient for the raw emotional suffering.

But we do have Jesus!

We have the account of Jesus praying in the garden where he sweated great drops of blood.  He have the anguished cry of Christ pleading, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me!

How did the Father respond to the cry of His beloved only begotten son?

He sent angels to minister to Jesus… then sent Jesus to be stripped, whipped, and nailed to a cross to die.

Simple Sketch of Crucifix

Jesus understands our suffering.  Jesus knows what it means to cry out to God for relief and still be left to suffer the deprivations of evil.

Our God has not stood off at a distance objectively watching our suffering while offering empty platitudes of how it is for our own good.  Our God has chosen to join us in our suffering.  He has chosen to suffer with us.  He has chosen to experience the full range of human life in a fallen world.

The author of Hebrews tells us Jesus was made perfect through suffering.

Think about that for a moment.  Our good and perfect God, creator of heaven and earth, was made perfect through suffering.  How can that be?  How can God, who was already perfect, be perfected?

Jesus was already the perfect God.  Through suffering, Jesus became our perfect Savior and our perfect Advocate.

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16)

Jesus knows.  Jesus understands.  Jesus has suffered as we suffer.

I may not understand God’s plan, but God does understand my suffering.

Jesus understands my suffering… has experienced it Himself… grieves with me in my loss and bewilderment.  Knowing this, I can trust God’s plan.

This is not the plan of an emotionally distant God with little concern for the pain experienced by mortals.  No, this is the plan of a God who is so deeply personal that He became a mortal Himself, suffered with us and for us, and has sent His Holy Spirit to lead, guide, and comfort us.

Jesus knows God’s plan and Jesus knows our suffering.

Jesus knows!

 

This is the third part in a series on the topic “When Evil Prospers.”  Please join the next post in which I will discuss Lessons from Job.

Divine Will

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:4-9)

What’s the deal with this passage? Although God spoke as though Israel was opposing His will in asking for a king, He told Samuel to listen to their voice and do what they asked.  Samuel then warned the people of how a king would mistreat them, yet the elders still insisted they wanted a king.

This is an interesting passage. The elders of Israel seemed to be going against the Lord’s will in asking for a king.  Yet, they were also seeking God’s will in the selection of a king.  They didn’t just go out and anoint their own king.  They asked the prophet, Samuel, to appoint a king over them.

Samuel complied, and based on God’s guidance anointed Saul to be king over Israel. Later, Saul disobeyed God, and God subsequently rejected Saul as king and had Samuel anoint David as king in place of Saul.

What’s going on here? If the elders of Israel are rejecting God in asking for a king, then why are they asking for God’s selection for a king?

Why did God first indicate He didn’t want Israel to have a king…then anoint Saul as king…then reject Saul as king…then anoint David as king? Does God really have that much trouble making up His own mind?  Does God not know His own will?  If it wasn’t God’s will for Israel to have a king, why did God tell Samuel to appoint a king?

In an attempt to make sense out of these apparent contradictions, some people explain this passage in terms of God’s divine will versus God’s permissive will.  The general idea is that God has a perfect divine will He wants us to follow, but also has an imperfect permissive will he allows us to follow.  So, they would say it was God’s divine will for Israel to not have a king, but in His permissive will God allowed them to have a king…and to suffer the consequences of their bad choice.

The whole divine will versus permissive will explanation doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me, though.

This perspective sets us up to try to view God as having multiple wills. Rather than helping us better understand the passage, I think it just makes it more confusing.  How could God have a divided will when everything about Him is perfect?  God knows all things and can clearly foresee future events before they happen.  He is not constrained by time and space as we are.  So how could He have a divided will, or how could He change is mind?

“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Numbers 23:19)

two year old colt

Archie – Our 2-year-old AQHA stud colt

Reading this passage reminds me of the evening I decided to train Archie, our young stud colt, to tail lead.

What I mean by the term tail lead, is simply that if I lightly pull a horse’s tail to the right, I would like him to step his hindquarters right. If I lightly pull his tail to the left, I would like him to step his hindquarters left.  This is not usually considered a super important horse training lesson.  A vast majority of horses go their entire lives without ever learning to tail lead and it doesn’t cause their owners any concern.

I’ve come to like teaching a horse to tail lead, mostly because it is useful when handling, grooming, maneuvering tight spots, etc. Most horses know how to step away from pressure applied by the handler.  Sometimes, it is more convenient to ask the horse to step his hindquarters toward me (rather than away from me) and tail leading allows me to effectively communicate that intent.

Also, tail lead training is a good lesson in building communication between horse and handler. It’s just one of many…but the many small things add up over time to result in big changes for the horse.

On this particular day, I had Archie at our farrier’s barn along with several other horses. While our farrier was trimming and shoeing other horses, I decided to use my time to train Archie.  The timing was intentional on my part.  By teaching Archie something new while in an unfamiliar location, I was also helping him learn to focus on me and respond to my cues no matter where we are.

Holding Archie’s lead line in my left hand, I grasped his tail with my right hand. Then I firmly tugged on his tail.  As expected, Archie promptly stepped his hindquarters right, away from me.  I simply held the same tail pressure and moved with him.

Now, at this point, anyone watching me (like my farrier maybe?) might have questioned what I was doing and why. They might have wondered about my intent…my will for Archie’s behavior.  I set out to teach Archie to step toward me when I lightly pulled his tail.  Instead he was strongly resisting the pressure and continually stepping away from me…while I simply went with him.

After a few minutes of moving around in circles, Archie paused…and I promptly dropped his tail. I petted and praised him like he’d just won the Kentucky Derby!  All he had actually done was stop moving away from me.  Anyone watching me at this point might have wondered if that was my intent…for Archie to simply stand still when I tugged on his tail.  I certainly praised him plenty for simply standing still for a moment!

Still holding the lead line in my left hand, I once again grasped Archie’s tail in my right hand and tugged. Again, he stepped his hindquarters right, away from me.  Again, I simply went with him and waited until he paused moving.  Again I promptly dropped his tail and praised him.

We did this several more times with the same results. Except, with each repetition it took him less time to stop moving.  Each time he acted a little less bothered and was a little quicker to stop moving away from me.

Then, one time Archie only started to move away, before deciding to stand still. I simply held the same tail pressure.  Again, he shifted his weight away and moved one hind hoof away…then he moved the hoof back to his left and I immediately dropped his tail and praised him.

Next time, Archie braced right without actually moving right. After a few seconds, he softened and tentatively stepped left.  I promptly dropped his tail and praised him.

After a few more minutes practice, Archie got to where he would move left toward me fairly quickly when I tugged his tail.

Then I switched things up. I moved to Archie’s right side and repeated everything again, from the right side.  We went through the same process from the right side, and after a few minutes Archie would step right to a right tail-pull.

Then I move back to Archie’s left side…and Archie was totally confused!

At that point he was totally lost on which way I wanted him to step when.  He understood I wanted a step and he was willing to do what I asked, but he was very confused on the proper response to a cue from left or right.

So, we kept working on first one side and then the other until Archie was able to tell the difference between a left cue and a right cue…and the proper response to each.

At that point, Archie understood what I wanted and responded fairly well. However, his first response was to brace against the tug, before deciding to soften and go with me.

So, we continued to work on it with lighter and lighter cues.

By the time we quit for the night, I could stand to Archie’s left and lift his tail. Before I even applied any pressure, Archie would softly shift his weight left.  Then when I actually started drawing his tail toward me, Archie would smoothly step over before any real pressure was even applied.  And he responded just as softly and promptly working from his right side.

It was a really fun training session in which we accomplished all I had hoped for!

If anyone had been watching the entire training session, by the end it would have been pretty obvious Archie and I had accomplished what I had planned from the start.

Early on, that would not have been as obvious. The first time I tugged Archie’s tail, he stepped away from me and I simply went with him.  At that stage, it didn’t look like I was teaching Archie to tail lead.  It looked more like I was just letting Archie drag me around by his tail.

Then when Archie paused his movement for just a moment, I dropped his tail and profusely praised him, as though he had done exactly what I wanted…even though it wasn’t anything close to what I really wanted. If we paused the scene at that one spot, it would have looked as though I didn’t know my own mind and was doing a poor job of communicating my intent to Archie.

In actuality, I had a specific intent for that training session, and the entire session went according to my plan. Archie exercised his free will in accordance with his instincts throughout the whole training session.  Yet I had anticipated his choices in advance and had already planned for them.  Even as I allowed Archie to do what felt comfortable to him, I was working out my plan to bring about my will and purpose for Archie.

Furthermore, at no time in that training session was Archie rebellious toward me. Archie simply followed his natural instincts to respond to my cues in the way that felt most comfortable to him.  Archie was not intentionally subverting my will.  In fact, he seemed perfectly willing to do what I asked once he came to understand my intent and was allowed time to become confident doing what I asked.

The training session was never about punishing Archie or forcing him to conform to my will, nor was I ever angry with Archie. From start to finish, I worked with Archie in what was comfortable to him, even as I taught him to understand my desired response and helped him become comfortable doing what I asked.  I broke the task into small training segments that Archie could understand and helped him learn one stage at a time until he had accomplished all I wanted for that training session.

I am a novice amateur horseman. Yet I was able to plan well enough to incrementally work out my will and purpose through my horse’s imperfect choices, to bring about my will in his life.

God is creator of heaven and earth…the great I Am…the one who is, who was, and who is to come. How much more can God incrementally work out His will and purpose through our imperfect choices, to bring about His perfect will in our lives!

Throughout the Old Testament narrative, a primary objective of God’s will was to bring a Savior into the world. The first messianic prophecy was given in the third chapter of Genesis, right after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, when God foretold the seed of woman would crush the serpent’s head.  From there, God continued to unfold further revelations of His plans for the coming Messiah (Christ).  Among those revelations are several prophecies that Messiah would be a descendant of King David, that He would inherit David’s throne, and that He would rule over all the earth.

This was God’s divine plan from the beginning.

God always wanted Israel to have a king. That King is Jesus Christ, direct descendant of King David and heir to David’s throne.  What we see in 1 Samuel is the incremental unfolding of God’s divine plan being worked out through the imperfect choices of His people.

Samuel was offended the people wanted a king to take care of them. God simply went with them as they sought comfort in a king, much as I went with Archie as he initially moved away from me when I tugged his tail.

God personally selected a king based on what the elders were looking for. They wanted a strong domineering king who would build up an army by force and defeat Israel’s enemies in battle.  God responded by giving them Saul, who was all they asked for.

Several years later, the people came to realize they wanted more from a king than what Saul offered. After Saul died in battle, they wanted a godly king…a king who pursued God’s heart…a king who acted justly and loved mercy.  They were ready to covenant with David to be king.  And, eventually, Jesus became heir to David’s throne.

God was not being double minded nor was He changing his mind. God simply worked with the elders of Israel from their perspective at that time, to bring about His perfect will in their lives, through their imperfect choices.

This is what God does. This is what God still does, today, in the lives of His children.

God works thru the imperfect choices of His children to bring about His perfect will. Click To Tweet

Perhaps someone reading this post is in an abusive relationship. Perhaps you have been living in quiet despair, believing you must have taken a wrong turn and made choices outside God’s will for your life.  Perhaps you have stopped believing God’s best plan for your life is even a possibility and have simply been hoping for some measure of God’s mercy in trying to live out a second-best life in God’s “permissive” will.  Perhaps you have even started to believe maybe you deserve the abuse as punishment for your wrong choices.

If that’s the case…if you are in a situation similar to what I have described…then let me assure you God’s perfect plan for your life is not off track. Nothing you have done has taken God by surprise.  He has known His plan for you from the beginning and is continuing to bring about His purpose for you through your imperfect choices.  Just as I worked with Archie from where he was, God is working with you from where you are.  If you belong to Christ, you can trust Him to bring about His perfect plan for your life.  And God’s perfect plan includes your walking in liberty in Christ, free of any abusive covenants of bondage.

God established Saul as king over Israel based on their imperfect choices. Yet, when the time was right, God removed Saul from the throne and established David as king…with the ultimate goal of establishing Jesus as king.

You can trust God to do the same for you. God is faithful!

Law, Grace, and Common Sense

Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:14)

A direct command…very specific…straightforward and to the point.  It doesn’t leave much room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

In terms of importance, this is one of the Big Ten…the commandments written in stone by the finger of God, Himself…given to Israel as their covenant vows…placed inside the Ark of the Covenant.

Most pastors, preachers, and teachers today would agree this is an important commandment that is still as relevant today as when God gave it to Moses.

A high percentage of those same pastors, preachers and teachers also support the death penalty…believing the Old Testament laws calling for capital punishment set a standard that is still relevant today.  Likewise, many Evangelical pastors in The United States strongly support the right to bear arms…to carry lethal weapons for use in defense.  Most Christians also strongly support the need for an armed military to protect and defend our nation.

How can these men agree the very direct, very specific, very clear law written in stone by God, Himself, “Thou shall not kill,” is relevant today, yet support killing people…for any reason?

It is because they are able to look past the letter of the law to the principle behind the law of the sanctity of life.  They are able to apply common sense and realize that sometimes killing is necessary in order to preserve life.  And they are able to see the many biblical examples demonstrating that following the principle behind the law sometimes requires violating the letter of the law.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Exodus 20:8)

Another very direct command…very clear…very concise.  This one is also one of the Ten Commandments written in stone by the finger of God, Himself.  Surely, there can be no doubt as to the meaning, significance or importance of this command.

Fortunately, this command doesn’t carry as much moral dilemma as the previous.  This one should be easy to keep.

Yet, other than the Seventh Day Adventists, almost no Christian churches today keep the Sabbath.  We do not treat Saturday as a holy day set apart for worship.  We have no issue with working hard on Saturdays.

How can this be?  Why would one of the Ten Commandments written in stone by God, Himself, be treated so lightly by people professing to serve Him?  Why would people quick to declare the Bible as their guide…quick to say “God has not changed His mind”…quick to say “the Bible says” so easily treat this law as insignificant?

It is because we believe we are keeping the spirit of the law by worshipping on Sunday.  Yes, we realize Sunday is the first day of the week, not the seventh.  Yes, we understand the Bible is very clear that Saturday is the Sabbath and we are to keep the Sabbath holy.  However, since Christ arose on a Sunday, we feel confident we are keeping the spirit of the law by worshipping on Sunday.  After all, hasn’t the Christian church worshipped on Sunday for thousands of years?  And didn’t Jesus say, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath”?

So, once again, we choose to neglect the letter of the law to follow the spirit of the law…this time with no moral dilemma to justify the deviation…just traditions.  Yet, knowing we are under grace, not under law, we feel confident the letter of the law may be sidestepped in keeping the spirit of the law.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image… (Exodus 20:4)

Another very direct command with little room for misunderstanding.  Another of the Ten Commandments written in stone by the finger of God, Himself.  Surely, this command is clear and easily followed.

Yet, look at the number of statues and monuments we have erected.  Look at the current social and legal battles being waged over Confederate monuments.  Aren’t we fighting to preserve what God has forbidden?  Could the Bible be any more clear?

Yet, we justify these as cultural icons that have nothing to do with religion.  We argue these are not idols or objects of worship and, therefore, do not fall under the biblical prohibition.

But wait…isn’t the purpose of the Bible to affect how we live our secular lives?  Is it really a good idea to separate the spiritual from the secular to the extent we violate a direct biblical command under the justification it is a secular matter rather than spiritual?  And don’t the intense emotions and fierce defenses, themselves, bear witness to these monuments carrying some deeper meaning than simple artistic décor?

If we make defending a monument a higher priority than loving our neighbor, doesn’t that border on idolatry?

If we make defending a monument a higher priority than loving our neighbor, doesn't that border on idolatry? Click To Tweet

My home state of Arkansas is currently waging a legal battle over a Ten Commandments monument recently erected on the grounds of the state capitol.  Frankly, this one has me shaking my head.  Knowing it would almost certainly draw legal battles, our state legislature somehow decided it was important to have a Ten Commandments monument erected at the State Capitol.

How ironic that we would erect a stone monument engraved with the words, “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.”

How ironic, our state legislators would consider The Ten Commandments to be so important they needed to be included in a monument at the state capitol…so important the monument is worth the expense of multiple legal battles…yet not important enough to actually obey the commandments.

To so revere The Ten Commandments that one would erect unto them a monument…in direct violation of the commandments themselves…I don’t get it.

To so revere The Ten Commandments that one would erect unto them a monument...in direct violation of the commandments themselves...I don't get it. Click To Tweet

Yet, whether I understand it or not, hundreds of thousands of my fellow Arkansans…my Christian brothers and sisters…strongly support the monument…and apparently see no contradiction in its erection.  The very clear letter of the law is shoved aside in eager support of what they believe to be the spirit of the law.

Do you see how readily we set aside the letter of the law while claiming to embrace the spirit of the law?  How easily, we justify a law as being of lesser importance under our New Covenant of grace?  How fluidly we apply common sense to biblical examples to justify violating the letter of the law?  We are quite adept at it…and very willing.  In fact, we may even feel a sense of pride in steering clear of legalism to pursue the intent of God’s heart.  Which is great…so long as we truly are pursuing God’s heart!

Let’s look at one more commandment:

Thou shalt not divorce.

Oh, wait…where’s the reference for that one?  Not one of the Big Ten?  Well, surely it’s somewhere in the Bible…

No.  It’s not.  There is no such commandment.

In fact, the law God gave to Moses very clearly makes provision for just divorce…very clearly tells how a divorce is to be administered…and very clearly declares both parties are free to marry someone else after the divorce is final.

Now, some may say Jesus prohibited divorce in the Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew chapter 5.  As I pointed out in this recent post, that interpretation contradicts the whole premise of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

Besides, if we’re going to assume Jesus’ intent in Matthew 5 is to literally add to the letter of the law (in contradiction to what He said He was doing) then we should be throwing people in prison for being angry with one another:

“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matthew 5:21-22)

And we should be gouging out eyes and cutting off hands of people guilty of lust:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30)

Obviously, we know better.  We understand Jesus was not adding to the law, but rather was transcending the law by demonstrating righteousness cannot be attained by rigid adherence to external laws.  Righteousness can only be attained thru a new heart by the power of The Holy Spirit.  By applying common sense and understanding of grace, we are able to see past the letter of the written command to the intent and the character of God, and act accordingly.

Why is it then, that on the topic of divorce so many Christians do the opposite?

With very clear direct commands, “Thou shalt not murder”; “Thou shalt honor the Sabbath day and keep it holy”; “Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven images” we are able to look past the letter of the law and apply the principle behind the law…pursuing God’s heart with an understanding of God’s grace and situational common sense.

Yet with divorce, in the absence of any clear scriptural prohibition, many theologians and preachers pluck verses out of context to create their own supposedly biblical understanding of a supposed prohibition…to rigidly apply to every situation with no latitude, grace, or common sense whatsoever.

This is precisely what Paige Patterson, John Piper, and others like them have done in telling abused spouses they cannot divorce.  They have fabricated their own commandment where there was none, then rigidly applied it with no grace or common sense whatsoever.

If we were going to be legalistic, shouldn’t we at least be legalistic on points of clear direct scriptural command?  If we were going to be rigidly legalistic on some topics and less rigid on others, shouldn’t we be less rigid on topics on which scripture provides no clear prohibition?

Why would we find latitude to skirt very clear scriptural commands, then rigidly apply man-made doctrinal rules where scripture provides no clear prohibition?

Why would we find latitude to skirt very clear scriptural commands, then rigidly apply man-made doctrinal rules where scripture provides no clear prohibition? Click To Tweet

Doesn’t that stance reveal a heart consumed with arrogantly defending doctrinal positions rather than humbly acting in love through faith by the leading of The Holy Spirit in accordance with scripture?

 

What do you think?

 

On Counseling Against Divorce

picture of a divorce decreeAs discussed in this post a couple of weeks ago, Paige Patterson (president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas) has been in the news, lately, for audio recordings of statements made in 2000.  In those recorded statements, Patterson purportedly said abused women should focus on praying and “be submissive in every way that you can” and not seek divorce.  He went on to say, “I have never in my ministry counseled anyone to seek a divorce and that’s always wrong counsel.”

As disturbing as this 18 year old recording is (and it is definitely disturbing), even more alarming is Patterson’s current refusal to recognize or admit (the biblical word is ‘confess’) there was anything wrong with his prior statement.

Patterson has issued several statements claiming to have been misrepresented or misunderstood.  He has apologized for a separate incident in which he spoke of a 16 year old girl in a sexually objectifying manner.  He has ‘apologized’ for people having misunderstood him.

However, on the topic of his counsel to an abused wife, not only has he refused to apologize, but he has also doubled down…asserting the advice he gave was sound advice and biblically based.  He clarified that he has counseled “on more than one occasion” women to leave abusive husbands, and that physical or sexual abuse of any kind should be reported “to the appropriate authorities.”  He then reaffirmed his position on divorce, “I have also said that I have never recommended or prescribed divorce. How could I as a minister of the Gospel? The Bible makes clear the way in which God views divorce.”

Sadly, many Christians have backed Patterson’s position as being sound biblically-based counsel.

So, let’s review Patterson’s position.

Patterson (with the support of many Christians) counsels abused wives to focus on praying, “be submissive in every way that you can” and not seek divorce.

This is horrendous counsel!  Study after study has demonstrated being more submissive generally invites more abuse.  It props up the abuser’s skewed perspective that he is somehow justified in abusing his spouse.  Likewise, study after study has demonstrated that the abuse tends to escalate over time, becoming increasingly harmful as the abuser seeks higher levels of power, control, and self-gratification.

The counsel of Patterson and other proponents of Divorce Mythology condemns an abused spouse to a lifetime of continued, ongoing, escalating abuse, with no hope of escape or peace.

That counsel does not sound much like the Good News of the Gospel.  It has little in common with the oft-repeated biblical theme of Redemption from covenants of abusive bondage.  It has no place in the description Jesus gave of Himself at the start of His earthly ministry:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)

Nor is it reflected in how our God of Divorce modeled divorce from an abusive partner who repeatedly and willfully violated the covenant vows.

Yet, despite strong biblical evidence to the contrary, Patterson and his supporters (in apparent idolatry of the institution of marriage) have concluded divorce is forbidden…thereby condemning those they counsel to a lifetime of slavery to evil.

Now, this is the point on which Patterson and his supporters call foul, claiming he has been misrepresented and misunderstood.  After all, Patterson claims he has “on more than one occasion” counseled women to leave their abusive husbands.

Clearly, by “leave” Patterson did not mean “divorce,” since he also said, “I have never recommended or prescribed divorce.”

So, he counseled them to leave…without divorcing…which leaves the abused spouse still legally bound to her abuser…for life.  The legal bond provides easy access for the abuser to continue tormenting her.  In many cases the marriage gives him legal access to her finances, providing yet another avenue of ongoing abuse.

Moreover, the whole premise of forbidding divorce is this crazy notion that no matter how egregiously the marriage vows have been violated, no matter how unrepentantly the abuser has trampled the sacred vows in his treachery against the spouse he swore to love, honor, and cherish…that somehow the abused spouse is still under obligation to the covenant vows.

With divorce forbidden, the pressure to reconcile with the abuser is incredibly high.  If divorce is forbidden, she is still married with all the legal and covenant obligations that implies.  The abuser, knowing this, will take full advantage, faking repentance to regain control…and conning church members, family, and friends into becoming allies of the abuser, “How can you be so cold-hearted toward your husband?  He feels really bad for what he did.”

And because he is still her legally wedded husband, she has no good response…and may be ensnared in the trap of returning to her abuser.  After all…doesn’t the Bible have much to say about how we are to treat a lawfully wedded spouse?

Meanwhile, Patterson apparently sits unconcernedly on the sidelines, claiming “as a minister of the Gospel” he has no other choice.

Contrast Patterson’s position with God’s position toward Israel when they were enslaved to Pharaoh:

I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. (Exodus 6:6)

God made a point of saying He would not only deliver Israel from bondage, but He would also redeem them.  He not only physically separated Israel from their oppressor, but He also brought about the dissolution of the covenant bonds, so they had no legal obligations or ties to Pharaoh.

Since Patterson claims he is following scripture in giving this counsel to leave without divorcing, let’s see what scripture actually says on this topic.

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. (Deuteronomy 24:1-2, KJV)

The Law given to Moses by God clearly makes provision for divorce by requiring a certificate of divorce to legally dissolve the marriage, leaving both partners free to remarry.

Note that the certificate of divorce is scripturally required.  If a man separates from his wife, God requires him to legally divorce her.  A man is not biblically permitted to separate from his wife while trying to retain some sort of legal control by refusing to divorce.

God did not forbid divorce.  He did forbid separation without divorce.

God did not forbid divorce. He did forbid separation without divorce. Click To Tweet

Some claim that Jesus gave commands concerning divorce that reversed the commands God gave Moses.  But that makes no sense.  In The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said,

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

Jesus did not replace, reverse, add to, subtract from, or abolish the law given to Moses.  He supported the law and transcended the law by showing righteousness can never be attained through strict adherence to external rules, because true righteousness is a condition of the heart.  In the same sermon, Jesus went on to say,

For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20)

Our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, because the Pharisees were seeking to attain righteousness thru strict adherence to external rules.  Jesus continued His sermon with a series of examples beginning “You have heard…” in reference to the law and continuing “…but I say unto you…” with a demonstration of how God calls us to transcend the law through our heart attitude.

In the first of this pattern of examples, Jesus said,

You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matthew 5:21-22)

Jesus starts with the law, “Thou shalt not commit murder,” then goes on to transcend the law by showing that just keeping the external law is insufficient.  Righteousness is a heart condition, and a heart that harbors bitterness and anger cannot be righteous.  Jesus did not overturn, void, replace, add to, or take away from the law, “Thou shalt not murder.”  Rather, He transcended the law by demonstrating that righteousness is more than rigorously keeping external laws.  Righteousness is a matter of the heart and can only be attained through the power of the Holy Spirit in giving us a new heart and making us a new creation.

Then Jesus moved on to the second in this pattern of examples:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

Again, Jesus is agreeing with the Old Testament Law as being righteous and true…and He again transcends the law by showing external behavior is insufficient for righteousness.  If someone desires in their heart to commit adultery, their heart is evil, even if they don’t physically violate the law.  Stricter rules do not help.  We need a new heart thru the power of the Holy Spirit.

In His third in this pattern of examples, Jesus addresses the Law of Divorce from Deuteronomy:

 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32, ASV)

Again, Jesus quotes the law from Deuteronomy, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.”  He does not reverse the law, alter the law, nullify the law, add to the law, nor take away from the law.  Once again, Jesus transcends the law by demonstrating the heart issue:

…but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife (separates without a certificate of divorce), saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away (separated without a certificate of divorce) committeth adultery. (emphatic parenthetical phrases added for clarification)

In quoting these two verses, I chose the American Standard Version as being truer to the original Greek and consistency of translating the same word the same way throughout.  Many English translations use the word “divorce” to replace “put away” in some instances.  However, the original Greek uses the same word (apolyo) all three places in these verses, and the most literal translation is “put away”…which could be either with or without a certificate of divorce.

The law Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy explicitly requires a man to provide a certificate of divorce if he puts his wife away (separates from her).  We know Jesus was not contradicting, changing, overturning, adding to, or taking away from the law given to Moses…as Jesus had just stated He was not doing that.  We know Jesus was, in fact, transcending the law by demonstrating righteousness is a matter of heart condition that cannot be attained through rigid conformity to external rules.

Therefore, it is clear that just as in the two previous examples, Jesus was supporting and agreeing with the original law while also demonstrating its insufficiency without a righteous heart.  In these two verses, Jesus agrees with the law that, yes, a man must provide a certificate of divorce if he separates from his wife.  Then He goes on to say that if the man separates from his wife without legally divorcing her, then he is guilty of causing her to commit adultery…and causing anyone who marries her to also commit adultery…because she is still legally wed to her first husband who failed in his obligation to grant her a legal divorce when he separated from her.

Jesus did not forbid divorce (which would have directly contradicted the law God gave to Moses).  Jesus agreed with the law forbidding separating without divorce.

Jesus did not forbid divorce. He forbade separating without divorce. Click To Tweet

Jesus did not equate remarriage after divorce with adultery (which would have directly contradicted the law God gave Moses).  Jesus transcended the law by saying a man who separates from his wife without legal divorce has taken upon himself the guilt of any future adulterous relationships she may enter into.

Lest anyone mistakenly turn this into a gender-biased issue in which God’s intent for a woman separating from her husband is somehow different from a man separating from his wife, the Apostle Paul expounds on this same theme.  In giving pastoral direction to a woman who is separated from her husband but still legally married, Paul instructs her to either reconcile with her husband or divorce.  Paul is very clear in admonishing her to not indefinitely remain married-yet-separated.

…but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband… (1 Corinthians 7:11)

In this verse, ‘unmarried’ (agamos) clearly means ‘divorced.’  I discuss this further in this post and this post.

The counsel Patterson claims as the only advice he could give “as a minister of the Gospel” directly contradicts what the Bible says on the topic.

I want to add one more thing.  Some of the people reading this post may currently be separated from their spouse while legally married.  This post is not intended to heap guilt onto your already overly-stressed life.

As Jesus so eloquently demonstrated in the Sermon on the Mount, righteousness can never be attained through strict adherence to external laws.  No law could ever address every possible situation in human relationships.  Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit to guide us in difficult life decisions.  It is not my place to tell you what needs to be done in your unique and very personal situation.

Furthermore, I believe temporary separation to find safety, to find healing, to make decisions, is often wise.  I believe permanent separation without divorce is usually unwise and tends to lead to a very stressful unsettled state of existence.

This post is intended to demonstrate the falseness of counselors claiming biblical authority in always counseling abused spouses to never divorce…to separate if needed but never divorce.  As a general rule, this counsel is usually both unwise and biblically unsubstantiated.

 

Your thoughts?

 

When is Divorce Permissible?

wedding band placed over definition of divorceWhen is divorce permissible?

This question is asked over and over.  People want an itemized list of the precise situations in which divorce is permissible, accompanied by specific scriptural references to back it up.

Most pastors are more than happy to provide such a list.

The tradition in which I was raised said divorce is permissible only for adultery or abandonment.  Then they would hasten to add that divorce is never required, only permitted…implying divorce is never the best course of action…just an option for those of lesser faith.

Some were quick to add, “Divorce really shouldn’t even be in a Christian’s vocabulary”…as though they hadn’t just made use of the word divorce themselves in forming the sentence prohibiting its use…and as though divorce were such an awful thing we’re better off pretending it doesn’t even exist.

If pressed, they would emphatically state that divorce is always sin…though sometimes permissible.  Which doesn’t make a lot of sense.  Why would sin ever be permissible?  And if it is permissible, how could it be sin?

They had a ready list of scripture references to back up their position…Matthew 19 for adultery…1 Corinthians 7 for abandonment.  They called these the exception clauses…because divorce is prohibited except for these exceptions in which it is permissible…though not required.

Notice the use of legal language, here.  Make no mistake.  This is a legal discussion.

The topic of biblical divorce is almost always discussed in theological circles as a point of legality.  What does The Law say about divorce?  Except they don’t use the words legal or law, because the New Testament scripture is quite clear in telling us that those who are in Christ are not under the law.

So, we have this legal debate amongst theologians making use of legal terms to argue their points…in which all participants are making their arguments based on the assumption that The Bible (i.e. The Law) generally prohibits divorce, but then provides these exception clauses for which divorce is permissible in some circumstances.

And it is these exception clauses that everyone is debating.  It is the exception clauses that parishioners ask questions about.

When is divorce permissible?

Does physical violence count as abandonment?  Does emotional abuse count as abandonment?  Does emotional withdrawal count as abandonment?  Does being too lazy to work to provide for your family count as abandonment?

And we have a wide array of legal points being continually debated…with most parties very emphatically stating their position in very confident tones…as though only an idiot or a reprobate could possibly fail to agree with their position.

Sadly, many are also more than willing to sacrifice an abused woman’s health, safety, and well-being to protect the position they’ve staked in this legal debate…despite acknowledging that as a Christian she is not even under The Law.

And this legal debate has literally been going on for thousands of years.

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Matthew 19:3)

Theologians (also known as lawyers…because in a theocratic society they are the same thing) were having this same debate over 2000 years ago, when Jesus walked this earth.

When is divorce permissible?

If the answer is as clear as these legalistic theologians would have us believe, why has it been a point of debate for thousands of years?

I’ll tell you why.  It is because scripture is not at all clear in answering this question.  In fact, the biblical authors seem to almost go out of their way to be intentionally vague on this topic…persistently refusing to answer this question.

In Deuteronomy 24:1-4,  the Mosaic Law very clearly makes provision for divorce.  It requires that if a husband sends his wife away, he must also give her a certificate of divorce, so that both parties are free to remarry, with no obligation to the marriage vows.  Furthermore, if the woman marries another husband and he also divorces her, then the first husband is forbidden from remarrying her.

Most theologians today agree that in this Deuteronomy passage God was protecting women from a form of legalized prostitution that was common at that time.  For enough money, a man would verbally divorce his wife (put her away without providing a certificate of divorce) and allow another man to have sexual intercourse with her.  Then the second man would divorce her, and the original husband would reclaim his rights as her husband.

So, in order to protect women from this immoral practice, the Mosaic Law required a certificate of divorce be issued, and forbade a former husband from remarrying a wife who had married another man.

The Mosaic Law is virtually silent on the topic of when divorce is, or is not, permissible.  It simply says, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her…”  The Mosaic Law made no attempt to define what all circumstances might be considered “some indecency.”  Although it clearly made provision for just divorce, The Law never defined under what circumstances divorce was permissible.

This was, in fact, the point of the legal debate the Pharisees brought to Jesus in Matthew 19.  They were in agreement that The Law required a certificate of divorce to be issued, as Jesus noted in Matthew 5:31.  However, they had an ongoing legal debate as to what was permitted under “some indecency.”

At that time, some were exploiting the lack of legal definition of permissibility to say a man could divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever…including because he found another woman more desirable…or because another man found his wife desirable.  So, they were right back to the wife-swapping tricks of their ancestors, except with slightly more protection for the abused wife in the form of a divorce certificate.

One publicized example of the day was King Herod’s marriage to the wife of his brother.  John the Baptist incurred the wrath of both Herod and Herodias by calling them out on their adultery.  As a result, John was imprisoned and beheaded.  The Pharisees were probably hoping for a similar demise for Jesus when they asked him this question.

Jesus did not hold back in denouncing this immoral wife-swapping practice of divorcing for the explicit purpose of marrying someone else.  Jesus called it adultery.  However, Jesus clearly upheld provision for divorce as being necessary, yet fell short of giving a detailed list under what circumstances divorce is permissible.  Here’s what he said:

Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:8-9)

If Jesus wanted us to have a well-defined legal list of conditions under which divorce is permissible, this was a perfect chance to provide that.  Yet He did not.  Jesus said Moses made provision for divorce because of hardened hearts…one spouse’s heart becoming hardened against the other.  He went on to say divorcing for the purpose of wife-swapping is adultery.  Yet, he included the phrase “except for immorality.”

And theologians today debate the phrase “except for immorality” in exactly the same manner the lawyers of Jesus day debated the phrase “some indecency.”  In both cases, they are attempting to draw specifics that simply are not there.  Both phrases are intentionally vague…intentionally open-ended.

Why?  Why did Jesus and Moses both refuse to explicitly answer the question, When is divorce permissible?

I would submit the question is never answered because it is not a valid question.

The question presumes divorce is forbidden except for specific clearly legally defined circumstances.  The question presumes divorce permissibility is first and foremost a legal issue.  The question presumes it is the right of a judge, or pastor, or fellow Christian to judge for someone else whether or not they should divorce…as though anyone else besides God could possibly know and judge the deeply personal issues that can arise within the intimate bounds of marriage.

I would submit that scripture is silent on this topic specifically because each individual Christian must search out for themselves the guidance of The Holy Spirit in determining the best course of action in their specific marriage.

If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe you should spend some time prayerfully contemplating why you are uncomfortable with Christians relying on the guidance of The Holy Spirit for major life decisions…and why you feel the need for legalistic rules by which to admonish others.

Jesus was, apparently, quite comfortable with that.

 

Escaping Abuse

The topic of divorce to escape abuse has been much in the news this week.

Over the weekend, Paige Patterson’s comments in an audio tape from 2000 resurfaced.  In that tape, Patterson (president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas) purportedly said abused women should focus on praying and “be submissive in every way that you can” and not seek divorce.  He went on to say, “I have never in my ministry counseled anyone to seek a divorce and that’s always wrong counsel.”

According to the Washington Post, Patterson pushed back this week, claiming he had been misrepresented and mischaracterized.  He went on to clarify he has counseled “on more than one occasion” women to leave abusive husbands, and that physical or sexual abuse of any kind should be reported “to the appropriate authorities.”

Patterson then reaffirmed his position on divorce, “I have also said that I have never recommended or prescribed divorce. How could I as a minister of the Gospel? The Bible makes clear the way in which God views divorce.”

According to Christianity Today, many evangelical Christians agree with Patterson’s perspective on divorce.  Even the many recent strong statements against abuse mostly fall short of taking a strong position in favor of divorce as a godly response to abuse.

Yes, the Bible does make clear the way in which God views divorce…which is drastically different from how Patterson seems to view divorce.

In Deuteronomy 24:1-4 God makes clear His intent that divorce should include an official certificate of divorce to ensure both parties are declared legally free of obligation to the covenant vows, with both parties free to marry another if they so choose.

In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus reaffirmed the words of Deuteronomy, declaring the law given to Moses made provision for just divorce, because of hardened hearts…the heart of one spouse being hardened against their covenant partner.

In Jeremiah 3:8, God boldly proclaimed He has divorced the Kingdom of Israel, issuing a Certificate of Divorce in accordance with the law in Deuteronomy, for this very reason…because Israel had continually hardened their hearts against Him, their covenant partner, in repeated abusive violations of their covenant vows.

And in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul clearly states that a divorced person is free to remarry, and that marriage is preferable to undue temptation.

When the nation of Israel was enslaved by Pharaoh who abused them and issued orders for their infant sons to be killed, did God stand idly by, encouraging them to submit to their covenant partner?  Did God tell them they must remain true to their covenant no matter how abusive their partner might be?

No!  God was not idle.  He actively worked to deliver Israel from bondage.  God redeemed and delivered Israel from their covenant with an abusive partner!

When we were enslaved to Satan, did God stand idly by, encouraging us to submit to our covenant partner?

No!  Jesus redeemed and delivered us from our covenant with the kingdom of darkness, delivering us into the Kingdom of Heaven!

Yes, the Bible is very clear on the way in which God views divorce.

So…why is Patterson, like so many evangelical Christians, so confused on the topic?

Maybe it’s time to stop viewing scripture through the lense of our religious cultural perspective and pay closer attention to what it really says.  Maybe it’s time to stop treating scripture like it was a legal document to be studied and interpreted by lawyers digging for rules, loopholes, and exception clauses…and start reading scripture as a revelation of God’s character.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

Narnian Abuse

Although fiction may not always be a reliable source on which to base major decisions, sometimes fiction can help us see things more clearly. Good fiction imitates real life. The simplified versions of real-life relationships depicted in fiction sometimes make it easier to recognize interactions of the various relational roles.

In his children’s fiction series, The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis illustrates several examples of highly toxic relationships.

The White Witch in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, for example, was very abusive toward Edmund as well as all the Narnians, including her most loyal subjects.  In fact, she was very manipulative and deceitful toward Digory and Polly much earlier, in The Magicians Nephew, where it was revealed she had annihilated every living creature in her own world of Charn… one couldn’t get much more abusive than intentional worldwide annihilation of all life…just to satisfy one’s own pride.  Viewing her interactions with others from the perspective of abuser tactics can be somewhat revealing.

The relationship between Shift (the ape) and Puzzle (the donkey) in The Last Battle also illustrates some classic abuser tactics.  It is quite clear that Shift is in the relationship solely for what he can manipulate Puzzle into doing for him, while Puzzle remains out of a misguided sense of loyalty driven by low self-esteem.  Ironically, Shift continually reinforces Puzzle’s low self-esteem, telling him how stupid he is and that he should leave difficult things like thinking to Shift.  Puzzle’s low self-esteem prevents him from finding the strength and courage to leave the relationship, yet the relationship continually lowers his self-esteem.  For Shift, the constant put-downs to Puzzle not only inflate his own already over-sized ego, but also keep Puzzle enslaved to do his bidding through manipulative tactics of guilt and belittlement.

In my latest read through the series, the relationship that most stood out to me as a study of classic abuse was the story of Prince Rilian and the Queen of Underland (aka The Lady of the Green Kirtle, the Green Witch, or the Green Lady) who turned out to be the same green serpent who had killed his mother. Of course we have the obvious maliciousness (obvious to the reader, not obvious to Rilian) of having killed his mother, of holding Rilian captive, and of scheming to use Rilian as a tool to destroy his own home and kill his own family and friends.  But let’s take a closer look at some of the interpersonal tactics she used to accomplish these goals.

When the two children from our world, Jill Pole and Eustace Scrubb, together with their Marshwiggle guide, Puddleglum, first met Prince Rilian in Underland, he recognized having met them by the bridge on the border of Ettinsmoor where he was riding with the Queen of Underland. Eustace truthfully said the Green Lady was very mean to have intentionally sent them into a trap intended to kill them.  Rilian quickly jumped to the Green Lady’s defense:

“If you were not so young a warrior, Boy, you and I must have fought to the death on this quarrel. I can hear no words against my Lady’s honor.  But of this you may be assured, that whatever she said to you, she said of good intent.  You do not know her.  She is a nosegay of all virtues, as truth, mercy, constancy, gentleness, courage, and the rest.  I say what I know.  Her kindness to me alone, who can in no way reward her, would make an admirable history.”

See how quickly Rilian jumped to loyally defend his abuser? When a truthful specific charge of attempted murder is brought against his abuser, Rilian defends her intent. He then recites a whole list of virtues she supposedly possesses…yet falls short of providing any specific examples…because she doesn’t actually display any of them.

Later in the conversation, Rilian continues:

“You must understand, friends, that I know nothing of who I was and whence I came into this Dark World. I remember no time when I was not dwelling, as now, at the court of this all but heavenly Queen; but my thought is that she saved me from some evil enchantment and brought me hither of her exceeding bounty…and this seems to me the likelier because even now I am bound by a spell, from which my Lady alone can free me.  Every night there comes an hour when my mind is most horribly changed and, after my mind, my body.  For first I become furious and wild and would rush upon my dearest friends to kill them, if I were not bound.  And soon after that, I turn into the likeness of a great serpent, hungry, fierce, and deadly.”

Do you see how the Green Lady has used a manipulative fog of deceit to enslave Rilian? Underland is a dark and dreary world completely devoid of joy or happiness.  Yet the Queen has manipulated Rilian into forgetting how bright and joyful his life was before meeting her.  Notice how vague he is on any details.  She has convinced him that she has saved him from an evil enchantment and graciously adopted him into her kingdom.  Yet he cannot provide any specifics of exactly what was so horrible about his life before Underland…nor of any good in Underland besides the presence of the Green Lady…a questionable ‘blessing’ to say the least.

And notice how the Queen has manipulatively turned the truth upside-down for Rilian. She has convinced him he is in his right mind when he is under her spell (believing all her lies) and that he is not in his right mind when he see things clearly (recognizes her lies as lies).

She has convinced him that when he is in his right mind (recognizing her lies) he is a danger to his friends…when, in fact, she is making very specific plans to manipulate him into leading a charge against his true friends, the Narnians. In fact, his true friends…those friends from his former life…the life he led before meeting the witch…are his ONLY friends.  One must wonder what friends she was even talking about him being a danger to, as she has so isolated him from all associates other than herself that he no longer has any friends.

Then she delivered the manipulative capstone of deceit:

“And soon after that, I turn into the likeness of a great serpent, hungry, fierce, and deadly.”

What? Wait a minute!  Who turns into a serpent?  Certainly not Prince Rilian!  No, it is the Queen herself who turns into a deadly serpent…the same serpent who killed his mother.  Yet she has convinced Rilian he is the one who transforms into a monster.

This fog of manipulative deception is so typical of abuse! Some of you who have experienced abuse will recognize it.  The bitter clinging to vague imagined slights of friends from life before the abuser…the imagined virtues of the abuser based solely on their statements of intent that never actually come through in reality…the upside-down world of confusing one’s true identity with the abuser’s character and the abuser’s character as one’s true identity…it is a fog of deception much as Lewis has portrayed here.

This common abusive tactic, called gas-lighting, uses manipulative deceit to lead the abuse target to doubt their own senses, suspect their own memories, and question even their own sanity.  The goal is to make the target completely dependent on the abuser for their perception of reality.

Have you ever wondered why an abuse victim stays? This is often part of the reason.  The fog of deception is not easily penetrated.

Later, with the help of his new friends, Prince Rilian is able to pierce the fog of deceit and clearly see the witch’s enslavement for what it was. However, the witch manages to once again draw him into her web of lies, along with his new friends.  Through the use of illogical arguments, she soon has all four accepting her lies and falling under her fog of deception.  She asks questions as though she is interested in understanding…yet all she really wants is to convince them to abandon truth for her lies.  The more they try to convince her of the truth, the more deeply they succumb to her web of deceit.  Before long, she has them believing there is no such thing as a sun, moon, stars, trees, or green grass…that nothing exists outside the dark dismal world she rules in Underland.

Finally, at the last moment, Puddleglum gathered his strength and took a bold stand:

“All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it.  So I won’t deny any of what you said.  But there’s one thing more to be said, even so.  Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself.  Suppose we have.  Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones.  Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world.  Well it strikes me as a pretty poor one.  And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it.  We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right.  But four babies playing a game can make a play world which licks your real world hollow.  That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world.  I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it.  I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia.  So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland.  Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”

To quote Eustace and Jill, “Oh, hurrah! Good old Puddleglum!”

Puddleglum wisely stopped trying to convince the witch. He stopped debating with her.  Debating was playing right into her game plan.  She had no interest in understanding their perspective, nor of seeing the truth, nor even of using logical arguments in debate.  In fact, she already knew what they said was true and what she said was a lie…she was not in need of convincing nor open to being convinced.  But as long as she could draw them into a debate, she could continue to spin her web of lies, making them question their own sanity, their own memories, and the testimony of their own eyes.

Puddleglum chose to stop debating and to simply cling to what truth he could see. He took a stand and stated the truth he could see at the moment…in a manner that shut off all argument or debate.  Trying to convince the witch was futile and completely unnecessary.

It is important to confront lies with the truth. It is futile to try to convince a liar they are lying.  They already know they’re lying…and have already chosen to continue lying.  Debating just gives them more opportunity to spin their lies.

It is important to confront lies with the truth. It is futile to try to convince a liar they are lying. Click To Tweet

So stop debating. Stand firm in the truth and refuse to debate.  This is the best escape from the manipulative fog of deceit.

BUT…if you are in an abusive relationship…make sure you have a safety plan…ask for help from trusted friends…or make new friends who can be trusted.

When Puddleglum exposed the witch’s lies, she finally dropped all pretense and transformed into a deadly serpent, trying to kill them all. The same often happens when an abuser is confronted by a victim escaping their control…they become more dangerous than ever.

Cling to the truth. Take a stand.  Have a safety plan.  Ask for help.  Trust God…because He is trustworthy.

In the story of Prince Rilian, Aslan sent friends to help him in his hour of need. The friends helped free him from the Green Lady’s deceptive enslavement, and defended him when she tried to kill him.

If you are trapped in an abusive relationship, ask God to help you seek out friends who can help. One place to start may be by contacting a shelter near you.

Any abused woman located in central Arkansas can contact The Dorcas House at (501) 374-4022 for help and shelter for herself and her children.

Here is a web page with a list of resources to find help in other regions: https://cryingoutforjustice.com/resources/domestic-violence-agencies-us-and-canada/

 

[Linked to Messy Marriage, Redeemed Life, Tell His Story ]

 

Submit?

Submit…what emotions and images does this word evoke for you?

Such a simple word…with such complex relational and emotional overtones…

Listening to an authoritarian or patriarchal pastor teaching on the topic, one gets the impression that submission is the very means to salvation…as though the salvation of a wife and the salvation of her husband are both dependent on the level of her willingness to cheerfully and unquestioningly obey her husband in all things, no matter what.

For a Christian abused wife raised under such teaching, submission may be hell on earth…an impossible, unachievable task designed to make life increasingly more unbearable. Both her husband and her pastor may have beat her down with Ephesians 5:22 so many times she is in danger of losing herself in a bottomless pit of submissiveness.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22 KJV)

Ephesians 5:22-33 is the foundational text for those who hold a view that in all biblically based marriages the husband’s role is to make all the decisions and the wife’s role is to unquestioningly acquiesce to all of his decisions. But they are staking their entire doctrine on the word submit meaning what they believe it means.

What if submit doesn’t mean obey unquestioningly?  What if submit simply means to honor and respect?  The contextual evidence strongly supports such a position.

Verse 25 of this passage says, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it,” and verse 33 says, “Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself…”

There is nothing about these verses to suggest the husband is to be anything other than sacrificially loving toward his wife. There is nothing about this passage to suggest it is okay for a husband to lord over his wife in disregard for her feelings or opinions, nor that the wife should meekly submit to such authoritarian misbehavior.

So, what about this word submit in verse 22?  It is important to note that this same exact word also appears in verse 21:

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Clearly, the word submit as used in verse 21 cannot mean to unquestioningly obey no matter what.  So why would anyone assign such a meaning in the following verse?

Many people view the end of verse 21 as being the end of a topical section…a chapter divider, of sorts. In the first twenty-one verses of the chapter, Paul is exhorting the church to walk in love and purity.  Verse 22 is seen by some as the beginning of a new topic discussing marital relations.

Viewed from this perspective, one could argue that the same word can have a different meaning when used in a different context. By this argument, the word submit in verse 21 could mean all Christians are to honor and respect each other, and the same word used in verse 22 could mean the wife is to unquestioningly obey her husband no matter what.  While I don’t find this to be a compelling argument, on the surface it does appear to be a potentially arguable point.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) translation of verse 22 recently caught my attention:

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

The italicization of be subject is what caught my attention. In NASB, italicized text is used to denote words added by the translators, for clarity or easier reading.

I dug a little deeper, and discovered Ephesians 5:22 is one of the few verses with a substantive difference between Textus Receptus and the Morphological GNT, as shown in the BlueLetterBible.

The Textus Receptus used for King James Version (KJV) translation includes the word “hypotasso” (G5293 Strongs) which KJV translates as “submit.”

However, the Morphological GNT used in NASB translation (which is considered more reliable) does not include this word in verse 22.

Ephesians 5:22 entry in Blue Letter Bible

Blue Letter Bible entry for Ephesians 5:22 with Morphological GNT shown at top and Textus Receptus at bottom. ‘Hypatosso’ is not included in the Morphological GNT text.

Essentially, this means the first century Greek texts considered to be the oldest and most reliable do not include the word hypotasso in verse 22. These texts include no primary verb for verse 22, relying on the reader to understand that the verb hypotasso (submit) is carried over from the previous sentence (verse 21).  Presumably, some scribe added the verb hypotasso to verse 22, for clarity…to make sure the reader understands the verb hypotasso applies to both verse 21 and verse 22.

So, based on the oldest and most reliable texts, verses 21 and 22 would have read something like this:

…be subject to one another in the fear of Christ; wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (verses 21-22 NASB with italicized text removed)

From the perspective of translation, this is a seemingly unimportant detail. Whether or not the word hypotasso is specifically included in verse 22, it is clearly intended to be used as the primary verb in both 21 and 22.  In the end, NASB arrives at the same basic meaning as is conveyed in the KJV.

However, in trying to understand the intended usage of the word submit in the English translation, it is very important.  Verses 21 and 22 cannot have two differently nuanced meanings of the same word, because they actually share the exact same instance of the word.

…be subject to one another in the fear of Christ; wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

Not only is verse 22 not starting a new topic, it is not even starting a new sentence. It is an extrapolation of the same thought, sharing the same verb.  Whatever meaning Paul intended to convey with the word hypotasso (submit), he intended the exact same meaning for husbands as for wives, both toward each other and toward other believers.

So, submit, as used in this passage, cannot possibly mean to unquestioningly obey no matter what.

I believe submit, in this passage, is intended to mean love, honor and respect.

What do you think?

 

[Linked to Messy Marriage, Wild Flowers, Redeemed Life, Tell His Story ]